Patch 99 - April 23, 2009 - Last double digit patch.

[Faust]

I know that this article was written during UOR. However, the patch that implemented the recovery delay was in '98. Nothing has changed since that time from any indication of patches, articles, or reviews. Also, fast casting from what I remember was always viable during the '99 era.

[Mung]

I may be wrong but this patch is era appropriate right?




1998 Patch Notes

1/13/98

...
Delays on spellcasting will be put into place; the higher the spell circle, the longer the delay.
...
There will be a chance of the casting aborting if the mage is struck during his casting process. The chance is based on how much damage you took, and your ability at magery.
...

[Faust]

We are aware of that specific patch note. Spell interruption is based on the damage taken, skill of the caster, and the circle being casted. The formula was stripped from the decompiled demo and implemented here. That is something that we can for sure say is 100% accurate without a doubt.

[Derrick]

I think the more important one in that note was this

Delays on spellcasting will be put into place; the higher the spell circle, the longer the delay.

This is not our current system

[Finesse]

the casting system never really changed from t2a up untill aos when it changed completely

the timers currently in place are wrong without any doubt

2.2 seconds is a rediculas number to come up with for a fastcast i dont even know where this came from its just a random figure as far as im concerned and was deffently short on osi.

the timer when your disturbed during the casting of a spell should be the time to finish the spell + 1 second

for example if your disturbed at 1 second of a spell that takes 2 seconds to cast you should get delay before casting again of 2 seconds 1+1. IF YOU disturb your self with your own weapon you should tale no delay what so ever in recasting.

[Faust]

The timer of 2.2 described in the articles is more than likely 2.25 since all OSI values are calculated in ticks(increments of 0.25s). The last spell circle that being 8th is exactly 2.25 seconds long. It seems to reason that a delay put in place to prevent fast casting would use the longest delay for a spell...

This in no way means that you have to wait 2.25s in between consecutive spells to cast... This means that you have to wait that long for the recovery delay to be bypassed. The recovery delay is 0.75 seconds. This means if you cast a spell during the 2.25s timer that there will be a delay on your next spell of 0.75s. If you wait out 2.25s to cast a spell your next spell will not receive the 0.75s delay. It's pretty simple and it doesn't mean that the delay is 2.25s before casting again.

The disturb recovery is the recovery plus the left over time of the spell when it was interrupted.

The main reason the 0.75s delay is probably accurate is simply because OSI increased spell casting times by 100% when AOS was released. The default delay in RunUO for the recovery is 0.75s. The same thing was probably done for the recovery delay being increased by 100% too... 0.75 + 0.75 = 1.5, which is the maximum spell recovery of modern UO.

[Finesse]

ok so the disturb recast timer is being set at time to finish spell + 0.75?

that needs to go in asap for this system to even be tested seriously when is derrick back rofl

[Faust]

My bad the disturb delay is simply the left over amount when the disturb occurred on test center at the moment. I thought that it was the left over amount plus the addition of the recovery delay that was reverted sitting at 0.75s again.

[Jiggo]

I agree with finesse, we need disturb delay to equal remaining cast time + 0.75s

[Finesse]

ofc we do otherwise the pvp system wouldent work its simple math rly

[Kaivan]

I think the more important one in that note was this

Delays on spellcasting will be put into place; the higher the spell circle, the longer the delay.

This is not our current system

This patch note actually refers to the physical cast times themselves, which is what is apparent on current OSI sever and in the demo as well. The higher the spell circle, the longer the spell delay.

The timer of 2.2 described in the articles is more than likely 2.25 since all OSI values are calculated in ticks(increments of 0.25s). The last spell circle that being 8th is exactly 2.25 seconds long. It seems to reason that a delay put in place to prevent fast casting would use the longest delay for a spell...

This in no way means that you have to wait 2.25s in between consecutive spells to cast... This means that you have to wait that long for the recovery delay to be bypassed. The recovery delay is 0.75 seconds. This means if you cast a spell during the 2.25s timer that there will be a delay on your next spell of 0.75s. If you wait out 2.25s to cast a spell your next spell will not receive the 0.75s delay. It's pretty simple and it doesn't mean that the delay is 2.25s before casting again.

The disturb recovery is the recovery plus the left over time of the spell when it was interrupted.

The main reason the 0.75s delay is probably accurate is simply because OSI increased spell casting times by 100% when AOS was released. The default delay in RunUO for the recovery is 0.75s. The same thing was probably done for the recovery delay being increased by 100% too... 0.75 + 0.75 = 1.5, which is the maximum spell recovery of modern UO.

A few things about this:

• The fast casting timer is clearly explained through several independent sources. Thus, it is a strong bet that the information was solid for the era.
• The spell cast times for AoS weren't actually doubled. The times were increased by two ticks which resulted in doubling the cast time for first circle spells.
• The cast delay during UOR was not 0.75 seconds but was actually 0.5 seconds and is confirmed through an analysis of the then brand new cast timers for AoS.
• The delay on current UO is not 1.5 seconds but is 1.25 seconds. This was confirmed through razor testing on live servers.

Also on a final note, there is no indication that there was a scaled delay when disrupted (in fact there is no data to support this anywhere), nor is there any information or a logical reason why a person who is disrupted would need to also wait out the normal cast delay (a delay that was used to stop fast cast, but a disturbed spell has no possibility of being fast casted). Finally, if we are to even begin to contemplate 100% disrupts with debuffs, a system with a disrupt delay plus a normal recast delay would effectively make it impossible to defend yourself against disrupts.

[Orsi]

Also on a final note, there is no indication that there was a scaled delay when disrupted (in fact there is no data to support this anywhere), nor is there any information or a logical reason why a person who is disrupted would need to also wait out the normal cast delay (a delay that was used to stop fast cast, but a disturbed spell has no possibility of being fast casted). Finally, if we are to even begin to contemplate 100% disrupts with debuffs, a system with a disrupt delay plus a normal recast delay would effectively make it impossible to defend yourself against disrupts.

Ya, I'm sure you had to wait out the rest of the time of your spell if you were disrupted, but I'm not too sure about the added recovery delay. Also, disrupts never disrupted 100% of the time anyways because they were always based on damage, target's magery and other factors, so you could very well heal through multiple people harming or magic arrowing you if you were lucky.

[Kaivan]

Also on a final note, there is no indication that there was a scaled delay when disrupted (in fact there is no data to support this anywhere), nor is there any information or a logical reason why a person who is disrupted would need to also wait out the normal cast delay (a delay that was used to stop fast cast, but a disturbed spell has no possibility of being fast casted). Finally, if we are to even begin to contemplate 100% disrupts with debuffs, a system with a disrupt delay plus a normal recast delay would effectively make it impossible to defend yourself against disrupts.

Ya, I'm sure you had to wait out the rest of the time of your spell if you were disrupted, but I'm not too sure about the added recovery delay. Also, disrupts never disrupted 100% of the time anyways because they were always based on damage, target's magery and other factors, so you could very well heal through multiple people harming or magic arrowing you if you were lucky.

Disrupts were considered guaranteed for debuff spells throughout T2A and UOR. The debate is whether debuff spells continued to disrupt after the effect had been applied to the victim. There is some compelling evidence to this effect for that functionality during T2A, and given that fact, a system that incorporated time left on cast (which is an unsubstantiated claim) + cast delay would result in a system that was impossible to defend yourself in.

[Finesse]

debuffs always disturbed even when debuffed you would get the fizzle sound thats what has confused people.

harm and magic arrow pre uor was based on if you resisted it it wouldent disturb you and this is why people may remeber things diffrently

player 1 is a pk he woulpd use harm to disturb peoples spells and this would work because the people who he was fighting had 70 resist so would never resist it or 1/10.

player 2 is a 7x tank mage and duels alot he will know that small spells do not always disturb and the viable tactic became to disturb using debuffs.

[Faust]

I think the more important one in that note was this

Delays on spellcasting will be put into place; the higher the spell circle, the longer the delay.

This is not our current system

This patch note actually refers to the physical cast times themselves, which is what is apparent on current OSI sever and in the demo as well. The higher the spell circle, the longer the spell delay.

The timer of 2.2 described in the articles is more than likely 2.25 since all OSI values are calculated in ticks(increments of 0.25s). The last spell circle that being 8th is exactly 2.25 seconds long. It seems to reason that a delay put in place to prevent fast casting would use the longest delay for a spell...

This in no way means that you have to wait 2.25s in between consecutive spells to cast... This means that you have to wait that long for the recovery delay to be bypassed. The recovery delay is 0.75 seconds. This means if you cast a spell during the 2.25s timer that there will be a delay on your next spell of 0.75s. If you wait out 2.25s to cast a spell your next spell will not receive the 0.75s delay. It's pretty simple and it doesn't mean that the delay is 2.25s before casting again.

The disturb recovery is the recovery plus the left over time of the spell when it was interrupted.

The main reason the 0.75s delay is probably accurate is simply because OSI increased spell casting times by 100% when AOS was released. The default delay in RunUO for the recovery is 0.75s. The same thing was probably done for the recovery delay being increased by 100% too... 0.75 + 0.75 = 1.5, which is the maximum spell recovery of modern UO.

A few things about this:

• The fast casting timer is clearly explained through several independent sources. Thus, it is a strong bet that the information was solid for the era.
• The spell cast times for AoS weren't actually doubled. The times were increased by two ticks which resulted in doubling the cast time for first circle spells.
• The cast delay during UOR was not 0.75 seconds but was actually 0.5 seconds and is confirmed through an analysis of the then brand new cast timers for AoS.
• The delay on current UO is not 1.5 seconds but is 1.25 seconds. This was confirmed through razor testing on live servers.

Also on a final note, there is no indication that there was a scaled delay when disrupted (in fact there is no data to support this anywhere), nor is there any information or a logical reason why a person who is disrupted would need to also wait out the normal cast delay (a delay that was used to stop fast cast, but a disturbed spell has no possibility of being fast casted). Finally, if we are to even begin to contemplate 100% disrupts with debuffs, a system with a disrupt delay plus a normal recast delay would effectively make it impossible to defend yourself against disrupts.

I was referring to the first circle spell being increased by 100%, 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.25 is a 100% increase to the cast delay and all other spells increment in one more tick afterwards.

My analyis of the 0.75s delay was brought about by the default value in RunUO and the increase to the casting delays. There is no evidence to suggest that it was 0.75 or 0.5 even in AOS.

My sources suggest that the delay was in fact 1.5s in AOS. If FCR 6 removed any recovery delay that equates to 6 * 0.25 = 1.5 recovery delay removal. The last time that I checked FCR6 not 5 removed the entire recovery delay. If the default delay was 1.25s FCR5 would be efficient enough which we know isn't the case.

Faster Cast Recovery shortens the time you have to wait between casting spells. For every point of Faster Cast Recovery you have the delay is shortened by 0.25 second.

Although there is no cap on how much Faster Cast Recovery you can have there is no benefit of having more than 6, because the delay cannot be less than 0 seconds.

This clearly tells you that there is no benefit past 6... If the recovery was 1.25 it would clearly be no more than FCR5... You are dead wrong on this topic at hand.

I would like you to explain to me how two fast casted ebolts which hit 1.75s apart(mind you that this is PERFECT timing not including lag) of each other can disrupt two greater heals without a disrupt delay? Anyone that knows fast casting knows that this was EASILY possible. If you even add a 0.5s recovery delay onto the disrupt delay it still isn't possible...

Defending yourself against constant debuffs is easy... You make your opponent waste his swings by wrestling while using in mani.

Do the math everyone...

Ebolt Fast Casted:
1.75 + 1.0 = 2.75 <-- First Damage
2.75 + 1.75 + 1.0 = 4.5 <-- Second Damage
4.5 - 2.75 = 1.75

A greater heal spell takes 1.25s to cast...

1.75 - 1.25 = 0.5 <-- At perfect timing...

We are talking about a little over a whopping half second delay to even possibly get a feesible disrupt on a second greater heal being casted. No one can ever consider that there is no disrupt delay until someone can actually explain this one.