/who not fixed in the latest zip

Mimatas · Post by **Mimatas** » Sun May 16, 2004 6:43 pm

Okay.. you'll hate me for posting on this again, but I recompiled a fresh version of MQ2, ran it, zoned into Shadeweaver's Thicket and did /who npc... no matching spawns. I will gladly help you troubleshoot this if you need me to Lax... just tell me what you want me to do.

Win2k, VS6, using the zip updated on May 14 (latest I could find).

also, did /who # get changed? I didn't see it mentioned, but I didn't read changes very carefully. Will look again.

Jerle69 · Post by **Jerle69** » Sun May 16, 2004 6:57 pm

The other threads here and there indicate the the problem was/is fixed and will be working in the next zip; however, the next release (the next ZIP) hasn't been posted yet for public consumption. I'm sure Lax will release it soon--he's been on fire as of late

Mimatas · Post by **Mimatas** » Sun May 16, 2004 10:45 pm

bah.. my bad. Should have checked the dates on the latest posts against the latest zip. I look forward to this :)

Lax · Post by **Lax** » Mon May 17, 2004 7:13 am

fixed in currently available zip, enjoy

CyberTech · Post by **CyberTech** » Wed May 19, 2004 3:48 am

Is it intended that partial matches that do work in un-augmented /who, don't work in mq's version?

ie,

/who cle used to return the clerics, it doesn't anymore, have to use the /who clr syntax., same with sham/shad (have to use shm/shd) etc.

For guilds, given two guilds in zone, example names "Seven trees" (mine) and "Nine Potholes", /who nine doesn't work at all (it used to w/mq), /who seven, /who sev, etc does not show my own guild, only /who guild will do that. Any particular reason for this change or is it unintentional?

I noticed /who guild nine would return the results i had expected from /who nine, however /who guild seven (the characters guild) returns "(0-100) pc seven Guild:Seven trees was not found", tho there are 3 of us in zone.

Schnep · Post by **Schnep** » Wed May 19, 2004 1:31 pm

Have the invisible npc commands changed to get them to show up in who? I've turned filter on and off trying to get them to show in any zones and I can't anymore.

Lax · Post by **Lax** » Wed May 19, 2004 2:56 pm

fucking christ.

ok look... /who uses STANDARD SEARCH SPAWN and there's no exceptions to that anymore. There used to be, but not now.

So, "/who shad" is not going to work, and neither is "/who sham", and neither is "/who cle". I mean, I could modify standard search spawn so it treats those as required classes but then what happens when some jackass wants to do "/who cle" to find someone named "Cletus" or "/who shad" to find someone named "Shadra", theyre just going to come in here bitching about how /who doesnt list them. If you want EQ who, use fucking EQ who. If you want MQ who, use fucking MQ who.

EQ's /who is a "guilty until proven innocent" system, and ours is a "innocent until proving guilty"... meaning that in their system, they look for a match and if they find a possibility of a match, theyre going to list it. Ours looks for a reason not to list it, and if it finds any reason, it's not going to list it.

I'll add a way for searchspawn to work the same way...

Schnep · Post by **Schnep** » Wed May 19, 2004 9:56 pm

Lax I love you and your responses more, but I did not see if you were responding to me or the person who posted before me. :)

MikeDVB · Post by **MikeDVB** » Thu May 20, 2004 3:46 am

It'd be nice to have it in the INI so that you can do innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent.

Like EQWHO=0
EQWHO=1
...

Just a thought

Drumstix42 · Post by **Drumstix42** » Thu May 20, 2004 9:36 am

use one or the other. not that difficult is it?

Lax wrote:If you want EQ who, use fucking EQ who. If you want MQ who, use fucking MQ who.