Final Fantasy XIV 1.23b - Would you Play it if Available?

Will love to get some of the old battles back...The REAL Ifrit Extreme...Nael's Battle in the Sky...etc
But other than that, not too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spy

That's like asking someone to let go of a beloved one that passed away...

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/58905593.jpg

---

I question anyone who has that mind set... I think everyone looking through to hard in roses tinted glasses at this... I'm a damn legacy player I've played since 1.0 Alpha and I have to say 2.0 is a better game 100 fold then 1.0... i think if they made these servers ppl are begging for the hype would die within several days and everyone who supported it would change their minds out of nowhere after remembering how bad it was...

As for the Nael fight and Ifrit Ex hell no...Shit is exclusive for a reason... you don't live in the past people we move on looking towards the future...heavensward!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tsuga

To the people pointing out that very few legacy players logged in during the "1.0 reboot" in November 2012, I think you're forgetting that the Alpha had started at that point, or thereabouts.

---

Your timeline is a bit off. The first global (not JP only) alpha test was on November 28. Servers rebooted on November 21. Even if everyone got into the very first alpha wave (which was far from the case; most players didn't), there was at least a full week to hang out and do stuff on the rebooted servers. Even prior to that, all interest in doing content (including Rivenroad Hard which a great number of players hadn't beaten yet) ended with the final save on October 31.

(Also, the tester selection emails went out November 26th, still leaving 5 days before anyone could have even found out they got into the first wave)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShinigamiKayla

I question anyone who has that mind set... I think everyone looking through to hard in roses tinted glasses at this... I'm a damn legacy player I've played since 1.0 Alpha and I have to say 2.0 is a better game 100 fold then 1.0... i think if they made these servers ppl are begging for the hype would die within several days and everyone who supported it would change their minds out of nowhere after remembering how bad it was...

As for the Nael fight and Ifrit Ex hell no...Shit is exclusive for a reason... you don't live in the past people we move on looking towards the future...heavensward!

---

2.0 is better than 1.0 was. This is true. No one is denying that. But I, and quite a few of my friends (And it looks like even a couple here in this thread) had some precious times in 1.0. And there's nothing wrong with that. Would I play 1.0 over 2.0? More than likely no. But would I play 1.0 as well as 2.0. Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kyuven

It didn't die, it just got plastic surgery, took some college classes, and got a new diet regimen.

---

xD True

Would I play? Absolutely. Will it ever happen? Nay.

I'd love for them to create a single player version of 1.0. Offline of course, I think asking them to create/maintain servers for a dead game is way too much.

It would be a nice nod to fans and players who have been there since the start...it would allow us to play through the original storyline. For the old heads it would allow us to relive everything and for the newer players it would allow them to play through the original story.

So yes, ultimate dream: Offline version is created to allow players to through original story.

Based from what I'm reading here: you can't give a positive or negative reception about 1.0. You'll get bashed just for expressing an opinion. Happens every time someone makes another "Would you play 1.0 if it came back up" thread. smh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zanther

Snip

---

Dude…I don't know who wrote that elegant piece of comedy about 1.0 but hats off to them. I was in tears with pretty much all of what they said. Don't want to bash anyones game if they loved 1.X but holy crap was that hilarious.

For curiosity sake yes I would, at the very least to experience the old story line I missed since until 2.0 my computer was too old to run FF14 so I didn't got to even try it when it was in "B2P" mode.

I'd give it a try if it was free, as I never had the chance to play the original FFXIV. If it turned out to be appealing in some ways, I might be inclined to do a one-time payment, if it's cheap enough.

Absolutely would play. I don't know for how long though. Tbh, I've been trying to find my disc so I can explore the world again via *cough* less official means.
It might turn out that I'd be satisfied after a couple laps around each zone (Coerthas and Dhona will be my must-resee sites) and a Darkhold run, but at least that much should be quite enjoyable.

Would I play it over ARR? Unlikely, though both find themselves in a coincidentally similar situation right now - short of remaining content worth doing. Quite often the flaws in ARR I'd already pointed out to some degree in 1.1 (the soonest I played was pre-Yoshi but post-bug fixes) and 1.2. Similarly, few ARR changes do I think were "for the better" so much as just, by happenstance, better than 1.x. I don't especially consider myself biased towards one or the other. Given an alternate world where the development time of ARR had instead been spent improving upon 1.23, perhaps even bringing in the same cataclysm as opened up ARR but without the complete reboot to engine, zones, and combat and likely focused instead on improvement to its own priorities, then I would be very interested in comparing them, but as they are presently there really doesn't seem to be any fair comparison to be had.

Just my two cents on the state of the game as it was:
- It would be foolish to call 1.23 combat more tactical in any way. It was even more pre-determined, and still basically followed a combo and half-combo system according to CDs on those abilities that are now your GCDs. Auto-attack animations were more jarring, and many ability animations a bit more repetitive (the squat-to-victory oGCD animation was even less varied then), though there were also plenty that looked great. The animation locks I did not especially find an issue. Pace of combat, depending on the player and encounter, was often closer to ARR than the game was given credit for. I actually felt like ARR was a slow-down during the beta, because the combined time of gaining enough TP and executing a full combo was less than the sheer GCD wait across a combo with the original GCD speed.
- The UI wasn't that big an issue; had it had better mouse-wheel use or anything of that sort I would easily prefer the master menu to the current spread of functions across the current micro-menu, especially since I could bind the master menu to a mouse button with my cursor already ready to hit the option I wanted. It really could have used a separate item activation key, as not to require the master menu for elevator use / activating portals, etc.
- ...I'm sure enough has been said on world differences and general ambiance already...

i would pay for the story line... some sorta flashback where ARR's infrastructure is used but we are seeing the 1.X story. They could even flesh out a couple more details they might have wanted to explore like the scions being incarnations of the twelve or more details into the summoning of bahamut, or even set up some future story for 4.X. I almost see it like the FFXIV opening cinematic (fighting the marlboro leve) where he flashes forward then back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Would I play it over ARR? Unlikely, though both find themselves in a coincidentally similar situation right now - short of remaining content worth doing. Quite often the flaws in ARR I'd already pointed out to some degree in 1.1 (the soonest I played was pre-Yoshi but post-bug fixes) and 1.2.

---

For 2.0's purpose, the lull in stuff to do is because of the expansion; there were quite a few comments about how the period of time between 2.55 part 1 and 3.0. It's not that bad, WoW had a year's wait between the culmination of MoP and the start of WoD. I also think Yoshi mentioned the game takes in to account people will periodically close accounts while waiting for new content, then reopen them.

I didn't read the whole thread - so I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but I had an idea like months and months ago that I'd mentioned on the forums.

They have the 1.0 world (like it or hate it - it existed lol) and I though that it would be really interesting to somehow play with the whole Echo idea we have - and have a story line where your Echo takes you back and forth between now and before the calamity to try and change things.

Of course, we know it can't be changed, but it would allow people to see what the 1.0 world looked like and there could be a whole story line built around it. Maybe clues to stop the present issues going on in the game are hidden in the past and were destroyed by the calamity, now we must go back into the past using our echo to try and find what we need to save the now.

It was just an idea - but a way people who wanted to see the 1.0 world could. I mean they have the world, all they would have to do is reformat it for this new system they are using. Plus it would add a huge area t0 the game, plus give us another whole story line and allow people to see what the world was like who didn't get to play 1.0 so they can see where the camps used to be and how things were before hand like the silver and golden bazaar etc... - but it would have the graphics/settings and play-ability of 2.0.

It was just an idea I had, that I still like. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaiKatzchen

They have the 1.0 world (like it or hate it - it existed lol) and I though that it would be really interesting to somehow play with the whole Echo idea we have - and have a story line where your Echo takes you back and forth between now and before the calamity to try and change things.


It was just an idea - but a way people who wanted to see the 1.0 world could. I mean they have the world, all they would have to do is reformat it for this new system they are using.

---

It's not that easy. Remember, SE is business, they tend to keep on hand only what is needed, meaning that more than likely the 1.23 version of the game no longer exists. Why would it? It costs money to hold it, it's better to get rid of it and recoup the costs. Even though the 2 games appear similar, I believe they were written with different games engines, so they'd need to redo all the 1.X game play and cut scenes in the newer engine.

Additionally, even if that version did exist, they'd have to expense out new hardware. The current data centers do not have huge amounts of storage and compute sitting idle, they've been scaled to meets the needs of the game.

I'd like to revisit it again. Maybe take some good comparison screens.
But the game having no future takes a bit of the wind out of the sales.

The character models looked much better (butts, thighs and hips for everyone!!!), i loved the amount of physics applied to the movement, i would have enjoyed belts being visible, and omg that OST.

Everything else though? Nah. I love how dense and alive the areas feel in ARR, but no amount of beautiful Uematsu music could make me enjoy a run from point A to point B take a legitimate 30 minutes of voidspace just for the sake of the game feeling like its large.

Also, while the movement animations were very nice with the applied physics, there are simply too few of them. Watching videos of 1.0, it's like a max of 3 animations are used for literally every ability in the game. You couldn't jump, which makes videos of people walking in areas like 1.0 coearthas a painful thing, stopped in their tracks by a crack in the ground. And finally, while the environmental graphics present are more refined looking in some areas than in ARR, the game has this really empty and dead feeling about it. Almost as if the world isn't being populated as well because of performance restrictions.

The visual effects in ARR are also astronomically better. 1.0's visual effects looked really copy-pasta and inefficient (which commonly lag the PC of the person playing) while in ARR, most enemies and attacks have tailored effects that just look so much more smooth. A good example would be the Ifrit fight in 1.0 compared to 2.0, or literally any self-buff that a class uses on itself. (featherfoot, rampart ect).

It was proven fact that no people wouldn't still play it. SE left 1.0 up after the updates for it stopped for about a month after the final save point they said that they would leave it up longer if people are logging in while they wait for 2.0. At most there were like 1-3 people on if you logged in 1.0, SE then took it down because almost nobody was playing it at all.

I gotta say, that reddit thread was a wonderful trip down memory lane. To a T.

The payment methods were a pain too. SE outsourced credit/debit card payment to Click-and-Buy, a 3rd-party, UK-based company, and apparently a shady one. A week after I signed up so I could sub to FFXIV, the credit card company calls saying they stopped someone in London from using the card info to buy plane tickets and lodging... So, had to get the card re-issued, and had to put in fake info for a second payment option on Click-and-Buy so it would let me delete my personal info (my "new" address was 1313 Mockingbird Lane).

So I had to go out, get a Ultimate Gamer Card, exchange that for credit online, exchange that into Ultimate Pay credit, then exchange that into Crysta so I could sub to the 1.0 mess. I was done before my first month on that was up..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seig345

So I had to go out, get a Ultimate Gamer Card, exchange that for credit online, exchange that into Ultimate Pay credit, then exchange that into Crysta so I could sub to the 1.0 mess. I was done before my first month on that was up..

---

Not sure if it was different on a region-by-region basis but I always just paid for crysta directly via ultimatepay using paypal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raikki

Not sure if it was different on a region-by-region basis but I always just paid for crysta directly via ultimatepay using paypal.

---

It may have been before I got with the times and familiarized myself with Paypal, but even if I had, I'd still have been wondering why I couldn't just use paypal to buy Crysta directly, or heck, subscribe to the game itself via Paypal.

Mainly though it was just that I'd have never expected that subscribing to a Square Enix game in and of itself would lead to the credit card info getting stolen. Sure, that was Click and Buy's fault, but by using them for their credit card processing, that issue kinda reflected on SE as well. I was elated in 2012 when they announced the option to subscribe directly through them again.

1.0 had some amazing music.

That's about the only thing that was good about it.

A number of 1.0 tracks have since been reused in ARR. I still miss the original Gridania and Limsa themes and hopefully those will make a comeback in some capacity as well. Until then, there's always Before Meteor soundtrack.

Part of me would like to do the original Nael van Darnus fight that ended 1.0's run but the other part of me would not be able to put up with 1.0 to get to that point. Maybe if someone handed me a max level character and said here you go, now go and kick Nael's ass, then maybe. I wouldn't actually want to play 1.0 in any way beyond that, especially after ARR's release.

I wouldn't mind going back and playing it just to experience the story for myself rather than reading about it and viewing cutscenes online, but as for actively playing it, that's it. I love ARR and the way everything is handled in it, so I would probably hate the actual gameplay in the 1.xx version. I'd push through to see the story like I have with other RPGs I didn't enjoy the gameplay in, but again, that's it.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edellis

Also, while the movement animations were very nice with the applied physics, there are simply too few of them.

---

I'm actually really glad we don't have the applied physics for walking/running that I've seen in some videos. When I stop it's because I want to stop right now, not because I want to slow gradually to a stop after a few extra steps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gramul

I'd like to revisit it again. Maybe take some good comparison screens.
But the game having no future takes a bit of the wind out of the sales.

---

Same here.

I miss certain things about the old game dearly and it would be fun to run around in the pre-Calamity Eorzea for old time's sake, but probably just for a little while.

About the chance we had to keep playing: Our LS continued to log in regularly after the closing event and we did goofy things like trying Garuda with 7 White Mages and a tank which was pretty fun...

But the fact that no progress would carry over and no future content would come was the ultimate show stopper -- so people stopped coming and we had to let it go.

1.23 had huge potential, people that say otherwise don't know what they're talking about because they didn't play patches 1.08 to 1.23 and see the difference they were making. 2.0 is just a compromise of 1.0 in order to appease the masses as opposed to creating something more unique and to be honest just as successful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taei

1.23 had huge potential, people that say otherwise don't know what they're talking about because they didn't play patches 1.08 to 1.23 and see the difference they were making. 2.0 is just a compromise of 1.0 in order to appease the masses as opposed to creating something more unique and to be honest just as successful.

---

I completely disagree. I give them credit for what they did with the system they inherited, but in order to really deliver what people wanted and deserved they absolutely had to scrap and rewrite the core systems from scratch. They took so many stabs at improving the combat but even to the end it was awkward and clunky. You had to learn to play to the flaws of the system. You had to know that the visual cues were useless and never lined up with when damage was calculated. You had to learn to "slide" your positional combos so that you could use them on tank. You had to learn when to stop pressing weapon skills so that animation lock wouldn't leave you stuck in an Eruption. I did all those things -- this isn't the complaining of someone who couldn't cut it -- but they weren't fun. The dull limited-palette copy+paste maps weren't fun either. The poor graphics engine wasn't fun. The slow and awkward UI wasn't fun. They could have written all the content in the world for that game but it's like trying to build a castle on a swamp.

(You're welcome to vet my 1.0 experience if you really think anyone that disagrees didn't play through it.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raikki

I completely disagree. I give them credit for what they did with the system they inherited, but in order to really deliver what people wanted and deserved they absolutely had to scrap and rewrite the core systems from scratch. They took so many stabs at improving the combat but even to the end it was awkward and clunky. You had to learn to play to the flaws of the system. You had to know that the visual cues were useless and never lined up with when damage was calculated.

---

Kind of how it is like now with the telegraphs never lining up with when damage is calculated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raikki

The slow and awkward UI wasn't fun.

---

No it wasnt.

But for the love of all gods, the ui is still slow and awkward. I dont get why people feel like they improved it, when its still the same ''delay on every ui action''.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raikki

They could have written all the content in the world for that game but it's like trying to build a castle on a swamp.

(You're welcome to vet my 1.0 experience if you really think anyone that disagrees didn't play through it.)

---

Anyone that played it through and that has some perspective will tell you that there was good and bad. And 2.0 removed a lot of the bad and the good.


My opinion: the biggest offender, the ui delays on everything is still present.


I'm here playing 2.0 now. But imo its a big shame that they removed some of the more interesting functions from 1.0, just to ''appease to the masses''

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aeyis

Kind of how it is like now with the telegraphs never lining up with when damage is calculated.
But for the love of all gods, the ui is still slow and awkward. I dont get why people feel like they improved it, when its still the same ''delay on every ui action''.
My opinion: the biggest offender, the ui delays on everything is still present.

---

I'm not experiencing any problems with this. Are you playing with exceptionally high ping or anything by chance? The UI is really snappy for me but I'm also only 30ms from the NA datacenter.

As for throwing away the good with the bad, there are definitely a few things where I'm not happy with the direction they took in 2.0, but I wouldn't classify it as "a lot". AV/CC runs were terribly tedious; leveling wasn't very good (still not strong but a little better); primals were pretty decent but I like them here, too; crafting I did like a little better in 1.x, though.

I will say, one big thing I preferred was the relic process in 1.x. I really don't care for it here.

Crafting, I want to say is vastly improved with 2.0.
It's added a lot more depth to it, and dedicated crafts have their own entire game with it, really.

I do miss being able to repair other people though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiaDeem

Hello!

Today I come to pose a question I'm not sure has been discussed here before.

Because my computer back in 2010 was unable to run Final Fantasy XIV, I waited for the PS3 version that never came. I started playing ARR on September of 2013, and despite loving it, I always came across comments from friends or people online, who'd say that the original version was actually pretty good during its final months, and I even found some people who said they liked it more than ARR... so I've always just been wondering about that game, and what would it feel to play it. Not be told what it was to play it, but actually experience it.

So here's my question:

If Square made it possible to play FF XIV on it's 1.23b version... would you play it? Would you pay for it, even if it was a one-time payment?

I know for SE this idea would be 100% pointless. But just as a question...

Would you play it?

---

I've played FFXIV Beta, V1.0 release and I quit playing before the skillset overhaul. What everyone needs to experience is the storyline, not the combat system. Unfortunately there are some pirates out there who don't get this and are trying to run their own V1.x server.

All SE needs to do is to throw in a flashback/time-travel (not unprecedented considering FF6 and FF7 have done it, and FF8 actually is half time travel. FFX/X-2 and FFXIII/FFXIII-2 also have time-travel elements in them) storyline... it would allow them to recycle every asset currently used in the game without having to acknowledge the change in the combat system and less ret-con will be needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aeyis

But for the love of all gods, the ui is still slow and awkward. I dont get why people feel like they improved it, when its still the same ''delay on every ui action''.
'

---

You need a better graphics card then, because the V1.0 UI was hella-slow because it didn't use the hardware mouse cursor at release... Here I can even find a webcomic making fun of it...

In fact I'll link you to the beginning of an entire story arc of beta testing FFXIV:
http://reallifecomics.com/comic.php?comic=title-2518

But the one referring to what you're talking about is here:
http://i57.tinypic.com/k1yp6w.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aeyis

Kind of how it is like now with the telegraphs never lining up with when damage is calculated.
But for the love of all gods, the ui is still slow and awkward. I dont get why people feel like they improved it, when its still the same ''delay on every ui action''.

---

I agree with Raikki above. I think this is something to do with your connection. I have satellite internet, and am pinging at about 700ms from my server's IP address, and the only thing I've ever noticed is that a I have less of a dodge window for attacks than other players due to a half second lag time. I've only ever noticed any UI issues if I'm also downloading a lot or loading a lot of videos on my laptop as well while playing, (I'm on PS4 for reference). To me, the problems you describe as having sound like what it'd be like if I was trying to play while pushing my internet's capacity to the max, while a storm was interfering with my connection to the satellite......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raikki

I'm not experiencing any problems with this. Are you playing with exceptionally high ping or anything by chance? The UI is really snappy for me but I'm also only 30ms from the NA datacenter.

As for throwing away the good with the bad, there are definitely a few things where I'm not happy with the direction they took in 2.0, but I wouldn't classify it as "a lot". AV/CC runs were terribly tedious; leveling wasn't very good (still not strong but a little better); primals were pretty decent but I like them here, too; crafting I did like a little better in 1.x, though.

I will say, one big thing I preferred was the relic process in 1.x. I really don't care for it here.

---

I'm not surprised, even in 1.0 some people said they didnt notice.
Im talking about the UI delay here. How it ''lags'' every time you use the ui to open a window or do an action (start/finish craft for example, or place items in storage)

In the past I believe SE made statements that the delay was needed for extra data safety (better backing up or something), altho Ive always felt it has more to do with console limitations.
Its nothing to do with (only) server latency, as the delay is far greater then the expected 120ish (if east coast server) or 180 (if west coast server) ms server ping.

Its also present when checking for your characters position, making it a bit of a trial to move out of telegraphs on time.
For comparison, I'd have to check for the exact time, but the delay+ normal server latency allows for heal clipping at about 25% of the cast left.

In your case, because of your very low ping it might just be in the zone of ''bearable'' where as an extra 50-100 pings might make it fall outside of that zone for me, I suppose thats quite possible.



Edit: just checked. Spellcasting is canceled with a delay of > .5 seconds. So positions are updated only every 0.5 seconds in the best case scenario for me.
So in the worst case scenario (absurdly high ping ~200) it means a 0.3 second delay on updating positions.


I'm not aware if the UI delay is an issue that arises from a combination of poor server location (EU datacenters are located in the us/canada?) and the server delay, like the combat issue does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gamer3427

I agree with Raikki above. I think this is something to do with your connection.

---

Its not a connection issue, its an actual server delay that SE confirmed existed. 0.7 seconds is actually smaller then the UI delay.

Incidentally as you are on a console, that might be a reason you dont see the delay. That or you arent sensitive to ui delays.
A forced delay doesnt feel remotely the same as a delay caused by irregular/high ping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KisaiTenshi

You need a better graphics card then, because the V1.0 UI was hella-slow because it didn't use the hardware mouse cursor at release... Here I can even find a webcomic making fun of it...


But the one referring to what you're talking about is here:

---

That has nothing to do with what I talked about tho. Ive never had any issue with getting my mouse to the right place in 1.0 or 2.0 ;)

Perhaps you guys dont craft a lot or something, never use storage, or sort items...or perhaps its a eu only issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aeyis

Im talking about the UI delay here. How it ''lags'' every time you use the ui to open a window or do an action (start/finish craft for example, or place items in storage)

---

I honestly for real don't experience any of that, and I'm pretty picky about UI responsiveness.

Quote:

---

Spellcasting is canceled with a delay of > .5 seconds. So positions are updated only every 0.5 seconds in the best case scenario for me.

---

This is incorrect, but it's easy to see why people think this. Spells actually complete casting well before you see the cast bar complete, but there's a delay added before they appear, likely put in to allow for animations to sync up. It has nothing to do with position updates. Most Paladins take advantage of this behavior without really thinking about it when they learn self-stoneskin timing. Boss attacks that appear near the end of the cast bar never interrupt the stoneskin because the stoneskin is really already done casting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raikki

This is incorrect, but it's easy to see why people think this. Spells actually complete casting well before you see the cast bar complete, but there's a delay added before they appear, likely put in to allow for animations to sync up. It has nothing to do with position updates. Most Paladins take advantage of this behavior without really thinking about it when they learn self-stoneskin timing. Boss attacks that appear near the end of the cast bar never interrupt the stoneskin because the stoneskin is really already done casting.

---

Im not sure why you assume this.


This is how I tested it:
Start a cast while moving, take note of the timer; repeat a hundred times. Nothing to do with when it ''completes'' I simply took note of how long it took for the timer to stop, while casting during continued movement.


Spells complete before the bar finishes because of the delay. I guess you arent as picky about cast delays are you are about ui delays. :P (then again, you dont notice the ui delay either)
What you seem to consider a novel feature is the very (combat/ability related) delay that I'm talking about.


Rather then making a real issue into a none-existant thing because you dont experience (notice it) yourself, your welcome to correct my methods of determining the delays presence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aeyis

Spells complete before the bar finishes because of the delay. I guess you arent as picky about cast delays are you are about ui delays. :P (then again, you dont notice the ui delay either)

---

I don't "notice" delay because it doesn't exist for me. It's amusing that you purport to know better than I how "laggy" my game is and insist that I must have some bizarre perspective on time to account for the discrepancy.

Quote:

---

your welcome to correct my methods of determining the delays presence

---

Sure thing. The most conclusive method is to use something like Wireshark to record network traffic while you cast cure spells on yourself, then isolate the packets associated with the beginning and ending of your casts and compare the time delta with the cast time of the spell.

For a more complete picture I rigged up a program to accurately record the timestamp when I pressed Stoneskin (on PLD with no spell speed obviously, so a full 3.00 second cast according to the game), so we can look at the complete time between me pressing Stoneskin and the Stoneskin cast being completed (and thus uninterruptible):

Cast 1: 2.749 seconds
Cast 2: 2.572 seconds
Cast 3: 2.614 seconds

This was in a housing zone. The variance between trials should be lower in a raid since they use a higher server refresh rate. All 3 casts nevertheless completed much more quickly than the advertised 3.00 second cast time (which is how long the cast bar displays).

(mods: while I do not believe anything in this post violates the letter or spirit of the ToS, if you deem otherwise feel free to redact some or all of it.)

-----

It's actually pretty easy to see why they'd do this. With no buffer time you'd end up with situations where you're seeing interrupts on your client during your successful cast animation. Just as an example, if someone had 200ms latency:

+0.000s - Player clicks Stoneskin, casting animation and cast bar begin instantly
+0.200s - Server receives Stoneskin cast command
+3.100s - Server processes Stoneskin being interrupted at 2.9/3 seconds
+3.300s - Player receives Stoneskin interrupt message 300 milliseconds after their cast bar completed -- frustrating and not desirable behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reiichi

SE posed OP's question to users. ...the general answer was "no".

Personally, I'd like to see a return of 1.0, even if it was just a single-player game at that point. There's something kinda special about seeing one's own character in the cutscenes, not to mention the wealth of lore/dialogue that wasn't carried over into 2.0 or put on the 2.0 collector's edition bluray.

---

Err, well no. They posed the question to a tiny amount of players, compared to what we have now. The OP wasn't asking if 1.0 players would go back; his question was would you play if they brought it back, and it was aimed at the general population, not just the Legacy players.

For me, a non-legacy player, what story there was is the only reason I'd like to see it brought back.

Nah. I have no desire to do that at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheRogueX

For me, a non-legacy player, what story there was is the only reason I'd like to see it brought back.

---

the original mainstory or the 7th umbral story?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raikki

Sure thing. The most conclusive method is to use something like Wireshark to record network traffic while you cast cure spells on yourself, then isolate the packets associated with the beginning and ending of your casts and compare the time delta with the cast time of the spell.

For a more complete picture I rigged up a program to accurately record the timestamp when I pressed Stoneskin (on PLD with no spell speed obviously, so a full 3.00 second cast according to the game), so we can look at the complete time between me pressing Stoneskin and the Stoneskin cast being completed (and thus uninterruptible):

---

You fail to mention just what program you used and how it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raikki

Cast 1: 2.749 seconds
Cast 2: 2.572 seconds
Cast 3: 2.614 seconds

This was in a housing zone. The variance between trials should be lower in a raid since they use a higher server refresh rate. All 3 casts nevertheless completed much more quickly than the advertised 3.00 second cast time (which is how long the cast bar displays).

(mods: while I do not believe anything in this post violates the letter or spirit of the ToS, if you deem otherwise feel free to redact some or all of it.)

-----

It's actually pretty easy to see why they'd do this. With no buffer time you'd end up with situations where you're seeing interrupts on your client during your successful cast animation. Just as an example, if someone had 200ms latency:

---

This doesnt make sense. If you used programs to accurately note the cast time, then if theres a buffer there it should have the same value (all casts should take roughly as long). This is assuming that you did your test with stable ping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raikki

+0.000s - Player clicks Stoneskin, casting animation and cast bar begin instantly
+0.200s - Server receives Stoneskin cast command
+3.100s - Server processes Stoneskin being interrupted at 2.9/3 seconds
+3.300s - Player receives Stoneskin interrupt message 300 milliseconds after their cast bar completed -- frustrating and not desirable behavior.

---

Your hypothesis falls flat on its face however, as I took measure of the casting time during continous movement. In all cases it took >500ms to interupt the cast.


I'm also not sure if you are aware how this normally works. Under normal conditions (without a delay between updating, and assuming your example of 200ms ping) it would only take 1x 200ms to update your movements. In other words all your actions would be updated with 200ms delay, and they would happen 200ms later.
In other words something like:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raikki

With no buffer time you'd end up with situations where you're seeing interrupts on your client during your successful cast animation.

---

Can not happen. Atleast without buffer time, interesting is that it can happen with buffer time.


Add to that the fact that 200ms ping is really high by todays standards.


What I take from your post is that your readings, despite the programs you used arent more accurate then my method. And interesting they both take note of the very delay I argumented still exists.


So, I asked if you could confirm via better methods that the delay does not exist, your answer is that it does indeed exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raikki

I don't "notice" delay because it doesn't exist for me. It's amusing that you purport to know better than I how "laggy" my game is and insist that I must have some bizarre perspective on time to account for the discrepancy.

---

My apologies. I thought you were seriously arguing a point, instead of flaming.

The delay exists, as you yourself have proven. (altho the way you proved it doesnt make sense..)
I have also argued that its possible that users of consoles dont notice this delay, perhaps it does not even exist for them.
If you would instead ignore these arguments and choose to flame, thats your call.


Fact: the delay exists.
Not a fact: whether it effects only regions, or only effects pc. Whether everyone is capable of noticing delays to the same degree. What the best ff game is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aeyis

You fail to mention just what program you used and how it works.

---

Anyone with a modicum of programming experience can reproduce the simple program I made. Just bind a specific key to Stoneskin, then write and run a program that uses a low level keyboard hook to watch for that key being pressed and record the exact time. Run this in parallel with Wireshark and combine the data.

Quote:

---

This doesnt make sense. If you used programs to accurately note the cast time, then if theres a buffer there it should have the same value (all casts should take roughly as long).

---

The server has a set rate that controls how often it processes events. In open world zones, this seems to be around 3-4 times per second, while in coil and primals it's much faster (seems to be doubled, but further testing would be needed to pin down both these numbers). Even game servers for twitchy FPS games work this way, although some have very high rates (high-end Counter-Strike servers often processed at 100Hz). High rates are going to greatly increase server load and network congestion in relation to how many entities there are, which is why they're reserved for content where response time is more important (and there are fewer entities).

Quote:

---

My apologies. I thought you were seriously arguing a point, instead of flaming.

---

I tried to shed some light because you clearly don't understand what's going on and how the game works. Whether you choose to absorb new knowledge or ignore it is up to you. You complained about not being able to cancel casts at the end of the cast bar and I showed you why.