Mini Heal

[Fwerp]

I will add for X-Myth's sake that he was either the second best or best duelist on Atlantic during the era.

[Derrick]

Yes, why was this spell rarely used if its so good?? Is it simply due to connection??

Maybe the cooldown timer to cast is off? Can we verify?

I think if there is an error, that it's in the cool-down. I have been unable to verify this though, and have tried exhaustively in the past to demonstrate that these delays were longer.

[archaicsubrosa77]

How would a mage battle a dexxer with an insane chance to interrupt on most spells without an accurate mini-heal?

[Derrick]

How would a mage battle a dexxer with an insane chance to interrupt on most spells without an accurate mini-heal?

Not sure exactly which you mean, but mini-heal is not interruptable.

[archaicsubrosa77]

I meant g-heal, or offensive spells are easily interrupted.
I was implying that mini-heal for a mage is its saving grace being a mage doesnt usually have healing.

[Faust]

Yes, why was this spell rarely used if its so good?? Is it simply due to connection??

Maybe the cooldown timer to cast is off? Can we verify?

I think if there is an error, that it's in the cool-down. I have been unable to verify this though, and have tried exhaustively in the past to demonstrate that these delays were longer.

I agree with your statement Derrick. The only information we have had on the 0.5 recast delay is a piece that Kaivan dug up stating the pre-aos value. I liked the initial recast delay of 0.75 seconds that we had here in the beginning. I honestly think it feels the most accurate out of all the others that were tested. I don't see any reason to not use that same delay until we are able to prove without a doubt that whatever we find on the delay is in fact correct. This would resolve a lot of the griping about the heal "in mani" spell, and I have a very good feeling that a lot of people would actually agree with this position.

This shard after all follows the standard routine that if everyone pretty much agrees that something feels accurate/inaccurate on an issue that has no concrete information to support it that the game mechanic will be fixed accordingly until proven otherwise.

[Mikel123]

I agree with your statement Derrick. The only information we have had on the 0.5 recast delay is a piece that Kaivan dug up stating the pre-aos value. I liked the initial recast delay of 0.75 seconds that we had here in the beginning. I honestly think it feels the most accurate out of all the others that were tested. I don't see any reason to not use that same delay until we are able to prove without a doubt that whatever we find on the delay is in fact correct. This would resolve a lot of the griping about the heal "in mani" spell, and I have a very good feeling that a lot of people would actually agree with this position.

This shard after all follows the standard routine that if everyone pretty much agrees that something feels accurate/inaccurate on an issue that has no concrete information to support it that the game mechanic will be fixed accordingly until proven otherwise.

This is the opposite of my impression so far. When have we stuck with a Run UO default when there's evidence to the contrary?

Making changes to resolve griping is exactly the opposite of what I've come to expect here. In Mani has already been nerfed from 11-16 to 11-13 due to whining, when an overwhelming amount of documentation shows 11-16 to be correct. This is probably my biggest disappointment in this shard so far (well, that and all the n##### and f#g-related names).

This is not an issue of everyone agreeing that something is inaccurate. This is an issue of everyone agreeing that something wasn't popular. And then they're assuming that since it wasn't popular, it wasn't good. HUGE difference.

Anyone play Magic the Gathering here? I'm sure half of us did/do. Counterspell was in the card pool constantly, but no one used it. Then around 1998 or so, people realized how good it was and began using it as often as possible. The spell was the same, people just didn't realize how good it was originally. Same with Wrath of God. The spells didn't change at all; people just got more sophisticated and better at identifying value.

"Why would I spend reagents to heal 15 points when I could spend pretty much the same amount of reagents to heal 45 points?" I don't think people had such a sophisticated idea of how interrupt spells could be leveraged back then. I don't remember ever running into someone who chain-casted Weaken on me to keep me from Recalling. Harm or Fireball, sure, because those did damage (though I guess there was some small chance of them not disrupting, versus no chance of failing to disrupt with Weaken). Weaken was the better choice... we realize this today, but people didn't back then.

I dunno, just my .02.

[Derrick]

I agree. My instinct is not to make any change without more information, otherwise we just start flip flopping mechanics. Any changes have serious game-play implications, i would prefer to stick with what we have until we have some evidence to the contrary, especially since we've already changed this from the RunUO default on what is believed to be good cause.

My comment was that if there is something wrong, it likely lies in the timings and not the amount, as we have overwhelming documentation that the amounts are correct. I do not belive there is any information to base a modification on at this time though.

[Chaos]

Derrick

I agree not Change without more info ..

However most people seem to base this one on feel .. (what i'm about to say I myself could not even do seeing i didn't play OSI in T2a or ever. ) but i still think the idea might be worth thought..

The test server .. for a small time dedicate to do this "feel it out" event for our OSI T2A vets .. (I guess all can try .. but maybe select a few known vets to help with this) .. by this i mean of course no lose .. no real gain .. for our vets maybe a small dec. item off rewards or something .. for news maybe a point or two based on hours in test .. testing not macroing .. lol ) but only after all is done ..

Any ways .. in test server items would be free gm derrick made so no need to care to lose anything .. reg stones the same etc .. just a place these mech changes can be made on the fly without alot of talk .. just feel it out based on what we do know.. and balance it out .. how we can pretty much all agree (thoses that were there) is how it was ..

[Faust]

The solution is simple...

- Fix the heal "in mani" spell back to it's accurate value 11-16 instead of 11-14.
- Fix the recast delay back to 0.75s instead of 0.5s.

This will produce two outcomes. Fix a problem with era accuracy in regard to the healing output value that is accurate. The recast delay of 0.75s feels more accurate in ALL spell situations and will slow the spell down significantly when spamming. There is really no information to support the current recast delay of 0.5s and the overwhelming complaints of "in mani" pretty much confirms that something is not right. I am one of the veterans that never casted this spell even once during pvp back in t2a as well.

This at least could be tested out on the test center like mentioned above...

[Mikel123]

I thought the recast delay was .25 sec per spell, or something like that. Was this UO:R or beyond?

[Faust]

It sounds more like you're talking about the casting delay that starts at 0.5 for first and increments with one tick(0.25s) for each spell circle after that.

The recast delay for spells have always been static. This is even true on production shards to this very day now. The patch that implemented the game mechanic even pretty much states that it's one static delay.

The "Fast last-target spellcasting" exploit will be corrected. This involved placing a small skill delay after completion of casting.

Again, using the 0.75s default RunUO delay that was used here in the very beginning for almost over a year felt more precisely accurate than the one now and any of the delays tested when the structure of the fast casting was fixed.

[Mikel123]

Ah right, I guess I'm confused. I never understood that because many spells, like Blade Spirits, violate that pattern.

[Faust]

Summoning spells add an extra six seconds or so onto the standard delay.

[son]

The solution is simple...

- Fix the heal "in mani" spell back to it's accurate value 11-16 instead of 11-14.
- Fix the recast delay back to 0.75s instead of 0.5s.

This will produce two outcomes. Fix a problem with era accuracy in regard to the healing output value that is accurate. The recast delay of 0.75s feels more accurate in ALL spell situations and will slow the spell down significantly when spamming. There is really no information to support the current recast delay of 0.5s and the overwhelming complaints of "in mani" pretty much confirms that something is not right. I am one of the veterans that never casted this spell even once during pvp back in t2a as well.

This at least could be tested out on the test center like mentioned above...

x2