Jump + Dodge
1 2
“Oh, now I am so sad, I really thought you cared, after-all you thought I seemed offended, so I explained. My mistake.”
Outside of the sarcasm, for someone who was just moments earlier was making such a huge fuss about irrelevant tangents, you mock me for pointing out how irrelevant your pet-peeve’s are?
All that in reaction to an attempt at making a light heartedly intended comment like
Does it offend you that I posted the first relevant, direct information from the german lead?
No, relevant information does not offend me, but I can understand German just fine and presenting me this horrible translation is what offends me.
I dont have difficulty pressing two keys to accomplish this, but sometimes the movement seems to fail several times in a row, and it returns nothing to do. Could be the LAG?
PS: I tested it several times followed, and it seemed LAG because I leave them one beside the other keys.
I don’t know, both jump-then-dodge as well as dodge-then-jump seem to work so I am assuming it wants to see them both within the timeframe it uses between successive checks or polls of the input. Lag would then not be an issue.
Where on Earth did I say you could only look for information in any particular place?
With “We are talking about the specifics of this thread” and “so you ASSUMED I meant outside of this thread too” in this post:
We are talking about the specifics of this thread. Unless you’re putting words in my mouth or lying. Please quote the other people in this thread?
No? Oh yeah so you ASSUMED I meant outside of this thread too. Or you shoved those words in my mouth. Lack of specificity? You should have asked for clarification. As such you’re 100% wrong.
I never said you weren’t the only one to think/post it at any point in time.
You did actually when you said, and I quote,
except you’re the only one who is suggesting it’s not a violation of the ToS.
Oh, except one person who literally said it was not a violation of tos and his post was deleted (and he was likely infracted for it).
That is you referencing another post, with ‘except’ linking it to ’you’re the only one’ implying there really is no one except me saying this.
Nor did I ever say that you should only limit your search to this thread.
Yes, you did, right here:
“No, I am not the only one and I am giving reasons as to why I think it is not, while you are giving reasons as to why you think it is and we don’t agree. That is not uncommon for a discussion.”
Yes you are. We are talking about the specifics of this thread. Unless you’re putting words in my mouth or lying. Please quote the other people in this thread?
You’ve completely missed the point of every single there.
I -NEVER- said you couldn’t go outside of this thread for information. I even quoted devs outsides of this thread.
I was saying within the specifics of this thread in because of your ridiculous accusation that you said I meant “you are the only person to think that.”
Why would I ever make such a baseless blanket statement? That’s like saying “no one thinks the world is flat” when obviously someone out there probably thinks that.
However if we’re having a discussion at a table about the world obviously being round and you are the only one at the table who says “the world is flat” and I say “you’re the only one thinking that” it’s in reference to the table discussion and the opinions expressed therein. It would be stupid for me to suggest you’re the only one in existence to think that. Because when you go and say “I’m not the only one! My grandma told me it was true” we wouldn’t gasp in disbelief but rather we would laugh because you had missed the point entirely.
That being said, all of your quotations where you try to demonstrate I said you can’t look for information outside of this thread is completely out of context and by no means demonstrates that.
You’re trying to cover your lack of understanding by manipulating what I am saying.
[SoF]
“All right, so it was a post. While you get a clarification from a mod when a thread you posted in is removed, you don’t get a clarification when a post is removed. You don’t know why the post was removed, it might even have been the original poster who deleted it. You do not know.
How would you know why it disappeared?”
Nope, never claimed I knew why it was deleted and I never said who deleted it. Although if you take occam’s razor to it the logical conclusion is that it is more likely a mod deleted it than the person would delete it themselves ~12+ hours later. Regardless it happened one way or another. I wasn’t trying to prove a point but rather found it interesting that someone actually said the exact words and the post was deleted.
“Anyone can decide for themselves who they trust or find credible.”
Obvious comment is obvious. That’s the entire point. So you saying that I am not credible for you in this vacuum is unnecessary, it goes without saying otherwise we would have to put forth evidence.
“No, common psychology, we all try to interpret new facts with our existing understanding.”
I think it’s hilarious that you are essentially putting yourself into the role ‘god of knowledge’ in this conversation saying that you know what is considered gibberish, true, false, what I am capable of understanding, what I am incapable of understanding, etc.
Perhaps you don’t realize that I actually fully understood his post and made sense of it. Does that concept elude you?
[SoF]
I don’t really see such a link. The only link I do see is to Gaile Gray’s post saying it’s not ok to keybind multiple skills to one key. But that one doesn’t explain the faulty translation.
As for 1-1 skill keybinding…
…
…
https://forum-de.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/account/Account-zu-unrecht-gebannt-od-Probleme-mit-Razor-Naga-Maus-1
“All that in reaction to an attempt at making a light heartedly intended comment like”
Except it’s a cyclical effect, with—surprise surprise— you at the beginning. Basically I hear you saying this and it really contradicts itself…
You: “Your bad translation offends me”
Me: “Reasons why I can post that translation if I feel”
You: “Reasons why you can post that it offends you if you feel like”
Me: “Reasons why that doesn’t matter”
You: “All of this is off topic so why are we even talking about it?”
Me: “That was my point all along, that’s why I pointed out that bringing this into the thread was unnecessary in the first place”
You: “its your fault for responding”
Me: “lolwut?”
As for the rest of the topics you conveniently ignored:
-Where is your list of evidentiar procedure rules, since clearly I am expected to know them if I want to avoid your cries of “that information offends me,” ?
-Where is the palpable list of reasons why I am such an un-credible source? You said that I wasn’t credible for many reasons.
-Where is the proof that you’re the judge on reasonable. You make claims that you want this to be a reasonable discussion yet you’re not saying by what standard and simply seem to be defining reasonable as “whatever sounds good to me.”
-Why did you conveniently ignore the question about the terrain designer? What position of power is he in to create/construct/or even clarify ToS rules for that matter?
-As for the point of discussion, it’s not what you are trying to force it to be. It’s not whether dodge-jump is 1 action or 2 or 3. The OP asked about whether or not lag was influencing his inability to perform it correctly 100% of the time.
You want to turn this into a metaphysical discussion on whether its 1 action or 2. That doesn’t matter since you’d just be trying to force a niched view on it into the devs generalized statement that 1 key = 1 action.
Just because you get others to believe it’s considered 1 action doesn’t make it so.
Here, I’ll humor you, though:
Let’s use heart seeker and infiltrator’s signet. Obviously 2 different skills which can be used by themselves. You can also obviously use them together a fraction of a second later, or 2 seconds apart to create a synergistic technique that really has no label like dodge-jump. Regardless I see them in the same vein.
you activate one skill and then at some point before the first skill is over you activate the second skill to create a brand new effect not intended by either skill individually but rather through the combination of it.
Now if someone were to key bind a HS and timestamp macro the inf signet to go off 1 second after HS was activated, or .5seconds or .1 second it doesn’t matter. I think we would all agree that constitutes multi-keybinding which most of us would agree directly violates the ToS.
As such we can apply the same logic with 2 other unique skills, dodge and jump. However, the more confusing aspect to this is that the time-frame is MUCH smaller, between .00001 and .15 (probably). That shouldn’t confuse the issue though because it’s the exact same concept.
Again, it’s a metaphysical discussion meaning it’s not fact that HS INF SIG combined is not considered 2 actions or 1 action. I can’t tell you how you interpret it personally. But based on my knowledge and what the devs have said, it violates the ToS.
[SoF]
Where on Earth did I say you could only look for information in any particular place?
With “We are talking about the specifics of this thread” and “so you ASSUMED I meant outside of this thread too” in this post:
We are talking about the specifics of this thread. Unless you’re putting words in my mouth or lying. Please quote the other people in this thread?
No? Oh yeah so you ASSUMED I meant outside of this thread too. Or you shoved those words in my mouth. Lack of specificity? You should have asked for clarification. As such you’re 100% wrong.
I never said you weren’t the only one to think/post it at any point in time.
You did actually when you said, and I quote,
except you’re the only one who is suggesting it’s not a violation of the ToS.
Oh, except one person who literally said it was not a violation of tos and his post was deleted (and he was likely infracted for it).
That is you referencing another post, with ‘except’ linking it to ’you’re the only one’ implying there really is no one except me saying this.
Nor did I ever say that you should only limit your search to this thread.
Yes, you did, right here:
“No, I am not the only one and I am giving reasons as to why I think it is not, while you are giving reasons as to why you think it is and we don’t agree. That is not uncommon for a discussion.”
Yes you are. We are talking about the specifics of this thread. Unless you’re putting words in my mouth or lying. Please quote the other people in this thread?
You’ve completely missed the point of every single there.
I -NEVER- said you couldn’t go outside of this thread for information. I even quoted devs outsides of this thread.
I was saying within the specifics of this thread in because of your ridiculous accusation that you said I meant “you are the only person to think that.”
Well, given your reaction you seemed rather upset that I did look outside the thread. Why on earth would it be natural to assume you were saying “except you’re the only one who is suggesting it’s not a violation of the ToS.” in reference to the, 6 or so, people in this thread?
However if we’re having a discussion at a table about the world obviously being round …
My view of the world does not change depending on whom I sit at the table with so by default inclusion/exclusion would extend to everyone and I would obviously not assume that “you are the only one” would mean “you are the only one”. So, if you were telling me that I am the only one who believes the world is round I’d likely come up with Aristotle as someone who held the same idea as me.
If you intended to say, “you are the only one at this table” you could say so, or something like “you are the only one here”
That being said, all of your quotations where you try to demonstrate I said you can’t look for information outside of this thread is completely out of context and by no means demonstrates that.
They demonstrate how you completely failed to express yourself properly and how you fail to see when you are not getting across what you are trying to say.
Throwing more smoke around at me will not make the miscommunication any less your fault.
“All right, so it was a post. While you get a clarification from a mod when a thread you posted in is removed, you don’t get a clarification when a post is removed. You don’t know why the post was removed, it might even have been the original poster who deleted it. You do not know.
How would you know why it disappeared?”Nope, never claimed I knew why it was deleted and I never said who deleted it.
You said it was likely infracted, that does imply you thought you knew why it was
“Anyone can decide for themselves who they trust or find credible.”
Obvious comment is obvious. That’s the entire point. So you saying that I am not credible for you in this vacuum is unnecessary, it goes without saying otherwise we would have to put forth evidence.
Then why are you making such a fuss about it?
“No, common psychology, we all try to interpret new facts with our existing understanding.”
I think it’s hilarious that you are essentially putting yourself into the role ‘god of knowledge’ in this conversation saying that you know what is considered gibberish, true, false, what I am capable of understanding, what I am incapable of understanding, etc.
Do you not think people tend to interpret new information in their existing world-views?
Do you believe the machine translated text was in proper English?
Perhaps you don’t realize that I actually fully understood his post …
How would you know if you can’t really read and understand the original? The original gives some examples explaining and refining these rules of thumb and their application.
“All that in reaction to an attempt at making a light heartedly intended comment like”
Except it’s a cyclical effect, with—surprise surprise— you at the beginning. Basically I hear you saying this and it really contradicts itself…
You: “Your bad translation offends me”
… Does it offend you …
That one actually came before it …
As for the rest of the topics you conveniently ignored:
-Where is your list of evidentiar procedure rules, since clearly I am expected to know them if I want to avoid your cries of “that information offends me,” ?
I think I’ve stated often enough what I interested in, it’s those 2 questions, remember?
1) Is dodge jumping one action or two, and why?
2) How does this action, or actions, provide an in combat advantage over other players.
-Where is the palpable list of reasons why I am such an un-credible source? You said that I wasn’t credible for many reasons.
I don’t have to, remember. And we can’t discuss some issues.
-Where is the proof that you’re the judge on reasonable. You make claims that you want this to be a reasonable discussion yet you’re not saying by what standard and simply seem to be defining reasonable as “whatever sounds good to me.”
I don’t have to be the objective judge of what is reasonable, just what you think is reasonable with respect to these two questions.
-Why did you conveniently ignore the question about the terrain designer? What position of power is he in to create/construct/or even clarify ToS rules for that matter?
It is the only dev comment on key-binding dodge-jump that I found. If you have a better one, share it.
As for the point of discussion, it’s not what you are trying to force it to be. It’s not whether dodge-jump is 1 action or 2 or 3. The OP asked about whether or not lag was influencing his inability to perform it correctly 100% of the time.
Yeah, he did, then you replied with the ToS thing.
You want to turn this into a metaphysical discussion on whether its 1 action or 2. That doesn’t matter since you’d just be trying to force a niched view on it into the devs generalized statement that 1 key = 1 action.
That would be a key point, wouldn’kitten if dodge-jumping can be considered as being one action, 1 key can be bound to it.
Just because you get others to believe it’s considered 1 action doesn’t make it so.
It’s all views and opinions. Until a dev specifically gives an official view on the action(s).
Here, I’ll humor you, though:
Thank you, I’ll take some time to properly read it tomorrow.
Let’s use heart seeker and infiltrator’s signet. Obviously 2 different skills which can be used by themselves. You can also obviously use them together a fraction of a second later, or 2 seconds apart to create a synergistic technique that really has no label like dodge-jump. Regardless I see them in the same vein.
you activate one skill and then at some point before the first skill is over you activate the second skill to create a brand new effect not intended by either skill individually but rather through the combination of it.
Now if someone were to key bind a HS and timestamp macro the inf signet to go off 1 second after HS was activated, or .5seconds or .1 second it doesn’t matter. I think we would all agree that constitutes multi-keybinding which most of us would agree directly violates the ToS.
As such we can apply the same logic with 2 other unique skills, dodge and jump. However, the more confusing aspect to this is that the time-frame is MUCH smaller, between .00001 and .15 (probably). That shouldn’t confuse the issue though because it’s the exact same concept.
Again, it’s a metaphysical discussion meaning it’s not fact that HS INF SIG combined is not considered 2 actions or 1 action. I can’t tell you how you interpret it personally. But based on my knowledge and what the devs have said, it violates the ToS.
1 2