You could also try internally obfuscating the words that appear on players' screens. Do something to the effect of combining substrings in some strange order. This is assuming that he's scanning the memory in your code and not doing something else like using a screen reader or listening into the text output stream.
Of course, I like DogmaiSEA's solution much better, it makes no assumptions and it'll cover most situations. But suppose you had a legitimate player who could type that fast, like The Flash? ;)
1) If you're not using level-based upgrades, then I suggest using an array of booleans or a simple string variable for each player. If you use the string approach, use substrings to manipulate the data as needed. The string method is also good for if your upgrade levels don't exceed 9. EDIT: Although if you're feeling adventurous, you could use alphabetic letters to represent higher values.
2) Use User Types. If you mess around in that for a few minutes, you'll understand it easily. As I understand it, User Types will occupy data space, not script space.
The first is more efficient on CPU because you're not also doing a condition check.
However, if you have multiple players you need to do this for, it's generally good form to use "Any Player". You could register multiple events of the sort in your first example, but that will cost you more than using Any Player.
You don't need validators for checking if an enemy is in range. The autocast filter and autocast acquire level both take care of that. Can you test it without the validator?
For EMP, however, you'll want to validate that the target unit has shields, because it would be retarded if your ghost just EMPed anything, shielded or not.
I, like most others, will be cautiously optimistic about this new development. This isn't necessarily the answer to our prayers, though it certainly has the potential to mark a step in that direction.
My plan is to wait for the patch to come out, then watch how it works. If it seems to produce better results for hosting obscure maps, I'll jump back into mapmaking and also reverse my decision to not purchase HotS.
I suggest the rest of you do likewise. Wait and watch.
I would suggest giving the unit you are morphing to a Buff behavior that, upon expiring, issues the unit an order (there is an issue order effect) to Morph back into the original unit.
If you want a timed bar, just use the behavior's UI: Display Countdown field. Have the bar show up for Self.
By a community that grants people fame based on their trolling abilities rather then their mapping skills? (Rodrigo/Mephs)
I'll take my chances =P
EDIT: Before anyone takes that as a shot at Mephs or Rodrigos mapping abilities, its not. I'm just saying 99% of their fame has nothing to do with their mapping capabilities. Kinda like Dogmai, only he was more of a one hit wonder troll.
Oh, I disagree. Mephs is famous for his mapping capabilities. It's what gave his "trolling" (as you call it) so much legitimacy.
Custom pathing, the ability to paint them on the map, the ability to allow/disallow/require such pathing modes for a given mover, and validators as well as trigger conditions that can detect these pathing modes.
EDIT: Would make mover-based missiles so much easier to work with.
Sounds like what the error says, you have a XML file that is not well-formed (does not follow XML syntax).
Use a MPQ Editor and open your map, then drag ComponentList.SC2Components out of the map file and onto, say, your desktop. Now, open it with Notepad. Unless you know how to edit XML to make it well-formed, paste everything here and we'll help correct it for you.
I remember trying it a few months ago. Gameplay was crap and unoriginal, actor work was beyond crap, hero abilities uninspired (Lurker hero had a stupid burrow-move ability that..... instantly blinked him to a target location! What happened to that actor work? Oh yeah. Practically nonexistent.), and just generally the kind of map I might expect to see in SC1, but not WC3 or SC2.
There, constructive feedback to make up for Mephs' unconstructive post.
EDIT: Oh my goodness! I just tried the map again, and it turns out the lurker now burrows! Except.... it's still got that stupid instant teleport effect. Game was still crap and boring. A little easy, too, given how imbalanced some of the heroes were.
LoL and HoN did not have better latency than sc2, its just they have fewer players than bnet had to handle.
Except, if you did your research, you would find that you are absolutely incorrect! If we take the Xfire statistics (I think that tracks US statistics), we find that LoL peaks at about 150k players a day, Battle.net 2.0 peaks at around 20k (the Bnet statistics when you sign in indicate worldwide concurrency). Even if these statistics were inaccurate, they nonetheless indicate a pattern in which LoL actually has more concurrency than SC2! Fewer players, indeed? And yet, LoL responds so much better.
So in essence, the bigger\popular your game is, the more problems are bound to happen. You either trade off some problem to fix others but not all of them.
You also forget that Blizzard probably has better server hardware than indie companies.
theres nothing wrong with sc2 latency...at all... (unless your talking about WASD movement.. which..it was not built around)
And pray tell, why can't we have some tweaks for custom games? Just for custom games. Ladder, I can see the latency being necessary, but custom games? Suppose there was an option permitting the mapmaker and/or the players to decide if they want their game to run on lower latency settings or not?
What I still don't understand is why indies and other third parties can bring us a good RTS experience with minimal latency (See LoL, HoN, and WC3 powered by Garena or Pickup Listchecker), yet a large, burgeoning million-dollar company is having trouble even bringing us past 1998-level latency. Or a 1998-level online platform for custom maps, for that matter.
The latency is really 30% of the reason mapmaking for Starcraft 2 feels like a Sisyphean task. The other 70% is obviously the popularity system.
The editor right now, as it is, is awesome. It has a ton of power. The problem is Battle.net. It really sucks.
I could help. You've sort of seen what I'm capable of - although not in entirety.
I haven't forgotten how to work my magic in the editor - although terraining is also something that troubles me. I do, however, have a friend who is good at terraining. But you name it - triggering, data, UI, layout, writing design documents, I'm your man. There are, however, a few caveats I would rather mention in private. Besides, with what you've told me about this project, I'd definitely be interested in helping with any AI needs.
0
You could also try internally obfuscating the words that appear on players' screens. Do something to the effect of combining substrings in some strange order. This is assuming that he's scanning the memory in your code and not doing something else like using a screen reader or listening into the text output stream.
Of course, I like DogmaiSEA's solution much better, it makes no assumptions and it'll cover most situations. But suppose you had a legitimate player who could type that fast, like The Flash? ;)
0
2 methods come to mind:
1) If you're not using level-based upgrades, then I suggest using an array of booleans or a simple string variable for each player. If you use the string approach, use substrings to manipulate the data as needed. The string method is also good for if your upgrade levels don't exceed 9. EDIT: Although if you're feeling adventurous, you could use alphabetic letters to represent higher values.
2) Use User Types. If you mess around in that for a few minutes, you'll understand it easily. As I understand it, User Types will occupy data space, not script space.
0
The first is more efficient on CPU because you're not also doing a condition check.
However, if you have multiple players you need to do this for, it's generally good form to use "Any Player". You could register multiple events of the sort in your first example, but that will cost you more than using Any Player.
0
http://www.sc2mapster.com/forums/development/data/21585-autocast-cliff-bug/
This appears to be an old issue. Might want to report it on the Battle.net custom maps forum so they can address that.
0
You don't need validators for checking if an enemy is in range. The autocast filter and autocast acquire level both take care of that. Can you test it without the validator?
For EMP, however, you'll want to validate that the target unit has shields, because it would be retarded if your ghost just EMPed anything, shielded or not.
0
I, like most others, will be cautiously optimistic about this new development. This isn't necessarily the answer to our prayers, though it certainly has the potential to mark a step in that direction.
My plan is to wait for the patch to come out, then watch how it works. If it seems to produce better results for hosting obscure maps, I'll jump back into mapmaking and also reverse my decision to not purchase HotS.
I suggest the rest of you do likewise. Wait and watch.
0
I would suggest giving the unit you are morphing to a Buff behavior that, upon expiring, issues the unit an order (there is an issue order effect) to Morph back into the original unit.
If you want a timed bar, just use the behavior's UI: Display Countdown field. Have the bar show up for Self.
0
Hours is such a bad metric for determining the rate of pay on working on a map.
A mapmaker could just exploit that by taking forever making the map, taking the long way instead of the efficient way.
0
Oh, I disagree. Mephs is famous for his mapping capabilities. It's what gave his "trolling" (as you call it) so much legitimacy.
0
Custom pathing, the ability to paint them on the map, the ability to allow/disallow/require such pathing modes for a given mover, and validators as well as trigger conditions that can detect these pathing modes.
EDIT: Would make mover-based missiles so much easier to work with.
0
Sounds like what the error says, you have a XML file that is not well-formed (does not follow XML syntax).
Use a MPQ Editor and open your map, then drag ComponentList.SC2Components out of the map file and onto, say, your desktop. Now, open it with Notepad. Unless you know how to edit XML to make it well-formed, paste everything here and we'll help correct it for you.
Hope is not lost.
0
Seconded.
I remember trying it a few months ago. Gameplay was crap and unoriginal, actor work was beyond crap, hero abilities uninspired (Lurker hero had a stupid burrow-move ability that..... instantly blinked him to a target location! What happened to that actor work? Oh yeah. Practically nonexistent.), and just generally the kind of map I might expect to see in SC1, but not WC3 or SC2.
There, constructive feedback to make up for Mephs' unconstructive post.
EDIT: Oh my goodness! I just tried the map again, and it turns out the lurker now burrows! Except.... it's still got that stupid instant teleport effect. Game was still crap and boring. A little easy, too, given how imbalanced some of the heroes were.
0
Except, if you did your research, you would find that you are absolutely incorrect! If we take the Xfire statistics (I think that tracks US statistics), we find that LoL peaks at about 150k players a day, Battle.net 2.0 peaks at around 20k (the Bnet statistics when you sign in indicate worldwide concurrency). Even if these statistics were inaccurate, they nonetheless indicate a pattern in which LoL actually has more concurrency than SC2! Fewer players, indeed? And yet, LoL responds so much better.
Also, Starcraft 2 uses built-in latency.
You also forget that Blizzard probably has better server hardware than indie companies.
And pray tell, why can't we have some tweaks for custom games? Just for custom games. Ladder, I can see the latency being necessary, but custom games? Suppose there was an option permitting the mapmaker and/or the players to decide if they want their game to run on lower latency settings or not?
0
What I still don't understand is why indies and other third parties can bring us a good RTS experience with minimal latency (See LoL, HoN, and WC3 powered by Garena or Pickup Listchecker), yet a large, burgeoning million-dollar company is having trouble even bringing us past 1998-level latency. Or a 1998-level online platform for custom maps, for that matter.
The latency is really 30% of the reason mapmaking for Starcraft 2 feels like a Sisyphean task. The other 70% is obviously the popularity system.
The editor right now, as it is, is awesome. It has a ton of power. The problem is Battle.net. It really sucks.
0
I could help. You've sort of seen what I'm capable of - although not in entirety.
I haven't forgotten how to work my magic in the editor - although terraining is also something that troubles me. I do, however, have a friend who is good at terraining. But you name it - triggering, data, UI, layout, writing design documents, I'm your man. There are, however, a few caveats I would rather mention in private. Besides, with what you've told me about this project, I'd definitely be interested in helping with any AI needs.
You know where to find me.