Properly splits attack_ai() and attack_robot() where in make sense

[mystery3525]

About The Pull Request

Properly splits the calls of attack_ai() and attack_robot() into their own execution where it makes sense.

Why It's Good For The Game

Looking through all the code in both attack_ai() and attack_robot(), its execution was all over the place. Some times attack_ai() calls attack_robot() and vice-versa, this properly untangles that execution so that we can now assume when we call attack_ai(), its mob is actually an AI. When we call attack_robot(), its mob is actually a cyborg. We can also call the parent now so that COMSIG_ATOM_ATTACK_AI and COMSIG_ATOM_ATTACK_ROBOT can work (separate PR).

Testing Photographs and Procedure

Screenshots&Videos

Tested it a bunch in private, and it compiles:

Changelog

🆑
code: Untangles attack_ai() and attack_robot() code
/:cl:

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

[PowerfulBacon]

Seems generally fine, but wouldn't it make more sense to split it via function considering how AI and borgs are meant to have similar functions with borgs also getting the ability to use things physically.

This would be something like

• Some form of attack remote which the AI calls, and borgs call if their attack borg fails
• Standard attack cyborg that does close range interactions

[mystery3525]

Believe it or not, there is some functionality unique to AIs, like being able to attack cyborgs, not being able to attack advanced camera consoles, a few more I forgot.

Added attack_silicon() which is called for both and ideally returns TRUE to cancel attack chain.

[PowerfulBacon]

Seems like a good idea, hoping this is tested well and AI attacks won't start breaking