Current Known Issues (Jun. 8)

[Murphie]

Re: Current Known Issues (Jun. 8)

I thought the main thrust of his complaint was the need for any sort of specific targeting when manually entering commands. If it wasn't, then feel free to ignore my post above.

[Caspian]

Re: Current Known Issues (Jun. 8)

ok, yeah, maybe im totally wrong.

i always just put <t> or whatever in my macros, just b/c I'm too lazy to hit enter afterward. As for typing it out, I rarely type out commands anyway.

[LyonheartLakshmi]

Re: Current Known Issues (Jun. 8)

I guess if you're typing out the commands, the capitalization of <t> is a bit tough. It requires a shifted key, then a non-shifted key, and then a shifted key. So it's easy to mess up.

[Amele]

Re: Current Known Issues (Jun. 8)

the core complaint was that no longer is it possible to:

/ta Name
/ma sp-{tab complete} {enter}

you would now need to:
/ta Name
/ma sp-{tab complete} <t> {enter} (+4 keystrokes, 3 of which are difficult to do without error at speeds above ~100wpm where the client's function buttons (ctrl,alt,shift, etc) start to respond too slow)


in most cases, this can be replaced by simply doing: /ma spell Name, but in some circumstances this is going to slow you down. (like /as Name, /ma spell, is now /as name, /ma spell <t>)
it's also absurd that now you can do:

/ma "BLIzzaga iiI" <t>

but can't do

/ma "BLizzaga iiI" <T>

since it means that -part- of the parse code is written caseless but other parts are cased. (it appears that the portion that identifies the token between quotes is now caseless, along with direct name translation, but not any other parts of the parser. this is especially cumbersome at high wordspeeds (I think it's near 60wpm on ps2, and ~100 on pc; dunno about xbox) you can outtype the shift key state change.

I guess to be clear, I couldn't care less what this does to macros, since those are written in downtime and could be as precise or obtuse as necessary for the game code to determine your intention.

if I have a target and I type the line in myself, there's no reason that the parser should be written to *fail* that line. especially given how the direct input function has worked historically.