❗ Ruthless Item Filter syntax is absolute mistake !

up

up

up

"

alhazred70 wrote:

[...]
I hate that they've not done ANY iteration on or self reflection on what they did right and wrong in the mode. Are we to assume GGG thinks they did a PERFECT JOB on the initial pass?

Like NO ONE gets everything right on the first pass. But they've done NOTHING to improve or tweak the mode. I get it, they're timid and overly fearful of the Creative mode types being upset because Ruthless got some Dev time. Man up and stop pandering.

There's not enough ruthless players to give a shit about though. Its all about who throws fits loudest.

I mean, the more likely explanation is just that there's hardly any dev energy left to spend on Ruthless (probably even none at all) with PoE2 starting its closed betas ? (And probably until its out of Early Access.)

----

Thanks, I'll have to take a look at your SimpleFilter.

Minimal, from what I've managed to gather, would be roughly equivalent to


Show
SetBackgroundColor 0 0 0 0
SetBorderColor 0 0 0 0
SetFontSize 18


(The Set ones overriding existing Sets.)
?

But you say that it doesn't actually work like this ?

----

My own very recent issue is that I've tried to make a Bench filter work like a Ruthless one :

First, by just trying to use Minimal directly, by doing a mass-replace of Hide by Minimal.
Which just throws out an error about the filter being invalid.
Why is it set up like this ?!?

Second, I thought to mass-replace Hide by the aforementioned block... which is a more complicated operation than I cared to get vim out for, and also doesn't seem like it would work any way, subsequent original Sets overriding the new ones inserted above them ?

Third, I tried to mass-replace Hide by the aforementioned block... but on a single line. Which returned an error. Fair enough I guess... (and the readability would have been terrible)

Finally, I caved in, and manually went over each Hide.

Interesting concept and thank you for the rhetorical answer. I will check again today if Minimal resets in every situation, maybe there is some order. I will think about it.

I have the impression that the ruthess syntax was introduced under the dictation of NeverSink filters. Maybe you noticed that NeverSinks does not use the Continue operator, and why this code is larg and not universal. Is based on the declaration and ending the block without Continue.

Introducing the Minimal operator and eliminating Hide is useful, but only for such syntax. In the NeverSinks, each Currency is declared separately, e.g. Chaos Orb, Chromatic Orb etc. In such a case using Minimal makes sense. One declaration and end block.

Well, it's a vicious circle and for me it doesn't work with the Continue operator and make no sense because each use of the block with Minimal resets the previous setting.

Thanks also for understanding the problem because as I see you figured out what it's about.

"

BlueTemplar85 wrote:

...But you say that it doesn't actually work like this ?...

Result of:

Minimal
Class "Stackable Currency"
SetFontSize 37
Continue
Minimal
Class "Stackable Currency"
SetTextColor 223 223 223 239
Continue

Conclusion: Previous setting of SetFontSize was overwritten with next Minimal with SetTextColor only. Without Hide operator You can't use hidden blocks of general settings as colors etc conjucted with Continue...
In my opinion operator Minimal is in contradiction with Continue and is a step back, against the flexibility introduced with Continue operator.

"

Maybe you noticed that NeverSinks does not use the Continue operator

They do, though I'm guessing in a much simpler way than you do ?
(I've barely began trying to mess with the files...)

up

up