You must login to post a comment. Don't have an account? Register to get one!

• 

  • #10

  Hannesv Sat, 07 Mar 2009 21:03:17

  I would love to see these comming with some enhances on the raidframes compared to PB3. Would be awesome to use these kind of corner-indicators like grid has, so I can finally get rid of Grid and use Pitbull for everything :D

• 

  • #9

  jrich523 Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:30:23

  the raid frames are one of my fav things about PB3.. as a healer being able to have good location/sort/group options is very important.

• 

  • #8

  Arrusy Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:33:15

  Its not Necessery but i would love but +1

• 

  • #7

  lordvance Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:32:13

  One thing I would love to see as part of the PB4 raid frames is a separation of sorting method, and frame set method. What I mean by that is, currently in PB3 there are three frame set's - Flat, Group, and Class. You can sort Flat by class, raid group, or no grouping.

  I would like to see those two different features separated further so you could set "x" number of raid frame sets (let's say 2 for the sake of this example). And then sort the frames however you wanted. So lets say I have two frame sets and I put them one next to the other horizontally. I set the "bleed" to 5 players - so after Set 1 gets 5 players, additional players would be sent to Set 2. It would look like this

  Set 1 | Set 2
  
  Rogue 1 (p2) | Warrior 1 (p1)
  Rogue 2 (p1) | Druid 1 (p2)
  Priest 1 (p1) | Druid 2 (p2)
  Priest 2 (p2) | Warlock 1 (p2)
  Warrior 1 (p1) | Warlock 2 (p1)
  
  I would have my frame sets defined by two frames, with any sorted players above 5 being sent to the second frame. The above would be sorted by class.

  Set 1 | Set 2
  
  Warrior 1 (p1) | Rogue 1 (p2)
  Rogue 2 (p1) | Druid 1 (p2)
  Priest 1 (p1) | Druid 2 (p2)
  Warlock 2 (p1) | Warlock 1 (p2)
  Warrior 1 (p1) | Priest 2 (p2)
  
  Now that would be the same frame sets, only sorted by group instead of class. I could sort it any way I wanted without affecting how/where the frames are displayed on my screen. If I wanted to add player/raid pets to the system they would simply be filtered into whatever frame set I decide based on how I have it sorted (so if I have it sorted by class, they would be at the end for instance - sorted by group they would be placed in whatever group their master is in).

  The same old styles would still be possible through filters (for instance, having your "bleed" setting set very high, make 8 frame sets - and simply use filters to say "group 1 always goes to frame 1, group 2 always goes to frame 2..." - same could be done for classes).

  ---

  This would allow things like a 25-man layout that's broken down into 5 frame sets as if it were sorted by group, but is actually sorted by class.

• 

  • #6

  FordPrefectA Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:21:02

  "Considering there are several raid frame mods, I don't think this is necessary. "

  IMO the best part of Pitbull is how it lets you customize raid frames and switch profiles for 5/10/25/40 man. I can't stand other raid frames.

• 

  • #5

  Kharnhe Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:40:54

  Lack of these 2 is my main beef with the former version of pitbull:

  • Main tank / off tank integration in raid frame
  • Ability to have class groups anchored to each other in a configurable, dynamic manner instead of free-floating or 'flat'. The previous flat mode is ridiculous because it can easily exceed the height of the screen, but if it could be spread into multiple columns it would be great. Free-floating is irritating because class group frames may grow onto each other as new members are added and require their position to be adjusted.

  
  

• 

  • #4

  essmene Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:52:22

  Personally i would just need Main Tanks (Ora2 _OR_ Blizzard - whichever is set as one may have Ora2, but the Raid leaders / Assistants don't and they use blizzard MT as marker).

  Maybe an extra frame for special persons - like RL/RA/ML - so you know whom you need to talk to - who has the power.

• 

  • #3

  jokeyrhyme Sun, 11 Jan 2009 06:15:02

  I agree with airtonix, while it might be nice for certain UIs to have raid pets in a different frame, I would personally find it easier to setup and use if there was just a box of generic raid frames with players at the start and pets at the end. Much love if there's an option for this. :)

  My own personal preference for raid frames is to have 2 subgroups per column, starting from the bottom left. GridDynamicLayout never seemed to be able to keep players in their proper subgroups in this sort of layout (they'd be column-correct, but not always subgroup-correct).

• 

  • #2

  Priscylla Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:22:50

  Considering there are several raid frame mods, I don't think this is necessary.

• 

  • #1

  airtonix Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:46:04

  Couple things that were missing from pitbull three :

  when selecting flat grouping mode, there was no sizing option for the coloumns and rows.
  ie :
  + Raid Grouping: Flat, by raid group. 5 Coloumns Wide.
  + Raid Grouping: Flat, by raid group. 10 Coloumns Wide.

  Note that there was an option for make the party frames 'sqaure', it would be great to hae this for the flat raid layout with the option to change the coloumns or rows size.

  Also, like grid, the ability to append pet units to this flat grouping would be great.
  25man raid setup [Raid Grouping: Flat, by raid group. 5 Coloumns Wide.] (only four pet classes(regardless of type):
  

  [pppp.]
  [11111]
  [22222]
  [33333]
  [44444]
  [55555]
  <</code>>\\
  Here the 'p' are the pets which may belong to any of the members from any group, not nessecarly the ones they sit above.
  
  Hopefully this option will be available for party also : \\
  <<code>>
  [partymember1partymember2partymember3partymember4partymember5:pet1pet2]