[Patch] Prefere Melee targets

[Auntie Mangos]

as I wrote already inside your other topic, I don't think this is the right way

compare with discussion points at http://www.scriptdev2.com/showthread.php?t=4365&highlight=nomovement

Also I see absolutely no reason to exclude taunts from this behaviour

[anti-freak]

What does the patch do?:

The patch adds a bool to the "Unit" class, which allows you to say if the boss should prefere melee targets or not.

The core doesn´t support standing bosses very well (the only way was to modify the aggro in the SD2 scripts).

I decided to make it not static for bosses which can´t move, because sometimes bosses (like alar) stand still (plattforme phase) and later they move around (second phase).

Who wrote this patch?:

me

For which rev is it?:

s1009

diff --git a/src/game/Unit.cpp b/src/game/Unit.cpp
index a914c0d..54b61cc 100644
--- a/src/game/Unit.cpp
+++ b/src/game/Unit.cpp
@@ -255,6 +255,8 @@ Unit::Unit()
    // remove aurastates allowing special moves
    for(int i=0; i < MAX_REACTIVE; ++i)
        m_reactiveTimer[i] = 0;
+
+    m_bPrefereMeleeTargets = false;
}

Unit::~Unit()
@@ -7670,6 +7672,27 @@ bool Unit::SelectHostileTarget()
            }while (aura != tauntAuras.begin());
        }
    }
+    
+    //get the melee target with most thread
+    if (m_bPrefereMeleeTargets)
+    {
+        ThreatList const& tList = m_ThreatManager.getThreatList();
+        uint32 UnitThread = 0;
+        if (!tList.empty())
+        {
+            for (ThreatList::const_iterator i = tList.begin(); i != tList.end(); ++i)
+            {
+                uint64 uiGuid = (*i)->getUnitGuid();
+                //If we are within range melee the target
+                Unit *pUnit = GetMap()->GetPlayer(uiGuid);
+                if (pUnit && pUnit->GetTypeId() == TYPEID_PLAYER && IsWithinDistInMap(pUnit, ATTACK_DISTANCE) && (*i)->getThreat() > UnitThread)
+                {
+                    UnitThread = (*i)->getThreat();
+                    target = pUnit;
+                }
+            }
+        }
+    }

    // No taunt aura or taunt aura caster is dead, standard target selection
    if (!target && !m_ThreatManager.isThreatListEmpty())
diff --git a/src/game/Unit.h b/src/game/Unit.h
index 6ac79c4..890d0b2 100644
--- a/src/game/Unit.h
+++ b/src/game/Unit.h
@@ -1779,6 +1779,9 @@ class MANGOS_DLL_SPEC Unit : public WorldObject
        void AddPetAura(PetAura const* petSpell);
        void RemovePetAura(PetAura const* petSpell);

+        //target selections
+        void SetPrefereMeleeTargets(bool bPrefere = true) { m_bPrefereMeleeTargets = bPrefere; }
+
    protected:
        explicit Unit ();

@@ -1857,6 +1860,8 @@ class MANGOS_DLL_SPEC Unit : public WorldObject

        uint64 m_TotemSlot[MAX_TOTEM_SLOT];

+        bool m_bPrefereMeleeTargets;
+
    private:                                                // Error traps for some wrong args using
        // this will catch and prevent build for any cases when all optional args skipped and instead triggered used non boolean type
        // no bodies expected for this declarations

[lillecarl]

Wouldnt it be better to check for nearby targets, i mean a warrior can taunt on range as example and thereby he cannot be hit?

- LilleCarl

[anti-freak]

Hmm, I don´t know if I understand you right, but taunt will be checked bevore the check if its in range. When the warri is out of range he wont become the target.

[anti-freak]

Why should a unit get aggro from the mob, when he is out of range? Range Targets CAN NOT get aggro (but taunt aura applys). In my oppinion it doesn´make sense.

Also I told you some points why I wont do it generel for non movement mobs. The manual change give you much more controle over your mob.

[debg]

maybe check canReach-canAttack when taunt aura applys(change top threat)