devtrackers.gg
Manastorm does not create any buffs at all. Buffs are identified by their icons having the green "buff" border. Things without that are not buffs.
Manastorm does not create any buffs at all. Buffs are identified by their icons having the green "buff" border. Things without that are not buffs.
Hi again Mark! I'm putting the finishing touches on a conversion breakdown video and have made sure to address your suggestions here.
I have a quick question about Power of Purpose, since it's the only conversion modifier in the game that converts to "twice as much" of anything. My understanding is that this modifier is essentially equivalent to having two modifiers: "80% of maximum mana converted to armour" and "gain 80% of maximum mana as extra armour."
- Is this even correct? If I calculated it my way, would it give the same result?
- Whether my way works informally or not, how is the calculation actually handled in game? It seems like, even if my way did work, it would fail if you converted more than 100% of maximum mana (which isn't currently possible and therefore can't be tested).
Your version is I think technically equivalent in any case where there are no other modifiers converting mana to something else - as you note, it breaks down in any case where the total % of max mana being converted would exceed 100%.
I think it's simpler to understand without trying to split it in two like that, but if you want to come up with a set of other modifiers that would be somewhat equivalent, I would instead suggest describing it as being like converting 80% of max mana to armour, and having a "100% more" modifier that only applies to the armour from that conversion, and not any other armour, which is pretty close to what it actually does in game - conversions are implemented in two places (calculation of thing being converted from, and thing being converted to), and this one is identical to any other conversion in how it affects max mana, but when calculating the effect of armour it multiplies how much base armour you get from the conversion by 2.
" Castablanca wrote:Read more" How do player auras (e.g. Zealotry) interact with skills used by traps/mines? There appears to be a delay after a trap/mine triggers/detonates before the skill is fully 'affected' by the aura. This bug demonstrates the effect but how do trap/mine skills interact with player Auras to create this effect instead of just always being affected by the aura?
Traps and mines being affected by auras is a bug and will be fixed at some point. What's currently happening is that traps and mines are inh...
Do items have an internal value which affects the odds of six linking?
Reason I ask is that some items just seem really unlucky for socketing and linking.
No, other than item level, which determines the cap on how many sockets and how many links the item can roll.
"Each use of a currency item is entirely independent of other uses of that type of currency."
which begs the question... which types of currency is it not....
Orbs of Fusing are affected by the quality of the item, therefore they could be argued to be not entirely independant of using Blacksmith's Whetstones/Armourer's Scraps.
If I had said all currency use was independant, someone would have come in to complain about the above case.
By default, quality on weapons increases the physical damage of the weapon. In the first screenshot, this is occuring.
In the second screenshot, the weapon now has a modifier which says:
Quality does not increase Physical Damage
Grants 1% increased Area of Effect per 1% Quality
Thus the 35% quality is no longer increasing the weapon's physical damage, but instead causing it to grant you increased AoE.
This guy blocks the damage from Scold's Bridle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0SbP9o2fp0
Does this mean you are blocking damage from your own skills or does the damage come from Scold's Bridle itself ?
Damage from Scold's Bridle is neither Attack Damage nor Spell Damage and thus cannot be blocked.
Say you are at full HP, 6000 for example, and take a 5000 damage hit. Is the first 3000 damage applied normally, and then the remaining 2000 damage affected by petrified blood? I was under the impression that you needed to be on low life when you take the initial hit for it to be effective.
Say you are at full HP, 6000 for example, and take a 5000 damage hit. Is the first 3000 damage apply normally, and then the remaining 2000 damage affected by petrified blood?
Yes, that is correct.
1) There is no recipie for getting a glassblower's Bauble from just one of those magic flasks - the single-item at 20% quality recipie requires normal rarity items, not magic. This is the same for all equivalent quality currency item recipies. There is a recipie for items totalling 40% quality giving one quality currency, which kicks in if you sell both.
2) Multi-item recipies always have priority over single-item recipies. This allows the player control over which result they get by selling items individually or in a set - specifically avoiding cases were recipie priority would otherwise deny the player one of the possible results.
While I don't see the answer there as condescending or assholish, it's not clarifying. The question was if it's about one source, or many sources and the answer doesn't even have the word source in it.
It would be way clearer if the answer was something like this:
You stop taking damage over time when you change from taking damage over time to not taking damage over time. So that means you can't be taking any damage over time from any source for at least a tick.
The first part (existing in the answer) is the technical explanation of the condition. It says that it's there whenever a variable changes state. But what's missing is the clarifying part. The part where it answers when exactly that state change occurs, best if using a similar language to the question.
That clarification was present in the actual post - there's an fourth question and answer in this section specifically about multiple sources of damage over time directly following this which have been omitted from the screenshot. The answers here seem incomplete because they are.
(there's also a fifth part clarifying that losing life over time is not taking damage, but that's not relevant to this specific conversation).
Current description:
"Enemies Ignited by you take Chaos Damage instead of Fire Damage from Ignite"
I mean current wording uses "ignite" and "damage" twice already. Wouldn't following description make a little more sense and touch? :
"Ignites you inflict are taken as Chaos Damage instead of Fire Damage"
If it's not possible to self-chaos-ignite in this game whilst the ring is on than the "enemies" tag in current description is rightfully in tact and my suggestion would change to "Ignites on enemies inflicted by you are taken as Chaos Damage instead of Fire Damage". If it's not the case and you actually CAN self-chaos-ignite then what is the point of "enemies" tag in the current description? I thought "you are not enemy to yourself"... is this not what GGG stated themselves? Correct me if I am wrong
That description would not be accurate, because it does not only change the damage taken from ignites you inflict. It changes damage taken from all ignites, while the enemy is ignited by you.
Why not change the mechanic to "Ignites inflicted by you deal chaos damage over time", since that's kind of how everyone expects it to work? Adjust the rarity of the ring if that makes it too much stronger.
Because that is not possible to do, and changing the system to make it possible would have incredibly bad impact on performance to such an extent that it is not reasonable. The mechanic works the way it does because that's the only way it can work - the description then has to accurately describe the mechanic.
" Waminjamin wrote: The maximum resistance part is confusing me.Read more
The author says "No" twice, then proceeds to confirm what the person is asking. At least that's how I am reading it.
" Since there is a 90% cap... I will take damage as if I had 90%?
Is then answered by
" No... There is a cap on maximum cold ...
"10% of physical damage taken as cold damage" - If you take increased physical damage, you'll also take more cold damage. If an enemy deals x% increased physical damage from an aura, you'll also take more cold damage.
If you have Blackflame equipped and you cause an enemy to take increased fire damage, they do not take increased chaos damage.
Why does damage taken by the player differ from the way monsters take damage?
Why does damage taken by the player differ from the way monsters take damage?
It doesn't. These both work exactly the same.
"10% of physical damage taken as cold damage" - If you take increased physical damage, you'll also take more cold damage.
This is not correct. Modifiers to physical damage taken will not affect the cold damage you take.
about the dodge reset evasion question, my understanding is the fail evasion will "hit" so -100 to entropy number but that "hit" will trigger the dodge change and if the player dodge they don't actually get hit by that inicial failed entropy hit but gain the -100 to entropy anyway, is that it?
like entropy number 92 enemy hit entropy goes to 120 player get "hit" new entropy number is 20. the "hit" is checked by dodge and the "hit" is dodged successfully, so the player takes no damage but get a new entropy number 20 not old number 92 anymore
is that it?
This is roughly correct, although it would be better to describe the case where entropy goes above 100 and gets pulled down as "failed to evade" rather than "hit", because if you dodge it, you don't get hit. Entropy is only for evasion, and only determines whether evasion succeeds or fails, which is not enough by itself to determine whether you get hit (although if you have no dodge chance the two are equivalent).
I don't think they ever said they intentionally broke the interaction, I think they just said that Vixen's wasn't made intentionally for Bane.
We didn't say that here, either. We didn't intentionally break that specific interaction, the interaction itself was always just an unintended consequence of the broader unintuitive behaviour that we fixed.