FANDOM


m (add template)
(The 'two boot bug' (or not): reply)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
   
 
What model did the Gauntlets use? [[User:Graf Gaius|Graf Gaius]] ([[User talk:Graf Gaius|talk]]) 19:10, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
 
What model did the Gauntlets use? [[User:Graf Gaius|Graf Gaius]] ([[User talk:Graf Gaius|talk]]) 19:10, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
  +
  +
== The 'two boot bug' (or not) ==
  +
  +
Regarding the reported bug of 'two pairs of boots, rather than the gauntlets and boots', I don't see how that is possible. An examination of the UTP files for the three containers shows that the Sentinel armour pieces are not random drops, they are specifically added to those chests (stb100ip_reward_chest_01.utp = helm; stb100ip_reward_chest_02.utp = gauntlets; stb100ip_reward_chest_03.utp = boots, with the chestpiece being found on the First's corpse). Now, it MAY be possible to obtain second pair of boots as a random drop, from one of the Avvar Lords fought in 'The Wraith's Vengence', as all three are equipped with the Boots of the Sentinel, but that could not affect the gauntlets being 'hard coded' into the Blackmarsh chest.
  +
  +
I would suggest that the 'bug' is not actually a bug, but rather, a misunderstanding resulting from a combination of a missed chest and a coincidental random drop. - [[User:Theskymoves|Theskymoves]] ([[User talk:Theskymoves|talk]]) 13:55, February 12, 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
:That's why I added {{Tl|Confirm}}. {{;)}} --[[User:CompleCCity|CompleCCity]] ([[User talk:CompleCCity|talk]]) 08:50, February 13, 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
:: and your 'confirm' is why I added the explanation. I think I should probably stop trying to contribute to the wiki, since my attempts seem to be more annoying to the 'elite editors' than of any value. Sorry for the waste of time. - [[User:Theskymoves|Theskymoves]] ([[User talk:Theskymoves|talk]]) 13:04, February 13, 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
::: Don't know what's gone wrong now, but at the moment '''you''' seem to be annoyed by my absolutely non-annoyed comment (if I really should take "elite editor" personally, which I usually wouldn't, at least here). Sorry, if I said something inappropriate… --[[User:CompleCCity|CompleCCity]] ([[User talk:CompleCCity|talk]]) 14:37, February 13, 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:37, February 13, 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gauntlets of the Sentinel article.
  • General discussions not pertaining to the improvement of the article should be held in Discussions instead.
  • Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
  • Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes! (~~~~)
  • Do not edit another editor's comment.

What model did the Gauntlets use? Graf Gaius (talk) 19:10, November 10, 2014 (UTC)

The 'two boot bug' (or not) Edit

Regarding the reported bug of 'two pairs of boots, rather than the gauntlets and boots', I don't see how that is possible. An examination of the UTP files for the three containers shows that the Sentinel armour pieces are not random drops, they are specifically added to those chests (stb100ip_reward_chest_01.utp = helm; stb100ip_reward_chest_02.utp = gauntlets; stb100ip_reward_chest_03.utp = boots, with the chestpiece being found on the First's corpse). Now, it MAY be possible to obtain second pair of boots as a random drop, from one of the Avvar Lords fought in 'The Wraith's Vengence', as all three are equipped with the Boots of the Sentinel, but that could not affect the gauntlets being 'hard coded' into the Blackmarsh chest.

I would suggest that the 'bug' is not actually a bug, but rather, a misunderstanding resulting from a combination of a missed chest and a coincidental random drop. - Theskymoves (talk) 13:55, February 12, 2017 (UTC)

That's why I added {{Confirm}}. Icon wink --CompleCCity (talk) 08:50, February 13, 2017 (UTC)
and your 'confirm' is why I added the explanation. I think I should probably stop trying to contribute to the wiki, since my attempts seem to be more annoying to the 'elite editors' than of any value. Sorry for the waste of time. - Theskymoves (talk) 13:04, February 13, 2017 (UTC)
Don't know what's gone wrong now, but at the moment you seem to be annoyed by my absolutely non-annoyed comment (if I really should take "elite editor" personally, which I usually wouldn't, at least here). Sorry, if I said something inappropriate… --CompleCCity (talk) 14:37, February 13, 2017 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.