SRL Archive - MSI Suggestions

Atm, we have two different paths.

Why don't we just revert the path.. ?

~RM

while we're at it why don't allow the ability for multiple paths to be used? I know all the scripts I've written in reflection have had 2-3 randomized paths

From: Blumblebee
while we're at it why don't allow the ability for multiple paths to be used? I know all the scripts I've written in reflection have had 2-3 randomized paths

That's the way to go. We should have at least 2 paths with randomness on the tile's if you can do that.

@RM, I agree with you.

@Blumblebee/NCDS, I've been thinking a lot about Mouse/MMouse/paths in general. Here's how I see it.

I'd like to have a very inhuman straight path that is simply straight lines. That would be the path that's set. Every time the path is ran (or when loaded, I suppose), it will add a randomness of 2-3 (or more, but I think 2-3 would be best, as it should work with any path, anywhere), and then the next tile would be based of the current tile, rather than the path (as I've only seen paths with a for to do loop, and clicking Tile + Random(3), if you understand that. However, this would mean the path could always (in theory) be an added three tiles to Tile.y (or Tile.x), and it could easily be lost. To work with that, it could readjust itself if it moves 10 tiles away from the path (or 5, 7, 22, whatever works best (or user-defined, perhaps? I like the user-defined option, as some places (VEM versus a wide open space with trees, where you can easily walk 10 tiles south/north of your path and not accidentally walk through a gate, for example) would need more or less "comfortable" spacing than others)), by having the next tile to click be within the current tile and the very straight and defined path. I really like this idea, of going off the current tile rather than the predefined path, as it gives MUCH more randomness, and reverting it would be just as random.

However, I'm sure that just recording a messy "real" path and adding 2-3 randomness based on that path would suffice, it wouldn't be as random, and there's no "cushioning" function for that as of now (could be added, but it would be more tricky than my suggestion).

From: i luffs yeww
@RM, I agree with you.

@Blumblebee/NCDS, I've been thinking a lot about Mouse/MMouse/paths in general. Here's how I see it.

I'd like to have a very inhuman straight path that is simply straight lines. That would be the path that's set. Every time the path is ran (or when loaded, I suppose), it will add a randomness of 2-3 (or more, but I think 2-3 would be best, as it should work with any path, anywhere), and then the next tile would be based of the current tile, rather than the path (as I've only seen paths with a for to do loop, and clicking Tile + Random(3), if you understand that. However, this would mean the path could always (in theory) be an added three tiles to Tile.y (or Tile.x), and it could easily be lost. To work with that, it could readjust itself if it moves 10 tiles away from the path (or 5, 7, 22, whatever works best (or user-defined, perhaps? I like the user-defined option, as some places (VEM versus a wide open space with trees, where you can easily walk 10 tiles south/north of your path and not accidentally walk through a gate, for example) would need more or less "comfortable" spacing than others)), by having the next tile to click be within the current tile and the very straight and defined path. I really like this idea, of going off the current tile rather than the predefined path, as it gives MUCH more randomness, and reverting it would be just as random.

However, I'm sure that just recording a messy "real" path and adding 2-3 randomness based on that path would suffice, it wouldn't be as random, and there's no "cushioning" function for that as of now (could be added, but it would be more tricky than my suggestion).

I actually had the same idea, but I'd rather have one that doesn't have any possibility of getting lost.

When I make reflection paths, I usually include as many points I can, makes the script randomize it a bit, and then makes it click the first point that is ~3 tiles from the edge of the MM, and then wait a bit. Makes the walking much more human than click, wait until character isn't moving, repeat

To answer zytex, I think that every half minimap is a good measure to use with FFlag(10)
(note: not R_FFLag)

as for the rest, I love ian's idea the most. And this should avoid it getting lost:

const
  PATH_SPACE = 3;

function WalkPath(Path: TTileArray):boolean;
var
  CurrentOffSet, NewOffSet, NextTile, i, l: integer;
  b: boolean;
begin
  l := Length(Path);

  for i:= 0 to l do
  begin
 
    if RBool then
      NewOffSet := Random(PATH_SPACE)
    else
      NewOffSet := - Random(PATH_SPACE);

    //ClosestTile allows to use the FFLags well
    NextTile := ClosestTile(Path) - CurrentOffSet + NewOffSet;

    CurrentOffSet := NewOffSet;

    //walking stuff
  end;
end;

This way it adjusts it every point and adds (extra) randomness every point.
and then we can add the usual randomness on top if we want.

~RM

^ That's exactly what I meant. :) Again, the thing I like most (this is kind of a tl;dr for my previous post) is that there would be a very easy and defined way for "cushioning." If it goes too far one way or the other, it's very simple to get it back on track. And there are many more options for the path than just adding 2-3 randomness based on the predetermined path.

From: Rasta Magician
Atm, we have two different paths.

Why don't we just revert the path.. ?

~RM

I said this on another thread, but it was because of how the walking was originally setup. It was to avoid walking to the point the player would be at (the first point of the path). But now since it looks for the last point in the path first we can have one path, then invert it.

@everything else: I honestly don't see why people make so much fuss over random walking paths or the like. Say you have 7 points in a path, each with a randomness of 4, that's 100s of possible path combinations. IMO, people try to unnecessarily overcomplicate things. There's no point in having different paths when the chances of walking the same path twice is very small to begin with. It's just unnecessary code.

^ While I would normally agree with you, I don't see why adding this simple change shouldn't happen. It wouldn't take much time at all, and it would make the chance at two of the same paths even less likely. :)

From: i luffs yeww
^ While I would normally agree with you, I don't see why adding this simple change shouldn't happen. It wouldn't take much time at all, and it would make the chance at two of the same paths even less likely. :)

It shouldn't happen because it's pointless. It doesn't do anything but apparently add more randomness. You're walking to and from the same place over and over again. It doesn't matter how much randomness you think you're adding, you're still walking the same path.

What do you hope to accomplish by doing this? Less bans? I can almost guarantee you that it won't make a difference. I just don't see the point.

E: If you know how I feel about autoresponders, this is pretty much the same thing…

Not necessarily less bans. Possibly, though. And I don't care if this gets added, I just think it'd be something nifty to add. :) Sorry, not trying to upset you. :<

From: Coh3n
It shouldn't happen because it's pointless. It doesn't do anything but apparently add more randomness. You're walking to and from the same place over and over again. It doesn't matter how much randomness you think you're adding, you're still walking the same path.

What do you hope to accomplish by doing this? Less bans? I can almost guarantee you that it won't make a difference. I just don't see the point.

E: If you know how I feel about autoresponders, this is pretty much the same thing…

I know where your coming from, no worries. :)

Really, as long as it's not clicking the same tiles over and over I don't care. I'm just not that familiar with reflection so I wanted to make sure that was the case.

From: i luffs yeww
Not necessarily less bans. Possibly, though. And I don't care if this gets added, I just think it'd be something nifty to add. :) Sorry, not trying to upset you. :<

Lol I wasn't upset at all, sorry it if seemed that way. :p I just don't think it's necessary. That doesn't meant it won't get added. Just stating my opinion. ^^

I don't find it necessary, although I find it cool :p

~RM

:p Well it may be cool, unnecessary, and a waste of time, but things like this is what sets us apart from RID/RSBot/iBot/etc., to be honest. I don't see why we shouldn't go above and beyond whenever we can.

Trying to go above and beyond when could be really good and really bad. You need to pick when the best times are. I don't think this is the right time. Also, I think the concept of MSI is already above and beyond anything else.

I agree with you that the concept is much better than any other bot/community, but that doesn't mean that the actual product of it is. I don't see why this would be detrimental to anything.

And adding this would make the product better? Needlessly adding things can make things more complicated (or not) or cause some bugs that easily could have been avoided.

I don't see anything beneficial from adding this. :rolleyes:

Bleh. This isn't helping my point, but I see no reason to even argue about this. If it happens, cool. If not, cool. I'll work on it later today. Maybe you'll like it for some reason. :p

From: i luffs yeww
Bleh. This isn't helping my point, but I see no reason to even argue about this. If it happens, cool. If not, cool. I'll work on it later today. Maybe you'll like it for some reason. :p

That's a good attitude to have. :) (and no, I'm not being sarcastic.)