Pork to the Future - Cyrus, Hyboria, Future, and Wumpus!

Lines 110 & 114, shouldn't the to_int() be to_float()?

Code: 
	if (get_property("hpAutoRecovery").to_int() < 0.2)
		set_property("hpAutoRecovery","0.2");
	if (get_property("hpAutoRecoveryItems").to_string() == "")
		set_property("hpAutoRecoveryItems","cannelloni cocoon;scroll of drastic healing;tongue of the walrus;lasagna bandages;doc galaktik's ailment ointment");
	if (get_property("hpAutoRecoveryTarget").to_int() < 0.5)
		set_property("hpAutoRecoveryTarget","0.5");
 
Due to a recent change in KOL, that removed the ability of Fat Stacks of Cash to stasis, I had to edit the "fat stacking" routine at line 1373 and remove the reference. If you don't make the change the script will loop endlessly.
 
I just had the script fail to start the 'Future' quest before adventuring in the Seaside Megalopolis.

Apparently this is due to the pig iron link in the wrong side of the tracks changing:
Code: 
OLD LINK
town_wrong.php?action=krakrox

NEW LINK
place.php?whichplace=town_wrong&action=townwrong_1krakrox
 
Seems awesome. Just to let you know, the script gets stuck in an infinite loop when it encounters a turtle adventure as a Turtle Tamer.
 
The two things above should be fixed now. Also should do wumpus faster, apparently Mafia's interpreting waitq(0) as waitq(1)...
 
guyy said:
The two things above should be fixed now. Also should do wumpus faster, apparently Mafia's interpreting waitq(0) as waitq(1)...
Click to expand...

Just tried it as a Turtle Tamer with a fully updated script and it still does not function correctly. It gets stuck in a loop of trying to complete the adventure. You can get past it through the relay browser though. Thanks for the script :)
 
Veracity said:
What do you think waitq(0) should do? "Wait for 0 seconds". Umm.
Click to expand...
Wait for the default time. Wait forever. Wait for me. Wait, that was a rhetorical question wasn't it. ;)

A minor argument for waitq(0) waiting zero seconds is to avoid code like this:

if (WaitTime > 0) waitq(WaitTime);

Of course negative numbers should cause the program to jump earlier in our current time line. Which could be used by scripts to redo a fight when we get beaten up. Like in the 95ers movie.

Okay, I'll stop being silly now.
 
Crowther said:
Of course negative numbers should cause the program to jump earlier in our current time line. Which could be used by scripts to redo a fight when we get beaten up. Like in the 95ers movie.
Click to expand...

I like this idea. I'll give 100M meat to the dev who implements this.
 
cardern said:
Just tried it as a Turtle Tamer with a fully updated script and it still does not function correctly. It gets stuck in a loop of trying to complete the adventure.
Click to expand...

Duh, didn't even think to fix that for the first two parts of the quest. Hopefully this is actually better now.

Veracity said:
What do you think waitq(0) should do? "Wait for 0 seconds". Umm.
Click to expand...

Well... yes. As Crowther said, it makes the code simpler. It's common to use weird inputs to mean "default" but there isn't really an obvious choice for a default amount of time to wait (1 second? 5 seconds? 10? 60?) and if you wanted that a negative input would make more sense than 0, because it's possible to wait 0 seconds but you can't really wait -1 seconds.
 
If you don't want it to wait, don't tell it to wait. It's that simple. Especially if you're doing a silent wait. That's just wasted processing.
 
Sigh... I've probably already wasted more time by dragging out this pointless argument than all the "wasted processing" Mafia has ever done put together. (But less than the amount it wasted by waiting an entire second in each wumpus room, before I put if's on each wait...) Can we just get back to the bug reports and stuff?
 
Veracity said:
What do you think waitq(0) should do? "Wait for 0 seconds". Umm.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would have expected that waitq(0) would essentially do nothing. I'm gonna add that the minimum wait is 1 to the wiki.

Edit: minimum wait of 1 second added to wiki pages for wait() and waitq(). Hopefully someone will check the wiki before making that assumption in the future.
 
Last edited:
heeheehee said:
I'm surprised that it doesn't generate an error a la random(), to be honest.
Click to expand...

But random(0) is asking for x such that 0 <= x < 0. That doesn't work even in limit.
On the other hand, waitq(0) waiting for 0 seconds could make sense if ASH had cooperative multithreading (where it would be one of the ways to relinquish control to another thread).

However, I would still prefer waitq(0) to be an error rather than equivalent to waitq(1). If people can be surprised by what it does (some are surprised it's not an error, some are surprised it waits for different amount of time than requested), it's better when they are force to write non-surprising code instead.
 
Guyy, I updated and then ran the script a few moments ago and it performed flawlessly. Thank you once again for this script. =)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top