Issue Information
-
#006321
-
0 - None Assigned
-
Fixed
Issue Confirmations
-
Yes (2)No (1)
0
Today a Rune Knight at my server got the Ur's set and tried his hundred spear... the result was very strange, about 80k damage with the skill (which is highly spammable), then i asked him to change to a heavier weapon, he changed to a hunting spear, and did about 32k damage.... my question is, is this normal? it really doesn't seem so... could someone give me an answer please?
This:skillratio += max(10000 - sd->inventory_data[index]->weight, 0)Is not this:skillratio += max(1000 - sd->inventory_data[index]->weight / 10, 0)nor this:skillratio += max(10000 - sd->inventory_data[index]->weight, 0) / 10;Pay attention to the formulas, they seem similar, nevertheles they give very different results.I think maluffet's formula is to be the right one.
And I think you didn't understand anything about what I posted.
I said it's NOT the same, but similar, and maluffet formula is the same which is producing the high damage from your report because it's returning 9000% more damage than it should in case you use a 0 weight weapon.
0 weight weapon:
100 weight weapon:10000 - 0 = 10000%
10000 - 1000 = 9000%
See?
Also, maluffet agreed with my arguments here:
:)suppose to be
skillratio += max(10000 - sd->inventory_data[index]->weight, 0) / 10;orskillratio += max(1000 - sd->inventory_data[index]->weight / 10, 0);any will do...
Please, read carefully.
Edited by MarkZD, 26 July 2012 - 09:31 PM.
10000 - sd->inventory_data[index]->weight;
is similar to
1000 - sd->inventory_data[index]->weight / 10;
that is what you put on your first suggestion, and those two aren't similar at all, one gives the chance of a 10000% and the other just a maximun 1000% xD
nevertheles , there's nothing else to discuss i think. The formula has been corrected and that's what matters.
Edited by asdmaster, 26 July 2012 - 09:23 PM.
10000 - sd->inventory_data[index]->weight;is similar to1000 - sd->inventory_data[index]->weight / 10;that is what you put on your first suggestion, and those two aren't similar at all, one gives the chance of a 10000% and the other just a maximun 1000% xDnevertheles , there's nothing else to discuss i think. The formula has been corrected and that's what matters.
I said it gives 10K%, I said it's similar because weight factor is multiplied by 10, so 1000 weight is 10000, but with other cases it would produce the current error, but I corrected me just some posts after.
Yep, it's fixed, that's what matter. ;D.
Edited by MarkZD, 26 July 2012 - 09:37 PM.
thanks
