Actually the major difference is that back then games would ship with breaking bugs and you had to deal with it because there was no way to patch a cartridge.
This rose-tinted nostalgia bullshit makes you look stupider than the people you're criticizing.
I made a TD. It was a poor choice to win the contest (and I have no expectations to) but it's highly polished and pretty unique within the TD subgenre. To be honest I'm regretting choosing that particular project to enter into the contest, but with under a month there wasn't a lot of time to start from scratch.
Anyone else have to cut like 4-5 features yesterday to get everything bug free before the deadline?
Yeah, you don't quite understand what's going on here. This exploit involves using a 3rd party program running in the background to inject packets in the network data stream. Such a program, if detected by Warden, would result in your account getting permanently banned, but packet injection is significantly harder to detect than memory modification especially since it can be done using a man in the middle.
This is awesome. I was thinking about doing something like this a few weeks ago before I got absorbed in my current project. Are you planning on making a real game out of this?
I think it's completely useless to give us screenshots taken from arbitrary camera angles within the editor and ask us to give feedback on what the map looks like in game. Give us some useful screenshots of the map in action!
For what it's worth it looks pretty good to me but like I said, you really can't tell anything from editor screenshots.
What the fuck? That change is going to totally break most UMS maps, all to fix an exploit that requires packet injection anyway? How legit is this source?
Under gameplay settings in the data editor change minimum damage to zero. The default settings for SC2 make it so an attack cannot be reduced below 0.5 damage.
Edit: Unless of course there's a way for triggers to create validators as well as read their state.
Yes, quite a few ways. For example make an Apply Behavior effect that applies a dummy behavior, add your validator to the effect, then use a trigger to create the effect and then test if the unit has the behavior.
Certainly a validator check from triggers would be useful but the reason it doesn't exist is that validators execute in the context of an effect chain and if you run from one a trigger there's no context.
Anyway I'm not saying they shouldn't add more conditions to the trigger system, just that if you happened to be stuck on that particular problem there are workarounds available.
0
Actually the major difference is that back then games would ship with breaking bugs and you had to deal with it because there was no way to patch a cartridge.
This rose-tinted nostalgia bullshit makes you look stupider than the people you're criticizing.
Know who else thought this? Plato.
0
File -> Test Document
0
Thanks! And definitely, I'm just waiting for confirmation about when it's okay to publish contest maps.
@Mozared: Go
That sounds like fun, dungeon crawls are my favorite type of campaign map.
0
No the best way to do it is to make a buff that disables collision. It's under the "Behavior" tab of the modification field.
You can't change a units radius via a behavior anyway, a morph ability is required.
0
@Zaradoom002: Go
You pressed "W" to disable water rendering. Press it again to re-enable it.
0
@HatTruck: Go
Target filter.
0
I made a TD. It was a poor choice to win the contest (and I have no expectations to) but it's highly polished and pretty unique within the TD subgenre. To be honest I'm regretting choosing that particular project to enter into the contest, but with under a month there wasn't a lot of time to start from scratch.
Anyone else have to cut like 4-5 features yesterday to get everything bug free before the deadline?
0
@Pimpmunkeh: Go
Yeah, you don't quite understand what's going on here. This exploit involves using a 3rd party program running in the background to inject packets in the network data stream. Such a program, if detected by Warden, would result in your account getting permanently banned, but packet injection is significantly harder to detect than memory modification especially since it can be done using a man in the middle.
0
This is awesome. I was thinking about doing something like this a few weeks ago before I got absorbed in my current project. Are you planning on making a real game out of this?
0
It is indeed the weapon. There are two types of weapons, legacy and strafe. Give a unit a strafe weapon and it will behavior like an interceptor.
0
I think it's completely useless to give us screenshots taken from arbitrary camera angles within the editor and ask us to give feedback on what the map looks like in game. Give us some useful screenshots of the map in action!
For what it's worth it looks pretty good to me but like I said, you really can't tell anything from editor screenshots.
0
What the fuck? That change is going to totally break most UMS maps, all to fix an exploit that requires packet injection anyway? How legit is this source?
0
Good luck! And remember, the deadline is TONIGHT, not tomorrow. Specifically, 12:01am PST 9/11.
0
Under gameplay settings in the data editor change minimum damage to zero. The default settings for SC2 make it so an attack cannot be reduced below 0.5 damage.
0
Yes, quite a few ways. For example make an Apply Behavior effect that applies a dummy behavior, add your validator to the effect, then use a trigger to create the effect and then test if the unit has the behavior.
Certainly a validator check from triggers would be useful but the reason it doesn't exist is that validators execute in the context of an effect chain and if you run from one a trigger there's no context.
Anyway I'm not saying they shouldn't add more conditions to the trigger system, just that if you happened to be stuck on that particular problem there are workarounds available.