pa/eqemu-server
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/EQEmu/Server.git synced 2026-01-10 00:53:51 +00:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Fix for a stacking issue with SE_StackingCommand_Block for druid skins

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Leere 2013-11-15 18:03:13 +01:00
parent a40a34d2e8
commit 765b5ee826
2 changed files with 73 additions and 47 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

1
changelog.txt
View File

@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ EQEMu Changelog (Started on Sept 24, 2003 15:50)
-------------------------------------------------------
== 11/15/2013 ==
demonstar55: Fixed Mob::CalcFocusEffect()'s SE_LimitEffect
Leere: Fixed a stacking issue for SE_StackingCommand_Block
== 11/13/2013 ==
demonstar55: Implemented bard song effect cap. You can set the base cap with the rule Character:BaseInstrumentSoftCap, defaults to 36 or "3.6" as it is sometimes referred to.

119
zone/spells.cpp
View File

@ -2509,43 +2509,6 @@ int Mob::CheckStackConflict(uint16 spellid1, int caster_level1, uint16 spellid2,
}
}
// check for special stacking block command in spell1 against spell2
for(i = 0; i < EFFECT_COUNT; i++)
{
effect1 = sp1.effectid[i];
if(effect1 == SE_StackingCommand_Block)
{
/*
The logic here is if you're comparing the same spells they can't block each other
from refreshing
*/
if(spellid1 == spellid2)
continue;
blocked_effect = sp1.base[i];
blocked_slot = sp1.formula[i] - 201; //they use base 1 for slots, we use base 0
blocked_below_value = sp1.max[i];
if(sp2.effectid[blocked_slot] == blocked_effect)
{
sp2_value = CalcSpellEffectValue(spellid2, blocked_slot, caster_level2);
mlog(SPELLS__STACKING, "%s (%d) blocks effect %d on slot %d below %d. New spell has value %d on that slot/effect. %s.",
sp1.name, spellid1, blocked_effect, blocked_slot, blocked_below_value, sp2_value, (sp2_value < blocked_below_value)?"Blocked":"Not blocked");
if(sp2_value < blocked_below_value)
{
mlog(SPELLS__STACKING, "Blocking spell because sp2_value < blocked_below_value");
return -1; // blocked
}
} else {
mlog(SPELLS__STACKING, "%s (%d) blocks effect %d on slot %d below %d, but we do not have that effect on that slot. Ignored.",
sp1.name, spellid1, blocked_effect, blocked_slot, blocked_below_value);
}
}
}
// check for special stacking overwrite in spell2 against effects in spell1
for(i = 0; i < EFFECT_COUNT; i++)
{
@ -2588,14 +2551,41 @@ int Mob::CheckStackConflict(uint16 spellid1, int caster_level1, uint16 spellid2,
// arbitration takes place if 2 spells have the same effect at the same
// effect slot, otherwise they're stackable, even if it's the same effect
bool will_overwrite = false;
bool effect_match = true; // Figure out if we're identical in effects on all slots.
for(i = 0; i < EFFECT_COUNT; i++)
{
if(IsBlankSpellEffect(spellid1, i) || IsBlankSpellEffect(spellid2, i))
continue;
effect1 = sp1.effectid[i];
effect2 = sp2.effectid[i];
/*
Quick check, are the effects the same, if so then
keep going else ignore it for stacking purposes.
*/
if(effect1 != effect2) {
effect_match = false;
continue;
}
// If both spells have SE_StackingCommand_Block in the slot then we check if
// it applies to the same slot and effect type.
// This is handled here because IsBlankSpellEffect() would block it otherwise,
// but for stacking we need to handle it.
if (effect1 == SE_StackingCommand_Block) {
if (sp1.formula[i] == sp2.formula[i] && sp1.base[i] == sp2.base[i]) {
if(sp1.max[i] > sp2.max[i]) {
return(-1);
} else {
continue;
}
} else {
effect_match = false;
continue;
}
}
if(IsBlankSpellEffect(spellid1, i) || IsBlankSpellEffect(spellid2, i))
continue;
//Effects which really aren't going to affect stacking.
if(effect1 == SE_CurrentHPOnce ||
effect1 == SE_CurseCounter ||
@ -2604,12 +2594,6 @@ int Mob::CheckStackConflict(uint16 spellid1, int caster_level1, uint16 spellid2,
continue;
}
/*
Quick check, are the effects the same, if so then
keep going else ignore it for stacking purposes.
*/
if(effect1 != effect2)
continue;
/*
Skip check if effect is SE_Limit*
@ -2698,9 +2682,50 @@ int Mob::CheckStackConflict(uint16 spellid1, int caster_level1, uint16 spellid2,
will_overwrite = true;
}
// check for special stacking block command in spell1 against spell2
// This has to happen last so that we don't mess ourselves up for effect identical
// spells. They should just overwrite each other without needing the stacking block
if (!effect_match)
{
for(i = 0; i < EFFECT_COUNT; i++)
{
effect1 = sp1.effectid[i];
if(effect1 == SE_StackingCommand_Block)
{
/*
The logic here is if you're comparing the same spells they can't block each other
from refreshing
*/
if(spellid1 == spellid2)
continue;
blocked_effect = sp1.base[i];
blocked_slot = sp1.formula[i] - 201; //they use base 1 for slots, we use base 0
blocked_below_value = sp1.max[i];
if(sp2.effectid[blocked_slot] == blocked_effect)
{
sp2_value = CalcSpellEffectValue(spellid2, blocked_slot, caster_level2);
mlog(SPELLS__STACKING, "%s (%d) blocks effect %d on slot %d below %d. New spell has value %d on that slot/effect. %s.",
sp1.name, spellid1, blocked_effect, blocked_slot, blocked_below_value, sp2_value, (sp2_value < blocked_below_value)?"Blocked":"Not blocked");
if(sp2_value < blocked_below_value)
{
mlog(SPELLS__STACKING, "Blocking spell because sp2_value < blocked_below_value");
return -1; // blocked
}
} else {
mlog(SPELLS__STACKING, "%s (%d) blocks effect %d on slot %d below %d, but we do not have that effect on that slot. Ignored.",
sp1.name, spellid1, blocked_effect, blocked_slot, blocked_below_value);
}
}
}
}
//if we get here, then none of the values on the new spell are "worse"
//so now we see if this new spell is any better, or if its not related at all
if(will_overwrite) {
if(will_overwrite || effect_match) {
mlog(SPELLS__STACKING, "Stacking code decided that %s should overwrite %s.", sp2.name, sp1.name);
return(1);
}