Not a Bug Get Arrows BY Being Shot

[Pieter Boelen]

I want any enemy to get (50% chance) arrows when being shot at. And I think that's how it works right now.
Officers and mainchar from NPC:s and NPC:s the other way around.

So the current implementation just avoids "NPCs getting arrows from being shot at by other NPCs" and "player/officers getting arrows from being shot at by player/officer", right?
Is it necessary to have those exceptions in place then at all? Would not be a big difference to make it "50% chance of getting an arrow by being shot".

This does mean that if you go into an area with Indians, there's a good chance you'll end up carrying a fair few arrows by the end.
Automatic loot! Really cheap automatic loot.

So I don't see any problem here.

To prevent confusion, I don't think there is necessarily a problem. I'm just trying to understand.

 

[Grey Roger]

Unless you have a quiver, you can carry at most 3 arrows and so can each of your officers. And unless you've altered the maximum number of officers, there are only four of you in total. So that "fair few" is at most 12 arrows.

I've done this. When I visited the Hispaniola temple, I looted all the Indians and when I had my full 3 arrows, I gave the lot to one of my officers, then continued looting. By the time we'd finished off the Indians on the way into the temple, everyone was carrying 3 arrows. And then I took someone's gun and gave him a bow so he could use the arrows.

 

[Jack Rackham]

I don't see why we spend so much time on a mod that
1 is working as intended
2 not is buggy
3 not is questioned

 

[Pieter Boelen]

I don't see why we spend so much time on a mod that
1 is working as intended
2 not is buggy
3 not is questioned

Because it was questioned and we didn't know if it was intentional or not. Upon investigating, it appeared that it was indeed intentional.
But the code looks a bit curious to me which makes me wonder if it really works as intended or only mostly works as intended.

At the moment I am still a bit confused on the bAllies vs. !bAllies and as far as I understand it, that check is a bit superfluous.

If you insist you want it like this and nobody minds the way it currently works, then that is fine by me and I'll archive this as "Not a Bug".

 

[ANSEL]

I dont see a problem with this arrow thing, never cost me any trouble.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

If @Grey Roger is also fine with this explanation for his observation, I'll call it "Not a Bug" then.

 

[Grey Roger]

I never regarded it as a bug anyway.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

I never regarded it as a bug anyway.

Thanks for that. "Not a Bug" it is!

 

[Jack Rackham]

At the moment I am still a bit confused on the bAllies vs. !bAllies and as far as I understand it, that check is a bit superfluous.

It's not. Tested again and you can fire at an officer with your bow. It will not hurt him but he can get arrows if the bAllies thing is skipped. If he's not hurt how did he get the arrows?

But the code looks a bit curious to me which makes me wonder if it really works as intended or only mostly works as intended.

Which line?

 

[Pieter Boelen]

That bAllies line.
Good point about him not getting hurt. Probably fine as is then.
No need to worry about it anymore.