Talk:Zmud Damage Counter

Heh. Looks nice. With the help of Ttak, this has been upgraded! It now also counts spell damage (for significant spells). Changed code would be:

#TRIGGER {^(%w)[^>;]{strike|strikes|hits|blast|blasts|pierce|smash|backstab|bash|maelstrom|Meteor Swarm|acid rain|disintegrate|brimstone|cataclysm|ultrablast|field of death} (%w)[^>;]with([* ])(%w)[* ]%w[!.]} {#IF {%ismember( %lower( %1), @DClist)} {#VAR %lower( %1) %replaceitem( %eval( %item( @damagevalues, %ismember( %concat( %4, %3), @damageverbs))+%item( @{%lower( %1)}, 17)), 17, @{%lower( %1)});#VAR %lower( %1) %replaceitem( %eval( %item( @{%lower( %1)}, %eval( %ismember( %lower( %4), @damageverbshort)+1))+1) , %eval( %ismember( %lower( %4), @damageverbshort)+1) , @{%lower( %1)})};#IF {%ismember( %lower( %2), @DClist)} {#VAR %lower( %2) %replaceitem( %eval( %item( @damagevalues, %ismember( %concat( %4, %3), @damageverbs))+%item( @{%lower( %2)}, 18)), 18, @{%lower( %2)})};#IF {%lower( %2) = "you"} {#VAR %lower( your) %replaceitem( %eval( %item( @damagevalues, %ismember( %concat( %4, %3), @damageverbs))+%item( @{%lower( your)}, 18)), 18, @{%lower( your)})};#IF {%lower( %1) = "you"} {#VAR %lower( your) %replaceitem( %eval( %item( @damagevalues, %ismember( %concat( %4, %3), @damageverbs))+%item( @{%lower( your)}, 17)), 17, @{%lower( your)});#VAR %lower( your) %replaceitem( %eval( %item( @{%lower( your)}, %eval( %ismember( %lower( %4), @damageverbshort)+1))+1) , %eval( %ismember( %lower( %4), @damageverbshort)+1) , @{%lower( your)})}}

Basically, another #IF is added that checks when %1 is "you" and adds the numbers to the right vars, so that it can handle the new types of damage. Not sure if it will get messed up with the spaces and the uppercase, but I don't have any of those spells to test it with... --Llanor 01:08, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

FYI, this line comes instead of the first #TRIGGER line that's in the article. --Llanor 05:47, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Month late but I was under the impression that it would catch some (most?) spells already, don't have a mage though so if this works better alls good :)

Why it should catch some: the couple of spells I saw had name/you/your spellname stirkes/hits/blasts ect the mob. Atleast I'm pretty sure disintegrate would be tracked and smash and kick.

--Actually as I didn't test with a mage I think what was needed was a second trigger to catch the you cast the spell name? the extra verbs shouldnt be needed - Everman (10/27/07)

#TRIGGER {^(%w)[^>;]{strike|strikes|hits|blast|blasts} (%w)[^>;]with([* ])(%w)[* ]%w[!.]} {#IF {%ismember( %lower( %1), @DClist)} {#VAR %lower( %1) %replaceitem( %eval( %item( @damagevalues, %ismember( %concat( %4, %3), @damageverbs))+%item( @{%lower( %1)}, 17)), 17, @{%lower( %1)});#VAR %lower( %1) %replaceitem( %eval( %item( @{%lower( %1)}, %eval( %ismember( %lower( %4), @damageverbshort)+1))+1) , %eval( %ismember( %lower( %4), @damageverbshort)+1) , @{%lower( %1)})};#IF {%ismember( %lower( %2), @DClist)} {#VAR %lower( %2) %replaceitem( %eval( %item( @damagevalues, %ismember( %concat( %4, %3), @damageverbs))+%item( @{%lower( %2)}, 18)), 18, @{%lower( %2)})};#IF {%lower( %2) = "you"} {#VAR %lower( your) %replaceitem( %eval( %item( @damagevalues, %ismember( %concat( %4, %3), @damageverbs))+%item( @{%lower( your)}, 18)), 18, @{%lower( your)})};#IF {%lower( %1) = "you"} {#VAR %lower( your) %replaceitem( %eval( %item( @damagevalues, %ismember( %concat( %4, %3), @damageverbs))+%item( @{%lower( your)}, 17)), 17, @{%lower( your)});#VAR %lower( your) %replaceitem( %eval( %item( @{%lower( your)}, %eval( %ismember( %lower( %4), @damageverbshort)+1))+1) , %eval( %ismember( %lower( %4), @damageverbshort)+1) , @{%lower( your)})}} "Damagecounter"

Can try that perhaps, little ugly but might work. - Everman

The second option will not work if a caster is doing the damage counting. - Galadhaen

Finally getting around to reworking the package, should have a new revision up this week - Everman

Little delay, some bugs in testing the newer version and such hopefully done this weeked(1/13)-Everman

Still working on it, rewrote the average verb finder function as a binary search so its much faster (especially since this new version tracks more verbs), so soon soon :P - Everman