Neversink and Hellcat5 - Discussing Neversink's Lootfilter v3.3a

Again, why aren't you giving a firm premise for stating it's not default? What is the proof? I'll give you proof of my point through code anyone can add in to test with for themselves AND I'll give a video (which supports my premise):

Video Test:
Hellcat5's Filter Test: SetBorderColor 0 0 0 255

For reference:

"

# Show us Uniques with the standard Unique color instead of going from item level
Show
Rarity Unique
SetFontSize 64
PlayAlertSound 3 100

"

# Show us Uniques with the standard Unique color instead of going from item level
Show
Rarity Unique
SetFontSize 64
SetBorderColor 0 0 0 255
PlayAlertSound 3 100

There is no visible with or without SetBorderColor 0 0 0 255, therefore, if there's no change with explicit declaration, it's because it's the default setting. That's how object inheritance works.

"

NeverSink wrote:

2) The comments are there for a reason and you've removed them. They don't affect performance, they're skipped while loading the code into memory. Instead you've just reduced the readability, removed the credits/thanks list and removed optional modules. Also no-one reads readmes.

While many newer computer systems might process the filter script with loads of comments without any sign of performance reduction, we can't say that for all computer systems that are running path of exile. I certainly can't make that statement because I don't know the slowest / oldest pc running path of exile, nor do I know exactly which older video cards might be running it.

While I might have reduced readability with the test script version that has to do with only file size reduction, the refactored version does not remove header sections. From that, I can't agree with your blanketing statement. The readme-neversink.md clearly states what I did, along with ordering the actions and property settings in the same way for each block.

Stating that no one (I do find that interesting that you used no-one) reads readmes is yet another logical fallacy. This time, Sweeping Generalization Fallacy. As a developer, (wink wink) I think it's best to try to avoid all logical fallacies in my thinking that I can, and therefrom strengthen my development logic.

"

NeverSink wrote:

3) You've removed several special cases, that are not redundant, thus reducing the functionality.

I removed commented out (non-active) blocks in two editions of the test filters - size test and refactor 1.0. People can see from the readme-neversink.md exactly what I did in refactor 1.0. To give you a run down on refactoring (you, neversink, might know this, but the readers might not, and I want them to understand) - in first phase refactoring, I apply a broad scope refactor, which could effect some minimal functionality (not showing normal flasks unless you press alt as example). In second phase refactoring, I gather the noted differences and restore whatever minimal lost functionality might have occurred (Short Comparison Video). The third sweep is a thorough proofing.

"

NeverSink wrote:

4) You didn't just try to clean the code, you've changed several functional aspects.

Since I'm getting into phase 2 of the refactor, I'm going to restore any lost functionality during this phase. (will take no longer than 8 hours at most for a very thorough phase 2) From what I can tell from brief testing, only I only affected the leveling functionality.

"

NeverSink wrote:

5) Your changes in the leveling list will cause problems. I agree that the leveling part can be improved, but you just weakened it's functionality.

My phase one refactor will not cause any client malfunctions. It is for testing, as I said clearly.

"

NeverSink wrote:

6) *edited out for now, gotta doublecheck*

I didn't comment that anywhere in the refactor, nor do I find that statement anywhere in the readme-neversink.md file.

"

NeverSink wrote:

7) While I agree to sorting/cleaning the order of colors and have a personal (C#) tool to do it, I don't do it to make update/change comparison easier for the users (until version 4.0, which is nearly ready and will be deployed for 2.4). Yes it looks better this way, but it doesn't help anyone. This is the only point I agree to.

"

NeverSink wrote:

[..]I don't do it to make update/change comparison easier for the users[..]

I'm providing users with the ability to have these useful changes now, instead of when you release your tool. And, perhaps, this discussion might bring refinements to your release. To note, it looks like you agree with more than one point:

"

NeverSink wrote:

[..]I agree that the leveling part can be improved[..]

I must disagree about having a consistent property and action order not helping anyone. If you provide consistency in code, then this provides players who want to make changes to your code the ability to more quickly recognize parts they want to change, and to become more comfortable making those changes. For many players, perhaps, the length of your filter script might intimidate them, and then seeing these inconsistencies might also bring about futher worry about not doing something right. You state in the title of this thread, "user friendly." I'm pointing out things that could make improvements to the code so that it more closely follows that statement.

"

NeverSink wrote:

I also didn't implement every single suggestion for a reason. At this point I have a data collection of different suggestions based of hundreds of inputs. Several things are not implemented because they create problems (such as the "special sounds for exalted orbs/high uniques", check the FAQ on page 1 or the issues on github). I'm working on an node.js tool that will allow customizing such aspects in a user-friendly menu on download (due for 2.4/4.0).

I can make a few changes now to the code to satisfy the user's request. If you're reason is, "I'm taking into account what the majority of people who say something to me want" that's understandable due to time restraints, but it doesn't resolve that player's filter needs (perhaps you're referring to Aias_o_Telamonios). I'm filling that void, and fully capable of working around the potential problems that doing such might generate.

I'm glad to know you're working on a node.js tool to help people in the future. People want to play now, and have specific filter needs, now.

"

NeverSink wrote:

I appreciate your help with the test versions, but if you check my Github, you'll see I already have them since ~10 days and distributed them to several users for testing.

You stated on stream about 2 days ago that you've not released those test scripts. I see the upload shows 8 days ago - https://github.com/NeverSinkGaming/NeverSink-Filter/tree/master/ADDITIONAL-FILES/For%20Testing%20Purposes%20Only

"

NeverSink wrote:

You could've suggested changes/pointed out things you didn't like and I'd happily implement them, if they're reasonable. Neither did you ask if it's OK to promote your content here or if the changes are OK. You've assumed.

From feedback from other people, and lack of response from you regarding their questions, I jumped in to lend a hand since I figured you were busy. On page 148 of this thread I state that. I gave your users options to enhance their gaming. I gave examples of how to adjust your script if they prefer that way, and also gave one of mine if they're not comfortable making those changes. I think we must weigh what's useful for community members, and avoid taking constructive criticism as an affront.

I'm not going to ask permission if I can make changes to your filter for your users, or to assist with troubleshooting for your users. While you did create the script from Ghudda's template (I believe you stated that in the thanks somewhere), you cannot profit from having made the filter script as I believe that GGG owns the rights over ALL filter scripts. They wrote the parser as a tool for players to use to enhance their gaming experience. Much like Skyrim modding, you don't own rights for doing that. And, of course, you stated that you would never charge.

You're welcome to post on my filter threads in a non-aggressive, constructive manor, of course.

"

NeverSink wrote:

I'm OK with people creating their own versions of my filter and you're free to host/distribute them, but I don't want people to attempt to hijack my own thread. I didn't find it quite well mannered, when you just started posting here after you've talked down my filter on several different occasions, but now you're also spreading faulty versions, cluttering up the thread with walls of text and promoting your own content.

Saying "I think neversink's filter is ugly" lies in the subjective realm. I could get into my experience as a designer, and who's attention and employment I've gotten from my design skills, but that's not relevant here. Why on earth would you take that as an affront? Some people think my filter is ugly and too bright. That's fine. We have different filters to cover the needs of different players.

My "walls of text" are my thorough responses to people's questions about your filter, and responses generally. I believe if I'm going to respond, I'm going to take time to be thorough. Subjectively, you interpreted some of my response as rude. I'm American. I guess we're known for not intending rudeness, but being rude anyways. I hope you can try a positive view with what i've given to you.

I'm certainly not spreading faulty versions. I've clearly stated that my versions are for testing. Once I finish the third refactor, then I might label it otherwise.

"

NeverSink wrote:

PM me if you disagree/have questions. I don't want to create any additional public drama and I apologize for the necessary harshness. I'll have to report you if this happens again though to clean up this thread. This is the first time I had to intervene in such a case.

I'll certainly not PM you about this specific scenario. Perhaps we can dialogue about other things in the future (i'm certainly open for that) but I believe that people who've read this thus far deserve to read my response to you in a public forum, which this is.

"

NeverSink wrote:

It's hard to stay perfectly objective in such cases and evaluating conflicts is complicated, so if anyone/you disagree with my reasoning, PM me.

I agree. It can be quite challenging to remain objective when someone talks about something that you've created negatively. I've had to fight that monster before. Here though, I think we'd benefit from applying developer logic to the situation.

Hellcat5