It’s been brought to my attention multiple times across the past few months that there’s been bugs with STB and forced actions. This has been finally fixed as of today’s update. Or rather, it’s been fixed for about a week ago, but has been in testing throughout the week before I decided to make it official. This is mostly thanks to Olivia asking me various questions in the making of her OTB battle system, which made me go back to reference STB on where to go for her as the two systems are very similar. Not only are forced actions fixed but so are instant casts for enemies, too. This, too, is also thanks to my interactions with Olivia once again.
在过去的几个月中，我多次引起了我的注意，STB和强制行动都存在漏洞。这已经在今天的更新中得到了解决。或者更确切地说，它已经修复了大约一个星期，但是在我决定将其正式化之前的整个星期都进行了测试。这主要归功于奥利维亚在制作她的OTB战斗系统时向我提出了各种问题，这让我回到参考STB的地方，因为这两个系统非常相似。强制行动不仅是固定的，而且也是针对敌人的即时施法。这也是由于我再次与奥利维亚的互动。
You can get the updated and fixed version of the STB plugin here.
您可以在此处获取STB插件的更新和固定版本。
That said, I can imagine many of you have questions in regards to this update. Three of which, I can picture already so I’ll go ahead and answer them.
我可以想象你们中的许多人对这次更新有疑问。其中三个，我已经可以想象了，所以我先来回答它们。
1. Does this mean you will continue to support STB once again?
这是否意味着你将再次继续支持STB？
I won’t say it will leave the discontinued status, but rather, it will be subject to bug fixes when the opportunity arises. After all, the three points made in this post remain true even in the current situation. The recent update to STB is what I consider to be an exception to the rule, if only to tie up loose ends.
我会在适当的时机修复错误。毕竟，即使在目前的情况下，这篇文章中提出的三点仍然是正确的。最近对STB的更新是我认为是例外的约束。
2. Will you add in Action Times+ to STB?
2.你会在STB中加入Action Times +吗？
Short answer: no. Long answer: It’s not something that fits in the scheme of STB due to the constant reliance and cyclical calculation of the AGI stat to determine the turn order (as that is an integral part of what makes STB work). The other reason is that the update to STB is mostly to tie up loose ends, as answered by the previous question, not an update to continue support and eventually add more features to it. However, if Action Times+ is a big part of your battle system and you would like for it to play a big role, STB would need to drop off the AGI stat’s influence on the turn order for it to be possible. When this happens, it actually becomes Olivia’s OTB battle system. I recommend you give that a try.
简答：不。
详情：由于AGI统计数据的不断依赖和周期性计算以确定行动顺序（因为这是STB工作的一个组成部分），因此不适合STB方案。另一个原因是STB的更新主要是为了处理细节，正如上一个问题所回答的那样，而不是更新以继续支持并最终为其添加更多功能。但是，如果Action Times +是你的战斗系统的重要组成部分，并且你希望它能发挥重要作用，那么STB需要放弃AGI stat对行动命令的影响才能实现。当这种情况发生时，它实际上变成了奥利维亚的OTB战斗系统。我建议你尝试一下。
3. What is the difference between CTB, STB, and OTB?
CTB，STB和OTB有什么区别？
This is a question I’ve seen asked often. And as it’s asked often, it’s better that it gets answered properly, as it is the responsibility of the game’s developer to understand each of the facets that govern his/her game’s mechanics.
这是我经常看到的问题。
CTB: Charge Turn Battle is a tick-based battle system. This means there are no such thing as a “battle turn” count. While “battle turns” are added in artificially through the plugin to just tie in the works of the Troop Event Condition, “battle turns” do not fundamentally play a role in determining the turn order of everything. In place of turn counts, “ticks” are used instead where a tick is a singular calculation that determines the proper positioning and relativity of each unit to each other in the grand scheme of calculating the turn order to determine which unit will have an action earlier or later. These “ticks” can be thought of as a clock ticking in seconds, only that the time in between battlers is removed and the time during a battler’s input is frozen. The said ticks will govern state “turns”, too, as they are automatically converted into ticks. In CTB, AGI is the king, the single most important stat in the whole game. A unit with a high enough AGI can potentially have multiple action turns before a unit with far lower AGI and will outlap the slower unit even after. With this in mind, CTB is the hardest to balance AGI out of the three mentioned battle systems thanks to “haste” and “slow” states being able to completely throw the battle system’s balance out the window.
CTB： CTB是一个基于刻度的战斗系统。这意味着没有“战斗转向”计数这样的事情。虽然通过插件人为地添加“战斗行动条”以仅仅配合事件条件，但“战斗行动条”并不能从根本上在确定一切的行动顺序中发挥作用。代替行动计数，使用“刻度”代替，其中刻度是一种单一计算，在计算行动顺序的宏观方案中确定每个单元彼此的正确定位和相对性，以确定哪个单位将更早地采取行动或以后。这些“滴答声”可以被认为是以秒为单位的时钟滴答，只是战斗员之间的时间被移除并且战斗员输入期间的时间被冻结。所述刻度也将控制状态“行动”，因为它们会自动转换为刻度线。在CTB，AGI是国王，是整场比赛中最重要的统计数据。具有足够高的AGI的单元可能在具有低得多的AGI的单元之前具有多个动作转弯，并且即使在之后也将比较慢的单元。考虑到这一点，CTB是最难平衡AGI的三个提到的战斗系统，因为“急速”和“慢”状态能够完全抛弃战斗系统的平衡。
STB: Part of the reason why CTB is so hard to balance properly is due to the fact that the editor is built completely around turn-based combat. STB makes a return to that from the tick-based STB back to turn-based. STB will also attempt to artificially balance the AGI stat by utilizing the rule of the “battle turn” imposed on by the battle system: Each unit is only allowed one turn by default regardless of their AGI value. Units with higher AGI values go earlier while units with lower AGI values go later. Because of this rule, AGI still has an immensely strong grasp on the battle system but not as strong as CTB did. AGI is constantly being calculated after each action to restructure the turn order in order to keep the balance and flow of the battle system. Exceptions can exist to this rule like Instant Casts, but Action Times+ aren’t as they are fundamentally different. In STB, those who stack AGI either before or during battle will often come out on top provided everything else is balanced. Maintaining “haste” on the player party and “slow” on the enemy troop is the key and core way of winning in nearly any game that uses STB and gives access to those play states/buffs.
STB：CTB难以正确平衡的部分原因是由于编辑器完全围绕回合制战斗而构建。STB从基于节拍的STB返回到回合制。STB还将尝试通过利用战斗系统施加的“战斗转弯”规则来人为地平衡AGI属性：每个单位默认只允许一转，无论其AGI值如何。具有较高AGI值的单位较早，而具有较低AGI值的单位较晚。由于这个规则，AGI仍然对战斗系统有着非常强烈的把握，但没有CTB那么强大没有。为了保持战斗系统的平衡和流动，每次动作后不断计算AGI以重组转弯顺序。此规则可能存在例外情况，例如Instant Casts，但Action Times +并不是因为它们根本不同。在STB，那些在战斗之前或战斗期间堆叠AGI的人通常会在其他一切都是平衡的情况下排在最前面。在玩家聚会上保持“急速”并且对敌人部队“缓慢”是在几乎任何使用STB并允许访问那些游戏状态/增益的游戏中获胜的关键和核心方式。
OTB: Like STB, OTB is turn-based instead of being tick-based. However, it does a couple of interesting things.
OTB：与STB一样，OTB是基于回合制的，而不是基于刻度的。但是，它做了几件有趣的事情。
- First, it maintains a mild dependence on AGI. Each unit’s AGI is only used for the calculation of the initial turn order when it’s being made and nothing else. Any changes to a unit’s AGI once the turn has started will not influence that unit’s position in the turn order, unlike STB. At least, not until the next time AGI is used for calculating the unit’s position in the turn order.
- 首先，它保持对AGI的轻微依赖。每个单位的AGI仅用于计算初始转弯顺序，而不是其他任何内容。与STB不同，转弯开始后对单位AGI的任何更改都不会影响该单位在转弯顺序中的位置。至少，直到下一次AGI用于计算转弯顺序中的单位位置。
- The second thing of interest, however, is that instead of using one turn order to calculate the order of the units, it actually uses two: the current turn and the next turn. This means when turns are calculated, it actually does it for the next turn whenever a battle turn rolls over. This means the new “current turn” was the previous “next turn”. What makes this interesting is that this means that AGI changes not only do not affect the current turn nor the next turn, but instead, are effective only after the turn following the next turn. This makes changing AGI during battle seem nearly delayed, yet, that doesn’t actually happen… But why is that?
然而，第二个有趣的事情是，它不是使用一个转弯顺序来计算单位的顺序，而是实际使用两个：当前转弯和下一转弯。这意味着当计算转弯时，只要战斗转弯翻转，它实际上就会在下一回合进行转弯。这意味着新的“当前转弯”是之前的“下一轮”。这有趣的是，这意味着AGI的变化不仅不会影响当前转弯，也不会影响下一轮，而是仅在下一轮转弯后才有效。这使得在战斗期间改变AGI似乎几乎延迟了，但实际上并没有发生......但为什么会这样呢？
- That brings us to the third thing of interest: because OTB has a mild hold on AGI and thrives on utilizing two turn orders, it becomes the ideal candidate for a mechanic called Turn Order Manipulation. Having two turn orders (and visible) allows for the player to manipulate it calculatingly. And because AGI only affects the initial calculation of the order in the turns, the player does not have to worry about a sudden reversal due to a change in a unit’s AGI. Changes to the turn order through manipulation are there to stay unless further manipulated by other similar effects or when a new turn is to occur. This makes the manipulation only temporary and not lingering but still remains impactful.
这让我们感兴趣的第三件事：因为OTB对AGI有轻微的控制并且在使用两个转弯指令时茁壮成长，它成为了一个叫做Turn Order Manipulation的机械师的理想候选者。有两个转弯命令（并且可见）允许玩家以计算方式操纵它。并且因为AGI仅影响转弯中顺序的初始计算，所以玩家不必担心由于单位AGI的变化而突然逆转。除非通过其他类似效果进一步操纵或发生新转弯，否则通过操纵对转弯顺序的更改将保持不变。这使得操纵只是暂时的而不是挥之不去但仍然具有影响力。
So what does this say about OTB? Its mild AGI dependency, flexible turn order mechanics, and all around openness to turn order changes means that it’s actually NOT a battle system where the only way to combat AGI is to get better AGI (which is seen in the case of CTB and STB). And because of the all around openness in the battle system, things like Action Times+ can be utilized and included into it and flow just fine. So what anyone can conclude is that out of the three battle systems we’ve compared, OTB is the most AGI-balanced and flexible.
那么这对OTB有什么看法呢？它温和的AGI依赖性，灵活的转弯顺序机制以及全面开放以改变秩序变化意味着它实际上不是一个战斗系统，其中对抗AGI的唯一方法是获得更好的AGI（在CTB和STB的情况下可见） 。而且由于战斗系统中的所有开放性，可以利用Action Times +之类的东西并将其包含在其中并且流动得很好。所以任何人都能得出的结论是，在我们比较的三种战斗系统中，OTB是AGI最平衡和最灵活的。
This isn’t to say OTB isn’t going to be without problems. In fact, making a battle system flawless is next to impossible. Not all plugins or the Tips & Tricks effects we’ve learned and made will be necessarily compatible with it. However, this isn’t the fault of OTB, but instead, the fault of RPG Maker MV’s original battle structure. A lot of the original battle structure throws a lot of chaos into making it structurally compatible with old and/or future plugins. Fortunately, by Olivia tying her OTB to the Battle Engine Core, a lot of potential plugin compatibility issues are fixed but not all.
这并不是说OTB不会没有问题。事实上，使战斗系统完美无瑕几乎是不可能的。并非所有插件或我们所学习和制作的提示与技巧效果都必须与之兼容。然而，这不是OTB的错，而是RPG Maker MV的原始战斗结构的错误。许多原始的战斗结构引发了很多混乱，使其在结构上与旧的和/或未来的插件兼容。幸运的是，Olivia将她的OTB绑定到Battle Engine Core，很多潜在的插件兼容性问题得到了修复，但并非全部。
—
Whew, typed a lot more than I expected to. While I am definitely in favor of OTB, I also recognize that for certain games out there, CTB or STB is better suited for them. For this reason alone, I made these small updates to STB to hopefully make the lives of some certain people a little easier.
哇，输入比我预期的要多得多。虽然我肯定赞成OTB，但我也认识到对于某些游戏，CTB或STB更适合他们。仅仅因为这个原因，我对机顶盒做了一些小改动，希望能让某些人的生活更轻松一些。