SRL Archive - Discussions and Debates

I was just thinking of this, thought id like to share!

On random failure why not just "wait 10 minutes" log back in and then fail the event and use make it so it uses the lumbridge or burthrope loadstone?

I figure adapting 99% of scripts to return to their spot after loadingstoning won't be too complex, things like runespan by zpan are built to work perfectly regardless of location.

Sorry it was like a weird brain spasm and it just came out :p
Tell me how that sounds in logic wise, (I am really tired, either this is really stupid or actually a good idea.. I will find out when I read it after sleeping!)

From: R4nd0m
I was just thinking of this, thought id like to share!

On random failure why not just "wait 10 minutes" log back in and then fail the event and use make it so it uses the lumbridge or burthrope loadstone?

I figure adapting 99% of scripts to return to their spot after loadingstoning won't be too complex, things like runespan by zpan are built to work perfectly regardless of location.

Sorry it was like a weird brain spasm and it just came out :p
Tell me how that sounds in logic wise, (I am really tired, either this is really stupid or actually a good idea.. I will find out when I read it after sleeping!)

I liked this idea. I am thinking with the lodestone update, we can try either Edgeville lodestone for f2p/p2p and Burthrope for p2p. Both are few clicks from a bank and should be very nice bot respawn hubs ;)

I'll look into whipping something up when I feel more energized :P Still having that post-vacation fatigue… ;)

I think about this all the time- that and women… lost brainwave, brother?

This is a good idea, but I don't think it would be good to implement it publicly. I'm not entirely sure about how the whole "failing randoms" system works, but I do know that after being logged out from prison pete, when I logged back in it told me I had to wait 9 more minutes until I could leave. Maybe I got back to the computer 6 minutes after I had gotten the random, I'm not too sure.

But either way, isn't it more believable that someone lost connection upon entering a random as compared to opting to wait out the random until they can fail out? I think it would also be odd for a large number of players to suddenly start waiting for the 15 minutes to be up when getting pete/leo and then continuing to play.

Could be great for private use though :) I just think it wouldn't be safe to implement it as part of SRL.

From: Runaway
This is a good idea, but I don't think it would be good to implement it publicly. I'm not entirely sure about how the whole "failing randoms" system works, but I do know that after being logged out from prison pete, when I logged back in it told me I had to wait 9 more minutes until I could leave. Maybe I got back to the computer 6 minutes after I had gotten the random, I'm not too sure.

But either way, isn't it more believable that someone lost connection upon entering a random as compared to opting to wait out the random until they can fail out? I think it would also be odd for a large number of players to suddenly start waiting for the 15 minutes to be up when getting pete/leo and then continuing to play.

Could be great for private use though :) I just think it wouldn't be safe to implement it as part of SRL.

Some people might prefer this, some might not, just make a Boolean.

Why not give the user the Option where they should be take?
With the Load Stone they could go to any.
Mat

From: John
Some people might prefer this, some might not, just make a Boolean.

Should definitely be false by default though :S

From: Mat
Why not give the user the Option where they should be take?
With the Load Stone they could go to any.
Mat

Could be something like (for private use):

if FindNormalRandoms then
begin
  if not LoggedIn then
  begin
    FailedRandom := True;
    MarkTime(t);
    while (not LoggedIn) and (TimeFromMark(t) < 15 * 60000) do
    begin
      Wait(10000);
      // Print time remaining...
      // Whatever...
    end;
    FailedRandomRecovery('edgeville');
  end;
end;

Or whatever works…

We are going to be failing the randoms anyway, I'm sure they log which ones we have failed and how many times tho it must be a dead give away for them when reviewing our accounts wouldn't you think? No point not doing it it's just wasted botting time.

Imo I would rather it log out and let me solve it when I find out it failed. Just seems too fishy to me to just wait to fail on all the failed randoms.