Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
I'm trying to set up a scenario where you have to capture four enemy planets, but I'm having trouble setting it up. If I use counters I could run into some technicalities, and the # of conditions needed to control the scenario would be rather large, I have two enemy races and the player, so that's at least three counter alterations per planet and possibly more than one - in fact maybe all three counters. Could someone tell me how I could do this, NL used "condition true yet" statements in "You Should Have Seen The One That Got Away" and I was thinking that I might need to do that too. Anyway, any help would be appreciated, thanks a lot!
------------------ And so Shrout1 finally arrived And there was Excessive Cheating
A planet that altered the player's score upon capture? A score of 4 would result in victory.
------------------ There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.
Well If I did that I'd have to incorporate the possibility of the planet being retaken, there are enough planets that you could lose one without really losing. I would also have to take into account who took it so that it wouldn't add to my counter if the second computer player captured it.
You could give the computer transports with the ability to modify the player's score.
Do you mean like their expire sequence? That might work - but somehow I'd have to check and make sure that they were capturing a player-owned planet and not a computer controlled planet, how do you think I could do that?
You mean a neutral planet? If there is more than 1 computer player things could get very difficult indeed.
I believe there is the option to make things only apply to neutral, enemy, or your objects. Have 2 actions on the expire trigger, one applying to neutral and enemy objects.
Or alternatively, you could try a larger-scale version of what NL did.
No, I actually have 2 enemy races the Salrillians and Gaitori against you. I want to somehow have it so that the computer can tell who exactly is capturing the planet and then add or subtract from the appropriate counter. You know, look at level 19 in Ares it's "You Should Have Seen The One That Got Away" tell me what you think in of NL's conditions and if you can figure out how he did that.
I think his conditions are well executed.
Yes I can figure it out.
That would be great! I think using his conditions would simplify things greatly.
With 2 computer players, NL's conditions are really the only way to go. Make sure you have 12.
Well, I would use them but I'm not sure how they work. They don't seem to tie into anything. His "Condition True Yet" sequences seem to have no correlation to any of the conditions in the scenario. I'd use them, but I'm very confused.
I tried typing it up here, it's devilishly complex for my poor sleep-ridden mind. Check NL's triggers again, remember 'condition true yet' refers to conditions which are already enabled and need to be made false.
Well I know that 'Condition True Yet' checks existing conditions to see if they're enabled, but NL didn't put any "If owner = " conditions except for the last planet. Or is he running the "If owner = " condition on intital objects - tells it the condition to check and the initial object to check it against. Is it anything like that?
I don't think if owner is entirely relevant. Other than that, help!
It's been a long time, but let me see what I can remember.
The Condition True Yet (CTY) flag (also confusingly called the "Initially Inactive" flag), when on, prevents a condition from being evaluated. So, if you had three planets, you might have three conditions like this:
1. if planet 1 is captured, set CTY of condition 2 to false 2. if planet 2 is captured, set CTY of condition 3 to false 3. if planet 3 is captured, player wins
Initially, the CTY of 2 & 3 would be true, and the CTY of 1 would be false, meaning only the first condition would evaluated. When condition 1 was true, it would allow the second to be evaluated, and so on.
I just looked at "You Should Have Seen the One..." and indeed this is precisely what I did.
Thanks!
Hmmm... That post looks very familiar to one I have seen on another board :D.... Grammaticus are you a façade for whom I'm thinking or are you another person totally - you'd know if you posted what I read elsewhere. But thanks for the help even if I am completely confused.
I have seen the light! You surely are the person I'm thinking of - don't try to hide your fame behind a name completely unrelated to your own - your e-mail betrays you :D. Nice to know you've been lurking here the whole time and I never even knew it. I always wondered why you didn't seem to be on the boards - hehehe
Bwahaha! Resurect the dead! (Topics I mean). I really still need answers, so, if anyone has become a genius on this subject since last January, let me know!
------------------ "You will find that your device is highly non-functional...." - Bad Guy