Era Accurate Spell Delays
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:10 pm
Here are the spells with their actual delays spelled out.
http://web.archive.org/web/200003090612 ... pellsn.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/200003090612 ... pellsn.htm
A forum for discussion of Second Age UO Shard
http://forums.uosecondage.com/
The delays on that page have been proven wrong countless times, I have brought that up before as well. There are more pages on stratics stating the incorrect delays than the correct ones, but they are both listed. Just goes to show that stratics isn't always 100% correct.Kraarug wrote:Here are the spells with their actual delays spelled out.
http://web.archive.org/web/200003090612 ... pellsn.htm
I would like to see that discussion or these sources that debunk the times stated in the link provided above.Hemperor wrote:The delays on that page have been proven wrong countless times, I have brought that up before as well. There are more pages on stratics stating the incorrect delays than the correct ones, but they are both listed. Just goes to show that stratics isn't always 100% correct.Kraarug wrote:Here are the spells with their actual delays spelled out.
http://web.archive.org/web/200003090612 ... pellsn.htm
Demo has also confirmed these, it is just well known. Calm down on the topics today cowboy, 8 already, first time on stratics? :pKraarug wrote:I would like to see that discussion or these sources that debunk the times stated in the link provided above.Hemperor wrote:The delays on that page have been proven wrong countless times, I have brought that up before as well. There are more pages on stratics stating the incorrect delays than the correct ones, but they are both listed. Just goes to show that stratics isn't always 100% correct.Kraarug wrote:Here are the spells with their actual delays spelled out.
http://web.archive.org/web/200003090612 ... pellsn.htm
Thats not proof, where is this discussion?Demo has also confirmed these, it is just well known.
I could see if there "absolutely nothing else to go by" using the demo, or using it for things that have clearly not been changed (entice ect.) but when it comes to specifics, "its in the demo" just doesnt work.Ryemus wrote:Not only is the demo not proof but they call things a "Demo" for a reason, it's just a demonstration of what it will be like. NOT AN EXACT REPLICA OF WHAT IT WAS LIKE.