UO Second Age

I've really been hoping that something conclusive would come from this. While I'm completely ready to consider that what we have is not spot-on, I don't think this conversation is getting us anywhere; I really did have high hopes that it would. I don't like either side of it, I think there's something missing. There are however other issues which can be more rapidly corrected, and those are my current focus. The spell recovery issue, and another slight problem with weapon disarm that's clearly in error are going to be addressed immediately. The tick based swings needs to be implemented, but that will take some time.

I'm continuing to hope something positive will drop out of this thread.

i motion for a summery... ? (not on Faust's original post, but the developments thereafter)

Trust me on this...

If you REMOVE the 2 second disarm delay and implement the UOR/AOS value for it this shard will tank faster than the Titanic... Imagine everytime you unequip a hally to release a prepped spell like an ebolt which would have your hally delay resetting to 4.8 seconds(if tick system not fixed) or 5 seconds(if tick system fixed). This means that there WILL be an automatic wait on a hally EVERY 5 seconds after releasing a prepped spell. If you equip that hally during that 5 seconds it WILL reset back to 5 seconds. Nobody in their right mind that played this era EVER waited 5 seconds EVERY time you unequipped the hally to release the spell. Trust me 90% of this shard's population are tank mages and I GUARENTEE you every single one of those players will quit if this happens. This is Cortez and Scythe's request for change.

At least Scythe, Cortez, and Loops will be the top 3 PVPer's in this scenario though...

Derrick wrote:I've really been hoping that something conclusive would come from this. While I'm completely ready to consider that what we have is not spot-on, I don't think this conversation is getting us anywhere; I really did have high hopes that it would. I don't like either side of it, I think there's something missing. There are however other issues which can be more rapidly corrected, and those are my current focus. The spell recovery issue, and another slight problem with weapon disarm that's clearly in error are going to be addressed immediately. The tick based swings needs to be implemented, but that will take some time.

I'm continuing to hope something positive will drop out of this thread.

I think the heart of the matter is the lack of available data. I'm sure that any of us would love to find something that supports our opinion but the fact remains that I believe we've presented everything that has been found thus far.

I honestly have an issue with the idea that OSI fixed a problem which provided fast refesh Hally Whack with a solution that provides a 2.5 second Hally Whack (2.0 Faust Flat Timer + 500 ms action delay). There are just too many of the game's design and existing code that would have had to been ignored much less any results of testing.

Simply put, it is incredible to believe that the patch published on 2.26.99 worked in the matter suggested by Faust and based on the Lord Hades page from 3 weeks before. It would have just created another version of the same problem where the obvious solution was to have the new equip delay timer point to the existing timer mechanism.

Once agian, there's only one source of anything on this matter of a flat time and it isn't even clear of how it was used and there is no proof at all that this flawed logic actually implemented in the fix.



About the existantace of the bug after 2.26.99, There is nothing in the era webscape which speaks to how to use it or even suggest it's use. (Remembering that Insta-Hit is something different than some type of quick weapon refresh).

In fact, the website providing the screen shot which Faust has ernestly tried to offer as proof provides a guide to PvP which doesn't mention the bug and even suggests not using the Hally in certain combat situation.

So, it seems Derrick, if a bug existed post 2.26.99 and it was caused by an OSI mistake generally available to players it would have been worse than the orginal bug, signficantly changed the combat mechanics, and for some reason no one in 1999 talked about it.

It's that latter part that is very disturbing.

I believe that if a post 2.26.99 bug did exist, it had to be used using some 3rd party program.

That would explain why no one talked about it and why some players may recall using it.... because their aid program allowed for it.

Again though Derrick... honestly... the original bug was most likely due to an abuse of the refresh rate and ignoring the stamina based timer.

If a 2 second flat timer, also ignoring the stamina based timer, was implemented for some unknown crazy reason... and the intent of this arbitrary timer was to fix a fast hally whack refresh abuse... then wouldn't the mere fact that under testing a the 2 second timer would prove not to fix the problem be enough not to publish it and claim a fix?

Even if, at press time of Faust's source, OSI was considering a 2-second timer, they still had 3 more weeks to find the problem and spend 3 seconds repointing the unequip delay to the proper timer.

After all, the most logical and obvious solution in analysing the orginal problem would have been to the have the unequip code point to the stamina based timer.

Faust's case is a whole bill of goods and a long series of follys to have been put in place for any of this to be true. It's just very difficult to accept and swallow.

You know, I've read some crazy stuff on the Darwin Awards page but none of that would come close to this crazy line of events.

Faust wrote:Trust me on this...

If you REMOVE the 2 second disarm delay and implement the UOR/AOS value for it this shard will tank faster than the Titanic... Imagine everytime you unequip a hally to release a prepped spell like an ebolt which would have your hally delay resetting to 4.8 seconds(if tick system not fixed) or 5 seconds(if tick system fixed). This means that there WILL be an automatic wait on a hally EVERY 5 seconds after releasing a prepped spell. If you equip that hally during that 5 seconds it WILL reset back to 5 seconds. Nobody in their right mind that played this era EVER waited 5 seconds EVERY time you unequipped the hally to release the spell. Trust me 90% of this shard's population are tank mages and I GUARENTEE you every single one of those players will quit if this happens. This is Cortez and Scythe's request for change.

At least Scythe, Cortez, and Loops will be the top 3 PVPer's in this scenario though...

I don't know if that is what would happen...

I think the seris of event would be... precast spell.... equip hally.... INSTA-HIT... unequip Hally (proper timer starts)... release spell....... Cast spell(s) of your choice while waiting to time your precast/hally equip...precast spell to work with Hally...... Rearm Hally.... INSTA-HIT... unequip Hally....release preped spell repeat till done.

The difference Faust between what you support and proper game mechanics is only at most 3 seconds.... That's nothing compared to the delay possible with weapon swings not advancing under movement. That change appears era accurate and requires a weapon attacker to stop for the full duration of the stamina attack speed timer. THEN you have to catch up to your target and even then there's a 50% chance (GM to GM) to be able to use your 300 points of skill and remaining stamina to inflict damage.

No one envisoned a 2 second hally hit... it's just simply not Era accurate.

Well concerning the logic behind OSI's change that you would deem so faulty, I would assume that after they implemented the 97' patch note which says that when you equip you get the active delay of the weapon you equip, and realized that one could exchange katana and halberd to speed up there hit, they were looking for a way to keep instahit because without that T2A tank mage pvp would be boring.

So they decided to add in a 2 second timer so that people could still insta hit, but no longer speed up there hit using the equip/unequip method.

My guess is most players didn't realize exactly how this timer worked, and so they believed it had something to do with casting a spell.

Later on in UOR they took away instahit completely because after they added special weapon hits to weapons they must of deemed it imbalanced, no instahit means this.

magine everytime you unequip a hally to release a prepped spell like an ebolt which would have your hally delay resetting to 4.8 seconds(if tick system not fixed) or 5 seconds(if tick system fixed). This means that there WILL be an automatic wait on a hally EVERY 5 seconds after releasing a prepped spell. If you equip that hally during that 5 seconds it WILL reset back to 5 seconds.

That everytime you equip a weapon you get the whole delay for that weapon back.

Derrick could very well put in the old system of giving you the active delay for the weapon you have equipped, that would mean in order to speed up your hit you would have to equip a katana hit with it, wait out the timer equip a halberd hit with it Rinse Repeat.

Or there's what we have here and that is a 2 second hit delay on all weapons.

Those are the only 2 choices.

Of course then theres the 99' patch not that states that you can no longer equip/unequip a weapon to speed up your hit, which would logically be the patch that fixes the active delay system, and implements the 2 second system, due to the fact that there is no patch note stating a change in weapon delays previous to it.

# Damage for your blow is now assessed on your opponent on the start of the swing, instead of at the end. This change makes a fast connection less of an advantage in melee combat. This will apply to wrestling and attacks made by monsters as well.

I think this is also considered insta hit?

But anyways I think most people refer to it as being able to hit as soon as you equip., or at least that's how I am referring to it.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR wrote:Well concerning the logic behind OSI's change that you would deem so faulty, I would assume that after they implemented the 97' patch note which says that when you equip you get the active delay of the weapon you equip, and realized that one could exchange katana and halberd to speed up there hit, they were looking for a way to keep instahit because without that T2A tank mage pvp would be boring.

So they decided to add in a 2 second timer so that people could still insta hit, but no longer speed up there hit using the equip/unequip method.

My guess is most players didn't realize exactly how this timer worked, and so they believed it had something to do with casting a spell.

Later on in UOR they took away instahit completely because after they added special weapon hits to weapons they must of deemed it imbalanced, no instahit means this.

magine everytime you unequip a hally to release a prepped spell like an ebolt which would have your hally delay resetting to 4.8 seconds(if tick system not fixed) or 5 seconds(if tick system fixed). This means that there WILL be an automatic wait on a hally EVERY 5 seconds after releasing a prepped spell. If you equip that hally during that 5 seconds it WILL reset back to 5 seconds.

That everytime you equip a weapon you get the whole delay for that weapon back.

Derrick could very well put in the old system of giving you the active delay for the weapon you have equipped, that would mean in order to speed up your hit you would have to equip a katana hit with it, wait out the timer equip a halberd hit with it Rinse Repeat.

Or there's what we have here and that is a 2 second hit delay on all weapons.

Those are the only 2 choices.

Of course then theres the 99' patch not that states that you can no longer equip/unequip a weapon to speed up your hit, which would logically be the patch that fixes the active delay system, and implements the 2 second system, due to the fact that there is no patch note stating a change in weapon delays previous to it.

There are a couple of things to clarify RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR.

INSTA-HIT:
Even if a weapon had a flat time of 100000 seconds, the 'insta-hit' mechanism would still in place.

Insta-hit is just taking the swing at the start of the process. If your 1000000 second weapon was ready, it would INSTA-HIT upon arming and standing next to your target.

What is at debate is if OSI provided for a flat 2 second timer for refreshes that ignores stamina all together ( the built-in penalty for having only 25 dex) and the slow weapon speed of the Hally.

So... Insta-Hit is different than a 2 second flat timer.

BTW, a flat 2-second timer is automatically a 'speed up' of slow weapons, something they were trying to fix.

EDITED: That's why I think that idea is fail on start. It's a poor soultion to a the problem they were fixing and would have no basis for it's implementation. The new problem would have been realized in testing by anyone with a stop watch and a hally.

Here's something to think about... if, as part of the template, a warrior is dependant upon stamina to be effective then why would OSI provide a fix to a fast hally swing by using a method that would mathmetically automatically assume 800 stamina with a Hally?

Cortez wrote:
There are a couple of things to clarify RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR.

INSTA-HIT:
Even if a weapon had a flat time of 100000 seconds, the 'insta-hit' mechanism would still in place.

Insta-hit is just taking the swing at the start of the process. If your 1000000 second weapon was ready, it would INSTA-HIT upon arming and standing next to your target.

What is at debate is if OSI provided for a flat 2 second timer for refreshes that ignores stamina all together ( the built-in penalty for having only 25 dex) and the slow weapon speed of the Hally.

So... Insta-Hit is different than a 2 second flat timer.

BTW, a flat 2-second timer is automatically a 'speed up' of slow weapons. That's why I think that idea if fail on start.

Here's something to think about... if, as part of the template, a warrior is dependant upon stamina to be effective then why would OSI provide a fix to a fast hally swing by using a method that would mathmetically automatically assume 800 stamina with a Hally?

I already said about what I meant by insta hit read my other post. It is curious however that OSI would implement a 2 second delay, why wouldn't they make it 3 or 4 that would completely fix the problem with speeding up weapons without making it possible to hit fast in another way, or even better why wouldn't they force you to keep and wait out the entire delay of your hit instead of giving you the delay of the next weapon you equip.

Anyways if either of those things where here there you wouldn't be able to refresh your spell after a ebolt.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR wrote:

Cortez wrote:
There are a couple of things to clarify RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR.

INSTA-HIT:
Even if a weapon had a flat time of 100000 seconds, the 'insta-hit' mechanism would still in place.

Insta-hit is just taking the swing at the start of the process. If your 1000000 second weapon was ready, it would INSTA-HIT upon arming and standing next to your target.

What is at debate is if OSI provided for a flat 2 second timer for refreshes that ignores stamina all together ( the built-in penalty for having only 25 dex) and the slow weapon speed of the Hally.

So... Insta-Hit is different than a 2 second flat timer.

BTW, a flat 2-second timer is automatically a 'speed up' of slow weapons. That's why I think that idea if fail on start.

Here's something to think about... if, as part of the template, a warrior is dependant upon stamina to be effective then why would OSI provide a fix to a fast hally swing by using a method that would mathmetically automatically assume 800 stamina with a Hally?

I already said about what I meant by insta hit read my other post. It is curious however that OSI would implement a 2 second delay, why wouldn't they make it 3 or 4 that would completely fix the problem with speeding up weapons without making it possible to hit fast in another way, or even better why wouldn't they force you to keep and wait out the entire delay of your hit instead of giving you the delay of the next weapon you equip.

Anyways if either of those things where here there you wouldn't be able to refresh your spell after a ebolt.

That's exactly the question.

But instead of putting in a 3 or 4 second flat constant, which has no basis in the game mechanics and would still ignore the same factors of stamina, character template stats, and weapon speed, I'm saying they would have used the correct stamina based attack speed timer. There is no reason to believe they wouldn't have.

That's why I center on the idea of a 2 second flat timer and it's source as being incorrect. I just think that too many things would have had to go haywire to have had this go through the concept, design, and testing process.

Maybe there was a bug that existed after 2.26.99 that no one wrote about or provided a guide on how to use. I'm just saying that a flat 2 second delay wasn't something that would have been hard coded in by OSI. And, for it to be here on UOSA, it would have to have been rather than some client side hack.

Faust's theory is hard to accept.

He and many players may have very well found a fast Hally Whack after it was fixed, but I strongly doubt it was possible by anything other than a 3rd party hack.

I guess I should point out one last obvious reason why the 2 second flat timer on the equip delay is fail...

The bug they were fixing had to do with Slow Weapons Hitting Too Fast.

A 2 second flat timer would not only continue to make Slow Weapons Hit Fast but also make FAST WEAPONS SLOW while still ignoring factors of stamina, character template stats, and weapon speed and an entire timer routine tested and used in the other delays.

There are so many things wrong with this, it's hard to believe that there's even a debate about it much less 12 pages of it!

I will still be waiting for the evidence Cortez... You can continue throwing your opinions left and right, but until you provide some substance to show that this delay wasn't 2 seconds as suggested it will never matter one bit. It doesn't matter how vague or small this piece of evidence is. At least there is evidence besides what you have to offer which is flat out nothing but theories. There is only one known reference to this delay and it flat out says that it's two seconds.

It also re-creates the EXACT mechanic PERFECTLY that ALL the good t2a vets remember. If you didn't use this tactic you weren't good one bit. It had nothing to do with hacking anything at all.. That has to be about the most ignorant suggestion that I have heard so far... It simply took casting an ebolt and equipping a weapon. You could hit with a hally, cast ebolt, and hit with a hally again, etc... This could be repeated non-stop. If this was your retarded theory that every other failed t2a shard inserts into their weapon system it would be hally, ebolt, wait 3.25s, hally. I am sorry but that was not the case ever during this era.

I will continue waiting forever...

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR wrote: Derrick could very well put in the old system of giving you the active delay for the weapon you have equipped, that would mean in order to speed up your hit you would have to equip a katana hit with it, wait out the timer equip a halberd hit with it Rinse Repeat.

This is one of the real issues that I have with the alternative. I don't believe a mechanic that would give rise to weapon switching is accurate either, something is missing there.

Similarly, i don't understand why three weakens are casted between hally hits here, as with the recovery delay after cast you should be able to hally again well sooner than that given a two second reswing:

March 26, 2000-1:00 A.M. PST-Jackal - http://opp.iwarp.com/archives.htm wrote: Today in Moonglow Fire finally decided it would be fun to stay on the same screen as me for more then 5 seconds and fight. Combo: explosion, hally, weaken, weaken, weaken, hally, explosion, hally eb, weaken, weaken

Maybe these questeions have been addressed above, but I did not see them.

Faust wrote:I will still be waiting for the evidence Cortez... You can continue throwing your opinions left and right, but until you provide some substance to show that this delay wasn't 2 seconds as suggested it will never matter one bit. It doesn't matter how vague or small this piece of evidence is. At least there is evidence besides what you have to offer which is flat out nothing but theories. There is only one known reference to this delay and it flat out says that it's two seconds.

It also re-creates the EXACT mechanic PERFECTLY that ALL the good t2a vets remember. If you didn't use this tactic you weren't good one bit. It had nothing to do with hacking anything at all.. That has to be about the most ignorant suggestion that I have heard so far... It simply took casting an ebolt and equipping a weapon. You could hit with a hally, cast ebolt, and hit with a hally again, etc... This could be repeated non-stop. If this was your retarded theory that every other failed t2a shard inserts into their weapon system it would be hally, ebolt, wait 3.25s, hally. I am sorry but that was not the case ever during this era.

I will continue waiting forever...

It also re-creates the EXACT mechanic PERFECTLY that ALL the good t2a vets remember. If you didn't use this tactic you weren't good one bit. It had nothing to do with hacking anything at all

Yep that's why it's here.

Faust wrote:I will still be waiting for the evidence Cortez... You can continue throwing your opinions left and right, but until you provide some substance to show that this delay wasn't 2 seconds as suggested it will never matter one bit. It doesn't matter how vague or small this piece of evidence is. At least there is evidence besides what you have to offer which is flat out nothing but theories. There is only one known reference to this delay and it flat out says that it's two seconds.

It also re-creates the EXACT mechanic PERFECTLY that ALL the good t2a vets remember. If you didn't use this tactic you weren't good one bit. It had nothing to do with hacking anything at all.. That has to be about the most ignorant suggestion that I have heard so far... It simply took casting an ebolt and equipping a weapon. You could hit with a hally, cast ebolt, and hit with a hally again, etc... This could be repeated non-stop. If this was your retarded theory that every other failed t2a shard inserts into their weapon system it would be hally, ebolt, wait 3.25s, hally. I am sorry but that was not the case ever during this era.

I will continue waiting forever...

We are going to disagree with this because your tattered piece of evidence does not prove that ill concept was ever implemented. It can not be confirmed.

Perhaps there was a post 2.26.99 bug that existed, but it didn't work because of a flat 2-second OSI timer that would be baseless and not inline with the rest of the entire combat mechanic.

I'm sure if a fast hally hit bug was still around after the '99 fix it was available only because of some 3rd party program that 'ALL the good t2a vets' who remember this bugged advancement of the cool down timer used.

There's a lot of merit in what I'm suggesting in how some people can recall this bug (if it existed), why it was not mentioned anywhere after 2.26.99, and why no guides suggested using it. Not even your sources guides. (Lord Hades nor JOV).

I tell you what, provide something that talks about a fast Hally Whack or the strategy post for it's use after the published fix of 2.99 Faust.

JOV was a guild of good PvPers... why didn't they talk about it in their September 1999 PvP guide?