Feature - Rejected Mafia and Just the Best Anapests

[lostcalpolydude]

There is no way to definitively distinguish a free runaway from losing the fight (or from a non-free runaway). It's completely impossible without charpane data. Having 0 HP would be a good indicator that you lost, but HP regen makes that not certain. Not using a turn means it was probably a free runaway, unless it's an arrowed goth kid monster for some reason.

 

[Crowther]

Do we (and if not, do we want to) recognize successfull free runaways with anapests? (and, more importantly, in the plains of Dis, where I can't just shrug an effect). Not recognizing them throws off mafia's idea of how many free runaways I have available from my boots/how usedup is my GAP.

I thought free runaways didn't help increase your reward in that miniquest. The only way to speed it up is -combat and banishing.

 

[xKiv]

I thought free runaways didn't help increase your reward in that miniquest. The only way to speed it up is -combat and banishing.

They can help you finish without using a second folio.

 

[Morgoth1145]

Is there any activity on this? I realize that it's not the only bug around, but there hasn't been any update in a month, for either resolution.

 

[lostcalpolydude]

Is there any activity on this? I realize that it's not the only bug around, but there hasn't been any update in a month, for either resolution.

The thread is marked as Rejected. That was the last activity you should expect, probably.

 

[Morgoth1145]

The thread is marked as Rejected. That was the last activity you should expect, probably.

The thread was marked as Rejected incorrectly, as was pointed out by many on the first page. It was rejected because something I did not ask for was not considered feasible. After that there was discussion of investigating whether a warning could be feasibly be put in place when auto-adventuring with a goal, which is what I actually asked for. I've yet to see any follow-up on that. I only saw follow-up on trying to fix handling of Just the Best Anapests, which is nice, but does not resolve the potential for a warning. The last I saw in this thread was not a rejection of that possibility, but rather what sounded like intention to investigate. That's why I was poking this thread, I was expecting follow-up on investigation that sounded like it was going to happen. Did people silently drop such investigation?

 

[Theraze]

Posts 12-14... Veracity pointed out that this is a KoL bug and Gemelli said it may someday get fixed, but... Someday. Maybe. Until then, this is "Not a mafia bug" and not something we can fix.

 

[Morgoth1145]

Is it that hard to understand that I only ever asked about a warning? I get that you can't make Mafia track what it can't track, for whatever reason, even a KoL issue. I have just wanted an actual response to what I asked, being a warning (which could even blame KoL for all I care.) Posts 12-14 do not deal with warnings, they deal with why Mafia can't track scrolls in the valley. In fact, they are the posts I was referring to as the follow up on trying to fix Just the Best Anapest, which I never asked for. I have only been trying to get a definitive answer regarding whether the real request was viable since it would address the surprising behavior and does not depend on KoL fixing its issue. But I guess I won't get a straight answer (not even "not worth doing") on anything but the issue people are pretending I raised, so whatever.

 

[lostcalpolydude]

Is it that hard to understand that I only ever asked about a warning?.

I carefully reread your first post before responding to your thread bump. As far as I am concerned, your request for a warning is rejected.

 

[Theraze]

If you want a warning, make a before battle script that aborts if you have Anapests. Or make a relay script on game.ash to check on it, either way. You can already make your warning/abort happen with existing functionality, so...

 

[Fluxxdog]

Is it that hard to understand that I only ever asked about a warning?

I think there's a break in communication.

Morgoth, they understand you want a warning. They also don't want to make adventuring automatically stop (which is what a warning would do) because you have an effect. Compound this with the effect in question having known bugs in KoL itself and it's something devs don't want to deal with in general until/unless KoL fixes it on their end. After that, if the issue is raised, a different discussion can begin on it.

Hardcoding automated adventuring to stop because you have an effect is generally undesirable. I wanted to ask it be rejected because I use automated scripts for a clan farmer that runs simple, quick scripts. I don't want its adventuring stopped because of a miscellaneous effect that is best handled by the user anyway. I would think a vast majority of people don't want that happening. However, since I already manage this by shrugging the effect through a bBS script before going into combat, it is effectively a non-issue for me.

Combine an undesirable feature with a KoL bug together with already better methods of handling it and devs will generally not want to touch this with an 11-foot pole (now available!) at all. Since no work will be done on it, they rejected it.

Currently, your best option is to automatically remove Anapest by shrugging it, either through a mood or a script.

 

[Morgoth1145]

I think there's a break in communication.

There most certainly is. Here's a timeline of this thread:
Me: Here's a situation and feature request for feature X.
Next person: Dude, feature Y isn't happening. Rejected.
More people: Uh...Feature Y != Feature X. Maybe we should discuss Feature X?
*insert brief discussion about Feature X.* (Note that said feature is never actually said to be rejected, and the thread continues to be errantly marked as Rejected for the *wrong request*)
*insert discussion about possibly doing (the "rejected") feature Y. This concludes saying that Feature Y (but not X) is impossible due to an outside issue.*
some time later, me: Uh, any update on the actual request?
Next guy: Dude, you're an idiot. It got marked rejected, just drop it.
me: No, Feature Y, which I never asked for, was rejected. Feature X has not been dismissed in this thread, and I want an update, explicitly, about it.
*insert more discussion about Feature Y. Note that that is not Feature X*

See, I cannot divine what people are thinking about Feature X. As somebody who made a request, the first thing I care about is whether I should expect any more discussion about said request or other solutions. It wasn't until post 29 that it was finally stated that X is no longer open for discussion. The thread being marked Rejected did not tell me that because it was rejected for Y, which is *not* X. People ignoring the thread did not tell me that X was no longer open for discussion, it only indicated that people might be taking longer investigating the options that were mentioned on page one. If nobody deigns to communicate the state of a feature request, the requester cannot magically know the state. Especially if the appropriate state feedback mechanism is abused.

Believe it or not, I can handle it being rejected, even if I disagree with the reasoning. If I'm actually told, that is.

 

[lostcalpolydude]

I asked Mafia to obtain me a 64735 scroll. To my surprise this was taking a while. When I finally stopped it I found that I had 12! in my inventory. My guess is that Mafia could not properly parse the output from Just the Best Anapests, or that the text was too vague. Either way, perhaps Mafia should produce a warning when you have a goal and Just the Best Anapests that Mafia may not properly discern when the goal is met?

That is your initial post, with bold added. You asked for a warning. I made it clear that I rejected your request for a warning.

See, I cannot divine what people are thinking about Feature X. As somebody who made a request, the first thing I care about is whether I should expect any more discussion about said request or other solutions. It wasn't until post 29 that it was finally stated that X is no longer open for discussion. The thread being marked Rejected did not tell me that because it was rejected for Y, which is *not* X. People ignoring the thread did not tell me that X was no longer open for discussion, it only indicated that people might be taking longer investigating the options that were mentioned on page one. If nobody deigns to communicate the state of a feature request, the requester cannot magically know the state. Especially if the appropriate state feedback mechanism is abused.

I get it. Just because people who can't actually contribute code to mafia discussed things besides what you suggested, you assumed that whoever marked this Rejected couldn't keep track of multiple things. Looks like you assumed everyone else was an idiot because things weren't spelled out specifically for you.

Anyway, locking this thread because there is zero chance of anything productive coming out of it.