Wags
04-30-2019, 12:40 AM
I have created characters on this server looking for a classic version of EQ. This server is very close, but the custom change of not allowing spell cancelling is detrimental to the experience. I'm going to give reasons as to why I believe the alteration of this game mechanic should be reverted to its "live" state, i.e. why spell cancelling should be allowed. Please don't just jump past this post; really reconsider putting this mechanic back into the game. I spoke in game to players in out of character chat and every person that replied to me said how unfair this was. If you won't take just my word for it, then I beg you to listen to your players and take a poll and see what everyone thinks. I play both melee and caster characters and I sincerely believe this to be unfair.
Summary:
Melee characters already have many advantages over casters. Melee can fight while moving, melee can't be resisted but spells can be resisted every time, melee can't be interrupted, caster damage is nerfed in pvp, melee damage can be sped up, you can melee indefinitely without running out of endurance while casting is heavily limited by the amount of mana. Adding another advantage by not allowing spell cancelling is severe overkill and shows melee favoritism.
Explanations:
When casting a spell, several things can happen that will cause the loss of concentration of the caster and lead to the interruption of the spell. This is already a one sided mechanic; melee will keep swinging whether they have taken a hit, moved, got flung into the air, etc. There is nothing other than a full stun that will stop a melee character from swinging and attacking. This leads to the constant ability of melee characters to cause uninterrupted damage. So none of the melee offensive damage can be stopped, it can only be mitigated. Every single point of a caster's offensive damage can be prevented through interrupting spells. So already, melee has a massive advantage.
Now consider spell cast times. An average spell may have 4 or 5 seconds cast time. This means the caster must stand immobile for the entire duration to cast a spell while using a weapon has no such restriction. The entire time the enemy gets to attack and use abilities to try to damage the caster or interrupt the spell cast. If the cast is interrupted, then not only does the caster take damage, they also do no offensive damage for that time commitment. Now consider being trapped in a spell cast that you know is going to be interrupted. Now you are a sitting duck, unable to act until the full cast duration has expired while getting pounded on. People say that you should use "smart" casts, but why don't melee then have to use "smart" weapon attacks and suffer a complete shutdown of offense.
Now think about the realistic aspect of casting a spell. If you were casting a spell and something happened that caused your concentration to slip, you would immediately stop casting and start over. If you were casting a spell and a warrior bashes you right in the mouth, you aren't going to keep talking and saying the incantation, you will have to immediately start over. Spell cancelling enhances the role playing aspect of the game by giving it a more realistic feel.
I invite anyone to post their opinions in this thread.
Summary:
Melee characters already have many advantages over casters. Melee can fight while moving, melee can't be resisted but spells can be resisted every time, melee can't be interrupted, caster damage is nerfed in pvp, melee damage can be sped up, you can melee indefinitely without running out of endurance while casting is heavily limited by the amount of mana. Adding another advantage by not allowing spell cancelling is severe overkill and shows melee favoritism.
Explanations:
When casting a spell, several things can happen that will cause the loss of concentration of the caster and lead to the interruption of the spell. This is already a one sided mechanic; melee will keep swinging whether they have taken a hit, moved, got flung into the air, etc. There is nothing other than a full stun that will stop a melee character from swinging and attacking. This leads to the constant ability of melee characters to cause uninterrupted damage. So none of the melee offensive damage can be stopped, it can only be mitigated. Every single point of a caster's offensive damage can be prevented through interrupting spells. So already, melee has a massive advantage.
Now consider spell cast times. An average spell may have 4 or 5 seconds cast time. This means the caster must stand immobile for the entire duration to cast a spell while using a weapon has no such restriction. The entire time the enemy gets to attack and use abilities to try to damage the caster or interrupt the spell cast. If the cast is interrupted, then not only does the caster take damage, they also do no offensive damage for that time commitment. Now consider being trapped in a spell cast that you know is going to be interrupted. Now you are a sitting duck, unable to act until the full cast duration has expired while getting pounded on. People say that you should use "smart" casts, but why don't melee then have to use "smart" weapon attacks and suffer a complete shutdown of offense.
Now think about the realistic aspect of casting a spell. If you were casting a spell and something happened that caused your concentration to slip, you would immediately stop casting and start over. If you were casting a spell and a warrior bashes you right in the mouth, you aren't going to keep talking and saying the incantation, you will have to immediately start over. Spell cancelling enhances the role playing aspect of the game by giving it a more realistic feel.
I invite anyone to post their opinions in this thread.