There used to be an option in the editor preferences to set your gateway server - in fact in the patch where they enabled publishing there was a bug where you had to manually change it in order to successfully publish. Did they take that option out? If so the file is probably realmlist.stf.
Flag Channeled and Persist Until Destroyed on the persistent effect. Use a periodic modify unit effect to drain energy and a periodic validator to check if energy is available.
Good post, except for the fact you talk about popularity as if it reflected what people are playing.
In fact, it does not.
A common turret defense map lasts an average of 10 minutes. That's because the map is meant to be way longer, but most of the games you fuck up something and lose (more often, your teammates do) and you start over trying to perform better. Quick games then, with say 4 free slots per lobby:
1000 players online enjoying this kind of TD = 1500 games/hour
Now think of a map supporting up to 14 players, with hosts starting lobbies when they reach 8+ (average). This complex map has a fixed 20 minutes duration, and most of the players will stay for the whole 20 minutes duration (no point in starting over) before joining another game.
Do the math and you'll find that 1000 players online playing that will generate 375 games/hour.
This is what happened to me during beta phase 1 in EU. When I spamboosted WGX up to page 1 (good times) a crapload of people used to rush in, I think I haven't joined a single game starting with less than 13 players during the last three days. Then I played for an hour, not boosting it anymore, and it dropped dramatically to page 2 due to the very nature of these games. In page 2 less and less people ended up clicking it, generating even lower numbers, then it slipped to page 3 (where games take too long to start) and page 4 (lol what's page four) in the next hour. Dead for the day.
Seriously, we can talk about game design and all, but that's what's really pissing mapmakers off.
I'm not implying Page 1 maps are dumb ofc (I enjoy most of them myself) but make a quick, retardedly unbalanced SP/2-players map and the place is yours for a week. Yes i did THAT too, someone from EU may remember "The Message". They need to change this before we are flooded by those.
That would be a very good point if they hadn't changed how the popularity ranking works already. I believe now you get one "point" for each person who plays your map for a minimum of ten minutes, with a cap of one point per person per hour. As such a map that takes 20 minutes versus one that takes an hour does not get 3x as much popularity.
Anyway I've been saying this since mid-beta but the basic problem with the popularity system is that it should sort by change in popularity. A map that increases by 1000% in popularity should be above a map with 1000x more players which is stagnating or declining in popularity. After all if a map is already popular then people don't need a system to find it, it's up and coming maps that the system needs to promote.
That is ridiculous. SC2 already collects mouse data for various things. Just take CameraForceMouseRelative as an example... this makes it so that the camera motion is inherently linked to mouse motion. The EXACT same thing could be done, except instead of moving the camera upon mouse motion, the game could fire some trigger and update some mouse position values. Blizzard is just being really lame by not including this...
No I don't think you understood my point, the problem isn't that mouse position can't be collected, it's that input latency means the odds of the mouse cursor being in the place the variables say it is are extremely unlikely, so the cached information would not be very useful.
No problem. Adding another file will actually add the model to the scene, not just replace it, so first right-click on the animation bar and click Remove Actor before adding a new one.
I don't think you understand. I didn't say remake the editor or make a new one, all it would have required is some small features here and there and perhaps even a tutorial (those will come anyways eventually, whether they're made by Blizzard or not). I don't have a level of dis-interest, I just want to manage my time properly. If I can do something in 20 hours or in 4 hours, I'll choose to do it in 4 hours. (Considering that the result is the same, in the context of using this editor, not talking about cleaning up a mess and botching it, or other situations, don't take it out of context...) Instead of having different dependencies, why not make it all into 1 (or at least be able to open other dependencies or mods to copy some of what they have inside. And no, it wouldn't allow for stealing necessarily, as people can easily lock mods like they do with maps. And even without this feature people would still be able to copy or steal mods.), like with WC3 and its expansion? Why not be able to copy entire units and their attachments or export them like in WC3? Now you have to load a map with the campaign dependency, copy one thing from a unit, move over to the melee dependency or your own, copy that unit's, say, effect, then do the same for every upgrade, model, effect, weapon, etc. It's not an efficient use of time available. I never said sacrifice some great feature so that the editor is easier for n00bs, but rather, add a few small features here and there to make the editor more time-efficient.
Some great mappers made great, original and interesting maps in WC3, yet you would say that the editor is too n00b friendly. Same with SC, no?
Also, I'm not talking about map and gameplay, but rather modding and being able to make new units by copying existing ones and editing some things, just to at least be able to test some new feature or something.
The more you talk the more I think you've never actually opened the SC2 editor, particularly the fact that you think it takes more than a few seconds to duplicate a unit. Multiplayer and campaign are different dependencies because they forked the two and some units have different stats in single-player or multiplayer.
All this shit about dependencies literally does not come up when making custom maps, so I have no idea what you're talking about. A quote like "ow you have to load a map with the campaign dependency, copy one thing from a unit, move over to the melee dependency or your own, copy that unit's, say, effect, then do the same for every upgrade, model, effect, weapon, etc." does not make any sense whatsoever and makes me think you have not actually done any editor work yourself but just read a few forum posts by people having difficulties adding the campaign assets to their beta maps and misinterpreted what was going on.
I'm ragging on you because a) you appear to have very little experience with the editor yet b) you claim to be able to speak to its flaws and shortcomings. Until you have enough experience to at least understand how things work it's silly of you to comment on whether or not their design decisions were good ones. "It's too complicated for people who aren't willing to learn it" is only a valid criticism if a stated goal of the editor was to be extremely accessible to newbies, and I don't recall them ever making that statement.
Yes although if you pass Don't Wait to Run Trigger you could end up with a race condition so avoid doing that.
But you know you can make actions directly and give them parameters... only real reason to use Run Trigger is if you want dynamic branching since a variable can hold a Trigger but not an Action. (Maybe that's what you're doing here, though.)
I just did a quick demonstration map on how to achieve this.
There is a behavior which procs on damage, running a switch which determines the angle of attack, applying a +1 or -1 armor buff as needed. Also included a trigger so you can see the effect in chat.
Your demo map doesn't work correctly. The marine always takes full damage when attacked from the southern half of the map, and always takes reduced damage when attacked from the northern half - regardless of which direction the marine is facing. The Location Arc validator does not take unit facing into account, unfortunately.
I've yet to come up with a data editor-only solution for flanking bonuses/penalties.
edit: Scratch that I finally got it working. It is, however, not robust (relies on certain assumptions I can make for my map but are not true in general) and it is ridiculously complicated. Seeing as a trigger solution can be implemented very easily I'd just go that route.
0
There used to be an option in the editor preferences to set your gateway server - in fact in the patch where they enabled publishing there was a bug where you had to manually change it in order to successfully publish. Did they take that option out? If so the file is probably realmlist.stf.
0
http://rileystarcraft.blogspot.com/2010/06/tutorial-create-missile-weapon.html
0
Have the search area effect issue an attack order to the tower.
0
Flag Channeled and Persist Until Destroyed on the persistent effect. Use a periodic modify unit effect to drain energy and a periodic validator to check if energy is available.
0
Height 10 is almost enough to put a unit beyond the camera frustum when fully zoomed out. The default height for ranged units is 3.75.
To the OP: make a behavior that changes the height, use triggers to apply behavior.
0
That would be a very good point if they hadn't changed how the popularity ranking works already. I believe now you get one "point" for each person who plays your map for a minimum of ten minutes, with a cap of one point per person per hour. As such a map that takes 20 minutes versus one that takes an hour does not get 3x as much popularity.
Anyway I've been saying this since mid-beta but the basic problem with the popularity system is that it should sort by change in popularity. A map that increases by 1000% in popularity should be above a map with 1000x more players which is stagnating or declining in popularity. After all if a map is already popular then people don't need a system to find it, it's up and coming maps that the system needs to promote.
0
Here's your problem. 15 marines is not a very large force, and units do not improve with the number of kills they get.
You just need to build way, way, way more units. Get 3-4 barracks and have them constantly producing.
0
No I don't think you understood my point, the problem isn't that mouse position can't be collected, it's that input latency means the odds of the mouse cursor being in the place the variables say it is are extremely unlikely, so the cached information would not be very useful.
0
@Flyingmartini: Go
No problem. Adding another file will actually add the model to the scene, not just replace it, so first right-click on the animation bar and click Remove Actor before adding a new one.
0
Why would it take a long time in the previewer? You know you can select files directly in the previewing window, right? (Top right corner.)
0
The visual movement of the beams is controlled by site movers and is completely separate from the effects used to search for targets to damage.
0
The more you talk the more I think you've never actually opened the SC2 editor, particularly the fact that you think it takes more than a few seconds to duplicate a unit. Multiplayer and campaign are different dependencies because they forked the two and some units have different stats in single-player or multiplayer.
All this shit about dependencies literally does not come up when making custom maps, so I have no idea what you're talking about. A quote like "ow you have to load a map with the campaign dependency, copy one thing from a unit, move over to the melee dependency or your own, copy that unit's, say, effect, then do the same for every upgrade, model, effect, weapon, etc." does not make any sense whatsoever and makes me think you have not actually done any editor work yourself but just read a few forum posts by people having difficulties adding the campaign assets to their beta maps and misinterpreted what was going on.
I'm ragging on you because a) you appear to have very little experience with the editor yet b) you claim to be able to speak to its flaws and shortcomings. Until you have enough experience to at least understand how things work it's silly of you to comment on whether or not their design decisions were good ones. "It's too complicated for people who aren't willing to learn it" is only a valid criticism if a stated goal of the editor was to be extremely accessible to newbies, and I don't recall them ever making that statement.
0
Yes although if you pass Don't Wait to Run Trigger you could end up with a race condition so avoid doing that.
But you know you can make actions directly and give them parameters... only real reason to use Run Trigger is if you want dynamic branching since a variable can hold a Trigger but not an Action. (Maybe that's what you're doing here, though.)
0
@sonnert: Go
Use an effect - instant ability with this:
http://rileystarcraft.blogspot.com/2010/06/tutorial-create-custom-trigger-hooks.html
0
Your demo map doesn't work correctly. The marine always takes full damage when attacked from the southern half of the map, and always takes reduced damage when attacked from the northern half - regardless of which direction the marine is facing. The Location Arc validator does not take unit facing into account, unfortunately.
I've yet to come up with a data editor-only solution for flanking bonuses/penalties.
edit: Scratch that I finally got it working. It is, however, not robust (relies on certain assumptions I can make for my map but are not true in general) and it is ridiculously complicated. Seeing as a trigger solution can be implemented very easily I'd just go that route.