EOSERV Bug Tracker > Bug #243: Quest Rules: Equipment

Bug #243: Quest Rules: Equipment

Quest Rules: Equipment
ID #243
Submitter Apollo
Product EOSERV
Severity Feature Request
Status OPEN, CONFIRMED
Submitted 17th Apr 2013
Updated 3rd May 2013
Apollo Submitter 11 years, 37 weeks ago

It seems that sometimes an inverse of a rule is needed. EOSERV has IsWearing, but doesn't have NotWearing nor a check for IsUnequipped(or IsBareAssNaked w.e.). Probably useful for a class based server that wishes to allow class changes but wishes to enforce unequipping of items.

Comments

Sausage Developer 11 years, 35 weeks ago

Redundant inverse rules aren't necessary, you can invert the logic (or once EO++ is implemented, invert the rule result). IsBareAssNaked is a valid suggestion, though perhaps as functions to check paperdoll slots in general. Naturally, goes well with functions to equip/unequip items too.

This may have to wait for EO++ as well, to allow for named constants and bitwise operations: i.e. ''GetPaperdollSlot(PAPERDOLL_GLOVES)'', ''EquipItem(PAPERDOLL_ARMOUR, 201)''

Updated Status to CONFIRMED

Add Comment

Please don't post unless you have something relevant to the bug to say.
Do not comment to say "thanks" or "fix this please".

Please log in to add comments. EOSERV Bug Tracker > Bug #243: Quest Rules: Equipment