Spells: Shadow Knights & Vampiric Embrace

[thrump]

Originally Posted by Nlaar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The change in vampiric embrace has been implemented and now as a 60 SK I am proccing for 31 instead of 72. That said...

I am finding that after vampiric embrace wears off (I use BE arms clicky) I am occasionally still proccing as if I were still buffed. Anyone else finding this to be the case?

Yes. Just came here to say this. It is still proccing with the spell icon down.

[Daggoth]

I see this is an old issue but I've been away for a few months and am just now finding this. I don't have any links to posts to add, and honestly I think hunting down old posts is only as useful as people want it to be.

Brinkman's evidence is compelling but innacurate and I can explain how this bad information circulated the net back then just as it does now.

Castersrealm or some omni site decides to compile info, they use spell charts from some brady strategy guide. Some other ambitious person decides they're gonna make a site but this one will be different from CR because it's gonna be just for SKs, but the proprietor of that site is himself only a level 12 SK and doesn't know anything beyond what castersrealm says so he copies and pastes it to his new better SK site. Now we have 2 people who never used a spell explaining to the world what it does, even with algorithms from that fancy strategy guide based on a chart given to the author back in beta.

Now I can tell you what I remember, I played an SK on povar back in 1999 on through to planes of power. To begin I can recall that vampiric embrace always gained +1 hp and +6 seconds every time you leveled. I can recall being annoyed by the fact that SKs best lifetap was via proc not actual controlled cast (I must not have known about life leech at the time). This was obviously pre kunark as SK gets plenty of solid taps post 50.

I can also recall the shroud of undeath spell line being a sidegrade not an upgrade. The reason it taps for 50 is because it had a much longer 20 minute duration, SKs were forced to make a difficult decision to constantly recast a significantly better short buff vs a weaker low hassle version.

My evidence is anecdotal and based on human memory, it doesn't have links to posts of speculation amongst random visitors to a spells page, and it's 100% right. A sane man has to admit that it's at least possible to remember wrong, but I don't believe that's the case here. Fortunately I have better things to do than go on a crusade for proof of authenticity.

Zeelot's link was compelling enough to have left this alone, it included reference to a specific patch date and someone's observations on the spell algorithm. Brinkman's links appear to be random blurbs from people theorizing on the usefulness of the spell, not one person saying, "I'm a level x SK and it's doing this much damage" it's just some guy running his mouth about what he imagines he'd do with that spell he just read about and now wants to comment on.

For what it's worth I also know Brinkman in real life. He advocated this change without consulting me. He meant well but was mislead by poorly fact checked posts. This is a perfect example of a conviction on flimsy evidence.

Well that's all I have to say, hope this gets repaired... every time my SK procs for 30 I get a little more angry.

[Uthgaard]

Yes, there are incorrect facts on the internet. There are plenty of them. That's why you look until you find the the most commonly held conception, information that underlying the mechanics to recreate them, or most likely stories from opposing hypotheses.

In this case, the facts overwhelmingly support this, including the spell file itself. I for one remember that I was thoroughly impressed with spirit strike the first time I used it in west karana on a scarecrow (or it might have been a wisp that floated by), but to say that I recall the numbers would be lending credit to my memory that doesn't exist. I know it was 74 because of the amount of time I've spent on the spell file.

[Daggoth]

The truth is not democratic, but at least now you have another story from an opposing hypothesis as you put it. Furthermore I take exception to your use of the word facts, the "evidence" leaves alot to be desired. As I said before I have better things to do, I'm currently a retired SK and just came back for a day to hang out with my guild for old times.

BTW I appreciate what you're trying to say about remembering the damage on spirit strike, but I'm not reciting npc text verbatim, I'm not drawing zone maps from memory. I haven't said it should be a 72 tap I'm recalling landmark thoughts that are only consistent if things were a certain way and that is vampiric embrace was a stronger tap than lifedraw pre kunark (and into kunark and beyond for that matter). It would be like an enchanter saying, "hrm that can't be right I know clarity is x minutes because I used to have to cast it every time I would cast _____". That's not a person beating his chest and saying, "I remember it was x minutes trust me x minutes is right x minutes just sticks in my head." that's a guy walking you through his recollection of events that would only be consistent if x minutes were the duration.

You have every right to run your server however you please, and I realize you can't go off changing every little thing on the whims of every nut with the patience to make a reasonably convincing post. But that's what was done here. Vampiric Embrace and the SKs who count on it have been wrongly compromised by busy bodies on a misguided crusade for classic accuracy.

I don't plan on commenting on this any further, as I said I'm retired and this doesn't really affect me any more but it's wrong. Shadow Knight Vampiric Embrace is working as the people who never played an SK think it did. You now have 2 hardcore veteran SKs telling you that it's not right.

*Edit*
If they have time I also would urge the devs to take a look at those VampEmbraceNecro and other such entries and see where they're being applied. Perhaps they're related to the NPC versions of the spell and may explain some of the database confusion, I've resisted NPC harm touches as well as embrace procs and they have a slightly modified name, HarmtouchNPC and VampEmbraceNecro

[Brinkman]

I was simply attemping to help with the research on this spell. I did not bring this subject up, all the information I provided would have been linked eventually anyways, as the other people, including the original poster, were already linking quotes etc.

That being said I want it to be correct, but barring a screenshot from early 1999 showing a SK procing vampiric embrace, I dont know what else can be used as infalible evidence. The truth is definatally not democratic, problem is, what is the truth?

Just wanted to add a few things to this.... Zealots post of Everlores Vampiric Embrace Listing is misused. First of all, he posted the Necromancer spell. Notice how it says level 8. Everlore actually listed Vampiric embrace twice, once for necro, and once for SK. Take a loo at this link:

This is the SK spell listing from the same era, it says nothing about the patch upgrade.

http://web.archive.org/web/200107112...+Embrace&type=

If you go into that link you will find this post:

I am still anticipating this spell with my SK, but my necro can usually drain about 28hp whenever i "touch", is this Class-related, or are you all mistaken on the amount it drains? I will put a new post when my SK gets the spell to let you all know if i am experiencing any difference between my classes.


Chantraz 12 necro Druzzil Ro
Toast 12 SK Druzzil Ro

Now, this guy played both a SK and Necro and is visiting the everlore vampiric embrace page for SK. He seems very confused at why all the posts are saying this spell does so much less than his necro is currently doing with the " Same spell " he even goes on to ask if there is a class difference, or if the posters are mistaken.

Sk were the primary posters in the SK vampiric embrace spell listing on everlore, because when they went to look up there spells, they didnt click on necromancer spells.

Same thing for the Necromancer Spell listing on everlore for vampiric embrace.

Two different spell listings, both of which say the spells do different things.

Here is the necro listing:

http://web.archive.org/web/200107140...+Embrace&type=

After our conversation we had a few weeks ago Daggoth, I went back to try and find anything I could to post here that contradicted what I was finding, and I couldnt. I dont know what else to do or say about it.

[Brinkman]

Originally Posted by Uthgaard [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

including the spell file itself.

The way I understand it, at some point the spells were made the same, and because p99 used the everquest titanium client thats what the spells did here until this information was found.

What I am curious about is what spell file are you speaking of. Do you guys have access to an unadultered Classic spell file? If so do you still have access to it and can that information be copy and pasted for both Sk and Necro?

[Daggoth]

Originally Posted by Brinkman [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That being said I want it to be correct, but barring a screenshot from early 1999 showing a SK procing vampiric embrace, I dont know what else can be used as infalible evidence.

Because this was the standard used to nerf it in the first place? I haven't seen a screenshot from early 1999 showing a SK procing vampiric embrace for 31 at 60.

/shrug

[Uthgaard]

The spell file here is really just a csv (carat separated values) export of lucy data, the only thing it has in common with live is the information inside of it and its name. The way the server interprets it is entirely manufactured by people who reverse engineered things and made it into the current source. So how things work here or have worked here in the past isn't any sort of indication of how they should function.

And to answer your question, yes. The eqcaster parser doesn't show all of the data in the file and its development ended when lucy surpassed it, but it's all there in the file.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The actual spell itself did nothing. It used a variable in what's known today as the recourselink field. It's not a spell belonging to NPCs as no NPC has ever buffed with this spell.

[Daggoth]

Originally Posted by Brinkman [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The way I understand it, at some point the spells were made the same, and because p99 used the everquest titanium client thats what the spells did here until this information was found.

What I am curious about is what spell file are you speaking of. Do you guys have access to an unadultered Classic spell file? If so do you still have access to it and can that information be copy and pasted for both Sk and Necro?

They weren't different spells, one didn't say shadow knight only and the other didn't say necro only. It was one scroll shared by both classes same as deadeye and every other spell. I'm doubtful of the suggestion that they made 1 spell scroll scribe 2 different instances of a similar spell for different classes. When a class got something different they just got a different spell. For example they didn't take DMF and say give it to SKs but when they cast it turn off the see invis part, lower the poison resist, and have it be self only.. no they invented bobbing corpse.

[Uthgaard]

Daggoth, I think both your friend and I have been exceedingly polite to you. You have no evidence but your own anecdotes, and even after attempting to contradict himself and support you, your friend was unable to do so.

It's been explained sufficiently so I'm not investing any more time into it. It's time to let the thread die.