SP_DAMAGE_RETURN_CHECK (Custom)

[Conflicts]

Hello Hercules Community. I've been looking through my old server backups and .diffs, and I found this interesting snippet.

I remember purchasing it from someone well known on rAthena, I think sometime around 2013 (or 2012), if I recall correctly.

pc.c

bool pc_check_damage_return(struct block_list* bl, int reflect_type)
{
struct map_session_data* sd;
int value;
if( bl == NULL || bl->type != BL_PC )
return false;
sd = BL_CAST(BL_PC, bl);
value = cap_value(sd->damage_return_check[reflect_type],0,100);
if( reflect_type && value && rand()%100 < value )
return false;
else
return true;
}

pc.c on pc_bonus2

case SP_DAMAGE_RETURN_CHECK:
sd->damage_return_check[type2] = += val;
break;

skill.c (for magic no-reflect)

 

// item-based reflection
if( sd && sd->bonus.magic_damage_return && type && rnd()%100 < sd->bonus.magic_damage_return && pc_check_damage_return(src,1) == true )
return 1;

Now, this works just fine. (src,1) denotes type2 = 1, in this case I'm using it as Magic no reflect.

It's supposed to work similar to this, bonus2 bNoReflect,n,x; where n = type (1 or 2) and x is x/100%.

However, my problem is, how do I effectively pass the val value? It seems to always return true. Regardless of what I put.

The bolded part above doesn't seem to work as intended.  So putting bonus2 bNoReflect,1,1; and putting bonus2 bNoReflect,1,100;

both lets you ignore item-based reflects on magic with 100% chance of success.

I hope I've explained it clearly.

PS: I've posted a similar thread on rAthena, is that bad? 

 

PPS: I'm still using rAthena, until eAmod BG gets implemented to Hercules.