Hello!
It is possible currently to entirely disable duplicate protection in booster generation.
However at the xdhs we have a very particular custom set where we would like some cards to appear duplicated in boosters, but other still only appear at most once.
For instance with something similar to:
[Settings]
{
"name": "test without protection",
"showSlots": true,
"withReplacement": true,
"duplicateProtection": false
}
[Common(2)]
1 Grizzly Bears (10e) 268
1 Grizzly Bears (10e) 268
1 Lumengrid Warden (10e) 89
We would like for the possible boosters to be [Bears, Bears] (~33% chance), or [Bears, Warden] (~67% chance). However as set currently each slot in the booster is entirely independent, so it is possible to end up with [Warden, Warden]:

With duplicateProtection: true instead, there is only one kind of booster, [Bears, Warden], which is not what we'd want in that specific use case.
Am I right thinking what we want is not possible with existing settings? (we could set custom cards, or probability layouts, but both are heavy workarounds)
If you're alright with adding yet another boolean settings for that specific usecase, I can do the ground work and submit a PR. (not sure how to name it though)
Hello!
It is possible currently to entirely disable duplicate protection in booster generation.
However at the xdhs we have a very particular custom set where we would like some cards to appear duplicated in boosters, but other still only appear at most once.
For instance with something similar to:
We would like for the possible boosters to be [Bears, Bears] (~33% chance), or [Bears, Warden] (~67% chance). However as set currently each slot in the booster is entirely independent, so it is possible to end up with [Warden, Warden]:

With
duplicateProtection: trueinstead, there is only one kind of booster, [Bears, Warden], which is not what we'd want in that specific use case.Am I right thinking what we want is not possible with existing settings? (we could set custom cards, or probability layouts, but both are heavy workarounds)
If you're alright with adding yet another boolean settings for that specific usecase, I can do the ground work and submit a PR. (not sure how to name it though)