Mech-Sheep's Rabies: SARS gone wild!

[Mech-Sheep Arsenal]

"one advice: don't get touched by him"

"holy ****"

"wow"

"***** druid"

"runner"

"you chicken"

Yes, it's a Rabies Druid! I was a non-believer for Rabies before, but now, I am a believer. This Rabies Druid literally makes anyone to "tap out" (meaning give up). With one touch, literally, over time and patience, the guy will either:

1) Die

2) TP to town

3) Run to Town

4) Still living

Hell, I like to infect someone, then they melee another, meaning infection goes to another. Here are some ratings I will give it:

NOTE: I offically call Rabies "SARS"

Power: 8/10 - Not as powerful as Hammerdins and Bonenecros, but heck, it's damn powerful if it hits. People with 75% resists ain't good enough; they need more than that to resist SARS.

Fun Factor: 10/10 - It's hell fun to see people complaining all this crap when they just come to me for SARS.

Difficulty: 6/10 - It's quite easy VS. melee; just try to attack them. Versus casters is a different story. Usually, I can't even win, but I try to let them come to me than I chase them.

Overall: 8/10 - I can't complain, it's the best duelist I've ever played. The power is just unbearable by many, and usually, many duelists aren't ready for poison (very unexpected, also)

The difficulties I've encountered:

1) 98325 HP Barbarians: I can't take them down!
2) Hammerdins/Fohdins/Blah: You get it...
3) Some Sorceresses: Teleporting is very annoying...

Future for this Druid:

1) Get a Bramble or Enigma armour; I'm tired of teleporters and I want Bramble to INSURE my kill.

2) Get 4 more Shapeshifting charms; increases more than 6k damage.

[mepersoner]

Yes, I agree, rabies does in fact rock.

[Rascargil]

ahh, i was thinking what to do with my Wolfie. is this by using the Carrion wind bug i'm hearing about?

[electricblue]

I don't think the carrion thing is a bug, and without it, rabies still is very powerful.

read my guide also :)

[Keaka26]

Question: with a level 5 rabies (1 point + jalals mane) + carrion winds synergy, how much damage will a rabies attack do? With this, I should a have a 378% damage bonus from synergy with poison creeper. Whats 378% increase on a level 5 attack? Since its only a level 5, this extra damage should be done on a much shorter duration, or am I wrong?

TIA

[TheDragoon]

Basically, this bug makes the items that give you charges of skills count those skill points for synergy bonuses as long as you don't have a single point in the skill, itself. Thus, if you have an item that gives you charges of slvl 21 poison creeper, then you'd get an additional +378% damage via synergies for Rabies.

I suspect this bug would have to do with the way the game handles your skills for the quick skill bar access (ie if you click on the right mouse skill it pops up all of the skills you have). If you don't have any points in a skill, it defaults to looking at item charges. I've no doubt that it's a bug. Saying it isn't a bug is like saying that Eth was never buggy.

-TheDragoon

[Mech-Sheep Arsenal]

I don't know what I should do with my points. I am never a Fury Druid, but I can change.

See, I got 14 points remaining (more than half a maxed skill) and I can use some help deciding.

Either:

1) Oak Sage
2) Heart of Wolverine
3) Fury

[Snarlin Stef]

Bramble i think is VERY over rated.
even if you get perfect bramble its not as good as +20/-20 poison facetted armor

- enemy resist is twice as powerfull as +% dmg.

-20% enemy resist +20% poison dmg >>>>>> 50% poison dmg

thnx
stef

[mepersoner]

Where do you get that - enemy resist is twice as powerful? Also, it doesn't help against opponents who stack resists.

[ƒenris]

I would post a very thoughtful and well-written post, but I just spent 5 minutes trying to open a soda, when the cap was off, I'm not allowed to act smart for a bit.

[ReallFugitive]

I think its really fun, but you just have to ignore the cry babys that like to make excuses when they die or get hurt.

My rabies is doing 32k on my flaming rabies druid yet sometimes agianst some opponents the damage it does is so tiny I don't know whats going on. Is it because they have stacked poison resists or is it because they have psn reducers? Also I was wondering if there was a way to make it any stronger agianst those resists stackers.

[Shuusei]

I noticed the same thing on my flaming rabies druid. I've come to assume that its one of several things.

1) Really high poison resist. Like 85+%

2)Really high life

3) Really short names. Yes I know this sounds weird, but if they have a name bar that's really short, then it will seem that you're doing less damage because its not dropping much. Or maybe it is weird and its just me :)

4) Some combination of the above. Particularly with barbs.

Hope this helped and I didn't sound too stupid.

[electricblue]

Basically, this bug makes the items that give you charges of skills count those skill points for synergy bonuses as long as you don't have a single point in the skill, itself. Thus, if you have an item that gives you charges of slvl 21 poison creeper, then you'd get an additional +378% damage via synergies for Rabies.

I suspect this bug would have to do with the way the game handles your skills for the quick skill bar access (ie if you click on the right mouse skill it pops up all of the skills you have). If you don't have any points in a skill, it defaults to looking at item charges. I've no doubt that it's a bug. Saying it isn't a bug is like saying that Eth was never buggy.

-TheDragoon

come on now, the condition of eth was much more different than this one, and we already discussed this in ll.

if you really have an objective clue however, about skill charge synergies being a bug, then I ll love to listen.

also this 'feature' doesn't lead to any owerpowered builds, no ?

[TheDragoon]

if you really have an objective clue however, about skill charge synergies being a bug, then I ll love to listen. You say this every time. And every time I have given a different argument as to why it must be a bug. I've yet to hear an argument from you as to how it's NOT a but besides essentially saying that it's in the game, so it must have supposed to have been there. The reason I stopped debating with you on the Lounge was that you didn't appear to want to listen, in direct contrast to your claim.

also this 'feature' doesn't lead to any owerpowered builds, no ? This is very debatable. I think it's very, very cheap and, quite frankly, I look down on those that will use bugs to their own advantage. Also, this argument in no way affects the heart of the matter which is the question of is it a bug. Rather, it is a justification on why using the bug isn't so bad.

My argument is that it allows people effectively more skill points than they are supposed to have. In a game where skill points are supposed to be a limited quantity, exploiting something to give yourself more points breaks that part of the game. Justifying it as, "Well, it doesn't REALLY help me," doesn't change the fact that it's not supposed to happen.

Finally, I'd say there are two ways to look at this.
1. It is a bug.
In this case, the existance of this bug is a slight hit against Blizzard. I mean, quite frankly things will happen with a game as complex as Diablo II. Bugs will exist. When you get a bug like this happening, I think the best thing we can do is find a way to avoid it until such time as Blizzard fixes it. Hence what we all said about Eth in 1.09.

2. It is not a bug.
In this case, this was intentially added as a "feature" or, more likely, a form of "kludge" or attempt to fix the gaping holes of balance in the game with something that makes little to no sense, intuitively, and was added merely to right a perceived wrong without having to come up with an actual solution. In this case, I think something like that is really stupid and should never have been done by Blizzard. It would show a complete laziness on their part as well as a lack of foresight or the creativity to make something that works correctly and makes SENSE.

Personally, I'd be inclinded to give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was just something they didn't test rather than something they wrote in that was intentionally stupid.

There, I've given you yet another point of view. I've yet to hear a single response to many of my arguments for you. I've given you technical ideas as to HOW the bug might work. I've given you conceptual examples as to why it would be a stupid idea and now I've given you an argument from both sides as to why I would see this as a bug.

You have claimed that I seem to lack either objectivity or a clue, and I think that I've given proof that I have both. Yet you still don't listen, nor do you provide any sort of counterargument.

Quite frankly, I don't care much about this situation. The only thing that bothers me is the arrogance that you show, your unwillingness to listen to others' ideas and your apparent inability to formulate a response. That said, I'm done arguing this for your benefit. I think you're wrong. I've said, numerous times and in numerous ways why I think you're wrong and you don't listen. Thus, it's a waste of my time, so I'm not going to worry about it. Go ahead and draw your short-sighted conclusions and justifications for bug exploitation. I honestly don't care what you think or do as I'm done with Diablo II. But don't slander me out of the side of your mouth claiming I have no clue.

And drop the idea that you'll listen. I don't think anyone is buying it anymore.

-TheDragoon

[ReallFugitive]

I totally agree with you TheDragoon. It is a bug in my opinion. I have not seen any place that they documented including it. And it works with only very few items so as a feature I doubt they would do that to allow it to work for necros and druids only without adding something for other classes. Although it is a bug, I will continue to use it until Blizzard addresses it in some type of way and then I will rebuild totally.

[baseball_boy35]

Well, if ur looking for a few Shapeshifterz i happen to have some ft, like 2 ss/12fhr and 3 ss/w 31-35 life lmk ina pm if u need, since u said u may in ur first post or 2, i cannot remeber.

[wolfstar]

I totally agree with you TheDragoon. It is a bug in my opinion. I have not seen any place that they documented including it. And it works with only very few items so as a feature I doubt they would do that to allow it to work for necros and druids only without adding something for other classes. Although it is a bug, I will continue to use it until Blizzard addresses it in some type of way and then I will rebuild totally.

Do you think there will be a 1.10b? I think not. Blizzard is not getting paid to come up with patches. On top of that, they are now more interested in WOW than an old game like diablo2. Count your blessings that 1.10 came out and not abandoned halfway (I was expecting them to abandon it after waiting for so long). The carrion wind bug is here to stay so why not just make use of it.

(PS: Notice I use the word "bug". I think it is a bug too but it is a bug which is here to stay. :flip: )

[Uriah_Heep]

I noticed the same thing on my flaming rabies druid. I've come to assume that its one of several things.


3) Really short names. Yes I know this sounds weird, but if they have a name bar that's really short, then it will seem that you're doing less damage because its not dropping much. Or maybe it is weird and its just me :)


Aaaahahaha :lol: ,yeah,this sounds very logical to me,definetly may be a reason.

[electricblue]

You say this every time. And every time I have given a different argument as to why it must be a bug. I've yet to hear an argument from you as to how it's NOT a but besides essentially saying that it's in the game, so it must have supposed to have been there. The reason I stopped debating with you on the Lounge was that you didn't appear to want to listen, in direct contrast to your claim.

This is very debatable. I think it's very, very cheap and, quite frankly, I look down on those that will use bugs to their own advantage. Also, this argument in no way affects the heart of the matter which is the question of is it a bug. Rather, it is a justification on why using the bug isn't so bad.

My argument is that it allows people effectively more skill points than they are supposed to have. In a game where skill points are supposed to be a limited quantity, exploiting something to give yourself more points breaks that part of the game. Justifying it as, "Well, it doesn't REALLY help me," doesn't change the fact that it's not supposed to happen.

Finally, I'd say there are two ways to look at this.
1. It is a bug.
In this case, the existance of this bug is a slight hit against Blizzard. I mean, quite frankly things will happen with a game as complex as Diablo II. Bugs will exist. When you get a bug like this happening, I think the best thing we can do is find a way to avoid it until such time as Blizzard fixes it. Hence what we all said about Eth in 1.09.

2. It is not a bug.
In this case, this was intentially added as a "feature" or, more likely, a form of "kludge" or attempt to fix the gaping holes of balance in the game with something that makes little to no sense, intuitively, and was added merely to right a perceived wrong without having to come up with an actual solution. In this case, I think something like that is really stupid and should never have been done by Blizzard. It would show a complete laziness on their part as well as a lack of foresight or the creativity to make something that works correctly and makes SENSE.

Personally, I'd be inclinded to give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was just something they didn't test rather than something they wrote in that was intentionally stupid.

There, I've given you yet another point of view. I've yet to hear a single response to many of my arguments for you. I've given you technical ideas as to HOW the bug might work. I've given you conceptual examples as to why it would be a stupid idea and now I've given you an argument from both sides as to why I would see this as a bug.

You have claimed that I seem to lack either objectivity or a clue, and I think that I've given proof that I have both. Yet you still don't listen, nor do you provide any sort of counterargument.

Quite frankly, I don't care much about this situation. The only thing that bothers me is the arrogance that you show, your unwillingness to listen to others' ideas and your apparent inability to formulate a response. That said, I'm done arguing this for your benefit. I think you're wrong. I've said, numerous times and in numerous ways why I think you're wrong and you don't listen. Thus, it's a waste of my time, so I'm not going to worry about it. Go ahead and draw your short-sighted conclusions and justifications for bug exploitation. I honestly don't care what you think or do as I'm done with Diablo II. But don't slander me out of the side of your mouth claiming I have no clue.

And drop the idea that you'll listen. I don't think anyone is buying it anymore.

-TheDragoon


Well,

I am a mechanical engineer graduating from one of the top classes.
Meaning that I know what 'objective' is, since the concept is among the essentials of my profession.

Your arguments are nowhere near 'objective' with this discussion trust me with that. They are all intutive conclusions. And they have the probability of being wrong, which i find quite high for this subject.

I am reading the whole thing that you write, and sometimes you have good points. But I allready read those ideas before my conclusion. The point is that you 'think' you are objective. You talk like it is certainly a bug, but you really do NOT have any 'objective' clue behind it. Nothing personal, or offensive.

If I see you say that a bliz official told you that it is a bug, than that may be something objective (since I will believe that you wont lie about it), or if you go read the game code directly and find out that it is a bug and express it, that is also ok for me. But I hear people saying that there is some extra code that causes charge synergies, which makes me think that it is more of a feature than a bug.

I don't have a strict idea on the topic, whether being a bug or not, but from my point of view, that is not a bug, and it can change, if I see an objective clue about it. For now, I see it as a balance issue.

:) Really no offense.
And a wish: Lets not argue the definition of 'objective'.

edit:
ie. it may or may not be a bug, and you know where I stand on this. My point is that your arguments are not sufficient to conclude that it is a bug.

[ƒenris]

I don't think it's a bug, I just think it's part of the relationship between charges recieving synergy bonuses.
I'm sure most of you have used char editors to make items and the like, and you start to learn how the mechanics of the game works, since charges receive synergy bonuses, it's all grouped and considered a skill until it's overwritten. Blizz probably knew it would work that way, or they would have coded against it.
I don't see you guys crying if a sorc uses Sureshrill frost for the synergy (not that they do lol) , but suddenly when a necro uses it it's a big bug.
Plus, they could have easily fixed it server-side, but instead they change the way you recieve the scroll of resistance? They obviously have this at the top of their list.

The patch changes don't mention a lot of things, that doesn't make them a bug.

[mepersoner]

If I see you say that a bliz official told you that it is a bug, than that may be something objective (since I will believe that you wont lie about it), or if you go read the game code directly and find out that it is a bug and express it, that is also ok for me. But I hear people saying that there is some extra code that causes charge synergies, which makes me think that it is more of a feature than a bug.
That would prove it to me... anyone confirm that?

Otherwise, I'm gonna remain in limbo for awhile.

[Rascargil]

it's too ... obvious to be a bug. or they're not doing test suites or quality control?

ack.

[TheDragoon]

If I see you say that a bliz official told you that it is a bug, than that may be something objective (since I will believe that you wont lie about it), or if you go read the game code directly and find out that it is a bug and express it, that is also ok for me. But I hear people saying that there is some extra code that causes charge synergies, which makes me think that it is more of a feature than a bug. In this vein, I hereby declare that nothing is true unless a Blizzard official says it is true or we can actually find, in the source code, why it is a bug!

I will say that you have FINALLY given me a counter-argument that has some substance to it. It shows me that you are unwilling to think about it in a speculative way and so will never believe that it is a bug unless it is absolutely, positively, no-doubt-about-it, a bug.

However, I think that is a poor line of reasoning. It is entirely possible for things to be bugs, and for there to be plenty of evidence that something is a bug without either of those cases. Heck, in nearly every case a newly discovered "bug" is shown to be a "bug" because it does not behave intuitively, NOT because a Blizzard official comes out and proclaims, "This is a bug!" Blizzard is a busy company and the fact that they have almost no one working on Diablo II, now, makes it highly unlikely that any "bugs" will actually be confirmed by Blizzard. Therefore, we are left with trying to figure it out for ourselves.

This process of figuring it out is where I feel I am being perfectly objective. Quite frankly, I don't care one way or the other whether it is a bug. I don't have an agenda in this. Rather, I have approached this problem as I approach all other problems, with an open mind. I have looked at the information I have about this, reflected on the way the game works and have come to the conclusion that it is a bug. What I have posted about before has been my own thought processes surrounding this reflection and analysis. The reason I have continued to pursue this topic is that I feel the evidence points overwhelmingly toward it being a bug.

But you are correct. I have not dug through the code. I have not talked to a Blizzard official. All I the evidence I have is circumstantial. However, I certainly do have a LOT of it and I feel it provides a good account of how it is a bug. Quite frankly, I'd say this isn't a criminal investigation; I don't need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. This is our disagreement: you want me to put this bug behind bars whereas I just want to take its money. ;)

So in that vein, I thank you for FINALLY letting me know what you're really talking about. Your apology is accepted and I reciprocate by saying that I hope I have not been too offensive. I've tried to attack the posts, and not the post-er. :)

I'll close by giving a little advice for the future, though:

1. Don't throw around education levels in a forum.

I am a mechanical engineer graduating from one of the top classes. You certainly don't know everyone else and throwing in tags about education never comes off as anything more than, "I'm smart and so I must be right." It does nothing to get your point across and, at best, will troll for people to lash out at you about their own education. I've found that most people who go digging in about the deeper issues of gaming tend to be very highly educated.

2. Don't hold a double standard.

If you're going to say that you won't listen to anything less than a proclamation from an official or direct evidence from the code, then don't go around refuting those who will try to draw conclusions with anything less than that. Simply say that you don't think a conclusion could be drawn one way or the other and leave it at that. It is very hypocritical to draw your own conclusions from circumstantial evidence or reflection while denouncing the conclusions of others as not being objective since it has not been absolutely proven one way or the other.

-TheDragoon

[Black_Dog]

you know what i do KNOW is a bug?
well... all life gained through +% to max life, +life per lvl, and +vit from gear and such is not affected by shifting or Oak Sage... now that MUST be a bug, either that or those guys/girls at blizz thought the druid would be overpowered and intentionally put that "penalty" in there... i think not, i think it's just a misallocation of variables in the equations...
If carrion wind is a bug, then so be it... let's all not make rabies/fury hybrids and use the real poison creeper synergy... doesn't bother me at all, it just limits the player to one attack, thus is the curse of any pure build
but a rabies wolf can be easily beat... very easily as a matter of fact... there are tons of items that give psn res/ +max to psn res, and getting 95% psn res will make you almost invulnerable to rabies...
60000/20 = 3000 psn damage... and that's over a LOT of time, so the rabies wolf can effectively be killed in that ammount of time... does rabies get the pvp penalty? if so, then take that 3000 down to 300... barely a scratch nowadays with everyone using CtA...
Basically, what i'm saying is that if you complain that i won because of the carrion wind bug, then i'll just take off the carrion wind and beat you with just fury... i just like to use rabies to help quicken the duel ;)

EDIT: it would seem that 1.10 is more buggy than 1.09 ;)

[electricblue]

I will say that you have FINALLY given me a counter-argument that has some substance to it. It shows me that you are unwilling to think about it in a speculative way and so will never believe that it is a bug unless it is absolutely, positively, no-doubt-about-it, a bug.


In fact, I was not arguing about the topic whether it is a bug or not. My main point was that you are not abjective with your clues.

For this topic, I consider anything in the game as not a bug but a feature, unless it is obviously a bug. And you were saying the otherwise, and I asked if you had anything objective behind it.


However, I think that is a poor line of reasoning. It is entirely possible for things to be bugs, and for there to be plenty of evidence that something is a bug without either of those cases. Heck, in nearly every case a newly discovered "bug" is shown to be a "bug" because it does not behave intuitively, NOT because a Blizzard official comes out and proclaims, "This is a bug!" Blizzard is a busy company and the fact that they have almost no one working on Diablo II, now, makes it highly unlikely that any "bugs" will actually be confirmed by Blizzard. Therefore, we are left with trying to figure it out for ourselves.


For certain problems, yes, a very poor line of reasoning, but it is also a very good approximation to solutions in certain cases. For this case, however, I think it is a good wy to approach the problem. One more reason is the time I have.



This process of figuring it out is where I feel I am being perfectly objective.



As I said, you think you re objective, but no.



Quite frankly, I don't care one way or the other whether it is a bug. I don't have an agenda in this. Rather, I have approached this problem as I approach all other problems, with an open mind. I have looked at the information I have about this, reflected on the way the game works and have come to the conclusion that it is a bug. What I have posted about before has been my own thought processes surrounding this reflection and analysis. The reason I have continued to pursue this topic is that I feel the evidence points overwhelmingly toward it being a bug.

But you are correct. I have not dug through the code. I have not talked to a Blizzard official. All I the evidence I have is circumstantial. However, I certainly do have a LOT of it and I feel it provides a good account of how it is a bug. Quite frankly, I'd say this isn't a criminal investigation; I don't need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. This is our disagreement: you want me to put this bug behind bars whereas I just want to take its money. ;)

So in that vein, I thank you for FINALLY letting me know what you're really talking about. Your apology is accepted and I reciprocate by saying that I hope I have not been too offensive. I've tried to attack the posts, and not the post-er. :)



No problem wih this.



1. Don't throw around education levels in a forum.

You certainly don't know everyone else and throwing in tags about education never comes off as anything more than, "I'm smart and so I must be right." It does nothing to get your point across and, at best, will troll for people to lash out at you about their own education. I've found that most people who go digging in about the deeper issues of gaming tend to be very highly educated.



sorry for this, but it was coming to a point that you were saying I was 'blindly attacking your posts'
I also find it inappropriate, butI had no choice, and time.



2. Don't hold a double standard.

If you're going to say that you won't listen to anything less than a proclamation from an official or direct evidence from the code, then don't go around refuting those who will try to draw conclusions with anything less than that. Simply say that you don't think a conclusion could be drawn one way or the other and leave it at that. It is very hypocritical to draw your own conclusions from circumstantial evidence or reflection while denouncing the conclusions of others as not being objective since it has not been absolutely proven one way or the other.

-TheDragoon

I never say that, but I had listned to the points you implied before and I got to a conclusion with them. Now when you say the same thing and hope me to change my mind, that is somewhat unrealistic.
Only possible if I see something that I hadn't seen before buried in the same words. But for this topic, not happened yet :)

And pls stop calling that 'feature' a 'bug' :)

[TheDragoon]

Sorry, electricblue, but that post is not convincing.

You continue to claim that I am not being objective and have insinuated that I cannot be objective since I am not a mechanical engineer like you are. Yet you have still given no support to your assertion, whatsoever. Quite frankly, at this point I find it childish that you are willing to post disagreements without any sort of support or evidence for your conclusions. That's what we've just been talking about! :) I'm sorry to say it, but if you don't give any sort of support for what you claim, you basically are blindly attacking a post.

As I said, you think you re objective, but no. Indeed you did say that. But you provide no support whatsoever other than your apparent claim that you know objectivity better than I do. That's a rather arrogant assertion, in my opinion, but I'll let it pass and get to the heart of the matter... give some support or at least detail your thought process!

One more reason is the time I have. We have a saying at some of the other forums that I read. "You should never rush your posts. You have all day to type up a response so take your time and get in everything you need to."

However, as I've said, I think I see why we're in disagreement, so I'll leave that issue alone given that, with the standards you set for me to have to convince you (which I think are pointlessly high, but I'll leave that alone), there's no chance that I'll be able to get sufficient evidence to convince you, so I won't try. I will, however, work to make sure that the community will be given both sides of the story so that they can make their own decisions.

So stop calling this "bug" a "feature." ;)

-TheDragoon

[ƒenris]

I'm just saying, if someone was using say the Sureshrill Frost synergy as a bonus, would everyone be screaming 'bug omg!!11 BUG11'? No.

[electricblue]

You continue to claim that I am not being objective and have insinuated that I cannot be objective since I am not a mechanical engineer like you are.

I didnt say that.

And there is no 'level of objectiveness', there are only good approximations.
If I find some time, I promise I ll give a detailed explanation about your points.

Still, I am not making any conclusion about your arguments being right or wrong. They are just not you know what :)

Anyway, enough of this argument I think.

If anyone could look at the game code and verify if there is any extra code written for charge synergies...

[tooie1]

If anyone could look at the game code and verify if there is any extra code written for charge synergies...

Uhh, see the following. I guess it's as close to "proof" as we gonna get

http://www.myimgs.com/data/eltoro/Screenshot096.jpg

And the marrowwalk bug(feature) was disabled for a day or so about a month ago.