There is actually a great function in the editor you can use to help you with this. When you select a unit in the data editor, the structure of the unit is shown in bottom left by default. You can actually right click on anything there, say the actor and click "Explain Link". This will show how it links back to the unit.
For example, select the Marine Unit. Right click on the "Marine Attack" actor and press explain. It will show you that this particular actor links to the gauss rifle damage, which links to the Guass Rifle effect, which links to the Weapon, which finally links to the unit.
Now it is ALOT more complicated than the Wc3 editor to setup units, however it's also alot more flexible. It's not necessarily difficult but it does have a bigger learning curve.
After playing around, a basic unit works something like this.
The Unit has a reverse-linked Actor (call it Unit Actor)
The Unit has a linked Weapon
The Unit has some of it's own settings including Health, Movement Speed etc.
The Unit Actor controls the models, animations and sounds of the unit
The Weapon has it's own settings, sounds, effects, and also is reverse-linked to an Actor.
I say reverse-linked for the unit actor, because you actually need to create the actor and tell it what unit/weapon it belongs to. You can't actually have one actor that belongs to multiple units. Wheras with weapons, you select which weapon the unit uses, and more than one unit can use the same weapon.
So as mentioned above, actors are used everywhere, and I think it is a bit confusing because of the way they are linked. Rather than selecting a unit and choosing it's actor, you actually select the actor and choose its unit/weapon.
You would probably need to be a bit tricky and use triggers to get this to work.
For example setup the bridge to look right, then have a region so that when a unit enters you actually turn it into a flying unit with a height that matches the bridge, so it looks like it's walking accross but is actually flying. Then when it leaves the bridge you revert it back to a ground unit.
I think something similar was done in Wc3 to simulate bridges that you could walk under and across. You might also need air path blockers on both sides of the bridge so they can't just walk off it.
If you want to actually gain XP per healing amount done it's probably a bit trickier, I haven't looked into it but you probably need to use triggers to do this, and would use the Unit Begins Chanelling and Unit Ends Chanelling ability or similar events.
Alternatively there may actually be an event that triggers when a unit heals another unit, so look into that.
Other than using triggers, which is pretty trivial, I'm not sure if its possible to do straight with the data editor.
Yeah it should work, basically you create your mod with custom and/or modified units, then you create all of your maps and add the mod to the dependencies.
Now when you look at the dependencies screen you can actually control the priority, so you will need to have them in the correct order so that your mod file changes override the defaults.
So from what I have found
- create your mod and publish it
- create your maps, add the battle.net dependency
- publish your maps.
Now I have noticed an issue in that testing your maps is a bit of a pain, you need to login to your bnet account in the editor so that it can actually use the published mod file as a dependency.
Anyhow I'm still testing things out, but the above seems to roughly work, not sure if there is a better way to do it.
Just put a region around the structure, then set up a trigger so that when they enter the region you make them dissapear or do whatever you want with the triggering unit.
What's wrong with it? You make a mod, and then you add it to the dependancies for any map. Then that map will be able to use all of the data in the mod.
I'm not sure if you can modify the data via the map or if you have to do it in the mod, which is probably why they are orange?
Yeah I'm not sure exactly what network model they are using, some people still seem to think there are p2p elements in there, and I believe they have used some client-server/peer-peer bastard child before. Do you have any links that specifically show the network model battlenet 2.0 uses?
Anyhow the above issue may just be an oversight of the battlenet interface, since the editor actually does let you set 16 user controller players.
Regarding the resource issue, if you did manage to get 16 players in you could code in triggers so that when someone went to harvest a resource it changed the owner to the harvestor.
If you want all players to move from one map to another, that is possible. I initially thought you would want some players in map X and others in map Y simultaneously.
Have you actually got, or seen this working in multiplayer? It works in single player, but doesn't seem to work in multiplayer.
Yeah I can't get this to work in multiplayer, it works in single player but it actually uses your local files for that. When you do a custom game via multiplayer and go to the next map it just returns you to the custom game screen.
If you find a way to do this I would like to know as well! I can probably work around it for my game, but for your game it seems to be neccessary
As long as you don't need to ever make changes to the map and people are willing to share their account space with you, but still it's a pretty big issue.
I dare say blizzard will change the 5 map limit though as lots of people are complaining about it. Luckily I have a few friends that don't get into modding so can probably use their account space like you say.
I'm not sure it's going to be that simple. For people to play the maps they must be published, a campaign consists of many maps, and you can only have 5 maps published at a time.
this argument has been made countless times, but i still disagree. I've played 14 player maps with other people and it was lag free. 2 extra people shouldn't make an "end of the world" difference
Actually, it can and does make an "end of the world difference". Most RTS games use a peer to peer connection model, and it's nothing to do with your graphical settings, its the data that needs to be sent to each player, which increases exponentially for each extra player because every player connects to every other player. Makes it very laggy.
Since bnet is involved I'm not sure exactly how much is peer-peer and how much is client-server, but there is actually good reason the number of players is normally limited.
Now if you had 14 players and they only had 10 units each it might be okay, but 14 players with 200 units each would probably be unplayable.
Ahh okay. There used to be conditions like "Owner of Killing Unit is a Player" or similar in Wc3 editor, so you don't have to set a condition for every single player.
0
There is actually a great function in the editor you can use to help you with this. When you select a unit in the data editor, the structure of the unit is shown in bottom left by default. You can actually right click on anything there, say the actor and click "Explain Link". This will show how it links back to the unit.
For example, select the Marine Unit. Right click on the "Marine Attack" actor and press explain. It will show you that this particular actor links to the gauss rifle damage, which links to the Guass Rifle effect, which links to the Weapon, which finally links to the unit.
Now it is ALOT more complicated than the Wc3 editor to setup units, however it's also alot more flexible. It's not necessarily difficult but it does have a bigger learning curve.
After playing around, a basic unit works something like this.
The Unit has a reverse-linked Actor (call it Unit Actor) The Unit has a linked Weapon The Unit has some of it's own settings including Health, Movement Speed etc.
The Unit Actor controls the models, animations and sounds of the unit The Weapon has it's own settings, sounds, effects, and also is reverse-linked to an Actor.
I say reverse-linked for the unit actor, because you actually need to create the actor and tell it what unit/weapon it belongs to. You can't actually have one actor that belongs to multiple units. Wheras with weapons, you select which weapon the unit uses, and more than one unit can use the same weapon.
So as mentioned above, actors are used everywhere, and I think it is a bit confusing because of the way they are linked. Rather than selecting a unit and choosing it's actor, you actually select the actor and choose its unit/weapon.
0
You would probably need to be a bit tricky and use triggers to get this to work.
For example setup the bridge to look right, then have a region so that when a unit enters you actually turn it into a flying unit with a height that matches the bridge, so it looks like it's walking accross but is actually flying. Then when it leaves the bridge you revert it back to a ground unit.
I think something similar was done in Wc3 to simulate bridges that you could walk under and across. You might also need air path blockers on both sides of the bridge so they can't just walk off it.
0
If you want to actually gain XP per healing amount done it's probably a bit trickier, I haven't looked into it but you probably need to use triggers to do this, and would use the Unit Begins Chanelling and Unit Ends Chanelling ability or similar events.
Alternatively there may actually be an event that triggers when a unit heals another unit, so look into that.
Other than using triggers, which is pretty trivial, I'm not sure if its possible to do straight with the data editor.
0
Yeah it should work, basically you create your mod with custom and/or modified units, then you create all of your maps and add the mod to the dependencies.
Now when you look at the dependencies screen you can actually control the priority, so you will need to have them in the correct order so that your mod file changes override the defaults.
So from what I have found - create your mod and publish it - create your maps, add the battle.net dependency - publish your maps.
Now I have noticed an issue in that testing your maps is a bit of a pain, you need to login to your bnet account in the editor so that it can actually use the published mod file as a dependency.
Anyhow I'm still testing things out, but the above seems to roughly work, not sure if there is a better way to do it.
0
Just put a region around the structure, then set up a trigger so that when they enter the region you make them dissapear or do whatever you want with the triggering unit.
0
What's wrong with it? You make a mod, and then you add it to the dependancies for any map. Then that map will be able to use all of the data in the mod.
I'm not sure if you can modify the data via the map or if you have to do it in the mod, which is probably why they are orange?
Which part isn't working?
0
Yeah I'm not sure exactly what network model they are using, some people still seem to think there are p2p elements in there, and I believe they have used some client-server/peer-peer bastard child before. Do you have any links that specifically show the network model battlenet 2.0 uses?
Anyhow the above issue may just be an oversight of the battlenet interface, since the editor actually does let you set 16 user controller players.
Regarding the resource issue, if you did manage to get 16 players in you could code in triggers so that when someone went to harvest a resource it changed the owner to the harvestor.
0
Have you actually got, or seen this working in multiplayer? It works in single player, but doesn't seem to work in multiplayer.
0
Yeah I can't get this to work in multiplayer, it works in single player but it actually uses your local files for that. When you do a custom game via multiplayer and go to the next map it just returns you to the custom game screen.
If you find a way to do this I would like to know as well! I can probably work around it for my game, but for your game it seems to be neccessary
0
@PatchOne: Go
Have you tried this with published maps? It doesn't seem to change to the next map automatically?
If you got it working, what name do you use, the name of the published map I assume?
0
Don't they already go over cliffs?
0
@Shiny45: Go
As long as you don't need to ever make changes to the map and people are willing to share their account space with you, but still it's a pretty big issue.
I dare say blizzard will change the 5 map limit though as lots of people are complaining about it. Luckily I have a few friends that don't get into modding so can probably use their account space like you say.
0
@Shiny45: Go
I'm not sure it's going to be that simple. For people to play the maps they must be published, a campaign consists of many maps, and you can only have 5 maps published at a time.
So it may actually not even be possible?
0
Actually, it can and does make an "end of the world difference". Most RTS games use a peer to peer connection model, and it's nothing to do with your graphical settings, its the data that needs to be sent to each player, which increases exponentially for each extra player because every player connects to every other player. Makes it very laggy.
Since bnet is involved I'm not sure exactly how much is peer-peer and how much is client-server, but there is actually good reason the number of players is normally limited.
Now if you had 14 players and they only had 10 units each it might be okay, but 14 players with 200 units each would probably be unplayable.
0
@phoenixfire2001: Go
Ahh okay. There used to be conditions like "Owner of Killing Unit is a Player" or similar in Wc3 editor, so you don't have to set a condition for every single player.