Jump to content
Dante Unbound: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

Nova Null Star-Utterly Stupid


CCamp88
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, I'm sure this has been brought up before, but let me say as a MR22 with 1000's of hours in the game, this has to be the most stupid thing i have experienced.

http://prntscr.com/d0g%&^

How can a spell be absolutely useless!? Granted there are some out there that might as well be useless, but they technically do something.
This here, costs energy but you get absolutely nothing out of it other than the affinity from casting the spell

I recently was putting some forma on Nova p (givent double affinity weekend) and i decided to do a low duration, high eff, high strength build to spam  my 1 and 2 while leveling. Then i noticed this.  with low duration Novas #1 Null Star produces 0, yes Zero, particles. How can this be!?  I mean i know how it works and is based off of duration. But the fact that it should have a minimum of 1 at the very least. I'm not sure if this was an unseen bug, as most (if not all) nova's use duration. 

TLDR   15% duration on nova = Null star with 0 particles; Essentially useless.

Please tell me this was/is a bug. Because seriously, as mentioned this is the most utterly stupid thing ive seen in the game to date.

Regards,

 

-CCamp88

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NekroArts said:

This has to be a bug. The only way to get 0 particles is to have 0 duration; 15% of 6 is 0.9 and since you can't have a decimal amount of particles that number has to round up.

Actually, it would depend on how rounding is handled. In this scenario, the particle count is floored to 0 because having less than 1 particle means you don't have 1 whole particle, so it makes sense to floor the number. 

Flooring is used instead of simply rounding in scenarios where the result requires an integer and the result would be incorrect if rounded up. One such example would be: how many 10 kg objects can you place onto a cart with a 99 kg carrying capacity before it breaks, assuming the cart breaks once it goes over its carrying capacity? 99/10=9.9 which rounds to 10, but putting 10 of the said objects onto the cart would break it, therefore 10 is an incorrect answer and 9 is the correct answer.

But I suppose in the case of Nova's Null Star, an exception should be made so that the minimum number of particles should be 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would it be a bug? If you lower any stat to crap it will be crap.

Having low damage will result in you doing basically no damage no matter the amount of energy spent casting on a damaging ability.

What you are asking is for there to be limits on how low the stats go cause it didnt work on the combo you were attempting.

BTW, spamming A-1 for Nova is not really a good thing. That spell takes a long time to cast, it's not a spamming spell. At least that's what i remember from the last time i used her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some frames have 2 (even 3) practically useless abilities.

Nova has one of (if not THE) best abilities in the entire game.

And on top of that, an antimatter tactical nuke coupled with one of the best mobility tools.

 

My point:

We should just be quiet lest DE decides to get their sticky hands on Nova. That usually spells disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Practically" Useless, and Useless are two different things. Should definately be a minimum cap. As with all/most other spells out there. Other spells like the old nekros shadows, vaubans tesla and bastille, oberons smite, etc, all have a  minimum that no matter how much you lower duration/strength (that determines the number)  you make it, it still does atleast 1 (if not more).

As for why would you want lower duration on null star?  more power strenth. transient fort. as well as higher eff. to go with it and antimatter drop. But thats beside the point anyways.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if the thread title is accurately communicating the purpose of the thread.

Surely you don't mean that it is, categorically, stupid. The math absolutely does lead to some silly (but not fun) results, and that probably warrants some tweaking.

Pedantry aside, this is amusing and good to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...