Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 51
03-04-2011, 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by camenecium View Post
The longer this goes unfixed, the less likely it is to get fixed. As Cryptic and the Foundry add more content using the current system, it becomes harder and more expensive to fix because the current tags will continue to be used.



That's not precisely true. Changing the code (hopefully a single mapping or function) that does the lookup and replace on the tag is even simpler and safer than a global search and replace on the content base. It should literally be a one-line fix (just the replace, not including the new rank functionality itself) assuming good coding practices. But, there is a complication.

The problem according to a dstahl quote is using the same tag/function for the player's actual rank and minimum rank required on items; i.e., "Hello, [RANKNAME]." and "You must be a [RANKNAME] to use this item." The former could be a user-controlled value like a title, but the latter can't. They both use the same list of values, but they use them in semantically different ways; there should have been two distinct tags for this.

Now, I don't completely buy this as a show-stopper either. Depending on how the code is structured, they might be able to fork the lookup/replace function in the short term and vastly cut down the impact of the changes. The ugly here is having to evaluate and change function calls and possibly introducing bugs at all those points in code instead of just one in the function itself. It's a stop-gap measure, and eventually the two need to merge back together.

The most important fix though is that Cryptic needs separate tags for these two cases. (Although I would argue that they should just use level as a number for minimum level text since they already do this in many places like ability descriptions.) They should start using the new tags immediately and update content as they remaster things or as time allows. Using the new tags in the production version of the Foundry is critical since that's going to swell the content base--and potentially the problem--considerably.
A very well thought out and informative post. Kudos!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 52
03-04-2011, 04:48 PM
Actually, it's not a case that 'search and replace' WON'T fix it - it's simply that it won't get 100% of cases:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dstahl View Post
There's close to 1000 or more instances of the dialog wildcard {RankName} and in many cases it is used in conjunction with other wildcards such as "{RankName}{LastName}, we are in need of assistance. And in other places it is used as "This weapon can be equiped by {RankName}". So a global search and replace "may" get 90% of the cases, but then there will be 10% where it makes no sense or leads to misleading information. Then when you add in the fact that it will cause a relocalization pass on every dialog, it gets tricky.

We're looking into it and know how to address it in the code... it just takes time and resources to implement.
10% isn't a massive problem, and it's probably going to take less time to fix than every case manually. Besides, it's not going to take very long before players report cases of odd dialogue anyway, so finding them isn't going to be a problem if such a move is taken.


I've got to agree with the notion that the longer this takes to fix, the harder it'll be to change, especially with dialogue wildcards being so integral to using the Foundry.

Kind of like how having true bridge officer functionality, with a proper rank hierarchy and actual positions like 'Flight Controller' and 'Ops Manager', is an increasingly unlikely prospect, since players have had over a year to get used to the current 'combat squad with special attacks in space' system - any major change is unlikely, since it's too late for the player-base to adapt.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 53
03-10-2011, 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander_Shepherd
Actually, it's not a case that 'search and replace' WON'T fix it - it's simply that it won't get 100% of cases:



10% isn't a massive problem, and it's probably going to take less time to fix than every case manually. Besides, it's not going to take very long before players report cases of odd dialogue anyway, so finding them isn't going to be a problem if such a move is taken.


I've got to agree with the notion that the longer this takes to fix, the harder it'll be to change, especially with dialogue wildcards being so integral to using the Foundry.

Kind of like how having true bridge officer functionality, with a proper rank hierarchy and actual positions like 'Flight Controller' and 'Ops Manager', is an increasingly unlikely prospect, since players have had over a year to get used to the current 'combat squad with special attacks in space' system - any major change is unlikely, since it's too late for the player-base to adapt.
Sounds easy enough to fix. I don't see why this is such a big problem.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 54
03-11-2011, 06:39 AM
I wished they had named Rear Admiral Lower Half as Rear Admiral I and Upper Half as Rear Admiral II instead..
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 55
03-11-2011, 07:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoodooKing
I wished they had named Rear Admiral Lower Half as Rear Admiral I and Upper Half as Rear Admiral II instead..
or just made read admiral from 1-10 and done away with lower and upper
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:40 PM.