linktree Atrinik.org - Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game  >  Community  >  General Chat
linktree Topic: Too much immunity
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Too much immunity  (Read 2731 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Bookmarked by 0 members.
Offline Floozy

Posts: 226
Gender: Female
« on: January 26, 2011, 10:08:18 am »

Hi all

A little teaser for you. I have noticed an incorrect damage report when my opponent is immune to a certain type of attack.

For melee I use a weapon of lesser cold (Attacks: impact +100%, cold +10%); with my RoGF (Attacks: fire +20%). Most mobs therefore receive about twice as much fire damage as cold damage.

In combat against cold-immune mobs, e.g. ice golems and ice giants, here are some typical examples of the melee damage report:

You hit ice golem for 111 (0) with impact
You hit ice golem for 32 (9) with fire
You hit ice golem for 0 (-119) with cold

You hit ice giant for 152 (0) with impact
You hit ice giant for 32 (0) with fire
You hit ice giant for 0 (-162) with cold

Looking at several examples, the reported "absorbed" cold damage appears to average approximately 110% of the impact damage sustained.

Obviously the "resulting" cold damage of zero is correct - both of those types of mob are immune to the cold.

Good luck with it.
 Logged
Offline Cleo
Developer
Alex Tokar

Posts: 580
Gender: Male
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2011, 03:50:03 pm »

Fixed in r2250, thanks. :)
 Logged
Offline ddhanna
Main Server Mod
Contributor

Posts: 184
Gender: Male
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2011, 07:53:19 pm »

nice catch Floozy
 Logged
Offline Floozy

Posts: 226
Gender: Female
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2011, 09:10:51 am »

Another "quick fix"! Gratz :)

Looking at the format of the damage report got me thinking ...

Maybe changing the format string to output "... 32 (+9) with fire" would emphasize the extra ("melting") damage fire causes to that golem.

Is the zero damage adjustment (0) necessary, or overkill (J/K)?

Finally, I suggest a "prettier" (and arguably more user-friendly) concatenated output, for example:
"You hit ice golem for 111 with impact +32 (+9) with fire +0 (-119) with cold"

Note that the signed zero damage adjustment would output (+0), which looks even more redundant!

Opinions anyone?
 Logged
Offline idicus
Developer

Posts: 136
Gender: Male
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2011, 06:15:11 pm »

hmmm wouldnt a ice creature like Ice Golem have a "healing" affect when hit by fire? it melts the ice, then the ice would also dampen the fire? *shrug* just a thought
 Logged

I am not retreating! i am simply attacking in a different Direction!
Offline Floozy

Posts: 226
Gender: Female
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2011, 08:19:55 pm »

Good thought Idi.  I imagine the "dampening" would happen after the ice golem has melted however.  In some circumstances this could cause damage to certain attackers.  Maybe if Cleo creates more player-characters those effects will have to be included :):)
 Logged
Offline Mamoru
Developer
Edwin Miltenburg

Posts: 625
Gender: Male
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2011, 09:02:55 pm »

I think it is more logical for ice creatures such as the Ice Golem to have a natural resistance to ice and are weak to fire. If there's any healing I'd say it comes from an ice attack on the ice creature, because the part of it that melt away will become ice once more. What do you think of that?
~Kiana~
« Last Edit: February 03, 2011, 09:04:58 pm by Kiana »  Logged
Offline Floozy

Posts: 226
Gender: Female
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2011, 10:38:11 pm »

Hi Kiana :)

Yes - it is logical that an ice creature could be healed by an ice-attack. BUT !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, its reasonable to have a Cleric-spell that affects only the undead (holy word), but because of the chaotic nature of magic in Atrinik (its all Loki's fault) we also have a cleric spell which actually heals undead (fod) !!!

I contend that it would make playing the game more difficult if there were "too many" attacks that could actually make you opponent stronger! By too many I mean that the one we have is already enough - I rarely use fod except when I know there aren't any undead around because its too easy to "attack" without thinking that it may be a bad idea!!!!

But I am merely one voice among many - more opinions please :)

Love Floozy
 Logged
Offline NiteStar

Posts: 466
Gender: Male
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2011, 09:00:27 am »

I think it's more realistic and I like the fact that certain types of attacks could heal certain types of mobs. I use FoD more often than CLW as it's much cheaper to use, and a bit more powerful, I think?
 Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: