Benjamin Lerman wrote:
But there are also some other possible considerations - I think you'd want
to make sure that a character doesn't have the same skill equipped through
both methods (holy symbol and actual praying skill) - I think that may
cause some issues - probably more see with the ar
> I think you really need to set up 2 slots for a proper solution
> (body_item_skill and body_natural_skill or the like) and not make
> body_skill be two slots.
>
> Doing the later is completely the wrong approach, and was one of the
> things that the body_... stuff was meant to prevent.
S
Benjamin Lerman wrote:
Hi all,
And at least, I have a question, does there exists a way to force the
client to wear a particular holy symbol whenever possible. Right now,
whenever I change skill, even if I do not need any object to get my new
skill, my holy symbol is unapplied, which is quite
Hi all,
> And at least, I have a question, does there exists a way to force the
> client to wear a particular holy symbol whenever possible. Right now,
> whenever I change skill, even if I do not need any object to get my new
> skill, my holy symbol is unapplied, which is quite a problem when th
Committed your 2 patches.
Just changed one call from (pseudo variables) (x)?f(a,b,c):f(a,b,d) to
f(a,b,x?c:d) to not duplicate 2 similar calls
Nicolas
___
crossfire mailing list
crossfire@metalforge.org
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/cro
> If so: that probably would not be correct. According to the comment for
> this function, "!new_skill" means to just unapply the old skill.
> Therefore the call to apply_special(..., AP_UNAPPLY) must not be
> removed.
Yes, of course you're right. I realize that after sending my message.
Benjamin Lerman wrote:
> but before going further, I find this line quite weird:
>
> Did I miss something, or is those line something like:
>
> if(x || y) if(y) foo()
>
> Because if it is the case, then it should be changed to:
>
> if(y) foo()
Yes, the current code does not make sense. Your pr
> And at least, I have a question, does there exists a way to force the
> client to wear a particular holy symbol whenever possible. Right now,
> whenever I change skill, even if I do not need any object to get my new
> skill, my holy symbol is unapplied, which is quite a problem when the
> holy s
ERACC wrote:
On Thursday 29 September 2005 08:21 am
Benjamin Lerman wrote:
[...]
The second one allow to use argument with the cast command so that you
can use:
cast create food waybread
or
cast summon pet monster spider
[...]
Isn't this what 'invoke is meant to do? If 'cast will do
Exactly.
Such that if you wanted to create a few rounds of something particular
you have to invoke create food yyy a few times, instead of cast create
food yyy and fire a few times.
Andrew Fuchs wrote:
On 9/29/05, ERACC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
Isn't this what 'invoke is meant to do?
On Thursday 29 September 2005 02:15 pm
Andrew Fuchs wrote:
> On 9/29/05, ERACC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> > Isn't this what 'invoke is meant to do? If 'cast will do it now then
> > why have 'invoke? Seems to me we should either leave 'cast as is or
> > make that change and remove 'invoke.
On 9/29/05, ERACC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> Isn't this what 'invoke is meant to do? If 'cast will do it now then
> why have 'invoke? Seems to me we should either leave 'cast as is or
> make that change and remove 'invoke. There is no reason to have both.
> I vote to leave 'cast as is because
On Thursday 29 September 2005 08:21 am
Benjamin Lerman wrote:
[...]
> The second one allow to use argument with the cast command so that you
> can use:
>
> cast create food waybread
> or
> cast summon pet monster spider
[...]
Isn't this what 'invoke is meant to do? If 'cast will do it now then
I like the being able to specify summoned monster idea
:)
--- Benjamin Lerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Isn't there already a field in player structure
> for spell
> > argument? used when spells have delays, iirc.
>
> I did (and still don't) see it.
>
> If I grep for char in player.h, I
Resistances are bad, I agree. That would basically
make all maps in the game worthlessly easy. Same with
upping ring power. One has to, as of now, search for
good rings which, I think, is the correct way. If
anything CF needs to be made harder.
--- Nicolas Weeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hell
> Isn't there already a field in player structure for spell
> argument? used when spells have delays, iirc.
I did (and still don't) see it.
If I grep for char in player.h, I obtain:
logrus ~/download/crossfire/include $ grep char player.h
... snip what is not on the pl struct
charm
Hello.
> The first one allow you to summon pet that are of lower
level that the
> current pet you can summon. It is mainly a one line patch
that use the
> same argument that create food or create weapon use.
Saw it on SF, sounds ok.
> The second one allow to use argument with the cast command
On 9/29/05, Benjamin Lerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, I plan to create Enchant Ring and Enchant Amulet scrolls that
> would work like Enchant Weapon, but because it demands a little more work
> than for the 2 previous patch, I'd like to know if those scrolls would
> be Ok. I'd like to also
Hi all,
I write two patches that I put on the sf page.
The first one allow you to summon pet that are of lower level that the
current pet you can summon. It is mainly a one line patch that use the
same argument that create food or create weapon use.
The second one allow to use argument with
19 matches
Mail list logo
