raidboss/oopsy: add Everkeep (normal) package #438
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
github-actions
bot
added
💬ko
💬cn
resources
45 tasks
|
I think for normal mode and simplicity this is fine! Hopefully I can give it a whirl soon. |
JLGarber
approved these changes
Oct 6, 2024
wexxlee
changed the title
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 7, 2024
Tested in emulator and in game. This re-uses a lot of the tile calculation logic I did for EverkeepEx, but determining/calling safe spots is handled a little differently because the forged track patterns are both fixed and simpler. For calling Forged Track, it will call a single inner safe tile regardless of how many tiles are actually safe, with priority given to the inner N/S tiles. I *think* this probably fine, but given the recent discussion on #429 & #431, I wanted to mention that. If folks prefer a different priority order, feel free to PR a config option, but I think this is fine for an initial pass at least. f17ed9c
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 7, 2024
Tested in emulator and in game. This re-uses a lot of the tile calculation logic I did for EverkeepEx, but determining/calling safe spots is handled a little differently because the forged track patterns are both fixed and simpler. For calling Forged Track, it will call a single inner safe tile regardless of how many tiles are actually safe, with priority given to the inner N/S tiles. I *think* this probably fine, but given the recent discussion on #429 & #431, I wanted to mention that. If folks prefer a different priority order, feel free to PR a config option, but I think this is fine for an initial pass at least. f17ed9c
valarnin
pushed a commit
to valarnin/cactbot
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2024
Tested in emulator and in game. This re-uses a lot of the tile calculation logic I did for EverkeepEx, but determining/calling safe spots is handled a little differently because the forged track patterns are both fixed and simpler. For calling Forged Track, it will call a single inner safe tile regardless of how many tiles are actually safe, with priority given to the inner N/S tiles. I *think* this probably fine, but given the recent discussion on OverlayPlugin#429 & OverlayPlugin#431, I wanted to mention that. If folks prefer a different priority order, feel free to PR a config option, but I think this is fine for an initial pass at least.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Tested in emulator and in game.
This re-uses a lot of the tile calculation logic I did for EverkeepEx, but determining/calling safe spots is handled a little differently because the forged track patterns are both fixed and simpler. For calling Forged Track, it will call a single inner safe tile regardless of how many tiles are actually safe, with priority given to the inner N/S tiles. I think this probably fine, but given the recent discussion on #429 & #431, I wanted to mention that. If folks prefer a different priority order, feel free to PR a config option, but I think this is fine for an initial pass at least.