Ghoul wacky control (leap macro)
Some time ago I respec'd to Unholy to do some PvP. I found out that controlling my ghoul properly is quite a task, to say the least. This time I want to talk specifically about the leap macro and ask for help, as I have been unable to find any solutions to this problem.
In short -- leaping to a target sometimes causes the ghoul to stop attacking.
What I'm trying to achieve is quite simple. Pressing a macro key should force the ghoul to leap to my target and attack it.
Theoretically, it only takes two lines:
Code:
/petattack
/cast leap
And it works perfectly fine. But only if the target is in leap range when I use the macro. I have made a short video showing some cases of this behavior:
Ghoul test
As you can see, when the target is in leap range, everything is fine, no matter what order the lines of code are written in.
But it suddenly changes when out of range.
I'll make some labels for convenience
[OOR] -- out of range
[IR] -- in range
[A] -- /petattack is placed after /cast leap
[B] -- /petattack is placed before /cast leap
[1] - macro button pressed once
[2] - macro button pressed again
[IR] [B] [1] -- Ghoul leaps and starts attacking [?]
[IR] [A] [1] -- Ghoul leaps and starts attacking [?]
[OOR] [B] [1] -- Ghoul starts attacking but don't leaps [?]
[OOR] [B] [1] [IR] [2] -- Ghoul starts attacking and leaps but stop attacking after the leap [?]
[OOR] [A] [1] -- Ghoul leaps and stop attacking after leap [?]
[OOR] [A] [1] [IR][2] (after leap ends) -- Ghoul leaps and starts attacking [?]
The same behavior with a slightly different execution can be seen in another video:
So as you can see, to pull this off consistently you have to be in range or mash the macro button, which is not very desirable as it disperses my attention with all this micro-controlling.
I tried adding another /petattack after /cast leap, adding [@target] (cuz why not lol), using /castsequence but to no avail.
Maybe someone more experienced with UDK or pet controlling classes knows the workaround for this problem?
Also, can someone confirm if this is expected behavior to begin with, or if this is actually a bug that needs to be reported?
