TruePVE

@ignignokt84 New update works great. The add-on plugin for looting pretty much does that same thing as Loot handling did, but offers a bit more protection globably as far as looting (this includes mining quarries), NRE's are fixed. just wanted to let you know there is no issues. But if some arise, I will let you know.

 

@Krazy J - Thanks for letting me know; I appreciate the feedback!

 

Just curious, why did you remove the Loothandling?
thanks in advance

 

It made sense to let looting be handled by other plugins that do a better job at it. This way TruePVE can remain focused on damage control without having to worry about extra features that are not quite in scope, thus reducing maintenance effort on my part, and avoiding conflicts with other plugins (or forcing other plugins to consider TruePVE looting).

 

I think it was a great choice.

 

When we edit the json config file, it resets when we turn on the server?

 

This normally happens when the json is invalid (meaning missing/extra commas, quotes, brackets, etc). You can use any online json validator to see if the syntax is valid.

 

Is there a way to prevent the heli from damaging bases?

 

How would I make player bases/etc invulnerable to the heli?

 

Tell me how to make one clan can kill another clan and can not kill ordinary players?

 

Hello, how I can prevent that the player get damage from fire :O
the point is if a player use flamethrower or incendiary ammo there are a fire aura and player can die from over heat, how to prevent, somebody an idea.

thx

 

Failed to call hook 'OnEntityTakeDamage' on plugin 'TruePVE v0.8.0' (KeyNotFoundException: The given key was not present in the dictionary.)

at System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2[Oxide.Plugins.TruePVE+Option,System.Boolean].get_Item (Option key) [0x00000] in :0 at Oxide.Plugins.TruePVE.OnEntityTakeDamage (.BaseCombatEntity entity, .HitInfo hitinfo) [0x00000] in :0 at Oxide.Plugins.TruePVE.DirectCallHook (System.String name, System.Object& ret, System.Object[] args) [0x00000] in :0 at Oxide.Plugins.CSharpPlugin.InvokeMethod (HookMethod method, System.Object[] args) [0x00000] in :0 at Oxide.Core.Plugins.CSPlugin.OnCallHook (System.String name, System.Object[] args) [0x00000] in :0 at Oxide.Core.Plugins.Plugin.CallHook (System.String hook, System.Object[] args) [0x00000] in :0
Mi ez?

 

This may be a silly question and I couldn't find an answer searching the forum, but is it possible to use this plugin to allow PVP and damage only within the tool cupboard radius for any player?

The thought is to reduce KOS while still allowing PVP during raids and personal attacks on property (within cupboard access).

Thanks

 

You can set the RuleSet flag NoHeliDamage.

This is not possible - there is no Clans integration.

This is specified here: TruePVE | Page 35 | Oxide
I will add this configuration snippet to the FAQ as well (as mughi suggested).

Normally this is caused by a custom rule or entity group. Can you upload your .json? Also, please post in English, even if using an automated translation.

This is not currently possible. The only cupboard radius restrictions in place are for defining ownership for the AuthorizedDamage flag. I will give this a little bit of thought though and see if there's a way to implement something like this.

 

That would be super awesome. I appreciate the time you put into this. Keep up the good work.

 

you @ignignokt84 when you get time and I mean it doesn't have to be right away. Just like the heli has a NoDamage Flag, do ya think we can get a NoDamage flag for the APC? and possibility of maybe the scientists too ? Not sure if they would hurt entities though. But Maybe.

 

This likely won't happen. The only reason these flags exist for the heli is because it's not possible to configure heli damage using only rules. But the APCs and NPCs are both easily handled through rules (see TruePVE | Page 48 | Oxide).

Edit: To elaborate a bit - the flags in TruePVE are meant ONLY to handle complex behavior that cannot be handled via rules. I specifically built the rules system to replace the old flag-based system in order to avoid having a bazillion flags (like ZoneManager) each with their own behavior and resulting support overhead.

 

To me it would seem that setting flags for those specific things would create less support overhead. doesn't having to set rules create more of a support headache ? But its also not hard (once you know what you're doing) to set up rules for each or a set of items. Its just getting the information needed to create the rules which seems in lack, that most unknowning server owners have the most problems with. I'm down for either way because I am very familiar with the settings and information available, but not everyone is like me.

 

It actually creates quite a bit less overhead. Rules are generally a standard format, and just require a little logical thinking to set up, and some help from the chat command /tpve_prod to figure out entity names/types. On my end, rule setup support is vastly less time consuming than flag maintenance was.

Flags, on the other hand, require that each individual flag behavior be maintained, and new features must be explicitly defined either by modifying existing flags or adding new flags. Again using ZoneManager as an example, it's up to over 40 flags now - people keep requesting more and more "custom" features that require specific behavior to be coded in, and also there's the addition of new content to Rust that must be accounted for.

 

yeah, I see that can be a pain. like I said, either way is good for me.