Debuff Disrupts

[crabjuice]

Hi,

We (and many others) would like to see debuff spells always disrupt in Second Age. We are writing this because we believe the current debuff disrupt system is inaccurate, undesired by most players, and does not create the potential for better and more skill-based PvP.

1. Inaccurate - After doing a lot of research and gathering opinions from other T2A vets, the old T2A system was very likely as follows: Debuffs would ALWAYS disrupt a spellcaster even if they were resisted.

2. After reading many forum posts, it is quite clear that most players do want consistent debuff disrupts to be in place, especially considering that is how the majority of them recalled it from OSI.

3. The actual skill (vs luck) of a player is more of a factor in tank mage duels when spells always disrupt from debuffs. There are three major factors of tank mage PvP: damage spells, weapon hits, and debuffs that are used as quick disrupts. In our opinion, the best PvP we can shoot for (together with T2A authenticity) is PvP that maximizes the skill of a player and minimizes the role of luck in fights. With the current system, you definitely won't disrupt with debuffs if the person you are attacking is already debuffed. This, therefore, introduces a large luck component to tank mage PvP as there is no way to garuntee disruptions. If these disruptions were in place, many different strategies and combos could be built around them. As it stands, this aspect of tank mage PvP only encourages more luck in duels. The second aspect is melee attacks, and these have a pretty a wide variety of damage range AND chance to hit, so another significant luck aspect is introduced. Lastly, you have spell damage such as EB, explosion, and flamestrike, which is again a range damage this so leaves a little luck in the system. The latter two are true to the original T2A, and are not an issue. However, making debuffs always disrupt would help remove a major component of luck from duels, and therefore duel outcomes would more often reflect the skill of the better dueler. PvP, in its current form, is more geared to hoping for that big hally hit and releasing that flamestrike then it is geared towards predicting, reacting, comboing, etc that can come from debuff disrupts.

Given both scenarios, I'll tell you how most successful pvpers would duel

Current scenario: Use big damage spells and hally hits, hope for a combination of a melee hit or spell to do big damage and go off of that. Luck plays a major factor in duels as debuff spell disruptions are not guaranteed.

Proposed scenario: Incorporate all, melee attacks, debuff disrupts, and big damage spells to win. This would take good prediction skills, reactions, and good combos and would require you to read your opponent as well. This scenario is lot more involved and advanced, but would provide more consistency with players which would ultimately gauge player skill.

We understand that Derrick's argument for changing this is that there is no concrete evidence because of vague literature of our sources that this is how pvp was back in t2a. However, there is also no concrete evidence of the way he currently has the pvp set up either. So you have to pick one side of the road.

Whereas the south side of the road (current system) says that the current system is in place because "it makes more sense."

And the north side of the road (proposed system) is believed to be the correct system per the majority of t2a veterans and creates better pvp.

We welcome any constructive criticism to our proposal and any input.

Thanks,

Crab Juice & WoozyRargar

[kill drizitz]

im sorry to come off like an ass, but this has been brought up about 1010001021684 times, and each time has been proven to be inaccurate. go watch some vids of old school OSI pvp and u wont see one person casting weaken, clumsy, or feeblmind. it didnt work like that, it was something earlier freeshards used.
i doubt this thread will bring any changes to the system.

[WoozyRargar]

im sorry to come off like an ass, but this has been brought up about 1010001021684 times, and each time has been proven to be inaccurate. go watch some vids of old school OSI pvp and u wont see one person casting weaken, clumsy, or feeblmind. it didnt work like that, it was something earlier freeshards used.
i doubt this thread will bring any changes to the system.

You're not coming off as an ass, just expressing an opinion that was expected to come up.

Consider the possibilities that (1) these videos are of PvP before or after the guaranteed disrupt from debuffs was in place and (2) those duelers chose not to use and/or did not know of this tactic. I'm not saying your conclusion made from those videos is wrong, but it does contradict what many OSI T2A veterans "remember" from those days.

Additionally, as the argument made above details, PvP on Second Age would be "improved greatly" (I guess this is subjective) if debuff disrupts were instituted. I think that is a good reason to go for it since there is no hard evidence supporting the arguments one way or the other.

[malice-tg]

I don't believe it was that simple.

OSI Pks would have had a standard weaken guy and a couple ebolt guys.
this wasnt the case.

since thats not what happened i'll consider that proof that it didnt work repeatedly. it works somewhat now just use timing.

i dont think this change should be put in not for the impact for duels but the group pvp would turn into spam fests like it was when magic arrow disrupted. not accurate.

[Faust]

I don't believe it was that simple.

OSI Pks would have had a standard weaken guy and a couple ebolt guys.
this wasnt the case.

since thats not what happened i'll consider that proof that it didnt work repeatedly. it works somewhat now just use timing.

Well I would have to say that I have found evidence that PK groups did have a standard person to use weaken.

Stratics '99 - Warfare Hall

When the Warlords fight a 5 on 5, it's not just a 5 on 5 for us. It's 5 seperate
5 on 1 battles. Alot of our opponents say we just terribly outnumber them, that we are gangbangers, whatever. Truth is, Warlords has 8 players. [2 characters each on the Warlords stone.] So it looks like we have 16 characters, give or take a few, on the guildstone.

Enemies can say what they want, but when they take us apart, many of us are decent solo fighters. Put together however, we are a *TEAM* that works together, sometimes sacrificing our own selves for the benefit of the team.

I will use a battle against BP to show how the Warlords fight. BP is a respected PvP guild on Sonoma, and we have some friends in the guild. It was a typical 5 on 5, with some strangers spectating. At the very beginning, the 5 Warlords each paralyzed an individual on BP, then we proceeded to do a combination attack.
This is an example of our combination attack against one of the BP's that day.
WL = Warlord

WL #1 = Weaken
WL #2 = Paralyze
WL #1,2,3,4,5 = Explosion
WL #3, 4, 5 = Energy Bolt
WL #1, 2 = Paralyze two more enemies

We did the spells in that order, and we have fought enough to know pretty well our timing on things. You might think we are extreme on this, but by fighting alot, and just having fun with each other alot, you get to know each other's fighting styles.

Anyhow, with similar combination attacks, we killed all 5 BP with one casualty, so it worked out alright.

This still doesn't prove one way or the other if it disrupted after already in use though.

[platy]

i too don't wanna sound like a dick,
but crab you havent even been here a month and your already trying to change the shard PVP style...
nobody used debuff spams on OSI which is what we're trying to replicate.. Yes I played during t2a AND pvp'd.. it was all harms, combos, and hallys afaik
i do like debuff spams, but i agree with many that this tactic is a freeshard discrepency.. debuff spams weren't even used on OSI/EA until AoS practically.. ofc freeshards came out with the tactics prior to AoS i beleive- hence everyone and their mother thinks its accurate-- not the case.

[malice-tg]

I don't believe it was that simple.

OSI Pks would have had a standard weaken guy and a couple ebolt guys.
this wasnt the case.

since thats not what happened i'll consider that proof that it didnt work repeatedly. it works somewhat now just use timing.

Well I would have to say that I have found evidence that PK groups did have a standard person to use weaken.

Stratics '99 - Warfare Hall

When the Warlords fight a 5 on 5, it's not just a 5 on 5 for us. It's 5 seperate
5 on 1 battles. Alot of our opponents say we just terribly outnumber them, that we are gangbangers, whatever. Truth is, Warlords has 8 players. [2 characters each on the Warlords stone.] So it looks like we have 16 characters, give or take a few, on the guildstone.

Enemies can say what they want, but when they take us apart, many of us are decent solo fighters. Put together however, we are a *TEAM* that works together, sometimes sacrificing our own selves for the benefit of the team.

I will use a battle against BP to show how the Warlords fight. BP is a respected PvP guild on Sonoma, and we have some friends in the guild. It was a typical 5 on 5, with some strangers spectating. At the very beginning, the 5 Warlords each paralyzed an individual on BP, then we proceeded to do a combination attack.
This is an example of our combination attack against one of the BP's that day.
WL = Warlord

WL #1 = Weaken
WL #2 = Paralyze
WL #1,2,3,4,5 = Explosion
WL #3, 4, 5 = Energy Bolt
WL #1, 2 = Paralyze two more enemies

We did the spells in that order, and we have fought enough to know pretty well our timing on things. You might think we are extreme on this, but by fighting alot, and just having fun with each other alot, you get to know each other's fighting styles.

Anyhow, with similar combination attacks, we killed all 5 BP with one casualty, so it worked out alright.

This still doesn't prove one way or the other if it disrupted after already in use though.

read that again.. all that proves is that the begining of the fight was "a" weaken spell. those are chronological steps in an attack.

step 1 weaken
then para
then exp
then ebolt
then para some more people.

the duties are divided to different people or WL but thats the combo order for killing one player.
"This is an example of our combination attack against one of the BP's that day."

[BloodyBandage]

Epic Fail. Hally/Weaken spam is pure shit and more luck based than the current system. Plus I never remember that being used as a tactic on the real OSI during T2A.

[Faust]

read that again.. all that proves is that the begining of the fight was "a" weaken spell. those are chronological steps in an attack.

I never said that it didn't did I?

This still doesn't prove one way or the other if it disrupted after already in use though.

I simply stated that I had evidence that a PK group was assigned to weaken. I didn't say the person was assigned to disrupt over and over with the spell. I personally dislike weaken, clumsy, feeblemind disrupts over and over as I've stated already. However, I still remember it always working that way.

[WoozyRargar]

but crab you havent even been here a month and your already trying to change the shard PVP style...

Crab and I were very involved in the PvP scene on Catskills during the T2A - UO:R eras. Crab also played and dominated Metropolis for a long time. It's not like we are newbies or anything. Ultimately, if a suggestion is good, it shouldn't matter who it comes from.

i do like debuff spams, but i agree with many that this tactic is a freeshard discrepency.. debuff spams weren't even used on OSI/EA until AoS practically.. ofc freeshards came out with the tactics prior to AoS i beleive- hence everyone and their mother thinks its accurate-- not the case.

Again, there is no hard evidence either way. At the moment it is all "I remember it this way" arguments. So, therefore, we are back to both sides being equally dubious. Hence if guaranteed disrupts from debuffs would improve (in many peoples' mind) PvP, why not implement it?

This isn't something as straightforward as the runebooks arguments. Obviously, it would be better for (almost) everyone if runebooks were blessed as it would remove a very tedious and unfun aspect of T2A. But, unblessed runebooks are true to the original OSI T2A before they were "fixed" later on. There is definite proof of this.

Personally, I think implementing some (only some) simple little changes that aren't EXACTLY true to OSI T2A (but still true to OSI UO), like blessing runebooks, would be better in the long run for this shard as they improve the quality of players' experience. In other words, a few simple changes would help to remove some tedium and improve the overall fun of T2A. Along the same vein, implementing guaranteed disrupts from debuffs would remove some luck from duels and improve the overall skill of PvP players. I think this would also help to attract to Second Age additional quality PvPers from dying shards, like Divinity.

That said, it is not my shard and I respect the direction Derrick is taking Second Age. Truthfully, I'm impressed with what I've had a chance to experience so far.

[crabjuice]

Epic Fail. Hally/Weaken spam is pure shit and more luck based than the current system. Plus I never remember that being used as a tactic on the real OSI during T2A.

This is not true. Adding consecutive and consistent disrupting debuffs gives one guaranteed aspect of pvp, and it can be used in a defensive or offensive manner, which allows pvp to be more dynamic and overall better. Anyone can mini heal through someone thats doing hally/weaken spam. For example...lets say you have low hp and you think he will do an EB, do a defensive disrupt like weaken, then follow immediately by a gheal while he is recasting. That's just one example of how other tactics are brought into pvp instead of the standard tactic of hoping for a good explo eb hally hit. The main point I am making is that strategies and spell combos can be built off of knowing that you can disrupt your opponent, or that you could be disrupted yourself.

This small change would also bring other factors into dueling pvp, such as mana management. Consistent debuffs aren't going to do any damage, so if you spam them in am untactful manner then you are going to be wasting a lot of crucial mana. I remember on t2a I would actually use eval int on my opponents for this reason, if I knew they had low mana because of something like this I'd dump them.

If you are saying that this idea is an "Epic Fail" because you would get hally/weaken spammed then you must be pretty retrofitted to an existing "newbie friendly" system that doesn't encourage you to use tactics or diversify.

[StDrahcir]

but crab you havent even been here a month and your already trying to change the shard PVP style...

Crab and I were very involved in the PvP scene on Catskills during the T2A - UO:R eras. Crab also played and dominated Metropolis for a long time. It's not like we are newbies or anything. Ultimately, if a suggestion is good, it shouldn't matter who it comes from.

I second this statement. I played on Metropolis for about almost 2 years.

I do remember using weaken on a consistent basis during the T2A era. I did lotsa PvP on Chesapeake and I also played on Catskills some as well.

[WoozyRargar]

I do remember using weaken on a consistent basis during the T2A era. I did lotsa PvP on Chesapeake and I also played on Catskills some as well.

Great. If you haven't voted in the poll, please do so we can see how many people are for/against debuff disrupts.

[Faust]

The poll won't matter without any hard evidence on this matter. As stated previously in this thread it has been brought up countless times in the past. It won't be changed until someone can prove that it existed. Unlike all other shards such as Divinity a feature doesn't change just "because" a majority wants it to over the miniority. Produce some convincing evidence on the matter and I am sure Derrick would change it in a fraction of a second.

There are only two possible ways that I can see this being proved. First, a clear use of it as a tactic in the past written during the t2a era. Secondly, a clear and obvious screenshot of the era with the fizzle animation on the person taking the screenshot with the "your spell was disrupted" system message.

[crabjuice]

The poll won't matter without any hard evidence on this matter. As stated previously in this thread it has been brought up countless times in the past. It won't be changed until someone can prove that it existed. Unlike all other shards such as Divinity a feature doesn't change just "because" a majority wants it to over the miniority. Produce some convincing evidence on the matter and I am sure Derrick would change it in a fraction of a second.

But there is no hard evidence that current system is accurate either. So if there is no hard evidence either way why go against the general majority?