Official Item Group/Package/Chain

You mean in item_group.conf? That repeat_count is the number of entries of that item in the group, which affects its relative (not absolute) probability of getting obtained.

For example, a item with a repeat_count of 2 has twice the odds of being obtained than another with 1 (or nothing) as value, or half the odds when compared to another item which has this value set to 4.

 
 Yes, I meant item_group.conf. Sorry I shouldn't have missed that as a person who is asking for help. Thank you jaBote, Now I know what repeat_count is. Thank you!!
default_biggrin.png


 
Found a bug when adding a Pet Egg., all pet egg that came from a package won't get hatch using incubator.

 
THPO said:
Found a bug when adding a Pet Egg., all pet egg that came from a package won't get hatch using incubator.
Click to expand...
You can't make a pet egg other way than issuing the makepet script command, it's docummented here:

doc/script_commands.txt, line 7870:

*makepet <pet id>;
This command will create a pet egg and put it in the invoking character's

inventory. The kind of pet is specified by pet ID numbers listed in

'db/pet_db.txt'. The egg is created exactly as if the character just

successfully caught a pet in the normal way.
// This will make you a poring:

makepet 1002;
Notice that you absolutely have to create pet eggs with this command. If

you try to give a pet egg with 'getitem', pet data will not be created by

the char server and the egg will disappear when anyone tries to hatch it.
Click to expand...
This means that you should have your package yield an intermediate item that will make the pet once used. If got via getitem, packageitem or getrandgroupitem you'll get an empty egg.

Another approach you can do is using the groupranditem script command to get an item ID, then check if that one is a pet egg ID and make the according pet for the player.

 
Code: 
the below setting would give me unslotted items, what did i missed?item_db.conf{	Id: 13945	AegisName: "Br_SwordPackage"	Name: "Brazil Swordsman Package"	Type: 18	Buy: 20	Weight: 10	Trade: {		nodrop: true		notrade: false		noselltonpc: true		nocart: true		nogstorage: true		nomail: true		noauction: true	}	Script: <"		packageitem();	">},item_package_conf:Br_SwordPackage: {	Plate_Armor_: {		Random: 0		Named: false	}	Shield_: {		Random: 0		Named: false	}	Boots_: {		Random: 0		Named: false	}	Manteau_: {		Random: 0		Named: false	}	Pupa_Card: {		Random: 0		Named: false	}	Daydric_Card: {		Random: 0		Named: false	}	Clip: {		Random: 0		Named: false	}	Clip: {		Random: 0		Named: false	}	Helm_: {		Random: 0		Named: false	}	Iron_Cane: {		Random: 0		Named: false	}	Upgrade_Package_7: {		Random: 0		Named: false	}}
 
Dastgir said:
Triedge said:
this no support Item id!?
Click to expand...
Isn't name good? So there's little chance of mistakes (ID typo, etc...)
Click to expand...
Good when you have a few items, but when you want to add many items and use an external page (as ratemyserver.net) ITEM_NAME some are different.

I had to spend a few hours reviewing and comparing the ITEM_NAME of ratemyserver with those of item_db.conf, the first time I did it I had at least 71 errors by different names. It would have been much easier to have the option of using names or ids.

 
Suggestion:

Hey could the monster be "Group'ed" like this item group also???

so we don't have to recompile if we added multiple small monster group.

 
utofaery said:
Suggestion:

Hey could the monster be "Group'ed" like this item group also???

so we don't have to recompile if we added multiple small monster group.
Click to expand...
what you exactly mean? also it's better to open new suggestion on correct forum with all the description

 
I mean like since the Item box/Group was redesigned

Could the monster Branches/pouch be made redesigned in the same way?

so we only edit the new redesigned "monster_group.conf" and don't need to recompile if add any new monster group.

eg. "mob_poring.txt", "mob_branch.txt", "mob_boss.txt", "mob_pouch.txt" and etc be merge into one monster group file?

 
Probably the information wasn't enough the desired package item should be IT_CASH as type maybe they are forgetting this,

anyway why did the IT_CASH now unstackable?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top