[S2G/CP1.6/EE2.1/SS,C] Reclassify Mage Staffs projectiles as Spells

[Charon117 50]

Can you reclassify all mage stuff projectiles as "Spell"s ? This would circumvent the problem of mages being dependend on accuracy for staff hits.

[Flix 5,116]

I doubt it's possible without editing the dll's.  The only thing I can think of would be to open up spells.txt, finding the entry called "magicstaff_projectile", and then looking at this line: 

causesSpellDamage = 0,

change it to:

causesSpellDamage = 1,

 

[Charon117 50]

@Flix You are the best ! Will try it.

[Charon117 50]

@Flix It will work in a way. It classifies the projectile as a proper spell, but since it doesnt know where to pull the damage calculations from it doesnt do any damage. Somebody would propably have to insert it into the proper Sacred 2 calculation model.

Different approaches to this would propably be better, like changing a CA spell to a single projectile like the HEs fireball. You would even get mods ontop of it.

[Flix 5,116]

1 hour ago, Charon117 said:

@Flix It will work in a way. It classifies the projectile as a proper spell, but since it doesnt know where to pull the damage calculations from it doesnt do any damage. Somebody would propably have to insert it into the proper Sacred 2 calculation model.

Different approaches to this would propably be better, like changing a CA spell to a single projectile like the HEs fireball. You would even get mods ontop of it.

I could probably flesh out the  "magicstaff_projectile" spell entry to make it have some damage values and other modifiers.  At that point though you just have a spell that uses the attack animation.  It wouldn't be pulling any meaningful values from the weapon itself, unless it was general modifiers that would normally apply to spells (cast speed, spell intensity, etc.).  All weapon-related modifiers on staves would need to be replaced, and the damage types on the staff itself would become meaningless.  You would be stuck with static damage type(s).

[Charon117 50]

5 hours ago, Flix said:

I could probably flesh out the  "magicstaff_projectile" spell entry to make it have some damage values and other modifiers.  At that point though you just have a spell that uses the attack animation.  It wouldn't be pulling any meaningful values from the weapon itself, unless it was general modifiers that would normally apply to spells (cast speed, spell intensity, etc.).  All weapon-related modifiers on staves would need to be replaced, and the damage types on the staff itself would become meaningless.  You would be stuck with static damage type(s).

Yeah, ofcourse, if I change causesSpellDamage but dont define any tokens for it, it wont do anything.

Would you be able to explain what the numbers stand for ?

et_spelldamage_fire", 580, 290, 0, 133

The first is the damage number I assume, and the last one is the calculation type.

Do we also know of any spell(s) that take weapon damage and type into account that we could splice into this ?

I dont think the staff will use cast speed ever, since the game treats it like a weapon in the first place. We only started to change the projectile, the staff still gets treated the same as before.

[Flix 5,116]

et_spelldamage_fire", 580, 290, 0, 133

First number is the base value.  Second number is the increase per CA level.  Third number indicates if the token is a modification (1-6).  Fourth number seems to determine how the modifier gets applied (to self, to party, to weapon, to enemies).  Changing the fourth number hasn't borne any fruit except for correcting a few bugs.

 

13 hours ago, Charon117 said:

Do we also know of any spell(s) that take weapon damage and type into account that we could splice into this ?

Closest thing would be something Magic Coup or Archangel's Wrath but those are more like weapon CA's that have spell-like properties.

[dimitrius154 612]

Simply put, you can't do much. EVERY ranged attack IS, technically, a spell. They all have entries in spells,txt. There's a maximum of 7, that I can't circumvent without some hedgewizardry( some idiot had decided to store them all in memory, instead of addressing a table, when needed). And then there's a function hardwiring the attacks to being "normal"(attack and defence based).

Edited October 5, 2019 by dimitrius154

[Charon117 50]

20 minutes ago, Flix said:

those are more like weapon CA's that have spell-like properties.

Isnt ... that exactly what we need ? A "code" that converts a mages staff base attack into a spell ? Could be wrong, but I think tactics lore affects angels wrath ? Doesnt matter, it would be easy enough to change this.
BeeEffGee + AW is a common combo, no ? It takes the attack of BFG and puts AW ontop of it ? Isnt that exactly what we are talking about ?
Very good idea, will take a look at it later.

16 minutes ago, dimitrius154 said:

Simply put, you can't do much. EVERY ranged attack IS, technically, a spell. They all have entries in spells,txt. There's a maximum of 7, that I can't circumvent without some hedgewizardry( some idiot had decided to store them all in memory, instead of addressing a table, when needed). And then there's a function hardwiring the attacks to being "normal"(attack and defence based).

You mean the spell that gets called for mage staffs is THAT entry, and it gets hardwired to being a "normal" attack ? I cant really see the problem here otherwise.

Following the above idea of causesSpellDamage and defining the tokens for it in the same way as Archangel Wraths would do the trick ? Worth a try.

[dimitrius154 612]

Just now, Charon117 said:

Following the above idea of causesSpellDamage and defining the tokens for it in the same way as Archangel Wraths would do the trick ?

Nope. OK, full explanation: every spell in spells.txt has a "SpellClass" parameter assigned. This one controls the 90% mechanics of the spell. There are 16 functions wired to each SpellClass, some of them(approx. 50%) overlap. Some are coded... badly.  Tokens from spells.txt are useful only if taken into account by the spell mechanics functions.

[Charon117 50]

I think running some tests will shed a bit more light for me on the matter.

Thx for the explanations so far.