Instead of 'on marker', changing it to 'east/west/north/south' of 'southeast/southwest/northeast/northwest' would also be a good alternative.

Instead of 'on marker', changing it to 'east/west/north/south' of 'southeast/southwest/northeast/northwest' would also be a good alternative.

It's harder to describe what that means for the initial position. It doesn't matter for the double arrow players as they can drop their arrow first in either location, but the player with different arrows would have to get something like NW of Southeast => South when their Down arrow is first, but SW of Southeast => North when their Right arrow is first.

EDIT: To iterate further, the double arrow person in that layout would have SE of Southeast => North or they could have just Southeast => North or NE of Southeast => South.

I'm not sure if inter inter cardinals would work to skip having to do the SW of Southeast => North. Would WSE => North be valid as a replacement?

For player with the same arrow, 'north of Southeast' seems to be sufficient.

For player with different arrows, how about adding instructions like 'left to right' or 'up to down'?

I'm sorry for giving you the incorrect answer as I didn't fully understand😭.

For player with the same arrow, 'north of Southeast' seems to be sufficient.

For player with different arrows, how about adding instructions like 'left to right' or 'up to down'?

I'm sorry for giving you the incorrect answer as I didn't fully understand😭.

No worries, it should be set now. Having the second movement relative to where the first was the simplest to resolve in my opinion.

What I have now should work unless we need to clarify more that the Intercardinal out is an out as right now it just says the intercardinal, which in my interpretation given context of this box is just go as far of that intercardinal. By saying southeast in should be able to interpret initial direction to go then the in realizing that it is not the double arrow's spot.

Do we want to provide a configuration option for this? If you can provide the raidplan to add to the comments, that would be helpful.

The option I considered was simply telling the player which of the following eight zones to go to based on the debuffs they have.

Therefore, one of the following eight will be displayed.

west of Northwest
east of Northwest
north of Northeast
south of Northeast
north of Southwest
south of Southwest
west of Southeast
east of Southeast

I missed the placing order.

The option I considered was simply telling the player which of the following eight zones to go to based on the debuffs they have.

Therefore, one of the following eight will be displayed.

west of Northwest
east of Northwest
north of Northeast
south of Northeast
north of Southwest
south of Southwest
west of Southeast
east of Southeast

Ah, the triggers here are saying which of the "16 zones" to go.

I think the Filipino strategy would be sufficient if the mention of 'marker, in' is removed.
Instead, as mentioned above, I think it would be fine to replace them with “left to right” and “up to down.”

If I can explain it further, these are the 16 zones, because we have to know which [of the 16 zones] to be in dependent on which arrow is dropping first:

I've ignored 4 of the 16 zones as they are redundant. The order for those within an 8 zone layout does not matter. I chose to stick to placing the initial arrow always in the intercardinal location as that was simplest to describe vs the 'X' marked zones.

I think the Filipino strategy would be sufficient if the mention of 'marker, in' is removed. Instead, as mentioned above, I think it would be fine to replace them with “left to right” and “up to down.”

The marker reference has been removed. It now is using Out/In to differentiate the intercardinal location between the 2-same arrow player and the 2-different arrows player (the blue colored zones in my previous comment).

I couldn't see fitting the use of left/right up/down to the locations. They make sense from a top-down view, but in game it was easier to use true north as we don't know the facing the person is going to be.

To fix the green zone calls, I think they may just need to be changed to the inter-intercardinal name. That seems close enough...?

Otherwise the descriptions of Cardinal of the Intercardinal differ dependent on where the intercardinal is centerred.

To fix the green zone calls, I think they may just need to be changed to the inter-intercardinal name. That seems close enough...?

Otherwise the descriptions of Cardinal of the Intercardinal differ dependent on where the intercardinal is centerred.

I think that's enough.

Testing with the raidemulator, it appears to work as intended.

Thank you!