I was just curious, did blizzard implement a way for us to display the number of behaviors that are stacking on units? Like a way to show a number on the behavior showing how many stacks are there?
I couldn't seem to find anything to enable this so I'm assuming we just have to make our own way, but i'm wondering if blizzard has an option somewhere in the data editor that just lets it put a number next to the behaviors when they show up on the units.
These might be potential unit's for the campaign that got dropped, their buttons probably remain because they wanted us to have all of their incomplete/dropped stuff from development.
You might find the button's or so here, but you might not say find a model for them, this could be that the button's were made before the model's were.
Or blizzard made the model's but then removed them before release and forgot about a few of these icons.
Since 24, 25, or 26 no longer work I can assume blizzard has put something in there. So since there might be further addition's like this I decided to couple the function into single function and changed the integer to something like 9000, that way I never have to worry about them doing this again.
Ok Riley, I really appreciate all the help you've done for me but it would have been nice if ya just told me how to set the requirements locally. Yeah I figured it out now and you all can call me an idiot all you want, but I'm no master at the data editor yet.
I mean I know I feel dumb now for not referencing the tech lab for al this time, but I was under the thought that requirements were globally only. Would have saved me some time if ya just told me how requirements are set globally and locally.
Ok so to make sure no one makes the dumb mistake I made again, to make a requirement local, reference the tech lab requirement, it has criteria marking "At Unit" which basically means it will check for requirements only at the unit thats performing the action.
Back to work now, tune in next time as Zackreaver comes back asking how to add 2 + 2 together.
Yeah, but that's globally, I need it done locally on the unit doing the construction. I don't want 1 city having 6 barrack's and allowing another city to build 2 super barracks, I want the super barracks to require 3 barrack's in EACH city.
Really hope blizzard finds a way to unite us again, I hate been separated from the world :(
With the recent update it's easier to find maps to host. Just search for "Galactic" when hosting and my map should show up.
Test it out whenever you feel like it, i'll be publishing it frequently with updates.
As for the space idea, I already started setting up the map to work on a smaller scale, every building got shrunk to 1 square, it surprisingly works pretty well even for the non-space terrain I have.
So maybe after I test out the land combat thoroughly I can see about trying the space terrain again, but until then i'm going to stick with what I have and try to design the core concepts of the system first. After that i'll try implementing space again.
Basically I'm trying to make a build ability use a validator as a requirement instead of a requirement.
What I have is, I have this structure called a "City" and it builds like a probe at range, meaning that it can construct structures around it at a distance.
What I want is for some structures to require the city to have certain behaviors before the structure can be constructed.
I have certain structures apply behaviors to the city when they are built, and I need the build ability to only work when these behaviors are detected.
Basically, I want to be able to build a super barracks if there are 3 barrack's near that city. And I need this to be unique toward's the cities.
If I could get validators to work with the build abilities, this would work just fine.
I published a testable version on battle.net for my friend and I to try out and mess around with.
If you happen to come across it in the map roster feel free to mess around in it, it's still far from playable but you can see what it's like and track it's progress.
If your interested in testing the game out, I'll post my friend info here and you can send me a request.
See, the main issue is I had thought's of making the individual planets have their own maps, to make it sort of play like empire of war multiplayer campaign. But the problem is the map size is far to small to even fit a decently sized planet, let alone multiple.
In theory your suggestion could work, however the very tightness of the map would end up having tightly played terrain spots accross the map. It wouldn't feel like a galaxy full of planets, more like an asteroid belt. But I'll give it a try at some point if I decide to simplify the ground battles, it's not a bad idea and actually fit's pretty well, but ground battle's might end up being very basic and plain, since the scale would be so small.
As for players losing the game, technically losing the game, means that the entire game is over, when I work on maps like these, I like to think that the game never end's until one player/team win's the game. This encourages everyone to stay for the fullness of the game, since even if their cities all get destroyed or if they are extremely far behind in their performance, they can still catch up to the other's and give them a challenge.
Like if one completely new player is just doing so poorly that he basically has nothing, the game will have event's like charity of sorts that help the player catch up in their race with the other players, this charity however will not help the player win in any way, but it will allow the player the ability to try and prevent other players from winning, assuming the player is willing to try.
And of course they can surrender to the player that's beating them in a conflict, but I don't want the people who are surrendering to feel they can't win anymore, so it isn't permanent, surrender could just be a type of protection ability that saves the player from losing everything they have, at the cost of giving something important to the attacking player(s) such as something needed for victory, or something the surrendering player doesn't need to catch up.
Thank you for the suggestions.
PS: I suck at terraining too, that's why I'm offering help for it >.<
Ok, the space portion is put on indefinate hold, as I discovered the map bound limit is currently 256x256.
So until blizzard can update the editor to allow larger maps, I will just have to make a skirmish portion of my map.
ok, so the features for planetary settlement will not exist until then, When I attempted to work with the limited size, I could only fit 4 really small planets... not very exciting.
I guess until then I will have to make generic terrain's similar to those used in ladder maps.
If anyone want's to design a map for the terrain, it would speed up my project and I will credit them for it. I plan on making this project crossable between maps.
For the planet terrain's... Honestly I haven't a clue myself, can't seem to find a way to add more textures, might end up being impossible for that particular idea to work. I could get the different planets to look like floating rocks but that might end up looking very dull, it would work like promised, it would just look dull.
The first version of the game is probably going to take place on a single planet much like your standard starcraft 2 league map. Once I get the core concepts of economy and military working, I'll work on the space portion afterwards.
All the help I need is feedback, let me know what you would want in this kind of game, go ahead and toss in any idea's that you can. I'll sift through whatever I see and implement what I can.
0
I have never seen a more useless zergling than this.
It is just too damn slow to do anything right.
0
I was just curious, did blizzard implement a way for us to display the number of behaviors that are stacking on units? Like a way to show a number on the behavior showing how many stacks are there?
I couldn't seem to find anything to enable this so I'm assuming we just have to make our own way, but i'm wondering if blizzard has an option somewhere in the data editor that just lets it put a number next to the behaviors when they show up on the units.
0
@Keyeszx: Go
These might be potential unit's for the campaign that got dropped, their buttons probably remain because they wanted us to have all of their incomplete/dropped stuff from development.
You might find the button's or so here, but you might not say find a model for them, this could be that the button's were made before the model's were.
Or blizzard made the model's but then removed them before release and forgot about a few of these icons.
0
Ok new problem has come...
It must have been in a patch blizzard made, because the UnitGetPropertyInt function is no longer giving unique ID's anymore.
What the hell blizzard, gonna change something this important and not tell us?
I'm going to look into it because this completely destroyed my trade system.
Edit: Found it, after reading this http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/374938704?page=2 It turns out it's not just 24, but anything 24 and above will give unique ID's
Since 24, 25, or 26 no longer work I can assume blizzard has put something in there. So since there might be further addition's like this I decided to couple the function into single function and changed the integer to something like 9000, that way I never have to worry about them doing this again.
0
@RileyStarcraft: Go
Ok Riley, I really appreciate all the help you've done for me but it would have been nice if ya just told me how to set the requirements locally. Yeah I figured it out now and you all can call me an idiot all you want, but I'm no master at the data editor yet.
I mean I know I feel dumb now for not referencing the tech lab for al this time, but I was under the thought that requirements were globally only. Would have saved me some time if ya just told me how requirements are set globally and locally.
Ok so to make sure no one makes the dumb mistake I made again, to make a requirement local, reference the tech lab requirement, it has criteria marking "At Unit" which basically means it will check for requirements only at the unit thats performing the action.
Back to work now, tune in next time as Zackreaver comes back asking how to add 2 + 2 together.
0
Anyone got a take on this? It feels like something I can avoid using trigger's on, but it just seems like that might not be the case.
0
@RileyStarcraft: Go
Yeah, but that's globally, I need it done locally on the unit doing the construction. I don't want 1 city having 6 barrack's and allowing another city to build 2 super barracks, I want the super barracks to require 3 barrack's in EACH city.
0
@fr0d0b0ls0n: Go
Really hope blizzard finds a way to unite us again, I hate been separated from the world :(
With the recent update it's easier to find maps to host. Just search for "Galactic" when hosting and my map should show up.
Test it out whenever you feel like it, i'll be publishing it frequently with updates.
As for the space idea, I already started setting up the map to work on a smaller scale, every building got shrunk to 1 square, it surprisingly works pretty well even for the non-space terrain I have.
So maybe after I test out the land combat thoroughly I can see about trying the space terrain again, but until then i'm going to stick with what I have and try to design the core concepts of the system first. After that i'll try implementing space again.
0
Basically I'm trying to make a build ability use a validator as a requirement instead of a requirement.
What I have is, I have this structure called a "City" and it builds like a probe at range, meaning that it can construct structures around it at a distance.
What I want is for some structures to require the city to have certain behaviors before the structure can be constructed.
I have certain structures apply behaviors to the city when they are built, and I need the build ability to only work when these behaviors are detected.
Basically, I want to be able to build a super barracks if there are 3 barrack's near that city. And I need this to be unique toward's the cities.
If I could get validators to work with the build abilities, this would work just fine.
0
I published a testable version on battle.net for my friend and I to try out and mess around with.
If you happen to come across it in the map roster feel free to mess around in it, it's still far from playable but you can see what it's like and track it's progress.
If your interested in testing the game out, I'll post my friend info here and you can send me a request.
Character: Zack
Code: 253
0
@fr0d0b0ls0n: Go
See, the main issue is I had thought's of making the individual planets have their own maps, to make it sort of play like empire of war multiplayer campaign. But the problem is the map size is far to small to even fit a decently sized planet, let alone multiple.
In theory your suggestion could work, however the very tightness of the map would end up having tightly played terrain spots accross the map. It wouldn't feel like a galaxy full of planets, more like an asteroid belt. But I'll give it a try at some point if I decide to simplify the ground battles, it's not a bad idea and actually fit's pretty well, but ground battle's might end up being very basic and plain, since the scale would be so small.
As for players losing the game, technically losing the game, means that the entire game is over, when I work on maps like these, I like to think that the game never end's until one player/team win's the game. This encourages everyone to stay for the fullness of the game, since even if their cities all get destroyed or if they are extremely far behind in their performance, they can still catch up to the other's and give them a challenge.
Like if one completely new player is just doing so poorly that he basically has nothing, the game will have event's like charity of sorts that help the player catch up in their race with the other players, this charity however will not help the player win in any way, but it will allow the player the ability to try and prevent other players from winning, assuming the player is willing to try.
And of course they can surrender to the player that's beating them in a conflict, but I don't want the people who are surrendering to feel they can't win anymore, so it isn't permanent, surrender could just be a type of protection ability that saves the player from losing everything they have, at the cost of giving something important to the attacking player(s) such as something needed for victory, or something the surrendering player doesn't need to catch up.
Thank you for the suggestions.
PS: I suck at terraining too, that's why I'm offering help for it >.<
0
Ok, the space portion is put on indefinate hold, as I discovered the map bound limit is currently 256x256.
So until blizzard can update the editor to allow larger maps, I will just have to make a skirmish portion of my map.
ok, so the features for planetary settlement will not exist until then, When I attempted to work with the limited size, I could only fit 4 really small planets... not very exciting.
I guess until then I will have to make generic terrain's similar to those used in ladder maps.
If anyone want's to design a map for the terrain, it would speed up my project and I will credit them for it. I plan on making this project crossable between maps.
0
@DoctorM: Go
For the planet terrain's... Honestly I haven't a clue myself, can't seem to find a way to add more textures, might end up being impossible for that particular idea to work. I could get the different planets to look like floating rocks but that might end up looking very dull, it would work like promised, it would just look dull.
The first version of the game is probably going to take place on a single planet much like your standard starcraft 2 league map. Once I get the core concepts of economy and military working, I'll work on the space portion afterwards.
All the help I need is feedback, let me know what you would want in this kind of game, go ahead and toss in any idea's that you can. I'll sift through whatever I see and implement what I can.
0
@Theater92: Go
Yes, Metal slug was already made.
In fact, I'm pretty sure it's somewhere here on this very website, look it up.
so yeah, go right ahead and start looking into it, because it's definately possible.
0
Here is the Trigger Data, I have it divided into 2 triggers, one for Purchase Product, and the other for Sell Product.