In the unit flags turn off "Cannot be clicked" then use a trigger on event "Unit is Clicked" to change the owner to the triggering player. That's the simple solution.
A more complex solution is to give your units a "claim neutral" ability of type effect-target, flag it as smart, set up smart validators to check that the unit is claimable, and have the effect apply a permanent behavior that sets the owner to the casting player (Player field under buff behavior.) You can also set a range and cast time when using this method.
This map is decent and more polished than most but it tends to lack gameplay. Waves last a really long time (2-3 minutes) but the amount of time you spend building stuff is maybe 10-15 seconds and a lot of waves you don't even necessarily build anything, if you're saving up. And since you tend to just park your units in bunkers, that means there's literally nothing to do for 90-95% of the time you're playing the map. I've beaten it several times now but I tend to spend most of the game alt+tabbed. Paradoxically that's one of the reasons I like it, it's a map I can play in the background while doing something else.
If your map spawns millions of units then you're going to lag no matter what you do. Other than that I don't think it's actually possible to create triggers that have a noticeable effect on game performance on modern PCs. At most you'll run against the hard memory limit.
I'm fairly certain it's not possible to limit specific communication, although it may be possible to disable chat completely. (Try clearing text messages anytime someone says something in chat.)
I'm skeptical this is possible, though, because the chat system is also used for battle.net messaging and I don't think Blizzard wants mappers to be able to disable the battle.net features.
Even if you make your own game variants, the default ("Custom") variant is always present and is selected as the default when you create a game. This variant makes no sense for a lot of UMS maps and leads to stupid shit like Nexus Wars being present twice in the popular list, with the "custom" variant defaulting to 5v3 teams. Since most people aren't going to bother changing the game category in the lobby the entire variant system is, at this point, since adding any other variant means at best the popularity score for your map will be split in half.
There needs to be a way to either 1) disable the default variant, 2) edit it, or 3) flag another one as default.
Well, that's all well and fine. I don't like this new feature. The two maps that are featured right now are complete crap compared to some of the maps that are out there.
Wait, there are maps out there that aren't complete crap?
Crush Company is a neat proof of concept but it's a little ironic that Blizzard is featuring a map which, most than anything else, illustrates how badly suited to action-type games the SC2 engine is.
The interact ability allows you to share CONTROL of a unit, not ownership. You need a system that will allow the person to claim ownership of the building.
I think using an interact ability is the wrong way to go. Just apply a behavior that sets the buildings owner to the capturing team. Alternately you can use a neutral player which is set up to share control with everyone on the "red team" and another one which shares control with the "blue team" and then capture the building by setting control to the neutral player.
... into a "beginners" and "advanced" forum. I realize the distinction is nebulous, but the simple fact of the matter is the forums are not a very useful resource for experienced mapmakers because the s/n ratio is very low. A question that's easy to answer receives many replies (since lots of people know how to answer it) while something that's very tricky gets buried quickly because maybe only a handful of people in the world know the answer.
In general I try to find posters with unique and advanced problems to help, but the forums are so crowded with people asking incredibly basic questions that I'm not really inclined to post as often as I used to. At the same time if I have a question I know the odds of receiving a response are basically zero.
Anyway it's easier to make suggestions than to actually make policy and moderate the forums so just consider this my $0.02.
0
http://rileystarcraft.blogspot.com/2010/05/tutorial-how-to-duplicate-unit-in-data.html
0
In the unit flags turn off "Cannot be clicked" then use a trigger on event "Unit is Clicked" to change the owner to the triggering player. That's the simple solution.
A more complex solution is to give your units a "claim neutral" ability of type effect-target, flag it as smart, set up smart validators to check that the unit is claimable, and have the effect apply a permanent behavior that sets the owner to the casting player (Player field under buff behavior.) You can also set a range and cast time when using this method.
0
This map is decent and more polished than most but it tends to lack gameplay. Waves last a really long time (2-3 minutes) but the amount of time you spend building stuff is maybe 10-15 seconds and a lot of waves you don't even necessarily build anything, if you're saving up. And since you tend to just park your units in bunkers, that means there's literally nothing to do for 90-95% of the time you're playing the map. I've beaten it several times now but I tend to spend most of the game alt+tabbed. Paradoxically that's one of the reasons I like it, it's a map I can play in the background while doing something else.
0
If your map spawns millions of units then you're going to lag no matter what you do. Other than that I don't think it's actually possible to create triggers that have a noticeable effect on game performance on modern PCs. At most you'll run against the hard memory limit.
0
I'm fairly certain it's not possible to limit specific communication, although it may be possible to disable chat completely. (Try clearing text messages anytime someone says something in chat.)
I'm skeptical this is possible, though, because the chat system is also used for battle.net messaging and I don't think Blizzard wants mappers to be able to disable the battle.net features.
0
Even if you make your own game variants, the default ("Custom") variant is always present and is selected as the default when you create a game. This variant makes no sense for a lot of UMS maps and leads to stupid shit like Nexus Wars being present twice in the popular list, with the "custom" variant defaulting to 5v3 teams. Since most people aren't going to bother changing the game category in the lobby the entire variant system is, at this point, since adding any other variant means at best the popularity score for your map will be split in half.
There needs to be a way to either 1) disable the default variant, 2) edit it, or 3) flag another one as default.
0
Wait, there are maps out there that aren't complete crap?
Crush Company is a neat proof of concept but it's a little ironic that Blizzard is featuring a map which, most than anything else, illustrates how badly suited to action-type games the SC2 engine is.
0
I don't think anyone has any idea what you're asking.
0
I'm kind of confused by this post, do you actually own a copy of SC2 (and if so, in which region?) or are you just using trial passes.
0
The interact ability allows you to share CONTROL of a unit, not ownership. You need a system that will allow the person to claim ownership of the building.
0
I think using an interact ability is the wrong way to go. Just apply a behavior that sets the buildings owner to the capturing team. Alternately you can use a neutral player which is set up to share control with everyone on the "red team" and another one which shares control with the "blue team" and then capture the building by setting control to the neutral player.
0
Text editor.
0
I don't think you understand even remotely what's meant by flavor.
0
Units can have footprints, you know.
0
... into a "beginners" and "advanced" forum. I realize the distinction is nebulous, but the simple fact of the matter is the forums are not a very useful resource for experienced mapmakers because the s/n ratio is very low. A question that's easy to answer receives many replies (since lots of people know how to answer it) while something that's very tricky gets buried quickly because maybe only a handful of people in the world know the answer.
In general I try to find posters with unique and advanced problems to help, but the forums are so crowded with people asking incredibly basic questions that I'm not really inclined to post as often as I used to. At the same time if I have a question I know the odds of receiving a response are basically zero.
Anyway it's easier to make suggestions than to actually make policy and moderate the forums so just consider this my $0.02.