Posts: 84
Threads: 32
Likes Received: 45 in 22 posts
Likes Given: 32
Joined: Feb 2016
There seems to be a bug with Excel Sniper (possibly all Excel weapons) in which the game gets confused if you use Limit Potential..
What the bug does: BEEG DAMAGE!
How to recreate the bug:
When using an excel sniper, with Limit Potential ON, charge to lvl 3, then turn Limit Potential OFF, and fire a shot, it will do upwards of 600+ damage
It seems it is making some kind of flag go off, that gives you 300% or more damage boost.
Screen shot of De-bug info as well as the absurd damage
W-what? what do you mean I need to have a catchy signature....i don't know how to do that....wait are you writing this down!?
Posts: 17
Threads: 2
Likes Received: 36 in 9 posts
Likes Given: 115
Joined: Mar 2018
I will confirm, that it is all Excel's that do this.
•
Posts: 2,031
Threads: 254
Likes Received: 201 in 116 posts
Likes Given: 73
Joined: Nov 2014
01-11-2021, 11:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2021, 11:03 PM by Lolzytripd.)
that looks like a pretty normal excel crit to me....
Critical Hit! Sitribelle Veros attacks Prinny with Sky Crasher and hits them!
Prinny takes 507 Slash physical damage. (Sky Crasher)
this excel saber doesn't even have its limit unlocked.
Excel crits are (Base damage +150% bonus)x crit modifier.
(its also very easy to push an excel crit much higher with death knighting, and hunted status)
•
Posts: 203
Threads: 72
Likes Received: 83 in 52 posts
Likes Given: 99
Joined: Oct 2019
Nah this is definitely bugged.
Critical Hit! Sojourning Knight-errant attacks Prinny with Quo Vadis and hits them!
Prinny takes 1314 Slash physical damage. (Quo Vadis)
Sojourning Knight-errant recovered 2 FP.
Sojourning Knight-errant recovered 5 FP.
The battle has ended.
With my non elite 3 charge attack on a lvl 30 huntred Prinny I max out at like 750 damage on a crit. There's no way in hell I'd get that damage on a NON hunted Prinny with just lvl 3.
•
Posts: 7,207
Threads: 393
Likes Received: 525 in 235 posts
Likes Given: 10
Joined: Nov 2014
This should be corrected in 2.38b.
•