Edit: Nvm, it seems that there are multiple instances of these scripts.
Edit2: @Garr - Yeah, that was my first assumption, but I wasn't 100% sure. That + my failure to notice the other refiners in pre/re folders led me to believe it wasn't intended and we were unwittingly giving them a higher success chance. Glad to know that it is as intended.
Both in side pre(folder) & re(folder) as well as outside of both, which is where I found these odd checks.
But, the ones inside the (p)re folders do not have these odd double checks, so I guess nvm @.@; sorry for wasting your time.
[spoiler]Not sure if this is a bug more than just wasted check...
is there a reason that all the refiners have this double check, when it's the same?[code=auto:0]
if (getequippercentrefinery(.@part) > rand(100) || getequippercentrefinery(.@part) > rand(100)) {
successrefitem .@part;
next;
emotion e_no1;
mes "[Suhnbi]";
mes "There you go! It's done.";
mes "It's been a while since I've made such a fine "+((getequipweaponlv(.@part))?"weapon":"armor")+". You must be happy because it has become stronger!";
close;
}
[/code]
I mean clearly once would be enough, but you're checking twice. I can only assume it's being done this way because rand() may not be 'truly' random (but nothing really is). Unless there's something I missed?[/spoiler]
This post has been edited by
GmOcean
on Nov 24, 2014 1:13