User talk:Kumasasa

Bug Moderation
Hi, thanks for helping moderate bugs! Two things you should know: --Mattrition 13:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As stated in the instructions, the ? tag can not be used to replace another bug tag. It's an extra tag for use if you or others can't reproduce the bug in question and want to notify others that this bug needs further vetting. Add it after the normal undefined tag.
 * Don't move bug reports to the Fixed/Skipped sections unless they have an F or S tag in front of them. Mojang staff are the only members that can call a bug "skipped"
 * Thanks for your hints.
 * I intended to tag the bugs as undefined? but replaced by mistake the undefined just by ?
 * The second point is clear after re-reading the instructions ;-) -- Kumasasa 14:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! A lot of the concepts for moderation are really subtle. For example, ? is strictly used for reports that are of potential valid bugs that another user couldn't reproduce. It is not for flagging a bug as "not a bug". Instead you should just mention that it isn't a bug and should be removed. It's confusing a lot of people... --Mattrition 10:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. Re-re-reading the instructions helped a lot... What about introducing a new flag r = [R] to ease the editing and reduce the confusion ?

Oh, it's ok. You can delete the other one of the same bug. Also, why don't we make the "Not a bug, Candidate for removal" the color red? [R] It just looks a bit more of a "Candidate For Deletion."

--Tkain47 17:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Hehe. Thank you for the help! :) -Rock
 * You're welcome! --Kumasasa 01:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ping re "improved"
Please go ahead and revert my edit or otherwise; I see I was misinformed about the situation. Full reply. —kpreid 21:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Dinnerbone
Just passing though - um, are you sure you've reverted the correct parts of the Dinnerbone article? The current version, while quite complimentary to him (in a surreal way) doesn't sound very encyclopaedic. :-) --82.69.54.207 19:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the surreal part was added by his co-worker User:MarcWatson: History. --Kumasasa 22:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Note from Tkain47
I got a new account, Tkain61. Just to say because we talked earlier. UPDATE:New NEW acc: User:Tkain --Tkain47 15:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

About Invalidated Issue Report
Firstly, I am only contacting you here as I have found no other method to contact moderators on the bug tracker about status deputes. In November of 2012, I submitted  -- New Mob AI doesn't take world limit/Void into account for pathing -- due to mobs actively pathing into the Void and therefore deleting themselves. However, due to the wording and attributes of the game at the time, it was marked as Invalid for a feature request by you. Now that the new AI has been applied to all mobs, I find it prudent to reopen the issue.

The issue is: The old AI system took the Void into account, allowing mobs to actively path around areas whereas they would fall in and be deleted. The new AI system does not take the Void into account, and the player can actively witness mobs simply walking off even relatively high ledges into the Void. The issue lies with how pathing was changed: The new AI system calculates downward drop, and must stop at the world's bottom limit. This causes it to treat the bottom of the world as a solid plain and a surface to path across, when in reality it is a drop which will delete the mob on contact. This makes any low-lying platforms over open Voids impossible with freely roaming mobs, as they will always wander off. Given the expansions to mapmaker ability and the amount of data placed into mobs as such, this can be a rather frustrating issue.

I hope you understand my reasoning and consider reopening the report. If there is any confusion, I have older explanations on the report which might be more understandable. It is difficult to explain as is. Thank you for your time. Link to the issue:  --MegaScience (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)