Damage deals a minimum of 0.5 damage by default. Sadly most players don't know that.
If you want to force the received damage to be 0, you need to check the "modify minimum" flag. Then the damage effect's minimum damage will be ignored.
1. Save it as plain text. So the ending ".txt".
2. Then rename the file ending from ".txt" to ".SC2Layout".
3. Import it to your map.
4. Add the file into the custom layout file array within the game UI settings in the data editor.
1. Open the fungal growth movement behavior within the behavior tab within your editor's data module.
2. Uncheck suppress movement flag.
3. Add your movementspeed changes.
Here.
Every important function is used within the init trigger. It preloads a bank, opens it, sets the signature option, checks if it is verified, clears all entries if it isn't verified, loads a value, saves a value into the bank and finally saves the bank.
In addition I copy pasted a function from me that transfers all entries from 1 bank into another bank (except for stored units as we can't hold them in a variable; would require loading and saving of the unit somewhere on the map).
I've added some comments, so I hope you understand it and can learn from it.
1. get the offset of the unit from region A's center:
offsetX = x coordinate of ( position of ( unit) ) + x coordinate of ( center of region A )
offsetY = y coordinate of ( position of ( unit ) ) + y coordinate of ( center of region A )
2. create the new unit within region B with the offset from region B's center:
newX = x coordinate of (center of region B) + offsetX
newY = y coordinate of (center of region B) + offsetY
Create type of (unit) at point (newX, newY)
That's quite simple to understand I guess.
If not, take a pencil and a paper and draw it.
The "script" you thought of describes that you would iterate over every unit within the location.
All answers provided focused on answering the position calculations and not when it will be used.
Kueken used x,y offsets like me. BasharTeg used distance + angle.
Both approaches are perfectly fine.
Just ignore the money aspect and hopefully enjoy a better custom map system. There will always be good maps for free.
I won't buy sh!tty maps and I guess nobody would do it, if he knows that a map sucks quality wise.
-> Pretty much every map needs a free test version or links to a good presentation of the map.
If your map is terrible and costs money, nobody will play it and only like 4 people would actually buy it and then give it a 0 rating and then it will be doomed forever at the bottom of a huge list with no-making-effort maps (think: I-have-a-zealot-RPG where you can a-click to kill 10 preplaced zerglings and then you die vs an overpowered Kerrigan).
But still, the market place is a way to give professionals a way to sell their creation. Some people will only map because they can make money with it.
If there will be campaigns with models, sounds, new storyline you might want to give them a small amount of money for their quality games.
I don't really know if I would sell my maps. It would be cool to gain money for the time invested, but I don't like forcing players to buy the map because I wouldn't want to be forced, too.
But if you just think about how much money some people pump into games like LoL to have skins for a hero that they play 10 times... that's insane, but they do it because they are addicted.
Sadly, it's hard to make money from the user's addiction on battle.net because you can only acquire money from new sells and not content additions like new graphics.
If I would ever sell some of my maps, I would want them to be sold at a low price.
Here is mine from my Diablo map.
It hides most UI elements, moves the social button background is moved down, chat is moved down, top left menu buttons are much smaller, minimap is in top right corner, game timer is moved more buttom and to the side.
Everything that is missing here is hidden by triggers.
It will look like this in the end:
(Most stuff that you see are dialogs, real UI from layouts only consists out of the parts I mentioned.)
@DrSuperEvil: Go
That's already needed to make A not heal A's enemys from A's sight of the alliance.
Problem is that B is the friend of A in A's point of view. I just want the behavior to be more clever and check if B is allied to A, too. (Search effect applies the set to everyone who is allied, set should filter out who isn't a real friend).
Alliances can be one sided (!) and that flags only check the source's point of view at the alliance. :S
The perfect solution would be a validator that returns true, if NOT( TARGET sees SOURCE as ENEMY).
I would need 2 validators here, one that negates the result (easy) and one that checks the alliance from the target's point of view.
But I just don't understand alliance checks in the validators in first place. :S
edit:
Worked around my problem with team belonging behavior + disguise behaviors for each team and validators checking if any disguise behavior exists that you belong to the correct team.
Situation:
- A has a passive healing behavior that targets his allies with a search effect.
- B has a spell that will change the alliance settings per trigger for A for a few seconds which allows him that A cannot attack B. Other players can attack B normally. So basically B is sort of disguised.
Alliance situation in that case:
A is allied with B.
B is enemy with A.
- B needs to destroy A to win, but A accidentally heals B, so other players have a hard time stopping him from doing that (basically he needs to reach A and kill A to win because A heals him.).
So I would like to have the Healing Effect Set to only apply to units that are allied to the casting player.
Basically I don't want to heal people that can kill you.
Also, I can't disable the healing to B when he is disguised because there is a player C which is there to heal him.
I just got the idea that I could add a behavior to the healers to which team they belong to and 1 in disguise behaviors for each team. Then I can use the combination of 2 validator groups as the healing validator: (isTeam1 AND notInDisguiseOf2 ) or (isTeam2 AND notInDisguiseOf1).
I have an effect set that only should be applied to units that aren't enemy to the casting player.
It's part of a healing ability. But it shouldn't be able to heal "enemies in disguise"
(= caster is allied to them, but they aren't allied to you).
I thought there were validators for that. So I tried to fiddle with "player alliance" validators and "player requirement", but I had no success.
Does anyone know how to set that up to work?
I could workaround that with 2 heal abilities: one for teamA and one for teamB and then check for disguise behavior for team A and team B, but such a validator might be pretty good to have.
0
press: ctrl + t
0
Unverify a condition.
-> Add something of these:
visibility, check if it still exists, check if upgrade was already given to the player, etc...
0
Damage deals a minimum of 0.5 damage by default. Sadly most players don't know that.
If you want to force the received damage to be 0, you need to check the "modify minimum" flag. Then the damage effect's minimum damage will be ignored.
0
1. Save it as plain text. So the ending ".txt".
2. Then rename the file ending from ".txt" to ".SC2Layout".
3. Import it to your map.
4. Add the file into the custom layout file array within the game UI settings in the data editor.
0
1. Open the fungal growth movement behavior within the behavior tab within your editor's data module.
2. Uncheck suppress movement flag.
3. Add your movementspeed changes.
0
Here.
Every important function is used within the init trigger. It preloads a bank, opens it, sets the signature option, checks if it is verified, clears all entries if it isn't verified, loads a value, saves a value into the bank and finally saves the bank.
In addition I copy pasted a function from me that transfers all entries from 1 bank into another bank (except for stored units as we can't hold them in a variable; would require loading and saving of the unit somewhere on the map).
I've added some comments, so I hope you understand it and can learn from it.
0
1. get the offset of the unit from region A's center:
offsetX = x coordinate of ( position of ( unit) ) + x coordinate of ( center of region A )
offsetY = y coordinate of ( position of ( unit ) ) + y coordinate of ( center of region A )
2. create the new unit within region B with the offset from region B's center:
newX = x coordinate of (center of region B) + offsetX
newY = y coordinate of (center of region B) + offsetY
Create type of (unit) at point (newX, newY)
That's quite simple to understand I guess.
If not, take a pencil and a paper and draw it.
The "script" you thought of describes that you would iterate over every unit within the location.
All answers provided focused on answering the position calculations and not when it will be used.
Kueken used x,y offsets like me. BasharTeg used distance + angle.
Both approaches are perfectly fine.
0
Just ignore the money aspect and hopefully enjoy a better custom map system. There will always be good maps for free.
I won't buy sh!tty maps and I guess nobody would do it, if he knows that a map sucks quality wise.
-> Pretty much every map needs a free test version or links to a good presentation of the map.
If your map is terrible and costs money, nobody will play it and only like 4 people would actually buy it and then give it a 0 rating and then it will be doomed forever at the bottom of a huge list with no-making-effort maps (think: I-have-a-zealot-RPG where you can a-click to kill 10 preplaced zerglings and then you die vs an overpowered Kerrigan).
But still, the market place is a way to give professionals a way to sell their creation. Some people will only map because they can make money with it.
If there will be campaigns with models, sounds, new storyline you might want to give them a small amount of money for their quality games.
I don't really know if I would sell my maps. It would be cool to gain money for the time invested, but I don't like forcing players to buy the map because I wouldn't want to be forced, too.
But if you just think about how much money some people pump into games like LoL to have skins for a hero that they play 10 times... that's insane, but they do it because they are addicted.
Sadly, it's hard to make money from the user's addiction on battle.net because you can only acquire money from new sells and not content additions like new graphics.
If I would ever sell some of my maps, I would want them to be sold at a low price.
0
@Sherlia: Go Look at the medivac. It does the same with injured allied units.
It uses the scan move from the move ability and the autocast ability.
Maybe you can use that for the desired effect.
0
This is not on EU.
It would be cool if you provide gateway information in your advertisement posts, too.
0
Here is mine from my Diablo map.
It hides most UI elements, moves the social button background is moved down, chat is moved down, top left menu buttons are much smaller, minimap is in top right corner, game timer is moved more buttom and to the side.
Everything that is missing here is hidden by triggers.
It will look like this in the end:
(Most stuff that you see are dialogs, real UI from layouts only consists out of the parts I mentioned.)
0
@DrSuperEvil: Go That's already needed to make A not heal A's enemys from A's sight of the alliance.
Problem is that B is the friend of A in A's point of view. I just want the behavior to be more clever and check if B is allied to A, too. (Search effect applies the set to everyone who is allied, set should filter out who isn't a real friend).
Alliances can be one sided (!) and that flags only check the source's point of view at the alliance. :S
The perfect solution would be a validator that returns true, if NOT( TARGET sees SOURCE as ENEMY).
I would need 2 validators here, one that negates the result (easy) and one that checks the alliance from the target's point of view.
But I just don't understand alliance checks in the validators in first place. :S
edit:
Worked around my problem with team belonging behavior + disguise behaviors for each team and validators checking if any disguise behavior exists that you belong to the correct team.
0
@DrSuperEvil: Go 2 Players: A and B.
Situation:
- A has a passive healing behavior that targets his allies with a search effect.
- B has a spell that will change the alliance settings per trigger for A for a few seconds which allows him that A cannot attack B. Other players can attack B normally. So basically B is sort of disguised.
Alliance situation in that case:
A is allied with B.
B is enemy with A.
- B needs to destroy A to win, but A accidentally heals B, so other players have a hard time stopping him from doing that (basically he needs to reach A and kill A to win because A heals him.).
So I would like to have the Healing Effect Set to only apply to units that are allied to the casting player.
Basically I don't want to heal people that can kill you.
Also, I can't disable the healing to B when he is disguised because there is a player C which is there to heal him.
I just got the idea that I could add a behavior to the healers to which team they belong to and 1 in disguise behaviors for each team. Then I can use the combination of 2 validator groups as the healing validator: (isTeam1 AND notInDisguiseOf2 ) or (isTeam2 AND notInDisguiseOf1).
0
I have an effect set that only should be applied to units that aren't enemy to the casting player.
It's part of a healing ability. But it shouldn't be able to heal "enemies in disguise"
(= caster is allied to them, but they aren't allied to you).
I thought there were validators for that. So I tried to fiddle with "player alliance" validators and "player requirement", but I had no success.
Does anyone know how to set that up to work?
I could workaround that with 2 heal abilities: one for teamA and one for teamB and then check for disguise behavior for team A and team B, but such a validator might be pretty good to have.
0
No doodads, wth? ;D
drawing beaches?