Currently, creatures act in order of initiative. If initiative is the same, PHP decides who goes first.

 

Is this second step alright, or should it be changed to something which can be determined, such as slot number, to name one example?

Edited September 27, 201510 yr by Myth

In the event of an initiative tie the creatures should be able to act in the following order (creatures with same initiative should follow this order, all others move in initiative order)

 

1. attacker slot 1
2. defender slot 1
3. attacker slot 2
4. defender slot 2
5. attacker slot 3
6. defender slot 3
7. attacker slot 4
8. defender slot 4
9. attacker slot 5
10. defender slot 5
11. attacker slot 6
12. defender slot 6

The attacker's same numbered slot goes first because it makes more sense for the attacker to go first than it does for the defender to go first.

you could also give certain abilities priority over others, so for eg, haoticdamage could be "faster" and be prioritized over damage due to its chaotic and unpredictable nature 

you could also give certain abilities priority over others, so for eg, haoticdamage could be "faster" and be prioritized over damage due to its chaotic and unpredictable nature 

how do you break a tie between two creatures using haoticdamage?

Currently, creatures act in order of initiative. If initiative is the same, PHP decides who goes first.

 

Is this second step alright, or should it be changed to something which can be determined, such as slot number, to name one example?

I think that someone mentioned that creatures, with identical stats, start in order of their Id meaning that an older creature will start earlier.

 

Can be tested at 0 influence & no tokens with only one type of creatures on both sides and see how they start.

 

That'd be a cool log to see ;)   (please attach it if you can do test it)

I might be able to join in testing later tonight.

Tests already done. That doesn't happen. The ID order is sporadic at best...

 

I think I have a test log at home with 12 x 0 init creatures. Will check and post it as soon as I can

how do you break a tie between two creatures using haoticdamage?

initiative, and then priority to attacker

two attacker creatures are using haoticdamage and have same initiative.

what happens?

Well that's rather unfortunate.. looks like I no longer have the actual log. Only notes on it. Here they are:

 

Battle 1

*creatures arranged in ascending ID order

 

Attacker - Asthazar

Slot 1 - Barren Soul - ID 842635

Slot 2 - Barren Soul - ID 842636

Slot 3 - Barren Soul - ID 842637

Slot 4 - Water Being I - ID 842638

Slot 5 - Water Being I - ID 842639

Slot 6 - Water Being I - ID 842640

Defender - Sy

Slot 1 - Barren Soul - ID 842629

Slot 2 - Barren Soul - ID 842630

Slot 3 - Barren Soul - ID 842631

Slot 4 - Water Being I - ID 842632

Slot 5 - Water Being I - ID 842633

Slot 6 - Water Being I - ID 842634

 

Action order by Attacker/Defender Slot (AS 1-6 / DS 1-6)

 

AS1 - AS5 - AS4 - AS3 - AS2 - AS6 - DS1 - DS6 - DS5 - DS4 - DS2 - DS3

 

Action order by ID

 

842635 - 842639 - 842638 - 842637 - 842636 - 842640 - 842629 - 842634 - 842633 - 842632 - 842630 - 842631

 

Action order by ID order (1-12)

 

7 - 11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 12 - 1 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 2 - 3

 

Action order by ID order (1-6) for each player

 

1 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 6 - 1 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 2 - 3

 

Battle 2

*same creatures

*defender creatures rearranged in descending ID order

 

Same result.

 

Battle 3

*same creatures

*attacker switched with defender

*attacker creatures remained in descending ID order

*defender creatures rearranged in an order I can't find a word for right now (1-3-5-2-4-6)

 

Attacker - Sy

Slot 1 - Water Being I - ID 842634

Slot 2 - Water Being I - ID 842633

Slot 3 - Water Being I - ID 842632

Slot 4 - Barren Soul - ID 842631

Slot 5 - Barren Soul - ID 842630

Slot 6 - Barren Soul - ID 842629

Defender - Asthazar

Slot 1 - Barren Soul - ID 842635

Slot 4 - Water Being I - ID 842638

Slot 2 - Barren Soul - ID 842636

Slot 5 - Water Being I - ID 842639

Slot 3 - Barren Soul - ID 842637

Slot 6 - Water Being I - ID 842640

 

Action order by Attacker/Defender Slot (AS 1-6 / DS 1-6)

 

AS6 - AS2 - AS3 - AS4 - AS5 - AS1 - DS1 - DS6 - DS4 - DS2 - DS3 - DS5

 

Action order by ID

 

842629 - 842633 - 842632 - 842631 - 842630 - 842634 - 842635 - 842640 - 842639 - 842638 - 842636 - 842637

 

Action order by ID order (1-12)

 

1 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 6 - 7 - 12 - 11 - 10 - 8 - 9

 

Action order by ID order (1-6) for each player

 

1 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 6 - 1 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 2 - 3

 

 

Yay! A match! But wait...

 

Battle 4

*different players

*different creatures

*initiative changed to 12 creatures x 3

*creatures arranged in ascending order (semi for defender)

 

Attacker - Mythrandir

Slot 1 - Unholy Priest II - ID 836171

Slot 2 - Unholy Priest II - ID 836172

Slot 3 - Unholy Priest II - ID 836173

Slot 4 - Dark Archer - ID 840124

Slot 5 - Dark Archer - ID 840125

Slot 6 - Heretic Archer II - ID 842036

Defender - Sy

Slot 1 - Dark Archer - ID 842290

Slot 2 - Dark Archer - ID 842462

Slot 3 - Dark Archer - ID 842463

Slot 4 - Unholy Priest - ID 823608

Slot 5 - Unholy Priest - ID 823636

Slot 6 - Unholy Priest - ID 823637

 

Action order by Attacker/Defender Slot (AS 1-6 / DS 1-6)

 

AS1 - AS5 - AS4 - AS3 - AS2 - AS6 - DS4 - DS3 - DS2 - DS1 - DS5 - DS6

 

Action order by ID

 

836171 - 840125 - 840124 - 836173 - 836172 - 842036 - 823608 - 842463 - 842462 - 842290 - 823636 - 823637

 

Action order by ID order (1-12)

 

4 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 9 - 1 - 12 - 11 - 10 - 2 - 3

 

Action order by ID order (1-6) for each player

 

1 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 6 - 1 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 2 - 3

 

 

Yay! Another match!

 

[hr]

 

However!

 

That match changes when you distort the number of same initiative cases. For example: 9 x 2 init + 3 x 1 (or 0, can't remember) init.

 

Attacker - (can't remember)

Slot 1 - [something=2init] - ID 836171

Slot 2 - [something=2init] - ID 836172

Slot 3 - [something=2init] - ID 836173

Slot 4 - [something=0/1init] - ID 840124

Slot 5 - [something=0/1init] - ID 840125

Slot 6 - [something=0/1init] - ID 842036

Defender - (some alt, can't remember)

Slot 1 - [something=2init] - ID 842290

Slot 2 - [something=2init] - ID 842462

Slot 3 - [something=2init] - ID 842463

Slot 4 - [something=2init] - ID 823608

Slot 5 - [something=2init] - ID 823636

Slot 6 - [something=2init] - ID 823637

 

Action order by Attacker/Defender Slot (AS 1-6 / DS 1-6)

 

AS3 - DS1 - AS1 - AS2 - DS2 - DS3 - DS6 - DS5 - DS4 - AS6 - AS4 - AS5

 

Action order by ID

 

841667 - 840222 - 841127 - 841666 - 840221 - 840441 - 840608 - 840607 - 840443 - 842486 - 841317 - 82485

 

Action order by ID order (1-12)

 

9 - 1 - 7 - 8 - 2 - 3 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 12 - 10 - 11

 

Action order by ID order (1-6) for each player

 

3 - 1 - 2 - 6 - 2 - 3 - 6 - 5 - 3 - 6 - 4 - 5

- basically the slot order above, since they were arranged in ascending ID order

- no match with the above 12 x 0 or 12 x 3 init

 

[hr]

 

There isn't much I can determine from these battles. They seem random, although clearly they're not. The ordering mechanism is still a mystery to me.

two attacker creatures are using haoticdamage and have same initiative.

what happens?

 

initiative, and then priority to attacker

edit: im stupid

 

two attacker creatures are using haoticdamage and have same initiative.

what happens?

 

prioritize the creature with lowest slot number 

For giving priority based on ability, it would increase coding complexity because current system assumed that players won't have high stats and that creature's own stats would be enough to dictate such plays (read as: 0 init on grasan was assumed it would be enough to make it go last; that's how it's planned slowness is currently implemented). It also wouldn't make any significant impact since it goes after init check anyway, and yet it ain't unique filter.

 

I guess we all agree that creature slot is both logical and best way to go.

For giving priority based on ability, it would increase coding complexity

Iv coded worse, MD has worse, lets make a great system and not a compromised one worrying about code complexity :)

Indeed but why expand now when current system is still broken, when we are unsure of stability of current system (post fix), when we lack plans and concepts and considerations for said expansion.

 

As I said, if such priority goes after initiative then it has pointless effect in combat from tactical point of view (the same weight/usefulness as knowing the combat action numbers currently is) if it goes before initiative there's a ton of work to do since it would change everything.

 

Current system is good, it just needs those unforeseen holes filled (proper last filter/parameter implemented).