1.11 Release Notes

Thrugg said:
Well, I should have been clearer - the bug only occurs when you use the cube socketing recipes, which only work on plain non-magical items. As a result, its usefulness is not quite so widespread - Prudence and Exile are runewords that can be put in eth armour, or you could make a merc armour. But otherwise your bugged super high def armour will eventually break. Though some people may be prepared to accept that.
Click to expand...
I have to ask... Would the SOJ socket recipe for a rare get hit by this bug? It might actually make one stop to think about actually using that recipe for the right ethereal rare item.

Edit: Since jjscud was looking for opinions about this, I'll give my two cents. I have no problem with people exploiting bugs in the game. I understand that some people don't want to do this, but I don't think that exploiting a bug like this makes you non-legit. I can see people banning it for tourneys and such, but that is a whole different thing. Of course, I play Vanilla Diablo, so I take the good with the bad. So, will I exploit this bug? Probably. :)

Edit 2: On a different topic, I can still run 1.11 using the same disk image of the LOD CD I used for 1.10. (Mac OS X.) Yes, I finally got around to installing the patch. :)
 
Heh heh, it nearly does, but not quite (according to the theory anyway, I have not tested it myself).

It seems they are checking if the output of the recipe (a) involves the "useitem" flag (which the upgrade, socket, and SoJ recipes all do) and also (b) adds a mod specified in the "mod" column, which the upgrade recipe does (adds +5 or +7 level req) and the socket recipe does (adds 1-6 sockets) but the SoJ recipe does not (purely because of the way they wrote it, they list the output as "useitem,sock=1" which apparently works as well as "useitem" and "sockets 1" in separate columns. So they were saved from making the bug even worse by their unnecessarily confusing cube recipe syntax :lol:

Still, maybe worth a test with a backed up SoJ...
 
FYI: Ba'al is still leechable, though it seems slightly reduced from before. I might be wrong on that and I wouldn't be able to tell more accurately unless I ran him with my pally. Diablo however, decidedly un-leechable.

Also, keep your eyes open for the amazing vanishing hireling. This happened to me a few times tonight, where the hireling seems to disappear, but he's actually still there and fighting. In fact, it seemed a couple of times while he was invis to me and fighting, that his ctc decrep was covering a much larger radius than normal, but it's hard to tell for sure when you can't see him. There seems to be no other side effects, he doesn't die, and he re-appears normally after you move on (as he does when you get hugely separated.) The monsters seem to still be able to see him just fine as well. I'd assume this is a 1.11 bug because I've never seen it before.
 
I've seen reports of a serious bug for Mac users, where the game crashes when you exit/join a game. It looks like it may only be a problem if you are playing on Battle.net, but I would like to know if any of the mac users are having issues in Single Player or TCP/IP game. I haven't had any issues in SP to date, and I did a bunch of S&E and then loading a new character to see if I got the bug.
 
Tarr said:
Also, keep your eyes open for the amazing vanishing hireling. This happened to me a few times tonight, where the hireling seems to disappear, but he's actually still there and fighting. In fact, it seemed a couple of times while he was invis to me and fighting, that his ctc decrep was covering a much larger radius than normal, but it's hard to tell for sure when you can't see him. There seems to be no other side effects, he doesn't die, and he re-appears normally after you move on (as he does when you get hugely separated.) The monsters seem to still be able to see him just fine as well. I'd assume this is a 1.11 bug because I've never seen it before.
Click to expand...

Actually, I have seen it in 1.10. I don't know why it happened, but it happened twice in a week, and hasn't happened again since then (6 mo or so)
 
Let me see if I understand the logic here...

An ethereal item used in a cube recipe that adds either a rlvl mod (upgrading recipe) or a socket mod (random socket recipe) will now have another ethereal bonus applied to it, even if the original ethereal bonus is retained (as is the case in the socket recipe).

If this is correct... would weapons not also fit this logic? As far as I can tell, an ethereal weapon in the socket recipe should logically get a second bonus applied. Moreover, upgraded ethereal weapons do not lose their bonus, so logically an upgraded ethereal unique weapon should benefit from this bonus as well. Finally, this double ethereal bonus, should it not also doubly reduce strength requirements and durability?

Could someone please test this or point out the flaw in this logic?
 
Liliel said:
If this is correct... would weapons not also fit this logic? ?
Click to expand...
I just tested this. Weapons aren't affected by the bug.

Edit: More testing! (Aren't you glad I finally installed the patch?)

I just did some crude testing for the Anya bug. I took a character with 75% Fire resist (actual was 80%, but was capped at 75%) in normal, so she would be taking 25% fire damage. 30% of her resistances were from the Anya quest rewards, so if the bug was still in effect, her resists would be 50%, meaning she would take 2x the damage she whould. I let her get hit by the gemlins fireballs in Act 5. She was taking 3 pts of damage on average. I then let her get killed in the WSK, retrieved the body, and went back to the gremlins. The same group was now doing 5-6 points damage. That looks about double. So, it looks like the Anya bug remains.
 
:lol: That armour thing is just rich. They really do break something for every bug they fix. I wuv it. Maybe this does give me a reason to move to 1.11 after all and finally make that prudence armour I never saw good use for...
 
theds said:
You can put the 1.11 patch_d2.mpq file in place of the 1.10 file. This will give you ALL the runewords, and you do not have a problem with your Valk disappearing after a couple seconds. (Didn't test TP tho.) However, you still cannot put Peace on your Merc/Iron Golem without it crashing when the Valk spawns.

Why do the runewords work? Because the 1.10 exe doesn't recognize the new SERVER flag and ignores it.
Click to expand...
This grants all the runewords? Nice. I know its a ***** to test, but what else will this change, if anything? I presume not much. Particularly, given whats already been said about the FE bug, I presume that you won't get the perks of faster Merc leveling and the new merc levels on hire, or the (Cattleya's favourite) borking of Fangskin's drop.

And there won't be any 4k defense Stone armours...
 
Tarr said:
FYI: Ba'al is still leechable, though it seems slightly reduced from before. I might be wrong on that and I wouldn't be able to tell more accurately unless I ran him with my pally. Diablo however, decidedly un-leechable.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by Baal is leechable and Diablo isn't? Do you mean a melee character with life leech doesn't get enough life leeched back? If so, doesn't it depend on how much leech you have?
 
tmorrow said:
What do you mean by Baal is leechable and Diablo isn't? Do you mean a melee character with life leech doesn't get enough life leeched back? If so, doesn't it depend on how much leech you have?
Click to expand...

Some bosses don't allow you to get any life leech back (0), regardless of how much life leech you have. Others give you a some or with Duriel all...

1.10 d2data LifeLeech ActBosses:

Andy: 100/66/33
Dury: 100/100/100
Meph: 100/0/0
Diablo: 100/50/0
Baal: 100/50/20

I haven't installed 1.11 yet, but I will soon. I was hoping a 1.11 ATMA would come out first, just for the keys.
 
After carefully consider the pro/con of 1.11 patch, I decided it adds little to no benefit, and totally not worth the "update". At least, not until I'm done with 1.10 (still too much to do). Thanks for all the info.
 
Thirty-Thirty said:
This grants all the runewords? Nice. I know its a ***** to test, but what else will this change, if anything? I presume not much. Particularly, given whats already been said about the FE bug, I presume that you won't get the perks of faster Merc leveling and the new merc levels on hire, or the (Cattleya's favourite) borking of Fangskin's drop.

And there won't be any 4k defense Stone armours...
Click to expand...

There's an easier way to do this. Using standard 1.11 you can just replace the the runes.txt to get all of the 1.11 specific features at the same time as having all of the battle.net runewords (and without mixing MPQs from two different patches togethor :eek: ).

More information can be found here from the people who figured it out originally:
http://www.purediablo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=372345&page=1
 
Thirty-Thirty said:
This grants all the runewords? Nice. I know its a ***** to test, but what else will this change, if anything? I presume not much. Particularly, given whats already been said about the FE bug, I presume that you won't get the perks of faster Merc leveling and the new merc levels on hire, or the (Cattleya's favourite) borking of Fangskin's drop.

And there won't be any 4k defense Stone armours...
Click to expand...

As Thrugg so kindly clarified, my solution still gives you a 1.10 game: no bugs are changed; you have all the same bugs, and none of the new ones.

But wait! I could be wrong about that: chances are that Fangskin (or whatever his name is) might still have his drop screwed up, because I believe that particular file is within patch_d2.mpq. I suppose I should check that to be sure, and if so, apply that little warning. :confused: There goes my godliness points.

So, as was suggested, the SAFEST route would be to just use RTB's runes.txt file. Now, if only I could figure out where to get it...

UPDATE:
Ok, just took a guy back to the claw viper temple and kilt Fangskin with him, and the bugger dropped 4 potions and 2 magin items. Since this quest had already been completed, the items were nothing special, but it was NOT the nothing I feared it would be.

SO: the Fangskin problem is almost certainly a problem with the .exe and NOT with patch_d2.mpq, so it is still (apparently) safe to use the 1.11 version in your 1.10 game.
 
on the topic of items getting double eth bonus:
Maybe someone could try the unsocketing recipe? Just in case. It's "useitem,uns" without anything more, but still... You know, it's Blizzard...
Though I hope it isn't bugged, 'cause that would be _really_ bad, since it can be done several times.
(I would gladly do that myself, but I still don't have 1.11)

And in general, I have a feeling they have been making this patch in a rush, with an intention just to "make something", without any testing at all.
 
RevenantThePaladin said:
on the topic of items getting double eth bonus:
Maybe someone could try the unsocketing recipe? Just in case. It's "useitem,uns" without anything more, .
Click to expand...

Yeah sure, I don't have my notes on that recipie handy, could you post it please?

P.S. Don't spend too long looking :D

Edit: I see what you meen. Thrugg said it had to do with adding properties to an item like "requirements + 5" or "Sockets 3". The unsocketing recipie won't add anything to the item so theoretically it won't work. Of couse its fairly cheap to do so it wouldn't hurt to try.
 
Clarifying some things...

Hell Diablo has been unleechable since 1.10 came out, that is not new.

Litmus, it is barely "mixing the MPQs of different patches together" as they did not change any file formats inside the MPQ. Normally it is indeed a very bad idea to have the EXE and its data files out of sync, because the format is changed and so it will be misread. I think some people might find the idea of copying a file into another directory easier than adding command line params to their shortcut. It's just an alternative.

theds, I am surprised Fangskin's drop is not broken, because it is indeed governed by the MPQ files and not the EXE. It is only broken in Hell, maybe you tested in a lower diff?

On the eth item bonus bug, it is being specifically checked for on non-weapons only (they were the only ones broken) so won't ever apply to weapons. I don't expect it to happen on any other recipes but it is still good to get an in-game confirmation on each of them.
 
Log in to Reply / Create Site Account
Remove Ads - Go PurePremium

Latest posts

Back
Top