Proposal for new speech based pet control command (2024)

• Lord_Frodo <!–– closing ID=FDP or NOFDP 2001 ––> Posts: 2,299

  June 2

  Please do NOT break the pet command spaghetti code, that code is as old as UO

• keven2002 <!–– closing ID=FDP or NOFDP 2001 ––> Posts: 2,226

  June 2

  Lord_Frodo said:

  Please do NOT break the pet command spaghetti code, that code is as old as UO

  No need to worry, the Dev team isn't going to make any sort of major changes to anything in UO that isn't NL anytime soon.

  We have the pirate hats for another month, then "summer break" where we get nothing new, then supposedly NL, then a repeat of Halloween/Krampus/Artisan Festival, then nothing for at least the first 3 months of next year.

• Pawain <!–– closing ID=FDP or NOFDP 2001 ––> Posts: 9,195

  June 2 edited June 2

  Yup ∆ correct. Bladeweave pets have offense and defense modes. But we can not easily access the gump to click.
  

  Focus on what you can do, not what you can't.

• Kyronix <!–– closing ID=FDP or NOFDP 2001 ––> Posts: 1,127Dev

  June 2

  Thanks for the suggestion. The practicality of giving this much granular control to pet abilities is pretty limited from a development perspective. Nothing is theoretically impossible, but this would require a massive amount of auditing since unfortunately all the spell schools and special abilities are not uniformly implemented.
  

• Pawain <!–– closing ID=FDP or NOFDP 2001 ––> Posts: 9,195

  June 3

  See Also

  Beyond Walking: Train Adventures for National Walking Month

  Kyronix said:

  Thanks for the suggestion. The practicality of giving this much granular control to pet abilities is pretty limited from a development perspective. Nothing is theoretically impossible, but this would require a massive amount of auditing since unfortunately all the spell schools and special abilities are not uniformly implemented.
  

  Allow us to put bladeweave pets in their mode. Make the gump so we can use it. That is already in the game but too difficult to do the trick to see the modes.

  Focus on what you can do, not what you can't.

• username <!–– closing ID=FDP or NOFDP 2001 ––> Posts: 735

  June 3 edited June 3

  keven2002 said:

  No need to worry, the Dev team isn't going to make any sort of major changes to anything in UO that isn't NL anytime soon.

  We have the pirate hats for another month, then "summer break" where we get nothing new, then supposedly NL, then a repeat of Halloween/Krampus/Artisan Festival, then nothing for at least the first 3 months of next year.

  It's hard to believe they've gotten away with this for 4-5 years and the bootlickers cheer each time we get a new ToT copy/paste event. Then again, I have seen several major guilds across most shards collapse due to lack of online players so in the end they're paying the price for it.

  IF NL does get released somewhere in your timeline there (I doubt it) it will be either devoid of content and/or a major flop and we'll see a big shift in the staff for Ultima... how will they explain something they announced ~5 years ago and have been working on for the best part of that time failing? Remember, this was something NO ONE ASKED FOR and what in my opinion was direct announcement after people had been asking for a classic server forever and WoW released it's classic server. Mesanna will retire/be fired (I believe she's in her mid/late 60's as it is) and the staff 'shuffle' could either be the end of the game or the best thing that'll ever happen. If I were Broadsword, I'd hire people that develop for the free shards/3rd party clients. I hear more people leaving for Outlands weekly than I've heard looking forward to NL in the last 3+ years.

  This discussion has been closed.

  I will be slow to reply because I cannot log in/stay logged in to the forums.
  Make this your signature if you are tired of Vendor Search being broken, over 4 years and counting.
  Vendor search rendered useless after Publish 106 – Forsaken Foes on August 14, 2019.
  

• ForeverFun <!–– closing ID=FDP or NOFDP 2001 ––> Posts: 835

  June 3

  Kyronix said:

  Thanks for the suggestion. The practicality of giving this much granular control to pet abilities is pretty limited from a development perspective. Nothing is theoretically impossible, but this would require a massive amount of auditing since unfortunately all the spell schools and special abilities are not uniformly implemented.
  

  Perhaps an incremental approach would work well, where these capabilities phase in over time?

  e.g. start with "specialmoves", two in particular:

  all action disable specialmove bleed_id
  all action disable specialmove coldwind_id
  

  Where "bleed_id" and "coldwind_id" correspond to a string or number identifying the moves.

  Just adding controls over those 2 special moves would likely be celebrated.
  

  (note this should only influence when the pet code determines whether to execute a specific move). If the disable bits are never set, no behavior changes.

  Some posters on this forum raise the game code age as a reason why changes aren't happening. Hopefully, that isn't true. The developers associated with common operating systems today would likely disagree with that logic.
  

• Pawain <!–– closing ID=FDP or NOFDP 2001 ––> Posts: 9,195

  June 3 edited June 3

  The difficulty of a change is irrelevant. Look at NL.
  Maybe like many other things, the devs Don't want to change this. Do pets kill stuff now? Yes. Remember when Mesanna promised the complaining GD owners that the new pets would not make their GDs obsolete?

  Well they are, maybe they want to stop the power at this point.

  Focus on what you can do, not what you can't.

• Kyronix <!–– closing ID=FDP or NOFDP 2001 ––> Posts: 1,127Dev

  3:41AM

  ForeverFun said:

  Kyronix said:

  Thanks for the suggestion. The practicality of giving this much granular control to pet abilities is pretty limited from a development perspective. Nothing is theoretically impossible, but this would require a massive amount of auditing since unfortunately all the spell schools and special abilities are not uniformly implemented.
  

  Perhaps an incremental approach would work well, where these capabilities phase in over time?

  e.g. start with "specialmoves", two in particular:

  all action disable specialmove bleed_id
  all action disable specialmove coldwind_id
  

  Where "bleed_id" and "coldwind_id" correspond to a string or number identifying the moves.

  Just adding controls over those 2 special moves would likely be celebrated.
  

  (note this should only influence when the pet code determines whether to execute a specific move). If the disable bits are never set, no behavior changes.

  Some posters on this forum raise the game code age as a reason why changes aren't happening. Hopefully, that isn't true. The developers associated with common operating systems today would likely disagree with that logic.
  

  There's definitely more feasibility in a specific change to address a single issue you may be facing. Incremental change is much more efficient then entire system audits. So if you can boil it down into a digestible user story, we can take a look.
  

  The age of the code base isn't necessarily the problem - it's more so how many hands have been in the repository over the years. Sometimes systems were implemented in haste, sometimes before functionality was available (Fun fact: before there was a (-) many operations to get -1 were written as 0-1) and sometimes without efficiency at the forefront. Anyone who has spent a while on project will no doubt evolve their thinking and methodology. Some of the original stuff I wrote 10+ years ago I look at and go...who wrote this?!...oh...right. But that's part of learning and growing.
  

  Anyway, we have to take that into consideration when we are looking at major overhauls because it's an obvious risk that impacts practicality.
  

Sign In or Register to comment.