Latest Patch - SK lifetap buff spells not working

[KLS]

100% chance to proc + 400% bonus chance to proc. Other than the haste changes it should be functionally identical in regards to spells with mods.

[AndMetal]

Originally Posted by KLS

100% chance to proc + 400% bonus chance to proc.

Which equals 500%, or a 5x chance to proc instead of 4x. Are we sure that's how it should be done? If it was, I would think we could just add 100 to each calculation (which it seems like may be done, even with the check for 0 in spell_effects.cpp).

From the PEQ Forums:

So for BL pets, they will proc 1.5x as much as a normal character with their stats would with that proc (BL pet buffs have a mod of 150...), spirit of puma willl proc 4x more, etc

The only other real info I've been able to find is on Allakhazam. It doesn't have any real concrete info:

Link
[QUOTE]With no extensions this shamys proc spell on the pet procs 3 to 4 times and some times as much as 5 times. On my big shamy with max buff duration AA

[KLS]

Here's the formula I got from the theory crafters at eqoutrider.

ppm = 2 * (100 + procratemod + worn combat effects + WA modifier)/100

so assuming you have no aas or combat effects for that 400 mod spell:

2 * (100 + 400) / 100

I mean the way you're talking about there would be situations where x > 0 && x < 100 where a proc bonus would be detrimental.

[AndMetal]

Originally Posted by KLS

I mean the way you're talking about there would be situations where x > 0 && x < 100 where a proc bonus would be detrimental.

I guess that's the idea. Basically, it's a percentage (or rather divided by 100 it's a percentage), with an exception where !(x > 0). That way, you could have a spell with an insanely awesome proc (think Cazic Touch as the effect), but only has a 1% chance of the normal probability to proc (so a mod value of 1). Realistically though, there aren't currently any base2 values between 1 & 100, it just leaves open the possibility for customization while keeping it simple.

However, based on that formula, it sounds like the calculations should be right.

[KLS]

Well I mean they've parsed it to be a correct formula. And you could still use a negative modifier to make things proc less under it. Unless we have everything unsigned but we can prolly change that.