Jump to content


Photo

Azuredge


23 replies to this topic

#1 Ardanis

Ardanis

    A very GAR character

  • Members
  • 2249 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Posted 04 July 2011 - 03:38 PM

Fixpack's version has +3 enchantment bonus to thaco/damage, but this is not reflected in new description.
"Uguu~ Boku Ayu."

Before you start breaking wall tiles with your bare fists, ask yourself first - do you truly need it?

#2 aVENGER_(RR)

aVENGER_(RR)

    Sneaksie!

  • Fixpackers
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 January 2012 - 06:16 AM

I've fixed the missing extra damage vs. undead in the last update, but I left the spurious THAC0 and damage bonuses alone for now.

Personally, I vote for removing them as they weren't present in the original version of the item (Baldurdash added them) but I'd like to hear some other opinions before we make a final decision.
Retired modder

Rogue Rebalancing - Author
aTweaks - Author
Wizard Slayer Rebalancing - Co-Author
BG2 Fixpack - Contributor

#3 Dakk

Dakk
  • Members
  • 784 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 January 2012 - 06:57 AM

Isn't the axe +3? Wouldn't not having +3 THAC0 and DMG make it the only +x weapon in the game not have corresponding THAC0 and DMG increase?

EDIT: How are other weapons with Disruption handled?

Edited by Dakk, 13 January 2012 - 07:01 AM.


#4 devSin

devSin
  • Fixpackers
  • 3017 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 January 2012 - 06:54 PM

I'm surprised that junk would still be in there.

The original description suggested that the implementation was correct. No base damage/THAC0 bonus.

#5 polytope

polytope
  • Members
  • 268 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 January 2012 - 09:31 PM

Isn't the axe +3? Wouldn't not having +3 THAC0 and DMG make it the only +x weapon in the game not have corresponding THAC0 and DMG increase?

EDIT: How are other weapons with Disruption handled?

The equalizer is considered +3, but only gives combat bonuses against non-neutral alignments, so I'd say there's a precedent.

Also, changing Azuredge to be +3 vs everything makes it outclass the other SoA throwing axes like the Rifthome axe.

Edited by polytope, 14 January 2012 - 09:32 PM.

Polytweak - Polytope's enhancements of BG2 creatures, NPCs and the proficiency system.

#6 Hurricane

Hurricane
  • Members
  • 66 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2012 - 04:30 AM

Let's dissect this, shall we?

We are asking ourselves the same question over and over again with Azuredge it seems. Even after what Baldurdash and the Fixpack have done to the weapon, the discussion keeps coming up simply because everybody has a different view about whether the weapon's default properties were intended this way or whether they need fixing. It would be great to settle this once and for all. In a desperate attempt to do so (ah c'mon, now I'm kidding myself), I'm going to try to be as reasonable as possible.

First of all, let's point out the changes done to Azuredge that are NOT disputed, just to prevent these changes from accidentally getting messed up again.

a) There is no dispute about the weapon's ability to destroy undead, because thankfully the description is precise and unambiguous in this respect. This ability, of course, is bugged in vanilla BG2, so the Fixpack helps out. The Fixpack correctly replaces both the melee and ranged abilities' Effect: Slay by assigning Effect: Use EFF File: MESDIE.EFF and Effect: Use EFF File: DIE.EFF instead.
b) The Fixpack enables the damage bonus due to the wielder's strength for the weapon's ranged ability. This is part of harmonizing the behavior of all throwing axes and has nothing to do with Azuredge in particular.


We now come to the properties that are disputed. Given that previous attempts to settle this discussion haven't been successful, I believe we can agree on the following points by now:
- Whatever Baldurdash, the Fixpack, or any other mods have done to these properties in the past does not help us. We need to evaluate anew and objectively.
- Any description made for Azuredge by the community, including GTU and the likes, is irrelevant with respect to determining the properties.
- The cause for the dilemma with Azuredge is that the weapon doesn't fit into any given category, so no matter how you look at it, some values always seem "false".
- To remedy this dilemma, one can try and point to similarities with either of two categories: other regular +X items, and other "irregular" items such as the Equalizer and the Mace of Disruption. When doing so, one realizes at the end that making either connection is as helpful as considering Azuredge a category of its own, because none of the categories can explain consistently all of the weapon's properties.
- Consequently, in order to figure out what the real values for Azuredge ought to be, the only relevant "inputs" shall be the default description by Bioware and rational thinking.

And now the facts (I'm not taking any position yet):

1. Enchantment level
- Azuredge is a +3 weapon both by description and actual value.
- In accordance with its +3 enchantment level, Azuredge has a weapon speed of 1 both by description and value.
- Most enchanted weapons also have modified weapon speeds according to their enchantment level.

2. Thac0 bonus
- Azuredge does not have any thac0 bonus. This is in accordance with its description.
- Most enchanted weapons have thac0 bonuses corresponding to their enchantment level.
- Some enchanted weapons have thac0 bonuses at odds with their enchantment level.

3. Regular damage
- Non-magical throwing axes do 1D6+1 damage with both the melee and ranged ability. For magical throwing axes, there is inconsistency regarding whether the additional +1 damage is applied.
- Azuredge's melee damage is 1D6(+0). This is in accordance with its description.
- Azuredge's ranged damage is 3D6. This is at odds with its description, which states 1D6 regardless of the ability used.
- Most enchanted weapons have damage bonuses corresponding to their enchantment level.
- Some enchanted weapons have damage bonuses at odds with their enchantment level.

4. Additional damage versus undead
- Azuredge's description states that the weapon does 1D6+4 of additional damage to undead, separately from the regular damage.
- By default, the implementation of this extra damage is meant to be done by the weapon's Global Effect: Use EFF File: MACEDISR.EFF, though this is not working properly due to it being a global effect (plus the values of MACEDISR.EFF wouldn't fit, because as the name suggests, the file originally pertains to the Mace of Disruption).
- As with the ability to destroy undead in a single blow, the additional damage against undead is stated without any ambiguity both in the description text and in the weapon's statistics.

Based on these facts (and nothing else), what do we make of this?


In trying to deduce the most coherent, most plausible, least disputable setup of Azuredge from these facts, here's my subjective take now:

1. Enchantment level and weapon speed: No issues there as it is all consistent. Should stay as it is.

2. Thac0 bonus: The consistency between the non-existent thac0 bonus and the matching description outweighs any consideration for introducing an artificial thac0 bonus.

3. Regular damage: This is the most problematic section.
- The ranged damage of 3D6 is bogus and not supported by the description, so it must be changed regardless of anything else.
- The description says 1D6+0 for both abilities, which is less than the damage of non-magical throwing axes, and therefore seems unreasonable.
- The only safe conclusion from the description is that the melee and ranged damages ought to be identical.
- Furthermore, since there is at least a consistency insofar as neither a thac0 bonus nor a damage bonus is described, the regular damage therefore should not be modified based on the enchantment.
- This leaves the consideration about damage to either go with the unreasonable but default 1D6, or make a decision to change this value to 1D6+1, thereby deviating from the description.
- From the setup of Azuredge, with no bonus to thac0 or regular damage, I am inferring that the weapon was meant to behave as a normal throwing axe in that respect. The missing +1 damage would therefore be an oversight. I favor keeping the damage at 1D6 ("description alternative"), but I am also okay with making it 1D6+1 ("throwing axes alternative") as the second possibility.

4. Additional damage versus undead: The instruction given by the description is plain and simple. The weapon's extra damage needs to be fixed so that it actually works and does a complete 1D6+4 of additional damage to undead.

That's it for my case. If hope we can reach a final consensus about Azuredge.


(Addendum to 4.: It seems to me that previous attempts by the Fixpack to get the additional damage to work have resulted in all kinds of stuff. Currently (v9.01), there is a file called "AX1H10.EFF" that is delivered with the Fixpack but not used, and I don't know what it does if it is applied. Then there is also a new entry in the weapon's melee and ranged abilities to use "UNDDAM4.EFF", which doesn't lead anywhere because there is no such .EFF file. @ aVENGER: I don't know about the status of the Fixpack, but I thought it might be important to bring this up in case this hasn't been fixed and cleaned up yet.)

Edit: Expansion to Addendum to 4.: aVENGER, I just discovered in the "Recent fixes roundup thread" that you integrated "Azuredge wasn't dealing the advertised +4 extra damage vs. undead creatures" in v9.06. Please be aware that this should probably be 1D6+4 instead of only +4, according to what I have described in this post.

Edited by Hurricane, 15 January 2012 - 05:07 AM.


#7 Dakk

Dakk
  • Members
  • 784 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2012 - 10:32 AM

1. Enchantment level and weapon speed: No issues there as it is all consistent. Should stay as it is.

2. Thac0 bonus: The consistency between the non-existent thac0 bonus and the matching description outweighs any consideration for introducing an artificial thac0 bonus.

3. Regular damage: This is the most problematic section.[...] The missing +1 damage would therefore be an oversight. I favor keeping the damage at 1D6 ("description alternative"), but I am also okay with making it 1D6+1 ("throwing axes alternative") as the second possibility.

4. Additional damage versus undead: The instruction given by the description is plain and simple. The weapon's extra damage needs to be fixed so that it actually works and does a complete 1D6+4 of additional damage to undead.


Very well put Hurricane (aka. -Hurricane- ? ;))!
I agree on all points, only I prefer regular damage to be 1D6+1 - so it's not actually WORSE than a regular throwing axe...

That's it for my case. If hope we can reach a final consensus about Azuredge.

Hubris! :D But indeed, it would be nice to be able to put all these fixes for fixes for fixes to rest.

EDIT: I'd just like to expand on your last fact on Regular damage:
- Some enchanted weapons have damage bonuses at odds with their enchantment level.

Relevant in this case is probably also that "No enchanted weapons have damage bonuses lower than its corresponding non-enchanted weapons." (Disclaimer: not actually researched). That's why I'm in favour of the 1D6+1.

Edited by Dakk, 15 January 2012 - 10:36 AM.


#8 Hurricane

Hurricane
  • Members
  • 66 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2012 - 12:41 PM

Right.

Again, I hardly care whether it's 1D6 or 1D6+1. Now we have a vote for 1D6+1. Keep them coming.


Very well put Hurricane (aka. -Hurricane- ? ;))!


Thanks Dakk, and yes, you figured correctly. :) Although I like to disregard the hyphens.

Hubris! :D


Got me! :D

Edited by Hurricane, 15 January 2012 - 12:42 PM.


#9 devSin

devSin
  • Fixpackers
  • 3017 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2012 - 01:13 PM

We're not going to pick a value for the damage from the ether. It needs to match the description that BioWare wrote, or the designer needs to be trusted (they wanted whatever they put in, in the case it doesn't match the description). Personally, I think we should fix the corruption and hook up the EFFs as best we can and just leave the rest alone.

Any other changes would have to be in OBC, or left for another mod to tackle.

#10 aVENGER_(RR)

aVENGER_(RR)

    Sneaksie!

  • Fixpackers
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2012 - 11:15 PM

4. Additional damage versus undead: The instruction given by the description is plain and simple. The weapon's extra damage needs to be fixed so that it actually works and does a complete 1D6+4 of additional damage to undead.


I just checked the original EFF (which was copied over from the Mace of Disruption) and it would appear that the developers actually tried to make it deal 1d6+2 extra damage vs. undead. They failed, probably because they didn't understand that opcode #179 only takes fixed damage amounts.

In light of this, I can see a possibility for making the extra damage 1d6+4 rather than a flat +4.

Edited by aVENGER_(RR), 15 January 2012 - 11:30 PM.

Retired modder

Rogue Rebalancing - Author
aTweaks - Author
Wizard Slayer Rebalancing - Co-Author
BG2 Fixpack - Contributor

#11 Hurricane

Hurricane
  • Members
  • 66 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 January 2012 - 02:26 PM

In light of this, I can see a possibility for making the extra damage 1d6+4 rather than a flat +4.


As it should be, thank you. But just to clarify: We actually don't need to look at the misplaced and misused MACEDISR.EFF within Azuredge (which I had also described in my first post) to know that the value ought to be something like aDb+c, but the description alone tells us precisely everything we need to know (indeed: 1D6+4). If the MACEDISR.EFF wasn't there, we'd still get to the same conclusion. I'm curious as to why the Fixpack ever considered making it only +4, that value is nowhere to be found.

While you're at it, I'd be great if you could follow up on my request to "clean things up".

there is a file called "AX1H10.EFF" that is delivered with the Fixpack but not used, and I don't know what it does if it is applied. Then there is also a new entry in the weapon's melee and ranged abilities to use "UNDDAM4.EFF", which doesn't lead anywhere because there is no such .EFF file.


... i.e., best to pick one of these filenames and make it the appropriate effect, then delete whatever is left in terms of files or wrong entries in the weapon's abilities. I'd prefer to use "AX1H10.EFF" because it is more specific.

#12 Wisp

Wisp
  • Modders
  • 975 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 January 2012 - 04:04 PM

While you're at it, I'd be great if you could follow up on my request to "clean things up".


there is a file called "AX1H10.EFF" that is delivered with the Fixpack but not used, and I don't know what it does if it is applied. Then there is also a new entry in the weapon's melee and ranged abilities to use "UNDDAM4.EFF", which doesn't lead anywhere because there is no such .EFF file.


... i.e., best to pick one of these filenames and make it the appropriate effect, then delete whatever is left in terms of files or wrong entries in the weapon's abilities. I'd prefer to use "AX1H10.EFF" because it is more specific.

That is the bug (well, one of them; Azuredge is a mess, both before and after Fixpack finished with it). Fixpack added one eff resource and wrote another resref to the item file.

As for the spurious THAC0 and dagame bonuses, they need to be axed.

Edited by Wisp, 16 January 2012 - 04:17 PM.


#13 aVENGER_(RR)

aVENGER_(RR)

    Sneaksie!

  • Fixpackers
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 January 2012 - 09:30 PM

One more detail, the AX1H10.EFF which currently ships with the fixpack is set up to deal the bonus damage as magical damage.

It is unlikely that the developers intended this, so it might be best to create 2 separate EFFs, one for the melee and one for the ranged header. They would deal the bonus damage as slashing and missile damage, respectively.
Retired modder

Rogue Rebalancing - Author
aTweaks - Author
Wizard Slayer Rebalancing - Co-Author
BG2 Fixpack - Contributor

#14 Hurricane

Hurricane
  • Members
  • 66 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 January 2012 - 03:01 PM

Good point.

#15 Azazello

Azazello

    The Anti-Spammer

  • Members
  • 555 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orlando (via Nairobi, Kenya {via New York City})

Posted 18 January 2012 - 12:33 AM

Gents(/Ladies?): whatever you decide on correcting Azuredge, PLEASE share the code with Weimer's Item Upgrade mod so that the upgraded item has the same corrections.

I ask this mainly because :gasp: some people don't use BG2 Fixpack, so it would be wonderful if that mod can independently provide a corrected item.

Yes-yes I know, the world doesn't turn w/o having BG2fixpack installed, but let's be progressive here.
Der Tag beginnt in der Mittel am Nacht, immer. -- Peter Wendl
================================================================
Community Contributions
a directory of Mega-Installation Guides * Level 1 NPCs * gMinion: expanded TP2 for MegaInstalls * PSM (PSQM): expanded scripts for Melanthium * Weimer's-Tactics: revised TP2 for MegaInstalls * non-detectable Cloak of Non-Detection ?? * Shar Nadal (DSotSC-BGT) revision



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users