scp-fs2open
form-on-wing and stay-still updates
Various goal enhancements requested by FotG. The original ai-form-on-wing and ai-stay-still goals automatically cleared all other goals assigned to the same ship or wing, which is not always desired. This adds several flags to goals and ai_profiles to provide more fine-grained control over these behaviors.
Also removes AI_GOAL_PLACEHOLDER_1 since it is not needed; goals higher than AI_GOAL_NONE do not need to be a specific value.
Supersedes #6520. In draft pending testing.
Testing all works as expected with both new behavior and current existing behavior if flags are off, thanks for all the work on this!
@Goober5000 @wookieejedi I looked into whether multi is OK, and I think it is.
When the player sends orders like "Form on my wing" in multi, the result is a call to send_player_order_packet() to notify the server.
The server handles the order in process_player_order_packet(), in which the server calls either hud_squadmsg_send_ship_command() for an order the player sent to a ship or hud_squadmsg_send_wing_command() for an order the player sent to a wing. These are the same functions used to handle the order in single player. So AFAICT the server should handle the new AI flags correctly.
@Goober5000 @wookieejedi I'm confused on how this PR meshes with existing priority code for form-on-wing in ai_add_goal_sub_player() (aigoals.cpp:781-783)
// Goober5000 - same with form-on-wing, since it's a type of staying near
else if ( mode == AI_GOAL_FORM_ON_WING )
aigp->priority = PLAYER_PRIORITY_SUPPORT_LOW;
Shouldn't we be setting aigp->priority to The_mission.ai_profile->default_form_on_wing_priority instead?
This would be quite a behavior change WRT priority boost, though, since PLAYER_PRIORITY_SUPPORT_LOW is just 10.
One idea: set the priority to The_mission.ai_profile->default_form_on_wing_priority if the goal was added via player-issued order (see this comment), otherwise fall back to PLAYER_PRIORITY_SUPPORT_LOW.
As an aside, I wonder if the above code snippet explains why it always felt like issuing a "Form on my wing" order had no effect back when I used to play.
Semi-related: strange that the switch block in error_check_initial_orders() in fredview.cpp doesn't include a case for AI_GOAL_FORM_ON_WING. I wonder why. Ditto for CFred_mission_save::save_ai_goals() in missionsave.cpp and ShipGoalsDlg::initialize() (and other functions) in shipgoalsdlg.cpp. I guess it's because FSO automatically sets "form on wing" as the default AI goal if a ship has none.
error_check_initial_orders
Added a case for this in FRED and qtFRED.
save_ai_goals
Added save code
(functions in shipgoalsdlg.cpp)
Done, plus the equivalent in qtFRED
The
giveOrderLua function doesn't support using The_mission.ai_profile->default_form_on_wing_priority with form-on-wing orders. Should it?
Hmm, it probably should.
@Goober5000 @wookieejedi I'm confused on how this PR meshes with existing priority code for form-on-wing in
ai_add_goal_sub_player()(aigoals.cpp:781-783)// Goober5000 - same with form-on-wing, since it's a type of staying near else if ( mode == AI_GOAL_FORM_ON_WING ) aigp->priority = PLAYER_PRIORITY_SUPPORT_LOW;Shouldn't we be setting
aigp->prioritytoThe_mission.ai_profile->default_form_on_wing_priorityinstead?
Not necessarily, because that is intended for orders given specifically via sexp. In the messaging system, orders always had different priorities:
This would be quite a behavior change WRT priority boost, though, since
PLAYER_PRIORITY_SUPPORT_LOWis just 10.
That itself is a behavior change from retail, as those lines were added in 09d116f667. I think the best thing to do is remove those lines to restore the original squad-commanded behavior. Presumably with the fixes to the codebase over the years and in this PR, it will cause form-on-wing to work properly, but we'll test it.
As an aside, I wonder if the above code snippet explains why it always felt like issuing a "Form on my wing" order had no effect back when I used to play.
Those lines were intended to fix that exact bug, but if the order had no effect for you, they probably didn't do their job.