m_pan

Well. If nothing else- I left myself a roadmap for readding the Redridge Chapel to my database if I happened to come looking almost seven years later. (".gobj add tmp 19001" still spawns in a giant flying ship and not a chapel, btw ;p )

So... long story short... last night I was talking to some family about my new 3D Printer and the question came up if I could print a claymore since the local RenFest doesn't allow 'real' weapons anymore which led me to the discovery that someone did a full-size Lich King armor set which led the conversation into WoW, and Blizzard, and emulation and while trying to explain this *thing* led to the Trailers for Lich King and Legion... well, I can't watch the Lich King trailer without tearing up a bit and getting all Emo. For me WoW started right at the end of Burning Crusade, so Lich King is and always will be very dear to me. Thank you. Honestly. Thank you to all the devs- past, present and future. Thank you to the community. Thank you for keeping that part of my history from being blown away like smoke in the wind. Thank you to Blizzard. I don't think any of us has anything but love for Blizz. For me- WoW emulation was the first time I felt opposed by something I loved so much, but I don't love it any less. Love you all. Thank you.

Not sure what or how, but it seems that my DB may have been causing it for whatever reason. Dropped auth, world and characters then rebuilt the databases and all was well again. Just lost all my accounts characters and custom items.

So... last night dozed off in the middle of a Deadmines run so I logged and went to bed. When I logged back in this evening it seems that my server has become borked. When I logged back in my toon was still in Deadmines but all the mobs were unresponsive and showed 'Unknown' for the name. Tried the unstucker, disconnect. GM tele $home, disconnect. Log back at hearth location- more Unknown NPCs, disconnect. Cleared client cache... Check server console and I was getting disconnected because... WorldSocket::HandlePing: [Player: xxxxxxx (GUID Full: 0x0000000000000002 Type: Player Low: 2, Account: 2)] kicked for over-speed pings (address: 192.168.1.xxx) Tried creating a new player to test with and it is happening with new toons too. Suggestions? Pinging my domain returns with <1ms, but in-game latency is 8-9k. Is it possible for this to be a corrupted database? Corrupted client files? GM account stays logged in but shows the effects of the lag. I'm still waiting for it to catchup from the string of .teles I fired off. I don't expect disabling the ping checks to fix this... worldserver is using 0.02% of one core (2 dual-core processor machine) and 12% of system memory. /edit: 3.3.5 server, recent-ish build, same with DB. Server is currently powered down but if specific revision is insisted on I'll boot it later to get it.

So.... I just watched the Legion Trailer... ... ... ... ... ... please. For the love of god. Prove me wrong. I beg of you.

nevermind

All good... I just couldn't tell what point it was that you were talking about. Might have been in reference to expecting TC devs to live up to Blizz devs is a bit foolish.

I did?

1) ::WISTFUL SIGH:: As I said. That particular thread was of a low priority. I linked all the relevant threads that were necessary. I didn't feel the need to press that particular issue, so I didn't link it. I can't help that you were in a rush and responded without fully comprehending what you were responding to. 2) The RedridgeChapel\Skybreaker issue was of such low priority that I didn't feel the immediate need to address it. I already figured out HOW to add Redridge Chapel and didn't need to post it to the tracker because I didn't need somebody else to fix it. Your suggestion of consulting the gameobject_template is unnecessary because all I needed to do for that particular issue is figure out what gobjID would have been proper, rename the existing 19001 to Skybreaker and file a pull request against the repo. The only reason I hadn't done so yet is because I am in the middle of a move and haven't set my server back up yet. I had every intention of filing said pull request once I had the time to set my stuff up again. The fixes that I was concerned with were more complicated and required learning SmartAI which is a far more involved process. I didn't post THAT to the tracker yet because I didn't want someone to swoop in and fix it invalidating the need for me to learn to fix anything. 3) And the policy of locking every 'Solved' thread is flawed. All that does is cause there to be multiple threads for the same or similar issues which makes the cop-out of 'use the search bar' a pain in the ass because users end up with multiple pages of results to wade through and incomplete searches because a thread might deal with an issue but not use a particular term that the user based their search around. The Help and Support thread has *8* pages of threads that have not been locked due to being 'solved' or being addressed at all. For the purposes of collecting information about broken quests and the information related to those quests the thread in question could have been very useful. As I've stated previously- it was meant to be a work in progress... I had only written the initial post and added 2 quests thus far and another user had already taken the time to link the YouTube video that I couldn't find which confirmed the collaborative intent I had when I started the thread. Rules are fine and rules are great and all, but sometimes the greater good *can* be served by not following said rules to the letter. The simple fact that I clearly addressed the intent and the purpose in the OP should have served as an indicator that this may have been one of those times. If you really want a link then here you go... https://community.trinitycore.org/topic/12114-list-of-quests-that-need-attention-335/ special note: the 'PS' at the end of the OP. And now my re: Legion thread has been merged into the original Legion thread making it a convoluted mess. The 're' thread had nothing to do with Legion proper and was only relevant to the original topic in that it was critical of the handling of the original thread. The better solution in this instance would have been to wait until activity in the 're' thread died out, lock it (or not) and file it someplace to get lost in, not merging it in to the original thread where it was not relevant to the actual topic proper.

Ya know... it just occurred to me that part of the frustration is with the quickness that the moderators will lock threads. Be it if it's against some sort of rule or if the issue was solved. All the latter accomplishes is forcing users to make multiple threads for the same or similar issues. Just because an issue within a particular thread is solved shouldn't be ground to lock it. It would make much more sense to leave threads open so that the fixes for a certain issue can all be in the same place instead of spread out across multiple threads.

1) The thread I was referring to was not linked. I didn't link it because it's really not that big of an issue to me and I *do* understand why he closed it, but I also understand why I created it. It was in regards to broken quests and I really don't expect anyone to 'side' with me on that one. For me if something goes on the bug tracker it like saying 'Hey... somebody should fix these broken quests I found' when my intent was going to be as more of a project log so I would be able to reference the quest particulars when asking for help learning to fix quests myself. Ultimately, if it went well, I was hoping it could eventually be turned into reference material for fixing similar quests. Almost like ?Discover? was doing when he was working on the Brewfest quests. 2) This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If you are in-game and do a look-up for the string 'chapel' you get back 4-6 results (chapel doors, other stuff with 'chapel' in the name. Except one that is simply [Chapel] - 19001 but if you spawn it in-game it's actually Skybreaker. Fact of the matter is that I was wanting to spawn a 'Redridge Chapel' which is NOT in TDB *at all* I know that it's not in TDB because I searched the database directly for any instances of the ModelID. To be able to spawn the Redridge Chapel I had to create the record myself in my local copy of the database. Thought I had already explained this pretty clearly. ONCE AGAIN- REDRIDGE CHAPEL DOES NOT EXIST IN TDB, there is no record using that ModelID, and SKYBREAKER is mislabeled as CHAPEL. http://postimg.org/image/4jjuhff43/ Take a look at that image and you *SHOULD* see what I'm talking about. gobj 1000 is my custom addition and 19001 is the default TDB. My addition (1000 - Redridge Chapel) is on top of the hill at ground level. TDB's 19001 - Chapel is the ship floating in the sky above the Redridge Chapel. 19001 IS NOT A CHAPEL. 19001 is SKYBREAKER. (And with that I am out of ways to rephrase this and I've repeated myself at least half a dozen times. If you still don't get what I'm saying... hop in game and type .gobj add temp 19001 and tell me that what spawns around you is any sort of Chapel.

I do not disagree for the most part. But still... there is a fine line between criticism and bashing. Just as I have my limits when contributing, so do they and so do you. Beating them down will not motivate them to work harder on a more advanced core. If you want retail quality then pony up and pay the monthly subscription for retail. I can't even imagine what goes into updating the core code for a new expansion... trying to figure out what and how the retail developers did what they do while blindfolded. I imagine it's a similar experience as if me or jackpoz looking at SAI and trying to make sense of that. Keep in mind the Blizzard programmers are some of the best in the business and get paid the big bucks to do what they do. To expect the same from open-source devs with no compensation for their efforts is a bit foolish. If I had my way I'd love to see emulation that could go from expansion to expansion seamlessly... I'd love to see emulation be able to handle the giants (Titans?) the devs spawned to clear the realms for the BC>WotLK transition, or the way they released Deathwing to make random world attacks for WotLK>Cata but I know what expecting too much is. I'd love to see emulation that could start with Vanilla and progress to BC then WotLK the Cata and beyond. I remember being new to WoW and scrambling when my realm was getting tromped... not knowing what was happening and being trapped in Ironforge with nothing to do but log out and wait... but I know what the limits are.

Tools or not, it still relies on cryptic field names to accomplish the goal. It's near impossible to do anything with it going off of just the field names and the little bit of info provided on the page you linked. For a person familiar with the way the core code works it probably makes a fair bit more sense. But when you're not that well versed with the way TC works behind the scenes it's an academic exercise in and of itself. I'm not picking on SAI. Just using it as an example based off what you alleged. You said that front-end was a perfect place for users to start, SAI is the most obvious place for users to start because we've all come across quests that don't work and most users don't even get involved with the installation and setup of a server (installation wiki). What other parts of front end fixes would you suggest users get involved with? re: PS... Yeah. Sorry but I'm skeptical that you'd go back and unlock the thread on your own without any proding to do so. As Maxx stated below- TC devs had their very own project and it went nowhere. 4.x fell completely flat and there is validity to the fact that most of the heavy lifting for TC was already done when it was forked into a new project. Improvements have been made that put TC at the front of the pack for server emulation but it was already working and stable when it was forked. That *is* a fact that can't be denied. For a long time it was a toss up between Arc and Mangos, Mangos lost steam and Arc pulled ahead but once TC came along it didn't take long to take the crown. Doesn't change the fact that the heavy lifting was done though. The criticism probably comes in part from the self-professed 'Us devs only work on what interests us at the time' mentality. A stable, well coded project is not accomplished by doing only what is interesting and fun. It's not about bashing the project or the devs (at least not for me) as I've already professed- I have mad love for TC and truly only want it to be as good as we all know it is. Again, I just find it disingenuous to lock a needed thread in the face of a bit of criticism. Ignore it or address it and move along. If the user continues their assault of a dead equine then address the user not the thread. Its the same mentality as in-game bans having time limits or permas. Timeouts to reassess their actions, longer they insist on continuing upon their return. Now then... while I agree and defend to an extent there is a limit on the lengths that I'll go to. There is nothing wrong with the 3.3.5 branch being improved if there is improvement to be made. Later branches are built on top of the previous code and a lot of times the commits made to the 3.3.5 branch are the result of building out later branches. Diplomacy is key and alienating the devs will get us users no where when they get frustrated. Yes. The devs are the ones that work with the code and are better able to simply do when it comes to said code. But they have their limits just the same as us users have our limits.

But it's perfect for the users so the developers can concentrate on the backend. Scripting is supposed to be so easy for us plebs to pick it up and run with it...

Check your port forwarding on your router?