7 replies to this topic

[temnix]

Is it the same as AttackReevaluate(Object,90)?

[The Imp]

Principally yes. ... well of course it depends on the exact use.
As in, if that's the only thing in the both scripts, then yeah.

[temnix]

Thanks.

[Miloch]

Principally yes. ... well of course it depends on the exact use.
As in, if that's the only thing in the both scripts, then yeah.

Sorry, bud. These two commands do two totally different things in the engine. I don't like it, but I've been in the trenches, and it hasn't been pleasant either way.

 

Your best bet is to use simply Attack() with a timer, rather than the alternatives.

[temnix]

What's the difference?

[Miloch]

In short, the actions are quirky. In terms of quirkiness, the list goes (from highest to lowest):

 

AttackReevaluate()

AttackOneRound()

Attack()

 

If you're a history buff, feel free to peruse the following:

 

http://gibberlings3....showtopic=24523
"However, the two common methods used for attacking ( AttackOneRound() and AttackReevaluate() ) are both known to have issues from posts gathered here and elsewhere. It's frustrating to watch a user script sit there, attack foes, but not actually get an attack role for some percentage of the time."

http://gibberlings3....showtopic=17655
"I see the IESDP documents AttackReevaluate() as only evaluating triggers again once the timing has expired, which is perhaps a good hint as to how it works..."

http://gibberlings3....pic=8886&page=6
"[As for quirky IE actions,] it may be a showdown between Continue() and AttackReevaluate() (the more I play around with Continue(), the more dangerous it turns out to be)."

[temnix]

Well, both are obviously an alternative to Attack() when that doesn't suit the need because it never ends, so the quirkiness is neither here nor there. If that's all there is...

[Miloch]

it never ends

Attack() ends if you put it on a timer. This has been the best alternative to the other two actions in my testing.