First of all yes a professional made battle.net 2.0.
If you take a look at this job listing: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/3797680511 and others I've been keeping track of for nearly a year you will find that they have not had very much luck finding someone to design the system who isn't... I can only think of the word "Stupid". The guy they hired to make battle.net 2.0 got fired for screwing up horribly. Although I believe this confirms they know the system is bad I dispute their priorites and their ideas of what constitutes a "fix". Adding a front page to the current system (if you say their previews that essentially what they did) is only going to reduce the popularity system to 10 maps instead of 20. And the other stuff will be almost entirely Blizzard maps and it furthermore depends on the same people who have been featuring maps to also do their job here. Given what we've seen of that team's past performance I wouldn't place my bets on Blizzard right now.
Last I heard (months ago) the Battle.net team was working on D3 integration. However, that was only second hand. However their previews shows that they have also been working on the SC2 battle.net. The trouble is that all they've done has A. Not been very much, just adding a front page and messing with fun or not and B. Will not be addressing core fundamental flaws with the whole concept that drives the SC2 custom map search system. And if it took 6 months for them to implement fun or not, then another 6-8 to implement a small thing into HotS that means, rougly, we can expect the system to finally be fixed by the second expansion of Warcraft 4 when they realise that they've been wrong the entire time. I feel its safe to call "too little to late" taking into account their current pace and present awareness level.
Now to respond to EW. Hope I won't light the sc2mapster servers on fire...
Ok EW... For all of your arguments and your extreme dedication to your beliefs and also not a small amount of hard-headedness (I can respect that) can you explain the following:
-Why the majority are saying they liked battle.net 1.0 more than battle.net 2.0.
You see in my mind, perhaps not yours, having a majority liking something has to do with the winner doing something better than the loser. Granted it may all be in appearance but as with presidents usually by year 7 we all know how he really works. If the system didn't fail for 7 years, by American standards, the design was perfect.
If on the other hand the system is proven to fail before it even goes public, and then sells a motherload, the makers are usually calling "suckers".
So lets see, if memory serves, SC1 was 10 million copies, the center of the worldwide diplomacy comunity and a national sport. WC3 sold around 7 million copies, be the first game successful almost entirely off modding, given birth to a whole new game genre and commonly refered to as "the good old days".
To analyze SC2. If memory serves, it sold 10 million copies. There have been complaints and people leaving all over the joint.
Now lets do some math here: If SC2 sold 10 million and it draws from both wc3 and sc1... 10/17 is roughly 59% of the 10 million copies of SC2. That means WC3 makes up 41% of the initial sales. Now taking into account the WC3 melee base and the SC1 custom base, the compairison of custom vs melee are roughly even.
Now lets take an extreme scenario. Say only half of those 10 million were returning customers. That means .41/2 = 21%
21% of 10 million is 2,100,000. Now lets take a likely scenario. Say a 1/3 of them are pissed off at Blizzard and won't be returning until the system is fixed. 33% of 2,100,000 = 693000 people who will not be buying HotS wroldwide.
Now lets say they charge the normal $40 USD for the expansion.
$40.00 * 693000 people means they lose... $27,720,000.00 because they refuse to fix the system. And thats taking the low end.
Now those of you who have experience in the video game industry. Say we cut that number to 20 million dollars. Take into account the amount of time and effort it would take to fix just a portion of the current system.
Does it look like it costs them enough money for it to justify fixing the system to the playerbase's satisfaction before release?
lot of that stuff was the way it was because for some reason it wasn't executing. And, as I said, I was trying everything I could think of. Also I was doing this at 2 AM so I probably missed some stuff. I was only testing the conscript anyways, as it generated the most load (its built in platoons, unlike the others).
The rally wasn't coded with the unit matchups in a single trigger because for some reason the rally part of it wouldn't fire. I suspect the trigger was timing out.
Next the reason why the Unit matchups weren't in arrays was an orginizational decision by me.
With 100 units already in the map and potential for over 200 more... It made it easier to apply if It did it this way.
I'm rapidly comming to a conclusion however. Given my experience in coding a lagless 1st/3rd person movement system, and on top of it a projectile system, all trigger based, I have come to the conclusion that this is better done as a hybrid.
Ill make the unit lineups give a behavior to the producing structures. Then I can just show and hide build buttons at will. Beyond that its just coding the abiliites and the buttons. Data editor stuff doesn't lag nearly as bad as trigger stuff, if my personal tests in the matter have shown anything.
My map, WW2 Diplo has finally gotten popular, and I must admit after a year's struggle it feels damned good to finally get up there :)
However there are some issues.
One of them is this:
The map plays like the old Diplomacy Infinity, and I've got a trigger to replace the default units trained from the barracks to a custom unit if the custom unit is selected.
The SU_SendUnitToRally function. The input is the "last replaced unit". Trouble is in WW2 Diplo there could be several or more replaced units replaced with their specials a second. There is only so much I can do to prevent units being built so rapidly, given the nature of any diplomacy game based off something like Diplomacy Infinity.
So what happens is with all these firing, the "last replaced unit" will grab another unit being executed by another of the same trigger.
To provide a better picture: USSR Builds a T-34. Germany Builds a Panzer IV. Germany's SU_SendUnitToRally's "last replaced unit" grabs the T-34, not the Panzer IV like it supposed to.
The end result is something like 15% of the units go wondering off in the wrong direction and you can't control them.
Now in single player, it works just fine. But on Battle.net with the increased number of executions from multiple players, the method I'm using currently can't cope with the load.
Can anyone help me get this trigger working? I after a whole year's worth of work I'm finally on page 3. I'd really like to be able to stay up there if at all possible.
Thank You!
---------------------------
For those of you who read further let me give you a list of stuff I've tried.
-Waits, both anywhere I could think of (I might have missed something) and some places I'm embarrised to admit to have tried :)
-Any combination of Triggers and Action Definitions I could think of (I might have missed something) including ones I'm embarrised to admit to have tried :)
Brain going to sleep can't think of anything else atm.
If you have ANY insight or idea into how to make this work please let me know!
I need to change it because I have 7 players and 7 computer AI's that only say "player 8", "player 9" and so on.
The 7 players are fine. Its the 7 AI's that probably will lead to confusion that I'm worried about. You could do it in WC3 so I'm thinking that there might be a way to do it here as well.
I suppose the only way I'm gonna find out for sure is to dig in the trigger libraries for the custom script.
I cannot seem to find a function that will set the player's name to something different than it already is.
Well thats not entirely true. You see something bothering me. It may bother you too.
When you go to the tiggers and search: "set player name" it pulls up: "modify player property".
Now thats fine and all but if you take out the "player" and just say: "set name", something funny comes up: "modify player property"
Now by my reasoning (which may be flawed) there is no way, based on the presets inside the action, the search "set name" would ever pull up "modify player property".
To make it even more screwy. I searched just "name" and it still came up with "modify player properity".
Conclusion:
Something tells me, given the lack of presets for setting a player name, that there is a custom script that might allow us to change a player's visible name ingame.
Would anyone have an idea of what that script is or what it could be?
I'm currently in the proccess of coding an AI for WW2 Diplo.
As I have never done this before I have a few questions about some of the triggers and other stuff involved.
WW2 Diplo is all custom units and custom build abilities.
1. What is Stock? What is it used for? How to use it? Does it even apply here?
2. There was mention I need to mod the melee build orders. I pulled what another post said I needed for the build order files. It looks like I just replace them. Is this what I need to make it build the right units? Or is there something else?
3. Anything else I should know to make it build the right units and fight with them?
ii would really love a sc2 version of battleships crossfire from warcraft3... i loved it there but to play it at the moment is...almost impossible..
i think it would be a great challeng to do this...
I was planning to do it after WW2 Diplo, however until it is proven that the popularity system is actually fixed (ie gone) I'm not gonna bother putting the time to make some 1000+ actor entries to do the job right.
Some of you may be paying attention to the art forums and seeing the models comming together for WW2 Diplo.
However due to the sheer amount of models and the lack of maps using WW2 Units I would like to inform you of the following:
I plan to publish the models that will be used in WW2 Diplo as a seperate, public, dependency.
This is intended to be a complete one-time download containing all the models and historic WW2 Units (balanced in WW2 Diplo) containing pretty much every major unit that was deployed in WW2.
This dependency can be used to make any WW2 map a dev wishes to make.
What kind of units are we planning/wanting to make:
Historic Infantry. British infantry looks different from German after all. Preferably with interchangable textures and weapons.
Historic Armored Vehicals: IS1-IS4 (or IS-7), Prewar tanks, Post war tanks etc etc. This will include rarer ones like a certain Australian tank (I owe someone a favor)
Historic Aircraft: Me262, Zero, F4U Corsair, P-51, All major Supermarine Spitfire models etc etc.
Historic Arilltery: Anti-tank guns, Heavy 16in railway artillery etc etc.
Historic Naval Warships: Iowa class, Montana Class, Yamato, Essex, Cleavlend, Bismark, Electro U-boat, Nelson class including all major support ships, escort destroyers, anti-aircraft light cruisers.
Building Models
Buttons
Dialog Textures
UI models (I know how to make them)
FockeWulf's Starcraft 2 (WW2 Diplo), Warcraft 3 and Rise of Nations Amphibous systems
Some previews can be seen if you look at the map WW2 Diplo and WW2 Diplo Europe.
If you are interested send me a PM on SC2Mapster.
Models will be in the dependency. However it is your work. So that means either custom textures or additions to the mesh listing all people involved with makng the model. Preferably someone like the bottom of the tank or boat.
0
Couple of things to correct here...
First of all yes a professional made battle.net 2.0.
If you take a look at this job listing: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/3797680511 and others I've been keeping track of for nearly a year you will find that they have not had very much luck finding someone to design the system who isn't... I can only think of the word "Stupid". The guy they hired to make battle.net 2.0 got fired for screwing up horribly. Although I believe this confirms they know the system is bad I dispute their priorites and their ideas of what constitutes a "fix". Adding a front page to the current system (if you say their previews that essentially what they did) is only going to reduce the popularity system to 10 maps instead of 20. And the other stuff will be almost entirely Blizzard maps and it furthermore depends on the same people who have been featuring maps to also do their job here. Given what we've seen of that team's past performance I wouldn't place my bets on Blizzard right now.
Last I heard (months ago) the Battle.net team was working on D3 integration. However, that was only second hand. However their previews shows that they have also been working on the SC2 battle.net. The trouble is that all they've done has A. Not been very much, just adding a front page and messing with fun or not and B. Will not be addressing core fundamental flaws with the whole concept that drives the SC2 custom map search system. And if it took 6 months for them to implement fun or not, then another 6-8 to implement a small thing into HotS that means, rougly, we can expect the system to finally be fixed by the second expansion of Warcraft 4 when they realise that they've been wrong the entire time. I feel its safe to call "too little to late" taking into account their current pace and present awareness level.
Now to respond to EW. Hope I won't light the sc2mapster servers on fire... Ok EW... For all of your arguments and your extreme dedication to your beliefs and also not a small amount of hard-headedness (I can respect that) can you explain the following: -Why the majority are saying they liked battle.net 1.0 more than battle.net 2.0.
You see in my mind, perhaps not yours, having a majority liking something has to do with the winner doing something better than the loser. Granted it may all be in appearance but as with presidents usually by year 7 we all know how he really works. If the system didn't fail for 7 years, by American standards, the design was perfect.
If on the other hand the system is proven to fail before it even goes public, and then sells a motherload, the makers are usually calling "suckers".
So lets see, if memory serves, SC1 was 10 million copies, the center of the worldwide diplomacy comunity and a national sport. WC3 sold around 7 million copies, be the first game successful almost entirely off modding, given birth to a whole new game genre and commonly refered to as "the good old days".
To analyze SC2. If memory serves, it sold 10 million copies. There have been complaints and people leaving all over the joint.
Now lets do some math here: If SC2 sold 10 million and it draws from both wc3 and sc1... 10/17 is roughly 59% of the 10 million copies of SC2. That means WC3 makes up 41% of the initial sales. Now taking into account the WC3 melee base and the SC1 custom base, the compairison of custom vs melee are roughly even.
Now lets take an extreme scenario. Say only half of those 10 million were returning customers. That means .41/2 = 21%
21% of 10 million is 2,100,000. Now lets take a likely scenario. Say a 1/3 of them are pissed off at Blizzard and won't be returning until the system is fixed. 33% of 2,100,000 = 693000 people who will not be buying HotS wroldwide.
Now lets say they charge the normal $40 USD for the expansion.
$40.00 * 693000 people means they lose... $27,720,000.00 because they refuse to fix the system. And thats taking the low end.
Now those of you who have experience in the video game industry. Say we cut that number to 20 million dollars. Take into account the amount of time and effort it would take to fix just a portion of the current system.
Does it look like it costs them enough money for it to justify fixing the system to the playerbase's satisfaction before release?
0
Delete post plz
0
Well WW2 Diplo now has an I that will fight you (still debugging part of it).
Also next major update the special unit system is being changed to a more user-friendly system :)
Also next major update the brand new custom modeled IS-2 for USSR will be in game :)
0
Skyrim teaches a kid a valuable lesson...
...the fire you just lit is hot. Don't sit on it.
0
@Kueken531: Go
lot of that stuff was the way it was because for some reason it wasn't executing. And, as I said, I was trying everything I could think of. Also I was doing this at 2 AM so I probably missed some stuff. I was only testing the conscript anyways, as it generated the most load (its built in platoons, unlike the others).
The rally wasn't coded with the unit matchups in a single trigger because for some reason the rally part of it wouldn't fire. I suspect the trigger was timing out.
Next the reason why the Unit matchups weren't in arrays was an orginizational decision by me.
With 100 units already in the map and potential for over 200 more... It made it easier to apply if It did it this way.
I'm rapidly comming to a conclusion however. Given my experience in coding a lagless 1st/3rd person movement system, and on top of it a projectile system, all trigger based, I have come to the conclusion that this is better done as a hybrid.
Ill make the unit lineups give a behavior to the producing structures. Then I can just show and hide build buttons at will. Beyond that its just coding the abiliites and the buttons. Data editor stuff doesn't lag nearly as bad as trigger stuff, if my personal tests in the matter have shown anything.
Thanks for the help though!
0
Hey all,
I've got a Wee bit of a probem.
My map, WW2 Diplo has finally gotten popular, and I must admit after a year's struggle it feels damned good to finally get up there :)
However there are some issues.
One of them is this:
The map plays like the old Diplomacy Infinity, and I've got a trigger to replace the default units trained from the barracks to a custom unit if the custom unit is selected.
My code is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------Now it all works fine, except for one thing:
The SU_SendUnitToRally function. The input is the "last replaced unit". Trouble is in WW2 Diplo there could be several or more replaced units replaced with their specials a second. There is only so much I can do to prevent units being built so rapidly, given the nature of any diplomacy game based off something like Diplomacy Infinity.
So what happens is with all these firing, the "last replaced unit" will grab another unit being executed by another of the same trigger.
To provide a better picture: USSR Builds a T-34. Germany Builds a Panzer IV. Germany's SU_SendUnitToRally's "last replaced unit" grabs the T-34, not the Panzer IV like it supposed to.
The end result is something like 15% of the units go wondering off in the wrong direction and you can't control them.
Now in single player, it works just fine. But on Battle.net with the increased number of executions from multiple players, the method I'm using currently can't cope with the load.
Can anyone help me get this trigger working? I after a whole year's worth of work I'm finally on page 3. I'd really like to be able to stay up there if at all possible.
Thank You!
---------------------------For those of you who read further let me give you a list of stuff I've tried.
-Waits, both anywhere I could think of (I might have missed something) and some places I'm embarrised to admit to have tried :) -Any combination of Triggers and Action Definitions I could think of (I might have missed something) including ones I'm embarrised to admit to have tried :)
Brain going to sleep can't think of anything else atm.
If you have ANY insight or idea into how to make this work please let me know!
0
@jcraigk: Go
Ok Thanks a Bunch :)
0
I need to change it because I have 7 players and 7 computer AI's that only say "player 8", "player 9" and so on.
The 7 players are fine. Its the 7 AI's that probably will lead to confusion that I'm worried about. You could do it in WC3 so I'm thinking that there might be a way to do it here as well.
I suppose the only way I'm gonna find out for sure is to dig in the trigger libraries for the custom script.
0
Hey all,
The funky part:
I cannot seem to find a function that will set the player's name to something different than it already is.
Well thats not entirely true. You see something bothering me. It may bother you too.
When you go to the tiggers and search: "set player name" it pulls up: "modify player property".
Now thats fine and all but if you take out the "player" and just say: "set name", something funny comes up: "modify player property"
Now by my reasoning (which may be flawed) there is no way, based on the presets inside the action, the search "set name" would ever pull up "modify player property".
To make it even more screwy. I searched just "name" and it still came up with "modify player properity".
Conclusion:
Something tells me, given the lack of presets for setting a player name, that there is a custom script that might allow us to change a player's visible name ingame.
Would anyone have an idea of what that script is or what it could be?
Thanks!
0
Hey all,
I'm currently in the proccess of coding an AI for WW2 Diplo.
As I have never done this before I have a few questions about some of the triggers and other stuff involved. WW2 Diplo is all custom units and custom build abilities.
1. What is Stock? What is it used for? How to use it? Does it even apply here?
2. There was mention I need to mod the melee build orders. I pulled what another post said I needed for the build order files. It looks like I just replace them. Is this what I need to make it build the right units? Or is there something else?
3. Anything else I should know to make it build the right units and fight with them?
Thanks!
0
If you are talking about editing sc2 models you have 2 choices:
-Lower the texture resolution of the texture. Normally it is 1024x1024 pixels.
-Redo the geometry such that there are no overlaps, especially during animations.
0
@Zolden: Go
I'm not sure of the nature of your last question but I'll modify the post above with what I do know.
0
I was planning to do it after WW2 Diplo, however until it is proven that the popularity system is actually fixed (ie gone) I'm not gonna bother putting the time to make some 1000+ actor entries to do the job right.
0
Hey everyone just an update:
We are currently in the process of making the Blizzard models look rather.. plain by comparison...
0
Hey all,
Some of you may be paying attention to the art forums and seeing the models comming together for WW2 Diplo.
However due to the sheer amount of models and the lack of maps using WW2 Units I would like to inform you of the following:
I plan to publish the models that will be used in WW2 Diplo as a seperate, public, dependency.
This is intended to be a complete one-time download containing all the models and historic WW2 Units (balanced in WW2 Diplo) containing pretty much every major unit that was deployed in WW2.
This dependency can be used to make any WW2 map a dev wishes to make.
What kind of units are we planning/wanting to make:
Historic Infantry. British infantry looks different from German after all. Preferably with interchangable textures and weapons.
Historic Armored Vehicals: IS1-IS4 (or IS-7), Prewar tanks, Post war tanks etc etc. This will include rarer ones like a certain Australian tank (I owe someone a favor)
Historic Aircraft: Me262, Zero, F4U Corsair, P-51, All major Supermarine Spitfire models etc etc.
Historic Arilltery: Anti-tank guns, Heavy 16in railway artillery etc etc.
Historic Naval Warships: Iowa class, Montana Class, Yamato, Essex, Cleavlend, Bismark, Electro U-boat, Nelson class including all major support ships, escort destroyers, anti-aircraft light cruisers.
Building Models
Buttons
Dialog Textures
UI models (I know how to make them)
FockeWulf's Starcraft 2 (WW2 Diplo), Warcraft 3 and Rise of Nations Amphibous systems
Some previews can be seen if you look at the map WW2 Diplo and WW2 Diplo Europe.
If you are interested send me a PM on SC2Mapster.
Models will be in the dependency. However it is your work. So that means either custom textures or additions to the mesh listing all people involved with makng the model. Preferably someone like the bottom of the tank or boat.
What are the benefits to the community?
Use your imagination. RPG's, RTS, AOS, Etc Etc