A thread not about casting

General discussion pertaining to the Demise shard. Off-topic posts will be moderated.
Josh
Posts: 1314

Re: A thread not about casting

Post by Josh »

The Silvertiger wrote:Much love Eos!

Nice bug find Jose! Can you report it to OSI?
Yea, reported it to ATL staff bc they're a demise emulator.
Arden
Posts: 1703

Re: A thread not about casting

Post by Arden »

Yah let’s report to osi that their casting is wrong. And not true “Demise osi casting” bc eos says so.

I’ll hit up my boys at EA games and send them this fourm and MBs biased discord in case they need more info to get their casting fixed
Grifo and Bad Religion like this.
Top
User avatar
The Silvertiger
Posts: 4469

Re: A thread not about casting

Post by The Silvertiger »

Arden wrote:Yah let’s report to osi that their casting is wrong. And not true “Demise osi casting” bc eos says so.

I’ll hit up my boys at EA games and send them this fourm and MBs biased discord in case they need more info to get their casting fixed
He literally found a bug that 2/5 doesn't have the same mechanics as 2/6... Why the sass? Give him a pat on the back.

Unlike your guildmate, I'm proud of you Jose. Good job!
Never forget June 4th 1989!
Selling List & Vendor

"Screenshots will never be used as evidence but more of a reference tool for us to help in our investigations."
DG
Posts: 222

Re: A thread not about casting

Post by DG »

The reason why 2/5 right now is better than 2/6 is not that your spells are faster with 2/5,but that casting with 2/5 is easier to macro.Actually your macros for the old casting work flawlessly with 2/5.So one key gameplay is almost unchanged.

But the worst part is,current 2/5 is still highly ping-based.Uos built-in managed casting macros check recovery information received from the server to decide if it can cast next spell.As a result,the lower your ping,the faster you cast with 2/5.So the highly ping-dependent casting is unchanged too.

Its true that you cast 'faster' with 2/5 on OSI
just like on Demise.But what makes a difference is that OSI has fizzle penalty.Overcasting takes place when a spell is casted right after the last spell is disturbed.2/5 is worse than 2/6 in this case.Not only that you can't avoid overcasting with 2/5,but also that 2/5 will delay your next spell.

I.E.You overcast a Ma.With 2/6,you wait 0.25-0.5 sec(casting time) for the 'broken' spell to finish,then you are ready for the next spell.But with 2/5 you have to wait additional 0.25 sec(recovery time).You will receive 'you have not yet recovered from casting a spell',if you try to cast a spell when overcasting happens.

That is probably why you don't see ppl mainly use 2/5 on OSI.
Loler
Posts: 2485

Re: A thread not about casting

Post by Loler »

Dg nailed it. But there's more wrong with the casting then just that. Delayed spell damage is still off. Overcasting penalty is still to aggressive. (Time to cast after finishing a spell is to long)
PM me or contact me on discord mortoburger#5040
Buying List
Selling List
Trading Brsk for Arties
My vendor in Luna
Buying Tailor/Smith resets in bulk.
Duke likes this.
Top
Cold Blood
Posts: 88

Re: A thread not about casting

Post by Cold Blood »

i do thimk ppl want to change the casting back even cant understand what dg writes lol
Alvin likes this.
Top
Grifo
Posts: 1585

Re: A thread not about casting

Post by Grifo »

Its joke post, right?
Arden
Posts: 1703

Re: A thread not about casting

Post by Arden »

Loler wrote:Dg nailed it. But there's more wrong with the casting then just that. Delayed spell damage is still off. Overcasting penalty is still to aggressive. (Time to cast after finishing a spell is to long)
Not true... eos checked.

Demise casting is correct and OSI’s casting is wrong and and buggy. Get with the program here
Grifo likes this.
Top
Josh
Posts: 1314

Re: A thread not about casting

Post by Josh »

Arden wrote:
Loler wrote:Dg nailed it. But there's more wrong with the casting then just that. Delayed spell damage is still off. Overcasting penalty is still to aggressive. (Time to cast after finishing a spell is to long)
Not true... eos checked.

Demise casting is correct and OSI’s casting is wrong and and buggy. Get with the program here
Yea, osi is a pretty shitty demise emulator :/
User avatar
The Silvertiger
Posts: 4469

Re: A thread not about casting

Post by The Silvertiger »

Josh wrote:
Arden wrote:
Loler wrote:Dg nailed it. But there's more wrong with the casting then just that. Delayed spell damage is still off. Overcasting penalty is still to aggressive. (Time to cast after finishing a spell is to long)
Not true... eos checked.

Demise casting is correct and OSI’s casting is wrong and and buggy. Get with the program here
Yea, osi is a pretty shitty demise emulator :/
Cry me a river. It's kinda funny that Josh actually proves that OSI casting is buggy, but is in denial.
Never forget June 4th 1989!
Selling List & Vendor

"Screenshots will never be used as evidence but more of a reference tool for us to help in our investigations."
Josh
Posts: 1314

Re: A thread not about casting

Post by Josh »

The Silvertiger wrote:
Josh wrote:
Arden wrote:
Not true... eos checked.

Demise casting is correct and OSI’s casting is wrong and and buggy. Get with the program here
Yea, osi is a pretty shitty demise emulator :/
Cry me a river. It's kinda funny that Josh actually proves that OSI casting is buggy, but is in denial.
You're retarded. It bugged out on osi at one point, but that was just the steam macro bc I've had it do that shit on many many servers where the targeting bugs out (when afk macroing skills). If you watch it says "target canceled" which is when a spell is successfully cast and then you cast another spell without selecting a target.

My video shows the difference in 2/6 on osi and demise. I think it's pretty clear that demise was eating some spells while the osi one wasn't, which the likely reason is the overcast penalty is slightly too high on demise for 2/6.

2/5 seems accurate, i said that before.

And get off my dick.
User avatar
The Silvertiger
Posts: 4469

Re: A thread not about casting

Post by The Silvertiger »

Josh wrote:
The Silvertiger wrote:
Josh wrote: Yea, osi is a pretty shitty demise emulator :/
Cry me a river. It's kinda funny that Josh actually proves that OSI casting is buggy, but is in denial.
You're retarded. It bugged out on osi at one point, but that was just the steam macro bc I've had it do that shit on many many servers where the targeting bugs out (when afk macroing skills). If you watch it says "target canceled" which is when a spell is successfully cast and then you cast another spell without selecting a target.

My video shows the difference in 2/6 on osi and demise. I think it's pretty clear that demise was eating some spells while the osi one wasn't, which the likely reason is the overcast penalty is slightly too high on demise for 2/6.

2/5 seems accurate, i said that before.

And get off my dick.
I'm retarded and I thought you liked that kinda thing...

You found a bug with OSI casting where 2/5 was better than 2/6 therefore OSI casting is buggy. However, if we are going to have OSI-LIKE casting, I want it to be accurate. I don't know how many posts I have to make to get you to understand that.
Never forget June 4th 1989!
Selling List & Vendor

"Screenshots will never be used as evidence but more of a reference tool for us to help in our investigations."
Josh
Posts: 1314

Re: A thread not about casting

Post by Josh »

The Silvertiger wrote:
Josh wrote:
The Silvertiger wrote: Cry me a river. It's kinda funny that Josh actually proves that OSI casting is buggy, but is in denial.
You're retarded. It bugged out on osi at one point, but that was just the steam macro bc I've had it do that shit on many many servers where the targeting bugs out (when afk macroing skills). If you watch it says "target canceled" which is when a spell is successfully cast and then you cast another spell without selecting a target.

My video shows the difference in 2/6 on osi and demise. I think it's pretty clear that demise was eating some spells while the osi one wasn't, which the likely reason is the overcast penalty is slightly too high on demise for 2/6.

2/5 seems accurate, i said that before.

And get off my dick.
I'm retarded and I thought you liked that kinda thing...

You found a bug with OSI casting where 2/5 was better than 2/6 therefore OSI casting is buggy. However, if we are going to have OSI-LIKE casting, I want it to be accurate. I don't know how many posts I have to make to get you to understand that.
no, 2/5 isnt better than 2/6 on osi. 2/5 is better than i thought for sure, that i admitted. The last video shows clearly that 2/5 is inferior to 2/6 when timed properly. Also add on what DG said, it would also make 2/6 better than 2/5

edit: 2/5 is better than 2/6 when holding down a button, but when casting at proper timing 2/6 will be superior, the video shows that too, it had 2/6 and 2/5 portions, you can see it say "you have not recovered" on the 2/5 portion, but 2/5 is very close to accurate on demise.
User avatar
The Silvertiger
Posts: 4469

Re: A thread not about casting

Post by The Silvertiger »

That sounds buggy to me. Listen to yourself:
holding a button down 2/5 is better than 2/6

You're supposed to recover faster on 2/6 whether timed right or not. I guess as Eos stated before implementing it to Occlo the overcast is buggy. If I were Eos and holding to the accurate without bugs, I would implement it without the overcast, but aren't you glad I'm not Eos even though you and your friends address us about the same.
Never forget June 4th 1989!
Selling List & Vendor

"Screenshots will never be used as evidence but more of a reference tool for us to help in our investigations."
Eos likes this.
Top
Josh
Posts: 1314

Re: A thread not about casting

Post by Josh »

The Silvertiger wrote:That sounds buggy to me. Listen to yourself:
holding a button down 2/5 is better than 2/6

You're supposed to recover faster on 2/6 whether timed right or not. I guess as Eos stated before implementing it to Occlo the overcast is buggy. If I were Eos and holding to the accurate without bugs, I would implement it without the overcast, but aren't you glad I'm not Eos even though you and your friends address us about the same.
I'm aware it sounds buggy, I am just pointing out the observations from testing, it's really not a matter up for debate so I dont get why you're arguing. Watch the video, 500 ms 2/6 > 2/5. If you watch eos's gif with 0ms delay 2/5 > 2/6. But timed correctly 2/6 > 2/5, that's how osi works and not how demise works currently (based on the video), and that is one thing that needs to be adjusted and I believe it's because the overcast feature is off, Morto pointed out at the beginning that the "random delay" they had implemented he didn't think was correct, maybe he was right, the video supports his hypothesis at least.
Post Reply