Classic Faction Mechanics, Yes/No

[Smedy]

I honestly don't care that much, cool for people with high faction to feel safe i guess, it's not a big deal since there's no real raid content in cities anyway.

I guess some fun shit could come out of it, luring people into a trap with the guards i dno.

I don't feel strongly for one or the other

[Sirken]

Originally Posted by Titanuk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

think that was only for teams

ah, that could be. was on VZ during live

[Ziggy]

lol we agree on something?

[Knuckle]

Yes indeed.

[Harrison]

On top of incorrect factioning already present (starting at incorrect default levels for instance) this is just a fucking nightmare to implement for little to no real benefit to the community.

It wasn't really even very stable on live either. Some npcs, regardless of faction, ignored you half the time.

[Rushmore]

Work on Resists....

Launch.....


Implement this as we go along.

[naez]

Originally Posted by Crenshinabon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

(like damage shields agroing guards, omg that was lame).

Originally Posted by Harrison [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

this is just a fucking nightmare to implement for little to no real benefit to the community

Bros I always like when you bring these riddles to my attention. of course i fixed the fansy rivervale carnage exploit



attack.cpp (edit Mob::CommonDamage() line 1)

PHP Code:

// void Mob::CommonDamage(Mob* attacker, sint32 &damage, const int16 spell_id /* */) {
    // This method is called with skill_used=ABJURE for Damage Shield damage. 
    bool FromDamageShield = (skill_used == ABJURE);
    if (this->IsClient() && attacker->IsClient() && !FromDamageShield)
        entity_list.CheckFactionBurnAggro(this, attacker); 


aggro.cpp (add 3 new methods)

PHP Code:

void EntityList::CheckFactionBurnAggro(Client *victim, Client *attacker)
{
    LinkedListIterator<Mob*> iterator(mob_list);
    for(iterator.Reset(); iterator.MoreElements(); iterator.Advance()) {
        Mob* mob = iterator.GetData();
        if(mob->IsNPC() 
            && attacker->CheckAggroRange(mob)
            && attacker->CheckFactionBurn(victim, mob)
            && attacker->CheckLosFN(mob)) // check LoS last for performance
        {
            mob->AddToHateList(attacker);
        }
    }
} 


PHP Code:

// returns true if the attacker should get aggroed for attacking the victim
bool Client::CheckFactionBurn(Client *victim, Mob *Mob)
{
    FACTION_VALUE fv_attacker = this->GetReverseFactionCon(mob);
    FACTION_VALUE fv_victim = victim->GetReverseFactionCon(mob);

    return (fv_victim < fv_attacker); // 1 = Ally, 6 = Scowls... could be <= ??
} 


PHP Code:

bool Mob::CheckAggroRange(Mob* mob)
{
    float iAggroRange = GetAggroRange();

    float t1, t2, t3;
    t1 = mob->GetX() - GetX();
    t2 = mob->GetY() - GetY();
    t3 = mob->GetZ() - GetZ();
    //Cheap ABS()
    if(t1 < 0)
        t1 = 0 - t1;
    if(t2 < 0)
        t2 = 0 - t2;
    if(t3 < 0)
        t3 = 0 - t3;

    if(( t1 > iAggroRange) || ( t2 > iAggroRange) || ( t3 > iAggroRange))
        return false;

    float dist2  = mob->DistNoRoot(*this);
    float iAggroRange2 = iAggroRange*iAggroRange;

    if( dist2 > iAggroRange2 )
        return false;

    return true;
} 


[Nirgon]

It is true, some did, some didn't and faction was a considered factor. I couldn't tell you what was classic and what wasn't bros [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]. I know guards and guild masters followed this rule, whether in the cities or not. The rest was kind of... random. Charming a mob onto someone, regardless of faction, would cause the npcs to assist the charmed npc almost every time.

[XiakenjaTZ]

I like it for how it is intended but if we have to deal with charm exploits and people using this not as it was intended I would change my vote to no.

[Doors]

GJ naez