Ship shields currently occupy something like 40% of every machinery
process ticks. Basically generators make a fuckhuge list of all
generated shields (1.5k in the Horizon's case) and then they iterate
over this list every tick strengthening the shields.
The idea in this PR is to shunt shield logic to an abstract datum.
Fields no longer store strength individually; they store damage taken.
They only process once they take damage, they reduce that damage by the
field gain tick value every tick, and then they stop processing when
they no longer need to. Shield strengthening is shunted off to a signal,
so we only need to traverse the big ass list once every round probably.
---------
Co-authored-by: Matt Atlas <liermattia@gmail.com>
Replaced the outside turfs with exoplanet ones for the digsite.
Fixed some exoplanet areas not having an exoplanet base turf.
Wrote a unit test for exoplanet areas to ensure they have an exoplanet
base turf.
* SDQL2 update
* fix that verb
* cl
* fix that
* toworld
* this is pointless
* update info
* siiiiick..
* vv edit update
* fix that
* fix editing vars
* fix VV
* Port the /TG/ globals controller.
* part 1
* part 2
* oops
* part 3
* Hollow Purple
* sadas
* bsbsdb
* muda na agaki ta
* ids 1-15
* 16-31
* 41-75
* bring me back to how things used to be before i lost it all
* the strength of mayhem
* final touches
* cl
* protect some vars
* update sdql2 to use glob
* stuff?
* forgot that is not defined there
* whoops
* observ
* but it never gets better
* a
---------
Co-authored-by: Matt Atlas <liermattia@gmail.com>
* Adds shield diffusers and modifies shields
* Addresses my own review comments on original PR.
* Linter error.
* Diffuser code tidying + improvement.
* Matt's review comment, missing leading /
Co-authored-by: TGW <mc-casper@hotmail.dk>
Fixes#3096 which exists because T != U.
Fixes#3461 which exists because I should read the code I'm refactoring instead of getting carried away by RANGE_TURFS being faster.
Fixes#2803Fixes#2553Fixes#2597 (Couldn't find a cleaner way to make this work, unfortunately. Not all procs-as-verbs can be used as procs.)
Fixes#2498Fixes#2912
