Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47
  1. #1
    Community Member Pilgrim1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    938

    Default U41 Bug: Negative Energy Burst

    Negative energy burst is doing about 1/4th the expected amount of healing to undead players and about 1/2 the expected amount of damage to monsters.

    I do not know which aspect of this is bugged but i would guess its some combination. It is doing LESS healing then previous to U41.

    please fix this ASAP - our poor PM healing needs this!

    -Thanks

  2. #2
    Community Member Iriale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,020

    Default

    And now it can not be used in public areas. It sucks, fix the spell asap pls
    English is not my native language. Sorry for the mistakes.

  3. #3
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,231

    Default

    I filed a bug report about this just after u41 was released. I also posted about it on the forums.

    Another interesting bug that's crept back in is Negative Energy Burst now removes charges from spell absorb items again. It was not doing this in the recent past, although it did in various parts of the earlier game's history and was fixed then as a bug.

    So between that and it not working in public areas anymore, whoever adjusted the spell did a really good job of messing it up. Please fix these problems as soon as possible.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by blerkington; 12-09-2018 at 08:39 PM.

  4. #4
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    387

    Default

    This disproprtionally affects pale master builds (even though they are increasingly rare at the moment) - please fix asap!!

  5. #5
    Community Member Pilgrim1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    938

    Default Still not fixed

    Hey, just bumping this 6 moths later, its still not fixed - or even acknowledged. Hear are some numbers for you to digest.

    Conclusion:
    Clearly the change to negative energy burst did not take, or rather some inaccurate formula was used to create it. My theory is that the current formula is 1d6/lvl. Max CL 10.


    New formula
    (1d6 + 4)/lvl. If it maxes out at lvl 10 it has a base of 75. If it maxes out at 20 it has a base of 150.

    My toon: lvl 30 wizard in a non-arcain destiny, with master of death. CL is 20, max CL is 20. NO metamagics enabled

    437 negative SP
    80 negative heal amp

    Formula: Base * (1+SP/100) * (1+amp/100) = expected amount.

    Expected healing:
    CL 10: 75*5.37*1.8=725 expected healing
    CL 20: 150*5.37*1.8=1450 expected healing.

    Observed: 628, 588, 628, 617, 588. Average = 610.

    Expected mob damage:
    CL 10: 402
    CL 20: 804

    Observed (factoring out crits and saves): 522, 571, 582, 594, 641. Average = 582


    Changing of gear: 40 amp, 296 SP.
    expected - CL 10: 416
    Expected - CL 20: 832

    Observed: 375, 369, 365, 331, 337. Average = 355.

    When i switched to draconic i have a CL of 25 and should have a MCL of 25 as well. Using the gear: 40 amp, 296 SP i get:
    observed: 348, 414, 343, 365, 375 = average 369.

    This is an increase of 4% or well below the expected increase of 25% for increasing CL. Thus i assume the MCL is set at 10.

  6. #6
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pilgrim1 View Post
    Hey, just bumping this 6 moths later, its still not fixed - or even acknowledged. Hear are some numbers for you to digest.

    Conclusion:
    Clearly the change to negative energy burst did not take, or rather some inaccurate formula was used to create it. My theory is that the current formula is 1d6/lvl. Max CL 10.


    New formula
    (1d6 + 4)/lvl. If it maxes out at lvl 10 it has a base of 75. If it maxes out at 20 it has a base of 150.

    My toon: lvl 30 wizard in a non-arcain destiny, with master of death. CL is 20, max CL is 20. NO metamagics enabled

    437 negative SP
    80 negative heal amp

    Formula: Base * (1+SP/100) * (1+amp/100) = expected amount.

    Expected healing:
    CL 10: 75*5.37*1.8=725 expected healing
    CL 20: 150*5.37*1.8=1450 expected healing.

    Observed: 628, 588, 628, 617, 588. Average = 610.

    Expected mob damage:
    CL 10: 402
    CL 20: 804

    Observed (factoring out crits and saves): 522, 571, 582, 594, 641. Average = 582


    Changing of gear: 40 amp, 296 SP.
    expected - CL 10: 416
    Expected - CL 20: 832

    Observed: 375, 369, 365, 331, 337. Average = 355.

    When i switched to draconic i have a CL of 25 and should have a MCL of 25 as well. Using the gear: 40 amp, 296 SP i get:
    observed: 348, 414, 343, 365, 375 = average 369.

    This is an increase of 4% or well below the expected increase of 25% for increasing CL. Thus i assume the MCL is set at 10.
    Interesting numbers. There's not a huge sample size but what's interesting to me is the fact that for the first setup the self-healing numbers are quite similar to the MOB damage numbers - this seems to indicate that negative healing amplification might be having little, if any, effect. For both runs the difference between self-heal & MOB damage numbers is about 4-5%.

    If the MCL was 15 then (1d6+4)/level plus neg spellpower and no healing amp gets you pretty close to your observed numbers for you first setup. This formula breaks down for your second set of numbers though, so I suspect there's something more going on.

    Given there's 3 variables here (damage dice, spellpower and neg-healing amp) running a series of samples where only one is changed (e.g. keep spellpower constant but change neg-healing amp) would help tease out the likely base formula.

  7. #7
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    163

    Default

    Bump. SSG please respond (Hopefully with a fix, but I'll take a 'Hi Welcome' response on this thread).

  8. #8
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    797

    Default

    Level 29 pale master in a non-arcane destiny (so 20 caster levels) with master of the dead (so max caster level 20 according to both new and old dice formulae).

    Cast it on myself 50 times. After accounting for spellpower, crits, and negative amp, the average base dmg per cast was ~64.65.

    According to old formula, neg energy burst deals 1d4 + 4 per 2 caster levels, up to 5d4 + 20 at caster lvl 10.
    According to new formula, neg energy burst deals 1d6 + 4 per caster level, up to 10d6 + 40 at caster lvl 10.
    With master of the dead, you should be able to double the cap numbers (max caster level 10, master adds 10 mcl).
    Code:
    die	# dice	expected	calculated
    6.5	10	65		64.65
    7.5	20	150
    Unless my numbers are off, it looks like self healing is using the old formula.
    Last edited by peng; 06-05-2019 at 03:32 PM.

  9. #9
    Community Member Pilgrim1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peng View Post
    Unless my numbers are off, it looks like self healing is using the old formula.
    Interesting, thank you for your numbers. Im assuming your right. Originally i thought that self healing was reduced from what it was preciously, but i didn't test it out.

    So our results are that this spell did not get updated with the pass despite claiming that it did?

  10. #10
    Systems Designer
    Lynnabel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    3,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pilgrim1 View Post
    So our results are that this spell did not get updated with the pass despite claiming that it did?
    It did, HOWEVER (and this is a big however) the portion of the spell that hits players (aka cast by monsters) did not, and when cast by a player on a player it'll use the old numbers. You can verify this by comparing the same spell cast on a monster by a player - it'll follow the new numbers. Our options are:

    1. Change the numbers that hit players (monsters who cast this spell will start hitting players harder)
    2. Don't do that


    Thoughts?
    100% radical, enthusiasm enthusiast.

    "Have you tried preproccing feat directory?"

  11. #11
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynnabel View Post
    It did, HOWEVER (and this is a big however) the portion of the spell that hits players (aka cast by monsters) did not, and when cast by a player on a player it'll use the old numbers. You can verify this by comparing the same spell cast on a monster by a player - it'll follow the new numbers. Our options are:

    1. Change the numbers that hit players (monsters who cast this spell will start hitting players harder)
    2. Don't do that


    Thoughts?
    No one, no one... uses this for dmg to mobs. So clearly what we as players care about is the self healing portion, so I would say change the numbers that hit players.
    Triple All

    Ghallanda forever.

  12. #12
    Founder pjw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynnabel View Post
    ..Our options are:

    1. Change the numbers that hit players (monsters who cast this spell will start hitting players harder)
    2. Don't do that

    Thoughts?
    My vote is (1), increase the damage. There's death ward, neg absorb, old (new?) style death block that also does death absorb etc etc. I don't recall the last time I had a fleshy who was inconvenienced by death aura or neg burst.

    Ideally though, add a Monster-vs-Player spell that does whatever is appropriate, and make the player spell affect players fully.

  13. #13
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynnabel View Post
    It did, HOWEVER (and this is a big however) the portion of the spell that hits players (aka cast by monsters) did not, and when cast by a player on a player it'll use the old numbers. You can verify this by comparing the same spell cast on a monster by a player - it'll follow the new numbers. Our options are:

    1. Change the numbers that hit players (monsters who cast this spell will start hitting players harder)
    2. Don't do that


    Thoughts?
    Thanks much for the response Lynnabel. With these two options, I prefer the first (spell does specified damage no matter who casts it).

  14. #14
    Systems Designer
    Lynnabel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    3,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pjw View Post
    Ideally though, add a Monster-vs-Player spell that does whatever is appropriate, and make the player spell affect players fully.
    One of the caveats of the spell pass of U41 was that we not adjust mob spell damage to avoid making older content significantly more difficult overnight, which is how this reversal ended up going live.
    100% radical, enthusiasm enthusiast.

    "Have you tried preproccing feat directory?"

  15. #15
    Chaotic Evil Mindos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pocket Pita Plane
    Posts
    3,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynnabel View Post
    It did, HOWEVER (and this is a big however) the portion of the spell that hits players (aka cast by monsters) did not, and when cast by a player on a player it'll use the old numbers. You can verify this by comparing the same spell cast on a monster by a player - it'll follow the new numbers. Our options are:

    1. Change the numbers that hit players (monsters who cast this spell will start hitting players harder)
    2. Don't do that


    Thoughts?
    Do_it.gif

  16. #16
    Founder pjw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynnabel View Post
    One of the caveats of the spell pass of U41 was that we not adjust mob spell damage to avoid making older content significantly more difficult overnight, which is how this reversal ended up going live.
    Good to know. And a good principle in general, but probably not in this case. That said, is it possible to implement a monster-version of the spell? I assumed that they must have their own editions of many spells, but that may be wrong.

    If not possible, then I'd still vote for the increased damage. Year ago I remember fearing arcane auras. It's nice to have stuff that needs to be managed a little more carefully.

  17. #17
    Systems Designer
    Lynnabel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    3,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pjw View Post
    That said, is it possible to implement a monster-version of the spell?
    Possible, very yes. Feasible? UUUUUUUGHHHHHH. Please don't make me do that. Please, anything but that. I'll remake Fatesinger again, I'll do anything, anything, but not that :<
    100% radical, enthusiasm enthusiast.

    "Have you tried preproccing feat directory?"

  18. #18
    Community Member Pilgrim1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynnabel View Post
    It did, HOWEVER (and this is a big however) the portion of the spell that hits players (aka cast by monsters) did not, and when cast by a player on a player it'll use the old numbers. You can verify this by comparing the same spell cast on a monster by a player - it'll follow the new numbers. Our options are:

    1. Change the numbers that hit players (monsters who cast this spell will start hitting players harder)
    2. Don't do that


    Thoughts?
    #1, #1, #1!

    I will admit that I'm biased, that said there are quite a few options players have to mitigate the effect of this spell. Deathward, fort saves, mob proximity to name a few. Of the top of my head i can only think of a few instances where this spell occurs, I'm sure there are others that I'm missing.

    I would try the change, its not likely the player base will notice this increase in mob damage much.

    From a balance perspective this will be healing for ~75 dmg without a lvl 24 feet and 150 with. I think that its fair to say that after this change undead wizards will have about the same self healing capacity as war-forged wizards get. There is comparable amounts of heal amp, slightly more negative spell power, and fewer undead healing options. Also undead wizards cant easily be healed by other party members. I think its a fair balance trade-off.

    Don’t forget that in its current iteration spell absorbtion prevents this spell from landing. If you chose to change this or not change this can you let us know so we dont bug you about a feature that is working as intended?

    And lastly thank you for looking into this issue.

  19. #19
    Founder Mellkor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Monroe, New York, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynnabel View Post
    Possible, very yes. Feasible? UUUUUUUGHHHHHH. Please don't make me do that. Please, anything but that. I'll remake Fatesinger again, I'll do anything, anything, but not that :<
    Its really just used for self healing. How about just making the spell, Harm, also a wizzy spell. Problem solved
    Mellkor Wizard, Culpepper Cleric, Coyle Warlock, Anarion Mechanic Archer, Ungoliant, Assassin, Tulkas Astaldo Vanguard Pally,
    ***Argonnessen***
    ~~Ascent~~

  20. #20
    Cosmetic Guru Aelonwy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    7,596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynnabel View Post
    Possible, very yes. Feasible? UUUUUUUGHHHHHH. Please don't make me do that. Please, anything but that. I'll remake Fatesinger again, I'll do anything, anything, but not that :<
    Anything? Can we have more of the old potion-like Bound-to-item cosmetics brought back as BTA glamored cosmetics? Pretty please? I would like to see Lavender Spiral, Violet Beast and the Drow Spider stuff make a comeback.
    Blood Scented Axe Body Spray (Thelanis)
    Aelonwy - Wydavir - Metaluscious - Aertimys - Phantastique - Kaelaria - Lunaura - Aelurawynn - Saurscha - Crystalorn - Aurvaeyn - Vaelyns - Wyllowynd

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload