You can buy raven-black velveteen from the weavers guild since 1.19 ^_^Quote:
Originally Posted by Felis
Translations (JP to English)
Printable View
-
11-03-2011, 12:31 AMLizam
-
11-03-2011, 03:41 AMReinheartRep Response - 11/02/11 Monster action logic adjustments
torippi started a thread saying he had a situation where a mob in group of 3 used level 5 petrify and because previous effect gets overwritten with the new one, on top of all 3 mobs using the action repeatedly he ended up dying without being able to do anything. Reps response to this one:
Original thread link: http://goo.gl/nAd3f
Other thread talked about how the black sheep puts you to sleep, or mole always going underground, etc..Quote:
Originally Posted by Triairy
-
11-03-2011, 04:01 AMReinheartRep Response - 11/02/11 Lower/Shorter action overwriting Higher/Longer action
First quote from Mystia explains what's this one about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triairy
こんばんは。
Good evening,
こちらの件については開発チームでも認識しているのですが、Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystia
現在のバトルフレームワークでは直すことができず、新生までの間のバトル改修においても対応することができません。
Regarding this one the dev team also acknowledges however we cannot fix the current battle frame work and we cannot address this issue with battle modifications up till release of 2.0
なお新生FFXIVにおいては、効果が高い方が優先され、
効果が同じであれば効果時間の長い方が優先されるようになる予定です。
With 2.0 the plan is to have the higher effect is prioritized and if it's the same effect the one with longer effect duration will be prioritized.
フィードバックありがとうございました。
Thanks for the feedback
-
11-03-2011, 06:58 AMSoukyuu
Wow, just how effed up is the framework exactly? They do realize they make their devs look pretty bad constantly citing framework limitations, don't they?
-
11-03-2011, 07:01 AMSeirra_Lanzcebecause of that they already stated to dumb the 1.0 when 2.0 is done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soukyuu
-
11-03-2011, 07:08 AMSoukyuuSure, that's the reason they're going do it, but it still amazes me over and over again just how messed up that.... thing is. It's name should be "Despair Engine", as it seems to do everything it can to not allow to make changes and not only that, it's functions itself are bugged beyond repair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seirra_Lanzce
I wonder how it ever passed the QC -
11-03-2011, 07:13 AMHulanDisclaimer: I am fully behind the current dev team, and given things we have seen, I have no doubt that the original engine is indeed a horrific sight. That being said...Quote:
Originally Posted by Soukyuu
I believe SE has made it to letter one.Quote:
A man steps into his new office, recently being promoted to president of a large corporation. He is surprised, however, to find 3 letters on his desk, addressed from the previous president with a note on top. The note read, "In times of trouble, open the these letters in order." After a few months, profits started falling, and he decided to open the first letter. It read only, "Blame your predecessor." The man followed this advice and moral improved.
After a short time, another disaster struck. Feeling more confident, the man opened the second letter. It said, "Blame the economy." The man did so, and the situation slowly improved.
Many years later, the company was falling once again on hard times. Knowing just what to do, the man quickly opened the third letter, which read: "Prepare three letters."
-
11-03-2011, 07:15 AMSeirra_LanzceQuote:
Originally Posted by Hulan
love the quote. -
11-03-2011, 07:17 AMSoukyuu
lol Hulan.
This situation is a bit different though, since afaik, the dev team (=people who CODE things) didn't really change, so they can't really blame the predecessor. Correct me if i'm wrong. -
11-03-2011, 07:29 AMMisteyes
As someone who does this stuff... there's a lot that can go wrong in programming that isn't the fault of the guy that writes the code. Pre-production and software architecture account for a lot, too.
It's fully possible that the specification which the previous devs implemented did not foresee the need to query whether or not a buff already exists before a spell takes effect. The dev who actually implemented it is probably biting his tongue to keep from saying "I told you so! I told you so!" (or the equivalent saying in Japanese, if there is one, anyway). The technical slang for this issue (if it is this issue) is Broken As Designed.
That said, it's never impossible to code around these issue, but it might take someone three days to kludge around the bad code - and the addition of those kludges makes the bad code worse. It's a matter of triage.
The only cure for BAD is to throw it all out and go back to the design phase and take it seriously. It sounds like they've already done that - with three months doing specifications for 2.0 before allowing a single line of code to be written. Hopefully little details like this one weren't lost when designing the second time.