raidboss: update ARR/HW/SB timelines to use InCombat lines

[wexxlee]

Intending this PR to finish out the remaining work from #5440 . Marked as draft pending discussion below.

Right now, it includes timeline updates for everything in 02-arr, using 0x104 lines to start the timeline vs. engage or zone-seal messages where it makes sense. There's a few of the coils fights where there are various pre-boss add encounters, so using 0x104 lines -- at least by themselves -- will produce inaccurate results. I've added comments where needed.

Before I start tackling later expansions, this issue of using 0x104 lines in encounters with pre-boss adds will become a more common issue, particularly in dungeon and alliance content (some of the alex raids as well, and doubtless there are others). There's probably at least two options, maybe more, but wanted to discuss approach before I dig in further:

1. Continue to use engage or zone-seal messages (as-is) where 0x104 lines have the potential to start the timeline early. (Easiest)
2. Use a combination of engage/zone-seal messages for the initial timeline encounter, and use 0x104 lines with large windows for later encounters. While this might be viable in some current content where spacing between bosses and mobs is at least somewhat predictable, it becomes inaccurate as soon as the content can be unsync'd (if not sooner). It would also require a pretty intensive re-look at older fight content to try to figure out exactly how to space out the timeline entries between combat and what appropriate look-back windows for 0x104 lines would be.

TLDR: leaning toward option 1 since I think this is nice-to-have work and not break-fix?

[quisquous]

Use a combination of engage/zone-seal messages for the initial timeline encounter, and use 0x104 lines with large windows for later encounters.

I think this is not possible, as timelines automatically end when out of combat (unless the trigger set is flagged to not do so). So, if there is an initial encounter and it ends, then the timeline will reset and I don't think what you're suggesting is possible.

That said, I think (1) is the correct answer as well.

I thiiiink there should be no case where we use Engage lines anymore. If a fight could use in combat lines, it doesn't need engage. There may be places (e.g. t6 or whatever) where we could use Engage but couldn't use in combat, but I think zone sealing is better there if we can. I'm not sure if there's anything that doesn't have a zone seal and also can't use in combat lines.

[wexxlee]

There may be places (e.g. t6 or whatever) where we could use Engage but couldn't use in combat, but I think zone sealing is better there if we can. I'm not sure if there's anything that doesn't have a zone seal and also can't use in combat lines.

I haven't gone through exhaustively yet to look at all the use cases, but that tracks with what I've seen in the early content: Engage is always paired with zone-seal. I'll keep an eye out for edge cases where using InCombat or zone-seal exclusively won't work though.

[wexxlee]

I think this is not possible, as timelines automatically end when out of combat (unless the trigger set is flagged to not do so).

Been thinking about this more, and it looks like most (all?) timelines hare a reset/jump 0 when ever the zone is no longer sealed, e.g.:

0.0 "--Reset--" sync / 00:0839::.*is no longer sealed/ window 10000 jump 0

Would it make sense to either replace (or perhaps just supplement) these with a corresponding InCombat regex for when the player is out of combat? E.g.:

0.0 "--Reset--" sync / 104:[^:]*:0($|:)/ window 10000 jump 0

Especially in multi-zone instances and older content, I'm guessing this might be a case-by-case thing, but in newer raid/trial content where there is only a single combat encounter, it might have some usefulness? Or just redundant at this point?

[quisquous]

Yes true, reset lines are redundant in anything that does not have resetWhenOutOfCombat: false, set on the trigger set. We could remove them at this point too, I think!

[quisquous]

also cc @JLGarber FYI and for any opinions

[wexxlee]

Yes true, reset lines are redundant in anything that does not have resetWhenOutOfCombat: false, set on the trigger set. We could remove them at this point too, I think!

I removed the reset lines based on zone-unseal messages, but I wasn't sure about the 0x21 ones, since that still seems to be the default in most timelines. It sounds like those are redundant too, so is there any reason to keep them around? If not, I'll go back and remove those as well (minus any content like Lost City (Hard) and O5N/S that has that property). We should probably also remove them from the shell that we use for new content too then.

[quisquous]

Yes true, reset lines are redundant in anything that does not have resetWhenOutOfCombat: false, set on the trigger set. We could remove them at this point too, I think!

I removed the reset lines based on zone-unseal messages, but I wasn't sure about the 0x33 ones, since that still seems to be the default in most timelines. It sounds like those are redundant too, so is there any reason to keep them around? If not, I'll go back and remove those as well (minus any content like Lost City (Hard) and O5N/S that has that property). We should probably also remove them from the shell that we use for new content too then.

Yeah, I think we could remove reset lines in general other than the ones with the reset false property.

[quisquous]

o4s has a door boss. It uses the auto here to start the timeline for Exdeath vs Neo Exdeath. EDIT: I guess technically this will still work as the Neo auto will still resync the timeline. I just think it looks a little weird when the timeline is like "hey here's the door boss jk it's the final boss" and it'd be better to just not use a combat line here.

[wexxlee]

o4s has a door boss. It uses the auto here to start the timeline for Exdeath vs Neo Exdeath. EDIT: I guess technically this will still work as the Neo auto will still resync the timeline. I just think it looks a little weird when the timeline is like "hey here's the door boss jk it's the final boss" and it'd be better to just not use a combat line here.

I was thinking the same as your edit - but yeah, I guess that will look a little awkward.

If we still want to avoid sync's/starts based on autos, and not have those few seconds of UI dystopia, we could use a combat line for both the door and final bosses, and shorten the sync on the second one so that it only looks back 200 seconds instead of all the way to 0. And then add a jump to 800 on the AddedCombatant line for Neo Exdeath? (Granted, I may be over-engineering this, but since the door boss issue is going to come up at least 6 more times before this PR is done, figured I'd propose it now...)

[quisquous]

I can go either way. I think either of these approaches are good:

• just don't start the timeline until we know for sure
• start some "we're not sure" shared section with "Door Boss Ability?" "Final Boss Ability?" lines and then jump to the right one when we know.

Also, re: before this PR is done, for my own sake of reviewing this, once o4s is sorted out, can I land this one, and then the other ones be done in a separate PR?

[wexxlee]

I can go either way. I think either of these approaches are good:

• just don't start the timeline until we know for sure
• start some "we're not sure" shared section with "Door Boss Ability?" "Final Boss Ability?" lines and then jump to the right one when we know.

Also, re: before this PR is done, for my own sake of reviewing this, once o4s is sorted out, can I land this one, and then the other ones be done in a separate PR?

I lean toward your first option. I know we do the "not sure" stub elsewhere, but the autos occur early enough, and there's a long enough delay before real abilities start, that I think certainty is better than a stub. I'll revert the o4s stuff and mark the PR as ready.

[JLGarber]

Nothing to add at this point, I think this is a good change.

[cactbotbot]

@wexxlee Thanks for your contribution! 🌵🚀