SRL Archive - General

What should we do? Honestly, I feel it's nothing but a big clusterfuck (pardon my language). There are a lot of things in there that aren't being used, probably because people just don't want to develop that part of MSI. Could be too challenging or because reflection seems to be going strong, who knows.

Either way, I feel something needs to be done. I think we have a few options.

1. Delete it altogether and go 100% reflection walking.[INDENT]Pros
Cleans up the include and we don't have to worry about compatibility. Cons We have nothing but powerskillers if reflection goes down again.[/INDENT]
2. Clean it up a little.[INDENT]Get rid of all the functions that aren't really used (most of the original functions written by Blumblebee) and just use Garrett's WalkTPA function/radial walking failsafes.[/INDENT]
3. Leave it the way it is.[INDENT]Just keep going the way we are and hope someone begins developing some parts. There are also more options for TPA walking if we were to keep what we have.[/INDENT]

Anyway, it's open for discussion. I want to see what you guys think. :)

I say either 2 or 3.

I'm not interested in ditching colour walking.

I say that if BlumbleBee or someone else knows how to use his TPA walk stuff well then write a tut on how to use that, and I can write a tut on how to use mine, and we (the SLs or whoever wants to contribute walking) can decide which one we would rather use. If there is a mix, use one, and if there is only one, then only keep that one.

From: 3Garrett3
I say either 2 or 3.

I'm not interested in ditching colour walking.

I say that if BlumbleBee or someone else knows how to use his TPA walk stuff well then write a tut on how to use that, and I can write a tut on how to use mine, and we (the SLs or whoever wants to contribute walking) can decide which one we would rather use. If there is a mix, use one, and if there is only one, then only keep that one.

If you read it, it's quite self explanatory/easy to follow.

I say number 3, maybe number 2.

I beginning to have more time so I can start writing a lot of it, at least to make sure each skill has at least one color walker always.

I feel that the best way to color walk has and always will be DDTMs. If you take a look at my RM Runner you will see the system I used is a path of DDTMs ( each click is a DDTM). So if you guys want to use this or dont have better ideas I could whip something up similar.

From: lordsaturn
I feel that the best way to color walk has and always will be DDTMs. If you take a look at my RM Runner you will see the system I used is a path of DDTMs ( each click is a DDTM). So if you guys want to use this or dont have better ideas I could whip something up similar.

Well, our item DTMs are already dynamic, so we could add points to there (although that would be disorganized/confusing). The LoadDTM function itself could be modified if needed, but now that I think about it, having many options may be the best way to go. Some may be better for different areas, and some people will prefer some other others.

I think it makes sense to have all of it, because TPA walking isn't always the best option.

From: lordsaturn
I feel that the best way to color walk has and always will be DDTMs. If you take a look at my RM Runner you will see the system I used is a path of DDTMs ( each click is a DDTM). So if you guys want to use this or dont have better ideas I could whip something up similar.

From: Coh3n
Well, our item DTMs are already dynamic, so we could add points to there (although that would be disorganized/confusing). The LoadDTM function itself could be modified if needed, but now that I think about it, having many options may be the best way to go. Some may be better for different areas, and some people will prefer some other others.

I agree that this may work well in some areas, but we have a quite a few paths that don't have much on the mini map for quite some distance. In these instances I find it easiest to find the ground color on the mini map InRange of a certain distance and walk to it, then loop through that until a certain "landmark" is found.

However, DDTM's could potentially be very effective in certain situations as well.

With that being said, I don't believe our color walking could be replaced with DDTM's, but rather, incorporate them into the waling where they fit. At the very least though, I don't see why these wouldn't work well as failsafe's where appropriate.

From: NCDS
With that being said, I don't believe our color walking could be replaced with DDTM's, but rather, incorporate them into the waling where they fit.

Is what I meant. I guess having more options may help get more people interested in the development.

To make things more organized, we could have a DDTMs.simba where we have MSI_LoadDTM, MSI_GetItemColor, MSI_GetDTMPoints plus any additional functions we would need for walking DDTMs.

Then, we would still load the items/walk points in they're respective files, like we do now.

From: Coh3n
Is what I meant. I guess having more options may help get more people interested in the development.

To make things more organized, we could have a DDTMs.simba where we have MSI_LoadDTM, MSI_GetItemColor, MSI_GetDTMPoints plus any additional functions we would need for walking DDTMs.

Then, we would still load the items/walk points in they're respective files, like we do now.

If we do this, that certainly seems to be the way to go.