freshour wrote:Well the way I see it, you can proc 1 cov on one guy every 1 second. So it meant if 5 people hit an enemy he can only take damage from 1 proc. So that would mean the ICD of the cov to proc is on the guy being hit saying he can only be hit by it once every second which seems a bit more complicated than just leaving the doks cov as it was, and then applying that ICD that the defender had excluding the dok. I mean I'm not a master of code but assigning variables and such was pretty easy in the VERY limited coding I did. All I'm saying is that the work required to make 1 person only take 1 cov from any number of enemies hitting him granted they are given that cov by the same dok - seems fairly hairy to code and that if that much control is in fact possible that bypassing the gcd with the doks personal CoV/Coc would be relatively straight forward.
I've worked sometime in IT before opting to study again and bugger off - I wouldn't dare judging, especially if something as complex as a multiplayer is concerned. Moreso, if the source code isn't available to you and, last but not least, if the source code in question is meant to ducttape together the <remains> of a game that were reverse engineered by decoding packages.
It might be easy, it might be - again - an absolute chore. Neither I, nor you, or anyone else without insight can judge it. If it hasn't been done yet its for a reason.
If its not related to the coding it will be related to resources (as in: time, among other things) or just another gameplan; as means to not mess with things that need - and that will, maybe, receive - overhauls (which brings us back to resources; time consuming, redundant work => bad, especially if you aren't getting paid for it).
Abbd.: The game might look fancy in its current state - it might, however, be held together, behind the curtains, by the weirdest gibberish one could imagine.
Abbd.:
freshour wrote:Edit Edit: "If they could have done it they would have" - you are REALLY giving them a lot of credit lol. I'm not saying it was malicious by any means. I am saying they most likely did not realize how much of the DoK's personal damage was from those and the ICD just seemed like a straight forward fix and they never took into consideration the huge hit to total % damage that they gave the DoK. I find that WAY more likely than it is not possible.
I've acknowledged that predicament - in fact, read back through my posts, I've been the one feeding you the idea of seperate sets of ICDs. If I had known that I'd stir up this circular argument... I wouldn't have done it - no offense intended.
The marked part in the qoute is the circular argument, you are hellbent on brushing aside the possibility - if not certainty - that they did consider it and opt not to try and implement it.
And yes, I am giving them a lot of credit because I have no reason not to, much less to consider them completly inept in their considerations - it is, was and will ever be abundantly obvious to everyone that has ever glanced at the class in question that the procs are a major part of its dps capabilties; you don't need a development related, secluded server to parse stuff to grasp it, if you have such a server at your disposal - guess what - you'll have made sure to make use of it, if you are developing the game and are looking forward to applying changes to it.
No kind of development does work without math, everyone even remotely invested into computer science performs math on everything he can possibly perform math on - its the nature of things.
E:Words and stuff.