The first one is a bug in the current implementation of the default inventory UI, about the only thing you could do would be to recreate the inventory UI yourself or have triggers listen for keypresses and then check the selected unit's inventory for the associated item. Although I don't believe it's possible to check if the inventory panel is currently open or not via triggers, so even this workaround would have warts.
As for number two, I'm not sure it'll do this, but try checking the "Transient" flag in the ability or item.
Looks like you solved it but just for future reference you can open up the map in an MPQ editor (such as Ladik's), extract the XML and view all the data from a text editor.
I know I could just create a condition to check if the triggering unit is a buildings(in my case it's only one building) but afaik the trigger would fire whenever any unit dies and THEN check if it was the unit I want. Wouldn't that create a ton of trigger traffic or whatever?
Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
(Yes, that's how to implement it. No, it's not going to affect performance.)
I remembered from somewhere that they will have an AOS map, a Lost Viking arcade and a bunch of other custom map ready in retail, probably just like w3
I heard about the Lost Viking game too but I don't think it'll be implemented in the SC2 engine.
Haha you're going to have an anyeurism when the game is released...
Based on a bit of datamining there's some sort of arcade map/level, not sure if it's going to be an easter egg in the campaign or a demo custom map but I'm guessing some to all of these assets are from that.
Okay, serious question - would it be immortal for them to remove the forums entirely?
No?
Then how is it immoral for them to remove anonymous forums and have only non-anonymous forums?
How is it a moral issue at all? You know it's entirely possible to be a bad decision (the point you made Koronis is a good example, as it will likely discourage some really good posters) without being an immoral power-grab by a money grubbing corporation.
Talk about confusing the issues. And Koronis, sorry I didn't mean to snap at you, it's just that my entire post was about how people are making largely irrelevant points and confusing the issue of the forums here with unrelated battle.net issues, and then you quote that post and then do exactly that.
also how is it not an intrusion of privacy when someone can easily right click his friend's real ID, go into "see friends" and then see my name ? He can then go on his friend's facebook and check me out on his friend's friends list ? Let's say we both have the same friend, but we don't like eachothers. Don't you think he could check my picture and then insult me on my physic ? (which isnt a problem or the case, it's simply an example) (ie: LOL YOU'RE A ING FAT ASS!!!!!!! etc).
Grats on pointing out something that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. The in-game implementation of Real ID may have privacy holes but that's totally irrelevant to requiring people to sign forum posts with their real name.
Some of you should probably acknowledge the distinction between sharing someone's personal information without their permission (privacy) and requiring you to sign your forum posts with your real name (anonymity.) This isn't retroactive and any time you make a forum post you'd have to check a disclaimer agreeing to share your real name. So please stop talking about how this is an intrusion of privacy. Anonymity and privacy are NOT the same things.
Also, there's no way in hell Blizzard is going to be liable for someone stalking you. They didn't share your name, YOU did by posting on their forums. They're no more liable than they would be if you made a post on the current forums and signed it with your real name.
I'm not defending their decision as a good one (actually I think it's hilariously bad and just shows how desperate they are to figure out how to dredge the cesspool that is battle.net forums) but man a lot of you are greatly confusing the issues.
You can stop the missile turret rotation by going Actors >> Mi Tu Turret >> Events - Send and add event: behavior."NAMEofYourBehaviorHERE".Destroy . However, I can't get the turret to rotate again, after the behavior wears off.
Does anyone know how to re enable the rotation after stopping it? Thanks!
This appears to be related to a bug in the engine where the Turret.Enabled actor message is not sent under certain circumstances.
Just got banned for voicing my opinion on this subject on their forums. Jesus Christ, look at the thread on the WoW forums, it has over 300 pages, last I checked it was something like 6000 posts.
Exactly why they're doing this :) They don't have the manpower to deal with the bullshit that is the official forums, I guess they figure by blackmailing people into being civil with the threat of future employers finding their posts it'll decrease forum activity to the point where it can actually be moderated.
When we get the ability to edit the base UI we'll probably be able to re-add wireframe casting. Until then it's not something within the domain of the editor.
0
Oh wow that's one of the best things to come out of the patch.
0
The first one is a bug in the current implementation of the default inventory UI, about the only thing you could do would be to recreate the inventory UI yourself or have triggers listen for keypresses and then check the selected unit's inventory for the associated item. Although I don't believe it's possible to check if the inventory panel is currently open or not via triggers, so even this workaround would have warts.
As for number two, I'm not sure it'll do this, but try checking the "Transient" flag in the ability or item.
0
Looks like you solved it but just for future reference you can open up the map in an MPQ editor (such as Ladik's), extract the XML and view all the data from a text editor.
0
Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
(Yes, that's how to implement it. No, it's not going to affect performance.)
0
I get "you have used up your prepaid time" whenever I try to log in to battle.net. :(
Apparently its a known issue and they're working on a fix.
0
I heard about the Lost Viking game too but I don't think it'll be implemented in the SC2 engine.
0
Haha you're going to have an anyeurism when the game is released...
Based on a bit of datamining there's some sort of arcade map/level, not sure if it's going to be an easter egg in the campaign or a demo custom map but I'm guessing some to all of these assets are from that.
0
Now I'm vindicated for not using any modified base content in my maps.
0
Haha what kind of person are you that you think of people know your real name someone is going to try to kill you.
Of all the reasons to not like this change, that has to be the dumbest.
0
Okay, serious question - would it be immortal for them to remove the forums entirely?
No?
Then how is it immoral for them to remove anonymous forums and have only non-anonymous forums?
How is it a moral issue at all? You know it's entirely possible to be a bad decision (the point you made Koronis is a good example, as it will likely discourage some really good posters) without being an immoral power-grab by a money grubbing corporation.
Talk about confusing the issues. And Koronis, sorry I didn't mean to snap at you, it's just that my entire post was about how people are making largely irrelevant points and confusing the issue of the forums here with unrelated battle.net issues, and then you quote that post and then do exactly that.
0
The hell does that have to do with anything I said?
Grats on pointing out something that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. The in-game implementation of Real ID may have privacy holes but that's totally irrelevant to requiring people to sign forum posts with their real name.
0
Some of you should probably acknowledge the distinction between sharing someone's personal information without their permission (privacy) and requiring you to sign your forum posts with your real name (anonymity.) This isn't retroactive and any time you make a forum post you'd have to check a disclaimer agreeing to share your real name. So please stop talking about how this is an intrusion of privacy. Anonymity and privacy are NOT the same things.
Also, there's no way in hell Blizzard is going to be liable for someone stalking you. They didn't share your name, YOU did by posting on their forums. They're no more liable than they would be if you made a post on the current forums and signed it with your real name.
I'm not defending their decision as a good one (actually I think it's hilariously bad and just shows how desperate they are to figure out how to dredge the cesspool that is battle.net forums) but man a lot of you are greatly confusing the issues.
0
This appears to be related to a bug in the engine where the Turret.Enabled actor message is not sent under certain circumstances.
0
Exactly why they're doing this :) They don't have the manpower to deal with the bullshit that is the official forums, I guess they figure by blackmailing people into being civil with the threat of future employers finding their posts it'll decrease forum activity to the point where it can actually be moderated.
It'll never go live though.
0
When we get the ability to edit the base UI we'll probably be able to re-add wireframe casting. Until then it's not something within the domain of the editor.