Rika2009-04-03 20:18:11
Llandros2009-04-03 20:20:50
QUOTE (Celina @ Apr 3 2009, 04:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I was kinda hoping that he wasn't speaking to Charune in the third person, but I guess no luck there.
Unknown2009-04-03 20:22:13
QUOTE (Llandros @ Apr 3 2009, 08:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
First off, you should haxx the game to get a better nativity.
I think Revan did this. I remember doing a nativity on him and all of his signs were Skull or Skull (retrograde).
EDIT: Made an alt to do a nativity just now:
QUOTE
306h, 342m, 306e, 0p ex-nativity revan
He is 148 years old, having been born on the 5th of Estar, 84 years after the
Coming of Estarra.
On that date:
Sun was in the sign of the Skull.
{ Dementia } Moon was in the sign of the Glacier.
{ Sensitivity } Eroee was in the sign of the Skull (retrograde).
{ Stupidity } Sidiak was in the sign of the Skull (retrograde).
{ Recklessness } Tarox was in the sign of the Skull (retrograde).
{ -20% hp } Papaxi was in the sign of the Spider.
{ Aeon } Aapek was in the sign of the Skull (retrograde).
He is 148 years old, having been born on the 5th of Estar, 84 years after the
Coming of Estarra.
On that date:
Sun was in the sign of the Skull.
{ Dementia } Moon was in the sign of the Glacier.
{ Sensitivity } Eroee was in the sign of the Skull (retrograde).
{ Stupidity } Sidiak was in the sign of the Skull (retrograde).
{ Recklessness } Tarox was in the sign of the Skull (retrograde).
{ -20% hp } Papaxi was in the sign of the Spider.
{ Aeon } Aapek was in the sign of the Skull (retrograde).
Unknown2009-04-03 20:49:07
QUOTE (Charune @ Apr 3 2009, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Apparently more than I thought, because you keep posting this.
Incorrect for all of this. I have access to every version of code that's been used in Lusternia. The first version of Sacraments when the game was created had this issue. The cause is an extra check between infidel->inquisition that is not present in the heretic->infidel change. As for when I realized it, I saw this as being a possibility much earlier but did not test it til later.
Not rare at all in groups.
As far as the change to prevent the aura from staying open, even when it opened it would have still be cured by focus spirit, rendering the point moot. It would have required multiple focus spirits, but it would have still cleared it.
Incorrect for all of this. I have access to every version of code that's been used in Lusternia. The first version of Sacraments when the game was created had this issue. The cause is an extra check between infidel->inquisition that is not present in the heretic->infidel change. As for when I realized it, I saw this as being a possibility much earlier but did not test it til later.
Not rare at all in groups.
As far as the change to prevent the aura from staying open, even when it opened it would have still be cured by focus spirit, rendering the point moot. It would have required multiple focus spirits, but it would have still cleared it.
I'm quite certain Charune understands the code better than you and wouldn't be lying when he said "I added a typo that made focus spirit cure the inquisition change when done after infidel on envoys AND forums". Secondly, you repeated what I said about the checks proving what Charune and I have been saying is correct the whole time. Thank you and please stop talking now.
Rika2009-04-03 20:50:32
I'm actually confused now. Is he trying to be funny or is he actually that oblivious?k
Celina2009-04-03 20:54:34
QUOTE (rika @ Apr 3 2009, 03:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm actually confused now. Is he trying to be funny or is he actually that oblivious?k
I think he's referring to a Charune before this one.
Shamarah2009-04-03 20:56:21
QUOTE (talkans @ Apr 3 2009, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm quite certain Charune understands the code better than you and wouldn't be lying when he said "I added a typo that made focus spirit cure the inquisition change when done after infidel on envoys AND forums". Secondly, you repeated what I said about the checks proving what Charune and I have been saying is correct the whole time. Thank you and please stop talking now.
I'm so confused, why are you talking to Charune in both the second and third person?
Charune2009-04-03 20:59:08
QUOTE (Shamarah @ Apr 3 2009, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm so confused, why are you talking to Charune in both the second and third person?
Yeah, I'm a bit confused. If he wants to be delusional, he's free to be, but the facts were posted on the previous page for anyone curious.
Unknown2009-04-03 21:09:50
QUOTE (Shamarah @ Apr 3 2009, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm so confused, why are you talking to Charune in both the second and third person?
Dude, keep up. The posts are to Ethelon. Ethelon is calling Charune a liar. I'm defending him.
Shamarah2009-04-03 21:10:54
... What? Where?
Rika2009-04-03 21:11:41
Talkan just ganked us all with his inability to communicate properly.
Celina2009-04-03 21:13:11
Someone in this thread...is nuts, and for once it's not me.
Unknown2009-04-03 21:23:27
QUOTE (Shamarah @ Apr 3 2009, 05:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
... What? Where?
Where he said that he had the code in front of him and it's been a certain way since the beginning of time. Charune has out right told Ethelon that is not the case, but if Ethelon were to agree with Charune on this point, Ethelon wouldn't have two legs or a foundation to cry upon, so he's continuing his Charune is a liar campaign.
Jack2009-04-03 21:23:41
QUOTE (Malicia @ Apr 3 2009, 01:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
especially as Celestines
CELESTINES ARE OP NERF PRS
Shaddus2009-04-03 21:25:20
QUOTE (Celina @ Apr 3 2009, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Someone in this thread...is nuts, and for once it's not me.
Nor is it me. Interesting.
Jack2009-04-03 21:25:42
Yo, do I get to be nuts still? It's kind of my thing.
Shaddus2009-04-03 21:27:24
You know? I think Talkan is confusing Charune's pic with Ethelon's, and thinks Ethelon has been posting here.
Llandros2009-04-03 21:28:02
QUOTE (talkans @ Apr 3 2009, 05:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Where he said that he had the code in front of him and it's been a certain way since the beginning of time. Charune has out right told Ethelon that is not the case, but if Ethelon were to agree with Charune on this point, Ethelon wouldn't have two legs or a foundation to cry upon, so he's continuing his Charune is a liar campaign.
I'm trying really hard to understand you but i'm coming up blank. Perhaps you should start at the begining and make sure you are posting in the right thread.
Unknown2009-04-03 21:29:24
Oh for ****s sake. I am going crazy.
Anyway, you explicitly said on the envoys channel that you added a typo to the inquisition line, Charune.
And, as you state, the bug fix happened in March, 2008 which is exactly when the problem began arising. Before this, even though focus spirit was widely known to hide the glow, there was never a report of it stopping the inquisition chain. When you fixed the 'bug' you created another.
Anyway, you explicitly said on the envoys channel that you added a typo to the inquisition line, Charune.
QUOTE (Charune @ Feb 28 2009, 12:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I have the code right in front of me, from as far as 2004 until today, February 27. Focus spirit-ing while hereticed has only stopped the glow. It did not interfere with the inquisition itself because the check that controls going from heretic->infidel is not as comprehensive as the one between infidel->inquisition. This is what prevents the continuation of the line and inability to inquisition.
What might have made the difference is the aura closing bug. I haven't investigated it fully but it being present may have allowed it to continue under infidel. However, diagnosing would have revealed it gone.
The other possible explanation for the log is that you have no way of knowing if the heretic-related things were cured because no message is shown. In addition, there's a 25% chance of total failure when using focus spirit. However with enough data points this can become more of a non-issue.
Edit: The more I think about it the more I can't remember if it was curing infidel entirely or simply preventing the transition from infidel to inquisition. It definitely includes the latter, though.
What might have made the difference is the aura closing bug. I haven't investigated it fully but it being present may have allowed it to continue under infidel. However, diagnosing would have revealed it gone.
The other possible explanation for the log is that you have no way of knowing if the heretic-related things were cured because no message is shown. In addition, there's a 25% chance of total failure when using focus spirit. However with enough data points this can become more of a non-issue.
Edit: The more I think about it the more I can't remember if it was curing infidel entirely or simply preventing the transition from infidel to inquisition. It definitely includes the latter, though.
QUOTE (Charune @ Feb 28 2009, 12:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Being able to get inquisition without the aura opening up (whether or not the glow was seen) was a bug and fixed in March, 2008. The opened aura was not being shut off when moved from heretic->infidel, hence being able to inquisition immediately when infideled without any new opened aura.
The glow is tied to both. Focus spirit during heretic stopped the glow and you could still infidel on it. Focus spirit while infideled made/makes it impossible to continue to inquisition (Assuming the focus spirit hit the curing for the inquisition line.)
The glow is tied to both. Focus spirit during heretic stopped the glow and you could still infidel on it. Focus spirit while infideled made/makes it impossible to continue to inquisition (Assuming the focus spirit hit the curing for the inquisition line.)
And, as you state, the bug fix happened in March, 2008 which is exactly when the problem began arising. Before this, even though focus spirit was widely known to hide the glow, there was never a report of it stopping the inquisition chain. When you fixed the 'bug' you created another.
Casilu2009-04-03 21:30:23
I didn't have a headache before. Now I do.