Feature Auto-funkify simple itemslinging CCS's

[zarqon]

In CCS cases like this:

[ ghost of fernswarthy ]
item love song of smoldering passion

it would be swell if mafia would automatically alter the macro to account for funkslinging. Basically, if all of the below are true:

1) There are no additional CCS commands following the item command.
2) The character has funkslinging.
3) The item is not reusable.

Submit "use n, n" instead of "use n".

Aside: checking for !reusable is better than checking itemamount > 1. Of the 15 reusable combat items it's possible to have more than one of, users would only use them as a final item command 1) to prolong combat, or 2) to deal a limited amount of damage per round (e.g. vs. the mine crabs). In either case, auto-funkslinging would be undesirable.

I think you would see quite a few happy campers were this feature instituted.

 

[xKiv]

And what if I *want* to use only one?

 

[lostcalpolydude]

And what if I *want* to use only one?

If using 1 is enough to end the fight, KoL will prevent the second one from being used. If it is not, you'll just use another one in the next round of the fight (see point 1 in zarqon's post).

 

[Bale]

I disagree. What if I WANT to use ONLY ONE!

Consider this situation: A love song and a saucegeyser will kill the monster. I do this:

[ ghost of fernswarthy ]
skill entangling noodles
item love song of smoldering passion
skill saucegeyser

Then you want mafia to use a second love song when it is not my desire? Perhaps I could get around this by listing saucegeyser first, but that's really not the point. That should work.

==============

Now, I have a counter-proposal: Un-funkify itemslinging.

Given this CCS:

[ ghost of fernswarthy ]
item love song of smoldering passion, love song of smoldering passion

Mafia should transform that to simple item slinging if the character does NOT have funkslinging. That way nobody can be unhappy.

 

[slyz]

Then you want mafia to use a second love song when it is not my desire?

He doesn't, see point 1) in Zarqon's post.

I don't really understand what this FR would bring though - the ability to share CCSs that both people with and w/o funkslinging could use? Or simply having to type less when you setup a CCS?

 

[Bale]

No. The purpose is to be able to use the same CCS for all your characters. This way you don't have to use a different CCS for characters with and without funkslinging. I think it is a good idea.

(Though I still favor my counter implementation because then we can ignore point 1 -- which I'd previously missed.)

 

[slyz]

Oh ok. I only have one character (and a non adventuring mall multi), so that kind of thing passes me right by

 

[jasonharper]

This describes mafia's old behavior (and current behavior when macrofication is skipped for whatever reason); it's impossible to implement in a macro due to lack of a predicate for testing whether you still have two of a combat item available for use.

 

[lostcalpolydude]

This describes mafia's old behavior (and current behavior when macrofication is skipped for whatever reason); it's impossible to implement in a macro due to lack of a predicate for testing whether you still have two of a combat item available for use.

That sounds like a combination of "implemented long before it was requested" and "rejected", so I picked one at random.

 

[Bale]

I'd list that under, "plead for the combat macro predicate on the radio show until Jick tells CDM to make it happen." Sometimes unrelenting whining gets good results from the devs.

 

[zarqon]

I am amazed at my own apparent inability to communicate. xKiv and Bale clearly believe me a fool who doesn't understand scripting combat, slyz didn't understand what the benefits of this feature would be, and the feature was rejected out of hand.

Jason, I understand your point -- if you have only one of an item, this could be a problem, since the single would not get used. Likewise later in the combat if you get down to one item. However, if you have instructed mafia to throw an item repeatedly and you are low on that item, that's a user error -- and the combat would stop prematurely anyway, with or without the predicate. Also, the server will be hit once with or without the predicate. If an itemamount predicate is then later added to BALLS we'll be able to take it from 90% to 100. I believe the benefits (being able to use the same CCS for characters both with and without funkslinging) still outweigh the downside.

I guess Bale's alternative (which is the same thing, but less intuitive for users) would be worth another feature request. The goal here is being able to use the same CCS for characters with and without funkslinging. Hopefully that one won't be shot down before it can be explained well.

 

[lostcalpolydude]

Bale's idea makes sense. I should probably be less eager to close up these threads (tag changed back, others can feel free to change it again).

 

[zarqon]

My problem with Bale's way is that people don't start out with funkslinging. It's counterintuitive to write funkslinging commands for characters without funkslinging. It's natural to write single item commands, and then be pleasantly surprised when you get funkslinging and mafia automatically funkslings without you needing to edit the command. A feature that reveals itself to the user -- not a feature that needs to be hunted down on a forum or Wiki.

I'm operating here under the principle of "The fewer the FAQ's, the better the design."

 

[xKiv]

I am amazed at my own apparent inability to communicate.

After reading more of the thread, I think you should have explicitly written something to the effect of "when macrofiying item use, make it use funkslinging the same way it does without macrofying". Then I wouldn't have been so confused.
And I did overlook point 1, but that doesn't matter anyway - because end of macro doesn't imply end of combat.

Also - I think there *is* a way to denote (in ccs) only using one item, even with funkslinging ... if you omit the second item after the comma?
As in ... "item seal toth,"?

 

[holatuwol]

when macrofying item use, make it use funkslinging the same way it does without macrofying

I'm actually working through rewriting how KoLmafia handles combat so that it doesn't rely on its own internal round count, and this is one of the changes that I made to item macrofication. Of course, that means I need to know about any way of forcing only one item to be used that people might be relying on (right now, I'm assuming that you'd just quote it in the CCS so that KoLmafia macrofies the line as-is without adding its own logic).

 

[xKiv]

I actually think the method I quoted *is* supposed to work (istr reading about it in some help text too?)

item abcde -> use item abcde or funksling abcde with itself
item abcde, abcde -> always funksling abcde with itself (?)
item abcde, -> never funksling

 

[zarqon]

I guess this can be marked "Will Probably Be Implemented By Hola's Rewrite of Combat Handling."