Jump to content

rulebreaker

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    29

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

  • Donations

    0.00 GBP 

 Content Type 

Posts posted by rulebreaker

  2. Since patch 3.3.0 the battleground should give arena points?

    in OldGeneral support

    Posted

    3.3.0 added the Arena points to the end of BG's only if it is the daily BG from the battlemaster

    Link for ref: http://www.wowwiki.com/Patch_3.3.0

    Battlegrounds

    * Battleground Experience: Battleground experience gained is now based on the level of the player gaining experience, rather than the highest possible player level in that Battleground.

    * All level 71-80 Battleground daily quests will now award 25 Arena points in addition to their current rewards.

  3. 4.0.3 server is live *.*

    in OldGeneral discussion

    Posted

    I think this is the biggest problem: everyone is rushing for 4.x support when most of the new features build on 3.x features that aren't even in mangos yet! Things like vehicles which are in pretty much every zone (!) in 4.x are not even working in 3.x mangos yet.

    Yeah but whose fault is that? my belief its the guys who control the mangos repo.

    There are a few vehicle patches out there that work fine but are not coded to mangos spec, yet this project is so picky for perfection it wont entertain these patches for integration.

    When your dealing with hundreds of programmers working for free, the turn around time is going to be very slow, so i say compromise and vote on the patches that get the job done with minimal breakage.

    Its not like we are a multinational corporation selling a retail piece of software, its ok for things not to be perfect.

    Hell I'm the Director of Network Ops "With a C, C++ and C# background" for a Pharmaceutical company in the US that builds software for other Pharmaceutical companies and our code is so sloppy its laughable but it sells and the client does not care, its gets the job done.

    Just my thought, It is not my intent to offend.

  4. What are your thoughts on Catacylsm?

    in OldCommunity Cafe

    Posted

    Not impressed, was watching my wife play her new worgen.

    I just cannot make myself spend a dime more on retail, I'm far too spoiled in my old age, i have no desire to work for gear and gold anymore and too cheap to spend real money on gold sellers and gear sellers.

    Wow is dead to me, at least console gaming is still entertaining

  7. Remove Ressurection Sickness

    in OldGeneral support

    Posted

    In the config file

    there is the following

    # Death.SicknessLevel
# Starting Character start gain sickness at spirit resurrection (1 min)
# Default: 11
# -10 - character will have full time (10min) sickness at 1 level
# maxplayerlevel+1 - character will not have sickness at any level

    So just change it from there

  8. [bug] seal of light

    in OldBug reports

    Posted

    From Spelleffects.cpp

    // Seal of Light proc
       if (m_spellInfo->Id == 20167)
       {
           float ap = caster->GetTotalAttackPowerValue(BASE_ATTACK);
           int32 holy = caster->SpellBaseHealingBonusDone(GetSpellSchoolMask(m_spellInfo));
           if (holy < 0)
               holy = 0;
           addhealth += int32(ap * 0.15) + int32(holy * 15 / 100);

    Looks normal to me from http://www.wowwiki.com/Seal_of_Light

    Fills the Paladin with divine light for 30 min, giving each melee attack a chance to heal the Paladin for (0.15*AP+0.15*SP). Only one Seal can be active on the Paladin at any one time.

    You can manually adjust it to fit your needs and recompile

  9. Any ETA on 4.0.1 support?

    in OldGeneral discussion

    Posted

    I think this quote will clear up some confusion on 4.X

    Now this was posted on a different site, which I wont name because honestly I'm not sure if its against the rules of this forum or not, but I'm sure most of you know who wrote it and where it was posted originally:

    No, there will not likely be a 4.0.1 private server any time soon for a few interesting reasons, all to do with something called "opcodes."

    To specify, opcodes are the encoded values that allow the server and client to communicate back and forth. To put it in generic terms, it's basically like a language. Each opcode is a different 'password' and it's how private servers talk to private server players.

    Now these opcodes have not changed in the last 5 years. Every once in awhile one or two opcodes will be added or change to a new spot. But with 4.0.1 every single opcode was randomized. In the last 5 years people have decoded about 80% of all opcodes. Now they'd have to start all over again, and it is apparently Blizzard's plan to randomize opcodes every patch. That would mean doing 5 years worth of work every 4 weeks or so.

    Now let's put it in a real-world analogy. Let's say you were asked to learn a language to talk to this newly discovered tribe of people. You spent five years learning the language by hanging out with them, finding out how they communicated, and were finally "pretty good" at it. Suddenly you find out that these people are going to change to a brand new, totally different language. And they are going to change to a new language every 4 weeks. So to even talk to them you would have to keep learning their new language once a month or not be able to talk back and forth.

    That's where the industry is at right now. People would love to have Cata servers, sure. But it's too much cat and mouse work trying to come up with the opcodes to communicate back and forth. And it isn't like you can find out an opcode at any time, you can only find them out by watching how the retail servers communicate. So once they update to a new version, there are new opcodes and all the old ones you learned are useless. With the new 'live patching' system they're talking about for Cata it becomes even more of an exercise in futility.

    Solution: just downgrade to 3.3.5a, join a nice private server, enjoy it and if you want the new stuff go with retail.

    Now is this truthful in any way shape or form, to tell you the truth I honestly don't care if it is or is not, its only an example that there are many factors that will slow down the development of 4.X support.

  17. Broken xp

    in OldCore modifications

    Posted

    oke got it now:D but can anyone else confirm it becos for me all is 100% fine

    Your changes work on 9131 and 9260 That's the 2 builds I run, they compiled fine with your changes and I get exp from 100-255 I did adjust my xp rates to 500 to speed up testing, but the XP bar doesn't move one bit.

  23. [PATCH] Ally&Horde in the same group (Updated)

    in OldCore modifications

    Posted

    The patch is still for 3.2.2a, when I'll update it for 3.3.x I'll post it

    Im running 3.2.2a build 9131 is still 3.2.2a and no matter what I try I get "fatal: patch with only garbage at line 5"

    So its not an issue with version type

    diff --git a/src/game/Group.cpp b/src/game/Group.cpp
index 484e5fd..b1ecfdc 100644
--- a/src/game/Group.cpp
+++ b/src/game/Group.cpp@@ -322,10 +322,20 @@ bool Group::AddMember(const uint64 &guid, const char* name)
                {
                    player->SetRaidDifficulty(GetRaidDifficulty());
                    player->SendRaidDifficulty(true);
                }
            }
+        // Group Interfactions interactions (test)
+            if(sWorld.getConfig(CONFIG_ALLOW_TWO_SIDE_INTERACTION_GROUP))
+            {
+                Group *group = player->GetGroup();
+                if(Player *leader = sObjectMgr.GetPlayer(group->GetLeaderGUID()))
+                {
+                    player->setFactionForRace(leader->getRace());
+                    sLog.outDebug( "WORLD: Group Interfaction Interactions - Faction changed (AddMember)" );
+                }
+            }
        }
        player->SetGroupUpdateFlag(GROUP_UPDATE_FULL);
        UpdatePlayerOutOfRange(player);

        // quest related GO state dependent from raid membership
@@ -422,10 +432,16 @@ void Group::Disband(bool hideDestroy)
            //we can remove player who is in battleground from his original group
            if( player->GetOriginalGroup() == this )
                player->SetOriginalGroup(NULL);
            else
                player->SetGroup(NULL);
+            // Restore original faction if needed
+            if(sWorld.getConfig(CONFIG_ALLOW_TWO_SIDE_INTERACTION_GROUP))
+            {
+                player->setFactionForRace(player->getRace());
+                sLog.outDebug( "WORLD: Group Interfaction Interactions - Restore original faction (Disband)" );
+            }
        }

        // quest related GO state dependent from raid membership
        if(isRaidGroup())
            player->UpdateForQuestWorldObjects();
@@ -449,11 +465,16 @@ void Group::Disband(bool hideDestroy)
        {
            data.Initialize(SMSG_GROUP_LIST, 24);
            data << uint64(0) << uint64(0) << uint64(0);
            player->GetSession()->SendPacket(&data);
        }
-
+        // Restore original faction if needed
+        if(sWorld.getConfig(CONFIG_ALLOW_TWO_SIDE_INTERACTION_GROUP))
+        {
+                player->setFactionForRace(player->getRace());
+                sLog.outDebug( "WORLD: Group Interfaction Interactions - Restore original faction (RemoveMember)" );
+        }
        _homebindIfInstance(player);
    }
    RollId.clear();
    m_memberSlots.clear();

    As you can see all line 5 contains is {

Contact Us

To contact us click here
You can also email us at [email protected]

Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions

Repositories

The Link to the master list
of MaNGOS repositories:
Copyright © getMaNGOS. All rights Reserved.

This website is in no way associated with or endorsed by Blizzard Entertainment®
×
×
  • 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