Skip to content

Randomizing functionality for Gems.txt#61

Draft
Sveet wants to merge 3 commits intotlentz:masterfrom
Sveet:master
Draft

Randomizing functionality for Gems.txt#61
Sveet wants to merge 3 commits intotlentz:masterfrom
Sveet:master

Conversation

@Sveet
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@Sveet Sveet commented Aug 13, 2020

Hey there, thanks for reviewing the PR

This is not intended to be accepted as-is. Please leave any feedback or improvements you see.

TODO (will update):

  • Feature toggles in main config
  • Shuffle gems by tier (not color) (config option)
  • Prevent random from picking vanilla mods (config option)

…r properties while maintaining their tier (chipped, flawed, etc)
}

func swapGemPropertiesFromCache(s scrambler, f *d2fs.File, origRows [][]string, destRow int, sourceRow int) {
//fmt.Printf("Swapping\n%+v\nWith\n%+v\n", f.Rows[destRow], origRows[sourceRow])
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Uncomment this line to easily debug this PR

@tlentz
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

tlentz commented Nov 11, 2020

Hi thanks for the PR, I have not had the time to review it. maybe @Deadlock39 @Wraithulek or @OldBeardedCoder could take a look?

@OldBeardedCoder
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Have you looked at the new Scorer module I've been baking for the last month & a half? I believe it might make sense to generate all new properties for gems and runes instead of just swapping them. It makes sense to me to use PropScores to score the affixes in Gems.txt, then roll for properties in PropScores.txt that match the score within a certain percentage. This would allow you the possibility of getting affixes like blah% chance to cast level blah fireball. I do have a question though, does modifying Gems.txt affect already socketed items?

@tlentz tlentz marked this pull request as draft January 22, 2021 16:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants