BuffedBy keyword (or SVar?)

[Sloth]

Rob's new SVar:PlayMain1:TRUE is great for many of the cards and the three of us have added this SVar to most of the cards that needed it. Unfortunately, the Mimics and similar cards require a whole new keyword.

In the ComputerAI_General.getMain1() code the AI would have to check every one of it's cards in play to see if it contained the abBuffedBy keyword. If a card in play returned true then parse the params. Then check cards in hand to see if there is a match. If true then the card in hand should be cast in main 1.

I have figured out the basic logic but I'm not sure if my java/coding skills is up to the task. I do have a few short lines of code:

Code: Select all

private SpellAbility[] getMain1() {
    //Card list of all cards to consider
    CardList hand = new CardList(AllZone.Computer_Hand.getCards());
   
    hand = hand.filter(new CardListFilter() {
        // Beached As Start
        public boolean addCard(Card c) {
            //Collection<Card> play = playMain1Cards;
            if (c.getSVar("PlayMain1").equals("TRUE")) return true;
            if (c.isLand()) return false;
            if (c.isCreature() && (c.getKeyword().contains("Haste")) || c.getKeyword().contains("Exalted")) return true;
           
            CardList buffedBy = new CardList();
            buffedBy.addAll(AllZone.getZone(Constant.Zone.Play, Constant.Player.Computer).getCards());
            buffedBy.filter(new CardListFilter() {
                public boolean addCard(Card card) {
                    return card.getKeyword().contains("abBuffedBy");
                }
            });
           
            if (buffedBy.size() > 0) {
               
            }

First I would change the name, since it is not an ability, then I'm not sure if it's better to make it an SVar (just to make it consistend with PlayMain1).

EDIT: If we already guide the AI with this, we can also specify what cards to play in Main 1. Example Shorecrasher Mimic:

BuffedBy:Spell.green+blue

We can use the getValidCard method for this (I hope).

[Chris H.]

Thank you Sloth for starting this proposal and discussion topic. AC provided us with a list of "Lord" like cards. I was able to add the SVar to the cards last week. There is a group of cards that would need a new keyword or SVar. I think the keyword may be best.

Here is a list of cards divided in groups that would make use of this BuffedBy keyword:

Code: Select all

Ashenmoor Cohort
Ballynock Cohort
Briarberry Cohort
Crabapple Cohort
Mudbrawler Cohort

Bant Sureblade
Esper Stormblade
Grixis Grimblade
Jund Hackblade
Naya Hushblade

Battle Squadron
Dauntless Dourbark
Keldon Warlord
Master of Etherium
Scion of the Wild
Soulsurge Elemental
Squirrel Mob

Glassdust Hulk
Glaze Fiend
Herd Gnarr
Juniper Order Ranger
Kavu Monarch

Liu Bei, Lord of Shu

Emberstrike Duo
Gravelgill Duo
Safehold Duo
Tattermunge Duo
Thistledown Duo

Kami of the Hunt

Belligerent Hatchling
Noxious Hatchling
Sturdy Hatchling
Voracious Hatchling

[Chris H.]

EDIT: If we already guide the AI with this, we can also specify what cards to play in Main 1. Example Shorecrasher Mimic:

BuffedBy:Spell.green+blue

`
Most of the code that I posted already exists. The only thing new is the several lines of code for the BuffedBy keyword.

So, I think that the BuffedBy keyword could be added to this ComputerAI_General.getMain1() method. As I look through the list of cards above it comes to me that the parsing and testing could become more involved than I had originally imagined.

The code for BuffedBy would be executed every time the computer needs to decide if it has a card in hand to cast during main 1. Checking to see if it's cards in play have this keyword should take very little time. And only if the cards in play have this keyword would the computer spend time with the code that follow inside of these braces:

Code: Select all

            if (buffedBy.size() > 0) {
               
            }

`
So, the BuffedBy code might not create a noticeable slowdown.

[Sloth]

The code for BuffedBy would be executed every time the computer needs to decide if it has a card in hand to cast during main 1. Checking to see if it's cards in play have this keyword should take very little time. And only if the cards in play have this keyword would the computer spend time with the code that follow inside of these braces:

Code: Select all

            if (buffedBy.size() > 0) {
               
            }

`
So, the BuffedBy code might not create a noticeable slowdown.

For testing we can start with just return true; in the braces. I will try to come up with something to parse the restrictions tomorrow.

[Chris H.]

I took a quick look at the potential candidates and thought about how to form the params:

Code: Select all

Ashenmoor Cohort        BuffedBy:Creature.Black:CrtlAnother
Ballynock Cohort        BuffedBy:Creature.White:CrtlAnother
Briarberry Cohort       BuffedBy:Creature.Blue:CrtlAnother
Crabapple Cohort        BuffedBy:Creature.Green:CrtlAnother
Mudbrawler Cohort       BuffedBy:Creature.Red:CrtlAnother
Bant Sureblade          BuffedBy:Permanent.Multi:CrtlAnother
Esper Stormblade        BuffedBy:Permanent.Multi:CrtlAnother
Grixis Grimblade        BuffedBy:Permanent.Multi:CrtlAnother
Jund Hackblade          BuffedBy:Permanent.Multi:CrtlAnother
Naya Hushblade          BuffedBy:Permanent.Multi:CrtlAnother

Battle Squadron         BuffedBy:Creature
Dauntless Dourbark      BuffedBy:Treefolk
Keldon Warlord          BuffedBy:Creature.nonWall
Master of Etherium      BuffedBy:Artifact
Scion of the Wild       BuffedBy:Creature
Soulsurge Elemental     BuffedBy:Creature
Squirrel Mob            BuffedBy:Squirrel
Glassdust Hulk          BuffedBy:Artifact
Glaze Fiend             BuffedBy:Artifact
Herd Gnarr              BuffedBy:Creature
Juniper Order Ranger    BuffedBy:Creature
Kavu Monarch            BuffedBy:Kavu

Emberstrike Duo         BuffedBy:Spell.Black,Red
Gravelgill Duo          BuffedBy:Spell.Blue,Black
Safehold Duo            BuffedBy:Spell.Green,White
Tattermunge Duo         BuffedBy:Spell.Red,Green
Thistledown Duo         BuffedBy:Spell.White,Blue
Kami of the Hunt        BuffedBy:Arcane,Spirit
Belligerent Hatchling   BuffedBy:Spell.Red,White
Noxious Hatchling       BuffedBy:Spell.Black,Green
Sturdy Hatchling        BuffedBy:Spell.Green,Blue
Voracious Hatchling     BuffedBy:Spell.White,Black

EDIT: this is only a first attempt.

[Sloth]

I implemented BuffedBy as an SVar (and regretted it later, see below):

Code: Select all

private SpellAbility[] getMain1() {
        //Card list of all cards to consider
        CardList hand = new CardList(AllZone.Computer_Hand.getCards());
       
        hand = hand.filter(new CardListFilter() {
           // Beached As Start
            public boolean addCard(Card c) {
                //Collection<Card> play = playMain1Cards;
               if (c.getSVar("PlayMain1").equals("TRUE"))
                  return true;
               
                if(c.isLand()) return false;
                if(c.isCreature() && (c.getKeyword().contains("Haste")) || c.getKeyword().contains("Exalted")) return true;

                CardList buffed = new CardList(AllZone.Computer_Play.getCards());
                // buffed.getKeyword("BuffedBy");  //get all cards the computer controls with BuffedBy
                for(int i = 0; i < buffed.size(); i++) {
                   Card buffedcard = buffed.get(i);
                   if (buffedcard.getSVar("BuffedBy").length() > 0) {
                         String buffedby = buffedcard.getSVar("BuffedBy");
                         final String bffdby[] = buffedby.split(",");
                         if (c.isValidCard(bffdby)) return true;
                   }       
                }


isValidCard can handle all restrictions of dpDestroyTgt like: Creature.Blue+Black,Permanent.nonAura,Worm.tapped+unenchanted etc.

Work in progress: Permanent, Spell and Card (Card means everything).

To DO: Add the entries in cards.txt:
Example change slivers and allies from SVar:PlayMain1:TRUE to SVar:BuffedBy:Ally and SVar:BuffedBy:Sliver.

Edit: Finished Permanent, Spell and Card.

[Chris H.]

I implemented BuffedBy as an SVar (and regretted it later, see below):

isValidCard can handle all restrictions of dpDestroyTgt like: Creature.Blue+Black,Permanent.nonAura,Worm.tapped+unenchanted etc.

Work in progress: Permanent, Spell and Card (Card means everything).

To DO: Add the entries in cards.txt:
Example change slivers and allies from SVar:PlayMain1:TRUE to SVar:BuffedBy:Ally and SVar:BuffedBy:Sliver.

Edit: Finished Permanent, Spell and Card.

`
I saw the last several merges to the SVN. Did you figure out the restriction part that you were having problems with?

The SVar:Picture:{url} has periods in the url string. Is Rob doing anything special in his SVar:Picture:{url} code to allow periods?

I took a quick look at the Card.isValidCard() code and it appears to split on the period. I may release a beta based on rev 1791 and leave this SVar for the following version as we try to figure this out.

[Sloth]

Actually I it works fine, it was just a testing mistake.

[Chris H.]

Actually I it works fine, it was just a testing mistake.

`
I am glad to see that it works. Nice work.

I will release a beta based on r1791 and we will include this new SVar into the following beta. It is nice to have something "in the works" for the next beta. Gives people something to look forward to.

[Rob Cashwalker]

The only thing I think this is missing is what if the condition that would "buff" another card is the presence of the condition on the human's side - either specifically "the opponent" or just "on the battlefield".

We will also have to examine the converse situation - cards that would be adversely affected given a particular condition... not many I'm sure.
Though it does make me think that (separately) the AI should check to see if a global x/-y condition may kill a 1/1 creature as soon as it's cast.

[Sloth]

The only thing I think this is missing is what if the condition that would "buff" another card is the presence of the condition on the human's side - either specifically "the opponent" or just "on the battlefield".

Yes, I think there are quite a few cards like this (like Timid Drake or Concordant Crossroads). We can just make a second SVar that will be checked on the human side.

But how should it be called DebuffedBy, MiffedBy?

PS: Cards with symmetrical effects would just have both SVars.

PPS: I just realized SVar:BuffedBy doesn't work for Liu Bei, Lord of Shu because of the ","'s in Guan Yu, Sainted Warrior and Zhang Fei, Fierce Warrior. But I think it's the only card that can't be handled.

[Rob Cashwalker]

YEah, but the list that AC provided was only based off cards already in Forge. These functions need to be able to handle all variations for at least the cards that have been printed so far, and most of what may be printed in the future.

getValidCards doesn't parse the comma, spDestroyTgt parses the comma, and passes a string array to getValidCards. You're free to parse any other delimiter ("/" comes to mind) before passing to getValidCards.

[Sloth]

I've added the SVar AntiBuffedBy to be used on permanents the human controls to make
the AI play certain cards in Main1. The syntax is the same.

YEah, but the list that AC provided was only based off cards already in Forge. These functions need to be able to handle all variations for at least the cards that have been printed so far, and most of what may be printed in the future.

getValidCards doesn't parse the comma, spDestroyTgt parses the comma, and passes a string array to getValidCards. You're free to parse any other delimiter ("/" comes to mind) before passing to getValidCards.

Ah, you're right, this can be changed. But since this is only a bonus for the AI, it's not serious. I will be off for two week starting tomorrow, so I leave up to you guys (maybe also gals?).

PS: What is also a problem with parsing is being unable to use keywords with ":" in spPumpTgt, wheneverkeyword, staticeffect, etc. (When I started using keywords I was really unhappy realize this).

[Rob Cashwalker]

It's not so much that you can't use a keyword with ":", its that keywords for activated abilities aren't parsed in real time. Flying or trample are checked whenever combat comes around. But you can't give a creature "RegerateMe:B" because "RegenerateMe" is only parsed when the CardFactory creates a card.

If anyone wants to devise their own parsing rules for a keyword beyond simple ":" delimiters, there's no reason not to. The Whenever keyword would be a prime example of why it doesn't fit all situations. But for something as simple as "RegenerateMe:B" it makes total sense.

I sorta did that when I started with Drawback$ and Count$... we could just as easily have this sort of syntax:

Code: Select all

spPumpTgt|Cost${mana, tap, sac, etc costs}|Power${+/-#}|Toughness${+/-#}|Drawback${db String}|Description$This spell pumps you up.

In fact it would be easier to parse, because the code would just iterate through all elements split by "|" and if the element started with "Power$" then it would evaluate the element as power. It would allow this to be equivalent:

Code: Select all

spPumpTgt|Power${+/-#}|Toughness${+/-#}|Description$This spell pumps you up.|Drawback${db String}|Cost${mana, tap, sac, etc costs}

[Sloth]

It's not so much that you can't use a keyword with ":", its that keywords for activated abilities aren't parsed in real time. Flying or trample are checked whenever combat comes around. But you can't give a creature "RegerateMe:B" because "RegenerateMe" is only parsed when the CardFactory creates a card.

If anyone wants to devise their own parsing rules for a keyword beyond simple ":" delimiters, there's no reason not to. The Whenever keyword would be a prime example of why it doesn't fit all situations. But for something as simple as "RegenerateMe:B" it makes total sense.

I sorta did that when I started with Drawback$ and Count$... we could just as easily have this sort of syntax:

Code: Select all

spPumpTgt|Cost${mana, tap, sac, etc costs}|Power${+/-#}|Toughness${+/-#}|Drawback${db String}|Description$This spell pumps you up.

In fact it would be easier to parse, because the code would just iterate through all elements split by "|" and if the element started with "Power$" then it would evaluate the element as power. It would allow this to be equivalent:

Code: Select all

spPumpTgt|Power${+/-#}|Toughness${+/-#}|Description$This spell pumps you up.|Drawback${db String}|Cost${mana, tap, sac, etc costs}

Ah Ok, I didn't realize that activated abilities wouldn't work anyway. Then improving the parsing is not so important.