That displacement boot bug, seriously... (in General)
August 30 2009 3:36 AM EDT
The DBs always give one LESS level of evasion than they should.
Can't it be fixed somehow ?
Like, say, just add BARELY enough equivalent XP/levels of evasion for the "reverse" evasion calculations to yield the correct effect (but not bumb evasion up one level except very, very, very seldom) ?
August 31 2009 10:11 AM EDT
Nobody else is bothered by it or what ?
if you follow the link in the "known issues" wiki page, nightstrike explains what is happening and how he's not too worried about it.
he never deleted it from the page though but i am not sure if we can read any type of intention for future fixes into that.
August 31 2009 12:54 PM EDT
In reality it bugs me just to see it is one off.
For gameplay, it does not matter. 1% of the time you get it an extra time.
I think there are other things for NS and Jon to do rather than fix this.
perhaps until such time as it is fixed, we should just state in the wiki that it grants evasion equal to the plus on the boots minus one?
August 31 2009 1:43 PM EDT
Yeah, I read the comments in that thread and I can't possibly agree with that statement. If you have a function, ANY function that could have reasonably been used for the evasion formula, computing its reverse should not be such a big deal.
If I remember correctly, even a base evasion would make the DBs have the correct effect.
I have a nagging feeling it grants one less LEVEL in equivalent evasion skill as it should, and when it's converted back it gets mistakenly bumped down one level.
It would be a fairly easy fix if I would have access to the actual formulae used.
I bet it would be as easy as adding a "+1" or "+12" somewhere.
But alas, the formulae are a holy secret and other things have a higher priority.
It's a shame since the fix would most likely have been trivial.
August 31 2009 1:45 PM EDT
I am sure the +1 is not as easy a fix as you suggest.
Since many things factor into evasion and its effect. Like UC and the skill itself.
I am sure if it were as easy as +1, it would have been done already.
However, I agree in that I do not understand why we lose the 1 evasion in a conversion.
August 31 2009 1:54 PM EDT
"I am sure if it were as easy as +1, it would have been done already"
Not necessarily :)
For all I know, it could also be a rounding error or something else.
If somebody would be kind enough to post the formulae used, I bet we could help.
I mean, what harm could it do ?
"Since many things factor into evasion and its effect. Like UC and the skill itself."
Yeah, but when you have a character with no UC and no evasion, the only remaining "faulty" part of the equation has to be that pertaining to the boots...
August 31 2009 2:18 PM EDT
"If I remember correctly, even a base evasion would make the DBs have the correct effect.
I have a nagging feeling it grants one less LEVEL in equivalent evasion skill as it should, and when it's converted back it gets mistakenly bumped down one level."
I just confirmed the first part of this, and I have the same feeling that you do with the second part. It *should* (doesn't mean it is) be an easy fix.
August 31 2009 6:51 PM EDT
I imagine even if a clean fix is hard, that a dirty fix could be relatively easy, if they have DBs on just always add one directly to the evasion effect. (Might cause it to be off when it comes to using DBs along with evasion at the same time, but that's an even smaller problem than this is.)
That said, I don't consider this a high priority. Even dirtier fix: Just change the display (If no one can tell does it really make a difference?)
August 31 2009 8:14 PM EDT
" Even dirtier fix: Just change the display (If no one can tell does it really make a difference?) "
If you can fix the display, you might as well use that number in the actual evasion calculations to begin with :P
August 31 2009 9:24 PM EDT
Oh sickone, you hooligan.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002rXs">That displacement boot bug, seriously...</a>