Skip to content

Anybody else uses end of round auto-pause?

135

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited November 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
    Post edited by [Deleted User] on
    Alonsojackjack
  • AlonsoAlonso Member Posts: 806

    So...I'm not sure what your question is, then. If you understand how it works now, and understand that it's screwed up...what else do you need to know?

    This thread has helped me (and I hope also others) in a number of ways:
    1. It has helped me to understand better how the round system works.
    2. It has shed some light on how others approach the autopause system.
    3. It has allowed me to realize that (unfortunately) nobody else seems to be interested in my approach.
    4. With the last few posts I've learned that the feature I'm looking for is feasible, but it's not in the game (and probably it isn't in any mod either).
    So that's it, the discussion is essentially finished for me now. I think I've learned all I wanted to learn from this thread.

    I'd like to have the end of round autopause properly implemented in the game, but nobody else seems to be interested. It wouldn't be fair to request a feature that nobody else cares about, so I'll just drop it.

    As a simpler alternative, I'd say it makes sense to create a bug report that requests giving a more realistic name to the end of round autopause, something like "Action completed" autopause. If someone else agrees, I'll just do that. Otherwise I'll drop that as well.
    mf2112mashedtatersjackjack
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    @Alonso Just report all your problems and let Beamdog decide what they want to do with the info.
    mashedtatersjackjack
  • gunmangunman Member Posts: 215
    edited June 2016
    This is not a turn based game, therefor real end of round auto-pause as Alonso wants cannot be implemented.

    As was explained, the rounds in BG are used to define how long or how often actions take place (casting a spell, attacking with weapons, using an item), they are not used to determine the order the characters act.

    If you have AI turned off and you have a character do nothing in a battle, then end of round auto-pause will never trigger for him, because they need to spend a round doing something first.

    The option name may be misleading, instead of pause on end of round, it perhaps should be named: pause on round spent or action completed.

    AFAIK, under normal circumstances, a characters can spend a round by doing the following:
    - cast a spell (1 per round, with the exception of alacrity)
    - use an item (1 per round)
    - attack (up to several times per round)
    So once a character has started doing one of the above things, the engine registers it as start of a round and will notify the user when he can start the next action of the same type with the end of round autopause.

    I personally don't use this option, so I don't know what happens if you mix multiple actions (attack, use item and cast spell in the same timeframe of a round), does it autopause after the end of round started with the first action, or started with the last action of a different type? I assume it's the latter.
    mashedtatersgorgonzola
  • SmilingSwordSmilingSword Member Posts: 827
    I don't use any of the auto pauses, tried them all and they just don't gel with my playstyle.
  • gunmangunman Member Posts: 215

    I think what Alons wants is this:

    When you cast a spell with a casting time of 5, it takes 3 seconds to cast the spell, and then there is a 3-second delay before you can cast the next one. With the current "end-of-round" auto-pause, the games pauses immediately after the spell is cast. Which means after you give new orders and hit unpause, the spellcaster stands around for 3 seconds before completing the orders.

    What Alondo wants is for the pause to kick in *after* those three seconds have passed, at the moment the spellcaster is ready to cast again. That way your orders will be executed immediately.

    That seems reasonable to me. I say, register on Redmine and make a feature request. It's not selfish, it's just feedback. It may be ignored, but it's better for the devs to hear your voice than to not.

    I see now, but I don't think it would work, because different types of actions resets the start of the round. There is not a timeline for each character consisting of consecutive segments of 6 seconds, as in rounds being clearly divided in succession.

    Otherwise, in a real turn based system, you could not start casting anytime inside the round, because any action would have to fit inside the round. In BG real time system you could start casting at any moment (given at least a round has passed since the previous spell)
    semiticgoddess
  • AlonsoAlonso Member Posts: 806

    I think what Alons wants is this:

    When you cast a spell with a casting time of 5, it takes 3 seconds to cast the spell, and then there is a 3-second delay before you can cast the next one. With the current "end-of-round" auto-pause, the games pauses immediately after the spell is cast. Which means after you give new orders and hit unpause, the spellcaster stands around for 3 seconds before completing the orders.

    What Alondo wants is for the pause to kick in *after* those three seconds have passed, at the moment the spellcaster is ready to cast again. That way your orders will be executed immediately.

    That seems reasonable to me. I say, register on Redmine and make a feature request. It's not selfish, it's just feedback. It may be ignored, but it's better for the devs to hear your voice than to not.

    Yep, that's what I mean. However, I don't get the "register on Redmine AND make a feature request". I'd say it's either one or the other, right? AFAIK, you only use redmine to report bugs, not to request features. Which brings the question: Is this a bug or a new feature request? I guess it depends on what the original intent was.
    mashedtaters
  • KampfKaninchenKampfKaninchen Member Posts: 139
    You can post bugreports and feature requests.
    There is a dropdown menu somewhere, to select what it is.
    jackjackmf2112JuliusBorisovAlonso
  • FinnTheHumanFinnTheHuman Member Posts: 404
    Please do submit the request @alonso, I'd like it too.

    I think what we really want is something like an "aura clear" autopause, which pauses when a character regains the ability to cast another spell, drink another potion, use an item, etc.

    There has to be some thought put into this as whether or not to combine this with the round end autopause or to make it an additional option and how exactly they will interact with the other pauses. For instance, under improved aclarity, the "spell cast" and "aura cleared" should only trigger one pause if they are both enabled.
    FinneousPJjackjacksemiticgoddessAlonso
  • FinnTheHumanFinnTheHuman Member Posts: 404
    Oh, and on a related topic, I'd like the spell cast autopause to also cover wands and items.
    Alonso
  • AlonsoAlonso Member Posts: 806
    edited June 2016
    OK, so this would be the feature request. Since the posts of @subtledoctor and @FinnTheHuman seem to be popular, I just copied, pasted, merged, and edited a little bit to fit the request. If you're happy with this, I'll post it as it is:

    Additional autopause features

    I'd like to have an "aura clear" autopause, which pauses when a character regains the ability to cast another spell, drink another potion, use an item, etc.

    When you cast a spell with a casting time of 5, it takes 3 seconds to cast the spell, and then there is a 3-second delay before you can cast the next one. With the current "end-of-round" auto-pause, the games pause immediately after the spell is cast. Which means after you give new orders and hit unpause, the spellcaster stands around for 3 seconds before completing the orders.

    I'd like the pause to kick in *after* those three seconds have passed, at the moment the spellcaster is ready to cast again. That way my orders will be executed immediately.

    You can find a dicussion on the topic here.

    Also, I'd like the spell cast autopause to cover wands and items.
    Post edited by Alonso on
    mashedtatersFinnTheHumansemiticgoddess
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited June 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
    jackjackmf2112FinnTheHumanJuliusBorisov
  • FinnTheHumanFinnTheHuman Member Posts: 404
    Alonso said:


    When you cast a spell with a casting time of 5, it takes 3 seconds to cast the spell, and then there is a 3-second delay before you can cast the next one. With the current "end-of-round" auto-pause, the games pause immediately after the spell is cast. Which means after you give new orders and hit unpause, the spellcaster stands around for 3 seconds before completing the orders.

    I was under the impression that, given the above, if you call for another spell immediately after casting, the character will stand around for 3 seconds until beginning to cast again. As I understand, this is because of the aura effect which prevents a character from performing more than one magical type thing every six seconds. However, given above, if you call for your fighter/mage to shoot a few arrows, for instance, she will begin immediately. This is my understanding of how the game currently works.

    What I thought we wanted was for the "spell-cast" auto-pause to trigger at the 3 second mark like it currently does. Then we may order some melee or nother non-magical action. Current behavior is to reset the "round-end" counter, scheduling an end of round in 6 more seconds, at time 9. However, the aura should be clear by time 6, and we want to be notified when it is, at time 6.

    Forgive my impudence, @subtledoctor (I cower at your BG knowledge), but I contrast my explanation to your "notes:" section, which I understand to be the current behavior.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
    mf2112YelocessejFinnTheHumanjackjack
  • AlonsoAlonso Member Posts: 806
    edited June 2016

    after a mage casts a spell with a casting time of 5, the game pauses, even though that only took 3 seconds and there are 3 second left in the round. The game should pause at the end of the full 6 seconds. If the player instructs the mage to engage in physical attacks during that time, the auto-pause should be canceled and should instead pause at the end of the "round" as is newly defined by the character's behavior.


    Sorry, got lost here again. What autopause should be canceled?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited June 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • AlonsoAlonso Member Posts: 806
    Wow, I never thought this was going to become so complicated :o!

    Reading your example helps me to see more clearly that what I'm looking for is definitely not an end of round autopause. It's what @FinnTheHuman called an "aura cleared" autopause. In your example, that means getting an "aura cleared" autopause at time=7 and no autopause at t=6 or t=8.6. However, it looks like you believe that having an autopause at t=7 would

    help you circumvent the stated rules of the game.

    Am I getting that right? If so, how would this help circumvent the rules? Is it against the rules to cast a spell less than six seconds after you started to swing your weapon?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited June 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • jackjackjackjack Member Posts: 3,251
    I love the idea of pausing at the start of the round instead of at the "end".
    mf2112[Deleted User]
  • AlonsoAlonso Member Posts: 806
    @subtledoctor: Why the rude manners and sarcastic writing? I just asked a question :/
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited June 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
    mf2112FinneousPJ
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 2,266
    @Alonso
    You could probably mod it in.
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    @mashedtaters Probably not.
    jackjack
  • AlonsoAlonso Member Posts: 806
    I don't think I understand the topic very well, but since my questions have been ridiculed to the point of suggesting laughing at me, I'm not discussing it anymore. I have created the feature request here the best I've seen fit. Hopefully it makes sense.

    I'm disappointed with subtledoctor's attitude. I expected more from him. Since I don't like being disrespected, I will not interact with him in the future.
  • joluvjoluv Member Posts: 2,137
    I really don't think people are ridiculing you here, and that includes @subtledoctor. It's unfortunate that you feel they are, because I see a lot of good-faith effort that's been put into addressing your question. It's been an interesting thread to read, and I hope you'll look back over the responses with a more optimistic mindset.
    mf2112mashedtatersjackjack
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
    mashedtatersjackjack
  • mf2112mf2112 Member, Moderator Posts: 1,919
    Alonso said:

    I don't think I understand the topic very well, but since my questions have been ridiculed to the point of suggesting laughing at me, I'm not discussing it anymore. I have created the feature request here the best I've seen fit. Hopefully it makes sense.

    I'm disappointed with subtledoctor's attitude. I expected more from him. Since I don't like being disrespected, I will not interact with him in the future.

    @alonso I have to agree completely with @joluv above and say I really don't believe subtledoctor meant any disrespect towards you. I think his last advice on how to phrase the feature request was really helpful and meant completely to help you get it entered and to have a good chance of having it addressed by the devs.
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 2,266
    I do not believe anyone here has been disrespectful at all either. If you felt any disrespect, then please reconsider. This is a good community of people who have tried their best to answer your questions of their own desires in order to help you understand, and have asked questions of you in order to help us and them understand.

    Communication via texting and typing is easily misconstrued and misinterpreted. Please do not let that fact offend you where none was intended.

    Believe me, if any of us wanted to offend you, there would be no doubt in anyone's mind. The moderators here are very good at shutting down flamers, even mild flamers, and there has been no moderation necessary in this thread (I will say that it is one reason I keep coming back, because the moderators actually do the job here).

    But if it was anything specific that I said, I freely offer you my apology without guilt and in goodwill.
Sign In or Register to comment.