Posted: 21st August 2004 23:12
|
|
![]() Posts: 1,394 Joined: 13/3/2004 Awards: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I've been wrecking my head over this for some days now, and the lot at GameFAQs can't really decide what to do. Each and every one of us has a differnt way of handling the bug, with different results for the game. Now I'm the one who really wants to make the patch, so I should just pick my own idea and give the finger to the rest of the board. However, I don't think I should be making a patch that other people are not going to support because they think the patch doesn't handle the bug in a good way.
That's why I want you, fellow CoN members, to have a look at this and give your opinion. It would really help out, and it's greatly appreciated. Consider yourself blessed by me should I ever obtain god-like powers if you bother to vote. Vote after some thought, of course. The bug:Lazy-ass Runic usage! In order to see this bug, you will need multiple party members who can use Runic. In a normal game, this can only be Celes and Gogo. As "commonly" known, having both use Runic and then cast/wait for a multi-target spell which is vulnerable to runic will split the MP gained or lost) by the number of Runic users, in this case two. However, if there is a single-target spell such as Pearl or Flare cast, the game gets screwy. Only one random user absorbs it, while the Runic status for both is cleared (as if both absorbed the spell), and the person who actually absorbs the spell will get only so much MP as he should have gotten had the spell been divided. A ) Only the actual absorber absorbs the spell, gains full MP he should get for the spell and loses Runic status while the other retains his/her Runic status and can absorb a spell of its own B ) Make single-target spells in this case multi-targetable, so that even Pearl and Flare can get absorbed by multiple Runic users C ) Turn spells single-target in every case, meaning that there will never be more then one Runic user who absorbs the spell. This post has been edited by Djibriel on 21st September 2004 19:07 -------------------- |
Post #57137
|
Posted: 22nd August 2004 01:36
|
|
![]() Posts: 275 Joined: 27/2/2004 Awards: ![]() ![]() ![]() |
If it's mutli-targetable spell that divide the damage, split the MP received by the number of absorbers.
If it's mutli-targetable spell that don't divide the damage, give full MP to absorbers. If it's single-targetable spell, give full MP to one absorber so the other can absorb another spell. If it's a launcher-targetable spell, give 1/8 of MP at each attack and the spell will only hit absorbers. Not very sure if that is doable... -------------------- «À l'aventure compagnons, je suis parti vers l'horizon! J'aurais mieux fait de rester au lit, ce donjon, il est pourri!» - Pen of Chaos |
Post #57154
|
Posted: 22nd August 2004 01:51
|
|
![]() Posts: 1,394 Joined: 13/3/2004 Awards: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hmm. As there's only one spell with the Launcher effect (Launcher, OMG) and it's not vulnerable to Runic, we can skip that option. Hackers be damned, I say.
I'm not going to consider the "no split damage" bit here. Although aruably how it should be, Square never intended this to happen, as it would've included a check (which isn't there). I'm interested in fixing the bug, not so much making it different. The rest of your opinion falls under A. Thanks for posting, here's hoping more will follow ![]() -------------------- |
Post #57156
|
Posted: 22nd August 2004 15:53
|
|
![]() Posts: 1,048 Joined: 12/11/2003 Awards: ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I voted "B" but changed my mind to "A". A runic queue would make the most use out of the dual runic situation. With "B" it wouldn't be a useful strategy to have two runic users so nobody would do that anyway. Then the patch would no longer be doing anything for the person using it.
Since I changed my mind on the vote take the poll results and: A + 1 B - 1 VOTE A! VOTE A! VOTE A! -------------------- FFXI (Siren server) Tauu the Windurstian Tarutaru! White Mage & Paladin |
Post #57201
|
Posted: 23rd August 2004 19:32
|
|
![]() Posts: 741 Joined: 5/7/2001 Awards: ![]() ![]() ![]() |
A is probably the best choice as far as getting it out the door without much in the way of a backlash, though preferably I'd like it if every Runic caster got their MP from a single-target spell even if they weren't hit (IOW, visually only one caster takes the hit, but afterwards, all get some of the MP).
Yes, you can add yet another different opinion to the growing list. ![]() -------------------- |
Post #57329
|
Posted: 23rd August 2004 19:46
|
|
![]() Posts: 1,255 Joined: 27/2/2004 Awards: ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I chose B and the reason is simply from a logic standpoint and my opinion of the Runic technique, nothing to do with gameplay. If two people are simultaneously "absorbing" magic which has been cast in the air, then it would follow that the each absorb some of it regardless of the nature of the spell. It's just how I visulalize the technique and the world of FFVI.
-------------------- "That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!" |
Post #57332
|
Posted: 23rd August 2004 21:06
|
|
![]() Posts: 139 Joined: 25/1/2004 Awards: ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Could you explain the difference between A and C? When I proposed C, what I was saying is that an absorbed spell is not going to damage anyone, so just treat them all the same (and in this case, I chose it to work like Cure does). So what's the difference between A and C?
-------------------- Food is like magic in my ears. - Djibriel Ogopogo lives. |
Post #57335
|
Posted: 23rd August 2004 21:23
|
|
![]() Posts: 741 Joined: 5/7/2001 Awards: ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote (The Ancient @ 23rd August 2004 14:46) It's just how I visualize the technique and the world of FFVI. There's my entire problem with B; you would see Pearl and Flare hit multiple casters. I dunno about Pearl, but I've dealt with Flare and I know it was not meant to be multi-target. For one, it slows down the game for each target and two, past four targets, it glitches the battlefield graphics. Sure, it's not much for only two casters at a time, but without knowing what a multi-target Pearl does, I can't say I like B just yet. -------------------- |
Post #57336
|
Posted: 23rd August 2004 21:50
|
|
![]() Posts: 275 Joined: 13/8/2004 Awards: ![]() ![]() |
I think you should choose A because it seems to make more sense than the other two. B sounds pretty good too but I like A better.
-------------------- Music is a mysterious thing... Sometimes, it makes people remember things that they do not expect. Many thoughts, feelings, memories... things almost forgotten... Regardless of whether the listener desires to remember them or not... - Shitan, Xenogears |
Post #57340
|
Posted: 23rd August 2004 22:10
|
|
![]() Posts: 1,394 Joined: 13/3/2004 Awards: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hmm. I wanted to keep the choices having a secret source, as to it have the 'writer' influence the voting. But yes, it goes like this:
A ) Djibriel B ) assassin17 C ) Ogopogo See, the main problem I personally had with B was the fact that I couldn't picture single-target spells on several targets feeling 'authentic'. The fact that several spells had missing animations proved my point even further. C seemed wrong to me because it changes non-buggy game mechanics, as Cure is now also absorbed by a single user rather then both (which happens in a non-patched game). On a related note: The missing animations I saw with Slow (to give an exampe) matched those missing animations I noticed when a Reflected spell misses the second target, which I wrote ZED about a good while back. I don't know enough of the Reflection function to back this up, but I'm guessing these missed attacks are still considered the same attack as the initial one where the non-missers are loaded completely again for damage purposes, etc. In anything, it's prove that mentioned Reflection/missing spells and their missing animations were not intended as should as such be in the Guide in my opinion. This post has been edited by Djibriel on 23rd August 2004 22:11 -------------------- |
Post #57344
|
Posted: 24th August 2004 02:22
|
|
![]() Posts: 139 Joined: 25/1/2004 Awards: ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Ok, having re-read your explanations, I *think* I'm inclined to agree with you (option A). I just want all the spells to act the same (either always divide among multiple runickers or pick one randomly and give it all to him/her).
See my post on G'Faqs. -------------------- Food is like magic in my ears. - Djibriel Ogopogo lives. |
Post #57372
|
Posted: 24th August 2004 03:44
|
|
![]() |
I think option A is the fairest.
-------------------- Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing. You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey ) |
Post #57378
|
Posted: 24th August 2004 14:28
|
|
![]() Posts: 1,394 Joined: 13/3/2004 Awards: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I have decided, and it will be A.
The game appears to try to do B, but lacks proper coding and, more importantly, proper animations for that. Stuck in the process it will be like a buffy version of A. Aside from the fact that I think A is still superior to B, B would require rewriting animation coding which would take weeks to say the least. I will answer question if you have them and post here if it's done. Of course, I'll try to bother you with it with my signature just as well ![]() -------------------- |
Post #57395
|