lesser heal healed less

[nightshark]

When you know you're right but all the facts point in the opposite direction, it usually means you're wrong.

I never recall harm taking a full second to cast, nor ebolt 3 seconds, flamestrike 3.5 seconds. I'm not sure if you realise what an awfully long time that is in the heat of battle. PvP would have been more than just slow during the UO:R era if this were the case - it would have been simply impossible to play as a mage. A fencer would have a good 3 opportunities to disturb a single spell.

[Topcock]

When you know you're right but all the facts point in the opposite direction, it usually means you're wrong.

I never recall harm taking a full second to cast, nor ebolt 3 seconds, flamestrike 3.5 seconds. I'm not sure if you realise what an awfully long time that is in the heat of battle. PvP would have been more than just slow during the UO:R era if this were the case - it would have been simply impossible to play as a mage. A fencer would have a good 3 opportunities to disturb a single spell.

Well it depends how many facts there are, and how strong the facts are. There is at least one website that agrees with me. I'm fine with people thinking I'm wrong, but I've met many individuals that agree with me, as well.

Yes, PvP was considerably slower than RunUO has had it. That's one reason why it would be a bad move to make accurate spell delays. Players have gotten used to the fast pace RunUO pvp, and it would harm any server that tried to be accurate. My original intention of posting was to make the point that disturbing with low circle spells and lesser heal being used more was, because of this inaccuracy. Not that it should be changed.

[MatronDeWinter]

Example:

If we did not have Designer Dragons testimony on the topic, we could reference hundreds of websites, forum posts, and newsgroups that claim eating food aids in skill gain (among other things). Fortunately we know this is not true, but this is a prime example of how "facts" can point in the wrong direction.

[Faust]

I'm amazed by how many people take Stratics as the final say without a doubt about always being accurate. We know Stratics was relatively accurate on a lot of mechanical functions with in the game but we also know they was not always a hundred percent accurate on everything based in the game. For example, spell damage and resist functions inside of the demo match the '99 stratics web site. Are you going to tell me that the demo used the same code for that but not spell delays? Those that are not familiar with Batlin's demo decompilation project should really take the time to look into its validity before jumping boat on the 'oh it's just a demo' band wagon. The demo is a complete carbon copy of the original code that OSI used in mid '98. However, just like stated before the demo isn't the final word making it a done deal and many other sources are used to validate the mechanics.

Why don't we take a look at a few pieces of information here about spell delays?

Present Day Stratics

Why are the delays listed on Stratics now the same as the demos AND ultima online's web site spell delay information that date all the way back to UOR?

But the Stratics 2008 web site still isted the same old inaccurate 0.5 * Circle formula with in two different portions of the site for each spells even though Ultima Online's main web site lists the SAME 0.25 per circle formula 6 years prior... Kaivan has already confirmed the 0.25 formula on modern production shards roughly a year ago using Razor's macroing capacity using the delays.

I think it's crystal clear that Stratics got it wrong on the casting delays when it listed the 0.5 * Circle formula for spells...


Btw, welcome back mlc.. and we are still talking about spell delays ol' buddy.

[Topcock]

I'm amazed by how many people take Stratics as the final say without a doubt about always being accurate. We know Stratics was relatively accurate on a lot of mechanical functions with in the game but we also know they was not always a hundred percent accurate on everything based in the game. For example, spell damage and resist functions inside of the demo match the '99 stratics web site. Are you going to tell me that the demo used the same code for that but not spell delays? Those that are not familiar with Batlin's demo decompilation project should really take the time to look into its validity before jumping boat on the 'oh it's just a demo' band wagon. The demo is a complete carbon copy of the original code that OSI used in mid '98. However, just like stated before the demo isn't the final word making it a done deal and many other sources are used to validate the mechanics.

Why don't we take a look at a few pieces of information here about spell delays?

Present Day Stratics

Why are the delays listed on Stratics now the same as the demos AND ultima online's web site spell delay information that date all the way back to UOR?

But the Stratics 2008 web site still isted the same old inaccurate 0.5 * Circle formula with in two different portions of the site for each spells even though Ultima Online's main web site lists the SAME 0.25 per circle formula 6 years prior... Kaivan has already confirmed the 0.25 formula on modern production shards roughly a year ago using Razor's macroing capacity using the delays.

I think it's crystal clear that Stratics got it wrong on the casting delays when it listed the 0.5 * Circle formula for spells...


Btw, welcome back mlc.. and we are still talking about spell delays ol' buddy.

I knew you would realize it was me. I'm not really playing any UO right now or spending much time on the computer. This is just one of the issues that I will never change my opinion on for as long as I live. This comes from the fact that I only time I played was UOR, the only thing I did was duel all day long, and the only connection I ever played with was a cable modem. I find it hard to believe that anyone who played a great deal of time would believe that the spell casting timers or delays were as fast as they currently set. I'm not really trying to prove anything, because I don't care that much. I'm just amazed at the general lack of perception from the rest of the Ultima Online community on this issue.

I don't think Stratics got it wrong. There was a lot of information on magery that was hand done by individuals, whereas UO.com just copies and pastes its own information. I also don't put much stock into the demo. I won't change the way I feel on these issues so we can just agree to disagree.

Edit: The 0.5 spell casting per circle might not be right. I've never had the chance to check them out on an actual RunUO server. But I'm also sure these are a lot faster than they are accurate. UORebirth spell casting timers (not the delays) were actually the closest I've ever seen. I'm not sure what they used and there is no way of knowing without their forum information, which is gone.

[Topcock]

Actually, I just found out what spell castings UORebirth used from this thread: http://www.runuo.com/forums/general-dis ... urate.html

return TimeSpan.FromSeconds( 0.5 + ((int)Circle)*0.5 );

I'm not familiar with the code, but wouldn't the int start at 0 for 1st circle and then go by 0.5 per circle making it exactly like uo.stratics had. This is the most accurate I have ever seen on a RunUo server and I honestly thought they didn't use 0.5 per circle, but it seems like the did. I have absolutely no doubt now that they were right. UORebirth didn't have the right recast delay, disrupt delays, or spell damage delays, I don't think. Definitely the right spell casting timers, though.

[archaicsubrosa77]

erm...0 seconds for first level would have absolutely no animation.

[Panthor the Hated]

not necessarily true

[Faust]

erm...0 seconds for first level would have absolutely no animation.

(int)Circle reference variable is based off a spell array list where spell circle one is recognized as zero.

Actually, I just found out what spell castings UORebirth used from this thread: http://www.runuo.com/forums/general-dis ... urate.html

return TimeSpan.FromSeconds( 0.5 + ((int)Circle)*0.5 );

I'm not familiar with the code, but wouldn't the int start at 0 for 1st circle and then go by 0.5 per circle making it exactly like uo.stratics had. This is the most accurate I have ever seen on a RunUo server and I honestly thought they didn't use 0.5 per circle, but it seems like the did. I have absolutely no doubt now that they were right. UORebirth didn't have the right recast delay, disrupt delays, or spell damage delays, I don't think. Definitely the right spell casting timers, though.

Rebirth was inaccurate on a huge number of their mechanics.. running and shooting is the one greatest example of them all. Secondly, there was no recast delay in Ultima Online until November '98 when OSI attached a skill delay to the spells that created the infamous 'fast casting' we all ended up being familiar with in UOR. T2A was released in stores October 1st, 1998 and insta hit didn't get patched in until February '99.

The code can be written in many different ways depending what exactly you wanted to do... IE: return TimeSpan.FromSeconds( 0.5 + ((int)Circle + 1) ); would be the same as the other formula you posted. If you actually based your code off ticks like OSI did with your code it could look like return 2 + ((int)Circle * 2); or return ((int)Circle + 1) * 2; in integer form. However, we know the RunUO code is nothing like the original OSI code that ALWAYS used ticks(0.25 intervals) for their timing in integer form.

Again, the demo is a carbon copy version of Ultima Online in mid '98 and everything is there including the server code that they used. Batlin has even successfully managed to load a server up that allows multiple people to log into it by using that code. I still would highly suggest looking into it if you are skeptical because we know for a fact it's 100% accurate to the time period it was last compiled in '98. We know for sure that the casting delay started at 2 ticks and increased by 1 per circle in mid '98. However, if someone wanted to argue the difference of a mechanic at a later period that was based on the demo is a different story... but giving the fact that UO's web site listed the same formula during UOR and that they still use that same formula to this very day would mean they would had to of rogue patched in the 0.5 * Circle formula after mid '98 without notice and rogue patched it back out during UOR in the same manner. This is a long stretch and would make absolutely no sense at all though.

[nightshark]

One of the biggest reasons I don't agree with topcock is that I quit OSI in 2003, and immediately went to UOGamers:Hybrid. The biggest difference in PvP I noticed was spell damage, I didn't notice anything at all with spell casting times (excluding delays). The difference in spell casting time from one formula to the other is 1.25s for casting a 6th level spell. That almost doubles the casting time, and would not only be noticeable, but wouldn't feel like the same game at all.

[Faust]

There are two other well known facts that defy the logic too.

1. Regular Spell Damage Delay
2. Explosion Spell Damage Delay

We know that the spell damage delay is one second and that the explosion spell damage delay is three seconds long.

The energy bolt spell with the 0.5 * Circle formula is 12 ticks or 3 seconds long... this means there would be no possible chance to EVER sync an explosion ebolt combo. By the time the energy bolt spell even finishes casting there will still be a total of 4 more ticks until the damage even applies when the explosion spell damage lands. This is even with fast casting... a non-fast casted spell would make that two ticks off even further.

Btw, MLC.. all the spell delays(cast, recast, disrupt, etc.. times) has actually not changed since you last tried the shard. The only thing different is that the RunUO timing mechanism was removed and the original tick based system was implemented.

[Topcock]

One of the biggest reasons I don't agree with topcock is that I quit OSI in 2003, and immediately went to UOGamers:Hybrid. The biggest difference in PvP I noticed was spell damage, I didn't notice anything at all with spell casting times (excluding delays). The difference in spell casting time from one formula to the other is 1.25s for casting a 6th level spell. That almost doubles the casting time, and would not only be noticeable, but wouldn't feel like the same game at all.

Well, I noticed a tremendous change from OSI UO:R pvp vs. RunUO UO:R pvp. I was one of the top duelers in UO:R so maybe it was a little easier for me to notice then other people. You are right. It didn't feel like the same game at all, at least to me and others in my guild at the time.

[Topcock]

erm...0 seconds for first level would have absolutely no animation.

(int)Circle reference variable is based off a spell array list where spell circle one is recognized as zero.

Actually, I just found out what spell castings UORebirth used from this thread: http://www.runuo.com/forums/general-dis ... urate.html

return TimeSpan.FromSeconds( 0.5 + ((int)Circle)*0.5 );

I'm not familiar with the code, but wouldn't the int start at 0 for 1st circle and then go by 0.5 per circle making it exactly like uo.stratics had. This is the most accurate I have ever seen on a RunUo server and I honestly thought they didn't use 0.5 per circle, but it seems like the did. I have absolutely no doubt now that they were right. UORebirth didn't have the right recast delay, disrupt delays, or spell damage delays, I don't think. Definitely the right spell casting timers, though.

Rebirth was inaccurate on a huge number of their mechanics.. running and shooting is the one greatest example of them all. Secondly, there was no recast delay in Ultima Online until November '98 when OSI attached a skill delay to the spells that created the infamous 'fast casting' we all ended up being familiar with in UOR. T2A was released in stores October 1st, 1998 and insta hit didn't get patched in until February '99.

The code can be written in many different ways depending what exactly you wanted to do... IE: return TimeSpan.FromSeconds( 0.5 + ((int)Circle + 1) ); would be the same as the other formula you posted. If you actually based your code off ticks like OSI did with your code it could look like return 2 + ((int)Circle * 2); or return ((int)Circle + 1) * 2; in integer form. However, we know the RunUO code is nothing like the original OSI code that ALWAYS used ticks(0.25 intervals) for their timing in integer form.

Again, the demo is a carbon copy version of Ultima Online in mid '98 and everything is there including the server code that they used. Batlin has even successfully managed to load a server up that allows multiple people to log into it by using that code. I still would highly suggest looking into it if you are skeptical because we know for a fact it's 100% accurate to the time period it was last compiled in '98. We know for sure that the casting delay started at 2 ticks and increased by 1 per circle in mid '98. However, if someone wanted to argue the difference of a mechanic at a later period that was based on the demo is a different story... but giving the fact that UO's web site listed the same formula during UOR and that they still use that same formula to this very day would mean they would had to of rogue patched in the 0.5 * Circle formula after mid '98 without notice and rogue patched it back out during UOR in the same manner. This is a long stretch and would make absolutely no sense at all though.

I wasn't saying that UO:Rebirth was accurate in most aspects. I realize that there archery system and healing system were pretty much made up. I was just talking about the spell casting timers. Not any other delays or any other aspect of pvp. UO:Rebirth was still the more fun I ever had on a RunUO server. I am just comparing the spell casting timers to every other RunUO server I had played and OSI and they felt the most accurate. I never bothered to look them up and I actually thought they might have been faster than 0.5 per circle, but it ends up they were at 0.5 per circle which makes me happy and that much more confident in my assessment. Not that I really had any doubt to begin with, but it is nice to know I have actually had experience with 0.5 per circle and can verify it was correct.

I looked back on some of past patches of this shard and I think they might have tried it out, but that would have been before they put in some other features that would have helped. Mainly, the fact that once you resist lower level spells they do not always disrupt and they let an individual equip a weapon while casting. Right now equipping a weapon while casting isn't much different than after casting, because the spell takes almost no time to cast in the first place. There would be a much bigger difference between the two with the right spell casting timers.

I believe that you guys copied the demo. There are two things I question about the demo; it's purpose and the time frame of code. It's purpose might just be to show the basics of the game and it might not have even taken that much code from the actual game or at least any more than would be needed. I'm guessing there would be a difference between having code on a live server and then trying to put a demo together that doesn't need to connect to the internet. This is probably more of a stretch than saying it was just copied from an earlier time period and the spell timers haven't been changed yet. Either way, for me, it casts a shadow of doubt on the whole of the demo, because I have no reservations that the spell casting timers aren't right. I can stand alone in this assumption and be comfortable.

[Topcock]

There are two other well known facts that defy the logic too.

1. Regular Spell Damage Delay
2. Explosion Spell Damage Delay

We know that the spell damage delay is one second and that the explosion spell damage delay is three seconds long.

The energy bolt spell with the 0.5 * Circle formula is 12 ticks or 3 seconds long... this means there would be no possible chance to EVER sync an explosion ebolt combo. By the time the energy bolt spell even finishes casting there will still be a total of 4 more ticks until the damage even applies when the explosion spell damage lands. This is even with fast casting... a non-fast casted spell would make that two ticks off even further.

Btw, MLC.. all the spell delays(cast, recast, disrupt, etc.. times) has actually not changed since you last tried the shard. The only thing different is that the RunUO timing mechanism was removed and the original tick based system was implemented.

I'm not sure how you exactly know those two delays. If your going by the UODemo then I would imagine they would have to be scaled to the spell casting timers, and if your going by what individuals have said, then they just give rough estimates most of the time. For example, most people who fast casted said they had to wait in till 2.2 seconds after they cast the spell to cast the next one. Does this mean the recast delay is 2 seconds? All fast casting did was cancel the recast delay by waiting for the recast delay to pass. So that would make it seem longer than the 1 second which I'm guessing it is set at now.

Anyway, if I had an hour or two I could come up with the correct timers on just about everything. The only hard delay to come up with is the disrupt delay. There are a few things I would have to look for, and if I found them I would know it would be right. I thought the delays were all the same; at least they have been since I've been here. I like what they did with being able to equip while casting and the insta hit seeming more believable. The equip while casting seems kind of pointless, because the spell casting timers aren't right, though. I'm really more of a fan of Pre-T2A and UO:R pvp than T2A, but I might start dueling again if I find time.

BTW do you know how the healing system really was in Pre-T2A. I always wondered that.

[Faust]

The explosion delay in the demo and current UO are both 3 seconds long. Also, both spell casting times are 1.75s long.

The delay imposed on casting 'recast delay' only occurs if you dont wait 2.25s until using the spells effect.

I just dont see any sense in why OSI would intentionally change their casting delays in the code they transfered into the demo exe that are still being used to this very day.. unless they changed it before t2a without any indication of the change, remove that change sometime before now with the same rogue notification and implemented the same delays used in '98. For this to hold true we would either have to have a nostradamus effect or some insane rogue patches that make no sense at all. Back in IPY there was belief in myself that the Stratics article was right but that was before all the logic came together. Now it's just senseless to take it into consideration since it defies any common sense logic.

Not entirely positive on the exact nature of the bandage and healing skill back then. However, know it involved a very long delay and nothing quite like the way it worked on Rebirth. I'm not sure exactly where it's located in the hundred or so files of the decompiled demo but it's in there somewhere.