Curse

Francis Crawford · May 06, 2006, 11:28 PM // 23:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Dudenstein

ALL spells have a .75 second Aftercast. That means that you do nothing for .75 seconds after you cast any spell - so when you are chaining spells you must add .75 sec to your casting times of all spells after the first.

OK. Thanks. That make sense. Some thoughts and implications:

1. Knockdown must last longer than .75 seconds, or the idea of a spell combo like Whirlwind-Aftershock would be useless. But I still don't think knockdown lasts as much as 1.75 seconds.

2. Ether Renewal last 8 - 8.4 seconds with an enchantment extender (I'm still not aware of confirmation as to whether enchantments can be fractional seconds in length. So how many spells can you fire off during Ether Renewal?

The "window" for Ether Renewal is 6-8,4 seconds, depending on whether enchantment extending mods take enchantments into fractional-second durations (I'm not aware that this has even been rigorously tested one way or the other). If you want to get in 5 spells, you need to fit in 4 aftercasts plus 5 casting times.

4 aftercasts = 4*.76 = 3 seconds, leaving 5 seconds or a bit more for 5 casting times. Clearly, 5 spells is doable, although it helps if at least one of them has a casting time of less than 1 second. And in fact I've done 5 spells under Ether Renewal many, many times.

Can you fit in 6 spells? You'd need 5 aftercasts plus 6 casting times. 5 aftercasts is 3.75 seconds, leaving 4.25-4.65 seconds for 6 casting times.

If those figures are correct, I do NOT think it is possible to get off 6 spells under Ether Renewal in a standard build. It's tough to think of a case where the sum of the casting times would be less than 3*0.75 + 3*1.0 = 5.25. (And even taking it up to 5 spells of .75 duration plus 1 of 1 second duration woudln't suffice.)

Frankly, it's hard to test whether you can get six spells off during Ether Renewal, because usually the first five will fill your health and energy bars pretty completely anyway ... Whoa. That's not true. It would be easy to test in a test build just by firing up fewer enchantments than there would be in a "real" buid ...

Quote:

I've never heard of a differing aftercast on PBAoE spells - and I have certainly never observed it (1.75 sec is a long time). Con u confirm this from some reputable source?

A Google search turned up almost no references, except for this one, which suggested it was an aspect of the game a year ago tha tneeded fixing.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s....php?p=1232592

That said, I also couldn't find a source for the .75 sec figure. Could you please share?

Asrial · May 06, 2006, 11:32 PM // 23:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ira Blinks

..but after that there is an extra second delay before you can do anything (apparently you character is strikin a pose or something...)

"Yeah baby, I just hit 5 creatures with one spell.. mmm.. shake it!"

Corinthian · May 07, 2006, 06:37 AM // 06:37

Why must we have "aftercast" to destroy all the beautiful builds?

Guillaume De Sonoma · May 09, 2006, 12:14 AM // 00:14

The build was not beautiful to begin with.

Xasew · May 09, 2006, 01:49 PM // 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Dudenstein

I've never heard of a differing aftercast on PBAoE spells - and I have certainly never observed it (1.75 sec is a long time). Con u confirm this from some reputable source?

I think I read it at Guild-Hall.net in a thread complaining about Wards. The original post was about Ward vs. Foes having a longer aftercast than Ward vs. Melee, and this was explained by someone that it's because WaF is considered PBAoE(negative effect on enemies), while WaM isn't(positive effect on allies). I think it was someone who's been around for a long time that I heard the 1.75 from, but I might be wrong. Was a long time ago.

Quote:

whilst the latter 2 have a 1.75 second aftercast (as is typical of PbAoE spells).

I found this in the posted link.