Board index 
Programs with AI or Rules Enforcement Magic: The Gathering - Duels of the Planeswalkers New MTG Cards and Decks (2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, Magic Duels) 2014
Programs with AI or Rules Enforcement Magic: The Gathering - Duels of the Planeswalkers New MTG Cards and Decks (2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, Magic Duels) 2014
Formal Request Thread
Moderator: CCGHQ Admins
Re: Formal Request Thread
by thefiremind » 31 Dec 2013, 09:27
You wrote kIORA instead of KIORA in the LOL file... you should know by now that everything is case-sensitive in Lua.drleg3nd wrote:ok TFM here's all the functions and codes I have, I'm still having trouble with same issues.
< Former DotP 2012/2013/2014 modder >
Currently busy with life...
Currently busy with life...
-
thefiremind - Programmer
- Posts: 3515
- Joined: 07 Nov 2011, 10:55
- Has thanked: 118 times
- Been thanked: 722 times
Re: Formal Request Thread
by RiiakShiNal » 31 Dec 2013, 14:07
I don't think that works because granted abilities are not copied, though the ability that grants the ability would be copied there is no value in any data chest to figure out which ability to grant to set the LinkedDC() value.thefiremind wrote:I had totally forgot about this problem because it has been solved for tokens with the new P/T token function in DotP2014.I just had an idea: what if we make Primal Clay grant itself a static ability that continuously sets the LinkedDC register where the choice should be stored? The copy would copy that ability as well, setting its own LinkedDC at least once (then it wouldn't matter if it loses all abilities later on). I have never tried to do something similar, though, so I don't know if it works as planned.
An example that shows that granted abilities are not copied would be to have a Grizzly Bears affected by Sensei Golden-Tail to get Bushido 1 then you use Vesuvan Doppelganger become a copy of the Grizzly Bears. The Vesuvan Doppelganger would not have the Bushido 1 ability because the granted ability was not copied.
Until we find some way to copy data chest values or we rewrite cards that copy other cards to check for things like this we won't be able to properly make cards like Primal Clay. It would be great if the engine had a function to set a copyable data chest for instances like this.
I'm not entirely sure of the rulings in this case, but seeing as Tawnos's Coffin says "return that exiled card to the battlefield under its owner's control with the noted number and kind of counters on it" and Clockwork Avian says it "enters the battlefield with four +1/+0 counters on it" I would assume that depending on which effect resolves last it should enter with 4 or less counters on it.NeoAnderson wrote:Guys i have a problem,
I have coded this card Clockwork Avian, now i was coding Tawnos's Coffin (same effect of Oubliette, but it release the card also when is untapped).
I used Clockwork Avian to test Tawnos’s Coffin but when it returns to the battlefield it add 4 additional +1/+0 counters on it.
For example : i exile Clockwork Avian when it has 4, +1/+0 counters, when it return to the battlefield it will have 8 +1/+0 counters.
This happens because Tawnos’s Coffin store the 4 counters before to exile it, then when it come back, it gives back these counters, and the transition trigger of Clockwork Avian add the standar 4 counters.
Is this compliant to the rules of these card combined togheter?
For example if it is exiled while it has 3 +1/+0 counters on it:
- If Tawnos's Coffin effect to return it to the battlefield resolves last then Clockwork Avian will initially put 4 +1/+0 counters on it and then Tawnos's Coffin will have to remove 1 to return it with the "noted" number and kind of counters. Ultimately will enter with 3 +1/+0 counters.
- If Clockwork Avian effect resolves last then Tawnos's Coffin will put 3 +1/+0 counters on it and the Clockwork Avian effect will have to add 1 +1/+0 counter to "enter the battlefield with four" counters on it. Ultimately will enter with 4 +1/+0 counters.
Both cards specify the number of counters it should enter the battlefield with so they should both check and adjust according to how many counters are currently present rather than blindly adding. At least this is how I interpret the text on the cards in accordance with the rules.
Though I believe that all the cards that have been coded up to now have been coded to just blindly add counters for abilities such as this (which may be wrong considering abilities like Oubliette and Tawnos's Coffin). Though since until recently we didn't have Oubliette or Tawnos's Coffin there wasn't a problem until now.
Just getting started: Xander9009's DotP 2014 Community Wad
Need a deck builder: DotP 2014 Deck Builder
Problems Modding: DotP 2014 Frequent Modding Mistakes
Need a deck builder: DotP 2014 Deck Builder
Problems Modding: DotP 2014 Frequent Modding Mistakes
- RiiakShiNal
- Programmer
- Posts: 2188
- Joined: 16 May 2011, 21:37
- Has thanked: 75 times
- Been thanked: 497 times
Re: Formal Request Thread
by NeoAnderson » 31 Dec 2013, 15:50
I think we could find a walk around, but i have to ask something to understand if it could be done.RiiakShiNal wrote:I don't think that works because granted abilities are not copied, though the ability that grants the ability would be copied there is no value in any data chest to figure out which ability to grant to set the LinkedDC() value.thefiremind wrote:I had totally forgot about this problem because it has been solved for tokens with the new P/T token function in DotP2014.
An example that shows that granted abilities are not copied would be to have a Grizzly Bears affected by Sensei Golden-Tail to get Bushido 1 then you use Vesuvan Doppelganger become a copy of the Grizzly Bears. The Vesuvan Doppelganger would not have the Bushido 1 ability because the granted ability was not copied.
Until we find some way to copy data chest values or we rewrite cards that copy other cards to check for things like this we won't be able to properly make cards like Primal Clay. It would be great if the engine had a function to set a copyable data chest for instances like this.
When a card make a copy, does it changes also is CardRef? If the card ref remains unchanged probably we could make something.
I try to exaplain, supposing that the copy card card ref is fixed, we could do :
1. Add a primal clay ability who retrieve a datachest indexed with copying card ref number, when primal clay become target of a spell or ability. Set into this chest the choosen values.
2. Another ability who set the Primal clay to the stored value if the datachest is not nil.
3. Clear the datachest when the ability resolves or at end of that step.
Theoretically I agree with you for this reason i have exposed this issue, i only would be sure that this should be the behaviour to be compliant with official rules.RiiakShiNal wrote:I'm not entirely sure of the rulings in this case, but seeing as Tawnos's Coffin says "return that exiled card to the battlefield under its owner's control with the noted number and kind of counters on it" and Clockwork Avian says it "enters the battlefield with four +1/+0 counters on it" I would assume that depending on which effect resolves last it should enter with 4 or less counters on it.NeoAnderson wrote:Guys i have a problem,
I have coded this card Clockwork Avian, now i was coding Tawnos's Coffin (same effect of Oubliette, but it release the card also when is untapped).
I used Clockwork Avian to test Tawnos’s Coffin but when it returns to the battlefield it add 4 additional +1/+0 counters on it.
For example : i exile Clockwork Avian when it has 4, +1/+0 counters, when it return to the battlefield it will have 8 +1/+0 counters.
This happens because Tawnos’s Coffin store the 4 counters before to exile it, then when it come back, it gives back these counters, and the transition trigger of Clockwork Avian add the standar 4 counters.
Is this compliant to the rules of these card combined togheter?
For example if it is exiled while it has 3 +1/+0 counters on it:
- If Tawnos's Coffin effect to return it to the battlefield resolves last then Clockwork Avian will initially put 4 +1/+0 counters on it and then Tawnos's Coffin will have to remove 1 to return it with the "noted" number and kind of counters. Ultimately will enter with 3 +1/+0 counters.
- If Clockwork Avian effect resolves last then Tawnos's Coffin will put 3 +1/+0 counters on it and the Clockwork Avian effect will have to add 1 +1/+0 counter to "enter the battlefield with four" counters on it. Ultimately will enter with 4 +1/+0 counters.
Both cards specify the number of counters it should enter the battlefield with so they should both check and adjust according to how many counters are currently present rather than blindly adding. At least this is how I interpret the text on the cards in accordance with the rules.
Though I believe that all the cards that have been coded up to now have been coded to just blindly add counters for abilities such as this (which may be wrong considering abilities like Oubliette and Tawnos's Coffin). Though since until recently we didn't have Oubliette or Tawnos's Coffin there wasn't a problem until now.
If it is sure i think will be not so complicated to add a check to understand if this kind of cards have to add, remove or do nothing when they come back onto battlefield.
- NeoAnderson
- Posts: 914
- Joined: 10 Sep 2013, 07:49
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 139 times
Re: Formal Request Thread
by drleg3nd » 31 Dec 2013, 17:12
thefiremind wrote:You wrote kIORA instead of KIORA in the LOL file... you should know by now that everything is case-sensitive in Lua.drleg3nd wrote:ok TFM here's all the functions and codes I have, I'm still having trouble with same issues.
- Function | Open
Re: Formal Request Thread
by NeoAnderson » 31 Dec 2013, 17:56
Last card coded and new doubts :
I have coded Tetravus, i have used Riiak ObjectDC Functions to implement this card.
It works but i would ask to you some opinions :
1. the card as i coded it is compliant to the follow official rules :
10/4/2004: If the Tetravus is destroyed when the Tetravites are off the card, they are not destroyed, they are just orphaned.
10/4/2004: Any +1/+1 counter which is on this card can be turned into a Tetravite token. It does not care where the +1/+1 counter came from.
10/4/2004: Only Tetravites from this specific Tetravus may be used for the ability. Ones from a different Tetravus can't.
8/1/2008: This card now has two upkeep-triggered abilities. Its controller chooses the order they are put on the stack, and thus the order in which they resolve each upkeep.
About the last rule i have used this idea :
I made an empty trigger ability for the Upkeep, and i have turned the 2 upkeep-triggered abilities of Tetravus into activated ability. These Activated ability can only be played into upkeep and just once per turn. Doing this way we can decide if we want or not to activate them, and we also can enstabilish the order.
Do you think this will be enough compliant to the Mtg rules, or the fact to have changed them from triggered into Activated abilities means a lot?
The token i am using into the follow code is a custom token made by me.
I have coded Tetravus, i have used Riiak ObjectDC Functions to implement this card.
It works but i would ask to you some opinions :
1. the card as i coded it is compliant to the follow official rules :
10/4/2004: If the Tetravus is destroyed when the Tetravites are off the card, they are not destroyed, they are just orphaned.
10/4/2004: Any +1/+1 counter which is on this card can be turned into a Tetravite token. It does not care where the +1/+1 counter came from.
10/4/2004: Only Tetravites from this specific Tetravus may be used for the ability. Ones from a different Tetravus can't.
8/1/2008: This card now has two upkeep-triggered abilities. Its controller chooses the order they are put on the stack, and thus the order in which they resolve each upkeep.
About the last rule i have used this idea :
I made an empty trigger ability for the Upkeep, and i have turned the 2 upkeep-triggered abilities of Tetravus into activated ability. These Activated ability can only be played into upkeep and just once per turn. Doing this way we can decide if we want or not to activate them, and we also can enstabilish the order.
Do you think this will be enough compliant to the Mtg rules, or the fact to have changed them from triggered into Activated abilities means a lot?
The token i am using into the follow code is a custom token made by me.
- TETRAVITE TOKEN | Open
- NeoAnderson
- Posts: 914
- Joined: 10 Sep 2013, 07:49
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 139 times
Re: Formal Request Thread
by MC Brodie » 31 Dec 2013, 18:37
It would matter for cards like Strionic Resonator or Illusionist's Bracers but those are not possible in DotP yet. The only other problem I can think of is the classic Burning Tree Shaman issue for things that aren't real activated abilities.
You might be able to do it using triggered abilities. If you put the same upkeep trigger twice in a triggered ability will two triggers go off in the upkeep? If it does you could have the triggered ability ask a multiple choice question on which option to resolve first. Then have the RTAs for both options in the same triggered ability. I don't know if I'm explaining myself very well...
You might be able to do it using triggered abilities. If you put the same upkeep trigger twice in a triggered ability will two triggers go off in the upkeep? If it does you could have the triggered ability ask a multiple choice question on which option to resolve first. Then have the RTAs for both options in the same triggered ability. I don't know if I'm explaining myself very well...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Song of the Day: 46 and 2 (cover)
Song of the Day: 46 and 2 (cover)
Re: Formal Request Thread
by NeoAnderson » 31 Dec 2013, 19:40
I understand your meaning my friend,MC Brodie wrote:It would matter for cards like Strionic Resonator or Illusionist's Bracers but those are not possible in DotP yet. The only other problem I can think of is the classic Burning Tree Shaman issue for things that aren't real activated abilities.
You might be able to do it using triggered abilities. If you put the same upkeep trigger twice in a triggered ability will two triggers go off in the upkeep? If it does you could have the triggered ability ask a multiple choice question on which option to resolve first. Then have the RTAs for both options in the same triggered ability. I don't know if I'm explaining myself very well...
I already know i can turn them into triggered ability and add a multiple choice to select wich one to fire first, but in that case you will have to answer each time what you want to do.
And if combine the 2 abilities into one trigger will override the MTG rules, because as this card is ruled the abilities must trigger separately.
But with my solution the main empty trigger fire, and only if you want you can activate the one, both or nothing.
- NeoAnderson
- Posts: 914
- Joined: 10 Sep 2013, 07:49
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 139 times
Re: Formal Request Thread
by RiiakShiNal » 31 Dec 2013, 21:10
The CardRefs of both the original card and the card becoming the copy should technically remain unchanged (the card doing the copying simply changed state it did not become a new instance). This method might work using the DuelDataChest() (or my ObjectDC functions) though it is definitely a crap shoot method of doing it as you would have to create a data chest for every card that targets Primal Clay even if it is not doing any copying. It would add quite a bit of overhead (especially when making sure there are no collisions) so it may impact game performance.NeoAnderson wrote:I think we could find a walk around, but i have to ask something to understand if it could be done.
When a card make a copy, does it changes also is CardRef? If the card ref remains unchanged probably we could make something.
I try to exaplain, supposing that the copy card card ref is fixed, we could do :
1. Add a primal clay ability who retrieve a datachest indexed with copying card ref number, when primal clay become target of a spell or ability. Set into this chest the choosen values.
2. Another ability who set the Primal clay to the stored value if the datachest is not nil.
3. Clear the datachest when the ability resolves or at end of that step.
For a definitive official compliant answer we would need a DCI judge. Since I don't happen to have one on speed dial and I assume you don't either (hence why you posted in the forum) we should go with our best guess.NeoAnderson wrote:Theoretically I agree with you for this reason i have exposed this issue, i only would be sure that this should be the behaviour to be compliant with official rules.
If it is sure i think will be not so complicated to add a check to understand if this kind of cards have to add, remove or do nothing when they come back onto battlefield.
My best guess would be that Oubliette and Tawnos's Coffin would manage the counters it needs to put back on the Clockwork Avian first then Clockwork Avian's ZONECHANGE_TRANSITION trigger should fire (in the middle of Oubliette and/or Tawnos's Coffin resolving) and bring the total counters it enters with to 4 (adding or removing as necessary). Finally Oubliette and/or Tawnos's Coffin would put back in the auras attached to the creature.
This change does have some implications the worst of which (which can actually be coded) would be abilities like Burning-Tree Shaman (granted this one can be worked around by having the activated abilities claim they are mana abilities using my manual mana functions, though you would obviously leave off the forced_skip because it really isn't a mana ability). Another issue would be with cards that prevent the activation of activated abilities (Linvala, Keeper of Silence, etc...) and this could be worked around by having the card detect if it is being affected in that way and switch back to using real triggered abilities which are unaffected. Also to make sure they can't activate the abilities more than once in the upkeep you would need to make sure they each have a per turn limit set as with activated abilities without that you could activate them more than once which would definitely not be rule compliant.NeoAnderson wrote:Last card coded and new doubts :
I have coded Tetravus, i have used Riiak ObjectDC Functions to implement this card.
It works but i would ask to you some opinions :
1. the card as i coded it is compliant to the follow official rules :
10/4/2004: If the Tetravus is destroyed when the Tetravites are off the card, they are not destroyed, they are just orphaned.
10/4/2004: Any +1/+1 counter which is on this card can be turned into a Tetravite token. It does not care where the +1/+1 counter came from.
10/4/2004: Only Tetravites from this specific Tetravus may be used for the ability. Ones from a different Tetravus can't.
8/1/2008: This card now has two upkeep-triggered abilities. Its controller chooses the order they are put on the stack, and thus the order in which they resolve each upkeep.
About the last rule i have used this idea :
I made an empty trigger ability for the Upkeep, and i have turned the 2 upkeep-triggered abilities of Tetravus into activated ability. These Activated ability can only be played into upkeep and just once per turn. Doing this way we can decide if we want or not to activate them, and we also can enstabilish the order.
Do you think this will be enough compliant to the Mtg rules, or the fact to have changed them from triggered into Activated abilities means a lot?
Overall, this simply makes the card considerably more complex for something that could be considered relatively minor (ordering of which triggered ability to use first). Personally I would stick with keeping them as triggered abilities because it would make coding the card easier, but if you want to go for the more complex route feel free.
Just getting started: Xander9009's DotP 2014 Community Wad
Need a deck builder: DotP 2014 Deck Builder
Problems Modding: DotP 2014 Frequent Modding Mistakes
Need a deck builder: DotP 2014 Deck Builder
Problems Modding: DotP 2014 Frequent Modding Mistakes
- RiiakShiNal
- Programmer
- Posts: 2188
- Joined: 16 May 2011, 21:37
- Has thanked: 75 times
- Been thanked: 497 times
Re: Formal Request Thread
by MC Brodie » 31 Dec 2013, 22:51
Ok, if they must be in their own triggered abilities, how about doing it with 4 triggered abilities and 1 static ability?NeoAnderson wrote:I understand your meaning my friend,
I already know i can turn them into triggered ability and add a multiple choice to select wich one to fire first, but in that case you will have to answer each time what you want to do.
And if combine the 2 abilities into one trigger will override the MTG rules, because as this card is ruled the abilities must trigger separately.
But with my solution the main empty trigger fire, and only if you want you can activate the one, both or nothing.
- Triggered ability
- Trigger on controller PHASE_BEGINNING
- If Tetravus has no counters set LinkedDC to 1
- elseif there are no Tetravites tokens set LinkedDC to 2
- else ask a multiple choice question on which trigger should go on the stack first
- Save MC answer to a LinkedDC
- Triggered ability (Priority 0)
- Trigger on controller STEP_UPKEEP
- Resolution Time Actions for moving counter off Tetravus
- Triggered ability (Priority High, resource id 1)
- Trigger on controller STEP_UPKEEP
- Resolution Time Actions for exiling Tetravites
- Triggered ability (Priority Low, resource id 2)
- Trigger on controller STEP_UPKEEP
- Resolution Time Actions for exiling Tetravites
- Static ability
- Grants ability 1 or 2 depending on LinkedDC
I'm sure there will be some issues. If anything, I'm sure I'm amusing to the people that actually know what they are doing
. As far as an engine always asking you to stack triggers even if it is pointless, I don't know if there is an easy way around that. Try playing a game with multiple copies of Essence of the Wild on the battlefield on an engine that allows for trigger stacking. It is the same trigger for each copy but you still have to stack them 
.Also Happy New Years Neo. Even if you are about 6 hours early
.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Song of the Day: 46 and 2 (cover)
Song of the Day: 46 and 2 (cover)
Re: Formal Request Thread
by NeoAnderson » 01 Jan 2014, 00:20
This should not happen, because the main Primal Clay create the first Datachest when is targetted, the other DataChest will be created only inside the card eventually copy it. Cards who will target it for other reason will not create other datachests.RiiakShiNal wrote:The CardRefs of both the original card and the card becoming the copy should technically remain unchanged (the card doing the copying simply changed state it did not become a new instance). This method might work using the DuelDataChest() (or my ObjectDC functions) though it is definitely a crap shoot method of doing it as you would have to create a data chest for every card that targets Primal Clay even if it is not doing any copying. It would add quite a bit of overhead (especially when making sure there are no collisions) so it may impact game performance.
I agree with your reasoning and i will make some tests toRiiakShiNal wrote:For a definitive official compliant answer we would need a DCI judge. Since I don't happen to have one on speed dial and I assume you don't either (hence why you posted in the forum) we should go with our best guess.
My best guess would be that Oubliette and Tawnos's Coffin would manage the counters it needs to put back on the Clockwork Avian first then Clockwork Avian's ZONECHANGE_TRANSITION trigger should fire (in the middle of Oubliette and/or Tawnos's Coffin resolving) and bring the total counters it enters with to 4 (adding or removing as necessary). Finally Oubliette and/or Tawnos's Coffin would put back in the auras attached to the creature.
understand how to modify the cards, also if i believe that Oubliette and Tawnos's Coffin are coded right, the one to change is Clockwork Avian.
I was already thinking about these kind of conflicts, honestly i was only thinking to find a solution to make the usability of these kind cards who trigger into upkeep more easy to manage. About the Upkeep limit if you have looked the code it was already implemented. About the card who inhibit the possibility to use Activable abilities, i was thinking to a walkaround, but i don't know if it works, what happens if into the Availability Block i check the CHARACTERISTIC_CANT_ACTIVATE_NONMANA_ABILITIES and always retun true, also when this value is enabled?RiiakShiNal wrote:This change does have some implications the worst of which (which can actually be coded) would be abilities like Burning-Tree Shaman (granted this one can be worked around by having the activated abilities claim they are mana abilities using my manual mana functions, though you would obviously leave off the forced_skip because it really isn't a mana ability). Another issue would be with cards that prevent the activation of activated abilities (Linvala, Keeper of Silence, etc...) and this could be worked around by having the card detect if it is being affected in that way and switch back to using real triggered abilities which are unaffected. Also to make sure they can't activate the abilities more than once in the upkeep you would need to make sure they each have a per turn limit set as with activated abilities without that you could activate them more than once which would definitely not be rule compliant.
Overall, this simply makes the card considerably more complex for something that could be considered relatively minor (ordering of which triggered ability to use first). Personally I would stick with keeping them as triggered abilities because it would make coding the card easier, but if you want to go for the more complex route feel free.
- NeoAnderson
- Posts: 914
- Joined: 10 Sep 2013, 07:49
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 139 times
Re: Formal Request Thread
by NeoAnderson » 01 Jan 2014, 00:34
Honestly i am not sure to have completely followed your reasoning, anyway i think we don't need to use grant ability.MC Brodie wrote:Ok, if they must be in their own triggered abilities, how about doing it with 4 triggered abilities and 1 static ability?NeoAnderson wrote:I understand your meaning my friend,
I already know i can turn them into triggered ability and add a multiple choice to select wich one to fire first, but in that case you will have to answer each time what you want to do.
And if combine the 2 abilities into one trigger will override the MTG rules, because as this card is ruled the abilities must trigger separately.
But with my solution the main empty trigger fire, and only if you want you can activate the one, both or nothing.
- Triggered ability
- Trigger on controller PHASE_BEGINNING
- If Tetravus has no counters set LinkedDC to 1
- elseif there are no Tetravites tokens set LinkedDC to 2
- else ask a multiple choice question on which trigger should go on the stack first
- Save MC answer to a LinkedDC
- Triggered ability (Priority 0)
- Trigger on controller STEP_UPKEEP
- Resolution Time Actions for moving counter off Tetravus
- Triggered ability (Priority High, resource id 1)
- Trigger on controller STEP_UPKEEP
- Resolution Time Actions for exiling Tetravites
- Triggered ability (Priority Low, resource id 2)
- Trigger on controller STEP_UPKEEP
- Resolution Time Actions for exiling Tetravites
- Static ability
- Grants ability 1 or 2 depending on LinkedDC
I'm sure there will be some issues. If anything, I'm sure I'm amusing to the people that actually know what they are doing
Also Happy New Years Neo. Even if you are about 6 hours early
Just make the first trigger with a multiple choice and set LinkedDC Value to 1 or 2.
The first ability Trigger should play when the LinkedDC is 1 or 3 so the second when is 2 or 4. With a clean up fire once block.
When the first ability trigger it set the LinkedDC to 4.
When the second ability trigger it set the LinkedDC to 3.
Some example.
a. Player make the choice choose sequence 1/2
b. The linkedDC is set to 1
c. The first ability fire and set the LinkedDC to 4 because the starting value was 1.
d. The second ability fire and set the LinkedDC to 0 because the starting value was 4.
Example B :
a. Player make the choice choose sequence 2/1
b. The linkedDC is set to 2
c. The second ability fire and set the LinkedDC to 3 because the starting value was 2.
d. The first ability fire and after resolve set the linkedDC to 0 because the starting value was 3.
Thi should work.
About the greatings, you're right but i was not sure about the time zone of other users
- NeoAnderson
- Posts: 914
- Joined: 10 Sep 2013, 07:49
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 139 times
Re: Formal Request Thread
by drleg3nd » 01 Jan 2014, 01:25
i am looking through other planeswalkers trying to figure out my issues and looking a Elspeth, Sun's Champion and Sorin i noticed a filter was in place for there emblem ability that i dont have in my last ability for Kiora ..is that a possibility why i'm having trouble with this card ? here's the aforementioned code :
- Filter | Open
Re: Formal Request Thread
by RiiakShiNal » 01 Jan 2014, 02:51
I think there is some misunderstanding here. Having Primal Clay create a data chest for itself is pointless there is no way for a copy of Primal Clay to get that chest. Also as far as I know there is no way to determine why a card has been targeted only that it has been targeted. As such to get the copy to have the same choice as the original the original would have to set the value on the copy before the "copy" actually becomes a copy and the only way to do this is to set the value on all cards that target the original (because we have no way of knowing whether it was targeted for a copy or for something else). Due to this it may impact game performance.NeoAnderson wrote:This should not happen, because the main Primal Clay create the first Datachest when is targetted, the other DataChest will be created only inside the card eventually copy it. Cards who will target it for other reason will not create other datachests.
Actually, I didn't look at your code, I was merely thinking of problems that would be encountered.NeoAnderson wrote:I was already thinking about these kind of conflicts, honestly i was only thinking to find a solution to make the usability of these kind cards who trigger into upkeep more easy to manage. About the Upkeep limit if you have looked the code it was already implemented. About the card who inhibit the possibility to use Activable abilities, i was thinking to a walkaround, but i don't know if it works, what happens if into the Availability Block i check the CHARACTERISTIC_CANT_ACTIVATE_NONMANA_ABILITIES and always retun true, also when this value is enabled?
Trying to override the can't activate non-mana abilities won't work because the availability won't be checked if activated abilities can't be used due to a characteristic. Also CHARACTERISTIC_CANT_ACTIVATE_NONMANA_ABILITIES is not the only characteristic that can prevent activated abilities from being used. For an example of how to get around activated abilities can't be used sometimes look at my RSN_CheckSwitchToFallback() function.
- RSN_CheckSwitchToFallback | Open
Actually, you can simulate choosing the stack ordering with just 2 triggered abilities without GrantAbility() or CreateDelayedTrigger() (so no need for CLEANUPs).NeoAnderson wrote:Honestly i am not sure to have completely followed your reasoning, anyway i think we don't need to use grant ability.
Just make the first trigger with a multiple choice and set LinkedDC Value to 1 or 2.
The first ability Trigger should play when the LinkedDC is 1 or 3 so the second when is 2 or 4. With a clean up fire once block.
When the first ability trigger it set the LinkedDC to 4.
When the second ability trigger it set the LinkedDC to 3.
Some example.
a. Player make the choice choose sequence 1/2
b. The linkedDC is set to 1
c. The first ability fire and set the LinkedDC to 4 because the starting value was 1.
d. The second ability fire and set the LinkedDC to 0 because the starting value was 4.
Example B :
a. Player make the choice choose sequence 2/1
b. The linkedDC is set to 2
c. The second ability fire and set the LinkedDC to 3 because the starting value was 2.
d. The first ability fire and after resolve set the linkedDC to 0 because the starting value was 3.
Thi should work.
About the greatings, you're right but i was not sure about the time zone of other users
- TRIGGERED_ABILITY (upkeep, goes on stack 1st)
- PLAY_TIME_ACTION Check conditions to see if there is any point to asking the user about ordering (for example you would not want to resolve moving Tetravites on Tetravus first if no valid Tetravites exist yet).
- PLAY_TIME_ACTION Ask user which effect they want to resolve first if necessary.
- PLAY_TIME_ACTION Set LinkedDC() value indicating which effect should resolve first.
- RESOLUTION_TIME_ACTION If should move counters off 2nd then do that otherwise nothing.
- RESOLUTION_TIME_ACTION If should move Tetravites on 2nd then do that otherwise nothing.
- TRIGGERED_ABILITY (upkeep, goes on stack 2nd)
- RESOLUTION_TIME_ACTION If should move counters off 1st then do that otherwise nothing.
- RESOLUTION_TIME_ACTION If should move Tetravites on 1st then do that otherwise nothing.
Granted to properly code in the "May" clauses you may want to move the PLAY_TIME_ACTIONs to a 3rd TRIGGERED_ABILITY (which would go onto the stack first, or last if you change them to RESOLUTION_TIME_ACTIONs) so you can simply put the <MAY> tag in the two TRIGGERED_ABILITYs that actually do something.
Just getting started: Xander9009's DotP 2014 Community Wad
Need a deck builder: DotP 2014 Deck Builder
Problems Modding: DotP 2014 Frequent Modding Mistakes
Need a deck builder: DotP 2014 Deck Builder
Problems Modding: DotP 2014 Frequent Modding Mistakes
- RiiakShiNal
- Programmer
- Posts: 2188
- Joined: 16 May 2011, 21:37
- Has thanked: 75 times
- Been thanked: 497 times
Re: Formal Request Thread
by NeoAnderson » 01 Jan 2014, 03:56
I understand what you said. Do you think this will occurs also if we delete that temporary chest at end of the step?RiiakShiNal wrote:I think there is some misunderstanding here. Having Primal Clay create a data chest for itself is pointless there is no way for a copy of Primal Clay to get that chest. Also as far as I know there is no way to determine why a card has been targeted only that it has been targeted. As such to get the copy to have the same choice as the original the original would have to set the value on the copy before the "copy" actually becomes a copy and the only way to do this is to set the value on all cards that target the original (because we have no way of knowing whether it was targeted for a copy or for something else). Due to this it may impact game performance.
I know your function and i understand this will make the card coding complex. I was looking about the avaible TRIGGERS and i found this one CONSIDERED_FOR_ACTIVATION, and if we temporary disable (into a resolution time block) the CHARACTERISTIC_CANT_USE_ACTIVATED_ABILITIES when the card considered for activation is the object? Something similar used to reduce the casting cost of a card.RiiakShiNal wrote:Actually, I didn't look at your code, I was merely thinking of problems that would be encountered.
Trying to override the can't activate non-mana abilities won't work because the availability won't be checked if activated abilities can't be used due to a characteristic. Also CHARACTERISTIC_CANT_ACTIVATE_NONMANA_ABILITIES is not the only characteristic that can prevent activated abilities from being used. For an example of how to get around activated abilities can't be used sometimes look at my RSN_CheckSwitchToFallback() function.As you can see there is quite a bit that has to be checked and you still have to code the static ability that will reference the function to check to see if the fallback need to be used and code the fallback abilities.
- RSN_CheckSwitchToFallback | Open
If i correctly understand in this way i have to make one trigger able to do both actions, then i have to duplicate it into 2 different triggers, just checking inverse value into LinkedDC.RiiakShiNal wrote:Actually, you can simulate choosing the stack ordering with just 2 triggered abilities without GrantAbility() or CreateDelayedTrigger() (so no need for CLEANUPs).
- TRIGGERED_ABILITY (upkeep, goes on stack 1st)
- PLAY_TIME_ACTION Check conditions to see if there is any point to asking the user about ordering (for example you would not want to resolve moving Tetravites on Tetravus first if no valid Tetravites exist yet).
- PLAY_TIME_ACTION Ask user which effect they want to resolve first if necessary.
- PLAY_TIME_ACTION Set LinkedDC() value indicating which effect should resolve first.
- RESOLUTION_TIME_ACTION If should move counters off 2nd then do that otherwise nothing.
- RESOLUTION_TIME_ACTION If should move Tetravites on 2nd then do that otherwise nothing.
- TRIGGERED_ABILITY (upkeep, goes on stack 2nd)
- RESOLUTION_TIME_ACTION If should move counters off 1st then do that otherwise nothing.
- RESOLUTION_TIME_ACTION If should move Tetravites on 1st then do that otherwise nothing.
Granted to properly code in the "May" clauses you may want to move the PLAY_TIME_ACTIONs to a 3rd TRIGGERED_ABILITY (which would go onto the stack first, or last if you change them to RESOLUTION_TIME_ACTIONs) so you can simply put the <MAY> tag in the two TRIGGERED_ABILITYs that actually do something.
- NeoAnderson
- Posts: 914
- Joined: 10 Sep 2013, 07:49
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 139 times
Re: Formal Request Thread
by RiiakShiNal » 01 Jan 2014, 04:29
Yes, in fact that could cause additional computational overhead depending on how it is processed.NeoAnderson wrote:I understand what you said. Do you think this will occurs also if we delete that temporary chest at end of the step?
Again, CHARACTERISTIC_CANT_USE_ACTIVATED_ABILITIES is not the only characteristic you have to worry about and handle which is why I don't use a single simple if statement to check whether I need to use a fallback. Additionally, if the card has the characteristic then how can one of its abilities be "CONSIDERED_FOR_ACTIVATION" (you can't even try to activate what isn't allowed)?NeoAnderson wrote:I know your function and i understand this will make the card coding complex. I was looking about the avaible TRIGGERS and i found this one CONSIDERED_FOR_ACTIVATION, and if we temporary disable (into a resolution time block) the CHARACTERISTIC_CANT_USE_ACTIVATED_ABILITIES when the card considered for activation is the object? Something similar used to reduce the casting cost of a card.
Yeah, that is about the gist of it.NeoAnderson wrote:If i correctly understand in this way i have to make one trigger able to do both actions, then i have to duplicate it into 2 different triggers, just checking inverse value into LinkedDC.
Just getting started: Xander9009's DotP 2014 Community Wad
Need a deck builder: DotP 2014 Deck Builder
Problems Modding: DotP 2014 Frequent Modding Mistakes
Need a deck builder: DotP 2014 Deck Builder
Problems Modding: DotP 2014 Frequent Modding Mistakes
- RiiakShiNal
- Programmer
- Posts: 2188
- Joined: 16 May 2011, 21:37
- Has thanked: 75 times
- Been thanked: 497 times
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests