Jump to content

Sacred 2 Enhanced Edition


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, dimitrius154 said:

The function is not being addressed by non-weapon damage spellclasses.

Ohh, ok, so it's only if the spell has causesSpellDamage = 1, in the entry.

So this means that spells will now be able to leech life and regen per hit, and everything else?  I mean, if we can balance it, I'm all for it, but are you sure some of that wasn't intentionally disabled?

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Flix said:

intentionally disabled

I was reading through the posts thinking the same thing, if it wasn't just a simple way the devs found to shutdown those sinergies. In other words an intentional nerf.

Wasn't there a time when spells worked with other modifiers and then it was nerfed? I've only played with v2.40 and over so I can't really say, but does anyone recall that?

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Androdion said:

Wasn't there a time when spells worked with other modifiers and then it was nerfed? I've only played with v2.40 and over so I can't really say, but does anyone recall that?

Yes, I never played the base game (except the demo) but according to the Wiki death blow used to work on spells: http://www.sacredwiki.org/index.php/Sacred_2:Opponent_level_for_death_blow

Link to comment

Yeah, I&B brought the nerfs then.

To be honest I think it's a gigantic task to balance all of those modifiers to work with spells. Just think of Glacial Thorns and the nightmare begins... Imagine it with regen per hit and life leach, I mean crickey! The negative part of me says it's best not to open that can of worms, but that's just me being me. :dntknw:

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Flix said:

Ohh, ok, so it's only if the spell has causesSpellDamage = 1, in the entry.

No, that flag is not being checked by the damage application, otherwise I'd consider that intentional. It's that, due to a check for IsServer(whether a server or a client is calling) is placed incorrectly in every nominally spell-based damage spellclass damage dealing subfunction, the EventDamage::toServer function is not being called.

I've seen such instances before, with the location change Buff reset bug and the state fx no working on npcs. Does not look like nerfing, but sloppy code rewriting.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, dimitrius154 said:

Right, those were not property-based, but hardcoded for specific sets, some were broken, and the Orla-Aisling full set bonus was causing save game corruption during extended gameplays.

The actual 'problem' with the modifier is, I guess, the irresistable damage part, not the leeching itself.

I agree, grim dawn's nemesis have like 85% leech resistance. 

So I think it's a good move to remove this almost bug like 'feature' .

Link to comment
6 hours ago, SANGEL said:

So I think it's a good move to remove this almost bug like 'feature' .

It's not bugged, but very different from the Diablo series, where leeching is from the percentage of damage inflicted, not the remaining enemy life. Technically, only a few unique, set, legendary items and a couple CA's have the modifier. Those are supposed to be hard to get. Thus, the modifier can hardly be considered 'breaking build diversity'. 

Edited by dimitrius154
Link to comment

@dimitrius154I had a question about mgr.addCreatureSkill in creatures.txt.  Many enemies/NPC's have "advanced   = 1," in their skill entries.

I once assumed this meant that the NPC would have a "mastery" version of the skill with greater values, but preliminary testing shows that it has no effect at all.  When developing CM 1.60, I noticed that normal Blade Spiders had extra armor, that the elites did not.  I checked and both variants had the Toughness skill, but only the elites had the flag "advanced   = 1."  When I changed it to "advanced   = 0," the skill took effect.

Could you double check this mechanic, and confirm if advanced   = 1, actually robs the NPC of the skill?  If so, it would be a considerable bug, and all NPC's would need the flag set to "0" otherwise they would be bereft of many of the skills they are supposed to have.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Flix said:

Many enemies/NPC's have "advanced   = 1,"

Right, someone didn't think much, while filling those entries

33 minutes ago, Flix said:

Could you double check this mechanic, and confirm if advanced   = 1, actually robs the NPC of the skill? 

Advanced means 'available as a secondary skill', so yes, it shouldn't be set to on on NPCs, as they lack the assignment mechanics.

  • Thanks! 1
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, dimitrius154 said:

Advanced means 'available as a secondary skill', so yes, it shouldn't be set to on on NPCs, as they lack the assignment mechanics.

I wonder if, after correcting it to advanced = 0. one might also change the skill name to the "adv_skill_name" version, for example "skill_advanced_toughness", in order to grant the "mastery" level effects. I assume this is what the devs were attempting to do.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, dimitrius154 said:

Does anyone recall, why was it needed to enlarge the Destroyer model? That surely doesn't add to the functionality of the CA.

I just did that because I thought they were too small.  Should only be in effect in EE.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Flix said:

I wonder if, after correcting it to advanced = 0. one might also change the skill name to the "adv_skill_name" version

The way the Blackmith NPCs work, they attain mastery once the skill is >=75. I assume, it's the same for other NPCs. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Flix said:

I just did that because I thought they were too small. 

Their hitboxes and pathing are affected. They become less likely to properly hurt things. Kamikaze have to be short and slim, like the original ones, you know, not big and muscular.

Edited by dimitrius154
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, dimitrius154 said:

Their hitboxes and pathing are affected. They become less likely to properly hurt things. Kamikaze have to be short and slim, like the original ones, you know, not big and muscular.

They're not THAT much bigger.  0.7000 scale increased to 0.8500.

Could increase the range of the explosion to compensate. Or decrease the fight distance to make sure they get close enough.  I'm pretty sure I actually did some combination of the two.  May have decreased their bounding box size as well.  I don't have the vanilla scripts on hand right now to check.

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, Flix said:

Could increase the range of the explosion to compensate.

This might come as a surprise, but Destroyers don't actually use the "dm_zerstoerer_bomb". Nor do they have a splash  radius.

Edited by dimitrius154
Link to comment
1 hour ago, dimitrius154 said:

Nor do they have a splash  radius.

Doesn't the "et_range_area" parameter on "dm_co_zerstoerer" do something though?

53 minutes ago, dimitrius154 said:

On the contrary, the distance should be 35 to 45.

Well it's already 45 in EE and CM 1.60.  Is it 35 in vanilla?  Also, what does it matter if that spell isn't used? 

  • Thanks! 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Flix said:

Is it 35 in vanilla?

Creature with the itemtype 12699 has fightDistMin of 12 and FightDistMax of 16.

18 minutes ago, Flix said:

Doesn't the "et_range_area" parameter on "dm_co_zerstoerer" do something though?

Ah, It actually does. It's the splash radius and the detonation attempt distance both. Looks like 500 is a good one.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, dimitrius154 said:

It's the splash radius and the detonation attempt distance both. Looks like 500 is a good one.

Gotcha. I'll include the change.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, dimitrius154 said:

It's not bugged, but very different from the Diablo series, where leeching is from the percentage of damage inflicted, not the remaining enemy life. Technically, only a few unique, set, legendary items and a couple CA's have the modifier. Those are supposed to be hard to get. Thus, the modifier can hardly be considered 'breaking build diversity'. 

From a progression point of view, that can't be more true.

But.... from an end game point of view, I feel much less powerful if I don't equip those lottery winners thus make other weapons(so many of them) felt like second class citizens....

Imagine a world where we have lots of weapons to choose from for different styles of builds, that certainly makes the game more entertaining.

 

 

 

Link to comment

Well, technically speaking you only "need" %LL for the endgame to melt bosses. Sure it helps with huge packs of mobs too, but there you should already have a very solid build that's capable of dealing with them. Facing bosses with over 1 million HP on the other hand, that modifier does come in handy. And you're just one weapon slot away so you can have it both ways.

Link to comment

IN HC servers when the game was out...it would have been impossible to take out and run legendary runs and take out bosses with out leech

leech was life 

And loosing a toon after a few hundred hours of play time would have been devastating

all hail leech

 

gogo

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, gogoblender said:

IN HC servers when the game was out...it would have been impossible to take out and run legendary runs and take out bosses with out leech

That rather speaks of broken bosses ... so you are right, a broken modifier for broken bosses ... especially in vanilla anyway.

 

Im with @SANGEL on the LL% matter. LL% does not belong into Sacred 2 in its current state.

In fact, LL% might be the main reason why NOBODY got ANY good feedback on balancing out bosses, since everybody just hammered space + LL% ... . How are you ever going to balance this ... ?

But LL% is in good company with RPH%, which is why I reduced LL% by /10, and halfed RpH%.

If LL% would work on the remaining hp it would make the game infinitely more reasonable.

 

Edit: I also had a balance request to triple "Chance to ban undead" modifier. Undead ressurection is so annoying that people straight up remove it from their game, but there are actual ingame items which do the same thing, they are currently just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to weak to be considered.

Edited by Charon117
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up