seibaby

Hacker
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    149

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Posts posted by seibaby

  2. Posted · Report reply

    Changes to hardcoded item IDs for optimize exclusion and to display battle power as "???" in the extended item menu for some items. 

    ;xkas 0.06
hirom
;header
	; Index of Optimize-excluded gear
org $ED82E4
db $66      ; 102 Hero Shield (cursed)
db $24      ; 36  Pointy Stick
db $65      ; 101 Multiguard
db $9B      ; 155 Lazy Shell
db $1C      ; 28  Atma Weapon
db $33      ; 51  Spook Stick
db $17      ; 23  Omega Weapon
db $FF
db $FF
db $FF
db $FF
db $FF
db $FF
db $FF
db $FF
db $FF
	; Draw weapon's Bat.Pwr in gear data menu
org $C387A3
CMP #$1C       ; Atma Weapon?
org $C387A7
CMP #$17       ; Omega Weapon?
org $C387AB
CMP #$51       ; Dice?
org $C387AF
CMP #$52       ; Fixed Dice?

    • Upvote 1

  4. Posted · Report reply

    Yeah, I figured it might've been used.

    Anyway, here's the random encounter mod. Not really tested.

    	;Random encounters mod for BNW
	;Should raise the minimum number of steps for a random encounter to 10, while still maintaining the overall rate
	hirom
;header
	!freespaceC2 = $C2FBF0
!freespaceC0 = $C0FF90
	org $C0C48C
;JSL $C0FD00
JSR newfunc
NOP
	org !freespaceC0
newfunc:
LDA #$E7      ; 231
JSL longcall  ; Random 0..230
CLC
ADC #$04      ; Random 4..234
RTS
	org !freespaceC2
longcall:
JSR $4B65
RTL

  6. Posted · Edited by seibaby · Report reply

    20 hours ago, Reiker said:

    This is what I was afraid of. If this is the case, definitely nix the 50% chance to evade penalty. Because as it is now, having cover can actually cause you to take more cumulative damage to your party. I was really excited for this whole cover/counterattack change but the more I learn about it and think about it I dislike it more and more. I don't see the point of nerfing evade for cover anyways and considering it can actually be a detriment outside of your control... meh.

    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.

     

    18 hours ago, thzfunnymzn said:

    Or just change it such that the target's evasion is checked beforehand. Does target evade? Then target evades, skip Cover. Does target take hit? Then check for Cover.

    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?

  8. Posted · Report reply

    On 10/12/2017 at 2:24 PM, Reiker said:

    So my question is now, is the first Evade check ignored in lieu of cover? For example, let's say an enemy chooses to attack Gau and RNGed aligned to allow him to Evade this attack. But Shadow also passed his cover check, will he now jump in front of Gau and take the damage that would have been avoided anyways?

    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.

  9. Posted · Edited by seibaby · Report reply

    The patch to teach Relm Life before the fight with Ultros 3:

     

    ;Activate the teach character spell event command
    ;by Seibaby
    ;New event command: $66 (3 bytes; 2nd byte is character ID, 3rd byte is spell ID)

    ;xkas 0.06
    hirom
    ;header

    ;Unused general action $66
    org $C09926
    dw #$AE0D         ; Dummied event command; "Learn a spell"

    ;Event editing: Relm learns Life right before Ultros 3
    org $CBF0B9
    db $66,$08,$30    ; Character $08 (Relm) learns spell $30 (Life)

    ;(Replaces the following)
    ;db $8C,$08,$7F   ; For character $08 (Actor in slot 8), take MP and set to maximum
                      ; (Relm still starts with full MP)

    • Upvote 1

  10. Posted · Edited by seibaby
    Note: not compatible with FF3us1.1. Patch on top of clean FF3us1.0.     · Report reply

    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. Posted · Report reply

    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. 

  14. Posted · Edited by seibaby · Report reply

    Just now, kjinn22 said:

    Noobie here but just tossing in an opinion...I dislike the "compromise" option for defend/statuses. Having cover remove those abilities just makes cover feel like a liability. Especially if cover will be inherent on certain weapons such as spears, I don't think cover should be a forced liability, but one you can adapt to the situation.

    I'd be up for Row disabling Cover, while Defend/statuses act selfishly or selflessly.

    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.

  17. Posted · Edited by seibaby · Report reply

    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. Posted · Edited by seibaby · Report reply

    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.

     

     

  22. Posted · Report reply

    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: 

    	3:25 PM] Mishrak: So will you defend and then lose defense or will you not defend at all with cover ?
[3:41 PM] Satarack: I'd rather it bypass defend than it remove the defend status
[3:56 PM] Mishrak: If it removes defend then you can actually use your turn to defend and then it falls
[3:56 PM] Mishrak: If it bypasses defend then defend is useless with cover
[3:59 PM] seibaby: It breaks you out of Defend, before damage is resolved
[4:00 PM] Mishrak: So you can't use defend with cover at all
[4:00 PM] Mishrak: So why not just make it so cover doesn't activate if you're defending ?
	[4:05 PM] Mishrak: If you defend and it still activates it will give a false impression of synergy. So better to not let it activate at all with defend up
[4:08 PM] Satarack: Part of why I'm saying it's getting bloated is how much you have to remember; but the other part is how most of these conditions are things players won't be able to infer
[4:09 PM] Satarack: they'll have to be taught it
[4:11 PM] Satarack: Things like that the player won't even notice
[4:11 PM] Mishrak: Like what ?
[4:12 PM] Satarack: But like back row disabling cover, defend disabling cover, image and vanish disabling cover, none of these can be inferred.
[4:12 PM] Satarack: The player won't even bat an eye at brushes never triggering cover
[4:14 PM] Satarack: Some of the issues, like back row and defend, I was suggesting that the damage formula should ignore the back row and defend steps; but still allow cover
[4:15 PM] Satarack: so it doesn't matter what row they're in, if they cover someone they still take damage like they're front row and not defending
[4:15 PM] Mishrak: That is probably cleaner actually
[4:16 PM] seibaby: I disagree about defend, Mish. I see activating cover as sort pseudo-taking an action, and actions makes you stop defending
[4:17 PM] Mishrak: I wouldn't see it that way. Cover is passive
[4:17 PM] seibaby: Disabling cover if defending is a valid option, but it IS different than defending and still allowing cover
[4:17 PM] Mishrak: I would expect defend to reduce the damage
[4:17 PM] Satarack: It makes more sense to stay in line with what the game considers actions; that's what the player will be used to.
[4:17 PM] Mishrak: Like if defend was collapsed after the hit. That makes sense
[4:17 PM] Mishrak: But ignored entirely ?
[4:17 PM] Mishrak: That doesn't make sense
[4:19 PM] Mishrak: So if defend isn't gonna synergize with cover - I personally think it should - it should just either do what Sata said or be ignored entirely
[4:17 PM] Satarack: maybe ATB should reset every time you cover :opieop:
[4:20 PM] seibaby: Satarack I actually considered atb getting a slight pushback, in case Cover still turns out overpowered 
[4:21 PM] Mishrak: I like simplifying the row/defend thing: let cover still activate, it just bypasses the damage mitigation from those. The only downside to this is you can't then turn it off if you wanted to
[4:21 PM] Mishrak: Short of removing the relics
[4:22 PM] seibaby: I sort of agree
[4:23 PM] seibaby: Let cover remove defend, but allow it to benefit from it first. I disagree about row.
[4:24 PM] seibaby: Anyway I agree with the point in theory only, I don't think Cover and defend should synergize
[4:26 PM] Mishrak: I can see a case for both sides but I'm sure BTB doesn't want it also so
[4:28 PM] Mishrak: That fact remains that cover is probably one of the more complex abilities in the game and the player won't be able to infer the behavior no matter what we do
[4:28 PM] Mishrak: Short of redesigning the ability entirely
[4:29 PM] seibaby: However, if row silently ignored cover, why wouldn't defend?
[4:29 PM] seibaby: (rather than disallowing it outright)
[4:30 PM] seibaby: Er sorry, other way around. Cover silently ignoring row/defend
[4:30 PM] seibaby: One suggestion was to let cover activate from the back row, but to ignore the row damage reduction
[4:31 PM] seibaby: Rather than disabling cover from back row
[4:31 PM] seibaby: I disagree with it because it's obtuse, it's easier for players to notice cover just not activating from the back row, I think
[4:32 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: I like that way. It makes logical sense, you are breaking your defensive stance and moving forward to eat the hit
[4:32 PM] seibaby: That's my thinking
[4:32 PM] Mishrak: Sure. I don't disagree
[4:33 PM] seibaby: Anyway, this is the fluff we're talking about. The mechanics consideration was to not let cover synergize with defend
[4:33 PM] seibaby: Not that fluff isn't important. Intuitive is good.
[4:34 PM] Mishrak: My thought about defend is that you're activating it similarly to runic and preparing to take a hit. You're sacrificing a turn(s) to have a chance at reducing a physical damage hit
[4:34 PM] Mishrak: Since you can't fully anticipate the cover
[4:34 PM] Mishrak: Or the physical
[4:34 PM] Mishrak: It's balanced similarly to runic
[4:35 PM] Mishrak: Where it differs is that you're mitigating damage the entire defensive stance
[4:35 PM] Mishrak: But you still can't act
[4:36 PM] Mishrak: And if it breaks the defensive stance the player still has to reset it (rather than just Afk defend)
[4:37 PM] Mishrak: And of course unlike runic you won't 100% cover the physical
[4:38 PM] Mishrak: You'll have to build a character around that and it'll be impossible to cover 100%
[4:39 PM] Mishrak: So that's why I think defend should give the damage reduction from the front row with cover
[4:42 PM] seibaby: It would have a nice symmetry with Runic, granted, if cover let you one-time benefit from defend
[4:43 PM] seibaby: And it is more intuitive that way. Otoh, if we don't have cover synergize with defend, it's more intuitive to just disallow it if defending. I guess what we have now is sort of a compromise, you can defend yourself, but still break out of Defend to protect someone else
[4:44 PM] Mishrak: It actually gives defend a purpose
[4:45 PM] seibaby: The current behaviour makes the most sense to me intuitively and mechanically
[4:45 PM] Mishrak: I don't think not getting the defend bonus makes sense
[4:45 PM] Mishrak: Why even bother using it
[4:46 PM] Mishrak: There's even less of a purpose with cover doing its thing
[4:46 PM] Mishrak: Substantially less
[4:46 PM] Mishrak: It's almost never productive to just straight defend
[4:47 PM] seibaby: I have a feeling cover is too strong to let it synergize with defend, that's why I'd prefer to keep defend self-only
[4:47 PM] seibaby: Time will tell, perhaps
[4:47 PM] Mishrak: It could very well be
[4:48 PM] Mishrak: It just means defend is ultimately even more useless than it already is
[4:48 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: I'd prefer for defend to still allow defending (without going directly into if cover should benefit from defend)
[4:48 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: Same for row
[4:51 PM] Mishrak: Hmm
[4:51 PM] Mishrak: Forcing...front row
[4:51 PM] Mishrak: Means you're always gonna see full damage counters
[4:51 PM] Mishrak: For cover counter
[4:51 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: But with full damage taken
[4:51 PM] Mishrak: I guess that's fine
[4:52 PM] Mishrak: Yeah I'm just trying to think of who wants to use cover
[4:52 PM] Mishrak: The people that get the most stamina really don't like being on the front row (relm / strago) except for terra
[4:53 PM] Mishrak: So ultimately you have less stamina to do it properly except for strago and relm
[4:53 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: But yeah. I prefer "When covering, a character has to forgo the benefits of defensive stances and rows, and is more likely to be hit by the attack they're attempting to cover"(edited)
[4:54 PM] Mishrak: It's very difficult to maximize stamina and still cover counter
[4:54 PM] Mishrak: Locke and cyan will never hit crazy stamina levels like Terra and strago
[4:54 PM] Mishrak: But Terra needs some hp EL to survive front row
[4:54 PM] Mishrak: So can't go Pure trit
[4:55 PM] Mishrak: Strago will be soft butter
[4:57 PM] Mishrak: Well strago could safe himself I guess
[4:57 PM] Mishrak: Refract would be detrimental
[4:57 PM] Mishrak: He would be a bad cover unit
[4:58 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: As should be expected from the 'frail' old mage
[4:59 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: My opinion's still "Cover loses benefit of defend/row but still works"
[5:23 PM] seibaby: So should cover leave you in the front row if you try to cover from the back row? It sounds like a coding horror but it makes the most sense
[5:30 PM] dn: That's going to require work in C1, most likely
[6:05 PM] seibaby: Actually I think you can just queue up the row command
[6:05 PM] seibaby: It'll look less smooth than jumping back to the front row though
[6:22 PM] seibaby: You know, re-reading the above discussion about cover, I can't help but think pretty much every point made is sensible
[6:22 PM] seibaby: It all depends on what t he desired mechanics are, and what is most intuitive to a player
[6:24 PM] seibaby: For example, should you really be able to turn cover on and off in battle or should it be a choice made when loading out
[10:13 PM] Artemi ?: My big thought with cover and row is that the player should be able to easily tell when it's turned on or turn it off when they want to. Simply switching Sabin to the back row is a very clear, intuitive way to think, "Oh he's not on the front line anymore, that means he can't stand in front of Relm tanking anymore". That's why I think Cover from the back row is a bad idea, simply because it muddles the learning curve for an already complex ability.
[10:17 PM] Artemi ?: Hmm... a thought for Image and Clear; could you make it so you still CAN cover with those, but when you do, you take the hit as normal and the status dispels (similar to how Clear fades when you're hit with magic)? That would be a very clear message to the player that those statuses don't work with cover(edited)
[10:18 PM] Artemi ?: All the other status effects are intuitive (Oh, I guess I can't cover with Blind since I can't see!), but those two don't make any particular sense and are mostly for balance reasons, so having a clear indicator would probably be a good idea.(edited)
[10:27 PM] seibaby: That's not a bad idea
[10:28 PM] seibaby: Although I think Blind is the least intuitive status to disable Cover, tbh
[10:32 PM] seibaby: It's nice to be able to swap between covering and defensive mode (image) without sacrificing offense though.
[10:35 PM] seibaby: Tbf it's a little unintuitive that Image disables cover, but breaking it outright...I don't know.
[10:39 PM] Artemi ?: The other thought I had, and I have no idea how possible it is, would be to have them still jump up to cover, but then the wiff animation comes up and the defender gets hit anyway. To show them "failing" to cover.
[10:47 PM] seibaby: It's honestly not a bad idea, it's a bit weird but very clearly communicates that Cover doesn't work with Image/Clear
[10:48 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: is it possible for cover to bypass image/clear's evasion?
[10:49 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: similar to our discussion of "just ignore row/defend" earlier
[10:49 PM] seibaby: The only problem is it could interfere with multiple bodyguards, since it picks the one with the highest HP....Although I'm sure that can be solved. I'm not too keen on complicating the cover code much more though, it's already a giant space hog
[10:53 PM] seibaby: There's a temporary variable that gets set as the bodyguard's ID, if it's preserved in hit calc, I could check to see if it matches the target....
[10:54 PM] seibaby: Welp, I don't want to muck around much more with the cover code this close to release,  but I'll make some notes for future revisions
[10:54 PM] Mishrak: I was discussing the merits of a defend synergy with cover
[10:57 PM] BTB: I'd like to see some sort of synergy with Defend and Cover, but right now we're sort of in the process of nerfing Cover so it's running in two opposite directions
[10:57 PM] seibaby: I was mulling this over before and had the idea to have Cover gear replace Row or Defend with Cover
[10:58 PM] seibaby: But creating a new command seems like a bitch
[10:58 PM] BTB: Defend is very niche, but it does have its uses
[10:59 PM] BTB: I think the correct approach is to make defend more functional rather than axing it
[10:59 PM] seibaby: I favor keeping Defend for self-use only because I think synergizing may cause Cover to be too strong
[10:59 PM] Mishrak: Dadaluma and ultros 1
[10:59 PM] Mishrak: That's it
[11:00 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: The issue with defend is that it requires the one defending to be the target, the damage to be predicted, and for the person to not be able to survive it otherwise.
[11:00 PM] Mishrak: Otherwise you wanna heal or buff or attack
[11:00 PM] Mishrak: Nowea is exactly correct
[11:01 PM] BTB: My gut instinct would be to have the defend stance raise the chances for covering a healthy target.
[11:01 PM] seibaby: Have Defend guarantee the next hit is taken by Cover, and break Defend when it does? Like Runic
[11:01 PM] BTB: While still having cover break the defender out of the defense stance.
[11:01 PM] BTB: Not guarantee.
[11:01 PM] BTB: Never guarantee.
[11:01 PM] Mishrak: Increasing chances is bad also
[11:02 PM] BTB: Increasing chances for the first cover only.
[11:02 PM] BTB: Since defense stance is broken afterward
[11:02 PM] seibaby: still, use a turn to increase chances, or use a turn to do something definitely useful like heal?
[11:04 PM] Mishrak: I still dunno how useful that ends up being
[11:04 PM] Mishrak: It's still entirely contingent on a physical attack happening and wastes a turn and what merit do you really gain
[11:04 PM] Mishrak: Over attacking healing or buffing
[11:05 PM] Mishrak: Cover only works because it's passive
[11:05 PM] seibaby: well, it's defend that's crummy, not cover.
maybe using defend to buff cover isn't the only way to make defend better
[11:06 PM] Mishrak: I'm just saying. Controlling cover with defend doesn't really provide much
[11:06 PM] seibaby: Yeah, you can already control cover with row and image
[11:07 PM] seibaby: Although row costs two turns if you only use it to switch off cover temporarily
[11:07 PM] seibaby: (assuming we'd use Defend to disable cover rather than the other way around)
	 
	3:06 AM] seibaby: I think I've found a way to check for cover in hit determination and probably damage mod too :stuck_out_tongue:
[3:07 AM] seibaby: So there's the option of just silently ignoring row, or to have defend be accounted for once, then unset
[3:08 AM] seibaby: and to have image be just ignored and/or unset
[3:08 AM] seibaby: as well as properly halving actual evasion, rather than doubling hit rate
[3:16 AM] seibaby: it should also for example, be possible to add a damage multiplier or modify defense
[3:16 AM] thzfunnymzn: Interesting
[3:16 AM] thzfunnymzn: Whelp, don't forget to ask BTB on all that

Affiliates

Other Resources