Aura of Negation & Prone

Edoras · **Posted:** Fri Jun 12, 2015 7:29 am

Nashira wrote:

More uber-mobs with scripts to hunt barbs. Noted, thanks.

I like the cut of your jib, but the real issue that KPI mentioned is that MR barbs don't need to go through lengthy PvE trips in order to be competitive in PvP, unlike every other class.

Clearly the best way to fix this is to provide all bounty/guard NPCs with a script which spam casts "change sex" 100 times whenever they die, which will result in all MR barbs healing from resistances going in the tank for hours every time they PvP. That way even MR barbs would have to experience the aspect of requiring hours of activity before being capable in PvP.

#JustBalanceThings.

Galactus · **Joined:** Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:21 pm **Posts:** 906

Edoras wrote:

Galactus wrote:

Edoras, when calculating tohit/damage, the code already has to process it. Add in a flag for AoN, and bam, it doesn't add it. Or, could be just as easy to to reverse the process. (less lag to stop the code from happening then reverse it, but there might be limitations that would force the latter)

I suppose, but I still feel like this might be an oversimplification that would inevitably result in random things not being noticed. Ignoring GS for to-hit/damage against MR-only targets, for example, isn't just a simple calculation: If done accurately, the code would have to subtract the amount of strength that the GS spell is currently providing before factoring in the strength of the person in their own to-hit roll. Granted, I don't know what the code looks like, but as a developer myself, I understand that not everything is as simple to implement as it might seem. I would imagine that to-hit rolls and AC calculations are separate calculations, one from the attacker and one from the defender, and it might be incorrect to assume that everything can be easily gleaned about the attacker and defender in both circumstances.

I should say, that you are right. Without seeing the code, it could be from easy to WTF are you crazy? hard. Just trying to offer a balance, mostly in a vacuum.

Chem · **Joined:** Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:04 pm **Posts:** 1017

Galactus wrote:

Edoras wrote:

Galactus wrote:

Edoras, when calculating tohit/damage, the code already has to process it. Add in a flag for AoN, and bam, it doesn't add it. Or, could be just as easy to to reverse the process. (less lag to stop the code from happening then reverse it, but there might be limitations that would force the latter)

I suppose, but I still feel like this might be an oversimplification that would inevitably result in random things not being noticed. Ignoring GS for to-hit/damage against MR-only targets, for example, isn't just a simple calculation: If done accurately, the code would have to subtract the amount of strength that the GS spell is currently providing before factoring in the strength of the person in their own to-hit roll. Granted, I don't know what the code looks like, but as a developer myself, I understand that not everything is as simple to implement as it might seem. I would imagine that to-hit rolls and AC calculations are separate calculations, one from the attacker and one from the defender, and it might be incorrect to assume that everything can be easily gleaned about the attacker and defender in both circumstances.

I should say, that you are right. Without seeing the code, it could be from easy to WTF are you crazy? hard. Just trying to offer a balance, mostly in a vacuum.

Actually a very simple calculation, or one that can be completely negated just by not even including the effects of Giant Strength on the attacker. But than again as Galactus has said, it depends on how efficient / neat or sloopy the code/coder is, and working on code done by someone else is usually a nightmare. Luckily SK only has one coder heh.

Dulrik · **Posted:** Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:19 pm

Baranov wrote:

For example, instead a lightning sword doing pure lightning damage, why doesn't it do half physical and half lightning? Instead of 2d6 lightning dmg against the target, why not 1d6 physical and 1d6 lightning respectively. This would reduce the anathema to wielding a weapon with a magical attack type and keep MR barbarians from being completely immune to certain weapon attacks (only some of the weapon attack).

Actually the possibility of it being half and half already exists. It depends on how the weapon was built:
Non-energy weapon (steel, mithril, etc) with shocking bite attack = 50% physical, 50% electrical
Energy weapon with shocking bite attack = 100% electrical

Gann · **Joined:** Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:43 am **Posts:** 107

Baranov wrote:

For example, instead a lightning sword doing pure lightning damage, why doesn't it do half physical and half lightning? Instead of 2d6 lightning dmg against the target, why not 1d6 physical and 1d6 lightning respectively. This would reduce the anathema to wielding a weapon with a magical attack type and keep MR barbarians from being completely immune to certain weapon attacks (only some of the weapon attack).

As Durlik already pointed out, it already works this way depending on the weapon material type. There is a reason that people in the know avoid magical and elemental damage weapons like the plague: magic resistant barbarians and elves, sprites, halflings, and deep-elves. The only desirable non-standard attack forms are acidic bite and sonic because they are both considered physical and not magical.

Shattered Kingdoms

Aura of Negation & Prone

Who is online