1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

ASH + Runic != Exploit (and for those of you that don't know programing, that means it's not an expl

Discussion in 'UO Craftsman' started by Batir, May 28, 2003.

  1. Batir

    Batir Guest

    Thank you SunSword for commenting on this /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

    My appologies for annoying any of you, but I thought better safe than sorry.
     
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Then what exactly is the point of having an ASH?
     
  3. Leif Strife

    Leif Strife Guest

    Thorstein, the point of an ASH might be if you have to fill out an order of execpt. valorite plate and you dont want to fail.

    Just a thought...
     
  4. Ray_Nitschke

    Ray_Nitschke Guest

    Thornstein is right. I'm not sure that it is an exploit. But I will check it with a GM first chance. I know that it was not possible before Publish 18 so I assumed it was fix as it should be. Also, the subject title should read Runic + ASH = exploit. *ducks for cover*
     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Exactly, ASH's are only good for filling plate BODs if they aren't supposed to be used with runics. Use ASH to fill plate LBOD to get ASH to fill plate LBOD...joy.
     
  6. Leif Strife

    Leif Strife Guest

    Ummm...you can craft good dragon armor?
     
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Hate to break it to you, but dragon scale armor is crap. It is the toughest to make, and has the lowest total resists of all armor.
     
  8. Ray_Nitschke

    Ray_Nitschke Guest

    Perhaps it's not an exploit but merely an additional gift to all the Smiths as compensation for the pain and suffering with AoS launch. Is minning also considered an exploit since my skill is now 115? (110 without gloves) Do I dare attempt to smelt anything for the fear of being banned?
     
  9. Batir

    Batir Guest

    Let me rephrase. Probable exploit, given that it wasn't allowed before, and the way you have to do it now. FYI, I am trying to get OSI to comment on it.
     
  10. Ray_Nitschke

    Ray_Nitschke Guest

    Thanks Batir for the follow up /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif
     
  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Both the runic and the ASH lose charges now. That is undoubtedly as intended now as before the ASH did not lose a charge.

    So the odds are it is not an exploit as both resources get used up. Frankly its the only conceivable use for an ASH now in any case.
     
  12. Batir

    Batir Guest

    Funny how you can still get a message saying that "You must use the tool equipped"

    Debate is a moot point. I've made a judgement call for now, and would appreciate details not being discussed until such time as OSI can make a comment.
     
  13. Hilljack

    Hilljack Guest

    I hope so because it now takes charges off both hammers, unlike before when the ASH went unused. I'm gonna take a leap of faith on this one and actually state they actually fixed something intentionally!
     
  14. Yablonski

    Yablonski Guest

    I paged a GM on this. I explained the situation and asked if it was an exploit since it was taking charges from both items and meets the "using up resources" criteria that reds have mentioned in the past. He said at this time it was not, as it was no different than if I had 110 smithing (I had a 110 ASH) and it was in fact using charges from both items - I performed the task for him and he in his GM ways could tell charges were being used.

    He also mentioned that it was like I was 95 mining and wearing +5 gloves to get high enough to make valorite armor or weapons with a runic hammer. I found that to be a bit peculiar for him to mention, as the past few GMs I've dealt with say very very little, and that wasn't relevant to the situation.

    Just for kicks, I asked about getting a 100% reg free suit of armor and raising skills without using resources.....he said I should goto the forums. I LOLed at that one. I know the answer is that it is acceptable that OSI had thought that out.

    If they change their mind or that GM is wrong, they would have to watch every smith who has a runic hammer and is using said runic hammer. If they want to spend their time watching us, let them. I've burned through most of my hammers tonight anyways, and am not getting back into the BOD game again, and therefore have little need for ASHes anytime soon.
     
  15. Kylas

    Kylas Guest

    This method isnt an exploit.. Its been well known and well documented since Ash's and Runics came into existance.

    Now if the ASH didnt lose a charge then you might have a case.. But because both hammers lose a charge no exploit is given.

    Who here thinks ASH's where only designed to produce GM non runic items? What would be the point.

    Has any smith SOLD non runic NO bonus items since aos came out?

    In the future issues like this should be discussed and the iron fist of the moderator was a little too fast this time. Perhaps the moderator would simply not panic when the word "exploit" was wrongly put in the title in the future?

    As for the notion of spreading informaiton about exploits. I dont know a smith at any town making runic itmes that doesnt have an ASH in his hands...

    Dig
     
  16. Xanthio

    Xanthio Guest

    Okay.

    First, I'd like to point out that it was a Stratics Moderator that told me how to do this, in a public reply, when I posted complaining about the "hammer in hand" rule.

    Second ... I think weather or not this is an exploit is entangled with why this is happening at all. IIRC, and I believe I do, the "hammer in hand" rule was removed at one point because they fixed the reason for it existing, which was that charges were not being taken from the ASH. The point of the rule was not to prevent using ASH's with runics ... but to block an "infinite ASH" bug by using two seperate hammers. The rule, however, stopped you from making dragon scale at ALL because it was based on using another hammer, and hence the bug was fixed and the rule removed. I believe.

    It wasn't until Age of Shadows that I ever noticed recieving the message again that you had to use the equipped hammer if you had one in your hand. I posted repeatedly prior to P18 with hopes of an OSI response so they could remove this rule for P18 when ASH's were fixed ... but no one noticed.

    The rule should be removed as the bug no longer exists. In the interim, the workaround should be completely acceptable and I hope OSI would allow it.

    -X
     
  17. Puebles

    Puebles Lore Keeper
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wouldn't Ash + Runic = Unic Rash?

    The way the hammers work today is the way that they had pre Pub 16. Looks to me like a fix.
     
  18. Guest

    Guest Guest

    How on earth do you get 110 in mining?
     
  19. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Huh, it was considered an exploit before????

    Oh I love it how players gets so informed about these things...have to drag around an encyclopedia just to play the game in a manner that doesn't get you banned....*rollseyes*
     
  20. Eilistraee

    Eilistraee Guest

    There's a post about it on the Miner's forum. Apparently Pub 18 brought some bug where some miners have higher than GM skill without any mining gloves on, and the mining gloves give them +5 to +50 (from what I've read) bonus in their mining skill. Myself, or a friend aren't effected by it, so no idea what causes it.
     
  21. Yablonski

    Yablonski Guest

    Agreed, was so used to it being broken with pub 16/AoS had not noticed that they fixed it with Pub 18 (and posted as such) until somebody pointed it out.

    Hard to believe it's an exploit if they made the effort of fixing it back to the way it was pre P16.

    I'm going to keep doing it, GM said it was the same as if I had powerscrolled my smith up, and it's using charges properly.

    I think it was an exploit after P16 either because it wasn't using charges, or you had to do something special. OSI has fixed it to use charges and you don't have to do anything special to get it to happen.
     
  22. Bryant

    Bryant Guest

    As long as they put the checking for allowing you to use only the hammber in your hand, IT IS AN EXPLOIT! You will needed some special technique (sequence of actions) to bypass the checking, which coded in the game intentional to prevent that happen, in order to use both ASH and Runic..... It is really difficult to say it is NOT an exploit. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/tongue.gif

    However, the Dev can bless this particular one, if they want to. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif
     
  23. Rubber Rumor

    Rubber Rumor Guest

    Hey Batir those eyes in your sig seem to follow me. What is going on?? When I step away from the computer monitor they are gone though. Are you in my computer??
    OMG!!
    *rushes back to closet, to put on some clothing*
     
  24. microdot

    microdot Guest

    Since this forum has deemed that this is not an exploit, can someone please tell me wtf ya'll are talkin about?
     
  25. Yablonski

    Yablonski Guest

    As long as a mod deems it an exploit, no. Doesn't matter what a GM says, or that OSI never commented on it before this week, or that mods here in the past have explained the technique (I bet if you search back to pre-pub 16 smith messages, you'll find it, it used to work then, OSI broke it, then fixed it for pub 18).

    Or ask in usenet.
     
  26. Arawn

    Arawn Guest

    Well, as I remember it, this was a very hop topic way back when in terms of making dragon armor. Numerous discussions and posts and, yes, flames.

    The end result as you may remember was an offical post by the development team explaining that the ASH could be used in conjunction with a dragon hammer to create the armor and the code was written so that both the ASH and dragon hammer lost charges. Remember the whole bug with the ASHs losing like 500 charges because they inadvertently assumed the charges of the dragon hammer (this was later fixed).

    Now, the code has been rewritten that removes a charge from BOTH the runic and ASH when used in conjunction. This is not a new introduction, as it was implemented in the initial AoS publish.

    Following all this logic, I don't understand how people can say this is an exploit? What in fact is being exploited? It certainly wasn't an exploit to use it with a dragon hammer, why with a runic now?
     
  27. Bryant

    Bryant Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    The end result as you may remember was an offical post by the development team explaining that the ASH could be used in conjunction with a dragon hammer to create the armor and the code was written so that both the ASH and dragon hammer lost charges. Remember the whole bug with the ASHs losing like 500 charges because they inadvertently assumed the charges of the dragon hammer (this was later fixed).
    Now, the code has been rewritten that removes a charge from BOTH the runic and ASH when used in conjunction. This is not a new introduction, as it was implemented in the initial AoS publish.
    Following all this logic, I don't understand how people can say this is an exploit? What in fact is being exploited? It certainly wasn't an exploit to use it with a dragon hammer, why with a runic now?

    <hr></blockquote>
    It really depends on how you defines Exploit.... From my basic understanding, if you take the advantage of the game machanics, in order to bypass any kind of situation which not supposed to be allowed, you are using an expliot. As I said, the checking for using only the hammer in your hand still there, and in order to use the runic while holding the ASH, you need to do certain actions in certain order, to bypass that checking, which is exactly an exploit in my opinion.

    It is different from the ASH/dragon hammer situation before AOS, as you won't get the checking on using only the hammer on hand.

    The checking was trying to prevent people from using ASH without losing charges on them, which is not success, due a backdoor they introduced when they introduce the new craft menu. With the Pub 18 fix (may be AOS... I never try that before Pub18 as ASH is no use for my GM smith before Pub18), where ASH charges will be used when it is holding, even it is not the hammer used to craft items, are supposed to fix the issue, and may make using both ASH and other hammer not an exploit. However, as long as they didn't remove the checking on allowing you to use only the hammer on your hand, I think it is still an exploit, unless Dev annonunce it is allowed.

    Just my opinion.....
     
  28. So, if it is in fact not an exploit, how do you use an ASH and a runic at the same time? I keep getting that "you already have an item equiped" message whenever I try to use a runic in my pack when I have an ASH in my hand.
     
  29. Yablonski

    Yablonski Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    The end result as you may remember was an offical post by the development team explaining that the ASH could be used in conjunction with a dragon hammer to create the armor and the code was written so that both the ASH and dragon hammer lost charges. Remember the whole bug with the ASHs losing like 500 charges because they inadvertently assumed the charges of the dragon hammer (this was later fixed).

    Now, the code has been rewritten that removes a charge from BOTH the runic and ASH when used in conjunction. This is not a new introduction, as it was implemented in the initial AoS publish.

    <hr></blockquote>Yes.

    This just reminds me, I wish we still had dragon hammers, if only for decoration.
     
  30. Xanthio

    Xanthio Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    which coded in the game intentional to prevent that happen, in order to use both ASH and Runic.....

    <hr></blockquote>

    No ... see ... it's misinformation like this that scares me. Like I said in my post ... the "hammer in hand" rule was never created to prevent combining ASH's and runics! Originally this rule didn't exist, and people found they could just equip their ASH and then use another hammer hence getting infinite use of an ASH. In order to stop this bug the "hammer in hand" rule was created.

    THEN the bug was fixed ... it was seen mostly as a problem because of the inability to make Dragon Scale armor at the time ... ASH's with runics didn't really come up since you only made weapons anyway.

    I seem to remember the "hammer in hand" rule being taken out all together but then resurfacing at some point ... since the bug that it was put in to prevent has long since been remedied and the purpose of ASH's in the context of AoS necesitates combining them with runics, it should be removed now (P19!) in order to straighten out any confusion about this issue.

    Unfortunately I doubt we'll get the issue noticed over here in the Smith forum :-/

    -X
     
  31. Bryant

    Bryant Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    the "hammer in hand" rule was never created to prevent combining ASH's and runics! Originally this rule didn't exist, and people found they could just equip their ASH and then use another hammer hence getting infinite use of an ASH. In order to stop this bug the "hammer in hand" rule was created.

    THEN the bug was fixed ... it was seen mostly as a problem because of the inability to make Dragon Scale armor at the time ... ASH's with runics didn't really come up since you only made weapons anyway.

    <hr></blockquote>
    Yes, the purpose for the 'hammer in hand' rule is TRY to prevent the infinite charges for ASH. And Yes, they later fixed the issue for using the ASH and Dragon Hammer, by using the charge for the ASH when you using the Dragon Hammer......
    But NO! The BUG IS NOT FIXED... They never fixed the infinite ASH charges problem when using with smith/runic hammer, until AOS.

    May be due to my bad english and get you misunderstand. I didn't mean that the purpose for the 'hammer in hnad' rule is to prevent using ASH with Runic, all I try to said is that there is a 'hammer in hand' rule, which don't allow you to use the hammer other than the one in your hand, and both ASH and Runic are classified as hammer, which means that you CANNOT use both of them at the same time. With such checking coded in the game, there is no way for you to use both ASH and Runic at the same time, except using some sort of exploit.

    I would agree that with AOS and Pub 18, the Dev show the intention that they are allowing the use of both ASH and Runic at the same time, however, as long as they didn't remove the 'hammer in hand' checking, or officially annonunced that it is allowed, I think it still an exploit.
     
  32. Xanthio

    Xanthio Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    I would agree that with AOS and Pub 18, the Dev show the intention that they are allowing the use of both ASH and Runic at the same time, however, as long as they didn't remove the 'hammer in hand' checking, or officially annonunced that it is allowed, I think it still an exploit.

    <hr></blockquote>

    Well I will grant you that without a nod from OSI ... using a workaround to the "hammer in hand" rule is definately questionable ... I only hesitate to use "the word" because I'm concerned about reinforcing the notion that it should BE classified as such.

    I thought the bug was fixed and the rule was removed prior to AoS, but that's not really relevant. The simple fact is that rather than debating this issue, we should collectively as Smith's be rallying a cry to OSI to have the "hammer in hand" rule removed in P19. Simple as that. Not only is it no longer contextually relevant due to the fact that charges are correctly taken from both hammers now ... it's also preventing us from using the ASH's they just fixed for us in P18!

    I've complained up and down repeatedly about GM crafted goods being redered useless due to the imbalance in the armor scale ... but that aside in a world of runic and enhanced armor an ASH that can't be used for either of those things is, to be blunt, headed for my trash barel. It's a completely pointless reward and if the "hammer in hand" rule is not removed then the ASH should be taken out of the game all together because I don't want to turn in BODs that would get me a bronze+ runic hammer and get a useless piece of junk instead.

    Mind you I'm not saying that ASH's should be trash ... I'm saying that we should make it clear as a community of artisans that the "hammer in hand" rule must be removed. It's dated, it's pointless, and more to the point it's in the way.

    -X
     
  33. J0KING

    J0KING Guest

    In my humble opinion, I totally agree with a majority of the posts that the ASH have become rather useless unless you are trying to make exceptional armor to fill a BOD. Since the charges are now working the way that they should the "hammer in hand" rule should be removed. ASH were a very nice reward, but now have no purpose other than to fill deeds to get more. Hopefully they will see that as a smithing community this is an issue that we are all concerned about.
     
  34. Batir

    Batir Guest

    Well said.
     
  35. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I checked with the designers on this and it is not an exploit. According to Hanse, "This is as designed. This is so a player can use an ancient smithy hammer in conjunction with a runic hammer."

    So there you go. Discuss.
     
  36. DerekL

    DerekL Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    98
    <blockquote><hr>

    Hate to break it to you, but dragon scale armor is crap. It is the toughest to make, and has the lowest total resists of all armor.

    <hr></blockquote>I hate to break it to you, but your opinion is crap. Total resists is a fraction of story.
     
  37. Guest

    Guest Guest

    You're more than welcome to try to prove me wrong on this one. I wouldn't mind reading a persuasive argument on why anyone should waste runic hammer charges on dragon scale. Until then, go troll some other board.
     
  38. Itsminenow

    Itsminenow Guest

    Um, *I* hate to break it to you, but you just proved your own argument is wrong.

    A single piece of dragonscale has 28 total resist points IF it's exceptional -- and only 22 total in the likely chance it's normal quality. It's useful only if you need one resist particularly high.

    http://www.uo.com/ageofshadows/feature_magicitem_material.html

    You're better off using the barbed or horned leather for total resists, let alone balance. A green suit was nice for training poisoning, when I made a mistake and poisoned myself. Black scales can give you high physical protection, but why not just wear dull copper in the first place?

    Why would anyone want high energy resist and nothing else? Or fire? Or cold? Fire and ice creatures also deal physical damage (ice serpents are also high in poison). You're better off cranking out some agapite, verite and valorite pieces to get the balance you need. My parry macer is strictly PvM and has nowhere near my best armor, yet that suit is 64 physical, 70 fire, 66 energy. The cold and poison resists suck, but that char doesn't fight undead or ice creatures, and I use orange petals.

    Can someone from the Dev Team ever tell us what they had in mind for yellow scales? I still haven't heard an answer after three months.

    And does anyone really know what time it is? Does anyone really care?
     
  39. Antonello

    Antonello Guest

    <blockquote><hr>


    Sunsword said:

    I checked with the designers on this and it is not an exploit. According to Hanse, "This is as designed. This is so a player can use an ancient smithy hammer in conjunction with a runic hammer."

    So there you go. Discuss.


    <hr></blockquote>
    Sunsword, you might want to let the GM staff in on this. I just received the following email from a Senior GM regarding this issue:

    <blockquote><hr>


    (quote from received e-mail. Names have been x'd out to protect support staff privacy.)

    Recently you requested personal assistance with Ultima Online or the Ultima Online web site. Below is a summary of your request and our response.

    If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen it within the next 7 days.

    Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.

    Please use the link below if you need to update your incident. You can also update this incident by email, but you MUST enter your reply in the designated space below, between the two lines.
    [===&gt; Please enter your reply below this line &lt;===]

    [===&gt; Please enter your reply above this line &lt;===]


    If your issue remains unresolved, please update this question here.


    Subject
    Is it currently considered an exploit to arm an Ancient Hammer after calling ...

    Discussion Thread
    Response (UO xxxxxxxx) 05/31/2003 09:52 PM
    Greetings xxxxxxxxxxx!

    This is indeed something that is an exploit to do as it was not designed to work in this manner. We do not yet have a date for this to be corrected as it is not a gamestopping issue, however <font color=red>players should not be doing it as it was never intended</font color=red>.

    Sincerely,

    Senior Game Master xxxxxxxxx
    (color and emphasis mine)

    Ultima Online Player Relations
    Response (UO xxxxxxx) 05/31/2003 08:42 AM
    Not sure whether this is an exploit or not
    Response (UO xxxxxxx) 05/31/2003 04:24 AM
    Hello!

    Thank you for contacting Ultima Online Game Support. Due to the nature of your question or issue, this incident is being escalated to our second level support team. Someone from this group will respond to you as soon as possible.


    Thanks for mailing and take care,
    xxxxxxx,
    UO Game Support.
    Auto-Response 05/31/2003 02:41 AM

    Title: How can I tell if an item is illegal?
    Link: http://uo.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/uo.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=7998&amp;p_created=1029782872

    Title: What constitutes an exploit?
    Link: http://uo.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/uo.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=41&amp;p_created=975447126

    Title: What if I have to leave my computer? Is that macroing?
    Link: http://uo.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/uo.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=39&amp;p_created=975447028

    Title: Which 3rd Party Programs can I use with UO?
    Link: http://uo.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/uo.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=339&amp;p_created=977010205

    Title: I just paged on someone using an exploit, why isn't a GM here yet?
    Link: http://uo.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/uo.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=43&amp;p_created=975447240


    Customer 05/31/2003 02:41 AM
    Is it currently considered an exploit to *snip*(description of method used here)*snip*? Such use does cost a charge from both hammers.

    Additionally, is this considered an issue that will be corrected in the future to allow runics to be used while having an ASH equipped without being forced to *snip*(description of method used here)*snip*?

    Thank you,

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

    <hr></blockquote>

    Edited to remove method details.
     
  40. Triezee

    Triezee Guest

    the sad part is we got to many ash hammers .how can a player make runic made armor if 90% of time u get ash hammers for the reward.i burned up 4-5 hammers just for kicks,sold 8-10 ashes still have 18 ashes in the bank .well finally did it they got to me .i use my best char now just to collect wep bods.i threw out at brit bank 18 ashes on the ground.i do know powerscrolls are more harder to get but can u ease back on the ash hammers an give more colored runics out .


    Its really disapointin lookin in ur bank box all you see is ash hammers (
     
  41. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Antonello, thanks. I'll make sure the policy is corrected.
     
  42. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Since it's not an exploit, I don't suppose somebody will TELL ME HOW I"M SUPPOSED TO USE A RUNIC AND ASH AT THE SAME TIME?

    The obvious method, equipping the ASH and using the runic doesn't work, so I just burned up a gold runic on platemail gorgets, and had too many non-exceptional gorgets for my liking (I'm only 110 skill). It would be nice if I could have use 1 of the 1/2 dozen ASHs I have laying around.
     
  43. Antonello

    Antonello Guest

    Dizzy,

    What you do is doubleclick the runic in your pack to call up the smithing menu, then arm the ASH before actually making an item.

    Batir, my apologies if you still wanted to keep this off the thread; I am posting it on the word of SunSword that this has been deemed not to be an exploit.
     
  44. Batir

    Batir Guest

    D-click the runic to get the menu open, then equip the ASH.
     
  45. Xanthio

    Xanthio Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    I checked with the designers on this and it is not an exploit. According to Hanse, "This is as designed. This is so a player can use an ancient smithy hammer in conjunction with a runic hammer."

    <hr></blockquote>

    *exhales*

    -X
     
  46. karnage

    karnage Guest

    are runic hammer-made item qualities/bonuses based on Smithing skill? Or is the advantage of using both Runic w/ ASH for the benefit of the 'exceptional' bonus on high difficulty items, like plate? (I assume that an 'exceptional' bonus is applied on higher quality runic items -- haven't used any of my runics).
     
  47. Antonello

    Antonello Guest

    The only advantage to arming an ASH while using a runic is to increase the chance of success/exceptional quality. Skill does not play a part in determining the magical bonuses awarded by using a runic hammer.
     
  48. microdot

    microdot Guest

    finally, someone has the balls to TELLS US how to do it! I'll be doing it tonight as I make my new luck suit............gotta use up all those bronze ruinic's i have!


    Rockina GM Miner/Smith/Tinker/Tailor/Carpy



    P.S. Thank you OSI for fixing the mining gloves!
     
  49. Batir

    Batir Guest

    No worries Antonello. As you can see, I was a whole minute slower than you on answering the question /php-bin/shared/images/icons/tongue.gif

    And Microdot... Since I (a mod) said that until I heard otherwise, I was treating it as an exploit on these boards, anyone who "had the balls to tell us" would have, at the very least, had their post deleted.

    Once again, I appologize to any who were annoyed by my actions. Since you have to circumvent the "hammer in the hand" code, and there had been no word from OSI, I thought it better to annoy some of you than to have somebody get banned from UO over something they read here.
     
  50. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    I thought it better to annoy some of you than to have somebody get banned from UO over something they read here.

    <hr></blockquote>

    A wise decision and thank you. Keep up the good work.