Double Invisibility

[Treats]

As it is now you are able to have both Regular Invisibility and Invisibility Versus Undead on you at the same time.

This shouldn't be possible.

Casting Invisibility on someone that has Invisibility Versus Undead active should render(and vice versa):

"Soandso tries to cast invisibility on you, but soandso is already invisible"

Something like that, I don't have the exact message.

[Galanteer]

This is as classic, you'll have to search through patch notes to see when it was changed to see when it will be/should have been implemented here. (I did a quick look and couldn't find)

[nilbog]

Here are a couple threads supporting stacking of invisibilities. What of this is true and what is working needs more debate.

http://www.eqclerics.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6173

http://eqclerics.nukefromorbitgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7333

[Galanteer]

both those threads are how I recall it, I remember it getting changed as well, but I couldn't tell you when...

[Treats]

Here are a couple threads supporting stacking of invisibilities. What of this is true and what is working needs more debate.

http://www.eqclerics.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6173

http://eqclerics.nukefromorbitgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7333

Will check this out on the Mac Server later and see if it works. Only did a simple test earlier with Invis vs Undead allready up while Regular Invis was cast on me.

[Treats]

Tried these methods on the Mac server, none of them worked.

Same message every time "Soandso tries to cast invisibility on you, but soandso is already invisible"

The post from the second link is rather odd too:

I seen several ppl now state that this can't be done, well it can. The trick is to have them cast invis on you while you are casting undead invis on yourself. Their spell has to complete before yours. Vica versa should work but of course only one of you can have both. We were also able to cast both at the same time on a third party. If you fail at first keep trying and you will get the timing down. I've tried to use invis potions while already invis to undead(failed) but haven't tried while casting yet.

How exactly would he use an invis potion while he was Invis to Undead? It would just remove the IVU.

I guess if it was changed not to work this way you are then looking for a change somewhere in between the dates of August 2000 and October/November 2002?

[Nirgon]

Regular invis and invis to undead should not stack. Tested successfully on EQ Mac and how I remember it from my Lower Guk days.

Can we get a quick change here for next patch?

[Nizzarr]

How do you dare making this game more difficult!

[Nirgon]

It's OK pal, I know you can handle it.

[melkezidek]

I dont know when it was changed but on Live we use to Stack Invis and Invis undead and Invis vs Animal befor running into fear.

[Nirgon]

Don't think that invis to animals ever makes it so an animal that could already see through normal invis couldn't see ya.

Can't think of one instance of that, maybe there is one.

[Furme]

This was actually working as of Luclin and maybe even PoP..

The trick was that some of the invis spells didn't have a check on them to determine whether the person was already affected by an invis spell or not..

So, that being said it was all about which order you put them on, not about them just not stacking..

If I remember correctly, as a bard.. I was able to get ivu and have my bard song tick over and stack with ivu / invis.. just when bard song wore off both ivu and invis would cease working.

My druid friend could camo and be ivu as well.. just had to cast... ivu while camo was casting..

[Nirgon]

Bard song was different.

And we all know that Luclin/PoP spell revamps broke things.

Seems to be working correctly on EQMac which has been a solid ledger for basic mechanics and buff stacking thus far when no patch notes exist one way or another regarding a point of contention here.

[Massive Marc]

I have 0 evidence, except for memory, but in this instance I'm 99.9% sure, pre-veilous you could be invis/IVU. Nirgon says this shouldn't be able to happen because he remembers it from lower guk, but thats exactly how I remember getting to camps in Lguk in classic - invis myself and have a cleric IUV me. Needs more evidence IMO.

[Nirgon]

Evidence is:

No patch notes stating one way or the other.

Works like this on EQMac.

[Massive Marc]

Evidence is:

No patch notes stating one way or the other.

Works like this on EQMac.

I obviously can't contest that it works like that on EQMac, but even emailing some old players this morning that don't play here, they remember it like I posted... One was a cleric I duoed with often in LGuk... i dunno.. there has to be more evidence somewhere. I have no problem changing it if needed.

[Nirgon]

What you're running into here is things that are not working here that worked another way on live. Never broken on live? No patch note needed. I've come to respect checking things on EQMac regarding this.

This also isn't to say that everything that changed ever got a patch note, or every bug that ever existed didn't get one either.

I remember seeing people get invis to undead cast on them and then running into undead frogs and getting aggro.... because they had regular invis on from running through guktop.

I also remember being told "drop invis" when I was about to head down so I could get IVU. I do remember all this clear as a bell.

[Massive Marc]

What you're running into here is things that are not working here that worked another way on live. Never broken on live? No patch note needed. I've come to respect checking things on EQMac regarding this.

This also isn't to say that everything that changed ever got a patch note, or every bug that ever existed didn't get one either.

I remember seeing people get invis to undead cast on them and then running into undead frogs and getting aggro.... because they had regular invis on from running through guktop.

I also remember being told "drop invis" when I was about to head down so I could get IVU. I do remember all this clear as a bell.

I agree with your first statements. Can you confirm if your memory is from pre-velious ? My memory is of pre-velious era (as I didn't play to much into velious) I can't confirm Kunark by memory, but I do remember them stacking in Classic. The only reason I remember was because of passing Bedroom(camp) and having to get past Bats and Drybones ? I dunno, you've made me lose my confidence ! :(

[Nirgon]

I remain steadfast in my claims.

I reckons the greater ice bones saw through invis and invis to undead, but as long as you hugged the wall you were fine.

[Nirgon]

Nah it was because it wouldnt stick. My friend was a necro with a harvester.

[Furme]

Invisibility should no longer stack with other forms.

http://www.tski.co.jp/baldio/patch/20060927.html

Happy now?

Invisibility stacked until 2006.

If you can find patch notes to say that this change happened earlier.. Be my guest.

[Treats]

http://www.tski.co.jp/baldio/patch/20060927.html

Happy now?

Invisibility stacked until 2006.

If you can find patch notes to say that this change happened earlier.. Be my guest.

.....

It definitely happened earlier, they DO NOT stack on EQMac.

This has got to be a troll or something?

[Furme]

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=8020

Separate source for patch notes maybe?

Perhaps EqMac isn't as classic as they seem?

Question.. Is it possible that eqmac has updated their server software to keep up with the updated clients, or can you still install say.. a pop era client and play without patching?

If you can't, it probably means that there have been selective updates to the server, and they have to deactivate the ones that they don't want.. Perhaps this non-classic function just so happened to slip through?

Similarly, Have you tried it with every form of invis on EQ Mac in every possible order?

Perhaps they stack in a different order because as I stated earlier.. Some invisibility spells had the check and others didn't?

If you want the programmer's logic behind this, I'll give it to you..
When a spell is cast it checks for a valid target and range.. It doesn't care about what effects they have currently etc.. (This is why you can cast a lower level spell that won't overwrite a higher level spell)

When the spell lands another check is made to check if the entity is a valid target(location in relation to yours, pc npc etc..) once that check is successful it fires another check for buffs on the entity to determine if it can stack (this is why you still lose mana when you cast a buff that fails).. That being said If the coder placed a check inside one spell, it could be possible that (s)he forgot to add the specific value into the spell to make it no longer stack..

[Treats]

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=8020

Separate source for patch notes maybe?

Perhaps EqMac isn't as classic as they seem?

Question.. Is it possible that eqmac has updated their server software to keep up with the updated clients, or can you still install say.. a pop era client and play without patching?


I could be wrong but I believe the first patch to that server to update any game mechanics was done a little while ago (I did the tests before this happened).

If you can't, it probably means that there have been selective updates to the server, and they have to deactivate the ones that they don't want.. Perhaps this non-classic function just so happened to slip through?


There have been 0 updates to that server in 10+ years.

Similarly, Have you tried it with every form of invis on EQ Mac in every possible order?

Yes.

Perhaps they stack in a different order because as I stated earlier.. Some invisibility spells had the check and others didn't?

If you want the programmer's logic behind this, I'll give it to you..
When a spell is cast it checks for a valid target and range.. It doesn't care about what effects they have currently etc.. (This is why you can cast a lower level spell that won't overwrite a higher level spell)

When the spell lands another check is made to check if the entity is a valid target(location in relation to yours, pc npc etc..) once that check is successful it fires another check for buffs on the entity to determine if it can stack (this is why you still lose mana when you cast a buff that fails).. That being said If the coder placed a check inside one spell, it could be possible that (s)he forgot to add the specific value into the spell to make it no longer stack..

All invisibility spells in the spdat have the effects listed in Atrib 1.

The only thing that I see that could possibly have made this happen was with Camouflage and Invis vs Animals.

Camo and Invis vs Animals are listed as a Neutral effect while others (Invis/Ivu/Superior Camo) are listed as Positive.

If they were meant to stack you would see Invisibility/Camo/etc in Attrib 1 and Invisibility to Undead in Atrrib 2.

[Nirgon]

Same thing with illusions pals. This stuff isn't meant to stack.

[cyryllis]

since when was eqmac a reliable source of 2000 era code?

[Nirgon]

Just let go.

You'll be happier with a more classic server in the long run.

Show me the patch notes where it said it was ever changed not to stack (we have a full list of all patch notes). Or maybe go petition Hobart?

Trust me on this one.

[Nirgon]

.....

It definitely happened earlier, they DO NOT stack on EQMac.

This has got to be a troll or something?

Things broke in the spell system revamp, which introduced bugs. This was past my time, but probably one of those things. Oh like that necro heal that is being adamantly defended.

I can't say one way or another on that but trust me on this easy one.

[Furme]

I could be wrong but I believe the first patch to that server to update any game mechanics was done a little while ago (I did the tests before this happened).

http://www.eqmac.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12025&p=130696&hilit=patch#p130696
2012
http://www.eqmac.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10901&hilit=patch
2011
http://www.eqmac.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4466
2004
http://www.eqmac.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5192
2005 (specifically mentions spells, says "Some others" which is ambiguous)


There have been 0 updates to that server in 10+ years.

See above links..


All invisibility spells in the spdat have the effects listed in Atrib 1.

The only thing that I see that could possibly have made this happen was with Camouflage and Invis vs Animals.

Camo and Invis vs Animals are listed as a Neutral effect while others (Invis/Ivu/Superior Camo) are listed as Positive.

If they were meant to stack you would see Invisibility/Camo/etc in Attrib 1 and Invisibility to Undead in Atrrib 2.

/shrug

I'm not really well versed on how the client exactly parses spell data, it could be as you're saying, or it could be a combination of that and those unknown variables at the bottom of the spell data..

I mean, I've been searching for an hour and a half, and I can't find anything that says it definitively one way or another..

Like, I've seen several statements that say that it does stack and that if it didn't it was bugged / changed recently (around 2001 era).. and just one statement that says it doesn't and that verant patched it every time it was able to stack. (around 2002 era)

[Nirgon]

sp.dat is pretty hardcore evidence too.

I had someone ask me to look into VS and... looking into actual values and changes screwed me up royally.

sp.dat ended up winning the day and putting the current single notch in the "Nirgon's wrong!" column. My thanks for being set straight on that one btw.

[Massive Marc]

So I was right ? :)

[Nirgon]

On this one? No, they aren't supposed to stack.

I presume this spell issue noted came up some date later during spell revisions and they corrected the bug once discovered.

[Treats]

http://www.eqmac.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12025&p=130696&hilit=patch#p130696
2012
http://www.eqmac.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10901&hilit=patch
2011
http://www.eqmac.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4466
2004
http://www.eqmac.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5192
2005 (specifically mentions spells, says "Some others" which is ambiguous)


Sorry I missed the 2005 update -- 2 updates in 10+ years (including the one that happened a month ago)

2012 - The patch I referenced in my post
2011 - Never happened
2004 - Never happened
2005 - Not sure about this one but highly unlikely anything was changed with Invis

[Jygia]

Like Melkezidek said, we were able to stack invisibility and itu while zoning into the plane of fear during Classic and Kunark.

[Ele]

People should want this just to make the game harder. :P

[nilbog]

This used to be part of my lineup of sending people into fearplane. :P

http://www.eqclerics.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6173

http://eqclerics.nukefromorbitgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7333

When/if it was changed? No idea, but I am certain you could do it pre-Kunark.

Here is a link from 2006 discussing it, but that doesn't mean much.

http://www.redguides.com/forums/showthread.php/13164-Regular-and-Undead-Invis-at-same-time

Will try and research more when I get time.

[Nirgon]

All invisibility spells in the spdat have the effects listed in Atrib 1.

The only thing that I see that could possibly have made this happen was with Camouflage and Invis vs Animals.

Camo and Invis vs Animals are listed as a Neutral effect while others (Invis/Ivu/Superior Camo) are listed as Positive.

If they were meant to stack you would see Invisibility/Camo/etc in Attrib 1 and Invisibility to Undead in Atrrib 2.

Hard to argue with that sp.dat man.

[Nirgon]

Bump for regular invis line and ivu line shouldn't be stacking.

[baramur]

They did stack on live, but not like they do here. You had to use group ivu to stack with regular invis, or you had to use camo to stack with ivu. We always double invisd our wizard porting us to hate.

[Nirgon]

I will clarify I can only say I am certain that Invisibility and Invisibility Versus Undead did not stack.

If this separates camo and invis's usefulness, makes sense to me, and I like it.

[Thulack]

http://www.tski.co.jp/baldio/patch/20060927.html

Happy now?

Invisibility stacked until 2006.

If you can find patch notes to say that this change happened earlier.. Be my guest.

Wierd. They nerfed it in 2006 but then unnerfed it again in the future? You can invise/IVU on live today if you wanted.

[koros]

Couldn't IVU and Invis.

[Nirgon]

Wierd. They nerfed it in 2006 but then unnerfed it again in the future? You can invise/IVU on live today if you wanted.

They did spell system revamps throughout, these were quick fixed when they were found to be stacking again during those times of change. It was never intended.

[nilbog]

Is there a definitive point in time when this was not possible?

[Allizia]

The difference as I remember it:

Classic: could stack but must start casting both spells before either land (You start casting invis, player 2 starts casting ivu on you, yours lands then theirs lands) Basically, It tricked the system into bypassing the no-stacking check and message

P99: Last I checked you could just cast on someone with an active invis spell and it will work, which I do not think is right, you would have gotten the stacking message.

[kaos057]

The way it worked was... cast ivu first then have someone else invis you. You can't ivu an invis player but you can invis someone with ivu. That is the reason they would tell everyone to drop invis. You could also be casting invis while ivu was cast on you and your invis would land.

[Aeolwind]

I remember being able to get them to stack for a short period of time, but since it wasn't 'intended' the fixes were never put in patch notes. And it would randomly break after patches.

[Nirgon]

Going once, going twice.

SOLD!

To the bad ass new dev.

(POP era was ripe with this as the spell system underwent changes, again see the necro heal patch note)

[Aeolwind]

Going once, going twice.

SOLD!

To the bad ass new dev.

(POP era was ripe with this as the spell system underwent changes, again see the necro heal patch note)

Still won't go in and monkey with it on nothing more than my awful memory. This may be a Schroedinger Bug. Something that is both right & wrong at the same time, and exists in both states at the same time until which time it doesn't.

I'm of the opinion though, if it makes things harder, then it is more than likely classic or a bug.

[Aeolwind]

I remember the bug. You had to ITU first, then Invis Animals, (these stacked normally) then when invis was cast it would overwrite Invis animals and stack with ITU.

Invis would bounce on ITU and Overwrite Invis animals. Using the 'stacking' you could bypass the bounce.

[Droog007]

Very slightly off-topic, but I recall something from live that is not in effect on P99. It's been a lot of years, so I could be wrong...

In early classic EQ, rogues were pretty broken. Sneak did not allow you to move while hidden, and hide was no better than invisibility. I remember reading the patch notes when this was changed to where rogues gained the ability to remain hidden while sneaking and also "double invis". I believe it was clearly stated that rogues would be invis AND ITU when ANY invis effect was applied, INCLUDING hide. e.g. a rogue could have camouflage cast on them and run around (not hiding/sneaking) and be invisible to undead.

Being that most rogues were quite proud of their own built-in ability at this point, I don't think this detail was very well known. It had pretty limited usefulness ... you traded the random early invis fades for some movement speed and instant off/on (respecting cooldowns). One thing it did make possible was to cross zone lines with no lapse in invisibility, a glaring problem that allowed an undead froglok to make mincemeat of my brave young twink last night on his way to scoop up a Mask of Deception...

Can anyone dig up the notes from the pre-Kunark rogue love patch(es)?

[Nirgon]

I remember the bug. You had to ITU first, then Invis Animals, (these stacked normally) then when invis was cast it would overwrite Invis animals and stack with ITU.

Invis would bounce on ITU and Overwrite Invis animals. Using the 'stacking' you could bypass the bounce.

makes sense

love this guy

[kaleran]

I remember the bug. You had to ITU first, then Invis Animals, (these stacked normally) then when invis was cast it would overwrite Invis animals and stack with ITU.

Invis would bounce on ITU and Overwrite Invis animals. Using the 'stacking' you could bypass the bounce.

This sounds like the exact same mechanic I mentioned in http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=109456

It seems that for spells that "overwrite" another one, they only do so on the first buff they find.