Auntie Mangos

What bug does the patch fix? What features does the patch add? replaces absolete melee miss chance calculation with current one. better variable names ( HitChance -> hitChance, miss_chance -> missChance ) For which repository revision was the patch created? 9100 Is there a thread in the bug report section or at lighthouse? -miss-chance-for-melee-damage"]here Who has been writing this patch? Please include either forum user names or email addresses. Me http://pastebin.com/m6f26bddb diff --git a/src/game/Unit.cpp b/src/game/Unit.cpp index 98c4f94..5f2c28f 100644 --- a/src/game/Unit.cpp +++ b/src/game/Unit.cpp -2529,44 +2529,41 @@ bool Unit::isSpellBlocked(Unit *pVictim, SpellEntry const * /*spellProto*/, Weap float Unit::MeleeSpellMissChance(Unit *pVictim, WeaponAttackType attType, int32 skillDiff, SpellEntry const *spell) { // Calculate hit chance (more correct for chance mod) - int32 HitChance; + float hitChance = 0.0f; // PvP - PvE melee chances - int32 lchance = pVictim->GetTypeId() == TYPEID_PLAYER ? 5 : 7; - int32 leveldif = pVictim->getLevelForTarget(this) - getLevelForTarget(pVictim); - if(leveldif < 3) - HitChance = 95 - leveldif; - else - HitChance = 93 - (leveldif - 2) * lchance; + if ( pVictim->GetTypeId() == TYPEID_PLAYER ) + hitChance = 95.0f + skillDiff * (skillDiff > 0 ? 0.02f : 0.04f); + else if ( skillDiff < -10 ) + hitChance = 94.0f + (skillDiff + 10) * 0.4f; + else + hitChance = 95.0f + skillDiff * 0.1f; // Hit chance depends from victim auras if(attType == RANGED_ATTACK) - HitChance += pVictim->GetTotalAuraModifier(SPELL_AURA_MOD_ATTACKER_RANGED_HIT_CHANCE); + hitChance += pVictim->GetTotalAuraModifier(SPELL_AURA_MOD_ATTACKER_RANGED_HIT_CHANCE); else - HitChance += pVictim->GetTotalAuraModifier(SPELL_AURA_MOD_ATTACKER_MELEE_HIT_CHANCE); + hitChance += pVictim->GetTotalAuraModifier(SPELL_AURA_MOD_ATTACKER_MELEE_HIT_CHANCE); // Spellmod from SPELLMOD_RESIST_MISS_CHANCE if(Player *modOwner = GetSpellModOwner()) - modOwner->ApplySpellMod(spell->Id, SPELLMOD_RESIST_MISS_CHANCE, HitChance); + modOwner->ApplySpellMod(spell->Id, SPELLMOD_RESIST_MISS_CHANCE, hitChance); // Miss = 100 - hit - float miss_chance= 100.0f - HitChance; + float missChance = 100.0f - hitChance; // Bonuses from attacker aura and ratings if (attType == RANGED_ATTACK) - miss_chance -= m_modRangedHitChance; + missChance -= m_modRangedHitChance; else - miss_chance -= m_modMeleeHitChance; - - // bonus from skills is 0.04% - miss_chance -= skillDiff * 0.04f; + missChance -= m_modMeleeHitChance; // Limit miss chance from 0 to 60% - if (miss_chance < 0.0f) + if (missChance < 0.0f) return 0.0f; - if (miss_chance > 60.0f) + if (missChance > 60.0f) return 60.0f; - return miss_chance; + return missChance; } // Melee based spells hit result calculations

What bug does the patch fix? What features does the patch add? fixes detecting stealthed units after restealth For which repository revision was the patch created? 9055 Is there a thread in the bug report section or at lighthouse? If yes, please add a link to the thread. http://getmangos.eu/community/viewtopic.php?id=11680 Who has been writing this patch? Please include either forum user names or email addresses. me diff --git a/src/game/Unit.cpp b/src/game/Unit.cpp index 0c7d24e..261d369 100644 --- a/src/game/Unit.cpp +++ b/src/game/Unit.cpp @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ void Unit::Update( uint32 p_time ) { // m_CombatTimer set at aura start and it will be freeze until aura removing if ( m_CombatTimer <= p_time ) - ClearInCombat(); + CombatStop(); else m_CombatTimer -= p_time; } this might be not the right place or the best way to fix it, but heres what i got from debug : i had mage and druid in duel, 1)mage starts to cast fireball 2)mages m_attacking is now druid 3)mages m_attacking->AddAttacker(self) 4)druid has m_attacking null cause he is not attacking 5)combat fades (ClearInCombat - flags only) 6)druid casts prowl(yeah he gets AttackStop(); call in Spell::finish but it won't help cause he needs m_attackers delete on self) 7)now we end up having druid with m_attacking==NULL but with not empty m_attackers 8)I don't think mage's m_attacking is also cleared but AttackStop is never called for him 9)bool Unit::isVisibleForOrDetect(Unit const* u, WorldObject const* viewPoint, bool detect, bool inVisibleList, bool is3dDistance) const // If is attacked then stealth is lost, some creature can use stealth too if( !getAttackers().empty() ) return true; there the check fails because m_attackers list was never cleared

Here there's the bug report --> http://getmangos.eu/community/showthread.php?p=53542 BTW thx

What bug does the patch fix? What features does the patch add? This fixes an error when using .account onlinelist the error will popup that the column "realm" doesn't exist in the realmd.account table For which repository revision was the patch created? 9913 Is there a thread in the bug report section or at lighthouse? http://getmangos.eu/community/showthread.php?13901-Error-warning-when-using-.account-onlinelist Who has been writing this patch? Splash diff --git a/src/mangosd/CliRunnable.cpp b/src/mangosd/CliRunnable.cpp index 1f11037..549d578 100644 --- a/src/mangosd/CliRunnable.cpp +++ b/src/mangosd/CliRunnable.cpp @@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ bool ChatHandler::HandleAccountOnlineListCommand(const char* args) ///- Get the list of accounts ID logged to the realm // 0 1 2 3 4 - QueryResult *result = loginDatabase.PQuery("SELECT id, username, last_ip, gmlevel, expansion FROM account WHERE realm = %u", realmID); + QueryResult *result = loginDatabase.PQuery("SELECT id, username, last_ip, gmlevel, expansion FROM account WHERE active_realm_id = %u", realmID); return ShowAccountListHelper(result,&limit); }

http://getmangos.eu/community/showthread.php?3570-Little-Question-About-The-Connection-Client-Mangos&highlight=SRP6 http://getmangos.eu/community/showthread.php?5124-Authentication-protocol&highlight=SRP6 http://www.mangosclient.org/ http://getmangos.eu/community/showthread.php?10122-Protocol&highlight=protocol there was another one if i remember correctly but oh well

Just to clarify there is already a patch for this: http://getmangos.eu/community/viewtopic.php?id=10058

yes, they are in mangos-zero/sql/updates

you can tell git to use a user-friendly merge-tool, see http://getmangos.eu/community/post/50346/#p50346

Hi Gitch, kennumen put together quite a comprehensive todo list, some time back http://getmangos.eu/community/post/138662/#p138662. Problem is if it isn't bookmarked it becomes forgetten, just little I did for the 'use item' issue. I'm going to gather together all ideas and update the todo list in the GitHub source. That way we will all have an oracle to go to. There maybe a good reason for this. Do the bots who stay behind have the cost to fly? Also, do the bots know the destination node? As a player, if for any reason one or more of the bots are not within interaction distance of the flightmaster (bots maybe off-line at the time) when the player flies, they will not learn the route. I can help you out creating patches and any other management of your code with regard to 'git', that's no problem. To get you started, take a look at this Creating a local git patch Nice idea with the skill level, we'll definitely have that in the code.. Cheers

Ok i have fix this problem, in my opinion not hacky more in this threat http://getmangos.eu/community/post/133849/#p133849

Hi, I am providing server with own custom database, focused on roleplay, and we want to allow flying mounts for Storytellers. So, is there any chance to make flying mounts summonable in Azeroth? I mean all of them. I'm very grateful for any ideas. Thank you, Xmat edit: I've found this topic, http://getmangos.eu/community/topic/8521/flying-mounts-everywhere/ but there are a lot of ideas and i can't find any of them useful and functional.

Well, i tried this some thousand(s) revs back, and tried it again (after reading all this) on a more recent rev: Setting the value to 60 seems to make auctions right (in Database), but they never show up in the client when visiting the auctionhouse. Same goes with a value of 30. (value 30: 24h auction: showing 720h expire time on mw-enhanced, wich sounds perfectly allright) Rev9765, sd2 1677, udb 390, acid 3.0.4, win xp 32 bit, release. (i know i gotta update, but imho won't change anything on this matter) No ahbot, no ah-addons whatsoever. It would be wonderfull to get this working on a very low-population server, that isn't using ahbot. Is this a client limitation? And if so, any way around it? Any advice is much appreciated. This sounds like much the same: http://getmangos.eu/community/showthread.php?14103-My-auctionhouse-isn-t-working-right-(No-mods-or-Bots)

XTZGZoReX test is need or not? I see that you revert you commit.

What bug does the patch fix? What features does the patch add? As we know blizz was replaced TARGET_IN_FRONT_OF_CASTER to target 104 for some spells. I make the same. It fixes "cone zone" for spells 120,31661,46968,47897,61391 and ranks For which repository revision was the patch created? 8765+ Is there a thread in the bug report section or at lighthouse? If yes, please add a link to the thread. http://getmangos.eu/community/viewtopic.php?id=10718 Who has been writing this patch? Please include either forum user names or email addresses. Me DOWNLOAD

Rejected due to causing action bar problem. See http://getmangos.eu/community/topic/16928/fix-actionbar-problems-with-shapeshifting/ . Thanks nonetheless

What bug does the patch fix? What features does the patch add? Many. All Spells with DynamicObjects and the reapply of auras For which repository revision was the patch created? I think for all. I am use at the moment 11265. I know i should update Is there a thread in the bug report section or at lighthouse? If yes, please add a link to the thread. Yes my bugreport, http://getmangos.eu/community/post/133846/#p133846 Who has been writing this patch? Please include either forum user names or email addresses. me the problem is that the target, which go outside of the affected area, is not delete from the "affected targetlist". This fix remove the target, that the aura can reapply. diff --git a/src/game/SpellAuras.cpp b/src/game/SpellAuras.cpp index 32ec486..15aa673 100644 --- a/src/game/SpellAuras.cpp +++ b/src/game/SpellAuras.cpp @@ -906,7 +906,10 @@ void PersistentAreaAura::Update(uint32 diff) if (dynObj) { if (!GetTarget()->IsWithinDistInMap(dynObj, dynObj->GetRadius())) + { remove = true; + dynObj->RemoveAffected(GetTarget()); + } } else remove = true; for git pick https://github.com/Reamer/mangos/commit/af2c83c2826bc1a01b5f29e4ed5418772558ffb1

What bug does the patch fix? What features does the patch add? you can now have two auras of the same resistances, but only the highest value counts For which repository revision was the patch created? newest mangos 0.12 Is there a thread in the bug report section or at lighthouse? http://getmangos.eu/community/showthread.php?13143-Scrolls-Of-Different-Ranks-Stack-Together Who has been writing this patch? Please include either forum user names or email addresses. Me Final Version: http://github.com/insider42/mangos/commit/c09b9d101e70d05533544fdec5f7469474a338c7

This post - not useful for mangos inprovement! Please read this : http://getmangos.eu/community/showthread.php?7568-[Guide]-How-To-Post-A-Proper-Bug-Report

got one better here http://getmangos.eu/community/viewtopic.php?id=10609

thank you for working on this - also summoned GO by spell can be looted infinitly report archive http://getmangos.eu/community/viewtopic.php?id=9534&highlight=infinite

Found listed as a known bug. http://getmangos.eu/community/viewtopic.php?id=5083&highlight=dead+mobs+return+to+original+spot+cannot+loot

Okay, it's been a while and I'm a wordy sort so this could turn out to be a mammoth of a post. I'll try and keep it short. Yes and no. Of course, at level 40 paladins and warriors can wear plate (and hunters and shamans can wear mail). But that is a complicated area. It's not as if at level 40 a warrior is suddenly clad in plate only. It's not as if a plate item is suddenly better than a mail one (and the issue is even more clouded for e.g. hunters who even later on often prefer a great rogue item (leather) over a -possibly lowerlevel- mail one). As a general rule, you want some plate items by 45 (ish) and to more or less be full-plate by level 50. More or less the same for melee shamans. Hunters, healer-paladins, spell/healer shamans are again more difficult. If they're in a group, they're never really meant to be hit, in which case it could be well worth it to exchange a bit of 'useless' armor for better stats. It's a cloudy issue and I haven't (and probably can't) explain it fully, but it's not always clear-cut (depending on class+function) that a lower armor class means the item is automatically 'unfit'. That said, it does enrage some people when e.g. hunters roll on leather, so if nothing else it's certainly a good option to have. Just a silly question - upon death you lose 10% of the item dura (although it used to be 25% and I can't for the life of me remember if that was before or after the latest 1.x patch). Actually, never mind. With your setting of 10%, death could never break an item before it's unequipped, non-issue. And I felt so smart thinking of it, too. Darn fever >< @Kreegoth No quote, but I'll look at those AI you posted and see if I can't add them in. Played around with clothies quite a bit in my time so I should be a fair judge... Should have some time (and a distinct lack of fever) this weekend. Of course, that's assuming none of these busy orc workers beat me to it - Zug zug. Why not a mixed command? /p follow dist [distance] where [distance] is (e.g.) a number between 5 and MAX_FOLLOW_DISTANCE (which I believe is a config setting and/or a declared constant in playerbot/playerbotmgr). OR [distance] is (e.g.) close (say 5), normal (default or 10), far (15), further (25), furthest (MAX_...). bot whispers "I'm now trailing you by # yards" unless it's exactly the value of one of the string variables (regardless of whether a # or string was the actual command), then (e.g.): /p follow dist 10 bot whispers "I'm now trailing you by 10 (normal) yards" Something like that. Just an idea. I've been thinking about this for a while (how many of you have actually gone 1-80 at least once - just a question out of curiosity with no intended condescension), but shouldn't the white-item selling be dynamic? At level 1-6 you barely ever want to sell a white. Hell, you barely ever get a white. At levels 12-20 you're starting to get a fair amount of greens, and with quest rewards should be starting to equip quite a few greens(assuming, of course, the player does quests and wants to take the time to complete his bots' quests as well - easy for kill quests, time consuming for collection quests). Past level 20 you're not going to want many whites, excepting the shoulder position where grays are even acceptable until level 30 (or even higher if no replacement has been found yet). It's pretty much guaranteed by level 40 whites are useless - but I can't for the life of me remember if they even still drop by then. Excepted by this are of course tabards and shirts, but those probably aren't classified as armor anyway. Anyway, just thinking out loud as to whether one setting is enough. On the other hand, if it's not auto-equipped, is a white really worth the effort? The code is out there, as per the licensing it should be pretty obvious nobody has any issues with someone else reusing their code. I certainly don't You're free to toy with autobot as you see fit, or branch off it, or ignore it. I do still plan to work on it myself, but hey, if you get it working first, perhaps I will and perhaps I won't. You mention you might prefer a different method to developing independent bots. Perhaps you'd rather have a look-see at Arena-bg-bots. I took a few looks, couldn't really directly copy code (*sigh* nope, that would've been too easy wouldn't it) but he got it working so there's some good info there. The code is dirty though (not based on mangos but it's a mix of several core modifications), so clear your head, go in knowing things may look and work a bit different and you should be fine. I wouldn't mention it if there wasn't something there Seriously, don't be afraid to create a seperate branch for this. With the idea above, it's generally best to keep things seperate. That way it's clean, it can easily be merged into it's parent tree when it's been confirmed working (and more or less bug-free), and you can easily test that one feature. Of course, we all have our preferences. Some people prefer to keep small changes in a single test branch (although that's what new-ai was created for, if perhaps somewhat mis-named for the purpose - it's probably short for "new playerbotAI code"). In any case, I feel this is a project big enough to warrant it's own branch. Oh, and your chatty bots suggestion sounds great for immersion. Thumbs up Some of you guys have been having fun with github haven't you... 0.o

http://getmangos.eu/community/post/131896/#p131896 Original Author is found I guess, hopefully vladimir starts reviewing it Would be awesome if this part is added finally.

Firstly, thanks for testing and input. The more people get involved, the faster and better this will advance. Secondly : As Faramir mentioned, it is our temporary "solution" to lack of avoidance when target is not reachable. Something better will have to be made eventually. About the console error, I have pretty good idea where it comes from. Pretty sure it is due to given end position not being "close" to last polygon on our poly-path. Happens every time when A* cannot give you full path, it gives you best effort/closest poly. Then we still use expected end point as its final destination, thus making point-path functions to error. I'm working on solution which hopefully will solve it, but it isn't ready yet. Basically I want to distinguish between end position and actual reachable end position. They are not always the same. On the way, solving all the related cases, like flying, vmap ground level vs mmap mesh differences, etc. Then we'll be able to easily implement avoidance on nonreachability. faramir118: Please push my patch, so we wont have differences in work-base like we did last time. Take care.

What bug does the patch fix? What features does the patch add? For which repository revision was the patch created? my revision is 11774 Is there a thread in the bug report section or at lighthouse? If yes, please add a link to the thread. http://getmangos.eu/community/topic/16773/dead-if-crash-in-bg/ Who has been writing this patch? Please include either forum user names or email addresses. me Patch: http://paste.ubuntu.com/661954/ @@ -1021,10 +1021,12 @@ void BattleGround::RemovePlayerAtLeave(ObjectGuid guid, bool Transport, bool Sen { plr->ResurrectPlayer(1.0f); plr->SpawnCorpseBones(); } } + else + sObjectAccessor.ConvertCorpseForPlayer(guid); RemovePlayer(plr, guid); // BG subclass specific code if(participant) // if the player was a match participant, remove auras, calc rating, update queue {