Jump to content
DavidW

Jarno confusions

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, DavidW said:

it does a column count on mxbrdspl.2da and concludes that bards have spells up to level 8, and so it assumes that spell_level_to_caster_level("bard"  "8") ought to be set to something (the level at which bards get level 8 spells) but then when it goes through the file, it never actually discovers any such level, and so the variable remains unset. Then it chokes when it tries to use that variable.

That would be a good explanation, except that it's completely untrue, as you can see the 1's at and after level 29th. As quoted:

11 hours ago, Caedwyr said:

SET $level(8) = level < 29 ? 0 : level < 35 ? 1 : 2

Aka, if level is less than 29, set the value to zero, if it's above 28 and less than 35, set it to 1 ... is this really that hard to read ?  😮

 

Aka, just look at the printed file in the subtledoctors post. The thing is, the original game didn't have a 8th level spells for bards... but a RR moded ones have. Which is why I said the thing above ... now, I just wonder:

12 hours ago, DavidW said:

As usual, people should ignore Jarno, who hasn’t the faintest idea what he’s talking about in 90% of situations.

 

EDIT: so it can be referenced:

2DA  V1.0
0
     1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8
2    1    0    0    0    0    0    0    0
3    2    0    0    0    0    0    0    0
4    2    1    0    0    0    0    0    0
5    3    1    0    0    0    0    0    0
6    3    2    0    0    0    0    0    0
7    3    2    1    0    0    0    0    0
8    3    3    1    0    0    0    0    0
9    3    3    2    0    0    0    0    0
10   3    3    2    1    0    0    0    0
11   3    3    3    1    0    0    0    0
12   3    3    3    2    0    0    0    0
13   3    3    3    2    1    0    0    0
14   3    3    3    3    1    0    0    0
15   3    3    3    3    2    0    0    0
16   4    3    3    3    2    1    0    0
17   4    4    3    3    3    1    0    0
18   4    4    4    3    3    2    0    0
19   4    4    4    4    3    2    0    0
20   4    4    4    4    4    3    0    0
21   4    4    4    4    4    4    1    0
22   4    4    4    4    4    4    2    0
23   4    4    4    4    4    4    3    0
24   4    4    4    4    4    4    4    0
25   5    5    4    4    4    4    4    0
26   5    5    5    5    4    4    4    0
27   5    5    5    5    5    5    4    0
28   6    5    5    5    5    5    5    0
29   6    6    5    5    5    5    5    1

 

Edited by Jarno Mikkola

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going to create a new thread here to move inaccurate or confused comments by Jarno, since they're cluttering my main release thread.

Share this post


Link to post

What I said:

Quote

OK, reproduced (and identified) on Caedwyr's copy of mxsplbrd.2da.

If you'd bothered to actually download the file in Caedwyr's post, and not just guessed at its content and accused others of lying or incompetence on that basis, you'd have seen that it does, indeed, have all zeroes in its last column.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, DavidW said:

What I said:

If you'd bothered to actually download the file in Caedwyr's post, and not just guessed at its content and accused others of lying or incompetence on that basis, you'd have seen that it does, indeed, have all zeroes in its last column.

There are a lot of very smart people in this world who have the general expertise and intuition to allow them to make stunningly accurate assumptions with very limited or virtually no information/evidence to base those assumptions on. However, those same very smart people would come across as total fools to everyone else if they, say, became completely full of themselves and started constantly making unwise or flat-out incorrect assumptions on situations where they do not have either the necessary expertise or the intuition to do it correctly (or at least correctly enough to provide value to others). Though people might start assuming such a person is stupid, it doesn't actually necessarily mean they are - but it does mean they'll continue to be thought to be until they wisen up and learn to stop constantly opening their mouths about things they don't know enough about. Knowing when you don't know enough to confidently speak about something, and keeping in mind that there's always more to learn from others are two very valuable skills.

This message, obviously, is not directed at you, DavidW.

Share this post


Link to post

That's fine.

Alright then, so you are saying that your code has a switch that assumes the zero will eventually be something else... and it fails in the case it's not. So you'll then next time try to make the function not fail if it comes with the same thing again.

Now, I'll just expect to be able to see the working code at some point...

Great.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jarno Mikkola said:

That's fine.

Alright then, so you are saying that your code has a switch that assumes the zero will eventually be something else... and it fails in the case it's not. So you'll then next time try to make the function not fail if it comes with the same thing again.

Now, I'll just expect to be able to see the working code at some point...

Great.

Correct. The “working code” is now live, in v33.3.

Share this post


Link to post

Incidentally, for third parties: note that

(i) Jarno makes rude and insulting claims on the basis of false information

(ii) it is pointed out to him that his claims are based on false information

(iii) there is no apology and no acknowledgement of error

 

This is why I advise people not to pay attention to him.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, DavidW said:

(iii) there is no apology and no acknowledgement of error

This is why I advise people not to pay attention to him.

Hah ha, you are funny, you are killing me man, well, trying. Figuratively at least*.
 
I must apologise, for my opponents naivety. For this being the internet age, and we being on the internet. Being it so, there are enough people here that you ought to apologise, if for nothing else then for having been born. And thus so, we ought to rethink the need. And I have said previously that there's no need to apologise, I don't expect it, and neither should you. Aka; grow up man/mam.

That being said: I haven't seen many requests to apology from you either in the SCS v33 threads, for bugs in it, so you might have already taken the less strenuous approach that I approve. Just saying.
 
16 hours ago, DavidW said:

(i) Jarno makes rude and insulting claims

That's your perspective... but here's another, you claim that the liches use the Improved Invisibility in the BG2, which they don't, like I showed you. Or at least I didn't see a case where they did. I also might be wrong, but I highly doubt that.

I don't know if that is rude... there's a language barrier there, that might come off as being rude, while it's not intended. Just the facts. Cause I might suspect that this entire thread is just to get back at me for that.

*being ignored is death in the internet, just in case you didn't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...