You can buy raven-black velveteen from the weavers guild since 1.19 ^_^
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..皆さん、こんばんは。
Good evening everyone,
現在の仕様では、ご指摘いただいてる通り、レベル5石化は必ずかかり効果も上書きされてしまいます。
こちらについては、モンスターのアクションの発動頻度を下げるなどを含め、
モンスターのアクションロジックの調整を行う予定です。
With current set up, as mentioned level 5 petrify will always succeed on top of that it will erase previous effect; for this one we are planning to adjust such as frequency the monster uses the skill and adjust the monster action logic.
また「こちら」でご報告いただいたアクションや、
その他のモンスターが使うアクションについても、
フィードバックを受けながら、調整を行っていきますので、
引き続きフィードバックをお願いします。
Also for the actions, or other monster actions which was mentioned in the other thread will also be adjusted as we receive feedbacks, so please continue giving feedbacks. Thanks,
First quote from Mystia explains what's this one about.
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、上位の魔法がかかっているのに下位の魔法で上書きされてしまったり
効果時間が長いのに上書きによって効果時間が短くなってしまうのを直して欲しいです
Would like to have it fixed where higher level spell is in effect but when lower level spell is casted it overwrites the higher level one, or when the effect time is longer due to the overwrite it becoming shorter duration.
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
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?
[ AMD Phenom II X4 970BE@4GHz | 12GB DDR3-RAM@CL7 | nVidia GeForce 260GTX OC | Crucial m4 SSD ]
Sure, 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.
I wonder how it ever passed the QC
[ AMD Phenom II X4 970BE@4GHz | 12GB DDR3-RAM@CL7 | nVidia GeForce 260GTX OC | Crucial m4 SSD ]
Disclaimer: 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...
I believe SE has made it to letter one.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."
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.
[ AMD Phenom II X4 970BE@4GHz | 12GB DDR3-RAM@CL7 | nVidia GeForce 260GTX OC | Crucial m4 SSD ]
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.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Politique d'utilisation des cookies
Ce site Internet utilise des cookies. Si vous ne désirez pas avoir des cookies sur votre appareil, n’utilisez pas le site Internet. Veuillez lire la politique d’utilisation des cookies de Square Enix pour plus d’informations. Votre utilisation du site Internet est aussi soumise aux conditions d’utilisation et à la politique de confidentialité de Square Enix ; en utilisant ce site Internet, vous acceptez ces conditions. Les conditions d’utilisation, la politique de confidentialité et la politique d’utilisation des cookies de Square Enix peuvent aussi être trouvées en cliquant sur les liens situés dans le menu au bas de la page.