Spells: Channeling Fix

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Baugi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My contention was more that they can't be trusted since they aren't used by the client and might be stale/ect.

If only we had a seasoned programmer who knew all the code and evidence involved, and could make intelligent decisions about them, so the peanut gallery here didn't have to. Ideally it's be someone so authoritative, so experienced, that they'd been working on re-creating classic EQ for well over a decade.

But where, oh where, could we possibly find someone like that? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[sammoHung]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If only we had a seasoned programmer who knew all the code and evidence involved, and could make intelligent decisions about them, so the peanut gallery here didn't have to. Ideally it's be someone so authoritative, so experienced, that they'd been working on re-creating classic EQ for well over a decade.

But where, oh where, could we possibly find someone like that? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are insufferable. I see a few people discussing technical details and then Loramin comes in to shit it up. Please continue, Kich, Rygar, Plonkster - interesting reads from you guys.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by sammoHung [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are insufferable. I see a few people discussing technical details and then Loramin comes in to shit it up. Please continue, Kich, Rygar, Plonkster - interesting reads from you guys.

This isn't a normal "fill it with your personal thoughts" thread.

It is a big forum thread, for people to report evidence about bugs ... not speculate (without any evidential basis).

[Baugi]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If only we had a seasoned programmer who knew all the code and evidence involved, and could make intelligent decisions about them, so the peanut gallery here didn't have to. Ideally it's be someone so authoritative, so experienced, that they'd been working on re-creating classic EQ for well over a decade.

But where, oh where, could we possibly find someone like that? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Friend, I'm trying to ask clarifying questions about the evidence already presented because that's generally the best way to start your own research. nilbog is great, but this thread is also 4+ years old so there's obviously a lot on his plate. I promise I have no vested interest in the outcome.

I'm still unclear whether the proposed code is entirely based on the decompile or used the magic numbers(I see the channelchance cap and interruptchance threshold) and supplemented with Live data? Personally, I don't mind TAKP's strategy of confirming against Live data but it's obviously a problem if I try to confirm Live derived formulas with more Live data.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Baugi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Friend, I'm trying to ask clarifying questions about the evidence already presented because that's generally the best way to start your own research. nilbog is great, but this thread is also 4+ years old so there's obviously a lot on his plate. I promise I have no vested interest in the outcome.

I'm still unclear whether the proposed code is entirely based on the decompile or used the magic numbers(I see the channelchance cap and interruptchance threshold) and supplemented with Live data? Personally, I don't mind TAKP's strategy of confirming against Live data but it's obviously a problem if I try to confirm Live derived formulas with more Live data.

Again, you (or anyone else posting non-evidence posts here) have two options:

1. Wait until Nilbog releases an update, and you'll find out ... like every other player does with every other change to the project
2. Make a nuisance of yourself in a bug thread, which DOES NOT EXIST to answer player questions about upcoming changes! It exists to collect evidence to help Nilbog improve P99.

In other words there's no "researching" what the change will be: if you're here and not posting evidence you are getting in the way of the people who do. Even this post I'm making doesn't belong ... but I'm making it out of frustration.

Nilbog has spent fifteen years of his life building a game for you to play. The absolute least you can do is respect his wishes, and only post bug stuff in the bug forum.

[Baugi]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The absolute least you can do is respect his wishes, and only post bug stuff in the bug forum.

Originally Posted by nilbog [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This forum is reserved for bug reporting and verification.

I'm trying to work on verification of the original bug report? Sorry if that was unclear.