Bugfixes

[Zechnophobe]

    
 iskrit = ( kritProbRnd < kritProb )
      if iskrit then
        if receiver_human and not receiver_glot then
          kritProb = kritProb - skill_power("weakness_lore", 2)
          if kritProbRnd < kritProb then
            iskrit = true
          else
            iskrit = false
            is_weakness_lore = true
          end
        end
      end

Logic was just all topsy turvy. They intend to check IF IT IS STILL A CRIT, but instead of letting it be a crit, they instead cancel it. I believe the above should fix it unless I'm misremembering lua 'else' syntax.

[camelotcrusade]

Nice, Zechnophobe. I'll link to it once it's confirmed and Bhruic adds it to the summary. Too bad getting crit isn't easy to test. You almost need to keep a save near a hero who casts doom.

[Bhruic]

Originally Posted by Zechnophobe

    
 iskrit = ( kritProbRnd < kritProb )
      if iskrit then
        if receiver_human and not receiver_glot then
          kritProb = kritProb - skill_power("weakness_lore", 2)
          if kritProbRnd < kritProb then
            iskrit = true
          else
            iskrit = false
            is_weakness_lore = true
          end
        end
      end

Logic was just all topsy turvy. They intend to check IF IT IS STILL A CRIT, but instead of letting it be a crit, they instead cancel it. I believe the above should fix it unless I'm misremembering lua 'else' syntax.

Well, what they were trying to do is check if Sense Weakness would prevent it from being a crit. Which they did correctly. Unfortunately what they didn't do is consider the case where you didn't have Sense Weakness.

Your code does mostly fix it, but I already posted a different fix in the main post. Both do roughly the same thing but different ways. The main point is that it should be working correctly now.

[Zechnophobe]

Originally Posted by Bhruic

Well, what they were trying to do is check if Sense Weakness would prevent it from being a crit. Which they did correctly. Unfortunately what they didn't do is consider the case where you didn't have Sense Weakness.

Your code does mostly fix it, but I already posted a different fix in the main post. Both do roughly the same thing but different ways. The main point is that it should be working correctly now.

Heh, the 'correct' way to fix it is actually just make the operand be >= in that second check, which I realized after I just saw my silly solution again.

[Bhruic]

Originally Posted by Zechnophobe

Heh, the 'correct' way to fix it is actually just make the operand be >= in that second check, which I realized after I just saw my silly solution again.

That'd involve less steps, certainly. I think mine's slightly more elegant in that it requires less steps if you don't have Sense Weakness. Of course, I might be biased.

[Zechnophobe]

Originally Posted by Bhruic

That'd involve less steps, certainly. I think mine's slightly more elegant in that it requires less steps if you don't have Sense Weakness. Of course, I might be biased.

Hmm, just for the sake of discussion...

I wasn't optimizing for speed, since that is no doubt a non-issue with something like this. More just for how clarity and ease of debugging. Calling in additional functions to do your logic like that makes the code slightly weightier. And then, any edit to an external source should generally be simple so as a diff is easy to understand. Seeing:

Blah blah < bleh bleh

Turn into

Blah blah >= bleh bleh

Is pretty clear what the problem was, and the solution for it.

Er, not that any of this really matters... I've just been doing code reviews at work recently and it has me thinking about Ivory Tower code production stuff.

[Bhruic]

Originally Posted by Zechnophobe

Er, not that any of this really matters... I've just been doing code reviews at work recently and it has me thinking about Ivory Tower code production stuff.

lol, I know. I was being semi-facetious. Had I thought of doing it your way first, I would have stuck with that as being the simpler approach. Still, as both ways work equally well, I'm going to stick with the approach I took and call it "better"! (even if it's not)