On 14 January 2011 05:27, James Paige <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:11:17PM +1300, Ralph Versteegen wrote: >> On 13 January 2011 16:00, James Paige <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 06:44:22PM -0800, James Paige wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 03:34:21PM +1300, Ralph Versteegen wrote: >> >> > On 13 January 2011 15:16, James Paige <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > I don't know if this was an already-known issue, but RMSephy mentioned >> >> > > on IRC that attacks failing against enemy types is broken in the >> >> > > current >> >> > > nightly builds >> >> > > >> >> > >> RMSephy: Actually, it's still causing me grief. As it is right now, >> >> > >> "Fail against Type X enemies" doesn't seem to work. >> >> > > >> >> > > --- >> >> > > James >> >> > >> >> > Works for me. Is he complaining that old games are broken, or that >> >> > adding new threshold failure conditions doesn't work? >> >> >> >> He sais it is with a new game. Maybe it is just a documentation >> >> confusion? >> >> >> >> > RMSephy: I didn't use Fail against enemy type bitsets before. I >> >> > started a new game with the latest nightly and I can't figure out how to >> >> > set enemy types. How do the threshold failure conditions work, by the >> >> > way? >> > >> > You should totally just join us on IRC :) >> >> You're just as responsible for the design of the thresholds as me, though :) > > Yeah, I was just feeling silly copying-and-pasting back and forth > between e-mail and IRC :) > >> >> RMSephy: Okay. I think the problem now is that if I set an enemy to >> >> "weak against type-1-killer" and set an attack to "fail against type >> >> 1", the attack will still work on the enemy. >> >> Of course there is not such thing as "fail against type 1" anymore. > > After further discussion with him, I think he was just confused because > the bitsets had not been removed yet.
Whoops! I thought I had removed them! >> I should make the threshold default to "< 100%" rather than "< 0%" >> when you hit left or right, that would help a bit. Still we could >> probably make other changes to make things clearer. Maybe we could add >> a hotkey to set the equivalent of the old fail vs. enemy type quickly. >> It might also help to have two menu items per fail condition, where >> the first chooses between <, >, and None, and the second chooses the >> percentage. > > It did take me a while to realize that I could press < and > to change > the condition. > > I do think it is cool that we can edit a condition on just one line... a > two-line-per-condition interface might be less confusing... but it would > be more cluttery, which might be more confusing. > > What if pressing enter on a condition went to an editor for just that > condition, which could have the two-line interface, and mabe a little > on-screen help text? There's no harm in adding that. > I have been thinking about condition editors (these, and the ones in > the test menu) because I want to figure out what to do for the > equivalent widgets in the editor editor. > > --- > James > _______________________________________________ > Ohrrpgce mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org > _______________________________________________ Ohrrpgce mailing list [email protected] http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
