seibaby

Hacker
  • Content count

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by seibaby

  1. I need to update Cover Knight to fix a few things. Dog block shouldn't synergize with Cover, and in order to fix that, I need to poke into the Hit determination code and add some Cover checks there. While I'm at it, I might as well amend that code to properly halve Evasion when Covering rather than doubling attacker Hit Rate, and whatever else we agreed on in the Cover discussion thread. I'll have time to work on that next week.
  2. Relm event Hardcoded item index stuff (including Omega Weapon/Soul Sabre, etc) Zephyr Cape and whatever else that needs fixin' with regards to hardcoded spell IDs after the rejiggering of the spell list Interceptor can still interfere with Cover All I can think of right now.
  3. Sounds like something wrong with the Relm Life event hack.
  4. Changes to hardcoded item IDs for optimize exclusion and to display battle power as "???" in the extended item menu for some items.
  5. Yeah, I figured it might've been used. Anyway, here's the random encounter mod. Not really tested.
  6. Hello, this is some thoughts I collected from last week's discussion about Cover. It's possible to detect Covered attacks in Hit Determination and (probably) Damage Modification. This means we can do things like: - Silently ignore Row - Take Defend into account (and then unset it) - Modify Evade (instead of attacker's hit rate, like we do now) - Modify Defense - Modify damage multpliers - Silently ignore Image Our previous options were to modify/disable Cover on various conditions, like: Row (Currently disables Cover) Defend (Is currently disabled by Cover) Statuses (Currently disables Cover) As well as the option of unsetting statuses or Defend before taking them into account. For example, Cover could just remove Image before it's even considered, like we currently do with Defend. I think removing Defend before or Covering is the most intuitive; you leave your defensive stance to jump in front of a teammate to take a hit. Mishrak argues that removing it after is equally intuitive, and I can see his point, too. I'd say it's mostly a matter of whether you want Cover to synergize with Defend or not. As for Image, either silently ignoring it, or removing it outright, are both unexpected compare to the normal way Image behaves. However, it does drive home the point that Cover does not work with Image, without letting you turn Cover off at will with a Smoke Bomb. Removing Image after allowing it to let you dodge a covered hit is an option, however, even if Covering 100% removes it, it might be too powerful to let Image synergize with Cover at all. Then again, if you have an Image setter that's fast enough to keep up, you're basically already physically immune, so it might not be that big of a deal. The current approach of disabling Cover while having Image is a little less intuitive, but it already has precedent with Clear. If you want players to be able to turn Cover off freely, there's nothing wrong with this option. Finally, I don't think Covering from the back row makes any kind of sense, but I can see the merit in not allowing Cover to be so easily turned on and off at will. The option is there to just always take damage as if in front row. And the (edited) chat log:
  7. The reviewer didn't even mention the script. He did have one reasonable (but not exactly new or unique) point about the dragons being largely elemental gear checks, though I'm not sure that's the point he was trying to make.
  8. This was done so that you can't have a near-physically immune tank Cover most of the physical attacks to your team. Particularly Shadow. And yes, using Cover unwisely may cause you to take more damage. You're not supposed to have your more fragile characters Cover; it's a tool that lets you redirect attacks away from those characters. If you have your sturdier characters Cover, it will reduce overall damage. This essentially grants everyone an extra chance to evade. If this was done, I'd propose to nullify evade entirely for Cover. By the way, you two are starting to drift pretty far from the topic. Might I suggest you split off your conversation to a new thread?
  9. Cover only protected Near Fatal allies and Counter had a flat 50% chance.
  10. True Knight actually changes the target of an attack, and is resolved well before hit determination and damage calculation. There are no checks made against the original target.
  11. The patch to teach Relm Life before the fight with Ultros 3:
  12. I have a new version of the beta available that has nearly all of the changes coming in 1.9. Save games made with this version will be compatible with 1.9 final once it's out, so when Synchysi puts out the next RC, you can switch without headaches. PM me for a copy of the patch, or hit me up on Discord.
  13. The official beta cycle of 1.9 has been delayed until Synchysi can find time to work on RC7. Meanwhile, some testing and feedback on some of the new changes in 1.9 would be nice, so I've hacked together a playable patch with the most important 1.9 changes available for testing. It was made by taking RC6, pasting in the code banks from 1.8.6, and then applying the patches Think and I made for 1.9. Hence, frankenpatch. It has all the changes BTB made up until RC7, and all the hacks for 1.9 made by Think and myself. That includes battle for Narshe, stamina Counter, stamina Cover, defense-ignoring Flails, Gem Box auto-crit compatibility, Throw for Gogo, Lifehack, lineup MP restore, and the Golem nerf. Anything that's purely Synchysi's doing is missing, and anything BTB changed after RC6 is missing. This is not an official release, but BTB has given it his blessing for a temporary closed beta release. Thus, I won't be posting it for download, but hit me up in Discord or in a PM here, and I'll send you the patch. EDIT: please note that you will not be able to patch RC7 or any other patch onto the frankenpatch unless you enjoy the game crashing in potentially hilarious ways. The purpose of this closed beta is to test the new features to ensure they are ready for release. I wouldn't recommend this patch to a first time player. However, if you've played BNW before and you want to try out the new features, it's fully playable from start to end and most likely a good facsimile of 1.9. But, any savefiles will be incompatible with the official 1.9 release. Updated; savefiles will be compatible with the final version.
  14. Hello!
  15. I don't think Covering only adjacent allies has much merit, but it's a fair point about only covering allies on the same side of a side attack. I don't think it's worth the effort though, at least not right now.
  16. Unless there is documentation on where enemy and player data is located, you're going to have reverse engineer it yourself. Seeing as you've yet to familiarize yourself with hex editing, the learning curve will be steep. I don't say this to discourage you, just to let you know what you're getting into. What may seem simple is not necessarily easy, and if you're expecting easy, you'll likely quit before you can get anything done. I'm sorry I can't provide any concrete advice. I'm not familiar with the game, nor aware of any community focused around modding it. I think your best bet is finding any documentation available for the game and going from there. And get acquainted with the basics of using a hex editor, hexadecimal and binary representation, addressing, etc.
  17. I like Cover being a liability if mishandled, but fair point about it being more or less forced on you with Spears. Just a note though; Cover still drops Defend in the selfless option, it just does so before resolving damage. From your response, I get the feeling you were talking about it only temporarily dropping Defend while Covering, sort of like the compromise option for Row. I edited my post to make it more clear what I meant. Keeping Defend after Covering is too strong, in my opinion, but it's an option. I edited that in as well.
  18. I'm inclined to agree with you Nowea, in that I think equipping a character with Cover should be a commitment that could potentially become a liability if not managed well, and it shouldn't be able to be switched off at will.
  19. Correct; making Shadow less reliable as a blink tank was the main reasoning behind reducing evade when covering. The cover hack disables Interceptor for the same reason. What are your thoughts on the interaction of Cover with Defend or Image? Currently a character will drop Defend before they take the hit and not gain the defensive benefit (selfless). Other options are to disable Cover entirely while defending (selfish), or to drop Defend after taking the hit instead of before (compromise). A fourth compromising option is to temporarily step out of Defend to take a hit (ie. keep Defend but take Cover damage as if you weren't Defending). Having Image currently disables Cover (selfish). Another option would be to drop Image when stepping in to take a hit (selfless), or to ignore Image (compromise). As for Row, currently bodyguards act selfishly and don't Cover from the back Row. The other options are to either have them act selflessly and automatically step into the front row to Cover (and stay there afterwards, essentially forcing front Row for characters with Cover), or to compromise and have them be able to Cover from the back Row, but take damage as if in the front row.
  20. Speaking of avatars, I think animated avatars are an abomination and should be automatically pruned to just one frame on upload. Nothing personal, guys with animated avatars.
  21. For a second there I thought the spambots were back.
  22. Did we already pitch Exorcist for Slotzer? If not, I'll suggest that. It sounds badass. It's a type of healer that deals with dark forces. It's even a wrestler's name!
  23. I wasn't. I confirmed all my (and Think's) patches are working with 1.8.6, however. Due to the nature of the crash I'm thinking it's just a patch conflict or a header issue.