Bug Tracker Migration

June 3rd
Good news everyone! The staff has decided that it is time to slowly kill off this Bug Tracker. We will begin the process of slowly migrating from this Bug Tracker over to our Github Issues which can be found here: https://github.com/HerculesWS/Hercules/issues

Over the next couple of days, I will be closing off any opportunity to create new reports. However, I still will keep the opportunity to reply to existing Bug Reports. Doing this will allow us to slowly fix any bug reports we have listed here so that we can easily migrate over to our Issue Tracker.

Update - June 7th 2015: Creating new bug posts has been disabled. Please use our https://github.com/HerculesWS/Hercules/issues tracker to post bugs. Users are still able to reply to existing bug posts.

- Administration

Issue Information

• Issue ID

  #008449

• Severity

  0 - None Assigned

• Status

  Invalid

• Return to Issue Listing

Issue Confirmations

• Yes (0)No (0)

0

refiner npcs

Posted by GmOcean on 23 November 2014 - 04:52 AM

Edit: Nvm, it seems that there are multiple instances of these scripts.
Edit2: @Garr - Yeah, that was my first assumption, but I wasn't 100% sure. That + my failure to notice the other refiners in pre/re folders led me to believe it wasn't intended and we were unwittingly giving them a higher success chance. Glad to know that it is as intended.
Both in side pre(folder) & re(folder) as well as outside of both, which is where I found these odd checks.
But, the ones inside the (p)re folders do not have these odd double checks, so I guess nvm @.@; sorry for wasting your time.

Spoiler

Not sure if this is a bug more than just wasted check...
is there a reason that all the refiners have this double check, when it's the same?

if (getequippercentrefinery(.@part) > rand(100) || getequippercentrefinery(.@part) > rand(100)) {
    successrefitem .@part;
    next;
    emotion e_no1;
    mes "[Suhnbi]";
    mes "There you go! It's done.";
    mes "It's been a while since I've made such a fine "+((getequipweaponlv(.@part))?"weapon":"armor")+". You must be happy because it has become stronger!";
    close;
}

I mean clearly once would be enough, but you're checking twice. I can only assume it's being done this way because rand() may not be 'truly' random (but nothing really is). Unless there's something I missed?

• Back to top

Garr

Nov 23 2014 12:05 PM

Just to answer, Suhnbi is the improved refiner, which uses refined Ori/Elu. This extra check represents the 2nd chance you have to succeed in refining, aka it's like throwing 2nd check if first one fails, so overall success chance is higher than with normal refiner and normal ori/elu.

• Back to top

Dastgir 

changed status to: Invalid

1. Bug Tracker
2. → Hercules Bug Archives
3. → Scripts
4. → Status: Invalid
5. Privacy Policy
6. Hercules Forum Rules ·