 |
A fix is provided with revision 9953. The only open question is on whether we introduce a new spawnarg as suggested by Dragofer. I would vote against that. Opinions? |
 |
1) What's the point of introducing special behavior in absence_alert = 0? Is it necessary? No released map has such value anyway. 2) What's the reason for capping alert level from above? I see values 100, 50, 23 in some missions (gatehouse1_3, lockdown1_2_1, itb). Apparently, authors wanted AI to get to full alert. What do mappers use this spawnarg for? Given how long the old behavior was in place, I think it would be wise to do one of: leave it as is and fix docs/wiki/whatever to mark this as boolean flag introduce new spawnarg for new behavior |
|
|
"1) What's the point of introducing special behavior in absence_alert = 0? Is it necessary? No released map has such value anyway." That's how it is stated in spawnarg description. If no value is passed, the ai goes slightly above agitated searching. I haven't implemented it so I don't know the motivation. "2) What's the reason for capping alert level from above?" That's an asumption based on how I found the code. The cap can be removed, though. " I see values 100, 50, 23 in some missions (gatehouse1_3, lockdown1_2_1, itb). Apparently, authors wanted AI to get to full alert." It is still the same alert state (state 5 is only entered on sight). The extreme values may only assure "What do mappers use this spawnarg for?" The original intention is to control by which amount the ai alert level gets increased, as written on the wiki. So if the ai is at alert level 7 and sees an item is missing, that had the spawnarg set to 4, the ai alert level would rise to 11. "Given how long the old behavior was in place, I think it would be wise to do one of: leave it as is and fix docs/wiki/whatever to mark this as boolean flag introduce new spawnarg for new behavior " I would tend to the second choice then, as the first doesn't fit the code. It wasn't used as boolean, it had no effect at all. My suggestion: I will remove the cap and introduce a new spawnarg. I change the definition accordingly and mark the old spawnarg as deprecated. I do the same in the corresponding wiki entry. Is that ok? |
 |
I've linked to the forum thread where this is also discussed (should probably get in the habit of discussing bugs primarily in the bugtracker). @stgatilov Re: booleans, we already have absence_noticeability to enable this mechanic, and a default alert increase to 18, which means "agitated searching". The discussed spawnarg is only for cases where the mapper wants a different alert increase than 18. |
|
|
tdm_base.def added with revision 16500, which introduces absence_alert_increase to replace absence_alert, which becomes non-functional. state.cpp added with revision 9961, that removes the cap mentioned earlier and got modified to use the above spawnarg. |
- Anonymous
