Printable View
Please chill guys... I have seen nothing but constructive posts from both of you on these forums... no need to create bad feeling now.
Khazrael, I understand that you may have felt that Thinus' comment was intended as a slap down but tbh I didn't read it that way and was a little surprised at the vehemence of your reply... I do believe that it was intended to be informative.
Mayhaps that is so, but it feels more like a "I'm trying to be helpful while trying to tell you to learn 2 play lol" sorta way. At any rate, this did go on a tangent, and I apologize for that. One of the moderators should probably delete these responses as to not muck up a thread that might be helpful to some people.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Djarid',index.php?page=Thread&postID=53372#post53 372
if you /focus your clones to your main ..
/cast [target=focustarget, exists] <spellname>; <samespellname>
if your main is your focus and he /she dies.. your clone will still cast the intended spell on its current target.
NM just reread n saw the avoiding using focus part..
eep.
:edit for meh sake:
Your post was "I wonder why /follow [target=name] and such don't work."Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Khazrael',index.php?page=Thread&postID=53367#post 53367
My response was because "/follow name" does.
Let me rephrase, "/follow [target=name]" doesn't work because "/follow name" does (probably). The semantics of the command probably has something to do with why the mechanics are different. I am a software developer and semantics is a very clear indicator that different mechanics are in play. I assumed that people would reach that same conclusion after reading my statement.
You asked *why* it doesn't work, I answered your question. If you think the answers to your questions are mindless dribble perhaps you should ask different questions.
And the way you stated it has no bearing on anything, I'm sure. Plus, clearly, I made it to level 32 without even knowing that. Go figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'thinus',index.php?page=Thread&postID=53609#post53 609
I'm a software developer also, so I see what you're getting at. However Blizzard writes and defines the mechanics for the macros, they wrote /follow in such a way as to not allow [target=target] and along with it, the modifiers and conditionals you can add with it. They did it for a reason, perhaps to alleviate some potential botting/automation issue, who knows, I sure as heck don't, thus the question.Quote:
Let me rephrase, "/follow [target=name]" doesn't work because "/follow name" does (probably). The semantics of the command probably has something to do with why the mechanics are different. I am a software developer and semantics is a very clear indicator that different mechanics are in play. I assumed that people would reach that same conclusion after reading my statement.
Again, the way you answer the question bears a lot of meaning behind it. The way you posed the response, and the response itself, indicate that you either think the question was very stupid, or that I must have very little understanding of how a simple command such as /follow operates. Quite frankly I found the response insulting. People like you who post something like that, which is quite painfully clear to anyone who's multi-boxed for a level or two, are posting simply for the sake of posting, and not adding anything to the actual discussion. If you were confused what I was getting at, you could have asked for elaboration. If you didn't have an answer to my question, you could have not posted at all, yet you decide to post with:Quote:
You asked *why* it doesn't work, I answered your question. If you think the answers to your questions are mindless dribble perhaps you should ask different questions.
Which, in my opinion, is useless, mindless dribble that doesn't serve any purpose in advancing the discussion.Quote:
Perhaps because...
/follow name
works...?
I have no idea who you are, what level you are, what experience you have and frankly I don't care. You posted a question, I posted an answer. I sometimes get so caught up in my macros that I try to do the complicated and fail miserably while the obvious is staring me in the face. If you want intelligent responses to your questions then phrase your questions that way. Again, I can't read your mind, only what you type.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Khazrael',index.php?page=Thread&postID=53621#post 53621
Instead of taking the comment in good humour and rephrasing your question *you* chose to read it negatively and respond negatively and you continue to argue your weak case where I should have magically judged your intelligence and experience. Perhaps you should put a disclaimer at the end of your posts with your IQ, MENSA membership no and that all your questions should be pondered extensively and intelligently responded to as the questions may look simple at face value but actually require deep thinking into the motivation and reason behind the question.
It was a simple question and I gave a simple answer and you exploded into a froth at the mouth rage because you see the response as an attack on your intelligence or something equally stupid. Are you insecure about your intelligence?
And now you have established context for your question and people can respond "intelligently" to your question. Why didn't you just explain this in your first response instead of popping a vein?Quote:
However Blizzard writes and defines the mechanics for the macros, they wrote /follow in such a way as to not allow [target=target] and along with it, the modifiers and conditionals you can add with it. They did it for a reason, perhaps to alleviate some potential botting/automation issue, who knows, I sure as heck don't, thus the question.
I don't know if you are stupid or not and I don't know if you are familiar with how a simple command such as /follow operates.Quote:
Again, the way you answer the question bears a lot of meaning behind it. The way you posed the response, and the response itself, indicate that you either think the question was very stupid, or that I must have very little understanding of how a simple command such as /follow operates.Quote:
You asked *why* it doesn't work, I answered your question. If you think the answers to your questions are mindless dribble perhaps you should ask different questions.
There is nothing insulting in the post except what *you* read into it.Quote:
Quite frankly I found the response insulting.
And you responding the way you did and continue to do is not adding anything to the discussion either, yet here you are doing more of it. And "people like me"? You know me, do you? For someone that reads insults into comments so easily and have brain hemorrhages about it you sure do sling those insults every which way.Quote:
People like you who post something like that, which is quite painfully clear to anyone who's multi-boxed for a level or two, are posting simply for the sake of posting, and not adding anything to the actual discussion.
I wasn't confused, your question was very clear. If you don't like the answers to your questions perhaps *you* should phrase your questions better or rephrase instead of throwing your toys out of the cot.Quote:
If you were confused what I was getting at, you could have asked for elaboration.
I did have an answer to your question.Quote:
If you didn't have an answer to my question, you could have not posted at all, yet you decide to post with:
Quote:
Perhaps because..
/follow name
works...?
Yet, it is an answer to the question you asked. To quote "I, Robot":Quote:
Which, in my opinion, is useless, mindless dribble that doesn't serve any purpose in advancing the discussion.
I'm sorry. My responses are limited. You must ask the right questions.
Rather then continuing to muck up this thread with our petty arguments, how about we take this to PM and try to resolve it there.