Intrepid Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 Well thats another annoying thing for me atleast in interlude so heres an ActionFailed rework. basically you send an actionfailed packet like this: sendPacket(new ActionFailed()); after rework you send it like this: sendPacket(ActionFailed.STATIC_PACKET); http://pastebin.com/f3a0e467a credits to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devangell™ Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 can i ask something?if you take this code's you can create one .exe program and attack somewhat one server???Only question is.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intrepid Posted January 8, 2010 Author Share Posted January 8, 2010 can i ask something?if you take this code's you can create one .exe program and attack somewhat one server???Only question is.. what the holy shit are you talking about :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devangell™ Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 what the holy shit are you talking about :D you talk for packet's and came to my mind the phx can we create one program with that packet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intrepid Posted January 8, 2010 Author Share Posted January 8, 2010 you talk for packet's and came to my mind the phx can we create one program with that packet? a program that flood actionfailed?that sounds pretty dumb since actionfailed abort something you send 1packet and you abort the action so... :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devangell™ Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 a program that flood actionfailed?that sounds pretty dumb since actionfailed abort something you send 1packet and you abort the action so... :D btw thanks.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versus Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 I prefer it as it is on interlude now. I dunno why, i might be used to it. Anyway it has no difference.. so.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intrepid Posted January 8, 2010 Author Share Posted January 8, 2010 I prefer it as it is on interlude now. I dunno why, i might be used to it. Anyway it has no difference.. so.. depends on tastes for me the gracia style is fit better maybe for others too anyway yeah no difference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Рrototype Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 what exacly help that change ? can you answer me pls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intrepid Posted January 8, 2010 Author Share Posted January 8, 2010 what exacly help that change ? can you answer me pls its just tastes its a "visual thing" in the code how you want to call the actionfailed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Рrototype Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 aa and this rework dont fix any exploits ? PS: thanks i was wondering why in some packs the actionfailed is called by other way ;D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intrepid Posted January 8, 2010 Author Share Posted January 8, 2010 aa and this rework dont fix any exploits ? PS: thanks i was wondering why in some packs the actionfailed is called by other way ;D nahh im not intented to fix anything in a dead chronicle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B1ggBoss Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 since you are accessing the packet in a static way, you could change the constructor visibility to private Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim. Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 lol Intrepid worked on interlude ? holly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intrepid Posted January 10, 2010 Author Share Posted January 10, 2010 since you are accessing the packet in a static way, you could change the constructor visibility to private lol just a question since you talk like that B1ggBoss from l2jforum? :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.