Would it be possible to have Millers inspect as a certain role to different inspectors or have an inspect return a certain result depending on the role inspected?
That can be slightly done with use of sight and revealAs. I think that the use of dummy inspection modes can also do different things for inspections.
A spark command (play on words with charges). Gives charges to a player. Attributes are target, common, priority (those three are necessary lol), chargescount (as in how many charges are supposed to be given), and actions (what actions it can affect, like shieldActions for shield). Just my two cents could make themes more oriented around supporting teammates.
That could be really cool, you could base a pokemon theme around spite and pressure and moves with charges/PP
I started to code this with "expend" in the Standby actions. Also, I had a theme idea that was going to use this, but just more of silent converts and all
Roild is already doing things with PP in Clash (which is up for review) with Protect, Toxic, etc. -- I've played it quite a few times on his testing server. To see things like Ether (item), Spite, Pressure (ability), etc. be implemented with the use of convert and "spark" would be pretty powerful in the theme creation community.
:0 Clash isn't up for review. It's in theme critique. But it does use PP as charges for every action, bar the cutemons. Spite would be pretty cool though.
Thought you put it in? Didn't it have like two bolded Tests at the time? Confused, I could have sworn it was up for Review. As is the topic on a spark command, I believe there should be a count - be it negative or positive, that gives the user that amount of charges (negative drains, default would be 1).
Do you mean... Leppa... Instead of Lum? Anyway, this thing is pretty cool, but why would you need to use your command any more than 10 times? lol
Just in case there are any big games. ;) And I'm pretty sure if we were to have a spark command, there would need to be restrictions like charges on the command itself or at least a recharge, in order to prevent stuff like Ukraine/Russia did (WW3 anyone? I think I had this up). Just in case someone wants to know what I'm referring to, Ukraine made Russia more powerful every turn.
Er, yeah. Lol. Gotta admit Grudge would be kinda cool for any theme, when someone kills you you TAKE AWAY THEIR KILL
Can be done with a kill and copy, to a degree, just put that role in canCopy (or whatever it's called). I also suggest a convertIfPlayersAlive action, whereas you can define how many players are alive in order to convert. Code (text): "actions": { "onDeadRoles": { "convertifPlayersAlive": 7, { "role1", "role2" }, "convertmsg": "The Werewolf gets lonely with only ~PlayersCount~ people left, so he joined the Good Players to keep them company!" } } ~PlayersCount~ could also be added to display how many people are alive at the moment.
Wouldn't that just convert night 1 because there are more than 7 players alive? What about if there are 8 people, then 2 die? It completely skips over 7. This wouldn't be plausible without some additional work on the back end. EDIT: Nevermind, I think I misunderstood. You mean if there are less than 7 players alive it converts? If so, that should be plausible and probably rather easy to add.
It should resolve at the end of the night like convertIfDeadRoles just in case something...weird...could happen, especially with testing scripts that add players. bleh, I'm not an expert at scopes
just a stupid suggestion with which i cant find any cons how about a command /slay if someone wants a slay. then someone who is waiting for joining the game can type /join or something and he will switch the one who wants the slay. it can say something like "player x switched the roles with player y". dont know if possible to code or its a part of the server scripts
Any way to make Teamtalk a different color or even bolded or something? Making it stick out would be helpful, not to mention it would be easier to distinguish from the faking of it like "[Team] blah".
I submitted the code to prevent people from faking Team Talk messages. Changing the formatting, although not hard to code, would require HTML messages, which always annoys me when coding :x
Thinking of making a theme on a whim again. Is packaged spawn a thing yet? As in, sets of random spawn roles rather than just individual random spawn, as a way to give scum clear fakeclaims in hidden current roles lists?
I was thinking of the above too. Because currently you can only have A or B C or D If you wanted A and C together or B and D together, that would be impossible, so I suggest this is implemented.
How about having multiple sets of roles lists? For example, Code (text): "setA": { "roles1": [ "blah blah", "blah", {"blahpoop": 0.1, "blahpee": 0.1}, "blah", "bloop" ], "roles2": [ "etc etc etc" ] }, "setB": { "roles1": [ "blah2", "blah2", "bloop2", {"etc": 0.1, "etcetc": 0.2} ] }
Where would you set the chances for setA or setB? Also, having the Spawn Lists being random is totally going to make the "Players: 5-12 players" part of /roles a pain to adjust/understand :x
I just assumed it'd all be random. There'd have to be another thing for that Code (text): "randomSpawn": { "setA(or any name for this?)": 0.1, "setB": 0.1, "setC": 0.3 } so 20% setA, 20% setB, 60% setC. Not sure if the name of the sets should be changed. Prob no reason for that and "setX" works for up to 26 sets. Or switch to numbers set1, set2, set3, for an unlimited amount. As for the Players thing, :(. Wish I could help.
Roild's suggestion is something like this: Code (text): "randomSpawn": { "set1": 0.5, "set2": 0.2, "set3": 0.3 }, "set1": { "roles1": [ "insertSpawnHere" ], "roles2": [ "insertSpawnHere" ] }, "set2": { "roles1": [ "insertSpawnHere" ], "roles2": [ "insertSpawnHere" ] }, "set3": { "roles1": [ "insertSpawnHere" ], "roles2": [ "insertSpawnHere" ] } This format still have some problem though. Other than the "±Players: 5-15 Players" line that is automatically generated requiring a revamp to support Random Spawn Lists, there are the compatibility with the simple spawn list (what if a theme puts both?) and with the maximum number of players (what if set 1 allows for a different amount of players than set 2?). Of course, they are not impossible to solve, but with so many issues around, I'd rather use a different format that doesn't require multiples sets of spawn lists.
Now that there's a rule against team talk faking I don't think the differentiation is needed. Or maybe it's needed even more.
So not full sets then? Then how about something like this for Fruit: Code (text): "role1":[ { "split":{ "set1":{ "apple":0.4, "banana":0.2, "grape":0.4 }, "set2":"banana" } }, "banana", { "split":{ "set1":{ "fish1":0.1, "fish2":0.2 }, "set2":"chicken" } }, { "split":{ "set1":"mango", "set2":"pineapple" } }, { "split":{ "set1":"rtomato", "set2":"rpotato" } }, "banana", "grape" ], "randomSpawn": { "set1": 0.5, "set2": 0.2 }, Allows for a variable per set and also for a direct choice. This one also allows for one role in both sets. If it'd be easier, every role could require a split. Just another example of something. :0
I think we need a cooldown on /votetheme. Currently, there's no limit on how long you can start a vote for a theme with this method (without directly starting it), but you have a 5-game cooldown on automatically starting a theme with /starttheme. Certain users are doing and the userbase is getting really annoyed about this. I also suggest that you can't vote a theme that you currently voted for. If you don't get what I'm trying to say, let me put a log from earlier: (14:24:00) *************************************************************************************** (14:24:00) ±Game: Redacted username started a voting for next game's theme! You have 20 seconds to vote with /vote or /votetheme! (14:24:00) ±Game: Choose from these themes: Default, Zelda, Creatures, Rotom, ss, Lyncher ! (14:24:00) *************************************************************************************** (14:24:00) ±Game: Redacted username voted for Zelda! (14:24:00) ±Game: Redacted username changed their vote to Zelda! (14:24:00) ±Game: A game is going on. Wait until it's finished before trying to start another one (14:24:00) ±Game: You can join the current game by typing /join ! (14:24:01) ±Game: Redacted username changed their vote to Zelda! (14:24:04) Kagari: Redacted username -_- (14:24:04) Arid Dream: WHY (14:24:04) ±Game: Ghastly voted for Rotom! (14:24:09) Matt Ayala: Redacted username, can you please stop spamming your vote? (14:24:09) Ghastly: dont vote for what he wants (14:24:09) Arid Dream: STOP (14:24:09) ±Game: Kagari voted for Zelda! (14:24:10) Ghastly: please (14:24:12) ±Game: Matt Ayala voted for Zelda! (14:24:16) Ghastly: .-. (14:24:19) ±Game: Captain Zelgius voted for Zelda! (14:24:20) ±Game: Theme Zelda won with 4 votes! (14:24:20) ±Game: Type /Join to enter the game! With the change, you are no longer allowed to vote a theme you have currently voted. Afaik, there is no variable that defines which theme you've voted for (call it votedTheme perhaps?), but that doesn't stop my suggestion. The script basically prevents you from voting a theme that the variable votedTheme is defined as, so for example the redacted user is not allowed to vote Zelda unless he switches his vote to ss, or any other theme. Also, excuse my minimodding from the log, but it clutters the chat and is extremely annoying...
The same person was starting the vote over and over again, and he kept on spamming his vote [he c/ped /votetheme zelda until it wouldn't let him and it flooded the chat up to an extent, he kept on ninja'ing everyone, then some mafia players flipped out etc etc]. Obviously we don't want the same people starting a vote all over again, especially when theme creators have to start their own themes and test them.
The voting theme is not a problem the spamming thing should be brought to the attention of an MA when it happens and it will be handled there.
The ability to vote multiple times for that one theme is due to the ability to vote for another theme in the voting theme process, if you wish. You could restrict it to where you can only vote for that theme once, unless you vote another theme, however it wouldn't really be a high priority since, as Beast said, MAs can deal with it.