One thing I did notice when testing is that it feels lot more responsive if you order the unit to stop whenever no button is pressed (I added a validator to check whether it was moving before, so it shouldn't be spamming "Stop" commands all the time).
Also: I've had some instability issues with the fully data driven version running on a slower PC. A lot of "Ability is on cooldown" spam, especially when moving diagonally - not sure how common that is, it might just be on that one system (again, that PC's really slow and old, probably wouldn't survive a 4v4 match in the first place).
The version I've had most luck with is having the WASD-commands translated into behaviors by triggers, then essentially the same data from your version. It obviously defeats the whole point of the data-only system, but it does feel the nicest when playing (I did some ugly, ugly trigger stuff to clog up the connection for testing, I'll have to do some proper tests with other players at some point, though).
This might have changed since when it was first posted, but according to this post, they are very much aware that banning you is pointless - it apparently works the other way 'round, you have to get whitelisted before you can play.
You seem to be using some kind of WASD-control, so adding a condition/validator (whichever version of WASD-control you use) that checks whether the target location is pathable should solve this problem. You could also get fancy and search for the closest pathable point between the unit and the target location, but let's be honest, noone notices units stopping 0.5 [distance] before a wall.
The Actions themselves should work for any player's units.
How are your conditions connected? By default, the game treats multiple conditions as connected via "And", so you'd have to use an "Or"-Condition to tell it not to do that (as it turns out, it is quite rare that a unit is owned by 10 players at the same time).
You could try giving them a seperate collision that is not disabled upon movement. I think the Aberration uses one of those, which allows it to walk over smaller Zerg units while still colliding with other Aberrations.
Hchellas, have you made sure that your Acceleration is not set to 0? If I recall correctly, this causes units to ignore the fact that they have the move ability.
I was wondering this too, but if there is a way, I haven't found it yet.
I tend to just colour in the hotkey by hand and then add a second event to the "Dialog Item Used"-trigger, along with an or-statement in which the trigger checks which dialog item was used, or which key was pressed... not a perfect workaround, but at the end of the day, it's simple and works.
Hello, and first of all, thank you for posting this - I have been working on something similar for ages and never got it to work this well.
However, I was wondering whether this is actually less resource (network-) intensive than using triggers (or a hybrid). After all, doesn't using this technique mean that multiple players are constantly casting abilities?
Then again, chances are that abilities and triggers are not handled the same way when it comes to sending information to the server, data is probably a lot more efficient.
I might setup a small, private map later where both systems are in place and can be toggled on and off - monitoring the network usage and ping times should be quite straight-forward(?).
0
One thing I did notice when testing is that it feels lot more responsive if you order the unit to stop whenever no button is pressed (I added a validator to check whether it was moving before, so it shouldn't be spamming "Stop" commands all the time).
Also: I've had some instability issues with the fully data driven version running on a slower PC. A lot of "Ability is on cooldown" spam, especially when moving diagonally - not sure how common that is, it might just be on that one system (again, that PC's really slow and old, probably wouldn't survive a 4v4 match in the first place).
The version I've had most luck with is having the WASD-commands translated into behaviors by triggers, then essentially the same data from your version. It obviously defeats the whole point of the data-only system, but it does feel the nicest when playing (I did some ugly, ugly trigger stuff to clog up the connection for testing, I'll have to do some proper tests with other players at some point, though).
0
This might have changed since when it was first posted, but according to this post, they are very much aware that banning you is pointless - it apparently works the other way 'round, you have to get whitelisted before you can play.
0
You seem to be using some kind of WASD-control, so adding a condition/validator (whichever version of WASD-control you use) that checks whether the target location is pathable should solve this problem. You could also get fancy and search for the closest pathable point between the unit and the target location, but let's be honest, noone notices units stopping 0.5 [distance] before a wall.
0
The Actions themselves should work for any player's units.
How are your conditions connected? By default, the game treats multiple conditions as connected via "And", so you'd have to use an "Or"-Condition to tell it not to do that (as it turns out, it is quite rare that a unit is owned by 10 players at the same time).
0
You could try giving them a seperate collision that is not disabled upon movement. I think the Aberration uses one of those, which allows it to walk over smaller Zerg units while still colliding with other Aberrations.
0
Hchellas, have you made sure that your Acceleration is not set to 0? If I recall correctly, this causes units to ignore the fact that they have the move ability.
0
I was wondering this too, but if there is a way, I haven't found it yet.
I tend to just colour in the hotkey by hand and then add a second event to the "Dialog Item Used"-trigger, along with an or-statement in which the trigger checks which dialog item was used, or which key was pressed... not a perfect workaround, but at the end of the day, it's simple and works.
0
Hello, and first of all, thank you for posting this - I have been working on something similar for ages and never got it to work this well.
However, I was wondering whether this is actually less resource (network-) intensive than using triggers (or a hybrid). After all, doesn't using this technique mean that multiple players are constantly casting abilities? Then again, chances are that abilities and triggers are not handled the same way when it comes to sending information to the server, data is probably a lot more efficient.
I might setup a small, private map later where both systems are in place and can be toggled on and off - monitoring the network usage and ping times should be quite straight-forward(?).