XXX is too far away!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristal

He's not sticking up for SE... it's a common fallacy that coding is easy and quick, and anyone can do it better then the guys actually doing it.

There's a Dutch saying: "The best helmsmen are on shore." (De beste stuurlui staan aan wal.)

---

Certain coding is simple, acting like coding is so complex for every little thing is a gross-exaggeration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristal

He's not sticking up for SE... it's a common fallacy that coding is easy and quick, and anyone can do it better then the guys actually doing it.

---

That's not a fallacy. Coding is easy and quick. For programmers. And one can reasonably assume that the development team are just that, programmers. This is an easy fix. Whenever someone tries to use a WS, the following happens:

1. Check if engaged
2. Check if mob can be seen
3. Check if enough TP
4. TP is consumed
5. Check if distance is under a certain limit

Aside from the fact that fixing this would be as easy as including the last check into the group of previous checks, it never made any shred of sense to have it like this in the first place. I have no idea who first came up with it. Anyone know if this was always that way or only after ranged attacks (or ranged WS) were introduced? That could explain it, but aside from that I have no idea why.

They obviously already do a check that determines whether or not you are close enough to WS the monster. They could change the code to refuse to WS instead of giving an "out of range" message, or not remove TP upon "out of range" WSing.

Anyone remember how Blood Pacts used to work?

SE said that'd look into it. Is losing your TP so bad that it should trump over other adjustments already planned out? Honestly, I'd rather see storage access from everywhere before they get around to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byrth

They obviously already do a check that determines whether or not you are close enough to WS the monster. They could change the code to refuse to WS instead of giving an "out of range" message, or not remove TP upon "out of range" WSing.

Anyone remember how Blood Pacts used to work?

---

BP is still broken in many sense today. If your avatar is killed before it actually perform BP, your BP is resetted. So you cannot resummon a new avatar and then immediate BP. This is true for both Rage and Ward right now. Easiest way to test this is in WoE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamin

BP is still broken in many sense today. If your avatar is killed before it actually perform BP, your BP is resetted. So you cannot resummon a new avatar and then immediate BP. This is true for both Rage and Ward right now. Easiest way to test this is in WoE.

---

I haven't been on SMN in a while but unless they adjusted it, that also happens if the mob dies before your avatar gets to complete their BP, making you wait for recast. My apologies if this has been fixed. And I think I'd rather see this fixed before "XXX is to far away"; but still pulling for storage access before both of those. At any rate, I believe SE will get around to it once they finish with the other stuff that was planned before moving onto user submitted adjustments...but that's just my line of reasoning.

If it gets amnesia'd (Pil) before the BP goes off, your timer is also not reset.

Also if you use Assault while your avatar is taking its time drunkenly staggering to your position (a.k.a. pathing poorly), you lose that timer as well.

I think basic quality of life or job performance issues like TP or job timer loss have to take precedence over pretty much anything. To put it simply, they need to fix what's broken before they start making new additions.

Quote:

---

He's not sticking up for SE... it's a common fallacy that coding is easy and quick, and anyone can do it better then the guys actually doing it.

There's a Dutch saying: "The best helmsmen are on shore." (De beste stuurlui staan aan wal.)

---

It's easy, really easy for someone who's job it is to do this stuff every day. It's not a matter of difficulty as to why it's not been changed it's a matter of the bossman giving the green light to actually let someone do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristal

He's not sticking up for SE... it's a common fallacy that coding is easy and quick, and anyone can do it better then the guys actually doing it.

There's a Dutch saying: "The best helmsmen are on shore." (De beste stuurlui staan aan wal.)

---

Those of us with training and experience in the field can tell the difference between "Okay, code isn't magic. They can't just change this at will" type code and "Why can't they just go in and change a 1 to a 0? This is stupid" type code. Both exist. They're not something we need to see SE's code to figure out.