How do I get crit this high in T1 pls?

[Azarael]

The stages of an ability's use are the following:

Client's DO_ABILITY packet is sent to the server. This contains LoS information for the player's offensive and defensive targets. If the server detects that you don't have LoS to the requested target, it will either refuse the cast or change the target to yourself, depending on the ability.

Every damaging tick (for offensive channels), at the ability's cast end (for abilities which have a buildup time less than or equal to the GCD) or 1.5 seconds into the ability (for buildup abilities longer than 1.5 seconds), the server sends a certain kind of USE_ABILITY packet, to which the client responds with F_PLAYER_INFO which contains LOS information. This is used to break channels and cast time abilities if the player runs behind cover.

Auto attacks are handled entirely by the server, and the server is incapable of making a LOS check by itself, nor (to my knowledge) of requesting the client to make one for it. Therefore, all AAs will check only that the target is within range.

Pet abilities are also handled by the server, and from what I can see by looking at the packet code that was already completed, requesting that a pet cast an ability means that only the desired ability's ID is sent - no LOS info. Pet abilities will therefore also ignore LOS.

[Coryphaus]

OR
The turrets are placed/timed perfectly. (I'm pretty sure there was a post about that, confirming that they are well played?)

Rough times.

Come on, Jiggly, you're a good player. Do you really think that engi turrets are functioning as they should be? Perhaps it's a T1 issue; but to come to the conclusion that OP turrets necessitate 'well-played' engineers is a bit hmph....

-200+ armor debuff, shooting through walls, (currently) unbreakable aoe root, annoying as **** acid bomb, pretty decent range on attacks m1 kb compound this by the fact that every sc has at least 3-5 engie's..... and even more in orvr

still not as lame as prancing shadow warriors

[Ototo]

Just my guess, but, turrets/pets/etc... are objects placed in the world, the player instead its sorta a box that moves around that world with specific rules, like not crashing against such world.

Objects most likely need a constant stream of comprobations from server side (cause its not ur camera giving data of ur position in the world to the server, its a virtual camera the server place in them to check LoS) whr it can and whr it cant fire, designing which object can be crossed and which cant, cause then a simple bush or bog, or leaves from a tree, could "stop" the turret from fire. There is quite a diff between making a part, or all of, an object immaterial and actually making it a block from streams of LoS or no.

This was a huge trouble in SecondLife scripting/designing. Not all immaterial walls actually allow LoS, and not all material objects break it. If u wanted it perfect u needed to go one-by-one checking, and took ages. Lets not speak of mesh or sculpt objects, whichs real size could be several times bigger than their rendering size.

In t1 it may not be a huge concern, but in t2 empire..... well, that forest its BIG and there are simply too many trees to actually adjust whr it can and whr it cant fire across.

[Azarael]

Uh, from the Unreal engine perspective this isn't that hard. You use the Trace() function, which makes a line check between the two points and returns the endpoint and the object hit, if any. Leaves are just a texture on a mesh of sheets, designed to be placed onto the base "trunk" mesh. The trunk collides and the leaves do not.

[Xaun]

Thanks,

So it would either require the new combat code to deviate from the original in that pet abilities would need to be sent/spawned from the client with some pseudo individual presence/point-of-origin separate to the clients -OR- have the server handle -spawning- pets as separate entities but obeying the same combat code as a player

Perhaps AA can be treated like regular attacks (but from the client) with their own GCD etc ?

Or would this be a monumental effort to implement?

[Ototo]

Uh, from the Unreal engine perspective this isn't that hard. You use the Trace() function, which makes a line check between the two points and returns the endpoint and the object hit, if any. Leaves are just a texture on a mesh of sheets, designed to be placed onto the base "trunk" mesh. The trunk collides and the leaves do not.

I think i see what u are saying. The engine around which the game its based use final render size instead of "collision" / "container" / whatever term u se for it in english / .... around which the object its rendered.

It understand meshes, not as Objects but as streched surfaces with several faces.

In SL even the simple 2D objects are actually 3D ones that just have a really tiny 3rd dimension, and the server get them as that no matter what u say to it.

In one hand it simplified scripting a lot, cause u just needed to recall to Object then get its properties back, but in the other it simply couldnt (no clue if this still as then) support the diff between ObjectSize and RenderSize. This last had to be scripted for weapons, so ur awesome sword/lance/whatever/... using a sculpt several times bigger than the render size (as much as 10m) didnt Collide at the size of the Object but at the one of the Render, being 0.5m for a sword/1.5m for a lance/....

[Morf]

Other then a bug which fighting against engi's i have not seen before, it looks to be pure luck.
Even with an ini debuff and the engi having lair weps which i think boost crit by 1% each wep i dont think your gona have anything more then 35% chance to be crit ? mayb even less.
Yep engis are prolly the most solid class at the moment, good armor, armor debuff, snare (even tho its melle its still a huge skill), good single target and aoe damage, a root, morale kb, turret not abiding by los rules (which happened on mythic servers not just here), morale 2 damage boost and i prolly missed some other things.
Its odd because engi was always thought of as one of or even the worse class which in my eyes was complete bs, played correctly you could argue they were 1 of the strongest classes and its good to see they are having there time in the spotlight.

[Azarael]

Thanks,

So it would either require the new combat code to deviate from the original in that pet abilities would need to be sent/spawned from the client with some pseudo individual presence/point-of-origin separate to the clients -OR- have the server handle -spawning- pets as separate entities but obeying the same combat code as a player

Perhaps AA can be treated like regular attacks (but from the client) with their own GCD etc ?

Or would this be a monumental effort to implement?

We are bound by the functionality implemented / available on the client.

[Tesq]

The stages of an ability's use are the following:

Client's DO_ABILITY packet is sent to the server. This contains LoS information for the player's offensive and defensive targets. If the server detects that you don't have LoS to the requested target, it will either refuse the cast or change the target to yourself, depending on the ability.

Every damaging tick (for offensive channels), at the ability's cast end (for abilities which have a buildup time less than or equal to the GCD) or 1.5 seconds into the ability (for buildup abilities longer than 1.5 seconds), the server sends a certain kind of USE_ABILITY packet, to which the client responds with F_PLAYER_INFO which contains LOS information. This is used to break channels and cast time abilities if the player runs behind cover.

Auto attacks are handled entirely by the server, and the server is incapable of making a LOS check by itself, nor (to my knowledge) of requesting the client to make one for it. Therefore, all AAs will check only that the target is within range.

Pet abilities are also handled by the server, and from what I can see by looking at the packet code that was already completed, requesting that a pet cast an ability means that only the desired ability's ID is sent - no LOS info. Pet abilities will therefore also ignore LOS.

stupid suggestion: could be possible manualy add a los check on player serve side only vs pet skill? i Mean pet start attackk-----> cast/etc---> time to hit---> pg check if pet is not in loss bassed on hiw own Characther in game info to the enemy pet-----> resolve.

[Azarael]

I believe the game will only send LOS info from the client receiving the packet if the caster is the player.