I assumed I could increment stored values (or use signals) to use a single servant trigger to perform different actions on an incremental basis.
eg:
Trigger servant 1st time: back £10, with condition of stored value not set, storing value of 1
Trigger servant 2nd time: back £20, with condition of stored value = 1, updating stored value to 2
Trigger servant 3rd time: back £30, with condition of stored value =2, updating stored value to 3
Tried this with both stored values and signals but it persists to trigger all three actions with just the 1st trigger.
Have I got something wrong with the set-up or is what I propose not possible? Or is there a better way to do it?
How to create a single servant that triggers incrementally changing actions?
- ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
I see what's happening, you set SV to 1 then the next line acts if it's 1. That sets it to 2 and so on.
Maybe you could reverse the sequence of the rules so it checks the £30 rule first, then the £20 rule, then the £10 rule?
If you're incrementing check for the biggest value first.
Maybe you could reverse the sequence of the rules so it checks the £30 rule first, then the £20 rule, then the £10 rule?
If you're incrementing check for the biggest value first.
It would need to be done with stored values (shared)jamesedwards wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 4:57 pmI assumed I could increment stored values (or use signals) to use a single servant trigger to perform different actions on an incremental basis.
eg:
Trigger servant 1st time: back £10, with condition of stored value not set, storing value of 1
Trigger servant 2nd time: back £20, with condition of stored value = 1, updating stored value to 2
Trigger servant 3rd time: back £30, with condition of stored value =2, updating stored value to 3
Tried this with both stored values and signals but it persists to trigger all three actions with just the 1st trigger.
Have I got something wrong with the set-up or is what I propose not possible? Or is there a better way to do it?
Signals can only be referenced by the rules file that sets them, even if the same file is re-used it won't see the earlier signals, only the ones it sets this time
Just so I understand exactly what it is you need, once you've started the servant its to place a £10 back bet, then you want to start the same servant a second time and its to place a £20 back bet and the same for a 3rd?
If so when would you be starting it a second and third time?
ie, will the previous bet always have been matched, part matched, never matched, sometimes matched?
- jamesedwards
- Posts: 2422
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 pm
Thanks Dallas.Dallas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 10:31 pmIt would need to be done with stored values (shared)jamesedwards wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 4:57 pmI assumed I could increment stored values (or use signals) to use a single servant trigger to perform different actions on an incremental basis.
eg:
Trigger servant 1st time: back £10, with condition of stored value not set, storing value of 1
Trigger servant 2nd time: back £20, with condition of stored value = 1, updating stored value to 2
Trigger servant 3rd time: back £30, with condition of stored value =2, updating stored value to 3
Tried this with both stored values and signals but it persists to trigger all three actions with just the 1st trigger.
Have I got something wrong with the set-up or is what I propose not possible? Or is there a better way to do it?
Signals can only be referenced by the rules file that sets them, even if the same file is re-used it won't see the earlier signals, only the ones it sets this time
Just so I understand exactly what it is you need, once you've started the servant its to place a £10 back bet, then you want to start the same servant a second time and its to place a £20 back bet and the same for a 3rd?
If so when would you be starting it a second and third time?
ie, will the previous bet always have been matched, part matched, never matched, sometimes matched?
The 2nd and 3rd time could be anything from immediately afterwards to never at all. The previous bet would be sometimes matched but not always.
How do I stop the attached from placing all three bets on just the 1st press please?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
You'd need to build something into the conditions that identifies when you'll have pressed it a second and third time, the most obvious is if you were waiting for each to be matched, you could then use either a number of matched bets and/or matched bets amounts conditions to control which triggersjamesedwards wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 12:31 amThanks Dallas.Dallas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 10:31 pmIt would need to be done with stored values (shared)jamesedwards wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 4:57 pmI assumed I could increment stored values (or use signals) to use a single servant trigger to perform different actions on an incremental basis.
eg:
Trigger servant 1st time: back £10, with condition of stored value not set, storing value of 1
Trigger servant 2nd time: back £20, with condition of stored value = 1, updating stored value to 2
Trigger servant 3rd time: back £30, with condition of stored value =2, updating stored value to 3
Tried this with both stored values and signals but it persists to trigger all three actions with just the 1st trigger.
Have I got something wrong with the set-up or is what I propose not possible? Or is there a better way to do it?
Signals can only be referenced by the rules file that sets them, even if the same file is re-used it won't see the earlier signals, only the ones it sets this time
Just so I understand exactly what it is you need, once you've started the servant its to place a £10 back bet, then you want to start the same servant a second time and its to place a £20 back bet and the same for a 3rd?
If so when would you be starting it a second and third time?
ie, will the previous bet always have been matched, part matched, never matched, sometimes matched?
The 2nd and 3rd time could be anything from immediately afterwards to never at all. The previous bet would be sometimes matched but not always.
How do I stop the attached from placing all three bets on just the 1st press please?
incremental servant test.baf
But without some condition/s it would have no way of knowing which of the the rules to fire and which to ignore
There is a template I've posted that would increment the value of SV's for you but that on its own wouldn't work without the above either, without any conditions the SV's would just increment 1,2,3 as soon as you started it
An easier option would of course be to have 3 separate servants ie, assigned to keys 1, 2 and 3 for your £10, £20 and £30 bets
Just to add to what Dallas has said . If you use the rule (stop servant) at the end of the file. The servant will stop after 1 loop.
Start servant > Increment > bet > stop servant > (repeat till happy)
You would not really need any conditions on your bets other than SV = xx
I have modded a similar file, have a look it’s pretty much what you asking for
Click 1 back at 1000 for £1
Click 2 back at 950 for £1
Click 3 (CLEAR/ RESET)
Click 4 (See click 1)
Start servant > Increment > bet > stop servant > (repeat till happy)
You would not really need any conditions on your bets other than SV = xx
I have modded a similar file, have a look it’s pretty much what you asking for
Click 1 back at 1000 for £1
Click 2 back at 950 for £1
Click 3 (CLEAR/ RESET)
Click 4 (See click 1)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
- jamesedwards
- Posts: 2422
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:16 pm
Thank you both. This works!!!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Sorry I need to correct my previous post. I actually need the servant to reset within 5 seconds of press 1. So I have tried adding a rule to clear stored values with a stored value change condition, changed 3-5 seconds. See attached. I've tried with each stored value, press and test, it just doesn't want to trigger.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.