Conquer Resource Wiki

[Hybris]

Originally Posted by Korvacs

Because ive only been working on it for the past 2 weeks in my spare time, and my primary knowledge is Conquer - Server communication. This is also the knowledge which the majority of people lack, and which tends to be the most required, I constantly see "Does anyone have this packet?" and "Ive got a problem with a packet, can anyone help me". So that seemed like the logical place to start.

Well for me the logical part, would be to let people tell others what content they found. I'm sure some people worked on only a little part of the Server Edition. Like adding monsters for example. I'm sure these guys could have a lot of information to share to everyone
That would go back to the real objective of a wiki, is to share informations, and check them anyway by everyone. Create subjects to talk about issues. And keep an history of the pages, on how they were and what they were containing.
If anyone adds useless things the community and you will see it, and take the latest version of the page in the history. If he continues without explaining it you can lock the thread and make an issue thread. So that people can talk in it about the father's thread.

But if the work is too hard, you can only allow people to discuss about a subject without modifying it in itself.

Subject     || Users Rights  || Admin Rights
Thread      || Read            || Read & Write
Discussion  || Read & Write || Read & Write & Lock

EDIT :
This would allow you to modify the rights of the whole wiki by only setting some general rights rules, and not let people edit the pages in itselves.

[Korvacs]

Like i said, the permissions dont work like that.

Also that would mean there was a community based there which would mean that i would need a link back, which i dont want, and would take away from the "informative only" approach which i want.

[Hybris]

Originally Posted by Korvacs

Like i said, the permissions dont work like that.

Also that would mean there was a community based there which would mean that i would need a link back, which i dont want, and would take away from the "informative only" approach which i want.

Ok.
Well, then good luck administrating it
Nice idea anyway.

[Korvacs]

So someone was saying about the packets being disorganised, or could be organised better.

How would you like to see them organised and what advantages do you think it will bring?

[Zion~]

Originally Posted by Korvacs

So someone was saying about the packets being disorganised, or could be organised better.

How would you like to see them organised and what advantages do you think it will bring?

Just drop what I said it's too much work.

[Korvacs]

Originally Posted by Zion~

Just drop what I said it's too much work.

Fair enough then.

[Hybris]

Originally Posted by Korvacs

Fair enough then.

Another solution would be to make 2 wikis, one fully editable by the users, and one with the current content that could only be updated by you with the things you might choose pertinent.

And if it doesn't work you would just have to close the editable one, and maintain the other one with mails and PMs.

[Basser]

Yes, and there are millions of other solutions!

[Hybris]

Originally Posted by Smythe94

Yes, and there are millions of other solutions!

Sure, but i'm only talking about those that can be made.

[Ultimatum]

I have been meaning to send you structures Korvacs. Tied up with work though -.-. One good thing is you have most of them on the wiki :P. Ill send them today if your online

[Korvacs]

Originally Posted by Ultimatum

I have been meaning to send you structures Korvacs. Tied up with work though -.-. One good thing is you have most of them on the wiki :P. Ill send them today if your online

Ill be on msn in a few hours, cheers

[Hybris]

Just if it was possible to precise in the version, for which version of clients it will work and not only a specific version (for example : "v1234 to v2345" if the paquet is for all the versions from 1234 to 2345, or another example "v6000+" if the paquet is for the all the versions until now since 6000).

[Korvacs]

Originally Posted by Hybris

Just if it was possible to precise in the version, for which version of clients it will work and not only a specific version (for example : "v1234 to v2345" if the paquet is for all the versions from 1234 to 2345, or another example "v6000+" if the paquet is for the all the versions until now since 6000).

The idea of the versions at the moment is that if you see version 5035, and you have like version 5040, but theres no other version except for 5065, then your packet structure will be the same as version 5035, because there isnt a change untill 5065.

I dont really see a huge reason to change it.

[Hybris]

Originally Posted by Korvacs

The idea of the versions at the moment is that if you see version 5035, and you have like version 5040, but theres no other version except for 5065, then your packet structure will be the same as version 5035, because there isnt a change untill 5065.

I dont really see a huge reason to change it.

What is the point then giving :

VERSION X
((packet structure))

VERSION Y
((packet structure))

If X > Y:
What about the versions below Y ?

[Korvacs]

Originally Posted by Hybris

What is the point then giving :

VERSION X
((packet structure))

VERSION Y
((packet structure))

If X > Y:
What about the versions below Y ?

What about them? Either they dont exist, or the client isnt available.

The other option is that the client version isnt popular enough to warrent anyone using it.

Also, do you expect me to be able to record every packet, from every client ever made in 3 weeks? Could you do that? Didnt think so.

Please remember i made this to aid the community if you dont like it, theres nothing forcing you to use it.