Spiral Knights - Ignoring Oneself

Ignoring Oneself

8 respuestas [Último envío]

Mar, 08/16/2011 - 11:38

Absolutist

I found a glitch that makes it so that you -permanently- (until it's fixed) ignore yourself.
If you send yourself mail (such like a memo to yourself) and click "complain" you have the option of ignoring yourself. If you decide to click to ignore yourself, the mail will instantly vanish and in blue text it will say "Ignoring __________(your ingame name)".
This would be fine and all but, since you're ignoring yourself, you can't receive mail from yourself to un-do this and typing both "/ignore _____" or "/unignore________" will both result in blue text stating: "You cannot ignore yourself.".

Effect: Whenever you type/speak in public (not a /tell) you will not be able to see your own typing (however others around you WILL be able to see it). As well as this, your typing is not logged in chat.

I found this to be a neat little glitch, but I hope that it will be fixed soon, just to ensure my sanity xD

Vie, 08/19/2011 - 10:26

AlfieSR

Legacy Username

/ignore should show the you

/ignore should show the you cannot ignore yourself message, as well as fixing this glitch, but /unignore shouldn't prevent unignoring, ever, to prevent worst-case-scenario bugs involving ignoring. Just saying.

As to your bug, i'm afraid you're going to have to deal with it until the devs themselves fix it, as I don't think there is ANY way to unignore yourself at all.

If you still have the original email, you could try ignoring yourself again and see what it does.

Dom, 08/21/2011 - 09:59

Svarren

I know I like to do silly

I know I like to do silly things to see what the game will do, so I certainly support getting this bug more attention before I do something like this. Given /unignore doesn't work, that's very revealing to their bug prevention practices.

On multiple occasions I've found myself wanting the option to hide my chat bubble when I'm fighting- self-ignore would be perfect for that (although I would like to see my chat show up in the log).

Dom, 08/21/2011 - 10:45

Starlinvf

@murph89: Bug prevention?

@murph89: Bug prevention? You have to go through a very specific 3 step process, navigate a large menu, and then confirm it. I highly doubt that during the QA process they considered the possibility that a person would hate spamming themselves so much, that they would try to ignore their own mail.

No matter how thoroughly you think you can test something, the users will "ALWAYS" find a way to lower the bar.

Mié, 08/24/2011 - 15:13

Absolutist

I found the solution!

@starlinvf LOOL xD

I found that the only way to unignore myself would be to press Esc to go to the menu, go to the Chat tab, select myself (Despot, in this case) and click "Unignore" at the bottom. Haha, one of my friends helped me find this solution xD
However, I think they should still fix the bug allowing you to ignore yourself, unless they claim it's a "Special" feature :P

Dom, 08/28/2011 - 10:47

Svarren

Eh I'm saying they have to

Eh I'm saying they have to explicitly prevent the /unignore command from working on yourself- there is no reason to do that, especially if you don't explicitly keep people from blacklisting themselves (rather than just stopping /ignore from applying to self). The /unignore command should just not work on people not on your ignore list.

I said bug prevention, not bug checking- prevention is entirely a matter of programming in such a way that you avoid creating bugs, so that you don't have to spend as much time sitting there figuring out odd ways people could cause bugs in the first place. No, I don't expect them to check for all the crazy ways people might work around things before releasing code.

Dom, 08/28/2011 - 19:44

Starlinvf

@murph89: Your either not a

@murph89: Your either not a programmer or haven't been doing it long enough. Your basically suggesting that the design and coding teams need to predict every possible thought process of a world population, as well as predict every possible loop hole before attempting to put something into code. Thats realistically impossible. Bugs, by its own definition, won't make themselves known until the code is somehow simulated or executed.

Don't believe me? Ask Intel why Pentiums have trouble with math.

Lun, 08/29/2011 - 18:36

Autofire

@murph89 Wow, speaking of

@murph89

Wow, speaking of programmers, I just so happen to be one. And, yes, having bugs in your software is not lazy.(unless it's so many that you run into 10 of them every time you use the program.) It's a simple mistake, which can be easy to make.

Quote from "starlinvf": "....[I doubt that the devs] considered the possibility that a person would hate spamming themselves so much, that they would try to ignore their own mail."

I was laughing for 5 minutes after seeing this. :D

On topic:
I don't think the developers would bother to fix this glitch, let alone having the time. It's not bad enough to cause big problems, and it has a workaround.

Sáb, 09/10/2011 - 19:02

Svarren

(I'm not a programmer per se,

(I'm not a programmer per se, but I've done plenty of programming). I am making a distinction between "bug prevention" over "bug fixing". You should code in such a way as to PREVENT yourself from creating bugs so there are fewer bugs to FIX (there is no such thing as bug-free code, at least not for anything substantial). Explicitly coding /unignore to not work on yourself makes zero sense- if you just make /unignore not work on people not on your blacklist, that works just the same, is more general, and is what actually captures design intent. I doubt they explicitly decided that anyone managing to ignore themselves should be unable to reverse that, so there should be no spec saying to block the unignore command from working on yourself. I am not saying that the programmers should anticipate people trying that hard to ignore themselves, but that out of habit they would know it is bad practice to have written that code.

If you code more generally by intent rather than by the explicit specs at the moment, your code is far easier to modify, it is easier to fix bugs, and you are less likely to create bugs in the first place. Like how if you want to take an average of two numbers in a list, you don't divide by two, but divide by a variable determined by the quantity in the list. Same result on paper, but when the code changes down the road, or if a user finds a way to do the unexpected, your code is much more robust.

BTW: check my above posts. I never said they should have thought of this scenario or tested for this bug, I never said bugs make you a shoddy programmer, I never invoked the mythical bug-free code. Half the arguments I see on forums are people assuming another poster is "uninformed", and in the process misinterpret their posts. If I need to explain myself further yet I could make a thread in a more appropriate forum if I'm to rant about intent-vs-explicit.

Analogy: I need my ID to get in the office. One day I forgot my ID entirely, while on several other occasions I sat down in my car before I remembered I left my ID on my dresser. Forgetting my ID is a bug here, and having to return home to get it makes it a relatively severe bug. By leaving my ID in my car, instead of bringing it in to my dresser, I always have my ID with me when I get to work, and in the event I still forget it, I simply have to walk back to my car instead of drive home. By changing my habits I eliminate a severe bug, and the unfixed bug (occasionally leaving it in my car) is a much simpler bug. I'm not about to staple my ID to my leg so I think I'll leave that bug alone.

Apologies for the rant, it gets on my nerves when people try to put words in my mouth.

Buscar

Ignoring Oneself