Can you disturb a spell? Is fizzle gonna be in the game?

One thing i liked with UO was that you could disturb a slower spell with a fast spell. It added alot to tactics and skills needed to perform well. UO was a tabtarget game but so far we have to see another MMO that took as much player skills. It could take almost a year to become that really skilled mage and some never mastered it.

UO had 64 spells and even if not all were used in PvP they added to loads of variables to come out ahead. Add being able to disturb to that and the ones with lots of practice and skills just about always came out ahead.

Poison during UO:R was very effective if you managed to lock a player poisoned with disturbing spells, a fast spell as harm was one that worked well if you had the skills to time it. Disturbing heals was also effective especially in teamfights. A disturbed heal could mean you or your friend were dead.

I want SOTA PvP to be a game that take lots of playerskill to master, then PvP would feel more competitive and harder to master. It will be a challenge and something to strive for.

 

Without skill requirements for pvp, we would all just be clicking our AI hotkey right? Nobody wants that, but magery should only be so much harder than other forms of combat. It doesn't make sense to have one form casual and another form worthy of being taught in a classroom (lest we end up with a ton of elitists).

The one downside to having 64 spells in UO (that I found) was that magery was significantly more useful than all future casting schools. My point is that, if magery is going to be loaded with spells, that should also entail a commitment to adding at least as much depth into future casting skills.

And on the topic of the thread title, I can't imagine a world where spells didn't get interrupted.

 

Yes, melee and archery need to be just as fun and skillbased. There were "elit" players in UO that played melee characters just amazingly well but most of them were melee hybrids ( + 75 dex) with some magery and meditation, they experimented with their Avatars to get a more powerful version of melee character. Being able to experiment with Avatars stats and skills will add to the PvP diversity, everyone will not have the same stats and skills. And i prefer to call these elit players players with very good playerskills cause they been practicing alot. My guild is just that kind of "elit" guild and if we will enter SOTA in numbers depends much on how skillbased the PvP system will be. That and what the glider will allow: will there be full loot, consequences both for blue and red players and a risk vs reward enviroment.

Back to topic, i think being able to disturb melee swings would add alot to the tactical game. That way a melee character have to watch out what spells the mage is about to cast and act thereafter. Just run in and hack and slash as fast as you can take little to no playerskills and will be plain boring fast.

I only played when UO had magery. Tried AoS for some months so i have little experience if magery were better then other schools AoS introduced like paladins and necromancers. AoS was itembased so it was actually a new PvP game where your gear mattered more then your playerskill.

 

If swinging was not an automated action, timing your swings to interrupt casts would add a new level of combat interaction between archers/melee fighters and mages. Regarding AoS, once you got the best items (as most pvpers did), chivalry and necromancy weren't bad options. I had more fun playing a fc/fcr capped chiv dexxer than anything else (between healing, chiv heals, and bleed, it was a very defensive class).

 

Spell interruption always struck me as something that's good on paper but very unfun in practise.

It's a miserable experience when you're outclassed and repeatedly fizzling your spells. If you're in melee, then you at least feel like you're fighting back, even if your loss is inevitable; if you're casting, it really feels like you're achieving nothing. As long as Magery isn't OP, so that other combat types can beat it without interrupts/fizzles, then it seems better to let people cast their spells.

Even if you're certain to lose a combat, it's better if you feel like you're at least doing something.

 

You have a good point Seneschal. Still, I feel like fizzling is what added the level of depth to casting that UO players are accustomed to. Without it, short length spells become almost useless, and paying attention to your opponent becomes almost unimportant. Spells like fireball, magic arrow, clumsy, feeblemind, weaken, and lightning become antiquated once you have curse, energy bolt and flamestrike. Likewise, you can cast high level spells all day without interrupt, making a few mages the perfect gank sqaud (4 unfizzable FS > 4 stealthing AI archers). Perhaps with the deck system, some spells may not interrupt, but its hard to say because the system is still in early development.

 

I'm of the notion that if I bounce a mace off the noggin of a mage, that should serve to distract them a bit.

 

Depth and tactical complexity of combat are what we want, but if fizzling due to being interrupted in casting is too common, then it's rather hard on less skilled players. In an ideal world, you want the unskilled player to lose 99.9% of the time, but to always feel like they had a chance. Seeing all your spells fizzle means feeling like you had no chance.

I think a lot of it will come down to the details of the timing - i.e. how easy is it to get off those short casting time spells when someone is trying to hit you? Interrupt fizzling is probably better in than not, but means a lot of careful number tweaking of spell cast time vs. speed of weapon swings, etc.

One hopes this game will be balanced enough that the gank squad issue doesn't apply... ideally 4 high level mages and 4 high level archers should be reasonably equal. Of course it'll depend on how interrupting archers/missing with bows etc. etc. works as well in the end. We shall see!

 

Range is the mage's friend, just as it is with archers. If I choose to go pure melee, then I am vulnerable to ranged attacks, and have no effective counter. If you can keep me at range, I should die. Conversely, if I can close that range, you should die.

 

Agreed. As long as screen viewable area vs. move speed vs. casting time is such that it actually is possible to keep someone at range at least for a little while. As I said, you want people to feel like they had a chance - they should be saying "If only I'd run just a couple of steps further before turning and casting" rather than "Wow, it's impossible to get spells off" even if, in fact, it is impossible for them to have won the fight.

 

This is what the Alpha/Beta tests are for. To test for balance.

 

I can imagine it, and I don't like it. I hope the developers feel the same way.

 

Agreed, there should certainly be spell interrupt/fizzle.

The thing to remember is that there's more to a good play experience than balanced combat, and spell fizzle is a high-risk area for creating a bad play experience.

 

I agree, when we're talking about the traditional role of mages in CRPGs. There's no reason you couldn't have a mage class that specializes in melee combat. I'm hoping SotA's classless system can shake up some of these roles. Some life-sucking necromancer out there might just be waiting for you to get close enough..

 

RG has mentioned that players won't be able to master all skills, so if you want to be a mage, you can be a mage, if you want to be a warrior, you can be a warrior, and if you want to know a bit of both, you can do that too, but you can't be both a master mage AND a master warrior. Throw in some crafting skills on top of that, and you really have the potential to gimp yourself beyond all recognition.

 

I love fizzle. Interrupts definitely add a tactical dimension. I never had the feeling during old UO that interrupting spells should be removed. Perhaps there could be diminishing returns on spells like magic arrow. If you cast too many of them the enemy mage builds a resistance to that spell.

 

I would say that there should be fast spells and slow spells. If you want something amazing, you have to put up with cast time and risk getting fizzled. If you are fighting someone who is interrupting your casts, you use the fast cast spells to fight back, they are too quick to interrupt, but don't do very much.

I'd like to point out that there is NOTHING wrong with a pure caster at point blank being beaten senseless by a heavy melee character. Pull them forty feet apart, drop a trench between them, and run the example again, and the caster will turn the melee into a steaming pile of ash. IF I can get close to a caster, and he is pure spell, and I have good melee skills, I should have a tremendous advantage. Just like fighting someone who is using a bow. At forty feet, I die with a couple of arrows in my gut. At ten feet, I will still get shot, but I might make it to him with enough strength left to attack, or maybe he'll dodge aside and plug me a few more times. At one foot, I knock his bow aside and decorate the ground with his kidneys.

As long as spell users have a fair share of advantages, getting fizzled can (and I agree *should*) be one of their disadvantages. They should have SOME recourse, such as instant cast spells, but too much of that and there's no reason to play anything but a mage.

 

I think a caster getting hit in the face should definitely be interrupted. Since they maintain the advantage if they keep enemies at range, it just makes sense, balance-wise.

Also, people should not be alone. You should run with a posse. Having people with different specializations working together always helps. A 1v1 fight is very rare in PvP. If you say x class is overpowered compared to y, then you should bring a friend. Trying to balance melee vs ranged is an exercise in futility.

 

Exactly. In a game like Starcraft you don't go in with just your siege tanks. You may destroy a couple of buildings, but you're gonna get toasted. You have to take other units to protect them long enough to do the big damage.