5th_Player
-
Posts
145 -
Joined
-
While Playing my brute I noticed burn is doing way too much damage.
Burn is ticking 4 separate ticks per "tick".
For me at lvl 30, it should be doing 3 damage per tick, but it's doing 4 individual ticks so it's 12 damage per tick.
The initial damage is not in the power text either.
So there's two bugs.
1. No initial damage in power text.
2. 4x as many DoT ticks than should be.
PLEASE FIX before I get used to it's OP nature.
It should do one amount of initial damage, then 13? ticks of dot damage. The initial damage should show in power text. -
Villain HEAT VEAT population vs. HERO population is a sound observation.
The people that are attracted to villains aren't attracted to them because of "evil" but because they avoid the MMO holy trinity concept.
Villains and EATs also tend to be preferred by people who prefer solo.
I've seen the same trend in other games. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
I definitely do not want another AT. This is only one powerset and is about forgoing upfront protection in favor of more damage. Additionally, berserker (or whatever the name would end up) should be able to swing an axe, a sword, his fists, his fists on fire, or whatever else he finds.
What you've described is just fury without the bonus for attacking. If you roll the protection into the "fury" bar, then you've eliminated two powers of the set, and you've made it far too overpowered.
Also, the theme is less "getting angry" and more "I feel most alive on the edge of death."
Thank you. I really think it has some potential, and I hope it appeals to a large group of people. It needs some ironing out, though.
So you're describing a powerset that makes your defenses and resistances SKYROCKET when you get low on health, akin to an extreme version of scaling RES in Quick Reflexes.
I'd like to add to that an auto power that has a chance to proc with a CD of 5 mins unenhanceable that performs like DULL PAIN.... increasing max health and healing for 25% if you fall below 10% health.
Name it similar to Second Wind, but that is already an insp.
Second Chance?
Recoup? -
Quote:According to some dev posts I read way back, there's a way to flag a mob that's already been damaged by the attack.Originally Posted by SkarmoryThePG
Total aside: Does that mean CI is more likely to chain if there's a clump of enemies in the same area? Hm. I wonder how they made it so that the chains don't loop back.
Also, <3 Arca's thoroughness.
It looks like each chain has a tohit check on all enemies within range. That leads to a high chance the chain will finish.... higher than a normal AoE.
I'm guess the chance to hit is lower than other AoEs to balance this? -
Quote:Only on the first attempt.Originally Posted by HelinCarnate
So you should be able to hit a target that is in the middle of combat, jumping around and trying to avoid attacks form another player 100% of the time because nothing is attacking you?
Make it more of a flag for combat.
Which exists, otherwise mobs wouldn't know to attack you until they see you, and they wouldn't know when to return to patrolling status after you die to a patrol ambush. -
Quote:Blarg....Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Oh no, not another one of these discussions.
MMOs are not programs where everything is written in code. There's a game engine, and then there's data which represents all of the entities in the game, like powers. The tohit system resolves hits. Its not "passed" information about the power, its the other way around: when a power is activated the tohit system determines if that power hits its target, and then the rest of the information about the power is read to determine that power's effects. This allows the game engine to be generic, while the data describing the content of the game can change.
No, its that you don't understand how systems like this are written. In *every* game I've ever seen, the engine and the data are separated. Its how mods are made: they aren't made by actually hacking the game code. And when you make mods, you can only do what the engine already allows you to do, based on what the engine is written to handle.
No one is going to go randomly fiddling with the tohit code of the game just to start adding in special cases to it, like "if this power is green, go do something else entirely." And without that sort of special case code, there's no way to reference whether a power is a "tier 1 power" or not.
That doesn't mean it can't be changed, only that certain changes are much easier than others. See: Elusivity.
Powers are either flagged "autohit" or not (technically, they are flagged as either autohitting certain kinds of targets or not). If they are autohit, they do not roll a tohit roll before affecting their targets. If the are not autohit, they roll a tohit roll which they must pass for their effects to affect its targets (this is also why the suggestion above is nonsensical: its more that the powers call the tohit system rather than the other way around).
Chain induction requires a hit. However its an AoE with a 1 target cap (or rather, the jumps are) and the jump has enhanced accuracy. If there are no targets in range or the jump actually misses all of the targets in range, the jump fails.
Because the game engine can only reference what its programmed to reference. The tohit algorithm is not designed to reference the specific details of the power invoking it. Doing so would make the tohit code - which is used all over the place for a lot of things - larger, slower, and more unwieldy. Its not sloppy. Frankly, you're not the first person without experience coding games to make that claim. I'll give you this much: at least you haven't mentioned inheritance yet although you came close by mentioning objects. Powers are actually defined in an Excel spreadsheet that is then imported into custom database tables that are loaded into the game engine. This is common knowledge among players that keep track of such things.
1. I've been discussing the game implementation with the devs longer than most people have been playing the game now.
2. In particular, I discussed the tohit system with pohsyb until I was blue in the face back in I6 running up to the I7 accuracy changes. I actually posted a fairly detailed simplified algorithm for it back then, and I know quite a bit more since then.
3. All of the information I've provided here is also generally known and has been discussed on the forums in the past. I'm not the only player who could have answered your questions. I can think of a dozen more that could off the top of my head.
4. One third of what I know comes directly from the devs. One third comes from extremely systematic testing of the game itself. One third comes from basically remembering everything every other reputable player has ever discovered and described. That makes my batting average when discussing game implementation very, very high.
I'm suggesting not portraying certainty when you're actually wrong. It hurts credibility. That's why you should never guess, and really never guess and think your guesses couldn't possibly be wrong. Arcana's rule number one: all uninformed** guesses about City of Heroes game implementation are wrong. I've been saying that since 2006 or so, and so far no one has ever managed to break that rule.
** The only guesses that have ever been even partially right have been either informed by the devs, or informed through direct and meticulous testing of the game engine. Guesses based on textbooks are batting zero for the century.
So, it checks the to-hit result, and has a second part of the data describe what happens on a miss.
This is a circular debate.
That's exactly how I described it in my first post.
I never suggested the to-hit check know anything about a power. I suggested that it must know something because it knows to-hit chance. Which means that it carries information about a specific instance of the power (the power altered by the enhancements), unless the power is a simple struct and the mods are made to a generic structure passed into the to-hit algorithm.
I guess that's what you're essentially saying though, that the calculations that are done and data sent to the to-hit algorithm is a generic chance to hit, not a reference to the power itself.
You're wrong on one point though. A reference to the power wouldn't make the to-hit algorithm any slower unless the to-hit algorithm accessed too much of the data within the object it was sent.
I suppose the engine would have to expect a power object, and would have to be updated with the contents of the power object as they changed that. Then the power objects aren't a part of the game engine?
If that's so, then the game engine is VERY SLIM and VERY Generic. It would be moreso generic than I expected. It could be reused to make any MMO with any set of stats. Including an MMO without "powers", one that has an auto-attack.
YOU actually suggested the tohit algorithm should know anything about the power.
I suggested the power work differently if it misses. -
Quote:Originally Posted by SkarmoryThePG
Then you can still hit him because the 5% chance to hit floor stays.
Lots of new code for bugger all benefit. Surely that won't break anywhere. It's also a completely different thing than what this thread was made to discuss. Oh, it'd also unfairly penalize all defense-based builds and enemies. Now imagine building for having absurd recharge on your first attack and slotting in six procs.
Absurd recharge is fine. But procs wouldn't proc on a miss.... which is also fine
At this point..... you're asking for way too much.Quote:
Your solution takes away the frustration for one attack. One. Out of between roughly six and eighteen a character is likely to have. So, no, it doesn't, not really.
Giving someone an option when they simply can't hit a target, fine.....
But you're suggesting we make accuracy meaningless.
At which point, I agree..... I don't think you should ever MISS personally based on some hit CAP.
But people around here are acting like your suggesting this somehow gets around DEF.
That's not what either of us are suggesting.
We're suggesting that the 5% hit penalty be avoidable somehow. That someone build to never miss, should in fact never miss a target without DEF.
A deflect due to DEF is not a MISS. -
Quote:List the problems it introduces.Originally Posted by SkarmoryThePG
Solves none of the problems this change is intended to and introduces lots of new ones.
Besides, your solution changes nothing...... 95% hit cap is INHERENTLY soft cap. Soft cap means that you can raise a certain stat, but you don't see the effects unless your hit with an effect that lowers the stat or the enemy has an effect that counters the stat directly. You can raise DEF to 95%, but you don't see an effect unless you get hit with a DEF debuff.
Also, the problem you intend to solve is to reduce the frustration of a 5% miss rate.
My solution takes away the frustration. You have one power that you're guaranteed will never miss. I hardly find a miss frustrating unless I'm in a do or die, or I'm opening with a snipe/AS. -
Quote:1. So what you're saying is that the code that checks whether a hit occurs has no way of knowing the statistical data about the power being used, yet somehow the damage can be applied after the to-hit check passes or fails. If that's so, then that's just bad coding. It take's all of what..... one argument to pass a reference to the data.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Oh my god.
Word of advice: if you don't know, its probably best not to guess. Neither of these approaches would work for reasons having to do with a couple of misunderstandings you have about the way the game is coded and implemented in data.
There's a completely different way to implement such an idea in theory, which I'm not going to describe in detail because I think its an especially bad idea. But the first attempt cannot succeed because power data is not hard coded into the game engine, thus the tohit system has no way to know when a "tier 1" attack is being used: the code cannot reference that fact, ever. The second attempt fails because there's no way to signal the miss from one entity to the other, and no way to spawn the entity only on a miss.
The power doesn't have to be hard coded.... that's what data structs or objects are for.
2. If that's true, then you're suggesting that the game engine is not able to change. Again..... bad coding. I'm stumbling over a set engine that cannot be modified.... why? Why is that?
3. So a to-hit check that fails cannot cause other things to occur or not occur. How do chain powers work. They keep passing the chain effect off as long as the last chain hits.
4. Why would the powers have to be hard coded for the to-hit check to access data about the power?
I mean, I can understand that it could be coded this way, but then...... why? That's really really sloppy. Any coding that stands against change, is not good coding practice.
Explain how you know this please?
Besides, just because I can't get a guess right on how it occurs doesn't mean I can't create a model based off of the reflexes. Otherwise, you're suggesting I never bother designing before I code?
Also, just because there's some massive hurdle in the way NEVER implies that something cannot be done, only that the benefits would not be worth the work required.
Finally, I never understood a system of MISS. MISS is FAIL, and FAIL is not enjoyable.
To suggest that players be forced to accept a chance to miss a stationary object without intelligence at all...
Well... I'm just at odds with you on that one.
Besides, my suggestion to allow reduced damage on a hit capped.... is not much difference than the argument for blaster defiance, so I have some precedence on my side. -
Quote:I don't agree that supposition breaks NDA, but I removed it anyway.Originally Posted by Thirty-Seven
You do realize you broke the NDA on the last page, right 5th?
-
Quote:Easily fixed.Originally Posted by Aggelakis
There's also "the instant someone figures it out, it'll be on ParagonWiki/the forums/whatever".
Make the puzzle dynamic.....
Much more like a Rubix cube.
That way the solution would be online, but the solution would only be a method.
Simple, lightup games would be fine, smaller amounts of squares make it possible for younger players..... and the settings could be set to hard, easy, bypass.
These puzzles can be made dynamic such that there isn't a solution. -
Quote:Yep....Originally Posted by Decorum
Sooo...completely retool how accuracy and damage work in this game then? Simple!
If (user misses && user power used == T1 attack) Autoattack target with damage 1/2 T1;
Not complete retooling...... one line change.
For the sake of working within current game mechanics, have the power spawn a pet that does the half damage if the power misses. -
Quote:If I have a glowing ball of energy and I whiff a little..... it still hits you.....Originally Posted by Decorum
Same thing I said in the other thread.
It's a video game. "Chance for failure", no matter how small, is pretty much a requirement.
I say no more misses on PVE.... glancing strikes instead.
Miss should only happen if accuracy is REALLY low.
Accuracy should only affect the user.
User's shouldn't have reduced accuracy against tougher targets. Now, tougher targets can have a better chance to avoid the attack, but you shouldn't miss just because you're fighting a bigger target?
- Hey, you see that tiny spec, it's a minion hit it....
> OK.... BAM 9001 damage.
- You see that HUGE *** SHIP, hit it.....
> I GUESS..... Whiff.....
- WHAT THE HELL....
> Sorry, I'm out of focus...
- You don't have to have focus, it's the size of jupiter..... aim anywhere forward.... you can't miss....
> WHIFF...
- WTH....
> I'm sorry, I keep missing.
- You're aiming BACKWARDS *******.....
> Ok, I'm turning around.... WHIFF....
- WTH.... You're melee, how can you miss....
> Sorry, I tried to punch forward but my arm went towards my feet....
- You're what.... lvl 50? How did you get this high. -
Quote:What if strikes and snipes had 100% hit if the user doesn't have ANY AGGRO....Originally Posted by TheShattered
I have to agree with Techbot in that there are some attacks which really should have 100% hit chance such as Sniper attacks and Assassin attacks. Dodge is perfectly okay as well as anything else, but when my AR Blaster 'misses' with Sniper Rifle, i can only wonder "Where you actually aiming the entire time you were looking through the scope?" Same goes for Assassin attacks.
A compromise i think, would be to have Sniper/Assassin attacks at about 98% Accuracy when fully buffed/enhanced etc. After all, they are supposed to be accurate attacks and seems rather odd that they would have the same accuracy as most other attacks.
Which means if you have aggro and placate one target, you still have a chance to miss because 2 others see you and you're "stressed" because you're under fire.
However, if you have the time to totally focus without any retaliation.... why would anyone miss a target standing still. -
Perfect answer.
Change Player PVE Tier 1s against EBs and lesser targets so that if they miss, they still hit for half damage, status effects last half as long.
Meaning, that if a Tier 1 would normally miss because of the 5%, then it hits at half damage.
This means you'll never miss with a Tier 1, but will do half damage or half immob at least.
Benefits:
1. More reason to take and slot T1s.
2. That sliver of health in a emergency situation doesn't end up with you dead because you just missed using your T1.
3. Doms and controllers never miss PVE targets on their T1 immob. Which makes sense, if they can't guarantee an immob, then why bother.
4. New players don't get so many wipes pre lvl 10.
Second change:
If the user has ZERO TOTAL AGGRO, meaning no targets see him or attack him at all, then he should not miss on SNIPES or ASSASSIN STRIKES against PVE targets EB and under.
Now, if the user is under fire, he can still miss.
Why should I miss if I have no retaliation and can take my sweet time aiming?
This would be fair for a stalker as well.
First *** strike is freebie. After that, remaining two target stalker. Stalker uses placate on one and pulls off a AS before the second target attacks. On the second AS he's under fire, he's tensed up, and he has a chance to miss. -
Quote:THIS....Originally Posted by Scooby_Dont
I have an elec/fire at 11 and there has been a bit of face planting so far.
WAY THIS....
I thought it would be so kickass with all the AoE and didn't look at the cast times.
It takes a full 10 seconds to go through your full aoe chain.... by that time the minions JUST died and the lieuts are dying, and the boss is really angry that he loses 1 punch free card.
Proceed to death.
In groups, the AoE doesn't help either cause the mob is dead by the time you launch the third attack. -
I mean, I understand why the heavily active ember sucks end, but why should the cold demonling use so much more end per attack than it's cousins???
It's like they punish the cold attacks for their slow debuffs.
Sorry, on an MM, hellfire -RES debuffs are far more effective.
Why punish the cold demonling?
It forces me to slot for endred in the demonlings for only ONE pet?
Can they just make this one exception? -
It didn't work
-
When I have both occlusion and shadow maps turned on, I experience some mouse input lag.
Nothing horrible, enough to mechanically grow accustomed.
Now, the funny thing is that the mouse graphic is not laggy, just the effects of the mouse.
The mouse graphic is always up to date, but the object highlighted, the camera turning, and the GUI interaction is laggy.
Now, clicking is never laggy, but mouse movement is.
So
Cursor - good
Cursor location - good
Mouse click - good
Mouse over effect - lag
Camera adjustment by mouse - lag -
There's a very bad FPS black hole that sinks me from 40 FPS to 15 FPS in mercy.
If you start at the south trainer and look east, you'll see the sink very easily.
I traced it down to just east of loc: -3590, 10, 195
Whatever is rendering near this location seems to compound.
At first I thought Fort Cerberus was causing the sink; that somehow it was rendering behind everything, but that's not the case. I can stand at the above location and look up at it and I hit 50 FPS.
Since this location seems to take up 15 FPS on its own. The drop to 15 FPS at the trainer would probably only drop to 30 FPS which is reasonable during regular play. ( I average 40-50 FPS).
This compounds with Shadow Maps. (the above FPS considers shadow maps in use), but I noticed I get an FPS drop without shadow maps turned on (only a slight one though).
Thanks. -
Quote:Ok, I'm sorry. I did read a little too much into your post.Originally Posted by Texas Justice
Would you care to point out to me where exactly I said that I disbelieve you?
That was never said or implied in any of my posts here. I simply asked how you had an outdated version of DirectX installed and how it got on your computer. I also stated which versions of DirectX came with Vista and the various Service Packs.
Not a bit of that is saying that I disbelieve you. Asking questions to clarify something you said isn't saying I disbelieve you, it is merely seeking clarification and information.
Perhaps you need to stop reading things into posts that aren't there.
Now, in your post you say you have DirectX 9 on your computer and that CoH Tech support says you need to keep DirectX 9 updated. Ok. That answered the two questions I asked plus gave some additional information.
It raises more questions in my mind, but I'll just leave them there since asking them may cause you to accuse me of other things that I didn't say.
To me, the posts you and Je-Saist are making sound accusatory, like:
It's my machine that's messed up and no one else is having this problem.
I messed up the driver sweeper.
etc.
Sometimes I read too much emotion into posts, so if I misread you, I'm sorry. However, I can tell you, that it felt that way. So at least you can understand why I'm a little defensive.
Anyway, I've posted my evidence that this is a rare but not isolated problem. -
Quote:This is NOT non-issue.Originally Posted by Texas Justice
Wait. What?
How did you have an outdated version of DirectX if you are running Vista with SP2? Vista shipped with DirectX 10. Vista SP1 included DirectX 10.1 and since SP2 is an incremental update it would have installed 10.1 if you skipped SP1.
What version of DirectX do you have that can be outdated and how did you get it on your computer?
Apparently my outdated DirectX 9, was the issue.
The tech email I have from CoH says I need to keep DX9 updated even though I have DX10.
This (so far) solved my complaint of CoH crashing 10 seconds into the game. My post is on this forum as well. The crashing was random, so I'm giving it some time to tell for sure.
Quote:Thank you for the Game Advisor results.
The game client requires the latest DirectX 9 components; this is true even if you have DirectX 10 or higher already installed. Please follow these instructions to install the newest DirectX 9 update:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...1-50ceb6d8fa8d
Once the DirectX 9 version is updated, if the issue is still persistent, then please re-run the Game Advisor tests, update your incident at the provided link, and attach the report.
Hold on, I'll find the links of others having this problem.
1. http://futuremark.yougamers.com/foru....php?p=1399938
2. http://www.quakelive.com/forum/showthread.php?p=374224
3. http://forums.amd.com/game/messagevi...VIEWTMP=Branch
4. http://www.quakelive.com/forum/showthread.php?p=374530
ATI is recommending to replace the OGL dlls from 10.5 / .6 with 10.4's version. Apparently this also fixes the problem.
However, you lose OGL 4.0 and are left with OGL 3.3
My fix allows to use OGL 4.0
http://forum.notebookreview.com/alie...ml#post6369776
Quote:If you are using OpenGL applications or games, you may want to use Catalyst 10.4 or earlier anyway (or at least the atioglxx.dll from drivers earlier than 10.5), as 10.5 and 10.6 have a buggy atioglxx.dll that breaks some OpenGL applications as well as OpenGL games with Quake III engine and the likes. -
I'm running Vista 32-bit with latest service pack.
I'm using the 5850 Sapphire Overclocked.
I was using the Vista 32-bit 10.4 drivers before upgrading.
I was having errors in an outdated version of DirectX but tried the video card drivers first, since the 10.3 drivers were having problems stalling.
Since I've had the problem, sweeping and reinstalling ANY OTHER 10.xx doesn't fix the problem.
The only reports I've seen are issues on Vista 32-bit, so it may not be directly related to the drivers, all I know is what appears to FIX the problem, not what the problem is actually. The XP drivers do not have this problem, and I haven't seen any complaints from Windows 7 users.
This didn't occur until I installed 10.5. Apparently it has something to do with a messup with the OGL portion of the drivers. Since the OGL portion is updated less often by the drivers, it may not be included in the uninstall process or easy to find with driver sweeper.
This is why once it happens, I can't seem to get rid of it.
Now, it appears the issue is very rare, which is obvious by the lack of complaints on the net.
However, everyone who has the issue has taken all the steps I described and haven't been able the fix the drivers either.
.dlls are very unpredictable things. Who knows what's actually attempting to load the file ".dll", but as far as I can tell it isn't removed by any process I've been suggested so far.
The issue may not even be within the driver set for all I can tell. I just know it occurs WHEN I installed 10.5
Most of the people who've had this issue had it occur to them on the 10.2 install, which obviously didn't happen to me.
There may be several reasons for the rareness.
1. Not a lot of people play CoH. Then you have to count how many use NVid instead of ATI.
2. A lot of people are having issues with OGL no longer working when installing Catalyst 10.xx drivers. The complaints even extend into 9.xx. However, not many have recognized that this is the problem. There have been several hotfixes in 9.xx drivers to correct this issue, but not as many people have had the problem in the 10.5 drivers.
3. A lot of people that have problems don't realize it's a problem with a driver. A lot of the complaints I've found is reported in game forums and not driver forums. -
ZOMG.... if it is that you don't have the 6 pin plugged in.......
You're lucky you didn't fry anything.
Tried that on mine, and my machine refused to boot, didn't even respond.....
I have a super safe motherboard I guess. -
I updated to catalyst 10.5 and started having an error pop up every time I loaded the game.
LoadLibrary failed with error126: The specified module could not be found.
***FIND*** [Start] -> Programs -> Accessories -> Command Prompt
1. Right click that and select Run as Administrator.
2. If don't see C:/Windows/System32 on the screen next to your cursor, type the command: cd /d C:/Windows/System32
(If windows isn't on C:, replace C: with the drive windows is installed on)
3. Type the command: COPY atioglxx.dll .dll
And that should do it.
You'll have to do this EVERY TIME YOU UPDATE THE DRIVER until the issue is fixed.
Now, IF THIS FAILS, you may need to take control of the Windows/System32 folder. That's a pretty crazy process, so I won't post that unless someone needs it. {meaning if you need to know how, ask}
Now for the story:
After digging around in what the process was loading, I confirmed it was the same rare error people are having with other OGL games using Catalyst 10.xx
Apparently some dll out there is trying to load ".dll" instead of "atioglxx.dll". You'll see this if you run some form of a process analyzer and look at the dlls COH is loading up. You'll see it fails at finding ".dll"
I tried backing up to 10.4 and still had the same problem. Apparently, once you get it, even using driver sweeper refuses to remove the problem. It's probably some DLL is not being updated by the driver updates (if it exists already) and doesn't get noticed by driver sweeper. So until I can narrow down what file is being corrupted, we're stuck with the following solution.
This isn't my solution, but it's well hidden on the net so I figure I would post it here.
From the looks of it, it has to do with the ATI support for OGL 4.0. I'm guessing those files don't get updated or removed by uninstalling Catalyst, and I can't find the full extent of those files.
However, this solution does allow you to use 10.6 if you were having this error, and it does run hella smooth compared to 10.4