The Battle for Wesnoth Forums

...So instead of writing this:


return_loc_uv[1], return_loc_uv[2] = guardian_uv.variables.return_guardian.return_x, guardian_uv.variables.return_guardian.return_y


You could write this:


return_loc_uv = { guardian_uv.variables.return_guardian.return_x, guardian_uv.variables.return_guardian ...

Well, got it working much quicker (and more easily) than expected. ^_^

Not exhaustively tested but seems to work as expected plus no errors. :shock:

Only niggle was lua didn't like testing for the nonexistence of a variable inside a nonexistent container (fair enough I suppose) so I just tested ...

...I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind... I would probably recommend just creating a new function...


Heh, at first glance your structure does pretty much what I was trying to express - and in a more elegant way.
To me, it does the same basic thing: assign the unit's return values to ...

Hi,
making progress but have a couple of queries.

None of this has been tested yet , responses to this post will determine if I test current code or mess things up even further simplify (if sensible) first

First I created a new mai return_guardian_uv ( _uv for unit variables ).
-- mai_return ...

Custom unit variables should be in guardian.variables :

https://wiki.wesnoth.org/LuaAPI/types/unit#Unit_sub-tables

Forgot the "variables" bit. :doh:



...If you're using x and y values and you just want to check that they are valid, you could use wesnoth.current.map:on_board(x, y) .

https ...

Having done a tiny bit of digging myself I'd come to a very similar conclusion; basically extend the existing logic by having the return guardian micro ai work as it does now plus enabling unit specific return x,y values that override the "global" values return_x,return_y / return_loc .

So in both ...

You'll probably need to create your own AI eventually anyway then?...

Thanks for the info, I have several options and am presently scoping out the complexity of each.
Ideally I would - at present anyway - prefer to have a custom/micro ai solution as I feel this would maximise gameplay interest ...

Thanks again for the advice, much appreciated.

I think I'll look into multiple mais first as this seems the saner approach.

Cheers!

to specify different return_x,return_y for each unit?

Yes, this is possible.

Great - just to be crystal clear the only code I need to change is the stuff I posted and nowhere else (i.e. there are no dependencies)?



(other than defining multiple micro_ais) of doing this?

This is the way ...

Hi,

Is there a way to customise the return guardian micro ai to specify different return_x , return_y for each unit?
And, maybe, tweak the behaviour (not sure until I playtest which is a long way off :( ).

Here, I presume, is the relevant code:
function wesnoth.micro_ais.return_guardian(cfg ...

...If you want to provide feedback ... developers seem to mostly use Discord these days and rarely (or never) use this forum.

Mmm, I've noticed a few "regulars" seem to have stopped posting. Maybe they're now only active on discord ... or they've moved on.
Oh well, I'll give discord a try ...

Thanks for taking the trouble to compose and post these logs, much appreciated.
Sadly didn't have time to read in detail all your posts (might get chance during coming week). :fingers_crossed:
However I understand, to some extent, the pressures that underpinned the discussion and decision, but ...

...No, they actually changed it...

...If you delete your preferences file, then restart Wesnoth, you will see that the "Default RNG" is no longer the default RNG ... let me rephrase that ... the "Reduced RNG" is the default RNG, not the "Default RNG" ... let me try one more time ... the initially ...

squash

It appears that "Default RNG" is no longer, in fact, the default. :doh:

:D
Also seems that for SP you pick the RNG you want at the start of the campaign then that's it; there doesn't seem to be a way to change it.
Neither does the game report what RNG is active - but I didn't dig into ...