Claim updates

[cocosolos]

This attempts to bring claim mechanics closer to retail. Claim is currently applied in several different places, so I moved all of that to one function in battleutils, I also added a separate function to dirty exp based on party size and player level, and another for handling new unclaiming/claim passing mechanics. I tried to get this as close to retail as I could, but there's probably still things to iron out, like all claimed mobs still having the same color name. Some things this will have an effect on is anything that uses the player on mob death. There will be situations where the mob dies while unclaimed and there is no owner, such as a DoT tick.

I affirm:

• that I agree to Project Topaz's Limited Contributor License Agreement, as written on this date
• that I've tested my code since the last commit in the PR, and will test after any later commits

[ibm2431]

Thanks cocosolos! A few questions:

How does/should this interact with switching targets in a party situation? From my reading (and please correct me if this is wrong), at the moment if a party member is the mob's owner, but then attacks another mob (spell, WS, etc), that original mob's owner (attacker->PClaimedMob) is wiped in claimMob, but relinquishClaim isn't called to attempt to pass on the claim to another party member.

[ibm2431]

I realize the secondary targets shouldn't, but shouldn't the primary target of the AoE always get claimed?

(Same for magic too)

[cocosolos]

I believe I read that mobskills don't actually claim, only normal attacks/magic, but I may be wrong about that. Magic should be claiming the primary target.

[cocosolos]

Switching targets doesn't call relinquishClaim, only actually disengaging from a mob. So if you're the owner and switch targets the mob will go unclaimed unless another party member hits it first.

[ibm2431]

Re: Switching targets, a player who has claim attacking another mob calls a clean for the owner ID of the mob they originally had claim on:

if (PDefender->isAlive() && attacker->PClaimedMob && attacker->PClaimedMob != PDefender
&& attacker->PClaimedMob->isAlive() && attacker->PClaimedMob->m_OwnerID.id == attacker->id)
    { // unclaim any other living mobs owned by attacker
        attacker->PClaimedMob->m_OwnerID.clean();
        attacker->PClaimedMob->updatemask |= UPDATE_STATUS;
        attacker->PClaimedMob = nullptr;

Which, unlike in RelinquishClaim, doesn't attempt to find another party member to pass claim onto.

Scenario:

1. Members A and B have taken aggressive action against a mob
2. Member A was the last one to do so, their ID is currently the one set in m_OwnerID
3. Member A, without taking an action which would trigger a ReliniquishClaim call, attacks another mob

What happens to the claim which should pass onto Member B?

[cocosolos]

In that scenario, the mob is supposed to go unclaimed. Unless Member B does an action to become the owner before Member A performs a claiming action on another mob, claim will drop. Member B will still have that mob as their ClaimedMob, but the mob loses its owner. This is supposed to happen.

[59blargedy]

https://youtu.be/BWZDHvzbns4
perhaps changed at some point. tested:
lvl 32 rng, lvl 99 rdm.
lvl 32 engaged sole member of party, received outside cures, xp.
32 engaged, 99 buffed, 99 dropped, no xp.
32 engaged 99 buffed with flurry (in case multiple buffs/regen messing things up), 99 dropped, no xp
32 engaged 99 dropped, cured outside, no xp
32 engaged 99 dropped, no 99 action, no xp
(all on xp bearing mobs

[KnowOne134]

been testing and seems to be good

[ibm2431]

In that scenario, the mob is supposed to go unclaimed.

Even if Member B is still engaged?

[cocosolos]

In that scenario, the mob is supposed to go unclaimed.

Even if Member B is still engaged?

Yep, unless they're the owner they basically have no claim over the mob. This is also why Member A could drop party instead of attacking another mob and the mob would become exclusively theirs, Member B would auto disengage.

[ibm2431]

What about a scenario of two BLMs who have both (single-target) nuked a mob, but then the one currently listed as the mob's owner decides to nuke a second?

I'm worried about people outside a party trying to yoink an NM if the one single party member who is marked as the claimant tries to deal with an add.

[cocosolos]

If the owner nukes another mob, the first mob will go unclaimed. I believe this is intentional. However, anyone not in this party will have to place themselves at the top of the hate list to steal the claim. Any party member of the original owner will be able to reclaim instantly.