Impossible Cards (tracking, discussing, etc.)

[Xander9009]

Goblin Game for 3 players...

Players A, B, and C have life totals in descending order. So A has the most and C has the least. For A and B, each should play as if C is the only other player, and C should play as if A is the only other player. While there are a couple of minor inconsistencies, they crop up in fewer than 5% of all cases. Presumably, the same pattern holds true for more player. Each player ignoring all players except themselves and the one with the least life, whereas the player with the least ignores everyone else except the player with the most life.

Narrowed down to 2, each player can follow the logic already posted and have their best statistical chance of not being completely screwed over by Goblin Game.

[thefiremind]

It turns out that epic spells might indeed be impossible. I opened a topic in Programming Talk explaining the problem.

[Splinterverse]

they would be far easier to code in Magic Duels, where we have GetSetID and GetExpansionID... ).

You mentioned coding for Duels. I like Duels and have thought about coding for it. The reason I have stuck with 2014 is that you can choose the decks for the AI to play against you and there is the free-for-all mode, neither of which appear to be available in Duels. The 30-deck limitation is also a bummer, but maybe you have modded around that.

I do like the battlefield view better in Duels and how it adjusts. I also prefer its method of displaying the phases (albeit fewer of them -- another reason I've stuck with 2014).

I do want to take a look at how they've coded some of their cards. If I install the tools on this board, do I need to create a separate modded folder like I did with 2014? I just don't want anything to mess up my account. It took forever to earn all those coins.

[thefiremind]

The reason I have stuck with 2014 is that you can choose the decks for the AI to play against you and there is the free-for-all mode, neither of which appear to be available in Duels. The 30-deck limitation is also a bummer, but maybe you have modded around that.

There's a limit on decks and a limit on cards you can unlock for the deck builder (although the latter will be lifted with the next expansion, otherwise they won't have enough space themselves). In exchange, you have the in-game deck builder that lets you tinker around with your builds without leaving the game, or you can give up on that and decide change the decks used in campaign missions: it would work exactly as in previous versions, with no limits whatsoever.

I do want to take a look at how they've coded some of their cards. If I install the tools on this board, do I need to create a separate modded folder like I did with 2014? I just don't want anything to mess up my account. It took forever to earn all those coins.

Take a look at my tests topic: you can switch back and forth between original Steam and emulated Steam with ease, keeping just one installation folder (provided you remove your custom content before playing on original Steam).

[Splinterverse]

Take a look at my tests topic: you can switch back and forth between original Steam and emulated Steam with ease, keeping just one installation folder (provided you remove your custom content before playing on original Steam).

I will check that out -- thanks!

I love the look of Duels. I just like controlling what the AI plays against me or at least knowing that it is from a selected set of decks. I get so frustrated playing Duels against AI because the AI always seems to make decks out of the most recent set and it gets old. Maybe you guys will find a way around that.

[migookman]

Any idea of how to get ability costs to recognize snow lands? I see in the card creator, it has the ability costs as .
Edit: I typed that as an S within brackets. I guess the forum recognizes it and shows the symbol.

[Splinterverse]

Any idea of how to get ability costs to recognize snow lands? I see in the card creator, it has the ability costs as .
Edit: I typed that as an S within brackets. I guess the forum recognizes it and shows the symbol.

I wish we could. There's so many cards that depend on it.

[Xander9009]

Snow land is colorless, isn't it? In the sense that it can be paid by mana of any color? You just have to control enough untapped snow lands or have enough snow mana in your mana pool? (Sorry, but snow mana was before my time...)

If that's right, then it could probably be done by using a variant of my waste mana, such as on Kozilek, the Great Distortion.

You'd need the ability to use a function to combine and check the total number of untapped snow lands (if it's not possible for snow lands to produce multiple mana, then this will be much easier, but I don't know the possibility/impossibility of that) and mana from snow permanents in your mana pool. Use a generic cost block to check if it can be paid and to pay it.
{S}:

Code: Select all

<COST type="Generic">
  <PREREQUISITE>
    return CW_Mana_CanPaySnowMana("{2}{S}")
  </PREREQUISITE>
  <RESOLUTION_TIME_ACTION>
    CW_Mana_PaySnowMana("{2}{S}")
  </RESOLUTION_TIME_ACTION>
</COST>

Of course, those function don't exist yet, you'd need to make them.

This might be best done with a manager for tracking the mana that can currently be paid. Whenever a snow-mana producer enters a state in which it can produce mana, use a continuous action on layer 1 to increment a PlayerDC register. Whenever a snow permanent produces mana manually, capture that mana token in a chest, and set up a CA to stay active for as long as the mana token exists/is untapped.

On a manager token, on layer 0, reset the PlayerDC register to 0. On layer 2, set a second PlayerDC register to whatever the first register is. (This makes sure even things checking on layers 0 and 1 can see the amount of snow mana available.)

Once that's done, just make snow mana producers like normal, but make sure they create the manager, and make sure they have that code for incrementing the register on layer 1. Now, you've got a PlayerDC register containing the amount of snow mana that can currently be paid.

That means all that's left to do is code the functions mentioned above, which will be a pretty simple task. All they need to do is count the number of symbols in the input string, store that number, replace each of them with , and make sure the player can pay this new cost and that their PlayerDC register is >= the number of symbols found.

For the latter function, it's the same process, but then also calling oPlayer:PayManaCost(sNormalizedCost).

Keep in mind there's a helpful function in CW_DC.LOL for getting a PlayerDC chest and creating it if it doesn't exist. This will be really helpful since all of these will need to do that.

CW_DC_PlayerDC(iRegister{, oPlayer = EffectController()})

Just provide a constant for iRegister which you register in the PlayerDC section of the CW_CONSTANTS.LOL file. It'll return the chest at that register, inside which you can use registers 0 and 1 for the above-mentioned PlayerDC registers (which are actually sub-registers, but whatever).

This will NOT work precisely right. The issue is that the player could decide to pay the mana cost portion of this (which doesn't contain any information at that point about snow mana) with any mana they have available. If they pay it without using their snow lands, then those snow lands would still be registered as usable for the next snow-mana-requiring ability. The solution to this is... complicated. If it's even possible. Basically, you'd need to track the number of snow-mana-producers they have, and increment/decrement that based on how many snow-mana-symbols have been paid. This would never naturally reset on its own, and would need to track it indefinitely. But that can wait for a working prototype.

[thefiremind]

Let's not forget that we can't even display the snow symbol: no DotP version contains it.
Incidentally, a couple days ago I scoured the Art_Assets folder in search for the additional symbols (other than mana) that you can display by enclosing any character in curly brackets, and guess what? There are no corresponding TDX files. My guess is that they are embedded inside the executable, so no luck there. If we were able to substitute some of the useless ones, we could display any symbol we want.

[nivmizzet1]

Is Shadow of Doubt impossible? I thought it was, but I didn't see it in the list.

[Xander9009]

Is Shadow of Doubt impossible? I thought it was, but I didn't see it in the list.

I'm not sure if it would be possible as normal, but at worst, it could be coded by modifying all cards that search libraries check for searching prevention effects before doing so. But that's about 470 cards, so it certainly wouldn't be a simple task.

We can check how many times libraries were searched with INTERROGATE_SEARCHED_LIBRARY, but there's no corresponding trigger to override, nor any player characteristics related to it.

[nivmizzet1]

Painter's Servant?

[Xander9009]

Painter's Servant?

Is coded. If you searched for it in the deck builder, it's probably because WotC uses weird apostrophes. Just search for Painter.

[nivmizzet1]

Painter's Servant?

Is coded. If you searched for it in the deck builder, it's probably because WotC uses weird apostrophes. Just search for Painter.

I know one was coded, but it was only an "approximation". From memory, the colour change was permanent (which made it kind of OP); i.e. if Painter's Servant was removed the colour fix remained. Has that been fixed?

[Xander9009]

Painter's Servant?

Is coded. If you searched for it in the deck builder, it's probably because WotC uses weird apostrophes. Just search for Painter.

I know one was coded, but it was only an "approximation". From memory, the colour change was permanent (which made it kind of OP); i.e. if Painter's Servant was removed the colour fix remained. Has that been fixed?

Pretty sure it's currently working as it should. I added in a manual color reset in May of last year. I can test it to make sure. It's already in one of my decks. But that won't be for several hours at least.