Spells: Root chances to break early depends on spell used

[Jimjam]

an interesting Q and A with GZ regarding resists, specifically the different chances to break early between different types of root.


Q: Does a spell's level have any affect on resists... What pattern, if any, is there in relation to this.

A: ... for example, the different types of roots all save the same (ie: have the same chance to be resisted), but have different effects as to duration, or chance of breaking once they have succeeded.


TLDR some root spells should be more prone to break early compared to others.

https://web.archive.org/web/19991127...tersrealm.com/

[Zuranthium]

Things were not necessarily coded as intended when it comes to details like this.

Without knowing exactly which roots allegedly would break less, and by exactly what amount, it's hard to implement any change. Someone will need to see if there are any differences in the classic client, but it doesn't look like Torven spotted any.

[Jimjam]

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

Things were not necessarily coded as intended when it comes to details like this.

Very good point. With obvious bugs like taunt not working above even cons and slam not generating high aggro, it is likely more subtle intentions could have been bugged entirely undetected and thus classic. <3

[Danth]

Interpretation matters, too. If the average root lasts say half its nominal duration, a longer-lasting root spell will inherently last longer than a shorter-duration spell. This type of behavior, by itself, would fit with the quoted comment.

For many years it was commonly believed (and largely demonstrated by players) that the damage portion of Druid root spells often broke the root part. Verant, per its usual behavior, vigorously denied it for a long time before supposedly fixing it quietly.

[Goregasmic]

Longer roots also have more chances of breaking early by the virtue of having more ticks to break on.

But I always wondered why they made fetter so much better than paralyzing earth that precedes it, which is arguably the worst iteration of the root line for casters. Always wondered if that non linear upgrade path hid something under the hood we don't know about.

[Zuranthium]

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

Interpretation matters, too. If the average root lasts say half its nominal duration, a longer-lasting root spell will inherently last longer than a shorter-duration spell. This type of behavior, by itself, would fit with the quoted comment,

That wouldn't fit the quoted comment, GZ specifically said "chance of breaking". He's a precise speaker about such things.

This user comment is very interesting, it quotes another GZ statement: https://web.archive.org/web/20020102...?Id=563&Page=3

GZ COMMENTS ON ROOT & ENSTILL LINE OF SPELLS (SUMMARIZED), By Itzokae blastenbrun

I am sorry that I don't have a direct link to Geoff Zatkin's comments (he is the designer at verant responsible for magic stuff in case you didn't know). But basically he said this, Enstill is just a root spell with a longer duration. HOWEVER, a monster has the SAME chance to break an "enstill" as a root. This means that in practical terms it will not last any longer in combat than a root spell, because a monster has the chance to break it each time it is hit. He said this spell is intended to be used to put a monster you don't want to deal with "out of the way" for a little while. Immobilize is the "combat" (i.e. useful) upgrade for root at 39th level. Paralyzing earth (49th)is an even longer duration root (potentially 4x as long) but which still has the same chance of breaking as the original root spell.

Based on this, Immobilize is the only root that potentially had less chance of breaking, although when Immobilize is called the "combat root" that could just be referring to its faster casting time.

But look at this, I found something else that directly states Immobilize is coded to get resisted less: https://web.archive.org/web/20011228...?Id=606&Page=2

RESISTS LESS?, By Baks of veeshan

There is a very nice app out that pulls spell info directly from EQ's .eff file. According to the spell stats on Immobilize vs Root and Enstill, Immobilize has no resistance penalty. Whereas targets gets a +25 bonus against Root and Enstill, they get no bonus vs. Immobilize. Check the app at http://www.eqcaster.com Baks of Veeshan 50th lvl Wizard

[Goregasmic]

Cool.

The caster meta right now is might as well use the cheapest root if you're going to nuke anyway. That might change if immobilize does resist breakage more but it is more than 2x the mana for 12s extra duration, it would really have to be significantly sturdier. The quicker cast is nice though.

As a chanter charming a ton I never really found melee damage put noticeable strain on root though but it is hard to measure.

I'll take a root that doesn't break at the worst possible moment though!

[loramin]

This thread reminded me that when I first got here, I was surprised to see Shaman using anything other than Root (14). On the Shaman's Crucible, the consensus had been that higher level root spells were just a waste of mana (lasting the same amount of time as Root).

Sadly, The Shaman's Crucible is long gone, but with Dolalin's amazing tool I found https://search.eqarchives.org/?size=...%5Btype%5D=all ... a thread from the PoP era (2003-05-26) titled:

Originally Posted by emphasis added

Interealms - The Shaman's Crucible > Spells > The good ole standby level 14 root, worthless now?

It's full of great quotes from players still using Root exclusively in PoP ... or finally retiring it (after using it exclusively for years):

Yes i have finally retired Lvl 9 root after years of good service

I think they both suck mana and I still use level 14 root. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I still use lvl 14 root... too expensive to use anything else, and it breaks so fast no matter what... might as well go cheap

i used to be a hardcore lvl14 root fan ...

I use normal lvl 14 root,

Now, obviously, players get confused about things. Even if the Shaman community thought that higher-level roots were a bad idea, that may not have been true.

Still, it is interesting that on live so many Shaman thought Root was the only way to go, but that isn't true here.

[WarpathEQ]

The quotes align with my anecdotal experience of how things are working on P99. I mostly use the highest level root spell (with some consideration for cast time and duration for specific applications) as my experience has been the higher the level of the root, all things being equal, breaks left often when triggering a root breaking event I.E. landing a nuke or ticking a DoT. AKA the level of the spell impacts the likelihood of breaks after a root spell lands on the target.

The second layer to this is based on the up front resist check, which in my experience (again aligning with the original quotes) is that the likelihood you cast root on a mob and get a flat out resist doesn't seem to be impacted based on which root you use. This type of direct feedback would likely contribute to emergant behavior of "if the root lands the same % of the time, I might as well use the cheapest mana cost version" not fully accounting for potential impact on root breaks after it lands.

The third layer is debuffs. My anecdotal experience of the P99 mechanics has been that the mobs resist at the time of root landing has a pre-determined impact on root breaks as well. This was very noticable on a shaman root rotting multiple mobs with epic. Opening the fight with malosini prior to landing root meant that root rarely broke before full duration, however, landing root then malosini resulted in a noticable increase in root breaks on the initial root duration.

[WarpathEQ]

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

Based on this, Immobilize is the only root that potentially had less chance of breaking, although when Immobilize is called the "combat root" that could just be referring to its faster casting time.

But look at this, I found something else that directly states Immobilize is coded to get resisted less: https://web.archive.org/web/20011228...?Id=606&Page=2

It sounds like immobilize may have had a built in debuff essentially similar to how a lot of wizard spells have a -10, -100, or -300 resist check. So the effectiveness of the immobilize line would be similar to debuffing the mob first and then casting a normal root spell. That would make sense and be one aspect that doesn't seem to be accounted for in P99. Basically those fast cast low resist roots were safety nets and the slower cast long duration roots were for CC.