Thursday, April 12, 2012

Quick affix Q

[:1]I have used the speed-calculator and affix-calculator from inDiablo.de many times and allways found it to be a good source of information. Today I used the affix-calculator for belts to answer a question in the PC-forum, and stumbled across a couple of mistakes. The affixes included on belts didn't include at least 2 affixes:
  • Atlas (+21-30 str)

  • Drake's (+21-30 mana)

Both these affixes are included correctly in MagicPrefix.txt and MagicSuffix.txt {spawnable=1,rare=1,itypes include belts} extracted from the 1.13 .mpqs and displayed correctly on the Arreat Summit.

Drake's affix is correctly represented on Rods, Amulets and Rings, but the Atlas is also incorrectly represented on Amulets, Clubs and Hammers (unable to verify circlets, since inDiablo.de apparently dosen't support those).

This ofc means that the affix-calculator cannot be trusted in many cases, and I was wondering if there are other mistakes on that site, that I should be aware of (ie. can it be trusted to do correct speed-calculations for instance?).

Regards Tom|||Hmmm, they are present to me. Are you sure that you didn't check the classic affixes? Cause in classic Atlas and Drake's mods are not available for belts.|||For me, the Atlas affix appears. The Drake affix doesn't, but I cannot remember that I ever saw a belt with it. On the other hand, I don't pink up or shop for magical belts.

http://diablo2.ingame.de/spiel/expan...mlvl=0&qlvl=49|||Well, I didn't even look for the Drake's when I saw Atlas was there.

Krischan is right - Drake's prefix is not available for belt at all.|||I could've sworn I double-checked before posting, but you are ofc both right; I must've chosen something other than 1.11, LoD . Atlas is correctly represented on the list.

Also Drake's is not supposed to be on the list. After closer scrutiny on the .txt files it is not available in the current version of LoD (version=0). Which means that inDiablo.de can be trusted, whereas the affix list on Arreat Summit cannot for 1.13 LoD.

Thanks for the help clearing that up, and appologies for posting complete nonsense

No comments:

Post a Comment