Talk:Combat Rules - Revision history

Georg Zoeller at 16:43, 30 October 2009

2009-10-30T16:43:12Z

Georg Zoeller at 16:41, 30 October 2009

2009-10-30T16:41:58Z

Sunjammer at 18:33, 28 October 2009

2009-10-28T18:33:56Z

Dom Queron at 02:01, 28 October 2009

2009-10-28T02:01:37Z

Sunjammer at 01:16, 28 October 2009

2009-10-28T01:16:18Z

Dom Queron: Created page with 'Dom> Sunjammer, are you sure we want to wikifi in script function declaration? That'd generate like half a million pages. We should probably stick to file level and make your too...'

2009-10-28T01:01:54Z

Created page with 'Dom> Sunjammer, are you sure we want to wikifi in script function declaration? That'd generate like half a million pages. We should probably stick to file level and make your too...'

New page

Dom> Sunjammer, are you sure we want to wikifi in script function declaration? That'd generate like half a million pages. We should probably stick to file level and make your tool write out an anchor for each function

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 :::Looking at the examples I don't see this approach as being particularly beneficial to the end user. They can get whole definition (i.e. function body) in the script editor so all we really want is an abstraction, explanation  and/or notes on usage: reproducing the function body here seems somewhat redundant.  Also this approach prevents us from including the functions in the '''GeSHi''' config file (which automatically links defined functions in snippets wrapped with the '''dascript''' tags).
 :::--[[User:Sunjammer|Sunjammer]] 18:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 Georg> Regarding questions of why backstabs get demoted by misdirection hexes while critical hits do not: This is intentional to ensure misdirection hex is effective against high level rogues. Misdirection hex is a very powerful curse and one of the few options an AI mage has of ridding himself of a rogue who got close. The code could be structured to make this clearer, but yes, this is intentional.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:41, 30 October 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:::Looking at the examples I don't see this approach as being particularly beneficial to the end user. They can get whole definition (i.e. function body) in the script editor so all we really want is an abstraction, explanation and/or notes on usage: reproducing the function body here seems somewhat redundant. Also this approach prevents us from including the functions in the '''GeSHi''' config file (which automatically links defined functions in snippets wrapped with the '''dascript''' tags).		:::Looking at the examples I don't see this approach as being particularly beneficial to the end user. They can get whole definition (i.e. function body) in the script editor so all we really want is an abstraction, explanation and/or notes on usage: reproducing the function body here seems somewhat redundant. Also this approach prevents us from including the functions in the '''GeSHi''' config file (which automatically links defined functions in snippets wrapped with the '''dascript''' tags).
	:::--[[User:Sunjammer\|Sunjammer]] 18:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)		:::--[[User:Sunjammer\|Sunjammer]] 18:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	Georg> Regarding questions of why backstabs get demoted by misdirection hexes while critical hits do not: This is intentional to ensure misdirection hex is effective against high level rogues. Misdirection hex is a very powerful curse and one of the few options an AI mage has of ridding himself of a rogue who got close. The code could be structured to make this clearer, but yes, this is intentional.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:33, 28 October 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	:--[[User:Sunjammer\|Sunjammer]] 01:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)		:--[[User:Sunjammer\|Sunjammer]] 01:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Dom> I did some test implementation on the page, we can automate this later.		::Dom> I did some test implementation on the page, we can automate this later.
		+	:::Looking at the examples I don't see this approach as being particularly beneficial to the end user. They can get whole definition (i.e. function body) in the script editor so all we really want is an abstraction, explanation and/or notes on usage: reproducing the function body here seems somewhat redundant. Also this approach prevents us from including the functions in the '''GeSHi''' config file (which automatically links defined functions in snippets wrapped with the '''dascript''' tags).
		+	:::--[[User:Sunjammer\|Sunjammer]] 18:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:01, 28 October 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:
	: That was our original plan (Byran being a co-conspirator) but I'm happy to look at alternatives if they would be better for the end user.		: That was our original plan (Byran being a co-conspirator) but I'm happy to look at alternatives if they would be better for the end user.
	:--[[User:Sunjammer\|Sunjammer]] 01:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)		:--[[User:Sunjammer\|Sunjammer]] 01:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
		+	::Dom> I did some test implementation on the page, we can automate this later.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:16, 28 October 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Dom> Sunjammer, are you sure we want to wikifi in script function declaration? That'd generate like half a million pages. We should probably stick to file level and make your tool write out an anchor for each function		Dom> Sunjammer, are you sure we want to wikifi in script function declaration? That'd generate like half a million pages. We should probably stick to file level and make your tool write out an anchor for each function
		+	: That was our original plan (Byran being a co-conspirator) but I'm happy to look at alternatives if they would be better for the end user.
		+	:--[[User:Sunjammer\|Sunjammer]] 01:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)