Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 GBP 

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Schmoozerd

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just a small note to make things easier: I am pretty sure that there are possibilities to solve conflicts in favour for one side with git, maybe also for single files. If this was so, maybe some small merge-helper script could do this, and these simple conflicts would show up no more for users. Also you could add an own revision-file for playerbot, to prevent some conflicts. But the main point why i write: Blueboy I sent you a PM ages ago
  2. I have never looked at related code - but will this have impact (desired, undesired) onto * warlocks? * ghools? * some exotic "pets" like shaman wolfes?
  3. you can probably add a AT_LOGIN flag to force them to change PW or so.
  4. After long wait. All three decimate spells in [11956]. Thank you guys
  5. Hi virusav - hope you are alright. Yes - actually a place to collect publicly available sniffs is a good idea! If we get links here, I think I will make this thread sticky
  6. Ah, you are talking about the BG-weekend events? Yes the battlemasters in the cities are only around on weekends. Afaik normally you need to walk to the actual BG-entries to join a BG Take a look at udb wiki, game_event table, to see how to start a event permamently (add start-time in past and duration near infinity)
  7. @lillecarl The code you pasted is used only to change the password (which is for case s = v = 0)
  8. no, vladimir was telling, that currently the core doesn't use anywhere any hard-coded condition-entry. So actually no need to force the conditions table to be under sync of mangos -- which is also in the bigger picture impossible, because conditions are highly DB stuff related. (unfortunately even custom db-stuff) However I suggest to keep a couple of condition-entries reserved for shared use (Mangos, EventAI maybe, SD2 maybe) - even if we currently see no need for them. But this might change
  9. little bump here. From wowwiki and wowhead comments it should do way more damage (depending on caster's mana pool) Edit: After some research, and bit thinking in [11950] Thank you Known bug: The spell hits oneself - but I am pretty convinced that this must be fixed with basic spell-targeting, and not as effect of spell 27820.
  10. This thread is about the new conditions system, which is intended to replace the current condition handling. (Faramir's version) The basic idea is: Wrap up all conditions into one table, called `conditions`, and refer to this table from loot or gossips directly by entry. To be able to have complicated conditions (like HasAura AND NotHasItem), two Meta-Conditions for AND (-1) and OR (-2) are introduced. Reason for this: Advantages: * Less space in the database * More powerfull concept * Easier to add conditions to other places Disadvantes: * Harder to read (always require an addition
  11. Reject this, as this aura is not applied to new night elf druids. Some alternative solution is still required. (Probably learn the passive aura when the spell is learned or something) Edit: Store for future reference, in case something alike is required diff --git a/sql/mangos.sql b/sql/mangos.sql index 139d6c9..b77121e 100644 --- a/sql/mangos.sql +++ b/sql/mangos.sql @@ -12190,6 +12190,7 @@ INSERT INTO `playercreateinfo_spell` VALUES (4,11,22027,'Remove Insignia'), (4,11,22810,'Opening - No Text'), (4,11,27764,'Fetish'), +(4,11,44835,'Maim Interrupt'), (4,11,45927,'Summon Friend'), (4,1
  12. Spells 48250 and 46556 are the only ones with positive basepoints, so they (and they alone) would _increase_ the dodge chance with your patch. about 46556 it is not possible to say much, looks like a test-spell to me. spell 48250 seems to be used ingame, but the overall dbc data looks crappy (in description use of basepoints of effect0 instead of proper effect2..) Don't know what to make of this.
  13. Thank you. Move to rejected, as seems to be already implemented in master. Alternative added in commit 6696da55bc203c32a70c99d66d50f144f2a8e118 [9967] Fix 16164 proc conditions please rebump if I am mistaken.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy Terms of Use