Siegels

Hello I would like to get some information about the differences between Trinity and Mangos. Yes, I know, Trinity is criticized on this forum. However, I would like to have objective advice with concrete examples, to weigh the pros and cons. Voila! Thank you in advance for your constructive responses =)

What bug does the patch fix? What features does the patch add? With talent "Improved Felhunter", Felhunter must regain 4 or 8% of his maximum mana at each shadow bite. For which repository revision was the patch created? [9851] Is there a thread in the bug report section or at lighthouse? If yes, please add a link to the thread. Don't know. Who has been writing this patch? Please include either forum user names or email addresses. Me Hi, I tried to correct this part of the talent. Maybe i will see for other part with Fel Intelligence, but for the moment: @@ -480,6 +480,11 @@ void Spell::EffectSchoolDMG(SpellEffectIndex effect_idx) if ((*itr)->GetCasterGUID() == owner->GetGUID()) ++counter; + if (owner->HasSpell(54037)) + m_caster->SetPower(POWER_MANA,m_caster->GetPower(POWER_MANA)+m_caster->GetMaxPower(POWER_MANA)*4/100); + else if (owner->HasSpell(54038)) + m_caster->SetPower(POWER_MANA,m_caster->GetPower(POWER_MANA)+m_caster->GetMaxPower(POWER_MANA)*8/100); + if (counter) damage += (counter * owner->CalculateSpellDamage(unitTarget, m_spellInfo, EFFECT_INDEX_2) * damage) / 100.0f; } Download available on Pastebin (here) and Filebeam (here). Tested and works for me.

As I said in my first post, we need to test. Items order is not a problem but i'm not sure all commands works.

So simple, i didn't search correctly ... I will try, thank you.

Hi, I want to work on some talents but, i don't know how to check if player has talent or not. For example : //if has talent 54037 (or rank 2 54038) : dummy aura: 54425 if (/* What here ? */) m_caster->SetPower(POWER_MANA,m_caster->GetPower(POWER_MANA)+m_caster->GetMaxPower(POWER_MANA)*4/100); else if(/* What here to check rank 2?*/) m_caster->SetPower(POWER_MANA,m_caster->GetPower(POWER_MANA)+m_caster->GetMaxPower(POWER_MANA)*8/100); I tried too with dummy aura : if (Aura* talent = owner->GetDummyAura(54425)) m_caster->SetPower(POWER_MANA,m_caster->GetPower(POWER_MANA)+m_caster->GetMaxPower(POWER_MANA)*talent->GetModifier()->m_amount/100); Those examples are for talent http://fr.wowhead.com/spell=54037 and http://fr.wowhead.com/spell=54038. It must modify spell Shadow bite. Any Idea ?

Updated first post. Added new patch. Now when moving an item in a vendor list, position of other items is checked before moving. Query replacement for nester query modified.

Updated first post. New patch without nester query, need test. EDIT: New patch works, tested.

There is only 1 nester query witch can be replaced with a JOIN query without doing any change in your database. SQL patch in first .patch file is correct with or without modification but, yes, join is faster than nester. I will (test and) provide a new patch when I would turn into ubuntu (I'm actually over windows (bwah...) and don't have any developement stuff).

(Up) Oh i see, I didn't know that we can use join in an update query Like this ?: UPDATE npc_vendor list, npc_vendor item SET list.sortOrder = list.sortOrder - 1 WHERE list.sortOrder > item.sortOrder AND item.entry='%u' AND item.entry=list.entry and item.item = '%u';

I wanted to avoid a new variable in this part but if you think it's better than this form ... why not ^^

http://pastebin.com/7UAZNy6u

I don't know what have to be in "Core Modifications" or "Under revision ..." so I posted here =D

Hi, I use mangos since 3 years now, and I always noticed that vendors have the items sorted randomly. So, what does it mean ? On off, you can see ie for a poison vendor: Mortal poison, Mortal poison II, Mortal poison III, Mortal poison IV ... etc. All sorted. In mangos ... =D We have not "Order by" in the sql request, so we can see Mortal poison II, Instant poison IV, Mortal poison IX ... etc. (this is an exemple, i don't remember how it is with UDB ) So i made this patch which allow custom order in vendors lists. This is not really "usefull" but i am always bored about search a specific poison, or other item (ie emblems of conquest, item sets must be at the end of the list) in those lists, and i think ordored ones could be fine. Tested on my local server, you can choose order while adding items, or with a new command : .npc moveitem <itemid/link> [<int>] (if not given, sortOrder = 0) (slot 0 is first and default slot) Here is the updated patch without nester query (need test) : [DOWNLOAD LINK][PASTEBIN LINK] Apply this to your database if you want to have correct text when using command: INSERT INTO `mangos_string` (`entry`, `content_default`, `content_loc1`, `content_loc2`, `content_loc3`, `content_loc4`, `content_loc5`, `content_loc6`, `content_loc7`, `content_loc8`) VALUES (10000, 'Item ''%i'' ''%s'' moved in vendor list to place %i', NULL, 'Equipement ''%i'' ''%s'' déplacé dans la liste du vendeur à la place %i.', NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL); And this ... if you want this patch to work =D ALTER TABLE `npc_vendor` ADD `sortOrder` TINYINT( 3 ) UNSIGNED NOT NULL DEFAULT '0';

You could add this command in Chat.cpp

Theory, yep. On off, you cannot validate a quest by speaking 5 times the same npc but only if you speak to 5 differents npcs in my exemple

Yes, that's a good exemple =D Thanks ^^

This is not for camping: not for quests in which the objective is to kill a creature. No, this is for objectives as "speaking to X guards" but not X times to the same or "burn X houses" but not X times the same house.

Hum ... eg in Zul'Drak, i had this problem with quest http://www.wowhead.com/quest=12509

Hello, I had an idea: Currently, players can validate a quest by speaking several times to the same creature or several times using a spell on a single creature or object (eg a player can behead several times a single humanoid ). Why not create a table in which we store the GUID of creatures / objects on which targets have been validated for unfinished quests ? It's just an idea but I think it would have to solve many problems in this regard. On this, sorry for my broken English and I expect reactions =) Siegels

[to delete]

In addition:

Maybe because...: