Something That Ticks Me Off About How Warriors Are Treated by KeyPresses
Orion Ryder
noticed that the warrior has no rage and attempts to swing via a
special attack such as devastate or heroic strike he gets a "Not
Enough Rage"
Ok. why not just have him do a regular attack provided he is in range
for it.
Perhaps the people that write the specs can't figure out that a
programmer can program the game to know the difference between whether
the warrior does a swinging attack or a shield slam or Thunderclap.
Okay, rant over
Back to work
OH! OH! OH!
Orion
Insane Ranter
I turned that "Not enough rage" shit off a looooooong time ago
Ashen Shugar
something like...
Hmmm, I'm not positive about what you're getting at, but are you
wanting the program to start the warrior auto-attacking if they're not
already and you press the key to do a devastate or such, or do you
want the game to put in an extra 'white' attack whenever you try to do
a special melee attack but don't have the rage for it?
Ashen Shugar
--
The lions sing and the hills take flight.
The moon by day, and the sun by night.
Blind woman, deaf man, jackdaw fool.
Let the Lord of Chaos rule!
John Gordon
> Ok. why not just have him do a regular attack provided he is in range
> for it.
You mean to start auto-attacking? You can do this yourself with a macro.
Instead of dragging, say, Devastate to your action bar, instead make a
macro that does two things:
/cast Devastate
/startattack
You can make similar macros for shield slam, heroic strike, etc.
--
John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gor...@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
-- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
Orion Ryder
> In <0b0631fe-0afa-417e-9db5-f6d45efec...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> Orion Ryder <orionry...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > Ok. why not just have him do a regular attack provided he is in range
> > for it.
>
> You mean to start auto-attacking? You can do this yourself with a macro.
>
> Instead of dragging, say, Devastate to your action bar, instead make a
> macro that does two things:
>
> /cast Devastate
> /startattack
>
> You can make similar macros for shield slam, heroic strike, etc.
>
> --
> John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
> gor...@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
> -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
Yes you are right. That can be done.
But why should I have to do that?
I think it is pretty obvious that the intention is to attack.
It should happen by design within the programming.
Orion
Orion Ryder
> I think it was Orion Ryder <orionry...@hotmail.com> that wrote
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can't tell if you are asking the same question twice.
Sorry I just had to throw that in there. :)
Orion
Insane Ranter
Doesn't it already start auto attack without a macro for all if not
most warrior attacks?
John Gordon
> Doesn't it already start auto attack without a macro for all if not
> most warrior attacks?
Not if you lack rage, which is exactly Orion's complaint.
Brian Westley
>On Nov 11, 10:55 am, John Gordon <gor...@panix.com> wrote:
>ion Ryder <orionry...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > Ok. why not just have him do a regular attack provided he is in range
>> > for it.
>>
>> You mean to start auto-attacking? You can do this yourself with a macro.
>>
>> Instead of dragging, say, Devastate to your action bar, instead make a
>> macro that does two things:
>>
>> /cast Devastate
>> /startattack
>>
>> You can make similar macros for shield slam, heroic strike, etc.
>>
>> --
>> John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
>> gor...@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
>> -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
>Yes you are right. That can be done.
>But why should I have to do that?
>I think it is pretty obvious that the intention is to attack.
>It should happen by design within the programming.
Nope. It's much more flexible to have the attack fail and to
fall through, because while you want /startattack, other people
will want other things. If a failed Devastate succeeds by doing
/startattack, other people can't have other things trigger.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Orion Ryder
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not asking for a "failed" devastate to "succeed".
Just asking for a "Not enough rage" devastate to at least let off a
"successful" regular aattack.
Outside of that I don't know what you mean by "...,other people can't
have other things trigger."
Orion
Brian Westley
>On Nov 13, 4:42=A0pm, Brian Westley <west...@visi.com> wrote:
>> Orion Ryder <orionry...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> >On Nov 11, 10:55 am, John Gordon <gor...@panix.com> wrote:
> Or=3D
>> >ion Ryder <orionry...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> > Ok. why not just have him do a regular attack provided he is in rang=
>e
>> >> > for it.
>>
>> >> You mean to start auto-attacking? =A0You can do this yourself with a m=
>acro.
>>
>> >> Instead of dragging, say, Devastate to your action bar, instead make a
>> >> macro that does two things:
>>
>> >> =A0 /startattack
>>
>> >> You can make similar macros for shield slam, heroic strike, etc.
>>
>> >> --
> down the stairs
>> >> gor...@panix.com =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0B is for Basil, assaulted =
>by bears
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -- Edw=
>ard Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
>> >Yes you are right. That can be done.
>> >But why should I have to do that?
>> >I think it is pretty obvious that the intention is to attack.
>> >It should happen by design within the programming.
>>
>> fall through, because while you want /startattack, other people
>> /startattack, other people can't have other things trigger.
>>
>> ---
>> Merlyn LeRoy- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>I'm not asking for a "failed" devastate to "succeed".
Yes, you are.
>Just asking for a "Not enough rage" devastate to at least let off a
>"successful" regular aattack.
Right there. You just made an unsuccessful Devastate become
successful, because it did something.
>Outside of that I don't know what you mean by "...,other people can't
>have other things trigger."
Obviously. Another player might want to trigger some rage-generating
action, for just one example.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In <ae5e8bfc-d72d-491c...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
> Insane Ranter <log...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Doesn't it already start auto attack without a macro for all if not
> > most warrior attacks?
>
> Not if you lack rage, which is exactly Orion's complaint.
It certainly seems to silly to me when hunters will automatically switch
over to auto-attack if they're OOM. It's an annoyance on my druid
whenever I shift into feral form.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Orion Ryder
I'm not sure why you would say that the "Devastate became successful".
If the regular attack goes off then the Devastate is "not successful"
and the regular attack is "successful".
The problem for me is not that the Devastate is not successful. The
problem for me is that it does not at least give you a regular attack,
one that does nto require rage.
> >Outside of that I don't know what you mean by "...,other people can't
> >have other things trigger."
>
> Obviously. Another player might want to trigger some rage-generating
> action, for just one example.
A regular attack will generate "some" rage. So if there was no rage to
set off a Devastate then I'd prefer at least a regular attack and then
that might genereate a little rage. Repeat as needed.
Brian Westley
>On Nov 16, 9:24 am, Brian Westley <west...@visi.com> wrote:
>> Orion Ryder <orionry...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> >> Orion Ryder <orionry...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> >> >On Nov 11, 10:55 am, John Gordon <gor...@panix.com> wrote:
>om>=3D
>> > Or=3D3D
>> >> >ion Ryder <orionry...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> >> > Ok. why not just have him do a regular attack provided he is in r=
>ang=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> > for it.
>>
>> >> >> You mean to start auto-attacking? You can do this yourself wit=
>h a m=3D
>> >acro.
>>
>> >> >> Instead of dragging, say, Devastate to your action bar, instead mak=
>e a
>> >> >> macro that does two things:
>>
>> >> >> /startattack
>>
>> >> >> You can make similar macros for shield slam, heroic strike, etc.
>>
>> >> >But why should I have to do that?
>> >> >I think it is pretty obvious that the intention is to attack.
>> >> >It should happen by design within the programming.
>>
>> >> fall through, because while you want /startattack, other people
>> >> /startattack, other people can't have other things trigger.
>>
>>
>> Yes, you are.
>>
>> >Just asking for a "Not enough rage" devastate to at least let off a
>> >"successful" regular aattack.
>>
>> Right there. You just made an unsuccessful Devastate become
>> successful, because it did something.
>I'm not sure why you would say that the "Devastate became successful".
>If the regular attack goes off then the Devastate is "not successful"
>and the regular attack is "successful".
>The problem for me is not that the Devastate is not successful. The
>problem for me is that it does not at least give you a regular attack,
>one that does nto require rage.
And if Devastate acted that way, it *would* be successful, since
it would do something if you have no rage.
>> >Outside of that I don't know what you mean by "...,other people can't
>> >have other things trigger."
>>
>> Obviously. Another player might want to trigger some rage-generating
>> action, for just one example.
>A regular attack will generate "some" rage.
Other people might prefer a different rage-generating action,
one that generates MORE rage. Or a different action entirely.
>So if there was no rage to
>set off a Devastate then I'd prefer at least a regular attack and then
>that might genereate a little rage. Repeat as needed.
So use a macro. That's what they're FOR.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Shiflet
"Brian Westley" <wes...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:ho-dnVGqn-s0KJvW...@posted.visi...
>>The problem for me is not that the Devastate is not successful. The
>>problem for me is that it does not at least give you a regular attack,
>>one that does nto require rage.
>
> And if Devastate acted that way, it *would* be successful, since
> it would do something if you have no rage.
I sorta get WHY you oppose what Orion is suggesting, but what you're saying
here is simply not correct. If you go to use Devastate and it does not apply
the Sunder Armor debuff that Devastate does, and does not deal the damage or
generate the threat that Devastate does, then no, Devastate itself would NOT
successful simply because it turned on auto-attack if you didn't have the
rage for Devastate.
Orion Ryder
> "Brian Westley" <west...@visi.com> wrote in message
Yeah thats it. You got it.
But now that I am looking at this from my programming perspective, if
Blizz had it set so that regular attack went off if there was not
enough rage and if someone made a macro that attempted to make a
different attack go off if there was not enough rage, the logic of the
macro, I suspect, would first inistiate the default regular attack
that they have now programmed in and then would initiate the attack
that the person wants to have the macro set off if there is not enough
rage, as opposed to just the attack they want.
Unless there is a way to check for rage during a macro attack prior to
having the macro launch either the devastate if there is enough rage
or something else if there isn't.
Maybe that is why Blizz doesn't set off the auto attack if htere is
not anough rage. Maybe they tried it and during the test play by their
programmers who wrote macros to test how the program works, maybe it
botched things up so they had to ahve nothing occur if there was not
anough rage.
So maybe I am just going to have to make that macro.
Orion
Brian Westley
If Devastate itself caused the auto-attack, then the command to
cast Devastate would succeed, because Devastate was able to do
something.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Orion Ryder
> "Shiflet" <rshif...@charter.net> writes:
> >"Brian Westley" <west...@visi.com> wrote in message
I am going to try to apply that logic to what actually happens in game
now.
What happens now is that if there is not enough rage for devastate to
activate then you hear a voice say "not enough rage"
So therefore -
-------------------
If Devastate itself caused the "not enough rage" voice, then the
command to cast Devastate would succeed, because Devastate was able to
do something.
-------------------
I can't decide whether to say "problem solved" or "I just don't get
it".
Orion
Shiflet
> If Devastate itself caused the auto-attack, then the command to
> cast Devastate would succeed, because Devastate was able to do
> something.
Nooo, DEVASTATE was not able to do something, so it went to the followup
command of "auto attack".
> ---
> Merlyn LeRoy
Brian Westley
If you make a macro to do that, sure. That's why you WANT
Devastate to not do autoattack for you, because then you
can't have it do something else when it fails.
But if autoattack is part of Devastate, it will succeed, and
you can't have something else happen instead.
---
Merlyn LeRoy