CovenantX said:

Hopefully it goes as planned and actually works, then soon pvp will be restored

Please apply this to ALL of NL!

Grimbeard said:

The developers underestimate the number of people using  3rd party clients and will kill UO if they ban them all 

Grimbeard said:

The developers underestimate the number of people using  3rd party clients and will kill UO if they ban them all 

What we all need to realize is huge company's such as Valve, Riot, and Blizzard have cheating problems to this day and as far as I'm aware have zero automated answers for cheating or stopped it in any measurable way***. What are the odds our small dev team of 4 figured it out and implemented it properly?

Grimbeard said:

The developers underestimate the number of people using  3rd party clients and will kill UO if they ban them all 

username said:

What we all need to realize is huge company's such as Valve, Riot, and Blizzard have cheating problems to this day and as far as I'm aware have zero automated answers for cheating or stopped it in any measurable way***. What are the odds our small dev team of 4 figured it out and implemented it properly?

Cookie said:

If this is a war, I'd say the opening salvo completely missed. 🙂

username said:

Anyways, since the patch is live on some servers, it's real easy check: can someone please log in to an EJ with a 3rd party client, run around for a bit, and see what happens? And report back? 

The developers underestimate the number of people using  3rd party clients and will kill UO if they ban them all 

Metrican said:

That said, the classic client in particular is in dire need of updating. The recent video released showcasing New Legacy was, quite frankly, embarrassing to watch. It looked like a choppy slide show in parts. Compare Classic official client to any of the other third party clients out there and Classic looks and performs like an old dog. Is it really any wonder people use a MUCH better client?

Lord_Nythrax said:

Both of the existing first-party clients are embarrassing ill-maintained abandonware garbage, and neither constitutes an acceptable commercial product in 2024. No, not even by the standards of a quirky throwback game with retro pixel graphics.

The classic client requires you to set your PC's resolution to something from 15 or 20 years ago in order to see anything. (Good luck making a push for new customers like that.) Meanwhile the "enhanced" client is such a shameful train wreck that the developers don't even use it or upload promotional video from it.

Devs, you need to blatantly steal the third-party client everyone uses, nerf the parts of it that break the rules, make it look official, and release it as your own. It's open source, just grab it off github and make it happen.

CovenantX said:

someday I'll make an EJ throw-away account and test it, hopefully I'll have a reliable source before it comes to that though (I'm lazy when it comes to testing things that shouldn't need testing in the first place)

Transparency. It's not something online communities strive for, nor can claim to be proficient at. I read this thread and suspect 80% of those posting have been in UO long enough to have discovered a great many exploits, easter-eggs and most certainly house a collection of 3rd party programs; either those approved or unapproved; targeting quality of life improvements (e.g. repetitive actions that should simply be re-coded) or something a bit more nefarious that help them destroy even the most battle-hardened PvP'rs. 

That said, transparency isn't just something that should be brought to light for the playing community. This is something we should also expect from Broadsword; that being a list of exactly what is and/or what is not approved for use. It should be part of the EULA and there should be no room for ambiguous interpretation. I expect that from any of the organization mentioned here, and I expect that from Broadsword as well.

I will say, a small design team can be a limiting factor but fully endorse anti-cheat efforts that impact communities or multi-play environments. I was there for Bossland and the war Blizzard waged on them; I've met one of the mathematical engineers who help craft the Warden system; these systems, when designed properly, work very well - but like ALL code, require care and feeding in the form of tweaks, upgrades and maintenance. The said "catastrophe" that was prophesized sounds a bit dramatic and perhaps spoken like someone worried that there toys are about to be taken away. 

This mage welcomes the change of weave (read, "code") and acknowledges his place within it as a practitioner (read, "user") ... encouraging others to do the same.

Lord_Nythrax said:

Adapting it would probably take their one programmer another two years.

Pawain said:

Maybe just Maybe they do not want to automate UO.  It sounds like the PvP community does not want to.

I would be shocked if the devs even mention using that client in their meetings, much less us using to enter UO.

Sounds like you need to move to a game that plays itself.  Or buy an aquarium.

Lord_Nythrax said:

Pawain said:

Maybe just Maybe they do not want to automate UO.  It sounds like the PvP community does not want to.

I would be shocked if the devs even mention using that client in their meetings, much less us using to enter UO.

Sounds like you need to move to a game that plays itself.  Or buy an aquarium.

Or maybe the developers need a first-party client that isn't a complete embarrassment to look at. In any case I can't imagine why I'd be interested in the precious little opinion of one of those tedious people who bends over backwards to try and take some kind of high ground on a video game forum. At least you didn't just bump the thread with a stupid smiley face.

Metrican said:

I use Pincos UI with EC. It's not that bad but as was said, classic client is a low res slide show. Start there. I guess that was too hard for you to figure out.

Pawain said:

I guess I am unique here, I play games with content I like.  There are thousands of games out there. Maybe you can find one you like, or make your own since you know so much about it.  Let us know when its out.

Rorschach said:

If this conversation continues with personal attacks, it will no longer be useful.

CovenantX said:

Aside from recording an incredibly long macro, there's no way to 'unattended macro' in UOAssist.

DeadThing5 said:

FYI setting the play area to 1200x800 and playing in windowed mode at 1920x1280 gives a decent size screen, and that doesn't solve any of the other problems.

lux113 said:

Ok, for the record It had been so long since I used the normal client I didn't know that there was a bigger player window size in the settings than I was using.

Anyway, just thought I'd admit it.

That just leaves all the smaller problems.

lux113 said:

Ok, for the record It had been so long since I used the normal client I didn't know that there was a bigger player window size in the settings than I was using.

Anyway, just thought I'd admit it.

That just leaves all the smaller problems.

Pawain said:

lux113 said:

Ok, for the record It had been so long since I used the normal client I didn't know that there was a bigger player window size in the settings than I was using.

Anyway, just thought I'd admit it.

That just leaves all the smaller problems.

Don't believe the haters, UO is updating and changing constantly.   Those screen size choices have been there for years.  There is probably a thousand other things in UO that you don't know.

Be pleasant and ask questions.  Many are here to help you.  Have fun.

Lord_Nythrax said:

Pawain said:

lux113 said:

Ok, for the record It had been so long since I used the normal client I didn't know that there was a bigger player window size in the settings than I was using.

Anyway, just thought I'd admit it.

That just leaves all the smaller problems.

Don't believe the haters, UO is updating and changing constantly.   Those screen size choices have been there for years.  There is probably a thousand other things in UO that you don't know.

Be pleasant and ask questions.  Many are here to help you.  Have fun.

In retail UO I can either set my resolution relatively high with a 1280x720 gameplay window and enjoy sorting through two-inch wide backpacks while my eyes cross, or set both lower and have half the screen occupied by black space,

Meanwhile on a freeshard client you can just click and drag the gameplay window to any size you want, adjust the size of individual UI elements to whatever you want, and enjoy CC graphics with a smooth fluid frame rate. You can even filter incoming text to get rid of things like spell words or other peoples poison messages, or just whatever spam you don't feel like seeing.

You're literally simping for the worst and most primitive version of UO that exists. The retail clients are abandonware garbage and the developers should be ashamed to peddle them as commercial products at this point. You should be demanding that they go grab one of the open source freeshard clients from github, rip out all the scripting elements, and host it for us as an official client.

Pawain said:

Yet u still are here playing.

Lord_Nythrax said:

Pawain said:

Yet u still are here playing.

Why are you sitting here defending literal trash instead of demanding better? The clients I'm describing are open source software. The complete source code is available to the public. The developers could just go get one, clip out the scripting engine and the front end interface meant to let you connect it to random freeshards, and suddenly we would have the client everyone wishes they would make. As far as I know there's literally nothing stopping them. There's even Mac and Linux versions, and a version that runs in a web browser.

Why are you not mad that they're charging you money for the worst version of the game?

Pawain said:

I went through the whole skilling process of NL with 3 macros on CC over the weekend.

The game does not need automation.  Players do not want cheaters in the game.

Lord_Nythrax said:

Pawain said:

I went through the whole skilling process of NL with 3 macros on CC over the weekend.

The game does not need automation.  Players do not want cheaters in the game.

I'm sorry, did you not actually read my last couple of posts? I've been very clear that the developers should take an open source client and remove the scripting elements from it. I've said that repeatedly. Can you explain why you even bothered to type this response?

I don't really care how sad it makes the developers to hear that their existing client is the worst one out there, it's just objectively factually true. Rip out every single bit of automation from the freeshard clients and they're still infinitely superior. They look better, run better, and have tons of quality of life improvements.

Lord_Frodo said:

@ Lord_Nythrax have you used the EC and if so did it take care of the size/resolution problem?  IMHO I would love to use the EC with the CC graphics and again IMHO that would fix a lot of problems in UO and only the cheaters would be left using the CC wanna bees

Pawain said:

They have said they do not copy, or borrow from other sources. They will not even copy new clothing from other sources.

I hope they would not do this.  Who knows what is hidden in the code that would gather info from anyone who logged in.

Nothing you say here is true or fact.  The CC works fine if you do not have to cheat your way through a game.  Funny how I have played for almost 25 years with it, but you say I can not.  

Pawain said:

Sorry I don't need anything better than CC.  Not picking up Summonds would improve targeting tho.  Notice you can state something that can be improved upon without demeaning someone or name calling.

Lord_Nythrax said:

Pawain said:

Sorry I don't need anything better than CC.  Not picking up Summonds would improve targeting tho.  Notice you can state something that can be improved upon without demeaning someone or name calling.

So you admit we're being asked to pay for a piece of software worse than what other people are giving away for free (or at least you've stopped trying to argue otherwise) but you're personally happy with this... why? And even if you are a masochist who likes paying for bad software just because, what should anyone else take away from this?

Urge said:

I think blocking entry into the game or kicking off the game would be better than doing all out bans. 

Pawain said:

I hope they would not do this.  Who knows what is hidden in the code that would gather info from anyone who logged in.

Cookie said:

Pawain said:

I hope they would not do this.  Who knows what is hidden in the code that would gather info from anyone who logged in.

For the record, the new UO official patches have shown up as a more severe threat than any of the 3rd party programs. I'd be asking what they are doing. 🙂

Pawain said:

Urge said:

I think blocking entry into the game or kicking off the game would be better than doing all out bans. 

Yup, and they did that with NL.  But, as you see, these cheaters are on a dedicated mission, they will find a way in.

Will be entertaining when they cant log into prodo Shards.

Petra_Fyde said:

@ Cookie correct me if I'm reading that wrongly, but the protected 'target' file that client.exe was attempting to open was uo.cfg?

I kind of feel it should be allowed to access that one, don't you?

I'm going to sit on the fence, whilst I'm pointing it out, for those who go on about 3rd party programs and what they do, UO is not much different sometimes in their approach, that is my point. 

Norton anti-virus certainly does not like it - it is a high threat - I don't see this so much, and it depends how hung up people want to be about the rules

I think you know me well enough, I am not that hung up about the rules, I prefer common sense.

I do not mind.

On one hand, yes, I think they have a right to. I completely understand their logic for doing it.

Do I think it is needed? That is back to the original debate - are we hard enforcing anti-cheat or not - and I am not for it.

On the other, how much further will they/can they push this? Is that all they are doing?

Do we break one rule, to fix another

That is my point - I get your point, I'm actually cool with it - hence I enabled the patch - but it cannot all be one way, I only raise it, to counter other points being made.

Lord_Nythrax said:

Will someone please tell Pawain they really want to cheat so he can have a moral hobbyhorse to hang his hat on? Right now he's reduced to just sort of saying he likes bad software.

• Implement CC graphics option in EC for tiles, sprites and gumps (toggleable back and forth to appease both parties).
• Acquire the MIT licensed open-source code for the 3rd party client and bring it into the fold, removing what needs to be removed and adding what needs to be added to bring it in line with EC and CC, ultimately replacing CC.
• Upgrade CC with a modifiable window size, increased FPS (60), close in on feature parity between CC and EC.

Lord_Frodo said:

@ Kel on the Graphics it has to be ALL CC Graphics, the worse are the monsters/animals/pets.  All CC Graphics need to be imported and just the CC Users would have no excuse not to switch over then it would be easy to tell the cheaters.

Kel said:

Lord_Frodo said:

@ Kel on the Graphics it has to be ALL CC Graphics, the worse are the monsters/animals/pets.  All CC Graphics need to be imported and just the CC Users would have no excuse not to switch over then it would be easy to tell the cheaters.

Absolutely! That's what I was trying to get at, but may not have been super clear. CC themed UI, tiles, walls, characters, mobs all of it. However, for those who DO like the EC look-and-feel they can use that as well within the same client.

Lord_Frodo said:

Kel said:

Lord_Frodo said:

@ Kel on the Graphics it has to be ALL CC Graphics, the worse are the monsters/animals/pets.  All CC Graphics need to be imported and just the CC Users would have no excuse not to switch over then it would be easy to tell the cheaters.

Absolutely! That's what I was trying to get at, but may not have been super clear. CC themed UI, tiles, walls, characters, mobs all of it. However, for those who DO like the EC look-and-feel they can use that as well within the same client.

We have been asking for that for YEARS  Graphic Switch EC / CC.  I do not care about the ZOOM, just disable it for CC but I do want the EC UI with the CC Graphics.

Kel said:

 The 3rd party clients offered a middle ground, which is why people are so up in arms. Honestly, I do think some users are upset about the scripting aspect, but I believe the primary reason is FPS/graphics.

Cookie said:

@ Kyronix
@ Bleak

Going to tug at the heart strings here. <span></span>

Victim_Of_Siege said:

Lord_Frodo said:

Kel said:

Lord_Frodo said:

@ Kel on the Graphics it has to be ALL CC Graphics, the worse are the monsters/animals/pets.  All CC Graphics need to be imported and just the CC Users would have no excuse not to switch over then it would be easy to tell the cheaters.

Absolutely! That's what I was trying to get at, but may not have been super clear. CC themed UI, tiles, walls, characters, mobs all of it. However, for those who DO like the EC look-and-feel they can use that as well within the same client.

We have been asking for that for YEARS  Graphic Switch EC / CC.  I do not care about the ZOOM, just disable it for CC but I do want the EC UI with the CC Graphics.

Agree 100%  But i have been using the EC so long now, I don't care about the graphics anymore. I play it purely for the ease of use, FPS and Macros.  

DeadThing5 said:

CovenantX said:

  Third-party clients would probably get approved for UO if they removed the scripting capabilities but it won't happen, that's the reason the vast majority of people use it for.  you could probably count the people who are using it for the FPS & hi-res on one hand... whether you believe them or not, well that's a different story.

     Do you have a lot of experience with the third party clients? It sounds like you've just heard things about them and have decided to go with it, or just made assumptions. AFAIK everyone uses assistant programs for scripting, which are independently run from the clients. I'm not aware that the clients themselves (except the official EC) have ANY scripting functionality. That's not to say that they don't, it's just if they do I didn't know. Honestly, since you can lua script in the EC I'd be surprised if there is anything that the assistant programs can do that couldn't just be built in to the EC. But, I'm not a lua scripter either. 

     I think most people using third party clients are using them for a improved experience, not in any way that rises to the level of cheating. I get the sense though that there's a camp here that believes anyone not using the official clients is a cheater full stop, and that's honestly unhelpful. It makes it difficult to have a reasonable discussion about this when tempers flare and personal attacks come out so fast. Hell my last post was pretty salty, and I like think of myself as pretty even keeled, so it just gets harder to have a productive discussion when people approach this topic in such a black and white way. 

     The fact that people have been making due with the official clients for years is completely irrelevant in the discission about the quality of the official clients. Nothing about the fact that people have been putting up with them for so long invalidates the myriad complaints people have about them, and saying "well i doesn't bother ME" or "Hey I put up with it" doesn't add anything to the discussion either. 

     A few things I'd like to see in an updated client, however it comes about is a custom, resizable play window (NOT just a small list of resolutions), and this is really an important one: a UI scaler. Let me make the containers bigger if I want, and scale the item sprites too if I want to. A lot of us have aging eyes, have mercy! The better performance of some clients would be nice to see in an official revamp, so would things like ui buttons for macros, counters, buff timers, durability trackers, drag to select healthbars, and something I'd really, really like to see, a true hybrid of EC and CC function, letting us mix and match features we like from the CC and EC freely, instead basically choosing one or the other. 

Lord_Frodo said:

Victim_Of_Siege said:

Lord_Frodo said:

Kel said:

Lord_Frodo said:

@ Kel on the Graphics it has to be ALL CC Graphics, the worse are the monsters/animals/pets.  All CC Graphics need to be imported and just the CC Users would have no excuse not to switch over then it would be easy to tell the cheaters.

Absolutely! That's what I was trying to get at, but may not have been super clear. CC themed UI, tiles, walls, characters, mobs all of it. However, for those who DO like the EC look-and-feel they can use that as well within the same client.

We have been asking for that for YEARS  Graphic Switch EC / CC.  I do not care about the ZOOM, just disable it for CC but I do want the EC UI with the CC Graphics.

Agree 100%  But i have been using the EC so long now, I don't care about the graphics anymore. I play it purely for the ease of use, FPS and Macros.  

That is great but the graphic portion of the EC gives me headaches.  I use it in my house for sorting chests or placing a house but long term I can not plus I really hate the way they redrew most of the mobs.