To invert, or not to invert. That's a tough one.

If it has bytes, we can change it. Talk about anything relating to hacking and emulation here.

Moderators: General Moderator, Game Moderator

To invert, or not to invert. That's a tough one.

Postby Djibriel » Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:18 am

This might as well have gone to the GamePlay discussion, but I want to see coding so I put it here. If you look closely, there is logic in my actions!

Anyway:

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmes ... c=16674509

After you read that, you know what I want: I want to see the code at which ZED looked when he rubbed his beard, took the pipe out of his mouth and whispered 'Bingo' to the fireplace and his cat, Hieronymus.

Because I have the nerve to doubt his conclusion! :o
"The population in Iraq is over 80% Shi'ite. Couldn't the same be said about your music, Mr. Durst? "
User avatar
Djibriel
Regular User
Regular User
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:45 pm
Location: Outsider!

Postby Assassin » Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:42 am

download the patch; the Readme has the relevant code, with abundant comments.

one thing i definitely like about the fix is that if you create a hypothetical spell to "reverse Drain" (i.e. give from caster to target), it's flipped on undead. not so in the original game (admittedly, Square doesn't have to account for fictional spells), even though that example *will* be flipped for a Zombie target.

trying to figure out the designers' intent for how the "typical" undead should react to Poison is what's driven me nuts, as you can see in that GameFAQs thread. :-/
User avatar
Assassin
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:10 am

Postby Master ZED » Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:21 am

If Square had not placed the bit in attacks, I would have been inclined to agree with you. However, without the fix, the bit serves no purpose in attacks. I thought that there was clearly something wrong here, and Seizure kind of proved it when I saw the bit in its stats.

Now, whether the subsequent effects are correct or not, I'm not sure that matters. The bit looked like it was intended to affect attacks as well, so that's what I did. I had no idea about the Poison thing when I did it, but then again, that would not have stopped me. I mean, they did figure out how to block Debilitator, Square could have figured out Invert damage + Poison absorb = Poison does damage.

But in this case, it's hard to say for sure. :|
The Unoriginal White Sheet - http://masterzed.cavesofnarshe.com/
-Master ZED
User avatar
Master ZED
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:31 am

Postby Djibriel » Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:36 am

Does not Echo Screen and the like pierce defenses? It's not like they think useless random bit setting is icky. There's no way in hell an Echo Screen could have ever done damage in the minds of Square.

Why do you name Seizure here? FF V sais that Seizure should hurt undead, so if I look at it, it's prove that it's fine and dandy the way it is, patch-less and all.

Hmm...if anything our discussion so far has strenghtened me in my believes that this is not a bug in FF VI.
"The population in Iraq is over 80% Shi'ite. Couldn't the same be said about your music, Mr. Durst? "
User avatar
Djibriel
Regular User
Regular User
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:45 pm
Location: Outsider!

Postby Assassin » Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:09 am

Djibriel wrote:Does not Echo Screen and the like pierce defenses? It's not like they think useless random bit setting is icky. There's no way in hell an Echo Screen could have ever done damage in the minds of Square.


isn't "Ignore Damage Modification" just set upfront for Items period? if so, it'd actually be more work to *not* set that for Echo Screen and the like.

Why do you name Seizure here? FF V sais that Seizure should hurt undead, so if I look at it, it's prove that it's fine and dandy the way it is, patch-less and all.

Hmm...if anything our discussion so far has strenghtened me in my believes that this is not a bug in FF VI.


yeah, but FF5 also says that Regen should heal the undead, of which an *unmodified* FF6 does the opposite. because Seizure/Regen are very strongly "mirror" statuses in FF6, it's understandable to think that Seizure should always damage the opposite of Regen.

how close is FF5's Seizure to mirroring its Regen? istr Alex Jackson or somebody saying they're noticably different (in the way HP ticks off?).

and are there any healing attacks besides White Wind that ignore undead? if there aren't, it may suggest that game's Regen is screwy/questionable.

aye, i promise not to comment on FF5 anymore until i play it. :)
User avatar
Assassin
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:10 am

Postby Djibriel » Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 am

Yes, you should play that game, if only to check differences/similarities. Also, it's a pretty good game.

Anyway, there are differences, yes. Regen acts like FF Regen in the sence that it heals on given intervals. I don't think this is quite as random as with FF VI, but you get the point.

Have you played FF IV? "No, Djibriel, for I am inferior". Fair enough :P Like in FF IV, the HP Leak in FF V is graduate. And unless inherent to the monster, it wears off after three (?) rounds. You can actually see you HP dropping like sand between your fingers, so it's kinda alarming if you see your HP fly away.

For IV (while we're at it), there is no such thing as Regen at all. However, there is HP leak, which you can set with Virus. Virus is non-elemental (there isn't a poison-element in that game, but Virus is like FF V Bio), does not heal undead, the status does not heal undead, the HP leak does not heal undead.

So this wraps up in :the undead do not inherently absorb poison. Score against the patch. The undead are not healed by Seizure, score against the patch. So there, I'm still standing.
"The population in Iraq is over 80% Shi'ite. Couldn't the same be said about your music, Mr. Durst? "
User avatar
Djibriel
Regular User
Regular User
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:45 pm
Location: Outsider!

Postby Imzogelmo » Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:39 am

You can't really compare game mechanics across games like that. How it works in one game has nothing to do with another game... but anyway.

I guess I'll bring it up since no one else has: The logic behind this is stated to be based on the way that Runic works--that is, absorbing the element can work against a runicker, causing them to lose MP. Same idea applies this as well.
User avatar
Imzogelmo
Veteran
Veteran
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:07 pm
Location: On the spirtual plane

Postby Master ZED » Mon Oct 04, 2004 1:07 pm

Djibriel wrote:So this wraps up in :the undead do not inherently absorb poison. Score against the patch.
How? That's a huge part of what it does. Where it gets freaky is what Poison spells have the bit, as not all do, so in turn, no undead can absorb every Poison-elemental spell at any given time. For the most common Poison attacks, including the ailment, Poison will do damage with the patch to all but three undead since the rest have Poison absorb and therefore will get their asses kicked. If you debilitate them to get rid of Poison absorb, then most Poison attacks will start healing them, and stuff like Pois. Frog will begin doing damage.

Yes, that's very fucked up. But that's what Square did, probably not taking into account the Debilitator's effects on the whole thing. If that's not what they wanted, Square could have just taken out the bit in Poison attacks, which wouldn't have been that much longer to do time-wise (what, 10 minutes for the slowest imbecile?) than breaking it would have, but they didn't, which leads me to believe the strange Poison/Undead rules are intentional (maybe not in every way *coughPois. Frogcough*, but you get the point). At any rate, something is very wrong with the Poison/Undead picture and I believe it has everything to do with how Invert damage was to be used, not with whether the bit is broken or not, as I still believe Square miscoded it.

Also, the fact that Phantasm's HP Leak also has the bit set combined with the fact there's a Relic Ring before Chadarnook is one in my favor. Either that is entirely coincidental or that ring is stragetically placed to counter Phantasm. Without Metamorph, that is the only Relic Ring in the game besides the ones the ghosts at the Phantom Train wear, so the ring being a coincidence is highly improbable. If Invert damage is simply broken like I have argued, then Square isn't being given enough credit for how they planned this out. Of course, that also means they deserve another round of beatings for negating yet another strategy and in turn, a whole other debate and set of fools for Meeple to bat around and eventually kill over whether the Relic Ring's cons outweighed that one pro for that particular battle.

The whole point of this is that Imzo and assassin are correct; comparing games isn't a good way to tell whether this game is coded correctly and the whole Regen/Seizure relationship and their coding is enough evidence with which to conclude the bit is broken. What the deal was with the Undead/Poison/Invert damage BS... I don't think we'll ever know short of getting FF6's battle programmer drunk enough to lay out the details for us.
The Unoriginal White Sheet - http://masterzed.cavesofnarshe.com/
-Master ZED
User avatar
Master ZED
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:31 am

Postby RuneLancer » Mon Oct 04, 2004 1:47 pm

Just a quick little reply to this thread, because I'm at work right now.

Zombified characters, according to part of the code, are supposed to randomly deal poison and/or zombie status (IIRC; I'm certain about the poison one though) when they attack physically. I'm not sure if this is bare-handed or not, though, and I can't say I remember seeing it in-game before.

Still, it's interesting to know that Square seems to have created undeads with the idea that they inherently are poison-dealers and thus probably poison-elemental. The fact I've never seen this in-game and that not all undeads have the poison status flag set leads to me wonder just how valid this is though.
Endless Saga
http://www.venosoft.com/endless
New redisigned website! Demo available.
User avatar
RuneLancer
Regular User
Regular User
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:57 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Postby Master ZED » Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:06 pm

Silverlance wrote:Zombified characters, according to part of the code, are supposed to randomly deal poison and/or zombie status (IIRC; I'm certain about the poison one though) when they attack physically.

1. Dark, not Zombie. You're right about Poison, though.

2. Zombie is not the same as undead.
The Unoriginal White Sheet - http://masterzed.cavesofnarshe.com/
-Master ZED
User avatar
Master ZED
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:31 am

Postby Assassin » Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:17 pm

2. Zombie is not the same as undead.


True, but it is connected in that:

- "Invert Damage if Undead" spells that drain will be flipped on Zombie targets.

- "Invert Damage if Undead" items (Revivify) will insta-kill the undead. if undeadness and zombification were entirely disparate, you'd think an item that cures one wouldn't react so harshly with the other.

I like to think of a Zombie as an undead's challenged cousin. :)
User avatar
Assassin
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:10 am

Postby Assassin » Tue Oct 05, 2004 6:54 am

that Relic Ring before Chadarnook is also a nice counter to the woman's Doom Kiss. but you're right that Phantasm is more "perfect" for this relic, as the party's seen Condemned attacks before.

like Silverlance, i'm inclined to think undead would have more of an affinity for Poison than the living. now it's hard to say either way with lots of foes, but Hidon stands out for me. he's big, green, reptilian, insectile, and uses all sorts of poisonous attacks. in fact, i'm pretty sure he's made out of arsenic.

it's tough to imagine that Square tacked "absorb Poison" onto Hidon so it'd hurt him.. admittedly, robots like to fling lightning and are weak to it, but Hidon strikes me as more akin to the fire-based enemies who eat fire for breakfast than to some machine.

that's just my reaction to one enemy; it doesn't say much about the overall system.
User avatar
Assassin
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:10 am

Postby Master ZED » Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:43 pm

Assassin wrote:like Silverlance, i'm inclined to think undead would have more of an affinity for Poison than the living.
Speaking of that, under the Invert damage patch, Relic Ring will absorb the same Poison attacks monsters like Bloompire would, and in turn, you could use the same uber-Regen strategy that you would for Gau and Gogo on any Relic Ring wearer (except replace Regen with Seizure).

So Thornlet + Relic Ring + Poison status = Undead uber-Regen. Sounds good for Mog and Gau, given Snow Muffler.

Now of course, either way, not all undead like Poison. Normally, Bloompire, Vaporite, and Dante can't absorb it, so where's your logic there? They're undead, they should absorb Poison, right? Likewise, the Relic Ring normally can't do that either. Yet Gau can turn Undead with any other monster's Rage and absorb Poison, so you can't tell me that halfassing being undead w/ the Relic Ring is why Poison absorb isn't there. :)

There are holes in the logic of how Poison/Undead works either way, so I don't see where you're going with this.
The Unoriginal White Sheet - http://masterzed.cavesofnarshe.com/
-Master ZED
User avatar
Master ZED
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:31 am

Postby Assassin » Tue Oct 05, 2004 7:22 pm

Master ZED wrote:Normally, Bloompire, Vaporite, and Dante can't absorb it, so where's your logic there? They're undead, they should absorb Poison, right?


I know political season is in full gear, but let's not misinterpret people's words. ;) Here's what i said:

like Silverlance, i'm inclined to think undead would have more of an affinity for Poison than the living. now it's hard to say either way with lots of foes, but Hidon stands out for me.


By "more", I didn't mean absolute; hence the lack of "all" or "always" in that quote. All but 3 undead enemies absorbing Poison constitutes a far greater portion than the living who absorb it. To me, that trend -- yes, trend, not blanket rule -- makes more sense than the alternative: only 3 out of 41 undead (7.3%) absorb it, while 27 out of 342 (7.9% -- though that gets a bit higher when you subtract all the dummied enemies) living foes do. There are two problems I have with those numbers:

1) Gut tells me the undead % should at least be equal, if not higher.
2) Why the hell would Square go through the trouble of giving "Invert Undead" to Poison spells just so Undeads could statistically be so damned close to the living? Yeah, they'd absorb Poison Frog, Bio Blaster, and some MagiTek attack you'll have for all of 3 seconds anyway. Whoopdie diddle.

Come on; Poison Frog. That's elusive, man. I see J.D. Salinger and Salman Rushdie make joint "Hollywood Squares" appearances more often than I see Mog use Poison Frog.

Bio Blaster is the only relevant one of those three.

Poison Fucking Frog. Please.


Master ZED wrote:There are holes in the logic of how Poison/Undead works either way, so I don't see where you're going with this.


agreed, and i never said i was going anywhere :P

that's just my reaction to one enemy; it doesn't say much about the overall system.
User avatar
Assassin
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:10 am


Return to ROM Hacking and Emulation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron