Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SimultaneousAttack-port v6R5 #222

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Stx69
Copy link
Contributor

@Stx69 Stx69 commented Mar 31, 2022

Simple port to v5R6

@Stx69 Stx69 changed the title SimultaneousAttack-port v5R6 SimultaneousAttack-port v6R5 Mar 31, 2022
Copy link
Member

@ichub ichub left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

could you also please update the metadata of this plugin to reflect the fact that it works for round 5?

@cristobal
Copy link
Contributor

cristobal commented Apr 1, 2022

@ichub this is a duplicate of @davidryan59 PR #190, i think we should rather stick with 190.
However a difference in the PR's is the change done in the df.move:

While @Stx69 on this PR rewrote the following move:

df.move(attacker.locationId, target.locationId, Math.floor(attacker.energy * 0.5), 0);

to:

df.move(attacker.locationId, target.locationId, Math.floor(attacker.energy * 0.5), 0, null, false);

And @davidryan59 PR to:

df.move(attacker.locationId, target.locationId, Math.floor(attacker.energy * energyPercent * 0.01), 0);

Still the PR from @davidryan59 does a bit more, and i think we should rather approve that PR first since it also first in the line.

@ichub
Copy link
Member

ichub commented Apr 1, 2022

@ichub this is a duplicate of @davidryan59 PR #190, i think we should rather stick with 190.

OK

import pg ,  and nitpick line. 
Thanks for your patience.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants