I_C_T vs I_C_T2 revisited.

[cmorgan]

But if we were to recode to I_T_C4,
the code

I_C_T4 ~%tutu_var%DYNAHE~ 10 X#AjantisDynaheir
== ~%AJANTIS_JOINED%~  IF ~InParty("ajantis") InMyArea("ajantis") !StateCheck("ajantis",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~
THEN @21 DO ~LeaveParty() SetLeavePartyDialogFile() ChangeAIScript("",DEFAULT) Enemy() SetGlobal("X#AjantisRomanceActive","GLOBAL",3)~
== ~%KIVAN_JOINED%~ IF ~InParty("kivan") InMyArea("kivan") !StateCheck("kivan",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~
THEN @33
DO ~ActionOverride("kivan",LeaveParty()) ActionOverride("kivan",Enemy())~
END

would NOT work, as 1. actions are left with the original speaker, but 2. the interjections themselves introduce new transitional actions

so the code would be

Code: [Select]

/* Dynaheir hostile leave if attacked */
I_C_T4 ~%tutu_var%DYNAHE~ 10 X#AjantisDynaheir

== ~%AJANTIS_JOINED%~ IF ~valid~ THEN @21 DO ~
ActionOverride("ajantis",LeaveParty())
ActionOverride("ajantis",SetLeavePartyDialogFile())
 ActionOverride("ajantis",ChangeAIScript("",DEFAULT))
ActionOverride("ajantis",Enemy())
SetGlobal("X#AjantisRomanceActive","GLOBAL",3)~

== ~%KIVAN_JOINED%~ IF ~valid~ THEN @33 DO ~
ActionOverride("kivan",LeaveParty())
ActionOverride("kivan",SetLeavePartyDialogFile())
ActionOverride("kivan",ChangeAIScript("",DEFAULT))
ActionOverride("kivan",Enemy())~
END

as long as all actions added in the interjection that are speaker-specific are turned into ActionOverrides (thus being kicked out of the regular processing order and assigned to their actor directly).

Or would this be a simple I_C_T? The original state has only one potential transition. We are adding transitional actions in the first case which need to carry to specific actors. In the second case, we are taking that out of play by use of ActionOverride. By my figuring, that means that simple  I_C_T1 could be used, as no actor-specific actions are added.

[the bigg]

I am at the point of not understanding what you're trying to ask. The safe-safe answer looks to be using I_C_T3 with callbacks and no ActionOverride().

I_C_T2/4 leave the action from the transitions in the state you're interjecting in with the original speaker, in-interjection actions are left where they are.

In that case, I_C_T1/3 (without callback) are a no-no, because the original dialogue has a talker-specific line.
Also, I_C_T1/2 are no because otherwise Kivan won't talk if Ajantis wasn't in the party.

[cmorgan]

I_C_T2/4  in-interjection actions are left where they are.
 That was the last key - I think I understand now!

[jastey]

Wait a minute . what is I_C_T3 and I_C_T4?

Did I understand it right that 3 "works" like 1 in the meaning of where the actions are put; and 4 like 2, but with I_C_T4, something like this

I_C_T4 ~%tutu_var%DYNAHE~ 10 X#AjantisDynaheir
== ~%AJANTIS_JOINED%~  IF ~InParty("ajantis") InMyArea("ajantis") !StateCheck("ajantis",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~
THEN @21 DO ~LeaveParty() SetLeavePartyDialogFile() ChangeAIScript("",DEFAULT) Enemy() SetGlobal("X#AjantisRomanceActive","GLOBAL",3)~
== ~%KIVAN_JOINED%~ IF ~InParty("kivan") InMyArea("kivan") !StateCheck("kivan",CD_STATE_NOTVALID)~
THEN @33
DO ~ActionOverride("kivan",LeaveParty()) ActionOverride("kivan",Enemy())~
END

would actually work, in the sense that (all NPC could talk even if the ones in front) Kivan could speak his line even if Ajantis isn't interjecting?

[the bigg]

Jas: yeah, exactly.

[jastey]

Cool.