lesser heal healed less

[Sandro]

maybe i misspoke or have been playing this shard too much but i don't recall 13/14 point miniheals. that's damn near half a greater heal.

lol?

13-14 is clearly half of 40-50

[Lupos]

I agree that without evidence we can't keep campaigning for a change. There are many aspects of the game that feel different in 2011 purely on the basis of the high speed connections and improved hardware.

Mini heal spam wasn't as common a tactic in 1999 purely on the basis that so many people were still on shithouse pcs and sub-par net connections. Trying this on my old pc used to cause major hang ups and a well timed greater heal was much more effective.

You want era accuracy? Play on 486 and fire up the old 33.6k modem!

[Faust]

This has been posted one too many times on these forums already...


Pre T2A Heal (straight from the original decompiled code - value equates to 10% of magery plus a random value of 1-6)

Code: Select all

Q5MJ = ((getSkillLevel(user, 0x19) / 0x0A) + dice(0x01, 0x06));

T2A/Pre UOR Heal Screenshot




UOR Stratics Description

Heals ((Magery / 10) + (1 to 3)) damage. Absolutely vital in combat. This spell cannot be interrupted. Period.

UOR Ultima Online Website

Restores Hit Points (Caster's Magery/10) + (1 to 5)
(11-15 pts. at 100 magery) Cannot be Resisted

Present Day Stratics Description

Heals ((Magery / 10) + (1 to 3)) damage. Absolutely vital in combat, as it is the fastest way to heal for a mage.

Present Day Ultima Online Website

Restores Hit Points (Caster's Magery/10) + (1 to 3)
(9-13 pts. at 100 magery) Cannot be Resisted

Here is a very good piece/set of information on mini heal that has been generated over the last few several years. The one piece of information that is clearly present is the first part of the formula that divides the magery skill by ten which ALWAYS yields a value of 10 or more without a doubt at GM magery. This clearly shows you that mini heal formula is 99% accurate if not dead accurate here. The original code value is the most authentic since we know for a fact it was actually used where the rest of the evidence or information is just a description of the spell used on guides or web sites that are not always a hundred percent accurate but pretty close most of the time.

It would be ludicrous to change this mechanic based on an opinion/guess without someone actually bringing forth some VERY substantial piece of evidence to counter argue what we have here already.

[Matty]

maybe i misspoke or have been playing this shard too much but i don't recall 13/14 point miniheals. that's damn near half a greater heal.

lol?

13-14 is clearly half of 40-50

either you're confused or your math skills are not elite, son.

[platy]

either you're confused or your math skills are not elite, son.

I was thinking the same thing.. about you..

[Derrick]

There's no need to turn a perfectly acceptable topic into a flame war. This thread was clearly created for the intent of making sure we have this mechanic correct. This is the goal of this forum; it would be appreciated of posts can stick to the topic.

[SoundofGod]

My memory is 7-10HP heals were avg, 11 was max. But, like people have said, "The code doesn't lie."
I think that our collective T2A memory is clouded by other free shards... I try to keep that in mind when "remembering".
Also, I remember using a mage during t2a with 85 magery, because it was "good enough". I used to macro my red mage up to 75 just so i could go out and PK. My mini-heals were probably 7-10 because my magery was low. Why GM magery when you have 7 reds all dumping EB on a miner?

[Panthor the Hated]

[edited and warned.]

[Topcock]

It's not that lesser heal healed less. The way the casting time and delays were set up rewarded individuals for using greater heal over lesser heal. No server has ever got the correct casting time and delays set up the right way and I'm not sure that it is a bad thing, because the gameplay was a bit slower and most individuals prefer faster gamplay. I think just about every timer is faster on here, except maybe the fast cast system, because it should just be based off the recast delay instead of 3 seconds of waiting. [edit: nevermind, looks like you fixed fast cast from the last time i played]

If you have the right timers then it would make things like lesser heal and disrupting individuals with clumsy less useful. The timers were the same in till AOS and you would never see anyone use first circle disruption even in UOR. They would either use harm and poison, one fast casted off another, because they realize after the second spell they would be slowed for a moment (by the recast delay) giving the opponent a chance to recover. They would hope that they could get a corp por up before the other individual would fast cast a g heal off their cure and g heal before the corp por damage would hit.

There were pretty much four important facets of spell delays: casting speed of initial spell, disrupt delay, recast delay, and the damage delay from each delayed spell (these were the same for all delayed damage spells). The most complicated one is obviously the disrupt delay, because its based off circle and depending at one point your disrupted in the spell there might be a different outcome. It pretty much is set up to where if you get disrupted in the beginning you would need to wait for the spell to finish to restart the cast, but if you were disrupted towards the end of the spell you would not have to wait at all. I pretty much invented dagger disruption in UOR pvp and you would NEVER disrupt a spell higher than poison or harm, otherwise you would be sitting there waiting for the FS or corp por to finish even though you disrupted it at the very beginning. Now when someone was trying to cure and getting harmed it was a different story because of the circle of spell and the fact they usually get disrupted towards the end. The disrupt delay is pretty much just the spell finishing up before it can cast again. There would be no recast delay involved, because there was never any spell fully cast. Each time a spell is disrupted in a row it would have less time to wait though.

But yeah, the timers would be much slower like casting speed at .5 * circle, disrupt delay pretty much having to cast the whole spell before casting again, recast between 1-2 seconds, and spell damage delay between 1-2 seconds. I've never tried them out so I can't say the exact numbers for the last two. I don't think anyone wants gameplay slower, so I don't see it as being worth it.

[Faust]

Spell timers are based on a one tick increment starting at 0.5 for first circle.

1st - 0.5
2nd - 0.75
3rd - 1.0
etc...

This was ripped straight from the original code before the t2a era in mid '98. Also, the information using these same exact delay times were placed on the actual Ultima Online web site during the UOR timeframe. The same delays are still present on their web site to this very day.

All 1st Circle spells cost 4 mana and take .5 seconds to cast

All 2nd Circle spells cost 6 mana and take .75 seconds to cast

All 3rd Circle spells cost 9 mana and take 1 second to cast

These same delays existed in pre-t2a '98 and during UOR up to this day...

Recast delays have been discussed here before and dont really feel like going into that again.

[Topcock]

Spell timers are based on a one tick increment starting at 0.5 for first circle.

1st - 0.5
2nd - 0.75
3rd - 1.0
etc...

This was ripped straight from the original code before the t2a era in mid '98. Also, the information using these same exact delay times were placed on the actual Ultima Online web site during the UOR timeframe. The same delays are still present on their web site to this very day.

All 1st Circle spells cost 4 mana and take .5 seconds to cast

All 2nd Circle spells cost 6 mana and take .75 seconds to cast

All 3rd Circle spells cost 9 mana and take 1 second to cast

These same delays existed in pre-t2a '98 and during UOR up to this day...

Recast delays have been discussed here before and dont really feel like going into that again.

I'm not going to get into an argument over spell casting timers, because I don't care that much, nor even play the game that much. I don't think I would even want them that way, but it doesn't change the fact that they were that way. You can go by uo.com, I'll go by uo.stratics.com which in till AOS came out had them at .5 * circle. I put much more trust into a website whose job it was to compile this information. I trust myself even more than I would trust uo.stratics. That is enough for me. I'm not trying to persuade anyone; just stating a fact.

http://web.archive.org/web/199905081703 ... pellsn.htm

[MatronDeWinter]

Spell timers are based on a one tick increment starting at 0.5 for first circle.

1st - 0.5
2nd - 0.75
3rd - 1.0
etc...

This was ripped straight from the original code before the t2a era in mid '98. Also, the information using these same exact delay times were placed on the actual Ultima Online web site during the UOR timeframe. The same delays are still present on their web site to this very day.

All 1st Circle spells cost 4 mana and take .5 seconds to cast

All 2nd Circle spells cost 6 mana and take .75 seconds to cast

All 3rd Circle spells cost 9 mana and take 1 second to cast

These same delays existed in pre-t2a '98 and during UOR up to this day...

Recast delays have been discussed here before and dont really feel like going into that again.

I'm not going to get into an argument over spell casting timers, because I don't care that much, nor even play the game that much. I don't think I would even want them that way, but it doesn't change the fact that they were that way. You can go by uo.com, I'll go by uo.stratics.com which in till AOS came out had them at .5 * circle. I put much more trust into a website whose job it was to compile this information. I trust myself even more than I would trust uo.stratics. That is enough for me. I'm not trying to persuade anyone; just stating a fact.

http://web.archive.org/web/199905081703 ... pellsn.htm

That is a very good point. I tend to agree with what you are saying here.

[Kander]

I agree as well!

[Derrick]

I'm not going to get into an argument over spell casting timers, because I don't care that much, nor even play the game that much. I don't think I would even want them that way, but it doesn't change the fact that they were that way. You can go by uo.com, I'll go by uo.stratics.com which in till AOS came out had them at .5 * circle. I put much more trust into a website whose job it was to compile this information. I trust myself even more than I would trust uo.stratics. That is enough for me. I'm not trying to persuade anyone; just stating a fact.

http://web.archive.org/web/199905081703 ... pellsn.htm

That is a very good point. I tend to agree with what you are saying here.

It's indeed an excellent point, and compelling. However, it's equally or more compelling that the pre-T2A OSI code was 0.25/circle, the UO:R cast times were 0.25/circle, and later Stratics articles cited 0.25/circle, and no change to cast speeds were ever cited to be made during this period. It is however known that "ticks" which while are optimally 0.25 secs were variable based on server load, and that due to this, things did significantly slow down on OSI servers at times. This is a single source yet widely cited page.

[Topcock]

I'm not going to get into an argument over spell casting timers, because I don't care that much, nor even play the game that much. I don't think I would even want them that way, but it doesn't change the fact that they were that way. You can go by uo.com, I'll go by uo.stratics.com which in till AOS came out had them at .5 * circle. I put much more trust into a website whose job it was to compile this information. I trust myself even more than I would trust uo.stratics. That is enough for me. I'm not trying to persuade anyone; just stating a fact.

http://web.archive.org/web/199905081703 ... pellsn.htm

That is a very good point. I tend to agree with what you are saying here.

It's indeed an excellent point, and compelling. However, it's equally or more compelling that the pre-T2A OSI code was 0.25/circle, the UO:R cast times were 0.25/circle, and later Stratics articles cited 0.25/circle, and no change to cast speeds were ever cited to be made during this period. It is however known that "ticks" which while are optimally 0.25 secs were variable based on server load, and that due to this, things did significantly slow down on OSI servers at times. This is a single source yet widely cited page.

What do you mean "the UO:R cast times were 0.25/circle"? I don't see anyway to know that unless you timed them yourself. I believe the demo code was probably 0.25 per circle, but I don't hold the demo in high regard and I don't know if it was based off actual gameplay. I see it as a tool to show the basics of the game; it could possibly be based off pre-t2a gameplay.

Anyway, I know that UO:R pvp had cast times that were .5 * circle. I was probably in the top 10 duelers of UO:R at one point beating the best from Catskills and Atlantic. I would spend literally four to five hours a day doing nothing, but dueling on test center. I never dueled on 56k, just my cable connection. I would seriously question the validity of an individual who thinks that any current RunUO server has the correct spell timers. I don't see how they could be so unperceptive, but I guess time can confuse individuals and most people probably didn't take it as seriously as I did.

It is possible that t2a or pre-t2a might have been different. I didn't start playing till 2 or 3 months after UO:R came out. Like you said though, I have never seen a patch that stated a different in spell casting timers, and I think most people would have said something was different. Thats why I'm sure it was always the same at least from t2a on. I'm not trying to convince anyone though, and I have found individuals who I respect throughout playing that have agreed with me. The closest server I played that had the correct timers was probably UO:Rebirth, a pre-t2a server. They were much closer to .5 per circle. I actually prefer pre-t2a and UO:R pvp over t2a pvp, but there is no server with pre-t2a pvp anymore, and all the UO:R servers are inaccurate in almost every way.

When it comes down to it though, there is really no need to argue or debate. According to most signs (especially the demo which is the bane of this shard imo) it looks like I'm wrong, even though I know I'm right. Knowing your right isn't enough when other players have "facts" that make it look like your wrong. This is why I gave up finding an accurate server a long time ago or trying to help, because it is relative and certain sources can make it seem one way or another. I'm just looking for a fun server to play at this point. If you ever made a pre-t2a server I would definitely play that lol.