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?

1) That may or may not be. I do know that. I do know that there have been new methods implemented by developers without any accompanying documentation. Those new ways are undoubtedly for the better, just not as easy to pick up on without serious coaching. 2) I have. I lost an entire night to that and the other stuff in that thread. 3) As I think I said- You're right. But I also know that there was a better walkthrough before that one replaced it. 4) Probably should have. Just didn't see anything coming from that. I understand why he locked it, I just don't think he considered why I tried going about it like that. I didn't want to post it to the bug tracker for someone else to fix, my intent was for it to be something of a log to refer so I could learn to fix myself and apply that to other quests. For instance... I couldn't find the video for One Shot, One Kill on YouTube and just a few hours later Maibenrai was able to find and link it for me. Don't know why I couldn't find it as I was writing that post... found that exact video just a couple weeks ago just not that night. 5) That's your opinion. I still maintain that the Legion thread was not at the point of needing to be locked. 6) And that's great and I thank you for that. 3.3.5 is where my heart is at. I'd like to *try* later expansions but that is beside the point. Fact of the matter is that building a 7.x is going to require the changes that happened in 4, 5 and 6 to be addressed and they haven't been. Likely won't be either. Soon enough Blizz is going to be rolling 8 out and 7 will be added to the list of 4, 5, and 6. 1) He does know. Sorry. But he does. 4, 5 and 6 didn't happen and smart money says the same about 7. TC devs admittedly only work on what they want when they want. And that's their prerogative being unpaid volunteers as they are. I just find it disingenuous to keep promoting the next expansion as when things are going to be different. 2) No I don't genuinely believe that. But at the same time... 4, 5 and 6 didn't make it off the ground. Did they? The thread was locked because a moderator was a bit too quick with the 'Lock' button. The level of criticism didn't quite warrant the level of response. 3) It's not about hate. I love TC because it has made it so that I can continue to play WotLK. I started retail during BC and LK will always be where my heart is. Thanks to TC I can continue to visit the places I love and remember before that dick Deathwing came through and fucked shit up, 4) Except that it's not. I know for a fact that the old guide got you all the way through the process. The new guide has nothing about setting up SQL to receive the database configuration. Doesn't address how to setup the DBs required. Yeah, I could have edited the wiki myself to address those concerns but by the time I was successful with my own install I'd been down too many false starts to be sure that the way I managed to do it was the way the devs intended. My way was closer to the old way and vague remembrances from how I did it *years* ago. 5) You're right. They don't. For the most part most of the devs do an outstanding job and things have improved considerably from when I walked away after dealing with the likes of Athena and Paradox. Do me a favor- hop in game on a dev account, do a lookup for 'chapel', spawn a 19001 and tell me that's right. Tell me I was mistaking modelIDs for GobjIDs? Tell me that TDB is perfect. 6) All it would have taken is a 'my bad, I see what you're saying now.' once I replied and clarified what I was pointing out, 7) Actually Nay implied it by posting the checkout command for the 7.x branch. 8) Notice how you left 5 out of that? And how the TC repo only has 3.x and 6.x? 9) I'm sorry that my brain does not work the same way as the TC devs. I'd love it if I could read\write code. Wish I could read sheet music too. But alas, not how I'm wired. Should I be hated on and blamed for that? 10) How 'bout you point me to the documentation for SmartAI? And don't tell me to ask questions in IRC or post my questions in the SmartAI Questions thread. Getting set to get to work then having to constantly stop and wait for assistance does nothing to help the learning curve. If there was proper documentation in place for the methods that have been implemented would allow the users to learn and work at their own pace to actually be able to make progress. There are far too many aspects of quest fixing to be able to rely on IRC and Forum questions. 11) People need to get over the existence of private servers. That is where all of the talent to do what you expect the users to do resides. I am in no way saying that TC should support PS but perhaps your animosity towards them helps contribute to them not sharing their fixes back? Not all PS are out to make a profit on the back of the work TC devs have put into it. How do you think the majority of TC users find out about TC? 12) That's your perception. Reality is that I think it's crap that a good thread got locked because someone with the power to shut it down did on the basis of very minor criticism. Things hadn't gotten 'too rough'. Address it or ignore it and move on. That thread would have still been completely viable for continuing the discussion of the next expansion. You're absolutely correct. OpenSource is great. I love the idea of OS more than I love TC... All the OS that I've been able to utilize for my own goals makes me warm and bubbly inside... Linux, Apache... TC... Love it all. I have no idea what that means. Sorry. edit:\\ And just to be clear- I have made contributions to the repo. granted they were just small typos in the config files but still. I noticed it as I was going through and took the time and effort to make the commits and the pull requests.

https://community.trinitycore.org/topic/11714-world-of-warcraft-legion/ ZOMG!!! Dissension and criticism... shut them up... quick, quick. All I play is the 3.3.5 project but what Maxxgold was saying was not unfair or untrue. If that is your definition of 'too rough' then you need therapy to learn to better cope with people that don't immediately fall to their knees because someone has a <Dev> tag under their name. Every time someone criticizes the state of TC's attempts to move forward it's always the same 'What have you contributed?' Sorry that us peasants aren't uber-coders like all of the recognized developers but ya'all are just slightly more advanced than we are. The complexity of the project makes it very difficult for someone to just jump in and make real and substantial changes. Even making minor fixes is near impossible for the majority of us that would like to contribute due to the lack of assistance that is available and the convolution without documentation. I haven't looked recently so it might have changes but even the setup directions are incomplete. The wiki gets you about 70% of the way then leaves the user to figure out the rest on their own. And yes, I realize that something like that is a fix that would be perfect for a person like me to do but by the time we get it sorted and working... but why bother? By the time we get to that point we've likely suffered some sort of abuse and have already been alienated. For instance- https://community.trinitycore.org/topic/12113-gameobject-browser/ Me: There's a few mislabeled gobjs in the DB. Arokomes: You're WRONG. The TDB is perfect and you don't know how to look up an object by name and don't know the difference between a modelID and a gobjID. Me: No it's not. I don't know everything about the project but I know that Skybreaker is not a Chapel. ::proof:: ::cricket, cricket:: Arokomes: ::Closes next well intentioned thread, no discussion:: A fucking apology would have been nice. Maybe some encouragement or review? Maybe stop getting so butt-hurt over a bit of criticism that is not untrue? 4.x was a joke. 5.x didn't happen. 6.x didn't happen. But "oooh, look out, here comes 7.x and it's going to be different. We're going to get caught up with all the changes and this is going to be our next stable branch." "Uhhh... probably not?" "Shut up, what have you done?" "You're being mean to us developers, shut up- no one gets to talk about this new expansion anymore."

That may be, as I've not tried clicking from the search results to the query, but i know for a fact that 19001 is not a 'chapel' of any sort. I edited my database to include a custom entry for my Redridge Chapel usage and it works fine. Check your own database and there isn't a gameobject 1000 because that is the unused value that I used to introduce my own record. The default game_object_template database table doesn't even use a single instance of modelID 7428.

Not sure why... I just clicked the link in my above post and the page loaded just fine... screencap - http://postimg.org/image/trde9tsed/ (<--- Different page than I linked but I browsed to a gobj that relates to the below comment for demonstration purposes. um... no? Sorry, but I'm compelled to disagree with your statement. http://postimg.org/image/4jjuhff43/ In the screenshot you can see the results of my search for ".look obj chapel" (disregard 1000 - [Redridge Chapel] as that is my custom addition to my db, which is in place below Skybreaker) And spawning the most likely candidate is 19001 - [Chapel] which spawns Skybreaker which is in no way a chapel. The modelID for Redridge Chapel is 7428 so I'm not confused thinking the ModelID is the GameObjectID. (PS- DisplayID 7428 does not exist in the database except the line where I made the afore mentioned custom addition) ie: my database has exactly once occurrence of the chapel... the one I added.)

I was wondering if anybody had any thoughts on possibly developing something like http://gobs.newow-emu.com/en/random.html for local use or if there is already an offline tool for doing the same that anyone knows about. TDBs gameobjects aren't always what they say they are (lookup Redridge Chapel and you get The Skybreaker) and I'd hate to see the above link disappear if whoever maintains it loses interest and lets the site expire.

It's like some of the devs have said- they do this in their free time and mostly just work on what is interesting for them. Writing documentation to help newcomers isn't all that interesting or exciting. The entire SmartAI system needs a write-up but with the number of different ways quests can work it's near impossible to accomplish.

This doesn't just apply to the issues with bounties but I feel one of the problems with contributing is not knowing the proper way of doing something. For instance- quest fixes, I don't have the time or opportunity to sit in IRC asking question after question on how to properly implement SmartAI scripting and detailed information is seriously lacking. There is a steep learning curve for a beginner to get involved and the documentation just isn't there to ease that.

Man... I lost an hours to this thread and the tangents of just the other night... ​^ dead link.

I'm attempting to use https://github.com/BrnoPCmaniak/WoW-init.d-script to start Trinity when I boot my server but it seems that it's not working as it should and was wondering if anyone here wanted to take a shot at seeing what I'm missing. Watching the system boot messages it says that it *is* starting the auth and world servers, but when checking the status once the boot process finishes they aren't running any longer. Manually invoking 'start', 'stop', 'restart' and the script works as I'd expect (though 'version' errors and says the server needs to be running even when it is). In the config I've set the user to my trinity user so I should be seeing the screen sessions from that user but nothing. Suggestions?

I'm using SQLyog Community Edition from my WIndows machine to access my database that is on my linux server so I will be referencing that for these steps but phpmyadmin should be similar... Right-click on the database that you want to import to and select 'Import', then select 'Execute SQL Script'. ...This will open a dialog box for you to select a local file (ie: auth_database.sql) to execute against the database (ie: auth). Click 'Execute' and away it goes. auth and characters should go pretty quick, world (TDB_FULL) will take a bit longer. SQLyog has a progress bar on the Execute dialog box to show you how far it has gone. EDIT: alternatively if you are doing this all on the same machine you can do something like... mysql -u username -ppassword auth < auth_database.sql...from the command prompt.