Difference between revisions of "User talk:Elei-Mi-Shill"
→Questions
imported>Qazaaq (answers) |
imported>Elei-Mi-Shill |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
::::The name of the function is perhaps a bit unfortunate, as one would expect it to return the form it is currently running on. It doesn't, it only returns the reference it is currently running on and none if there isn't any. | ::::The name of the function is perhaps a bit unfortunate, as one would expect it to return the form it is currently running on. It doesn't, it only returns the reference it is currently running on and none if there isn't any. | ||
::::--[[User:Qazaaq|Qazaaq]] 08:26, 3 August 2009 (EDT) | ::::--[[User:Qazaaq|Qazaaq]] 08:26, 3 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::: Well, it's interesting how the script mantain memory of himself regardless being linked to a 3D object or a list object as long as they are 2 distinct items (and works in distinct ways). So I'd say that the 3D object exists as individual even if it's in the list and stacked with similar objects. What I need to do now is to create the auto-repair function. Do you know of somebody who achieved this result without using RemoveItem/AddItem trick? | |||
:::::--[[User:Elei-Mi-Shill|Elei-Mi-Shill]] 0:47, 4 August 2009 (EDT) | |||
::It's true that some blocktypes only make sense on certain types of forms. Adding an [[OnEquip]] block to a [[Activator]] makes little sense, but if that makes you happy, go ahead. You can put a GetContainer call inside that OnEquip block and still no one will complain. But the code will never be run, because when the script is evaluated the form is never in a state of being equipped. | ::It's true that some blocktypes only make sense on certain types of forms. Adding an [[OnEquip]] block to a [[Activator]] makes little sense, but if that makes you happy, go ahead. You can put a GetContainer call inside that OnEquip block and still no one will complain. But the code will never be run, because when the script is evaluated the form is never in a state of being equipped. | ||
| Line 38: | Line 41: | ||
::::What you're trying to do is possible, but you'll have to keep an eye on what the caster's weapon hits, not whatever hits the victim. You could do this by adding a poison or an enchantment, or modifying on of those if it already exists. | ::::What you're trying to do is possible, but you'll have to keep an eye on what the caster's weapon hits, not whatever hits the victim. You could do this by adding a poison or an enchantment, or modifying on of those if it already exists. | ||
::::--[[User:Qazaaq|Qazaaq]] 08:26, 3 August 2009 (EDT) | ::::--[[User:Qazaaq|Qazaaq]] 08:26, 3 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::: I went for a poison that checks if the target hit has the targeting enchantment on hit. If it has then it kills the target, otherwise, the poison has no effect. But i had to create a bunch of things where, in other games, with 2 single lines I could have obtained that result in a more clean way. It pisses me. | |||
I added signatures to the above discussion, to keep track of who said what. | I added signatures to the above discussion, to keep track of who said what. | ||
<br/>--[[User:Qazaaq|Qazaaq]] 08:26, 3 August 2009 (EDT) | <br/>--[[User:Qazaaq|Qazaaq]] 08:26, 3 August 2009 (EDT) | ||