1captchas resolve recapcha2

1 captchas supports Recaptcha2. But in the integration of api in GSA-SER there is nothing about recaptcha in this service.

I want to hire him as the third and last of the solvers, basically because he solves texts, but it’s fine that he adds recapcha2 and so if anyone passes from capmonster he would get there. I will leave 2captcha.

My question is, if the configuration with api that is in GSA-SER will also send you the recapchas, I hope you update it if necessary

http://www.1captchas.com/

How could I resolve the sleep spell action when using Minions in 5E?

I use Minions in my 5E campaign at times. I use them as canon fodder and their hit points are non-existent. Meaning, they have an AC of X and if the PC lands any hit, they are dead.

(I read that in 4E that Minions had only 1 hit point.)

What are the ways I could resolve the Sleep Spell action if the PC’s snuck up on a campsite or cave with multiple Minions who were unaware of their presence?

Looking for Rules as Intended. (only because I don’t believe their is RAW)

How to resolve the Format String Error alert in OWASP ZAP for a web application (ASP.NET C#)?

I have a web application with a log in page. In the log in page, I’ve set maxlength for the username input and the password input, which looks like the code below.

@Html.TextBoxFor(m => m.Username, new { @maxlength="30"}) 

When I run OWASP ZAP, it gives me an alert with the following description.

A Format String error occurs when the submitted data of an input string is evaluated as a command by the application

Potential Format String Error. The script closed the connection on a /%s

But when I remove @maxlength="30", the alert goes away.

I’ve been trying to find the remediation for this alert, but I’ve read that Format String vulnerability doesn’t really exist in C#: Do format string vulnerabilities exist in C# or Java? .

Is it just a “potential” error and nothing to worry about because it’s in C#? Or.. if this is something that needs to be taken care of, what can be done to resolve this alert from OWASP ZAP? (I’d believe removing @maxlength is not a solution).

How to resolve fundamental differences in perspective between players and DM about the roles each has in decision making?

To give context: I am a DM running a D&D 5e campaign set in a home-brew setting for the better part of a year. A few months ago I suggested having an alternate “gaiden” style campaign set in the same setting in which the same set of characters go on short adventures with rotating DMs that could be used during sessions where some players were not available to play. During this winter holiday, one of my players was unable to make sessions and I implemented this system with myself taking the first turn as DM. All players were given invitations to the campaign and given character sheets on our role play app, including the non-available player. The adventure was expanded as the players came to enjoy the narrative and I had new ideas, and is now reaching towards its conclusion. My absent player recently became available again and expressed interest in joining in this campaign. I said yes, some members of the group said no.

While the exact argument was long and circuitous with some hurt feelings, the basic salient points from each side were:

Against Joining

  • Inclusion of new members of the campaign are group decisions.
  • Introducing new characters towards the end of the campaign disrupts the narrative.
  • By making an executive decision under DM purview from the get go, I am undermining their perspectives and feelings by “laying down the law” and not listening to their side. (This might be true.)

For Joining

  • The player is part of the pre-existing group and is not a new member as this adventure is an extension of main campaign.
  • While players are encouraged to add to the narrative, what is and is not narrative appropriate falls under the domain of the DM as stated on pages 5 & 6 of the 5e Players Handbook.
  • Additionally, I have interesting narrative plans involved with his character, that several players and DM’s outside of this group approve of.
  • As the DM, I serve as referee. As I view this player as a pre-existing group member, it comes under my purview to make judgement calls how certain player on player issues are resolved. This has been the case before when other players had issues with class abilities overlapping over each others roles and could not come to a compromise, and certain players having issue with role-play issues overshadowing other players. In both cases I had to make official DM statements to resolve the issue.
  • As a DM I have a prerogative to enjoy myself during these sessions else I lose interest in the game and it dies. Excluding a player who I see as part of the group who has done nothing wrong do to what I feel is pressure from a large minority of players does not sit right with me and would impede in my enjoyment.

In the end, I said that I will not exclude anyone member of the group at the behest of the others for what I see as a non-issue, and several player were upset with this decision, seeing it as inappropriate, with at least one player leaving the group outright.

So how do I this resolve fundamental differences in perspective between players and DM about the roles each has in decision making? Am I in the right for making the decision I did? If so, how do I resolve this group dynamic issue? If not, how do I repair these ingresses?

What story arcs does the Tomb of Annihilation adventure (as written) fail to resolve?

It is said that you can give a story a more satisfying and powerful ending by simultaneously closing multiple story arcs at the end of a story (per screenwriting coaches like Robert Mckee – the teacher who inspired Peter Jackson to rewrite Lord of the Rings into what we saw onscreen.) For example, it was recently reported that the writers for Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker found 24 unclosed character arcs that they could close with the final movie. They closed those arcs to give the movie more narrative impact.

I have been brought in as a substitute DM to finish the last 2-3 episodes of an almost eight month campaign of Tomb of Annihilation spanning over 30 sessions. (I was chosen to help maintain continuity because I am a former player with knowledge of their campaign.)

It would be great to give the ending of TOA a great sense of closure and feel epic as if the PCs have accomplished something important and the world recognizes it.

But, reading ToA it is clear that there are a variety of unclosed story arcs. As written, the ending feels a little abrupt. There are a few comments about how if the PCs saved a particular character then they receive treasure as promised and a few words about future adventures, but that’s about it. It feels a bit unfinished – like Star Wars: A New Hope might feel without the throne scene or Return of the Jedi without the scenes of celebration across the many planets.

The ToA authors left a variety of open story arcs for the DM to close.

For example…

That said, there are hundreds of pages of adventure – and clearly the authors opened a variety of arcs, many of them closed, and some portion left open – but it can be a challenge to find and remember all those arcs even having been a player.

It would be great to have a list of those unclosed story arcs so we as DMs can create scenes to close those arcs to help give that more satisfying “Mckee-an” sense of completion.

So the question is, what are the story arcs that are opened in ToA’s story that were unclosed in the module?

We are looking for a bulleted list of opened arc story elements that the authors left unclosed or for which the authors didn’t outline the scenes for closing them.

Unity 2D: Can’t resolve ArgumentOutOfRangeException: Index was out of range

I am very much a novice to coding with no background on this at all so the code you see here may be terrible.

Basically I’m making an endless runner, made up of a player character and a set of obstacle prefabs. The obstacle prefabs have a trigger on them so that when the player hits it, it spawns the next prefab. I’m using the code below, and when the player hits the first spawn trigger it will spawn a prefab, but on tripping the next trigger it gives me the ArgumentOutOfRangeException error in the console and doesn’t spawn anything.

public class ObsTrigger : MonoBehaviour {

 public GameObject spawnTrigger;  [SerializeField] private List<Transform> obstacleList;   private void OnTriggerEnter2D(Collider2D other)  {      if (other.CompareTag("Player"))      {          for (int i = 0; i < obstacleList.Count; i++)          {              spawnObstacle();          }      }  }   public void spawnObstacle()  {      {          Transform chosenLevelPart = obstacleList[Random.Range(0, obstacleList.Count -1)];          Instantiate(chosenLevelPart);      }  } 

}

If anyone can point me in the right direction I would really appreciate it!

Coding the Javascript part of a TinyMCE plugin: the IDE can’t resolve the tinymce variable

I’ve copied a very basic plugin for WordPress which adds a button to TinyMCE.

The code is correct and works. But while I’m coding (in PHPStorm), the IDE can’t resolve the javascript objects. How can I configure PHPStorm (or a generic IDE) to see the code of TinyMCE included in WordPress?

enter image description here

Help resolve territory acquisition design difference of opinion in MMO RTS

I’m an indie game designer and developer. My business partner and I are close to launching an MMO RTS, but we are stuck on how to handle one feature: territory expansion.

First, a few details about the game so that the answers can be in context:

  • It’s played on a map of the world using the Google Maps API
  • It is a “true” RTS – very little is abstracted.
  • There are actual buildings you can place on the land, actual units that you can move around the world etc.
  • Territory acquisition is currently by way of moving an infantry unit onto a “square” of land, which turns it blue meaning it’s now your territory (you can build buildings on it etc.)

Also, some details about our partnership:

  • We have a 50/50 partnership on costs (and hopefully one day, profits!)
  • We have shared, 50/50 responsibilities on design
  • Everything else is assigned roles:
  • Me: technical lead, coding etc.
  • Him: Art, UI, marketing etc.
  • We have been working together on this game for almost 2 years

Where we’re not seeing eye to eye is how territory expansion should work in the game. My view is this:

  • Players start with a small “square” of territory (about 5m x 5m) and expand by claiming adjacent “squares”
  • Once they hit a number of squares equivalent to a larger square (5 x 5 small squares, or about 25 x 25m), they can then claim squares at that size
  • This keeps increasing until they can eventually claim 500 km x 500 km squares
  • There is a mathematical model behind this, but I think all that is relevant is that the sizes align to degree increments, and that I have modelled it so that there are 10 “map levels” in the game, with the largest map level having about 2,500 large squares across the globe

I believe these are the pros and cons to my approach:

Pros:

  • I feel that it adds a lot of “flavour” to the game having players grow in size and power from owning territory the size of a room in a house, then maybe a house, then a block, then a suburb, city, state etc. all the way up to small country size squares
  • It allows players of different “power” to compete against each other in the same game world. Players at the smallest map levels can only see and claim territory from players of equivalent power, and likewise players at the largest level compete for vast tracts of land, and can leave smaller players alone
  • It looks very neat – map squares always align on a grid, with no overlaps

Cons:

  • Using this approach, players would not be able to see other players’ territories at different map levels. This is because territory would overlap, which not only looks terrible, it’s just not the way maps are represented, and also causes technical issues wherein any API you use (e.g. Google Maps) doesn’t know which layer you meant to click on
  • However, players can see other, more/less powerful players’ territories by clicking on some up/down buttons so that players can see what’s going on around them at different power levels

His view is this:

  • Squares should always be a fixed size, say 5 km x 5 km

I believe these are the pros and cons to his approach:

Pros:

  • It’s simpler! My life as a developer and designer would be so much easier if squares were always the same size
  • All players can always see all other players’ squares because everyone is basically at the same “map level”, all the time

Cons:

  • It makes the game feel like a large checkered board game, or a big version of Risk rather than an RTS
  • Basic grids like this have been done before in other games – I feel that my approach is more novel and interesting (albeit a bit risker since it’s new)
  • Acquiring territory may feel “quicker and easier” as you start the game since you already start with a massive chunk of land, but I think that will quickly turn into a grind once you realise that there are about 26 million squares of this size on earth
  • There is less aspirational value to capturing “more” squares, as opposed to a psychological player reward associated with being allowed to capture “larger” squares as you level up

A few more facts at this point:

  • I was previously a professional game designer, so I believe I usually know what works and doesn’t work in games (although I’m only human, and can obviously be wrong)
  • My business partner has no experience in the game industry. He is coming at this problem from a “this feels right to me” perspective
  • I have already coded, implemented and tested my approach and it works perfectly (albeit with the constraint of having to choose to go up/down to view larger/smaller players’ territory)
  • It has taken me about 2 months to design and develop this approach and it is an integral part of the (pre-alpha) version of the game
  • The game has only been played by very few family members and friends, and we are maybe a month away from a private alpha launch to a closed group of people whom we both know

He is suggesting that we either go with his fixed square approach, start completely from scratch, or stop developing the game altogether (after almost 2 years of time and money, with maybe a few weeks to go before an alpha launch).

I guess I’m looking for advice on two things:

  1. Which is the better game design approach: gradually increasing square sizes (with the constraints I mentioned above), or fixed square sizes (and their associated pros and cons)
  2. If I’m convinced that my design makes more sense from a design, gameplay, technical, aesthetic and financial perspective (since I don’t want to waste the couple of months working on this feature, let alone the couple of years working on this game), how do I convince him of this?

Any external, objective advice on this is much appreciated.

Error ImproperlyConfigured Could not resolve URL for hyperlinked relationship using view name, Django

Estoy haciendo una aplicación en django-REST, en la que una empresa puede tener varios talleres, el problema es que cuando creo una empresa y luego intento entrar al viewset de los talleres, me sale el siguiente error:

django.core.exceptions.ImproperlyConfigured: Could not resolve URL for hyperlinked relationship using view name “enterprise-detail”. You may have failed to include the related model in your API, or incorrectly configured the lookup_field attribute on this field.

Alguien sabe como solucionar esto?, solo pasa cuando hay empresas creadas, si no hay empresas me deja entrar entrar al viewset de los talleres, aqui el codigo:

Models.py:

#modelo para empresas class Enterprise(models.Model):    nit = models.CharField(db_column='NIT', primary_key=True, max_length=12)      name = models.CharField(max_length=50)    type = models.CharField(max_length=8)     def __str__(self):       return self.name     class Meta:       db_table = 'enterprise'  #modelo para talleres class Workship(models.Model):    idworkship = models.AutoField(primary_key=True)    name = models.CharField(max_length=128)    description = models.TextField()    type_service = models.CharField(db_column='type_Service', max_length=45)      stars = models.PositiveIntegerField(default=0)    votes = models.PositiveIntegerField(default=0)    email = models.CharField(max_length=254)    field_bahias_quant = models.PositiveIntegerField(db_column='_bahias_quant')    #clave foránea a Enterprise    enterprise_nit = models.ForeignKey(Enterprise, models.DO_NOTHING, db_column='enterprise_NIT')      def __str__(self):     return self.name     class Meta:       db_table = 'workship'       unique_together = (('idworkship', 'enterprise_nit'),) 

Serializers.py:

class EnterpriseSerializer(serializers.HyperlinkedModelSerializer):      class Meta:        model = models.Enterprise        fields = ('nit', 'name', 'type',)  class WorkshipSerializer(serializers.HyperlinkedModelSerializer):      class Meta:        model = models.Workship        fields = ('name','ubication', 'description', 'type_service', 'stars', 'votes', 'email' , 'field_bahias_quant', 'enterprise_nit',) 

views.py:

class EnterpriseViewSet(viewsets.ModelViewSet):    queryset = models.Enterprise.objects.all()    serializer_class= serializers.EnterpriseSerializer  class WorkshipViewSet(viewsets.ModelViewSet):    queryset = models.Workship.objects.all()    serializer_class = serializers.WorkshipSerializer 

urls.py:

router = routers.DefaultRouter() router.register('Enterprise', views.EnterpriseViewSet, base_name = 'Enterprise') router.register('Workship', views.WorkshipViewSet, base_name = 'Workship') urlpatterns = [    path('admin/', admin.site.urls),    path('', include(router.urls)),    path('api-auth/', include('rest_framework.urls', namespace='rest_framework')) ]