|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
| Development::Bug Reports Post detailed bug reports and what you would like to see next in the emu here. |

02-25-2009, 08:43 PM
|
|
Administrator
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,348
|
|
Yeah one big change would be nice butttttt... this stuff requires play testing which requires me to put it out there. There's only so many situations I can test myself and I can't sit here and log hours of combat experience at every level to see if it feels right.
|
 |
|
 |

02-25-2009, 10:16 PM
|
 |
Demi-God
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: b
Posts: 1,449
|
|
I agree with the define option, though I would rather see rules to define them instead of defines. That way rules can be set for Win32 pre-compiled servers and ServerOPs are not in a mess if they use precompiled code. I personally had to remove it on Raid Addicts when I helped them upgrade it, simply because all the existing content was balanced torwards the previous combat changes. When you have a level cap above 75, things get wonky with the code (and in general!) and stuff messes up. Not everyone uses PEQ as their database either. I would MUCH rather see a rule for the new combat changes, while still keeping in the old combat changes as a separate rule.
I use the combat changes on my own personal server and they work great; though, I balanced my server around PoTimeB-level of characters. I had to tweak a few things, but in the end they worked out great. I think a lot of the issue is ServerOPs tweak NPC stats without looking at the formulas and end up having overpowered players & NPCs. When you make both overpowered and the only thing that is stopping them is HP, that's when it gets a bit hard to balance with new combat changes. Sure, the combat changes are great, I just don't think they are for every server out there, especially people who throw stats on NPCs at random, or tweak the cap on stats, etc.
I'll see if I can get this coded later, it should be fairly easy to implement. Whether you want it is up to you.
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |

02-25-2009, 11:09 PM
|
 |
Demi-God
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: b
Posts: 1,449
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secrets
I agree with the define option, though I would rather see rules to define them instead of defines. That way rules can be set for Win32 pre-compiled servers and ServerOPs are not in a mess if they use precompiled code. I personally had to remove it on Raid Addicts when I helped them upgrade it, simply because all the existing content was balanced torwards the previous combat changes. When you have a level cap above 75, things get wonky with the code (and in general!) and stuff messes up. Not everyone uses PEQ as their database either. I would MUCH rather see a rule for the new combat changes, while still keeping in the old combat changes as a separate rule.
I use the combat changes on my own personal server and they work great; though, I balanced my server around PoTimeB-level of characters. I had to tweak a few things, but in the end they worked out great. I think a lot of the issue is ServerOPs tweak NPC stats without looking at the formulas and end up having overpowered players & NPCs. When you make both overpowered and the only thing that is stopping them is HP, that's when it gets a bit hard to balance with new combat changes. Sure, the combat changes are great, I just don't think they are for every server out there, especially people who throw stats on NPCs at random, or tweak the cap on stats, etc.
I'll see if I can get this coded later, it should be fairly easy to implement. Whether you want it is up to you.
|
Under further investigation, I think we need a define for this. Would basically have to copy the whole code twice to get a rule to work, heh, unless the way it was handled was reworked.
The only problem I see in a define is for novice server ops to 1) compile, and 2) get the correct rule_values set for combat depending on what they use. I sure didn't know what the heck to do when I first started. But typically most ServerOPs I see starting out use PEQ anyway, so it's not that bad in the end. More experienced ServerOPs should know how to look at svn revisions and remove the code if they balanced it around the old code.
So, I guess we're kind of in a mess here. :<
|
 |
|
 |

02-25-2009, 11:18 PM
|
|
Administrator
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,348
|
|
Any define would only last a short while anyway, eventually I would take it out and then anyone who wants to use custom code would have to do what they always do, keep track and patch it in.
|
 |
|
 |

02-25-2009, 11:59 PM
|
 |
Developer
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 5,946
|
|
Yeah, I think the only thing that can even justify a define is that the combat changes aren't finalized yet. So, server admins might have to adjust their content multiple times while things get all tweaked. The define would just let them avoid the adjustments until everything is finalized. It would only be temporary. We can't have defines and rules to keep every original formula, otherwise the code would be quite a mess.
For most of the experienced server admins that have been running a server long enough to actually have to do some work to adjust their content, it shouldn't be too hard for them to figure out how to compile it if they have to. And, if that is too much for them, they can always wait out doing an update to their code until everything is finished.
For the new servers, these changes won't even be noticeable, as their content will be made around the new settings and they or their players won't ever be the wiser.
It is always a pain when something major changes. But, without change, nothing would ever get better. I am sure many of you remember when the new AC changes went in about a year ago and then Attack Rating and Accuracy for NPCs. Those were some big ones, but they have been a big help in making combat feel right. I am sure the latest changes will help hit chance considerably. Really, hit chance has been horrible in the past and it is nice for it to finally be getting a good fix and more options for tweaking it. Maybe 2 handed weapons will actually be a valid choice over 1 handed again
I will try to get the define in tonight. I think a temporary define is a good solution. Admins will still have to make changes after it is removed for good, but at least they will only have to make the changes 1 time only (for a while again anyway).
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |

02-26-2009, 12:01 AM
|
 |
Demi-God
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: b
Posts: 1,449
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by trevius
Yeah, I think the only thing that can even justify a define is that the combat changes aren't finalized yet. So, server admins might have to adjust their content multiple times while things get all tweaked. The define would just let them avoid the adjustments until everything is finalized. It would only be temporary. We can't have defines and rules to keep every original formula, otherwise the code would be quite a mess.
For most of the experienced server admins that have been running a server long enough to actually have to do some work to adjust their content, it shouldn't be too hard for them to figure out how to compile it if they have to. And, if that is too much for them, they can always wait out doing an update to their code until everything is finished.
For the new servers, these changes won't even be noticeable, as their content will be made around the new settings and they or their players won't ever be the wiser.
It is always a pain when something major changes. But, without change, nothing would ever get better. I am sure many of you remember when the new AC changes went in about a year ago and then Attack Rating and Accuracy for NPCs. Those were some big ones, but they have been a big help in making combat feel right. I am sure the latest changes will help hit chance considerably. Really, hit chance has been horrible in the past and it is nice for it to finally be getting a good fix and more options for tweaking it. Maybe 2 handed weapons will actually be a valid choice over 1 handed again
I will try to get the define in tonight. I think a temporary define is a good solution. Admins will still have to make changes after it is removed for good, but at least they will only have to make the changes 1 time only (for a while again anyway).
|
Yeah, I think this is a fair compromise. I'm all for a temp define, especially if it gets removed when everything is all done and over. I personally would like to see less hardcoded values and more rules -- which the combat changes are starting to do. I like that.
|
 |
|
 |

02-26-2009, 12:30 AM
|
 |
Developer
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 5,946
|
|
BTW, ChaosSlayer, while we don't exactly have a wiki page or anything that describes each rule in great detail and shows every formula, you can still find out alot of info on most of them directly from the source code.
The rules are stored in /common/ruletypes.h and many of them have comments next to them to explain them a bit.
Here is a link to the ruletypes.h from R358 as an example:
http://code.google.com/p/projecteqem...c=svn358&r=358
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:25 AM.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |