Getting stunned while casting

The spell goes of as soon as you click it. Only the effect kicks in just after the cast is finnished.

I see that its quite hard if you are canceled i certain situations but if you see it from the opposite side:

What would cast cancel help if the cooldown isnt started? Nothing you couldnt cast it for 1 second and after it just cast it like there happened nothing.

So my impression is that this system adds a layer of tactic & strategy to the game, which i highly appreciate!

And you should allways remeber: all things someone could do to you, could be done to them too!

No. It works how it should.

Imo Tejsner is right. Having both stun and cooldown is too powerful. The stun already provides a huge advantage to the stunner. The additional cooldown just makes it op.

That's not true. If you interrupt a spellcast yourself before it's finished you don't use any mana, nor do you trigger the cooldown.

Except for the fact that by the time the stun ends the target is probably almost dead already. Or, if you stunned to escape should be far away enough for him to be of any threat to you.

I certainly don't agree with either of you (otherwise I wouldn't have posted)

Cast cancel as you call it, would work fine without the added cool down penalty..

you spend a few secs casting it in the first place, you are then interupted (maybe even stunned) for a few additional seconds... and on top of that you have to cast it all over again (risking to be cast cancelled again) thats easily 5-6 seconds where you have been kept from getting your spell off.. So I can't really see why you should be punished even longer by adding the spell cooldown to this aswell... after all the spell didn't go off...

as a side note, I don't see the spell as cast before the cast time is over (any rpg person would agree with me)So it doesn't make sense that cooldown or manacost would be added untill the spell has actually been cast...

If you really want to add a penalty of sorts to cast cancels, then it should be a global 3-5 second cooldown to all your spells... this would make more sense IMO since this would symbolise the time spend getting you act together after being interupted

Thank you SThaler

My point exactly

What is the point of interupting if it just delays someone from using something for a fraction of a second?..

Most stuns are too slow casting to purposefully interupt anyways.  The only one that you can stun-interupt is with hammerslam and sniper.  And for the interupt skills that cast fine, they'd be uselesssince it just make someone need to take a fractin of a second longer to reuse to skill to trigger it.

And either way, the stuns all have really long recharge times which should be longer than whatever you had interupted.  An what's the point in getting your 1sec cast stun off before someone elses 1sec cast stun when they'll just use their stun after the stun on them ends?

If someone is casting a stun, give a move order and whatever you are casting will be cancled.  IE to cancle hammer slam.
It's your fault it got interupted by a stun and is on cooldown.  Stop blaming the game for you being bad.

No this is an awful awful awful idea.  I can't even go on how much I hate this.

LOL....

Thanx for the rude gesture of calling me a bad player...

And to comment all your babble about stuns on stuns or whatever.. you are not making much sense...

I understand part of where you want to go with this but don't agree with your point at all..

The fact is, that we are not talking fractions of seconds here... most spells with cast time take atleast 1-2 seconds to cast, add stun time to that, plus another cast time and that adds up to atleast 5-6 seconds of time where you have done nothing but just stand there trying to get a spell off..

my point is I think its bad enough as it is that you have to go through two times cast time plus stun time, that adding spell cooldown on top of this is too much, and given the details I mentioned above on how Spells should work due to common rpg facts on when a spell has been cast or not, I think its only fair that the cooldown shouldn't kick in if you are interrupted.. perhaps a 2 or 3 second global cooldown on all spells, to symbolise that you have been confused from the interrupts like I mentioned in a previous post.

No.

Most spells under 1second or less to cast.  Only 2 skills take over 1 second to cast (hammer slam and snipe) IIRC.  All the stuns are 1sec cast except for boulder roll and foul grasp.  But boulder roll  is much over a second if there is some distance, and foul grasp holds the UB in place too.

What you are suggesting is very bad for gameplay.  All you're doing is complaining that you're punished for not playing as well and you suggest cast-cancling should no longer matter to harm the game competitively to make it easier for you.

Talk about yourself.

Insulting others because you don't agree with them isn't going to win your argument.

Fact is that there's nothing in the description of the abilities about putting the opponets spell on cooldown.

Nor is it necessary or relevant to the stunning skills' actual purpose (namely: stunning the enemy). This means that the triggering of the cooldown is in fact a BUG.

Otherwise you could randomly add a cooldown triggering effect to pretty much any ability.

All the other things you mentioned are in no way relevant to the argument.

P.S.: One more thing I got to point out:

That argument is stupid, see: "And what's the point in getting your 1sec cast fireball off before someone elses 1sec cast fireball when they'll do just as much damage to you as you did to them?"

It's not a bug.  It's good gameplay design on GPG's part.  If it was a bug then cancling would incite cooldown too.

Oh god this makes no sense.  I'm not going to view this topic anymore.

At first I didn't like this idea of stun which also silence me of that spell.

Then I got used to it and learn how to counter it.  So I'm ok with it and understand that it just requires different strategies. 

I'm 50/50 on which way it should be.   In World of Warcraft, there are spells that cancels and silence you for 6 seconds so it's the same thing here. 

ive gotten the impression stun is added to the more offensive demigods and to help balance the power, and help keep balance between general/assasins. all assasins except regulus got a stun and regulus got a chance of getting stun if i rember correcttly on his passive attacks high lvl.

a UB player with spit -grasp -spit grasp and lower skill recharge time favor item is a frightening tactic but UB often has the advantage in a pure 1v1 situation and is meant to.

All games I've come across that have spell interrupts work in this fashion. This tells me if forcing a cooldown is removed, it makes spell interrupts too weak.  Especially considering the longest cast time is 2 seconds, if it didn't apply a cooldown, an interrupt would be more like extending the cast time by a second, instead of denying someone their ability.

You're mixing up stuns and spell interrupts. Indeed spell interrupts should trigger a cooldown, however we're talking about stuns not interrupts.

Ah you mean specifically Mass Charm, Frost Nova, Boulder Roll -- things that lock up a demigod for so many seconds.  My bad -- that's more of a gray area.  I would argue that SHOULDN'T set off cooldowns if it interrupts a casting, since it locks the demigod down for 3 seconds as it is, and that's an eternity in this game.

I really like how this system works.

You have only one (or two if you count items) silence and the rest of cast-cancel skills are interrupt and stuns.

interrupts work exactly the same like stuns only with a very short duration.

So stuns are, in my opinion, only interrupts with the advantage of an unconciousness of the target.

The funny thing when you kinda describe stun + cast cancel is that while you are stunned your cooldown runs forth.

And hey this game should have some tactical portions too!

If stun wouldn't cast-cancel, Demigod would need much more interrupts.

And than we could give uo the system of stuns totally and implement more movement imparing skills.

So imho: Please let it stay like it is

and for all Players learn to interrupt on your own.

In chess you don't cry that the kight can jump, you have to utilize this possibility on your own.

The argument isn't over whether a stun should cancel a cast or not. It obviously has to abort the cast. After all you're stunned and can't move.

However there's no reason for there to be a cooldown after you get out of the stun...where does that come from??

Stuns and interrupts work exactly as they should currently.  It's largely a matter of perspective: when you're on the receiving end it's too long and when you're doing the interrupting it's not long enough.  I am heavily against any systematic changes to they way they work.

Going to agree with most posters here.  Stuns and interrupts should be tactical in nature, and putting your spell on cooldown accomplishes just that.

I'm with those in favour of this "tactical interrupt" since what's in place now is exactly how the Warcraft 3 engine worked. I say this from a Dota background.

When a spell is cast, its cool down kicks in, whether that cast attempt was interrupted or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that you've committed the mana, and started the cooldown. There are many skills in Dota that has a mini-stun effect of a tiny faction of a second just so that they may be used to interrupt casting or channeling of spells. Spells with casting or channeling requirements are usually very powerful, but are balanced by being counterable via such tactical interrupts mechanisms.