You can tell bosskills from item-id's at least. HC stores those and since different items drop in normal/heroic you can deduce the difficulty level from the item-id's.
For example Marrowgar's loot table 10-man loot table for normal item id's are less than 51000 and heroic are over 51000 with the exception of Sliver of Pure Ice (50339 and 50346 respectively).
- Registered User
Member for 11 years
Last active Fri, Oct, 4 2013 14:32:17
- 0 Followers
- 34 Total Posts
- 0 Thanks
May 18, 2010_ForgeUser1175846 posted a message on An addon to whisper target on giving vig, focus magic, unique buffs...Mage Nuggets does this for Focus Magic - I don't know of a generic addon that would do it for Vigilance.Posted in: Need Help?
Sep 3, 2009I suggest you won't make MSBT, SCT output exclude the bars. Rather make it a toggle and add an option to use no bars. This way people who would still like to see bars and have MSBT output could have it both ways.Posted in: Raid AddOns
Apr 9, 2009Yes, I was referring to the hidden addon channel, thanks for clarifying that.Posted in: General Chat
Continuing on your answers Tekkub (much appreciated btw)
2) Should we start blacklisting the known culprits as now it's not common knowledge or easy to discover which exact addons are behaving badly in this regard?
3) But are there hard numbers or measuring methods for deciding when the spam is excessive? At which point they will penalize the user in Pvp or Pve efforts? This is of course related to horsepower and bandwidth available, but still a research of sorts could be valuable.
4) True story, but wouldn't it be all that much easier if some people inside the loop would make a wiki or a whitepaper or best practices article on efficient addon communication? Sadly this can't be me as I'm not that much inside the loop myself. People could be advised to reading those in stead of individaual bitching per case.
Apr 9, 2009This post at EJ piqued my interest:Posted in: General Chat
I thought I'd throw few questions to the great minds at work here.
1. Can addon spam be blocked by other addons for example?
2. What addons are known spammers? (excessively so)
3. What is acceptable amount of data for the addons to transfer via their hidden channels?
4. What (if anything) addon-community could do to combat spammy coding practices? (whitepapers, wiki, best practices, etc.)
For the second question I was already told HealBot is spammy. I checked yesterday and it was so too, but Carbonite was ten times worse.
Mar 18, 2009_ForgeUser1175846 posted a message on DynPerf - Automagically update video settings based on frame rate.Stumbled on this thread by chance:Posted in: General AddOns
There are various tweaks there you could cross-check if they are useable with Dynperf. Haven't tried this mod yet but will probably do so in the near future. Had positive experience on a similar mod a year ago prior to my machine upgrade.
Nov 17, 2008For more macroing I know at least two addons diverting the macro length limit somehow:Posted in: Addon Ideas
That doesn't answer directly to your question nor isn't exactly what you were suggesting but maybe a starting point for something...
Oct 29, 2008Here's one suggestion thread at EU-forums. I'll quote the original suggestion list, which also shows the main disadvantages of the in-game calendar (shame really as it would not take too much work to make it the superior tool for the task):Posted in: Addon Ideas
1. Add the possibility of events being signup-based, and not invite-based. Currently all events need the members to be invited, either by manual invite or mass invite. I would rather be able to set up an event that is visible to everyone in the guild, which they can choose to sign up to.
2. If we're stuck with the invite mechanic, please increase the limit beyond 100 people. I currently can't make a social event with signups available to all our level 70s even, since we have 2-300 70s in the guild, all of the same member rank.
3. Whether it is registered by invite or by signup, please put a date stamp on the acceptance or registration. Otherwise we have no way of knowing when someone signed up, and most events are based on first come, first served order.
4. Add ability to add a note with your signup. Handy for saying you'll be late, what spec you're bringing, any other note of use.
5. Add standby and unavailable functionality, so that someone can signup as definite, standby or unavailable. This is essential for raid management.
6. Add ability to see which events your other characters are signed up for, effectively tying the calendar use to an account, rather than a character. Even better would be to be able to signup your other characters if you're logged in and see an event you would want to put a different character in.
Apr 16, 2008Lovely mod :)Posted in: General AddOns
A feature request: Report mob abilities by shift-clicking the mob's name in the list. Running dual monitors so I can keep the list open through an instance crawl and could warn people in my group in advance.
Also a bit more complicated and may not be doable: Detect which cc options work for which mobs and also the ability to easily mark this info into the list beforehand. This could work like a separate section below the ability list where you put checkboxes for different cc's. If this would diffrentiate normal and heroic instances, it would be very sweet indeed.
Feb 26, 2008Check thread http://www.wowace.com/forums/index.php?topic=11213.0Posted in: General Chat
There was a similar discussion going. My experience is that you can safely set the affinitymask to "15" which enables all cores for wow. Workload is divided mainly on two cores and occasionally third core does stuff too. As stated in this thread, the performance gain is about 5-15 %.
It's also true that quad core processor should run Wow fine regardless of the affinity setting. So if you gain 10% performance gain to an already sufficient performance, where does that leave you ;)
If you don't run heavy processes while playing wow, there's no harm in enabling it for all cores. If however you want to do some heavy processes background, enable only 2 cores with AffinityMask values (3,5,6,9,10,12). Those settings each enable only two cores, changing the number changes the cores used.
And I mean heavy processes - OS processes don't count. Results may vary based on your OS. XP should if rumors are true become better with multicore processors once sp3 comes out. That should be out in couple of months as it's Release Candidate 2 just got published.
Feb 26, 2008For the average Joe User you'd get instant success if you made a sharedDogTags library and enabled a list for dogtag using addons configuration. Generally users would only want to pick their favorite dogtag. Dogtags stored in that library should have clear english description and perhaps an example of the output.Posted in: Unit Frames
New dogtags could be submitted for library entry by Jira. Maybe they could be voted on as well. Joe User would only need to update the library from SVN and get instant access to good dogtags made and tested by those who understand the dogtag manipulation better, be it current or future improved syntax.
Feb 7, 2008Posted in: General ChatQuote from HunterZ »
The article about the hotfix says the boot.ini parameter can cause instability in WoW. Have you noticed this to be the case?
I'm thinking of trying all of that stuff for my dual-core system. I already have the AMD drivers installed though.
Yea I noticed the warning, but it was not about the hotfix patch - it was about the /usepmtimer boot.ini parameter which I figured I could easily remove if Wow had trouble with it. I also suspected that Wow wouldn't run into troubles anymore - the article dates back to June 2006 - even though it seems it has been updated, the Wow part may be an old comment. After that we have had processAffinityMask, timingMethod and multi-core support in general for Wow. This also looked like (as I said earlier) similar effect than running WMP in the background which worked for many.
Anyway, based on my 4 hour gaming experience last night - no I didn't have any problems. Wow was working fantastically after these tweaks.
Feb 7, 2008I did some Quad core/xp32 tweakings, so posting what I did and some information about the experience.Posted in: General Chat
Firstly I followed instructions in this article: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?s=884bfd1b54aa21f977a6d7eda5f2e1f2&t=60416
The article is very simple to follow, there are screenshots for every step of the way. There are three things to be done:
1) Download and install a patch which doesn't show in Windows update
2) Add a registry entry
3) Add a directive to boot.ini
After reboot I added the following lines to config.wtf file - found in WTF folder under Wow main folder.
SET processAffinityMask "15"
SET timingmethod "2"
Results: All cores are enabled for Wow, furthermore Windows is forced to use "steady clock" instead of cpu frequency - in combination with SET timingmethod setting those should achieve what people have done with loading WMP or Srcdsfpsboost.exe (mentioned in thread: http://www.wowace.com/forums/index.php?topic=10304.0 on these forums).
Game experience: I did Cot Durnholde instance and occasionally took a peek at how core's were behaving (I had process explorer in the background). Initially when Wow launched cores 1 and 2 shared the bulk of the workload with cores 3 and 4 having some minor activity. At a later time cores 1, 2 and 3 were all doing 60-70 % work and at that time core 4 was almost idling. Low fps was about 55 in the instance, but during combat could have gone occasionally lower (didn't think of lookin then). High end fps was 70-85. Earlier in TB there were cases of over 100 fps but I can't really tell the difference.
Most importantly 55 is good enough for me in any case, there were no cases of stuttering or graphical errors. If you follow through the same procedure I did your experiences may of course be different from mine, I didn't see any ill effects and even OS felt more fluid than before after the patch/registry/boot.ini changes.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.