MrSmite

You can't run the blizzard updater directly or it will tell you "nothing to update". You need to provide commandline switches to get it to work properly. You should download the files at the top of the guide. I can't remember if the BAT file I used is in those but there's a section in the guide that talks about that:

I found this around page 32 after searching "world of warcraft" on patches-scrolls. Click "download" next to your language, click "download" on the next page, wait for the timer and click "download" again. It's a bit convoluted but I've had good luck with them too. Their old site was better, IMO. They simply listed all the patches on a single page for you to scroll through.

Where did you download that patch that is supposedly corrupt? Before you download the torrent, try using a different mirror. wowwiki has a few GB mirrors for the patch you mentioned. Open the page and search for "patches to build 13164" and pick a download mirror. I usually have good luck with Atomicgamer.

For the enGB client you should be able to follow the same instructions if you have all the patches. Either that or Google for a full enGB torrent but I won't be able to support those. If you're seeing the Launcher start after each patch, you might want to modify your hosts file to temporarily redirect the blizzard servers to 127.0.0.1 so it can never connect. I use a firewall so I simply blocked all outbound connections. Just don't forget to reset the hosts file if you ever decide to play on retail.

The guide was created primarily for enUS because there was no torrent available with a full client. Your best option is to use one of the many enGB torrents that are out there (when I was searching for enUS, that's all I could find). With that said, here's a bit of an explanation of what's happening to you: Running the launcher is a waste of time, it will screw you from the start. The launcher instantly migrates you to 5.x so stay away from it at all costs. That optimization process you did as well as running the background downloader when you shouldn't has tried to migrate you to MoP (16135-5.0.5 to 16309-5.1.0). It appears you didn't understand the guide: You said you ran it after WoW-4.0.0-12911 to 4.0.1-13164 which is clearly not what the guide says. The problem with trying to get a 4.3.4 client now is the servers that blizzard hosted the patch data obtained by the background downloader are disappearing and clients are being redirected to an auto-migration to 5.x

In case anyone is curious what was happening to the OP, Visual Studio releases are tied to specific .NET releases. I believe VS2010 can be made backward compatible but none of them can be made forward compatible with .NET releases: VS2003 = .NET1.1 VS2005 = .NET 2.0 VS2008 = .NET 3.5 VS2010 = .NET 4.0 VS2012 = .NET 4.5 The OP was trying to build a 2012 solution with 2010 which is why installing 2013 worked because it can "retrofit" itself to 2012 and .NET 4.5 but 2010 can't "futurefit" itself to .NET 4.5.

Those three patches listed require you to run the downloader after each patch. All other patches you shouldn't do it or things will break.

I wonder if people like the OP would have an easier time if someone translated the wiki into other languages. Maybe they can't read English any better than they can speak it.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Is it possible for the forum software to not parse anything between http, https or ftp and the trailing space? Since URLs can't have spaces in them these could indicate the start and end of a url to be ignored.

I still use it for adhoc queries and testing. As far as imports go, I just copy the ones I need to a temp folder and let a batch script just import them individually. IMO it's better than combining them because the script can tell you which specific file causes an error.

I used to use SQLyog without issues, it was just a little slow. Paste the first few lines of characters_database.sql here, there might be a typo in it. Or like Paradox said, you got a bad pull.

Another possibility would be to allow escaping it by using a double plus (++) or some other escape code.

This URL: in this thread kept getting converted into this (thereby breaking it) when I clicked "submit" because Google is a registered member on the forums: I had to edit my post several times before it would finally stop breaking the URL. I would suggest using a different tag symbol so the forum software doesn't break URLs with member names in them.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind standards but I think they should be for everyone and they should be clear and concise. When they change then it should be documented, not left up to guessing. I get frustrated seeing commits like "fix build on Windows" which implies that the previous push was not tested and therefore didn't meet standards. Why should anyone have to meet standards if everyone doesn't have to meet standards? I used to enjoy doing the odd PR / fix but lately it's become too much like work. At least with custom code submissions people can use it if they want. PS: Judging by some of the rude comments I've got lately, it seems I've done pissed someone off. Too bad people around here aren't capable of discussion. There seems to be an air of "do what your told or else". Good thing this isn't my job.

+Guybrush Why "level 4"? When you do "help account set gmlevel" it says the range is 0 to 3.

Recent activity on the repo. suggests that a new coding standard of using brackets separated by a space { } is preferred over {} yet for some reason nobody wants to update the doc.: As much as I bitch and complain, it seems like the atmosphere around here is one of pure obstinance. I've been around for a while (long enough that I'm sure there's a lot of people who wish I'd go away) but it's plain stupid to hold PRs to a standard that isn't even listed in the doc. This is actually why I stopped making PRs, I got tired of this "process". PS: Who's in charge around here anyway and why aren't they training people?

Your sample topics are too broad which is why you can't read them all on one page. You can however read material about a specific topic on the same page. Within the body of that topic are other related items but those are also standalone topics. For example, look at the writeup about Tom Clancy. Notice how all relevant information is on one page while related topics are linked to their own pages (ie: specific books, games). I don't have to go to separate pages entitled "Tom Clancy: Early Life", "Tom Clancy: Literary Career", "Tom Clancy: Personal Life", etc. it's all on the same page because it's all relevant to the topic: Tom Clancy. Setting up TrinityCore is the topic and the pertinent information is "On Windows", "On Linux", "On Mac" which should be on the same page. Within that information you would have links to installing the software used such as Git and CMake which would be standalone pages. I didn't misinterpret anything. Your tone suggests the same that has been around these boards forever: this is a learning project but you have to figure it out on your own. Why do you assume readers have reading and comprehension problems? I'm talking about ease of use, not contextual elements. Well, following your own assertion above (re: missing a sentence), the readers could miss this just as easily I suppose. Technically TrinityCore isn't a business. Also I didn't say "regular internet problems". You know as well as I do that not everyone's internet is the same. Hell, mine sometimes drops when it rains. I don't understand the relevance. An 8000 page book required by a paid-for course is far different than a single wiki page on a volunteer, learning project. Furthermore, the closest type of book to a multi-page wiki guide is a "Choose Your Own Adventure" and I don't know of any college textbooks that are written in that fashion. Although, that may not be an accurate comparison since Choose Your Own Adventure books are fun and multi-page wiki guides are not. Of course they are which is why they'll enjoy reading a single wiki page to learn how. Wikipedia is a perfect example because it shows what the TC wiki should be. It would be pointless for me to compare it to something that looks like its current format when my whole suggestion has been to not look like it. Also, according to Wikipedia's statistics they have over 19 million users. Their format must not be that bad. PS: At any rate, I think I've made my opinion clear so I'll leave it up to those that actually edit the thing. Regardless of what format is chosen, it does need an overhaul.

I think a single page is beneficial for (but not limited to) the following reasons: It is easier to maintain If the process changes for one OS, chances are it will change for others. Having them all together will allow people to easily notice and fix discrepancies If links change you don't have to chase them down across 4 different pages It reduces reader stress Readers don't have to worry wether they missed a page What if the reader's internet goes down and they can't open another page Reader could potentially be stuck with a cloned repo but not able to proceed because they only have half the instructions It looks better Yes, this is my personal opinion

This sounds more like a personal issue. Do you honestly think Wikipedia would be so successful if having a table of contents followed by all the content was confusing for people to read? I don't really understand what you're getting at. When you write a set of instructions, the goal isn't to make readers work to understand what they're reading. You almost sound as if your suggesting that the wiki should purposely be hard. This sentiment is actually a fundamental shortcoming of TrinityCore. You can't tell people "Trinity is a learning project" but then tell them "but we're not going to teach you, figure it out yourself". Making new users work to figure out a guide is counterintuitive to what a guide is supposed to do. PS: Some people learn through audio, some people learn through pictures and still others learn through trial and error. What they all have in common is they're learning. It shouldn't matter if the material they learn by is considered "easy", what matters is they learn enough that they don't have to spend days in Help & Support.

Personally I think the instructions should be on a single page, including all OS and common instructions. A table of contents should be at the top with links to the appropriate section on the same page. Similar to how wikipedia does it. So, for example (note: using underline to denote clickable links) Having the guide on a single page makes it much easier for users to follow, makes editing less error prone and generally provides a sense of completeness. Having to jump around from page to page is annoying at best.

Interesting, I didn't consider that you were actually merging 3.3.5a SQLs. I thought the 4.3.4 data was "from scratch" from the Cata sniffs. I guess I should pop into IRC from time to time to see what's actually going on.

Well, the guide could use a bit of an overhaul. Windows does not support .sh scripts without 3rd party tools, this probably meant to say .bat I bet these two lines confuse a lot of people because they see "updates" in both lines and probably don't understand the difference between the "core repository" and the "db repository" Anyway, considering most people with update problems seem to have less than 20 posts to their name, it's either an indicator that they don't read the guide, the guide itself isn't helpful, or both. I think the process should've stayed the same as it is for 3.3.5a which people were familiar with. I bet you'd see less confusion. In fact the guide would be simple: Clone the TrinityCore 4.3.4 repo Follow the same procedure for updating the core and db that you did in 3.3.5a

When we say "Repacks are not supported" that means their databases too.

I didn't mean to sound like a prick (well maybe a little), I just didn't want a bunch of n00bs coming in here posting a crap ton of torrent links and then having people pollute the thread bitching about them not completing or having virii. PS: I think I need to update the 6-part patch because it appears one piece is in fact broken. Since it's a split archive I need to reup the whole thing because I can't guarantee the new set will split at the same place.