This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 4, 2020. It is now read-only.
Standardized POS destinations of players at all Survival Guides #1395
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is to ensure that when a Survival Guide teleport is used, the player is placed directly next to a Guide (or ON the guide in navmesh limitations prohibit the placing next to the Guide).
Multiple times were noticed when using a Survival Guide the player was placed at a position near the Survival Guide but not directly next or ON the Guide.
This all began because of the below issue with the placement of the player at the Survival Guide in Romaeve. In my post-code fix of that placement, I audited all of the other Survival Guide placements (to make sure that they were all working) and the oddity and non-standardness of player placement. At some, players were placed near, at some, players were placed far away, at some, players were placed directly ON the survival guide. This all /triggered me so I decided to standardize the player placement at all Survival Guides.
Biggest change: Position of Survival Guide in Romaeve was a full 36 points different on the X-axis from where the Survival Guide book actually is (most likely an accidental inverse of numbers (51 instead of 15)).
I affirm: