How do I remove a unit without triggering its actor death events?
Normally when rock towers are killed the tower collapses and debris is created to block a pathway. That is fine, I want to keep that behaviour, but I want the ability to remove a rocktower via triggers WITHOUT the debris being spawned. using the "remove unit from game" and " kill unit" triggers both cause the actors death event to fire.
I've tried removing all the behaviours and abilities from the unit first, I've tried the "kill actor scope" though I don't know what that does.
Is it maybe possible to completely remove an actor directly?
I'm confused. What aspect of the beastmaster campaign would not be reproducable using banks?
Obviously being able to make the client load a specific map for when they transition between areas would be hella useful and is impossible in SC2 but I get the feeling that's not what you mean.
Something more along the lines of your library discovery...
If you are using the same library in different maps then publish it to Bnet and include it in your maps as a dependency. That way whenever you need to change something in the library you just have to publish the library and all the maps will automatically reflect the change.
Otherwise you will have to open every map and mess about getting it to use the new version manually. Tedious things often lead to mistakes or missing something and your maps will start to get out of synch and use different versions of the library.
Also if you are doing lots of triggering then learning how to use records effectively will make your life much simpler.
ditto what others said about having cheat codes for streamlined testing
do the same with debugging. Create a debugging output function you can use between maps. The default one is cumbersome and annoying.
Try and reduce duplication wherever you can. If you find yourself doing something simillar in different places try and figure out how you can do it once and do it well and create a function for it.
an action deffinition is a function where you don't have to worry about the return type.
FWIW I fixed the problem of the computer not knowing where their town is. So if anyone else is experiencing the issue I was here is how I fixed it.
Do not touch any of the victory/defeat conditions after touching any of the AI stuff. editing those conditions will screw the AI system right up wazoo. Seems pretty damn stupid, but whatever.
You must set up your games victory/enable conditions completely. THEN AND ONLY THEN, can you begin setting any of the parameters for the AI.
What happens if you have a game where the victory conditions change during the game? I dunno. I guess you would have to write your own victory/defeat triggers instead of using the inbuilt ones. But that's not an issue for me so I don't care to figure it out.
Still not sure if I can manually edit the computers towns or not but I'll cross that bridge when I have to cross it.
You need to use the campaign AI and build your own AI on top of that.
That is what I'm doing.
Once I create the computers base building and workers (using the create starting units for player function) I then run the "start the campaign AI for all computer players" function.
The AI still has no idea where to build its buildings and does so out in the open in the middle of the map.
Quote:
the full AI native list and all constants (especially for advanced AI behaviour customization).
Are these written down anywhere? Or do you have to use an mpq editor to find the names of functions and then take random guesses in the dark as to what the parameters should be?
In my map/mod I remove each players starting units when the game starts. and then let players manually chose where to start as well as a bunch of other custom settings.
But once I remove the AIs main building I can't get any of the AI functions to work anymore. If I tell the AI to build a building it will go out into the middle of the map somewhere and build it in a random location. I've tried rerunning all the AI initialization functions, using the allocate town functions, creating the main building at their initial spawn points... the AI just doesn't seem to be able to cope.
I think I'm running the alolocate towns function correctly, there is no documentation for it but I've tried everything I could think of.
If anyone can help me that would be awesome. Thanks.
Turtles.
I think the kind of documentation we should be aiming for should be breadth first, not depth first. What I mean is we should just try and get as much coverage as we possibly can. step by step tutorials which go through step by agonizingly small step don't help anyone unless they want to replicate the exact map in the tutorial.
What we need is an explanation on things so that when people are exploring for themselves they know what this function does, or what that field in data means, or how to access things which are hidden in the editor. We should assume that people are smart and can figure things out for themselves but they need to know what tools are available at their disposal.
A good start might be explanations for functions which don't have any and have fields with no explanation of what they do.
data fields which might be handy but which don't have intuitive names.
flow charts of how units/weapons/effects/behaviours are linked up showing how you can use set effects to cause behaviours which cause more effects etc.
Stuff that people can't just figure out for themselves without knowing first what to look for.
We already do have references... They were added probably over 2 years ago. The only problem is that struct and array references cannot be returned or allocated as a global.
reasonable. I had no idea struct references and function references were even possible. I use the GUI only because I have a LOT of trouble learning new languages and the GUI just makes it so much easier. I know the purists will hate it but with shortcut keys I think I can program even quicker with the GUI than writing it out.
It really sucks that NONE of this kind of stuff is documented or made easy. Without hearing other people talk about it I would probably have no idea that half the things in the editor even existed or were possible. For example is there somewhere I can learn about the syntax of function references?
In any case there is limited use for pointers in SC2. The main ones I hear are for dynamic memory allocation systems but that is really about it. The rest can be done with references if global returned references were supported.
I'm only arguing for pointers because they are more basic and would probably require less work to implement. If we could have references then I would be over the moon and the majority of arguments pro-pointer would be removed.
I'm not pro-pointer, I'm pro- being able to properly pass around handles for data.
Things like modularity, readability, maintainability are all just as important.
Pointers very much do help with those things. No body would be forced to use them. I'm sure if Blizzard put a warning on them in the GUI telling them that it is an advanced tool and that they need not be touched unless you know what you're doing.
For security reason pointers are disabled. They do exist inside the code and did work back in WoL beta but were removed due to their ability to do bad things to data and code.
They only do bad things if written badly. Which is easy to do but shouldn't we bear that responsibility?
If they wanted to ensure that we didn't accidentally mess with any of the core SC2 data/code then couldn't they just check the location every time a pointer is dereferenced to make sure it is within the memory section allocated to our own code and data? Better a child safe dumned down pointer than no pointer at all.
I didn't even think about allowing for offline play. That's a really big issue too.
If they allow for a general purpose global bank for things like highscore lists then that would be a huge nightmare. If the game gets popular then you have many players trying to access and modify the one resource. Peoples changes get over written or erased, people are left hanging when the resource is unavailable etc.
Does anyone have any solution to how a problem like that could be dealt with?
I can't really think of any good solutions to the problem that don't leave peoples games hanging while awaiting write access to the file or don't involve some kind of code injection onto the server (which should never be allowed).
The only thing I can think of is if Blizzard maintained a special type of bank file that could only be interacted with through a highly restriced interface.
That's what I always figured. If I use bank signitures, encryption, obfuscation and player handles, none of which are hard to do at all... realistically how many people are going to be downloading my map, hacking it to make it editable, reverse engineering my obfuscated code and then editing it or injecting code of their own? 0.1% of people? Does it matter that much?
Server side banks would allow people to play arcade games at a friends place or in an internet cafe and still have the same bank. I don't know how common that is but it's still a positive effect. But on the other hand I'm currently using banks as an event log so that if someones game crashes they can send me their bank file and I can figure out what the bug was and how to patch the game. That would no longer be possible with server side banks. Not that I think my issue offsets the benefit but it is worth noting that there can be positive effects of allowing people to share banks.
EDIT: forgot to mention that server side banks protects from client hardware problems or accidental deletion which is worth mentioning. Though I still think it's not that big a deal.
Is people hacking their banks that big a deal most of the time? I could see it maybe dissuading some map creators from creating some projects but is this a fix for a current problem or a fix for potential future problems?
There have always been massive problems with banks. The filesize was always ridiculously way too small, always been buggy, you can't dynamically address them and banks are STILL BROKEN in extension mods. Sorry if this sounds ignorant I've just never experienced an issue with it so server side banks has always seemed like a much smaller issue to me.
EDIT:
Speaking of which, anyone think it's worth contacting the people who gave the speach directly about the bug which breaks banks in extension mods? They did ask for feedback about banks, though not that particular issue.
0
How do I remove a unit without triggering its actor death events?
Normally when rock towers are killed the tower collapses and debris is created to block a pathway. That is fine, I want to keep that behaviour, but I want the ability to remove a rocktower via triggers WITHOUT the debris being spawned. using the "remove unit from game" and " kill unit" triggers both cause the actors death event to fire.
I've tried removing all the behaviours and abilities from the unit first, I've tried the "kill actor scope" though I don't know what that does.
Is it maybe possible to completely remove an actor directly?
Thanks.
0
I'm confused. What aspect of the beastmaster campaign would not be reproducable using banks?
Obviously being able to make the client load a specific map for when they transition between areas would be hella useful and is impossible in SC2 but I get the feeling that's not what you mean.
0
Something more along the lines of your library discovery...
If you are using the same library in different maps then publish it to Bnet and include it in your maps as a dependency. That way whenever you need to change something in the library you just have to publish the library and all the maps will automatically reflect the change.
Otherwise you will have to open every map and mess about getting it to use the new version manually. Tedious things often lead to mistakes or missing something and your maps will start to get out of synch and use different versions of the library.
Also if you are doing lots of triggering then learning how to use records effectively will make your life much simpler.
ditto what others said about having cheat codes for streamlined testing
do the same with debugging. Create a debugging output function you can use between maps. The default one is cumbersome and annoying.
Try and reduce duplication wherever you can. If you find yourself doing something simillar in different places try and figure out how you can do it once and do it well and create a function for it.
an action deffinition is a function where you don't have to worry about the return type.
0
FWIW I fixed the problem of the computer not knowing where their town is. So if anyone else is experiencing the issue I was here is how I fixed it.
Do not touch any of the victory/defeat conditions after touching any of the AI stuff. editing those conditions will screw the AI system right up wazoo. Seems pretty damn stupid, but whatever.
You must set up your games victory/enable conditions completely. THEN AND ONLY THEN, can you begin setting any of the parameters for the AI.
What happens if you have a game where the victory conditions change during the game? I dunno. I guess you would have to write your own victory/defeat triggers instead of using the inbuilt ones. But that's not an issue for me so I don't care to figure it out.
Still not sure if I can manually edit the computers towns or not but I'll cross that bridge when I have to cross it.
0
That is what I'm doing.
Once I create the computers base building and workers (using the create starting units for player function) I then run the "start the campaign AI for all computer players" function.
The AI still has no idea where to build its buildings and does so out in the open in the middle of the map.
Are these written down anywhere? Or do you have to use an mpq editor to find the names of functions and then take random guesses in the dark as to what the parameters should be?
0
In my map/mod I remove each players starting units when the game starts. and then let players manually chose where to start as well as a bunch of other custom settings.
But once I remove the AIs main building I can't get any of the AI functions to work anymore. If I tell the AI to build a building it will go out into the middle of the map somewhere and build it in a random location. I've tried rerunning all the AI initialization functions, using the allocate town functions, creating the main building at their initial spawn points... the AI just doesn't seem to be able to cope.
I think I'm running the alolocate towns function correctly, there is no documentation for it but I've tried everything I could think of.
If anyone can help me that would be awesome. Thanks. Turtles.
0
If I could throw in my 2 cents...
I think the kind of documentation we should be aiming for should be breadth first, not depth first. What I mean is we should just try and get as much coverage as we possibly can. step by step tutorials which go through step by agonizingly small step don't help anyone unless they want to replicate the exact map in the tutorial.
What we need is an explanation on things so that when people are exploring for themselves they know what this function does, or what that field in data means, or how to access things which are hidden in the editor. We should assume that people are smart and can figure things out for themselves but they need to know what tools are available at their disposal.
A good start might be explanations for functions which don't have any and have fields with no explanation of what they do.
data fields which might be handy but which don't have intuitive names.
flow charts of how units/weapons/effects/behaviours are linked up showing how you can use set effects to cause behaviours which cause more effects etc.
Stuff that people can't just figure out for themselves without knowing first what to look for.
0
We already do have references... They were added probably over 2 years ago. The only problem is that struct and array references cannot be returned or allocated as a global.
reasonable. I had no idea struct references and function references were even possible. I use the GUI only because I have a LOT of trouble learning new languages and the GUI just makes it so much easier. I know the purists will hate it but with shortcut keys I think I can program even quicker with the GUI than writing it out.
It really sucks that NONE of this kind of stuff is documented or made easy. Without hearing other people talk about it I would probably have no idea that half the things in the editor even existed or were possible. For example is there somewhere I can learn about the syntax of function references?
0
In any case there is limited use for pointers in SC2. The main ones I hear are for dynamic memory allocation systems but that is really about it. The rest can be done with references if global returned references were supported.
I'm only arguing for pointers because they are more basic and would probably require less work to implement. If we could have references then I would be over the moon and the majority of arguments pro-pointer would be removed.
I'm not pro-pointer, I'm pro- being able to properly pass around handles for data.
0
@ArcaneDurandel: Go
Things like modularity, readability, maintainability are all just as important.
Pointers very much do help with those things. No body would be forced to use them. I'm sure if Blizzard put a warning on them in the GUI telling them that it is an advanced tool and that they need not be touched unless you know what you're doing.
0
For security reason pointers are disabled. They do exist inside the code and did work back in WoL beta but were removed due to their ability to do bad things to data and code.
They only do bad things if written badly. Which is easy to do but shouldn't we bear that responsibility?
If they wanted to ensure that we didn't accidentally mess with any of the core SC2 data/code then couldn't they just check the location every time a pointer is dereferenced to make sure it is within the memory section allocated to our own code and data? Better a child safe dumned down pointer than no pointer at all.
0
huh, I never knew about them.
But records do the exact the same thing and in some ways seem a lot more convenient to use. Why would you use a user type instead of a record?
0
I didn't even think about allowing for offline play. That's a really big issue too.
If they allow for a general purpose global bank for things like highscore lists then that would be a huge nightmare. If the game gets popular then you have many players trying to access and modify the one resource. Peoples changes get over written or erased, people are left hanging when the resource is unavailable etc.
Does anyone have any solution to how a problem like that could be dealt with?
I can't really think of any good solutions to the problem that don't leave peoples games hanging while awaiting write access to the file or don't involve some kind of code injection onto the server (which should never be allowed).
The only thing I can think of is if Blizzard maintained a special type of bank file that could only be interacted with through a highly restriced interface.
0
@Charysmatic: Go
That's what I always figured. If I use bank signitures, encryption, obfuscation and player handles, none of which are hard to do at all... realistically how many people are going to be downloading my map, hacking it to make it editable, reverse engineering my obfuscated code and then editing it or injecting code of their own? 0.1% of people? Does it matter that much?
Server side banks would allow people to play arcade games at a friends place or in an internet cafe and still have the same bank. I don't know how common that is but it's still a positive effect. But on the other hand I'm currently using banks as an event log so that if someones game crashes they can send me their bank file and I can figure out what the bug was and how to patch the game. That would no longer be possible with server side banks. Not that I think my issue offsets the benefit but it is worth noting that there can be positive effects of allowing people to share banks.
EDIT: forgot to mention that server side banks protects from client hardware problems or accidental deletion which is worth mentioning. Though I still think it's not that big a deal.
0
Is people hacking their banks that big a deal most of the time? I could see it maybe dissuading some map creators from creating some projects but is this a fix for a current problem or a fix for potential future problems?
There have always been massive problems with banks. The filesize was always ridiculously way too small, always been buggy, you can't dynamically address them and banks are STILL BROKEN in extension mods. Sorry if this sounds ignorant I've just never experienced an issue with it so server side banks has always seemed like a much smaller issue to me.
EDIT: Speaking of which, anyone think it's worth contacting the people who gave the speach directly about the bug which breaks banks in extension mods? They did ask for feedback about banks, though not that particular issue.