Shattered Kingdoms

Where Roleplay and Tactics Collide
VOTE NOW!
It is currently Mon Nov 25, 2024 5:18 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Code Update 12/27/2011 - Q&A
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:57 pm 
Offline
Implementor

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 4:00 pm
Posts: 8220
Location: Redwood City, California
Trexor wrote:
Quote:
- Elementals conditionally made more difficult to dispel
Quote:
- Power of dispel magic increased so it is easier to dispel

I am a little confused on this, does this mean elementals are harder to dispel on top of the dispel spell being stronger?

Also, does this make it easier to dispel animated, control and charm person?

While dispel magic in general was made more powerful, we did something for elementals that can do a lot more than just offset the new dispel magic bonus.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Code Update 12/27/2011 - Q&A
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:05 pm 
Offline
Implementor

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 4:00 pm
Posts: 8220
Location: Redwood City, California
ObjectivistActivist wrote:
Quote:
- Lore and identify display the bonus type of enchantments

Does this have to do with the new impairment system? If not, I'm confused about what this means.

It doesn't have anything to do with the impairment system. Here's an example of old vs new:

Old:
This is a jeweled neckband, a large silver treasure, weighing
approximately 6 lbs. It is of superior quality and is worth approximately
325 silver. It bears an enchantment to moderately increase willpower.
It bears an enchantment to greatly increase fortitude.

New:
This is a jeweled neckband, a large silver treasure, weighing
approximately 6 lbs. It is of superior quality and is worth approximately
325 silver. It bears an enhancement enchantment to moderately increase
willpower. It bears an innate enchantment to greatly increase fortitude.

Does this actually change anything? No. So what does it mean? Well.. nothing. But see below.

ObjectivistActivist wrote:
Quote:
Impairment system:

Is this a precursor to changes with enchant to make it less mind-numbing of a process?

The line in the update notice where I said a lot of code refactoring took place? Part of that was a bunch of modifications to the enchantment system. The end result of which was almost no actual change in gameplay, but it is set up in such a way to make future changes much easier.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Code Update 12/27/2011 - Q&A
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:11 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:50 pm
Posts: 1798
I'm/we're very grateful for all this, thank you.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Code Update 12/27/2011 - Q&A
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:16 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:09 am
Posts: 95
I've noticed if I land the same enchantment on something that had the enchantment innately, it still shows innate despite the fact I've enhanced it instead of a separate line showing the enhanced enchantment.

Is this intentional, D?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Code Update 12/27/2011 - Q&A
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:30 pm 
Offline
Implementor

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 4:00 pm
Posts: 8220
Location: Redwood City, California
ObjectivistActivist wrote:
Quote:
Warlock buff package:
- Buffs to chain lightning, fireball, magma spray, and cone of cold
Just damage buffs, or range of effect buffs as well? If chain lightning and fireball still affect caster-grouped targets, then all a damage buff will do is make them even more useless.
Damage buffs plus impairment on many of these. Chain lightning and fireball are both spells of situational usefulness and this has not changed.

ObjectivistActivist wrote:
Quote:
- Elementals conditionally made more difficult to dispel
Meaning? Does that mean they now use the caster's resistances to dispel or have they been given their own?
It may work similar to the way a warlock could already buff their elemental. But I decline to comment because I've never publicly said how the process works.

ObjectivistActivist wrote:
Quote:
- Buffs to air and water elementals damage resistance
Good change, but was the buff enough to make it so that fire elemental is not still the only truly viable option for the warlock?
I know they are viable, although water is still probably going to be the weakest. It's still the first elemental you get.

ObjectivistActivist wrote:
Quote:
- Faerie fire removed from priests and awarded to warlocks
I don't understand this change but whatever. Not a big deal.
Someone else mentioned that faerie fire didn't seem to help them at all. I think there is a lot of misconception about this spell. It probably isn't helped by the fact that it's a first level spell, which implies that it would be useful right away, which is the farthest thing from the truth. I am seriously considering making it higher level for warlocks just to reinforce this. It could also use a better help file.

Essentially it's only useful in PvP. If you've used it, you will be able to see that it is a debuff to magical protection. This won't help you against NPCs because almost none of them have MP to begin with. But it will certainly help a caster do more damage with magical spells against most players with enchanted gear. As a warlock is the most reliant on damaging spells, it made sense to turn this over to them, completely apart from it being a "fire" spell.

ObjectivistActivist wrote:
Quote:
- Earthquake ignores magic resistance and protection
- Earthquake may cause victims to be knocked prone
Has the damage been buffed at all? The prone effect is in-theme and a good idea, but the damage even without magical protection is still a joke unless it's received some love as well.
Yes, the damage was upgraded a bit, but that wasn't what I was going for here. The spell is already great for leveling if you can jump through the hoops to make it work. Making it awesome damage for PvP would have completely broken it for leveling purposes, so I didn't try.

ObjectivistActivist wrote:
Quote:
- Added dig spell to find buried items and knock people prone
Is there a help file for this spell? Does it replace the need for the shovel tool?
I still need to write the help file. It does everything dig does without a shovel, but if you actually want to bury something, you will still need the shovel.

ObjectivistActivist wrote:
Quote:
- Swap levels of burning hands and shocking grasp for warlocks
Not sure what the aim of this was. Neither spell is particularly useful beyond leveling.
Addressed this in another post. It wasn't really about buffing warlocks, just something that made more sense to me.

ObjectivistActivist wrote:
Quote:
- Resist elements is no longer brew-able
What about existing items, staves, etc that provide RE? Are those being affected or just brewing RE going forward? Can those items still be recharged as normal by a warlock?
We haven't changed any existing items so far. We may in the future. Nothing was changed with the recharge spell, but since you've pointed it out, maybe it needs consideration.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Code Update 12/27/2011 - Q&A
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:32 pm 
Offline
Implementor

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 4:00 pm
Posts: 8220
Location: Redwood City, California
skivg2011 wrote:
I've noticed if I land the same enchantment on something that had the enchantment innately, it still shows innate despite the fact I've enhanced it instead of a separate line showing the enhanced enchantment.

Is this intentional, D?

Yes, and this is the only change you should be able to see. But it doesn't actually change your save bonus.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Code Update 12/27/2011 - Q&A
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:38 pm 
Offline
Implementor

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 4:00 pm
Posts: 8220
Location: Redwood City, California
Dulrik wrote:
skivg2011 wrote:
I've noticed if I land the same enchantment on something that had the enchantment innately, it still shows innate despite the fact I've enhanced it instead of a separate line showing the enhanced enchantment.

Is this intentional, D?

Yes, and this is the only change you should be able to see. But it doesn't actually change your save bonus.

Wait, are you saying you are seeing two lines or only one line? You should see two lines, as in:

This is a jeweled neckband, a large silver treasure, weighing
approximately 6 lbs. It is of superior quality and is worth approximately
325 silver. It bears an enhancement enchantment to moderately increase
fortitude. It bears an innate enchantment to greatly increase fortitude.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Code Update 12/27/2011 - Q&A
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:41 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:09 am
Posts: 95
You utter the words, 'uoculoihuyl'.
This is a copper band, a medium copper treasure, weighing approximately 2
lbs. It is of outstanding quality and is worth approximately 194 silver.
It bears an enhancement enchantment to slightly increase magical protection.
It bears an innate enchantment to greatly increase magic resistance.

I can safely say that was quite heavily enchanted beforehand in the resistance category. Maybe it only affects new enchants? If I read your post right, I should see this:

You utter the words, 'uoculoihuyl'.
This is a copper band, a medium copper treasure, weighing approximately 2
lbs. It is of outstanding quality and is worth approximately 194 silver.
It bears an enhancement enchantment to slightly increase magical protection.
It bears an innate enchantment to greatly increase magic resistance. It bears an enchanced enchantment to moderately increase magic resistance.

Also, do the debuffs to saves work against npcs as well (assuming they have saves on what they wear)?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Code Update 12/27/2011 - Q&A
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:17 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:34 am
Posts: 151
Does the level of a malediction/warlock spell effect the degree of impairment?

Ex. lvl 30 blindness resisted - 1 fortitude
lvl 40 blindness resisted - 2 fortitude
lvl 50 blindness resisted - 3 fortitude


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Code Update 12/27/2011 - Q&A
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:37 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:21 pm
Posts: 4452
Banhammer wrote:
Does the level of a malediction/warlock spell effect the degree of impairment?

Ex. lvl 30 blindness resisted - 1 fortitude
lvl 40 blindness resisted - 2 fortitude
lvl 50 blindness resisted - 3 fortitude


He said the casting speed of the spell affects the degree of impairment.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group