Cave Ammy Quest

Not all the keys will fit together with their proper peices. You can use A with B, but not B with A..

Sack the Builder.

I would, but his head is still on a chopping block for making me baby sit his blind kids

ROFL

I have updated some of the missing key combinations to try and fix this.

I appear to be limited to two allowed combinations per key part however, so there are a few combinations I cannot currently set up both ways.

If we call the four parts of the key A,B,C,D from top to bottom and for joined up parts we add letters such that the whole key will be ABCD. Then I can set part B+A=AB and part B+C=BC but I cannot also add part B+CD=BCD as this exceeds the 2 allowed combinations for part B. I can however set part CD+B=BCD and part CD+AB=ABCD as there are only two options for part CD.

I don't understand why you are limited to two parts? Are keys a particular expicit object? I know with 'traditional' keys it only needs two because the middle is only pairs with top or bottom. Why arn't these just generic objects, when you combine A+B it simply deletes A and B and creates E or turns A into A1..?

As it stands each key part is an object which allows 2 possible actions e.g. 1. Add part 1 to make part X and 2. add part 2 to make part Y. This is just how it has currently been coded.

There are only 2 input data fields set up, at least as far as is documented, for the driver being used here. Perhaps I can add a third and it will work but I don't have access to the game now to check. We will have to ask LL if a third key part can be set up as is, or if the code for the driver needs amended at which point I question if it would really be worth it for the sake of 2 key parts here...?

I started to write out this really long super long post about how logical or easy it would be with a certain design, but then I realized its all probably not coded even remotely that way. And even if it was of great overall benefit to recode it to benefit all items not just keys, itd still take forever + 1.61 days.

It is the way it is.

The online documentation is correct as far as I know.

Maybe instead of sacking the builder we should sack the coder.