Well, I may take a look but I have the feeling the addon is slowly bloating.
Wait till you get the request that you should be able to assign "weights" to every mount. That is, allow the user to set a weight between 0-100 for every mount, and these weights control the overall probability that each mount will be summoned.
So if I have 10 mounts, and give 100 weight to 3 of them, and 0 for the other 7, those 3 mounts will each have equal probability of being summoned (100/300 each). If I give the 3 mounts a weight of 50, 50 and 100, then their chances of being summoned are 25%, 25% and 50%.
This will effectively allow extremely fine tune control of which mounts are preferred and which mounts are to be ignored.
Whereas Squire currently (and probably always will) has the ability to simple use or ignore.
I can see the argument for adding a modifier to force a dismount, but the fine-tuning I cannot see for an addon that does what it says it does and nothing more.
I have a druid who is under level 30 (so doesn't have an official mount yet), but does have the talent Feral Swiftness (makes running in cat form 30% faster than normal). Is it possible for Squire to recognize this situation and treat Cat Form as a pseudo-mount, the best that I have? Or is that too complicated to bother with, and I should simply wait until I get a real mount at level 30 to use Squire?
I don't know. At first glance it seems vehicles have their own API. I don't even know if they are detected as mount. Do they ?
@Noollab: I'll eventually add a safety net when flying but this will be an option. I can't stand the macro preventing me to dismount 5m above the floor to jump on my target.
@Noollab: I'll eventually add a safety net when flying but this will be an option. I can't stand the macro preventing me to dismount 5m above the floor to jump on my target.
Great ;> And of course it should be an optional feature. Not everybody is as clumsy or fat-fingered as myself \:D/
I don't know. At first glance it seems vehicles have their own API. I don't even know if they are detected as mount. Do they?
Maybe add special cases? The only mounts I know of that require this are the motorcycles, magic carpet and tundra mammoth. It would simply have to throw a "/script VehicleExit();" instead of "/dismount" in the macro.
Alternately, casting any mount again will cause you to dismount from it. Possibly pull the buff IDs and generate the dismount macro based on that?
Is this smart enough to deal with dalaran? I have a simple macro that uses the blizzard api to check for if you can fly, use a flying mount, if you can't use a ground mount. However, Dalaran seems to be flagged as a flyable area, but you can't mount a flying mount there.
It seems like an exception... I'd love to just tweak my macro, (or blizzard actually fix this), but if installing slightly more code allows me to get back to one button mounting, then squire it is.
Hrm... That would be overkill. Why not putting Cat Form directly in the action bar ?
You're probably right. I can swap CatForm for the Squire macro once I hit 30 and get a mount. That's much simpler than trying to extend Squire to this case, and will help prevent Squire from becoming bloated. After all, its slim nature is what I like about it. :)
Is this smart enough to deal with dalaran? I have a simple macro that uses the blizzard api to check for if you can fly, use a flying mount, if you can't use a ground mount. However, Dalaran seems to be flagged as a flyable area, but you can't mount a flying mount there.
It seems like an exception... I'd love to just tweak my macro, (or blizzard actually fix this), but if installing slightly more code allows me to get back to one button mounting, then squire it is.
That's exactly why I love this addon. It actually knows to use ground mounts inside the restricted zones, both Wintergrasp and Dalaran, but also to use flying mount in the Underbelly and Krasus' Landing.
That, and it's fairly simple and lightweight - Just the way I love my addons and programs ;>
Well the thing there is, vehicles aren't mounts. They have their own interface, which includes the "exit vehicle" button. That doesn't belong in a mount addon, it belongs in a vehicle addon.
Typo in v1.0-beta-6:
L_MOUNT_TYPES[F310] = "Extremely fast fyling mount"
Also, you're using Ghost Wolf as the "running spell" for shamans, but Ghost Wolf is not an instant cast without talenting into it. If I don't have this talent (and I don't) there's not really any reason to update the macro every time I start and stop moving. ;)
Typo in v1.0-beta-6:
L_MOUNT_TYPES[F310] = "Extremely fast fyling mount"
Ok.
Also, you're using Ghost Wolf as the "running spell" for shamans, but Ghost Wolf is not an instant cast without talenting into it. If I don't have this talent (and I don't) there's not really any reason to update the macro every time I start and stop moving. ;)
I didn't know. Erm... that's annoying. So I will probably remove it because checking talents for some very specific spells will be a bit too tricky.
I am considering adding options to disable spell use situations, i.e. individually disable "running", "combat", "indoors" or "swimming" uses of spells. That would apply to Ghost Wolf (running, combat), AotC (running, combat, indoors), Travel Form (running, combat), Aquatic Form (swimming), Cat Form (indoors), Flying Form (running in flyable area).
Another solution was to allow user to disable the one or two cases that could causes an issue: Cat Form as druids' indoors spell and Ghost Wolf as shamans' running spell.
Hi! The new version seems to be broken, at least with German WoW Clients. I can't select ground or flying mounts anymore and my Flightform (Druid) is not listed as flying mount. :(
Another suggestion: Maybe you could allow Catform always regadless of talents because every cat has a sprint-ability to allow faster running.
Two bugs... Seems to not like my blizzcon bear, didn't recognize it, I just manually added it to the fast ground mounts.
Second, often on initial login (not reload) it doesn't find my mounts at all. Probably initing too soon, but shouldn't it watch the companion events so it updates correctly when they are loaded, or new ones are added... ?
What version did you try ? I already fixed two bugs that strongly looks like what you have described.
Is your Blizzcon bear that mount ? If yes, it should be recognized since v1.0-beta-6.
About mount detection, I postponed initialization from VARIABLES_LOADED to PLAYER_ENTERING_WORLD in v1.0-beta-7 so data should be available. It should upgrade on new companion or spell but that does not happen that often.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wait till you get the request that you should be able to assign "weights" to every mount. That is, allow the user to set a weight between 0-100 for every mount, and these weights control the overall probability that each mount will be summoned.
So if I have 10 mounts, and give 100 weight to 3 of them, and 0 for the other 7, those 3 mounts will each have equal probability of being summoned (100/300 each). If I give the 3 mounts a weight of 50, 50 and 100, then their chances of being summoned are 25%, 25% and 50%.
This will effectively allow extremely fine tune control of which mounts are preferred and which mounts are to be ignored.
I can see the argument for adding a modifier to force a dismount, but the fine-tuning I cannot see for an addon that does what it says it does and nothing more.
@Noollab: I'll eventually add a safety net when flying but this will be an option. I can't stand the macro preventing me to dismount 5m above the floor to jump on my target.
Great ;> And of course it should be an optional feature. Not everybody is as clumsy or fat-fingered as myself \:D/
Maybe add special cases? The only mounts I know of that require this are the motorcycles, magic carpet and tundra mammoth. It would simply have to throw a "/script VehicleExit();" instead of "/dismount" in the macro.
Alternately, casting any mount again will cause you to dismount from it. Possibly pull the buff IDs and generate the dismount macro based on that?
It seems like an exception... I'd love to just tweak my macro, (or blizzard actually fix this), but if installing slightly more code allows me to get back to one button mounting, then squire it is.
You're probably right. I can swap CatForm for the Squire macro once I hit 30 and get a mount. That's much simpler than trying to extend Squire to this case, and will help prevent Squire from becoming bloated. After all, its slim nature is what I like about it. :)
That's exactly why I love this addon. It actually knows to use ground mounts inside the restricted zones, both Wintergrasp and Dalaran, but also to use flying mount in the Underbelly and Krasus' Landing.
That, and it's fairly simple and lightweight - Just the way I love my addons and programs ;>
L_MOUNT_TYPES[F310] = "Extremely fast fyling mount"
Also, you're using Ghost Wolf as the "running spell" for shamans, but Ghost Wolf is not an instant cast without talenting into it. If I don't have this talent (and I don't) there's not really any reason to update the macro every time I start and stop moving. ;)
Ok.
I didn't know. Erm... that's annoying. So I will probably remove it because checking talents for some very specific spells will be a bit too tricky.
Another solution was to allow user to disable the one or two cases that could causes an issue: Cat Form as druids' indoors spell and Ghost Wolf as shamans' running spell.
Thoughts ?
Another suggestion: Maybe you could allow Catform always regadless of talents because every cat has a sprint-ability to allow faster running.
Second, often on initial login (not reload) it doesn't find my mounts at all. Probably initing too soon, but shouldn't it watch the companion events so it updates correctly when they are loaded, or new ones are added... ?
Is your Blizzcon bear that mount ? If yes, it should be recognized since v1.0-beta-6.
About mount detection, I postponed initialization from VARIABLES_LOADED to PLAYER_ENTERING_WORLD in v1.0-beta-7 so data should be available. It should upgrade on new companion or spell but that does not happen that often.