Spells: Channeling Fix

[JayDee]

I was wondering what the hell happened to channeling recently. Why isnt this posted on the front page

[Goregasmic]

Originally Posted by JayDee [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I was wondering what the hell happened to channeling recently. Why isnt this posted on the front page

Nothing changed yet so if by "recently" you mean a couple years ago...

[Kich867]

Originally Posted by sammoHung [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's either all of one or the other, no?

No I think it's very literally whatever they want to work on when they feel like doing it.

I don't think it goes past that or really needs any additional scrutiny.

[usmcjdking]

Nilbog, if it's not terribly complicated, would you consider having this chance to interrupt scale linearly as you get hit wherein an internal counter resets on either spell interrupt or spell completion through random distribution?

For example, if you need to make a 90% chance roll, the initial hit during a cast would have a 1.5% chance to interrupt, the second hit 3%, then 4.5% until the spell is interrupted or completed where the counter resets. This gives you an average number of attacks of 10, no different than a roll but much less vulnerable to lucky/unlucky streaks. It's a lot more stable of an output than just a roll, and doesn't result in massive streaks.

I think this will have a much better desired effect on the gameplay than a roll on each attack. Not opposed to the idea of fixing channeling in this manner you suggested, works but a fair bit blunt.

[nilbog]

My proposal is the same as what was available from the aforementioned client decompile in the OP, which was also compared against the Kunark decompile, and the results are essentially the same. What is being proposed is not inherently non-classic. What currently exists was 'made up' by solar from eqemu like 20+ years ago. It worked fine for the time, but with real information available, not using it, to me, is more inherently non-classic.

That being said, we are actively testing this and reviewing. That is why you haven't seen a 'Fixed, pending update.'

[usmcjdking]

Originally Posted by nilbog [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My proposal is the same as what was available from the aforementioned client decompile in the OP, which was also compared against the Kunark decompile, and the results are essentially the same. What is being proposed is not inherently non-classic. What currently exists was 'made up' by solar from eqemu like 20+ years ago. It worked fine for the time, but with real information available, not using it, to me, is more inherently non-classic.

Looks good then. I could have easily misinterpreted what was provided and what you said, which looks to be the case. Thanks for the response and the hard work!

[Duik]

Idiots. Please dont annoy the devs who makes your sandbox game possible.
Im sorry but this crybaby bullshit is annoying me, and im not even the target.

Nilbog and Rogean must work in childcare IRL. All Im sayen.

[Jimjam]

I'm amazed at what a convincing job Solar did in pulling a convincing emulation of classic EQ 'from his ass'. Consider how much depth of time and investigation is required to correct the discrepancies, and even with the corrections Solar's attempts are so convincing people remain convinced they are more classic than the actual client decompiles!

Nilbog you're a saint to continue going the extra mile on correcting what many would consider 'already close enough'. Thank you!

I hope we can continue to support you in your quest for true classic! Keep us posted on where you require further research!

[Danth]

Someone getting hit a dozen times during a cast *shouldn't* be landing spells through it more than once in a blue moon. That's what EQ was, glossed over by 16 years of P99 players who either never played or can't remember original. You could root something hitting you, maybe a two pull, but you weren't going to waltz into Karnor and brute force solo root a 5 pull. Even SK casted feign death was troublesome at times and that's a 1.5 spell, it's why monks were the preferred splitter, insta-feign, not like P99 where outside raids SK's and necros do it way easier. P99 has for many years been effectively EZ-mode EQ. Part of the reason P99'ers do stuff the original players didn't wasnt entirely because "Gee golly those old boomers back then sure sucked," but because the P99 tactics were in many cases outright impossible or very improbable in-era. I have the same justifiable worry that the P99 team might overdo it (look at the awful and still-broken spell aggro change!), but the present implementation is undoubtedly way too lenient.

One thing I don't recollect or know, personally, was whether double attacks counted as one or two attacks in terms of having to roll a channeling check. That was behind the curtain and players couldn't see it directly.

[barda444]

is this more of an issue at lower levels? i get interrupted on a 60 enc trying to stun 3-4 mobs very often