UO Second Age

Wasn't it Faust who put the current spell delays in action with his research?

Its a work in progress nerd

So that means false mechanics we're implemented based on theory?

I remember everyone saying greater heal was too powerful, and the grand reply-fix was, "when the next patch introduces proper spell casting delays, this will be fixed"

The cast delays themselves are known to be accurate, as is the lack of any disrupt delay. As for the static recast delay, the last thread that dealt with this issue had a source that I posted that pointed out that the recast delay was 0.5 seconds (I'm relatively sure that's being used here). If anyone is curious about the information, you can search for the thread and read what was presented there.

Sandro wrote:So that means false mechanics we're implemented based on theory?

I remember everyone saying greater heal was too powerful, and the grand reply-fix was, "when the next patch introduces proper spell casting delays, this will be fixed"

What in the hell are you talking about? Greater heal has been the same on here since the shard was brought up. The same formula has been recorded through out history to be 40% of magery plus a random 1-10. That same formula is used in the demo, stratics articles, uo's web site, and numerous other sources. You seriously need to read up on a few things before making posts like this. Saying random statements off the top of your head like this is starting to seem to be a frequent occurrence with you.

Kaivan covered the rest, no need for a comment.

Kaivan wrote:As for the static recast delay, the last thread that dealt with this issue had a source that I posted that pointed out that the recast delay was 0.5 seconds (I'm relatively sure that's being used here). If anyone is curious about the information, you can search for the thread and read what was presented there.

I had completely forgot about that source you posted... The source was a comment shortly after AOS discussing the differences with the casting system with in that era compared to the one during the UOR era. One of the players pointed out the old recast delay that was 2 ticks(the only known source that has been found as of yet) and there is no reason to suggest it was anything different after it was implemented back in early '98.

Interesting thread. I hope to see f2w make an appearance here - I will do whatever I can to aid in training chars, etc.

I wonder though about the range of mini heal. Hard to believe all mini heAls we're 10+...

This is the only screenshot that I have ever seen inside of the t2a era with the person taking it use mini.

...

was talking about spell recovery delay

not damaged healed via the spell...

Edit:

I meant, something is definitely off with current mechanics. This thread is good, lots of insight here.

Mini heal definitely needs to be changed. There is no way people could mini heal like this back in the day.

I say longer recast timer!

RoseRIP wrote:Mini heal definitely needs to be changed. There is no way people could mini heal like this back in the day.

I say longer recast timer!

I would love to have that, I think fine tuning pvp works better than assuming our complete system right now is accurate. Which it isn't yet, and Derrick has stated.

The current system is fun but it needs to be better, it's inaccurate to the point where there's "just something wrong" feeling. I think fine tuning the heal would heal, it needs that recast timer sure. Or maybe less dmg healer. I dunno, lol we can't keep the same heal mechanics as 1998 no matter how accurate we think it is if other things that make up the whole "feel" of combat are not there.

I don't think this would go against era accuracy. Derrick's choice anyway.

I just think we need not be so closed-minded to fine tuning something to help pvpers out. Pvmers couldn't care less, and the effects aren't drastic enough to change anything but make mage 1v1 less cheesy.

Mage 1v1 isn't bad when two people fight like actual mages did in 1999. The problem is many pvpers on this server think they need to run screens away on the first casted spell and play far too defensively.

People who play defensive and heal too much lack strategy and apparently they have no idea how effective quick-casting spells on someone casting a 5th level spell is.

I think it's very simple. The vast majority of us are much more advanced than 98%+ of any pvper back in T2A, simply due to knowledge and time. Why is it then, that it seems to be far easier to survive on this shard? Is it simply lag differences? I don't think that is conclusive.

As it stands, your chance at killing someone is always very strongly dependent on your Six circle damage rolls. The heals are simply far too much, any fool can mini heal all day on this shard... Pretty sure they would have spammed heal just as much back in era, something is off.

Don't forget ping time and packet loss. I was pinging 250-300, on a college T1 line. Between that and packet loss, your actual time between mini-heals would seem longer, and would seem like a much less certain proposition.

Also, what did UOA have for functions at that time? I don't see any "target queued" messages in these screenshots. If you have to manually wait for a target, then target yourself, then repeat, then mini-heal is much less useful. It's easy here with the Razor function that casts, waits, and targets, with just 1 key, and doesn't screw up if you hammer it. I know the stock UO client macros back then were a pain to get working correctly, and if you were using those, I don't see how you could possibly spam mini-heal.

Mikel123 wrote:Don't forget ping time and packet loss. I was pinging 250-300, on a college T1 line. Between that and packet loss, your actual time between mini-heals would seem longer, and would seem like a much less certain proposition.

Also, what did UOA have for functions at that time? I don't see any "target queued" messages in these screenshots. If you have to manually wait for a target, then target yourself, then repeat, then mini-heal is much less useful. It's easy here with the Razor function that casts, waits, and targets, with just 1 key, and doesn't screw up if you hammer it. I know the stock UO client macros back then were a pain to get working correctly, and if you were using those, I don't see how you could possibly spam mini-heal.

people need to stop bringing ping into the equation because lots of people, me included, had a grand 10 average at that time to chesapeake. As for the target queue I cannot recall if it was there or not but I know I wasnt using it if it was.

That's great, I'm really happy for you, but the fact is, your UO experience was different than that of probably 99% of the population. So that's why I bring it up. You're arguing about whether or not something was "widespread" in 1999. Obviously, the ping latency of 99% of the population is far more relevant to things being widespread than the ping latency of the top 1%.