It is currently 26 Apr 2024, 05:07
   
Text Size

Losing the game as a state-based effect.

Discuss Upcoming Releases, Coding New Cards, Etc.
PLEASE DO NOT REPORT BUGS HERE!

Moderators: BAgate, drool66, Aswan jaguar, gmzombie, stassy, CCGHQ Admins

Losing the game as a state-based effect.

Postby Topdeck » 19 May 2009, 23:51

While playing today, I noticed the game stills handles losing (by having 0 or fewer life points) by the old rule-set. In Manalink, you can still dip to zero or lower without dying until the end of the phase. Current rules have you dying as a state-based effect as soon as the other player gains priority.

I guess it's a bug (of sorts), but it may not be technically possible for us to fix. What say you coders?
Topdeck
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 24 Apr 2009, 23:57
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Losing the game as a state-based effect.

Postby Tower_Mazer » 20 May 2009, 02:16

Topdeck wrote:While playing today, I noticed the game stills handles losing (by having 0 or fewer life points) by the old rule-set. In Manalink, you can still dip to zero or lower without dying until the end of the phase. Current rules have you dying as a state-based effect as soon as the other player gains priority.

I guess it's a bug (of sorts), but it may not be technically possible for us to fix. What say you coders?
I'm sure we'd all like to see all rules current. To do this several lines would need to be added in to do checks at times where none exist now. If a counter could be made based on game play time we could have a check based off the counter and might not need so many lines of code. Also we could use the counter for several other things (example keeping a txt. file with updated info that could maybe be used to track bugs, a tally of total amount of time users have been playing, and fix the dreaded computer is thinking forever by making a delay of game function to either move the AI to the next phase and cancel the current command or make them lose and not the player for closing the game.).
User avatar
Tower_Mazer
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 15 Mar 2009, 15:59
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Losing the game as a state-based effect.

Postby Topdeck » 20 May 2009, 07:27

Anything to stop those AI lockups would be welcome.
Topdeck
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 24 Apr 2009, 23:57
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Losing the game as a state-based effect.

Postby jatill » 20 May 2009, 12:01

Topdeck wrote:While playing today, I noticed the game stills handles losing (by having 0 or fewer life points) by the old rule-set. In Manalink, you can still dip to zero or lower without dying until the end of the phase. Current rules have you dying as a state-based effect as soon as the other player gains priority.

I guess it's a bug (of sorts), but it may not be technically possible for us to fix. What say you coders?
I'm thinking that this would be a 3-line code change to the rules engine. The question is, do people want this change, or do they like it the way it is now? This change, for example, would neuter the prosbloom deck.
jatill
DEVELOPER
 
Posts: 2118
Joined: 24 Feb 2009, 16:35
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Losing the game as a state-based effect.

Postby Bog Wraith » 20 May 2009, 12:56

My vote is to leave this as it is. The game is after all rooted in the Type 1 enviroment and that is a big part of ManaLink's attraction.

However as always, I defer to the majorities opinion! :)
'Twas in the bogs of Cannelbrae
My mate did meet an early grave
'Twas nothing left for us to save
In the peat-filled bogs of Cannelbrae.
User avatar
Bog Wraith
Global Mod 1 (Ret)
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: 28 May 2008, 22:40
Location: Shandalar
Has thanked: 425 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: Losing the game as a state-based effect.

Postby CirothUngol » 20 May 2009, 13:20

My first thought is:
"...the rules have changed!?!"

Guess I should download and peruse a current copy of the rules, as obviously they're different these days. Funny, 'cause I was a definite Rules Lawyer back in the early days. My vote, leave it like it is. The vast majority of these cards were developed and used during the early rule years, and were intended to be used as such, weren't they?
Now to go find a current rulebook...

...? Well Lookit Below... Thanks for the links Snacko!
Last edited by CirothUngol on 21 May 2009, 02:54, edited 2 times in total.
"I thought the day had brought enough horrors for our ragged band, but the night was far worse."
-Lucilde Fiksdotter


Shandalar 2012 Revisited
Magic: The Gathering Abandonware
User avatar
CirothUngol
Programmer
 
Posts: 431
Joined: 13 May 2009, 21:34
Location: Gulf Coast, Texas, USA
Has thanked: 106 times
Been thanked: 107 times

Re: Losing the game as a state-based effect.

Postby Snacko » 20 May 2009, 13:35

Snacko
DEVELOPER
 
Posts: 826
Joined: 29 May 2008, 19:35
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: Losing the game as a state-based effect.

Postby Tower_Mazer » 20 May 2009, 13:57

I like it the way it is but, I know we try to make the game play by the most current rules possible. One way to look at it also if it is changed; if your current life isn't enough and you don't want to play by current rules there is always the debug option to add as much life as you want and then take it back off if you feel that keeping it is cheating. If we do change it then cards could be added to change the rule and they would be key cards in decks like probloom. What I mean is what if in the next new set from mtg has a card that contradicts the rule and says players life may dip below 0 until event X. I don't see them doing so but it does add a degree of flexibility, and to me is what I love about the game. Should someone make a poll on this?
User avatar
Tower_Mazer
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 15 Mar 2009, 15:59
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Losing the game as a state-based effect.

Postby jatill » 20 May 2009, 14:01

Tower_Mazer wrote:I like it the way it is but, I know we try to make the game play by the most current rules possible. One way to look at it also if it is changed; if your current life isn't enough and you don't want to play by current rules there is always the debug option to add as much life as you want and then take it back off if you feel that keeping it is cheating. If we do change it then cards could be added to change the rule and they would be key cards in decks like probloom. What I mean is what if in the next new set from mtg has a card that contradicts the rule and says players life may dip below 0 until event X. I don't see them doing so but it does add a degree of flexibility, and to me is what I love about the game. Should someone make a poll on this?
Boggy, can we do polls?
jatill
DEVELOPER
 
Posts: 2118
Joined: 24 Feb 2009, 16:35
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Losing the game as a state-based effect.

Postby Snacko » 20 May 2009, 14:13

there are already cards as such that allow you to go under 0 life
see Platinum Angel and Transcendence
Snacko
DEVELOPER
 
Posts: 826
Joined: 29 May 2008, 19:35
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: Losing the game as a state-based effect.

Postby Tower_Mazer » 20 May 2009, 14:48

Snacko wrote:there are already cards as such that allow you to go under 0 life
see Platinum Angel and Transcendence
I was thinking that effects like pay life couldn't be effected by cards like this or Aladdin. I thought they were meant only for damage and not life loss. Of course we can't pay life on something when you life is <1 but you can take it to 0.
User avatar
Tower_Mazer
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 15 Mar 2009, 15:59
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Losing the game as a state-based effect.

Postby Bog Wraith » 20 May 2009, 23:20

jatill wrote:
Tower_Mazer wrote:I like it the way it is but, I know we try to make the game play by the most current rules possible. One way to look at it also if it is changed; if your current life isn't enough and you don't want to play by current rules there is always the debug option to add as much life as you want and then take it back off if you feel that keeping it is cheating. If we do change it then cards could be added to change the rule and they would be key cards in decks like probloom. What I mean is what if in the next new set from mtg has a card that contradicts the rule and says players life may dip below 0 until event X. I don't see them doing so but it does add a degree of flexibility, and to me is what I love about the game. Should someone make a poll on this?
Boggy, can we do polls?
Yes we can, but I don't know how to set this up.

Huggy, I know you can... HELP!

I won't be around until later next week, so you guys be good now until I get back! :wink:
'Twas in the bogs of Cannelbrae
My mate did meet an early grave
'Twas nothing left for us to save
In the peat-filled bogs of Cannelbrae.
User avatar
Bog Wraith
Global Mod 1 (Ret)
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: 28 May 2008, 22:40
Location: Shandalar
Has thanked: 425 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: Losing the game as a state-based effect.

Postby Huggybaby » 21 May 2009, 00:36

Whenever you start (or edit) a new topic, there should be a "create poll" tab at the bottom of the page.

You should also be able to edit your own posts, can someone verify this for me?
User avatar
Huggybaby
Administrator
 
Posts: 3207
Joined: 15 Jan 2006, 19:44
Location: Finally out of Atlanta
Has thanked: 701 times
Been thanked: 594 times

Re: Losing the game as a state-based effect.

Postby CirothUngol » 21 May 2009, 01:44

Yea Huggy, I just edited my above post. Seems to work just fine... thanx, didn't see that earlier.
"I thought the day had brought enough horrors for our ragged band, but the night was far worse."
-Lucilde Fiksdotter


Shandalar 2012 Revisited
Magic: The Gathering Abandonware
User avatar
CirothUngol
Programmer
 
Posts: 431
Joined: 13 May 2009, 21:34
Location: Gulf Coast, Texas, USA
Has thanked: 106 times
Been thanked: 107 times

Re: Losing the game as a state-based effect.

Postby Huggybaby » 21 May 2009, 02:13

Thanks for checking, everything seems to be working as it should then.
User avatar
Huggybaby
Administrator
 
Posts: 3207
Joined: 15 Jan 2006, 19:44
Location: Finally out of Atlanta
Has thanked: 701 times
Been thanked: 594 times


Return to Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


Who is online

In total there are 27 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 27 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
Most users ever online was 4143 on 23 Jan 2024, 08:21

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests

Login Form