I tend to go for the most technically challenging aspects because those have the highest risk of not working as planned or outright failing. You may have to modify everything else to fit these unforeseen changes. On the flip side, you may discover something cool that you want to implement while playing with the editor, but you have to change all your terrain or units to take advantage of it. No point in putting a lot of effort into terrain or units early on if they end up not working with the final version.
I use placeholders until I get the game working properly, then I start adding everything else to take advantage of my strengths and cover up the weaknesses. I also use a ton of dialogs to display data for debugging purposes since you don't really need a UI at this point. If it's an ambitious project then odds are that your final product will be a bit different than what you initially set out to do. One of the hardest things to do is stop improving the map because learning the editor has a snowball effect of opening up more and more cool things that are simply too awesome not to do, even if you have to go back and rework things to accommodate them.
1 - Create the event. Set it to "Any player clicks..."
2- Create a variable of the "point" type"
3- Create an action and choose "Set variable". Select the variable you just created, I used "Mouse coords". Select the X Value. From the function tab (left most) select "Mouse X position clicked in the world"
4- Rpeat 2-3 for the Y and Z coordinates.
You probably want to make the variable a global so it can be used by other triggers. I just did it as a local to make the pretty screenshot.
Edit: Cleaned up to be a single variable, less confusing that way.
I found that when you try to use energy change as an event it fires extremely fast because the game is seemingly adding energy every game cycle or so in tiny increments rather than once every second. If you have a lot of units with energy then you're going to be calling that trigger several times per second per unit.
For my map no units actually use energy and I just wanted to use their natural energy regen as a timer to activate other things without having to create triggers to control it. So what I did was set the event to "percent energy", and jacked up their energy to 1,000. That way it only triggers every time they reach a multiple of 10 energy, and I adjust that with their regen rate.
Doesn't do much to fix your problem, but that seems to be the root cause of why your trigger went crazy. You could potentially still use percent energy to do what you want since everytime a spell is cast it will change the energy by a large percent. However, it will still likely cause some decent overhead with many units.
My point was that while a little pessimism isn't bad per se, you're acting as if you should expect people to personally harass you every time you do something you don't like. I really don't think this was 'the only possible outcome'. Anger, sure, but people harassing you whenever you come online? That's some real shit you've got there. Sure, Vexal is 'shouting at the clouds', but hence my constructive advice; show them "who's boss". If he'd shut down his map because of people being assholes, it's not unlikely that at least a couple of them might think "Hey, I yelled at him for doing that lame joke, and now he shut down the entire map - now I can't play my favourite TD. Dammit". And if not that, it should give him the satisfaction of 'harassing back' everybody who harassed him, plus the community he despises.
I think you're overestimating them again. The kind of person who stalks somebody online over a game isn't the kind to take away a subtle life lesson from that. Their response would be more along the lines of "LOLWIN!LOLOLO" Not worth throwing away a popular asset and your namesake to prove a point to internet trolls. And yes, when you do something people on the internet don't like you will hear about it. Repeatedly and loudly. Doesn't mean it's right, but make no mistake, it will happen.
There's no real point in trying to get back at them. Learn what makes em tick and work towards a way to prevent them from mucking up your game and future games.
I'm one of the few people here actually giving constructive advice on the problem of his community.
no you're not. you're doing the classic move of trying to be constructive but you're only faking it to look good. none of the advice you have given is constructive. half of the stuff you spew is classic troll-shrouds-herself-in-pretty-flowers junk we all recognize. your advice is EXACTLY the same thing as saying "just deal with it" or my favorite: "adapt or die". and i think that's pretty close to what vexal was trying to say: just deal/adapt or die.
vexal's post was not begging for constructive criticism. i think it was begging for tolerance of his creative process. if tolerance cannot be summoned, then i think he was saying "bugger off; there are other games to play. life is one of them."
another point you fail to discuss (only because it doesn't fit into your 'con-crit' theme) is that people are breaking the Game-to-RealLife boundary. true, vexal does post his personal information. but that is not an excuse to abuse that.
however, i still feel that he should remove his real life info and make a new facebook page strictly for his map (or multiple maps).
[that one sentence above gave more constructive help than your entire thought process.]
You seem to have neglected the major part of my posts (granted I made the error of only putting it in the first two) in which I detailed one possible way to circumvent it is by implementing a scoring system that dynamically varies the difficulty based upon player performance either based upon win/loss record or wave to wave performance. Thus reducing the need for elitism while still keeping every game challenging. Everything else I said was in support of this by looking at the root cause of why the people playing his map are jerks. If you can't beat em, trick em into being nice.
He said he wants to make his community friendlier. His problem isn't people disliking his creativity since they obviously like his map, but how people are interacting with each other in his map. Things like "The "good" Vexal TD teams all have massive "exclusivity". It is pathetic." or "I said I hate the community that my map is popular with." The only problem people had with him was the joke going wrong. People getting emo over that has to be dealt with and nobody will remember in a few days.
You can understand why, how, and when people get offended. There's no great mystery to people, they're quite simple. It's not that I approve of or agree with what's happening. I'm not even defending them. I'm explaining that this was the only possible outcome. Vexal getting frustrated is natural too, but getting angry at the community isn't going to fix anything. I'm not going to go out and yell at the clouds for blocking my sun. I'm also not going to get mad at people for being idiots. There's no point in complaining about something that was predestined.
I'm one of the few people here actually giving constructive advice on the problem of his community. What I'm saying is that trying to change the people is impossible. One of the few possible alternatives is to change the environment that those people are in, which will influence how they behave. You'll still have the same people, but they won't be nerd raging over every little thing. As for the bug, it's really inconsequential. Yeah they're mad now, but they'll have forgotten within a week.
Personally I think the entire thing is funny from the bug, to the response, to the shock at the response, to the community he despises. Expecting people to behave is expecting far too much so of course you'll be mad and dissapointed when they let you down.
It's a TD.How many people do you see go crazy when they they lose a game of Angry Birds?Do they start cussing out everyone around them?I can't join a game without experiencing people yelling at each other. <</quote>>
You missed the point of mine as well. Anytime you make people work together that is going to happen. We live in a world where soccer moms yell insults across the field and abuse the ref at their child's game. Anytime there is more than one person involved there is a chance it will happen. The more people you have, the more it will happen. That's in real life, put people safely behind their computer and it gets even worse.
I wasted a bunch of peoples' time?You're looking at it too seriously again.It was a bug and not my intention to destroy towers permanently.It was intended to give players a small freak out, then revive all of their towers at the end of the round.I make one small mistake and everyone freaks out.In any case, I don't want the community that plays the game to be the type that is bothered by stuff like this.A bug where everything explodes is funny to me.
You have to look at it from the players perspective, they didn't know it was a bug. From their perspective they were just being jerked around by a bad joke. As for the response, getting negative feedback when you mess up is to be expected. The coliseum games were free as well, but you better believe there would be a riot if the gladiators got stuck in their room. Emperors have been killed for less. The players and community get blamed a lot in online games, but they're just reacting exactly as humans have always done. When you put them in a situation that rewards such behavior it's going to run rampant. It's like complaining that people don't recycle. That behavior isn't going to change until it is in their interest to change. Whether that be incentives, ease of use, or necessity. Standing around complaining about people not recycling or hoping for change won't accomplish anything.
As you pointed out, you have a problem as the developer of making the game difficult enough to be replayable but friendly enough to not cause nerd rage. Problem is that your player base will range widely in skill, so a single, static difficulty level will always fail at one aspect, or at worst both. Without making the map fit the individual player group so there is a good, but not certain chance of defeat, then you either resign your self to encouraging elitism or page 1000.
Grade school - Fat kid gets picked last for soccer because he holds the team back.
High school - Lots of people get benched because they hold the team back. Noobs get left out in online games.
Real life - People who can't fight get left out of war because they hold their team back (unless you need fodder).
At no point in life, or human history for that matter, has everybody played nice and everybody gets a medal for trying without somebody putting a gun to their head and forcing them. If it is your goal to restore civility to fellow human beings then you have to force it on them. If you're making a cooperative map then you need to account for bad players. If you don't then bad players will be the fat kid in gym class and nobody will want them because they make winning or even having a fun game impossible.
You covered yourself in chum then jumped into the waters and act surprised when the sharks go crazy. They're sharks, that's what they do. Either live with it or figure out a way to change the situation, ie don't cover yourself in chum and get a shark cage.
Since you have a co-op TD the obvious thing is to track player performance from game to game, or even wave to wave. Make an internal scoring system so that the difficulty adjusts based upon how they performed in previous games or waves. That way if you have 1 person capable of carrying 100 lbs and another who can do 50 lbs then the game gives them 150 so that together they are both still challenged and need to do their best. That could easily be achieved by adjusting spawn rates or mob stats. The important thing to remember with Co-op maps is that one weak link breaks the chain. You will have people of all different skill levels regardless of what community you cater to. Taking that fact into account those bad players will always be shunned and elitism will run rampant unless you take steps to prevent it.
Also, you broke your map and wasted a lot of people's time. Of course they're not happy with you, that should go without saying.
Maybe it's just me, but the whole reason I learned how to work the GE is because there is something specific that I wanted to do. I would think people who go thru the trouble of getting good at it don't do it so they can then go work on somebody else's idea. For me learning and doing the technical side of things is merely a means to an end. If I'm not working towards something I really want then there is no enjoyment in it.
A large part of the problem is that they are more spreadsheet than game. There is very limited input on the part of the player other than positioning and upgrades. Once you get that set up the game plays itself. Even then those few decisions are not engaging, especially when there is a mathematical best that you are supposed to follow. At that point it doesn't matter how big the numbers get, 100 enemies are the same as 1.
When making a map like that it's important not to let the game play itself. You need to strip off much of the SC2 engine and gameplay because it just doesn't translate. You can't have 2 units run at each other, auto acquire their target, then bash each other in the face until one dies. At that point you win or lose based upon being mathematically predestined to do so and that's no fun.
A good place for guidance is to look back at a similar game that was actually fun and engaging. Something like the original Gauntlet, 2D zeldas, or Diablo.
- Aiming was important, you didn't just auto attack.
- Projectiles had travel times so you had to predictively aim and could skillfully dodge attacks.
- Enemies didn't all just blindly rush you and would employ basic AI and abilities
- You "micro'd" a single character.
Once you realize what made those games work you can see where these maps went wrong
- More != more fun. You can't effectively control 10 units without dumbing it down, nor can you fight 100 enemies without them being fodder.
Solution = Scale it back and give the player finer control over fewer or even 1 unit. Make fewer enemies, but make them matter more. Most importantly make them interesting, not just tweaking stat values.
- Auto != cruise control for cool.
Solution = Don't let the game play itself. Make the player actually aim and dodge rather than relying on an RPG like hit check for an action game.
TD's are the guitar hero's of maps. Quick and easy to make, but an incredibly limited genre. The TD's of today are the same as ones you were playing nearly a decade ago. At best you see the occasional twist, but nothing really ground breaking. It's not like a side scroller where creative level design and smooth gameplay can carry the day and provide an interesting and new experience. The only way you're going to really stand out as a TD is to make it something more than a traditional TD.
Overall I don't think you're going to see anything too amazing online because of BNet. Yeah there will be some good maps, but nothing jaw dropping. Offline you can do some amazing things thru triggers, but that simply doesn't work over BNet. Personally I'm more interested to see what other people can do with single player maps where they have much more freedom. Although at that point "map" is a bit misleading as they are more stand alone games than SC2 with a slight twist like hero and TD maps. I've been working on mine sporadically due to RL pestering me and the biggest problem so far has been that there is so much cool stuff you can do it's hard to stop improving and just release it. I realize that as a single player map it's never going to be popular or even be able to show up in rankings. I just want to make it, like that crazy guy who built his own castle.
IMO the latency kills a lot of creativity, not just for FPS type games. I can't imagine making an online game that doesn't rely almost exclusively on native SC2 movements and commands which are extremely limiting. The things you can do in offline mode are pretty mind blowing, but they almost all rely on lag inducing features.
For map making I don't see designer being a valid position unless you're managing a rather large team of people. Then you need somebody to keep everybody focused and working towards the same end goals. Otherwise you'll start to get conflicts in design. Even then you're impact on the overall project is minimal.
Convincing people to work for you would be nigh impossible if all you're capable of doing is saying "Wouldn't it be cool if..." I think if you're going to assume the role of designer/overlord of a project then you need the technical skills to contribute to the team, but also to know what is and isn't feasible (which takes intimate knowledge of using the editor.)
Holy hell, you're right elendhel. I added a trigger to my map that makes the unit face an angle over 100 seconds and the attachment works properly with all animations so long as the unit is rotating to face the angle. The only caveat is there seems to be some minimum increment it needs to activate, IE you can't set it to change it's facing by +1 degree over 10000 seconds.
Still though, that's a good work around to the problem for my map since it's not online and I love me some triggers. Basically what I did was anytime the unit stops I have it face it's angle +10 over 50 seconds and the attachment behaves as it should. I then added another portion to the trigger that makes it start to face the other direction. With a slight enough angular shift (0.2 degrees per sec) you can't even notice it. Good catch man, I had bashed my head into that problem for a full day of re-importing and playing with every single field in every actor.
@ Feral. It happens when attaching models to WoW models only. It may only be exported WoW creatures as I haven't tried with a WoW character yet. It's a very odd bug since you can see the attachment tracking normally with the attachment point but as soon as you put a siteOP to correct the positioning or facing it freezes unless the character is either moving or rotating to face an angle. I can use the exact same method to attach the same piece to a SC2 model and everything works fine, but the WoW model always has this weird bug.
I imagine you wouldn't run into this problem with Character models because their attachment points are all correctly placed to fit with the gear from WoW. However if you want to put a pair of goggles on a Murloc they'll need some adjusting, which causes problems. If you want to put goggles on a Murloc then you obviously have enough problems to deal with =D
Have you been able to get local offsets to work with this method? Everytime I try to add any sort of SiteOp to an attachment on a WoW model it ceases to track with the animations, yet native SC2 models work fine.
0
I tend to go for the most technically challenging aspects because those have the highest risk of not working as planned or outright failing. You may have to modify everything else to fit these unforeseen changes. On the flip side, you may discover something cool that you want to implement while playing with the editor, but you have to change all your terrain or units to take advantage of it. No point in putting a lot of effort into terrain or units early on if they end up not working with the final version.
I use placeholders until I get the game working properly, then I start adding everything else to take advantage of my strengths and cover up the weaknesses. I also use a ton of dialogs to display data for debugging purposes since you don't really need a UI at this point. If it's an ambitious project then odds are that your final product will be a bit different than what you initially set out to do. One of the hardest things to do is stop improving the map because learning the editor has a snowball effect of opening up more and more cool things that are simply too awesome not to do, even if you have to go back and rework things to accommodate them.
0
Weird, couldn't edit my previous post.
1 - Create the event. Set it to "Any player clicks..."
2- Create a variable of the "point" type"
3- Create an action and choose "Set variable". Select the variable you just created, I used "Mouse coords". Select the X Value. From the function tab (left most) select "Mouse X position clicked in the world"
4- Rpeat 2-3 for the Y and Z coordinates.
You probably want to make the variable a global so it can be used by other triggers. I just did it as a local to make the pretty screenshot.
Edit: Cleaned up to be a single variable, less confusing that way.
0
@sigmapl: Go
I found that when you try to use energy change as an event it fires extremely fast because the game is seemingly adding energy every game cycle or so in tiny increments rather than once every second. If you have a lot of units with energy then you're going to be calling that trigger several times per second per unit.
For my map no units actually use energy and I just wanted to use their natural energy regen as a timer to activate other things without having to create triggers to control it. So what I did was set the event to "percent energy", and jacked up their energy to 1,000. That way it only triggers every time they reach a multiple of 10 energy, and I adjust that with their regen rate.
Doesn't do much to fix your problem, but that seems to be the root cause of why your trigger went crazy. You could potentially still use percent energy to do what you want since everytime a spell is cast it will change the energy by a large percent. However, it will still likely cause some decent overhead with many units.
0
I think you're overestimating them again. The kind of person who stalks somebody online over a game isn't the kind to take away a subtle life lesson from that. Their response would be more along the lines of "LOLWIN!LOLOLO" Not worth throwing away a popular asset and your namesake to prove a point to internet trolls. And yes, when you do something people on the internet don't like you will hear about it. Repeatedly and loudly. Doesn't mean it's right, but make no mistake, it will happen.
There's no real point in trying to get back at them. Learn what makes em tick and work towards a way to prevent them from mucking up your game and future games.
0
You seem to have neglected the major part of my posts (granted I made the error of only putting it in the first two) in which I detailed one possible way to circumvent it is by implementing a scoring system that dynamically varies the difficulty based upon player performance either based upon win/loss record or wave to wave performance. Thus reducing the need for elitism while still keeping every game challenging. Everything else I said was in support of this by looking at the root cause of why the people playing his map are jerks. If you can't beat em, trick em into being nice.
He said he wants to make his community friendlier. His problem isn't people disliking his creativity since they obviously like his map, but how people are interacting with each other in his map. Things like "The "good" Vexal TD teams all have massive "exclusivity". It is pathetic." or "I said I hate the community that my map is popular with." The only problem people had with him was the joke going wrong. People getting emo over that has to be dealt with and nobody will remember in a few days.
Maybe now it makes sense.
0
You can understand why, how, and when people get offended. There's no great mystery to people, they're quite simple. It's not that I approve of or agree with what's happening. I'm not even defending them. I'm explaining that this was the only possible outcome. Vexal getting frustrated is natural too, but getting angry at the community isn't going to fix anything. I'm not going to go out and yell at the clouds for blocking my sun. I'm also not going to get mad at people for being idiots. There's no point in complaining about something that was predestined.
I'm one of the few people here actually giving constructive advice on the problem of his community. What I'm saying is that trying to change the people is impossible. One of the few possible alternatives is to change the environment that those people are in, which will influence how they behave. You'll still have the same people, but they won't be nerd raging over every little thing. As for the bug, it's really inconsequential. Yeah they're mad now, but they'll have forgotten within a week.
Personally I think the entire thing is funny from the bug, to the response, to the shock at the response, to the community he despises. Expecting people to behave is expecting far too much so of course you'll be mad and dissapointed when they let you down.
0
<<quote 298526>>@Foolish_Fool:You missed the point.
It's a TD.How many people do you see go crazy when they they lose a game of Angry Birds?Do they start cussing out everyone around them?I can't join a game without experiencing people yelling at each other. <</quote>>
You missed the point of mine as well. Anytime you make people work together that is going to happen. We live in a world where soccer moms yell insults across the field and abuse the ref at their child's game. Anytime there is more than one person involved there is a chance it will happen. The more people you have, the more it will happen. That's in real life, put people safely behind their computer and it gets even worse.
You have to look at it from the players perspective, they didn't know it was a bug. From their perspective they were just being jerked around by a bad joke. As for the response, getting negative feedback when you mess up is to be expected. The coliseum games were free as well, but you better believe there would be a riot if the gladiators got stuck in their room. Emperors have been killed for less. The players and community get blamed a lot in online games, but they're just reacting exactly as humans have always done. When you put them in a situation that rewards such behavior it's going to run rampant. It's like complaining that people don't recycle. That behavior isn't going to change until it is in their interest to change. Whether that be incentives, ease of use, or necessity. Standing around complaining about people not recycling or hoping for change won't accomplish anything.
As you pointed out, you have a problem as the developer of making the game difficult enough to be replayable but friendly enough to not cause nerd rage. Problem is that your player base will range widely in skill, so a single, static difficulty level will always fail at one aspect, or at worst both. Without making the map fit the individual player group so there is a good, but not certain chance of defeat, then you either resign your self to encouraging elitism or page 1000.
0
I think you misunderstand people in general.
Grade school - Fat kid gets picked last for soccer because he holds the team back.
High school - Lots of people get benched because they hold the team back. Noobs get left out in online games.
Real life - People who can't fight get left out of war because they hold their team back (unless you need fodder).
At no point in life, or human history for that matter, has everybody played nice and everybody gets a medal for trying without somebody putting a gun to their head and forcing them. If it is your goal to restore civility to fellow human beings then you have to force it on them. If you're making a cooperative map then you need to account for bad players. If you don't then bad players will be the fat kid in gym class and nobody will want them because they make winning or even having a fun game impossible.
You covered yourself in chum then jumped into the waters and act surprised when the sharks go crazy. They're sharks, that's what they do. Either live with it or figure out a way to change the situation, ie don't cover yourself in chum and get a shark cage.
Since you have a co-op TD the obvious thing is to track player performance from game to game, or even wave to wave. Make an internal scoring system so that the difficulty adjusts based upon how they performed in previous games or waves. That way if you have 1 person capable of carrying 100 lbs and another who can do 50 lbs then the game gives them 150 so that together they are both still challenged and need to do their best. That could easily be achieved by adjusting spawn rates or mob stats. The important thing to remember with Co-op maps is that one weak link breaks the chain. You will have people of all different skill levels regardless of what community you cater to. Taking that fact into account those bad players will always be shunned and elitism will run rampant unless you take steps to prevent it.
Also, you broke your map and wasted a lot of people's time. Of course they're not happy with you, that should go without saying.
0
Maybe it's just me, but the whole reason I learned how to work the GE is because there is something specific that I wanted to do. I would think people who go thru the trouble of getting good at it don't do it so they can then go work on somebody else's idea. For me learning and doing the technical side of things is merely a means to an end. If I'm not working towards something I really want then there is no enjoyment in it.
0
A large part of the problem is that they are more spreadsheet than game. There is very limited input on the part of the player other than positioning and upgrades. Once you get that set up the game plays itself. Even then those few decisions are not engaging, especially when there is a mathematical best that you are supposed to follow. At that point it doesn't matter how big the numbers get, 100 enemies are the same as 1.
When making a map like that it's important not to let the game play itself. You need to strip off much of the SC2 engine and gameplay because it just doesn't translate. You can't have 2 units run at each other, auto acquire their target, then bash each other in the face until one dies. At that point you win or lose based upon being mathematically predestined to do so and that's no fun.
A good place for guidance is to look back at a similar game that was actually fun and engaging. Something like the original Gauntlet, 2D zeldas, or Diablo.
- Aiming was important, you didn't just auto attack.
- Projectiles had travel times so you had to predictively aim and could skillfully dodge attacks.
- Enemies didn't all just blindly rush you and would employ basic AI and abilities
- You "micro'd" a single character.
Once you realize what made those games work you can see where these maps went wrong
- More != more fun. You can't effectively control 10 units without dumbing it down, nor can you fight 100 enemies without them being fodder.
Solution = Scale it back and give the player finer control over fewer or even 1 unit. Make fewer enemies, but make them matter more. Most importantly make them interesting, not just tweaking stat values.
- Auto != cruise control for cool.
Solution = Don't let the game play itself. Make the player actually aim and dodge rather than relying on an RPG like hit check for an action game.
0
TD's are the guitar hero's of maps. Quick and easy to make, but an incredibly limited genre. The TD's of today are the same as ones you were playing nearly a decade ago. At best you see the occasional twist, but nothing really ground breaking. It's not like a side scroller where creative level design and smooth gameplay can carry the day and provide an interesting and new experience. The only way you're going to really stand out as a TD is to make it something more than a traditional TD.
Overall I don't think you're going to see anything too amazing online because of BNet. Yeah there will be some good maps, but nothing jaw dropping. Offline you can do some amazing things thru triggers, but that simply doesn't work over BNet. Personally I'm more interested to see what other people can do with single player maps where they have much more freedom. Although at that point "map" is a bit misleading as they are more stand alone games than SC2 with a slight twist like hero and TD maps. I've been working on mine sporadically due to RL pestering me and the biggest problem so far has been that there is so much cool stuff you can do it's hard to stop improving and just release it. I realize that as a single player map it's never going to be popular or even be able to show up in rankings. I just want to make it, like that crazy guy who built his own castle.
0
IMO the latency kills a lot of creativity, not just for FPS type games. I can't imagine making an online game that doesn't rely almost exclusively on native SC2 movements and commands which are extremely limiting. The things you can do in offline mode are pretty mind blowing, but they almost all rely on lag inducing features.
0
For map making I don't see designer being a valid position unless you're managing a rather large team of people. Then you need somebody to keep everybody focused and working towards the same end goals. Otherwise you'll start to get conflicts in design. Even then you're impact on the overall project is minimal.
Convincing people to work for you would be nigh impossible if all you're capable of doing is saying "Wouldn't it be cool if..." I think if you're going to assume the role of designer/overlord of a project then you need the technical skills to contribute to the team, but also to know what is and isn't feasible (which takes intimate knowledge of using the editor.)
0
Holy hell, you're right elendhel. I added a trigger to my map that makes the unit face an angle over 100 seconds and the attachment works properly with all animations so long as the unit is rotating to face the angle. The only caveat is there seems to be some minimum increment it needs to activate, IE you can't set it to change it's facing by +1 degree over 10000 seconds.
Still though, that's a good work around to the problem for my map since it's not online and I love me some triggers. Basically what I did was anytime the unit stops I have it face it's angle +10 over 50 seconds and the attachment behaves as it should. I then added another portion to the trigger that makes it start to face the other direction. With a slight enough angular shift (0.2 degrees per sec) you can't even notice it. Good catch man, I had bashed my head into that problem for a full day of re-importing and playing with every single field in every actor.
@ Feral. It happens when attaching models to WoW models only. It may only be exported WoW creatures as I haven't tried with a WoW character yet. It's a very odd bug since you can see the attachment tracking normally with the attachment point but as soon as you put a siteOP to correct the positioning or facing it freezes unless the character is either moving or rotating to face an angle. I can use the exact same method to attach the same piece to a SC2 model and everything works fine, but the WoW model always has this weird bug.
I imagine you wouldn't run into this problem with Character models because their attachment points are all correctly placed to fit with the gear from WoW. However if you want to put a pair of goggles on a Murloc they'll need some adjusting, which causes problems. If you want to put goggles on a Murloc then you obviously have enough problems to deal with =D
0
Have you been able to get local offsets to work with this method? Everytime I try to add any sort of SiteOp to an attachment on a WoW model it ceases to track with the animations, yet native SC2 models work fine.