Debuff Disrupts

[Faust]

The current state of the poll answers that question for you. Again, it has been brought up one too many times in the past and the same thing happens everytime.

The first mistake on this thread was the poll itself. Declaring a vote for a change without any evidence will not get you anywhere. You should have polled "Do you remember debuffs disrupting while active?" or something on those lines. The type of question used is no different than asking "Should Runebooks be blessed?" instead.

[WoozyRargar]

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.

Actually, Crab spoke with Derrick and Derrick asked him to make this thread with a poll. I assume that means there is at least a chance that, in the absence of hard evidence one way or the other, whatever the majority wants may be implemented.

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.

Why does the burden of concrete proof rest on only one side? Neither side has hard evidence at this point that shows what they are arguing is correct. The reason Second Age debuffs are currently the way they are is because it is more logical that debuffs wouldn't always disrupt, so it was originally programmed/set that way. That doesn't necessarily mean it is true to OSI T2A.

The reason many of us want this change is because it has been our experience that the quality and depth of PvP improves significantly with debuff disrupts. In light of no hard evidence either way, what's the problem with going with what the majority wants?

[Derrick]

Aye. I did ask for this post and poll. I don't want to turn this into the two sides of the issue bashing each other. I'm hoping for a constructive discussion on this matter in the hopes of maybe someone coming up with some era info that will allow us to put this issue to rest.

As was stated, if there is conclusive evidence indicating that debuffs always interrupted whether already applied or not I would make the change immediately.

Here are the two questions that need to answered:

• Can debuffs interrupt a spell casting sequence if cast on a person on which that debuff has already been applied?
  Do debuffs interrupt if they are resisted?

I do appreciate the constructive thoughts on this that have been presented so far in this thread. Try and keep this clean, helpful and readable.

[Faust]

Actually, Crab spoke with Derrick and Derrick asked him to make this thread with a poll. I assume that means there is at least a chance that, in the absence of hard evidence one way or the other, whatever the majority wants may be implemented.

In all past threads on this subject he said that hard evidence would be required for this to be changed. I would be quite surprised if he is reconsidering it. I just dislike when people create badly designed polls. For example, a recent poll about adding lumberjack bonus damage. The selection was either "Yes, I agree" or "No, I'm scared of a lumberjacker". That is just simply retarded to add a comment like that. If he were to simply ask if people remembered debuffs disrupting while active in the poll it would have been more productive on this topic.

Why does the burden of concrete proof rest on only one side? Neither side has hard evidence at this point that shows what they are arguing is correct.

My personal opinion on this matter is that I remember it interrupting spells with a fizzle. My reasoning behind this is that it existed during UOR for a 100% assurance, than why wouldn't it have during t2a too since there are no patches declaring it was ever changed.

The reason Second Age debuffs are currently the way they are is because it is more logical that debuffs wouldn't always disrupt, so it was originally programmed/set that way. That doesn't necessarily mean it is true to OSI T2A.

Never said it didn't. I stated that I have always remembered debuffs interupting spells. I think they should apply debuffs to the current spell disruption formula. That way it can disrupt spells but not always guarentee it just like all damage spells, or if you resist it than you don't get inerrupted. One way or the other I wouldn't care.

The reason many of us want this change is because it has been our experience that the quality and depth of PvP improves significantly with debuff disrupts. In light of no hard evidence either way, what's the problem with going with what the majority wants?

Most people that played UOR and badly designed t2a shards typically goes by this philosophy. Divinity is a great example of this. People voted, complained, and then the typical shard failure tumbling rippler effect occurred. Spell delays change, recast delays extended, and meditation through leather applied. The typical approach to UOR styled t2a pvp.

[WoozyRargar]

Text.

If we keep on quoting each other we're going to have huge, unreadable posts. So I'll just keep this short, heh.

I agree the poll could have been worded better. If Derrick wants, we can reset the poll and use your wording suggestions as they are more straightforward.

Many things changed with UO:R, and this may have been one of those seemingly undocumented changes.

I agree that many T2A player-ran shards got carried away with making too many UO:R (or other) changes here and there and it eventually ruined the shard. I want T2A authenticity as well, and I don't advocate changing every little thing that people want. However, I believe there are a small number of minor UO:R improvements, like blessing runebooks, that if implemented would greatly improve the quality of the UO experience on Second Age.

Thanks for your input.

[bOmb]

I dont remember either way precisely on this. However I do remember getting PKed in Shame often on OSI,

and I clearly remember running around trying to get off recall. I think if this system was in during t2a,

then the pks would use this tactics to stop people from recalling out. I just really dont recall ever using

debuffs while I played uo. I voted to keep it the same. 1v1's I know were never a big deal on OSI. Acuracy

over all, if it cant be proven correct/incorrect, then we should keep the system we have now because we

and the staff know this system has been researched IMO.

[WoozyRargar]

Here are the two questions that need to answered:

• Can debuffs interrupt a spell casting sequence if cast on a person on which that debuff has already been applied?
  Do debuffs interrupt if they are resisted?

I found this on UOSS: http://web.archive.org/web/200003060348 ... stance.htm

NON-DIRECT-DAMAGE ATTACK SPELLS
Note all of this explained thus far does not cover the effects of duration spells that do not do "direct damage". Most of those are, at this point, unresistable in their numeric affects on your stats. However, higher resistance has proven to significantly reduce the duration of these spells.

To me, this seems to say that debuffs were never resistible, and that higher Resisting Spells only passively decreased the debuff timer. This seems to lend credence to debuffs always disrupting since they always landed.

[Faust]

I think the prospect of implementing debuff interupts into the current spell interupt formula would be worthy to looking into. This would be a compromise on both sides. It can interupt spells, but not always just like it works now for all damage. This could also be strictly applied to resisting the spell altogether for no spell interupts. This would the easiest route to go and probably the most logical since the formula is based on damage and debuffs do absolutely none.

On the runebook topic I am very critical of this issue. I would never want to see blessed runebooks existing on a t2a shard. It was never blessed during t2a, and this was the intent from the start. Having to carry a rune around is how it was and it also brings back a nostalgia feel to the era. Blessed runebooks should never exist.

To me, this seems to say that debuffs were never resistible, and that higher Resisting Spells only passively decreased the debuff timer. This seems to lend credence to debuffs always disrupting since they always landed.

"Most of those are, at this point, unresistable in their numeric affects on your stats."

The wording for that only suggests that it is unresistable in the numeric affects on stats. However, this also makes sense if you look at it in the perspective of the UOR era. The spell was unresistable during that era, which would make the wording for this to be precise.

Here lies the problem with comparing the two era's. During the t2a era if you casted a debuff on a person while it was active it would create a fizzle animation, however during the UOR era it would use the standard animation of the spell if already active. The logicla point of view is that the fizzle animation popped up because it was already active, meaning that spell would nullify and not do it's disrupt. I am assuming this is the logical thinking behind it on UOSA.

[WoozyRargar]

I think the prospect of implementing debuff interupts into the current spell interupt formula would be worthy to looking into. This would be a compromise on both sides. It can interupt spells, but not always just like it works now for all damage. This could also be strictly applied to resisting the spell altogether for no spell interupts. This would the easiest route to go and probably the most logical since the formula is based on damage and debuffs do absolutely none.

I don't think this compromise is possible because, apparently, debuffs weren't resistible (see my post above).

On the runebook topic I am very critical of this issue. I would never want to see blessed runebooks existing on a t2a shard. It was never blessed during t2a, and this was the intent from the start. Having to carry a rune around is how it was and it also brings back a nostalgia feel to the era. Blessed runebooks should never exist

I can appreciate this mindset. I was merely expressing my opinion of what I think would be best for the shard in terms of increasing playability and fun by making some relatively benign changes that are still true to UO. Either way, this is not a deal breaker for me.

[Arcanus]

I think one of the reasons why a few people don’t remember debuffs being used for consistent disruption is because harm was used in their place by many people. I strongly believe harm was a reliable disrupting spell during the era, not a crapshoot like it is here. The use of the harm spell was one of the first PvP lessons during the era; here, a large majority of the top PvPers do not use it because it fails so often.

I believe magic arrow also disrupted, but was not as widely used due to the damage delay. When used as an opener, it could potentially disrupt your next spell if it reflected off your target.

Needless to say, I am very skeptical of the way disrupts are implemented here with the magery/damage-based chance to disrupt.

“Can debuffs interrupt a spell casting sequence if cast on a person on which that debuff has already been applied?”
Yes, consistently, with a “fizzle” animation as described by Faust.

“Do debuffs interrupt if they are resisted?”
This question surprised me, because throughout my entire UO experience, disrupts being resistable wasn’t even a question or issue of contention; it just didn’t happen.

Please also let it be known that I am not motivated because I think I would gain some sort of competitive advantage if these changes were implemented. On the contrary, my guild and I have adapted to the odd spell and weapon mechanics here (don’t get me started on the other things) and consistently win tournaments and events.

Disrupts here are simply not accurate, but more importantly, dueling is just not very fun. On one hand, it would be nice to not reduce PvP to disrupts and weapon hits, but on the other, dueling now is incredibly myopic and dilutes much of the “player skill” factor. The way most duels go now with the current mechanics is: prep ebolt/fs/explo, katana, hally, release spell, lightning spam, hally. This is because you can’t rely on anything besides lightning for consistent disruption, and even that can be tricky depending on if the person knows how to fast cast.

[Faust]

Needless to say, I am very skeptical of the way disrupts are implemented here with the magery/damage-based chance to disrupt.

Disrupts were based on a chance of how much damage you took while casting. This is applied to Second Age also. The formula may need to be re-evaluated again though. I am currently looking into it.

Formula Based Disrupt:
There will be a chance of the casting aborting if the mage is struck during his casting process. The chance is based on how much damage you took, and your ability at magery.

[Sivrik]

Leave it the way it is. If we keep on changing the pvp system, derrick and the rest of the shard staff will lose credibility due to everchanging combat systems, im tired of combat changing :/

[bOmb]

Leave it the way it is. If we keep on changing the pvp system, derrick and the rest of the shard staff will lose credibility due to everchanging combat systems, im tired of combat changing :/

I feel the same. Duels might not be the best, but how often did you guys 1v1 during t2a? Its not all about

dueling IMO.

[Derrick]

Aye. This is why I don't want to make further changes unless we can close the book on this question forever. We've got 250+ real people that play daily on UOSA and are accustomed to how things work now. Taking the chance on a change on a hunch is something that happened once here I don't want to repeat that mistake. Often incorrect changes result in discovery of contradictory evidence shortly after implementation, causing utter chaos.

[WoozyRargar]

Aye. This is why I don't want to make further changes unless we can close the book on this question forever. We've got 250+ real people that play daily on UOSA and are accustomed to how things work now. Taking the chance on a change on a hunch is something that happened once here I don't want to repeat that mistake. Often incorrect changes result in discovery of contradictory evidence shortly after implementation, causing utter chaos.

If in the beginning you had made it where debuffs always disrupted, I'm sure there would be people saying that it wasn't true to the original and to change it. They would be in the exact same situation we are in, fighting an uphill battle as there is currently no hard evidence to conclude debuffs DIDN'T disrupt. I've spent quite a bit of time searching in various places for anything related to either side's argument, and I've barely found anything besides what veterans "remember." If I found something conclusively proving us right or wrong, I'd come out with it.

I understand what you are saying about not wanting to rock the boat, but it's still disappointing. I'm fairly confident that people would be surprised by increased level of depth and quality of PvP (particularly in duels) and would adjust. Honestly, I think this change would really only affect upper tier PvP, since many players wouldn't put in the effort to maximizing the potential. Lower tier PvP, field fights, and everyone else would likely continue on business as usual for the most part.

Thank you for at least considering the change.