Maybe UOSA Spell disrupt values are incorrect

[Pro]

So after realizing no one else will do it b/c u all suck I did my own patch note reading for 20 minutes and came to this conclusion.


Now what I've basically thought is that if there was no 100% disrupts in spell mechanics surely it would mention some sort of fix from sometime during the uosa cut off point (nov 1999) to when 2 pvp essays and a skill guide were written (Feb 2001-Aug 2001 I believe). Now after Searching 2 websites full of patch notes I've found no such evidence and put forward the idea that spells are 100% (or 99% or something) to disrupt someone if they do damage or are a debuff.


Here's my sources
http://wiki.uosecondage.com/?title=UO_Patch_Notes
http://www.uoherald.com/news/archives.php?offset=87

Both patch notes websites feel free to browse them.


I know this isn't much to go on but really it's just using basic logic and working backwards


UOR PVP Guides
http://www.uopowergamers.com/e-pvptapion.shtml

Important qoutes

ast now is the time to cast clumsy (specially since it will disturb his cure)

disrupts 100% otherwise it'd be pointless logic of ever using clumsy during pvp

Note: Protection with GM inscribe will stop like 8/10 disturbs so USE IT against mages and use it against fast swinging weapons.

Although it has little reference to spell disrupts if you use the logic of thats why you would use it against mages as mentioned in the essay we can see the value of this statement.


also for further reference http://www.uopowergamers.com/e-pvpessay.shtml


Post comments, arguments etc

[Hemperor]

That quote seems purely like complete interpretation to me.

The second confuses me, I know the use of inscription of other spells was completely changed for UO:R.

Regardless, we have an actual confirmed accurate formula (at least to some date) which I can't ever see being beaten... It's the only exact thing it will ever be based off of.

[Rabbi Dan]

For what it's worth, I don't remember any spells not interrupting until the inscription changes were put in.

[Hemperor]

A good place to check for things like this is the newsgroup, I've found a number of posts in the past describing the same system and chances we have here especially right around the implementation of interrupts.

[Pro]

But if the system was changed which it clearly mustve been if current uosa is correct why isn't it documented? It's a pretty big thing to happen

[Sentinel]

Note: Protection with GM inscribe will stop like 8/10 disturbs so USE IT against mages and use it against fast swinging weapons.

if he casted agility while you casted that first mindblast now is the time to cast clumsy (specially since it will disturb his cure)

You essentially posted the same link twice. I'd like to know what Patch Note, specifically, you're referring to with the Line in said Patch Note you're using to support your argument. None of these quotes necessarily imply there was not a 100% disruption rate beforehand. Apologies for the double negative. If anything the first quote lends more credence to that notion (the one of there being interrupts) because there are less than 100% interruptions after UOSA's target date with the casting of a Protection spell, which normally only adds to damage mitigation during the T2A era but seems to do that and/or the interruption reduction. Or they don't imply anything at all in regards to how previous mechanics operated considering they're covering combat after the shard's target date. All in all these essays are essentially bad references for your proposition. If you can find anything concrete (like a Line in a Patch Note that makes an obvious reference like the "Bandages will now automatically stack" line Hemperor used) I'll be willing to back you up on this. I don't think conversations between players is a really great reference for any sort of change considering any amount of chatter can be wrong on several levels. We have a lot of talk here about various issues and people who agree with them but turn out to be incorrect in regards to accuracy so the same logic can say it would follow that any newsgroup chatter can essentially be the same.

The funny thing about the Bandages quote is that it could have simply meant that seperate stacks of yards of cloth did not stack when cut to make bandages but that's another discussion.

[Faust]

Was this "evidence" if you want to call it that suppose to convince me that a patch note and actual code used a couple months before the t2a era wasn't valid during the era this shard is replicating?

There is no information to support these claims and further more the guides were written during the UOR era. If there did happen to be a "ninja" patch how do you know it happened during the T2A era instead of the UOR era... There is no definitive proof that this formula still isn't being used in production shards to this very day.

[Rabbi Dan]

There is no definitive proof that this formula still isn't being used in production shards to this very day.

I think the proof is that on production without protection all spells disrupt all other spells (except 1st level) 100% of the time. The OP is saying that since that's the way it is, and there are no patch notes saying that spell disruption was changed, it must have been the way it was during T2A. I'm not confirming his claim, I'm just translating because it seems like you guys misunderstood him.

[Faust]

I haven't seen any proof that this is the case on production shards. A base damage of zero for spell damage on a 4th circle spell is nearly a 70% interruption chance. Damage output on production shards is rather enormous and depends on the different resistance values towards reducing it.

[archaicsubrosa77]

Anything that can interrupt casting 100 percent of the time would definitely be overpowered.

[Pro]

Anything that can interrupt casting 100 percent of the time would definitely be overpowered.

So any melee damage? <snip>

[archaicsubrosa77]

You have a chance to defend against melee nubnuts, and yes even physical damage from weapon swings aren't guaranteed 100 percent to interrupt.

http://forum.uosecondage.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8268

When patch notes say more frequent interrupts from physical attacks I take it to mean not 100 percent wouldn't you?

<snip>....

[Pro]

You have a chance to defend against melee nubnuts, and yes even physical damage from weapon swings aren't guaranteed 100 percent to interrupt.

http://forum.uosecondage.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8268

When patch notes say more frequent interrupts from physical attacks I take it to mean not 100 percent wouldn't you?

<snip>....

I suggest you duel/pvp/do something out in the game world and you will see it really is about 100% maybe 99% whatever close enough.

[Sentinel]

Anything that can interrupt casting 100 percent of the time would definitely be overpowered.

Wrestling: 50% miss chance.
INT: 100 Mana = 5 E-Bolts with a potential of up to 200+ Damage.
Meditation: Fast when you're naked!
Explosion, Energy Bolt, Halberd: Almost a guaranteed kill if both spells pass the Resistance check and you get a chunky Halberd roll.

I'm sorry, where's the part where dexxers are overpowered?

I'd also like to add that melee hits, at least from my experience, do not have a 100% chance of interrupting. It's very high but maybe you're not supposed to finish incanting a spell that requires complicated hand-motions and channeling cosmic energies if someone whacks you with a big wooden staff. Hm?

[archaicsubrosa77]

That was my point...even a melee attack isn't a guranteed interrupt.
Thank you both for agreeing with me.<snippity snap snip snap snip>

PS- just a bit comical I am glad we seem to have some moderation now.

The following is a warning which has been issued to you by an administrator or moderator of this site.

This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: http://forum.uosecondage.com/viewtopic. ... 54#p107354 .
Both of these posts were out of line for regular forums. I understand that this was provoked, but please keep regular forums free of personal attacks.