Thanks for the response! I've added a set command as you specified to each unit that can be built by the Nydus' Train ability, but I'm having problems getting the unit to load itself with this approach. I think the problem is with the Issue Order command, or at least the way I did it. I bolded the parts that confuse me, namely the assignment of who is using the ability or what its target is.
I don't know what the difference is between the bolded fields and I'm not sure what each argument represents, especially pertaining to the hierarchy of the effect tree. For example, should I be using Source instead of Caster for Unit: Unit?
I really appreciate how helpful you've been in all the topics I've made.
I've been trying to make a Nydus Network that can train a unit and place it directly into its cargo upon completion. I've already achieved the desired effect using a pretty basic trigger, but my approach has some flaws. Here's the trigger I made:
The problems with this are that the unit very briefly appears outside the Nydus Network, which is kind of ugly, and that the unit won't load if the cargo is full. I've also tried an approach where I remove the unit the moment it's created and then make one of the same type directly inside the cargo via another trigger, but the unit is still visible very briefly, and this doesn't effect the second case (I'd like to prevent the network from even being able to train units if its cargo is full).
I could probably satisfy the latter condition if I made a more detailed trigger, but I'd really prefer to do it in data, as I've been using this map as an excuse to actually learn how the data editor works (also data is much faster than triggers!)
I realize I've been asking a lot of questions lately without giving much back to the community, so I hope I haven't worn out my welcome yet :<
That definitely looks pretty complicated, but I'll see what I can do.
There are 2 teams. Each team has a single computer player and up to 2 human players. Only the computer player is of concern in this case, as only it controls the units required to capture the building. The players have the ability to issue the command to capture a structure to the computer player's units, but the computer player retains ownership of the units.
The building changes ownership to whichever computer player manages to get 5 units into their respective cargo.
Whenever a unit is loaded into cargo, it removes (and kills) one unit from the enemy's cargo. For example:
Team 2 has 4 units loaded, Team 1 has 0 units loaded -> Team 1 loads 1 unit into the structure -> Team 2 has 3 units loaded, Team 1 has 1 unit loaded
Once the structure has been captured, the capturing units remain in cargo. The structure remains under the capturer's control until the other team manages to get 5 units in cargo, and thus 0 units in the enemy's cargo.
Dropping the units is not a concern, as they never leave cargo short of being killed by the enemy team's units being loaded into cargo. Once a unit is committed to capturing the structure, it is considered lost.
Nifty, thanks for the tip on the colors! I have a vague idea how I might do it with triggers, but it'd be messy and have unnecessary UI or work like a vendor building or something, and really I prefer doing things in Data when I can. I'd love it if you have any further suggestions, but don't feel bad if it's not possible; I kind of expected this from the start and I've been pondering other ways to get the same functionality.
I'm trying to create a load ability for a neutral structure that allows it to be "captured" and thus transfer ownership to a player if they manage to get 5 specific units inside of it. Is there a way to do this with two seperate cargos, used for each specific team? I know I can give the structure a generic load ability that allows both allied + enemy + neutral targeting, but I'd like to have to separate cargo bars below the structure's shield and health bars so that the player can easily tell how many of each team's units are inside the structure.
I do have my doubts whether this is actually possible, but if it is, is there also a way to change the color of the bars associated with each cargo bay? Ideally I'd like to have the structure showing a cargo of red units and blue units.
I apologize for asking advice on how to do what is probably impossible in the SC2 editor!
edit: as of post #9, the title of this topic was changed from "Creating a unit that can load both allied and enemied players in seperate cargo holds" to "Creating a structure that can be "captured" by moving a certain amount of units near it"
I'm not having much luck with this and as no one has responded I'm inclined to believe what I'm trying to do isn't possible, at least purely with triggers. I'm probably going to try doing it through data with some light trigger assistance.
Unit Weapon Firing returns true as long as the weapon is, well, firing, and Unit Weapon Animating unsurprisingly does the same for animation. This isn't quite the desired effect though, as I'd like it to only return true the exact frame(s) when damage is dealt.
However, I found an alternate solution to the problem by just timing the period of buff using the validator to exactly the period of the unit's weapon.
For one final question, I'm trying to make a data validator that returns true the exact moment a unit fires its weapon and false immediately afterwards, until it fires it again, such that, in the case of a marine, it returns true the exact frame the marine deals damage, and false for the rest of the shooting animation. I've tried using the "Caster Is Firing Weapon" validator with my desired effect in the Effect: Effect - Initial field, but it doesn't work.
If you have any suggestions on how to do this, I'd really be indebted. If not, that's fine, and I'll probably figure it out eventually or try some other approach. You've already helped a ton with the fuel problem, and I'm extremely grateful for your assistance!
I don't think snipe is a bad idea against enemy heroes, but I do have a problem with it being used on structures, especially when it one-shots unupgraded turrets that have been otherwise safe most of the game due to smart lane control. On units and heroes, it's fine as it has enough windup and a pretty blatant tell, so I figure if you get hit by it you deserve the damage. If anything, I actually find Remi to be one of the weaker heroes due to her nuke which is generally inferior to Valac/Saru's AoE spells until it starts hitting max level.
Valac inflate skill
This is just another minor observation, but an enemy killed by inflate or the surrounding AoE doesn't give a gold bounty. This may be intentional, though.
Preserver Hero phase shift
I managed to kill a preserver in phase shift the other day and he couldn't respawn afterwards, which caused him to leave the game in frustration. I don't remember how I killed him, but I remember I was playing Remi and I'm guessing it was one of those infinite range snipes that occasionally happens.
AoE spells and unit health upgrade
You stated that you don't want to reduce rank 5 AoE damage, and I can kind of see the idea as it takes so long to reach rank 5; however, the problem with this is that it still eventually happens, and when it does the map is instantly stripped of any tactical reason to use low-HP units. High damage AoE spells aren't necessarily a bad thing, as I like to use them to kill enemy heroes at the end of a combo of stuns and attacks. It's the ability to wipe out entire armies that's the big issue.
I think there is an alternate solution to weakening AoE skills that can solve this issue: you can make the health upgrade for army units much more powerful, or make it a percentage increase from base or something. As things stand, the health upgrade gives 10HP per level. If you were able to acquire all 20 levels of it (completely impractical, as most games never see upgrades beyond 9 or so in weapons and armor), your units would have a 200 HP bonus, which brings the starting units up to around 300HP, still too weak to survive most rank 5 AoE. So the health upgrade is more or less a waste when you could be getting more damage or armor for the same cost! By increasing the potency of this upgrade, you'd be creating a way for armies who invest in low-tech units to stay relevant even in the presence of massive AoE damage, and thus add more tactical complexity to the game. This could also benefit an army's workers, giving them some defense against the opponent running in and wiping out all mining capability.
If you do choose to increase the health upgrade's strength, do so with caution, especially if you choose a percentile approach, as you may end up making tier 3 units even more necessary instead of providing a justification to use weaker ones. I suggest each upgrade gives low HP units a significant increase, and high HP units a more minor one, so we don't end up just fighting massed 4000HP Ultralisks or something. The idea is to give weaker units the ability to survive 2 and eventually 3 or 4 AoE spells.
Zerg static defenses
From what you said earlier, it seemed like the problem with having only one entrance covered by two turrets was that the turrets could hit other players' B.O.B., virtually guaranteeing a Zerg win if it got close enough. I'd like to know how this is different from the way it is for the other two races right now, as they have a single entrance covered by two turrets, and if you get close enough to it with B.O.B. it's pretty much the same deal. I'd think with a bit of clever map restructuring you could find a way so that the top spine crawlers both covered a single entrance as well as their respective sides.
This isn't working very well for me, and I know I'm obviously doing it wrong but I'm not sure what's causing problems. The unit spawns with 0 fuel (Out of Fuel is disabled for the time being), but gains 1 Fuel when moving; when it stops moving, the fuel returns to 0. This suggests that Consume Fuel is indeed working but is adding instead of decrementing fuel, despite setting a negative number in attribute changes.
I think I'm unclear on the concept of stacking buffs, or how I should go about doing that. I thought it was done in the attribute changes window under modifications, but now I'm not sure.
I'm sure I'm making a few novice mistakes here, I'm sorry! This is my first time really using the data editor for this kind of thing; in the past I've always done it through triggers. I really want to learn how to do things in data, though, as it seems much faster and more efficient.
I can't be the only one who's annoyed by the placement of the spine crawlers for zerg. The other two races have one entrance from the center area, which is covered by two cannons/bunkers at once, but zerg has two northern entrances which are only protected by one spine crawler each. This means I find myself losing all my drones early game do to attacks that simply are not possible against the other two races.
Other balance thoughts:
Gregor needs to be toned down; he can just rush into bases and solo their spawn buildings with his enrage thing, and his stun thing has way too little cooldown.
Valac is pretty ridiculous as well, with an instant-kill for move to deal with carriers and battle cruisers that's the envy of the other two races, and two outrageously powerful and easily spammable area of effect spells.
Saru is similar to Valac in terms of ridiculous AoE, but I find that he's more fragile and one of his AoE has some wind up so you can interrupt him.
I guess my biggest problem with the map is that the heroes are actually too strong in the end game, to the point where lesser units become completely useless as they are instantly killed by huge AoE abilities, so it just turns into a Battlecruiser/Carrier/"you're outta luck if you're Zerg 'cause your strongest units can't hit air, guess you might as well spend tons more money getting both Ultras and Corruptors even though they're both considerably weaker" spamfest.
0
Thanks for the response! I've added a set command as you specified to each unit that can be built by the Nydus' Train ability, but I'm having problems getting the unit to load itself with this approach. I think the problem is with the Issue Order command, or at least the way I did it. I bolded the parts that confuse me, namely the assignment of who is using the ability or what its target is.
My search area effect looks like this:
The issue order effect is like this:
these lines are the ones that confuse me:
I don't know what the difference is between the bolded fields and I'm not sure what each argument represents, especially pertaining to the hierarchy of the effect tree. For example, should I be using Source instead of Caster for Unit: Unit?
I really appreciate how helpful you've been in all the topics I've made.
0
I've been trying to make a Nydus Network that can train a unit and place it directly into its cargo upon completion. I've already achieved the desired effect using a pretty basic trigger, but my approach has some flaws. Here's the trigger I made:
The problems with this are that the unit very briefly appears outside the Nydus Network, which is kind of ugly, and that the unit won't load if the cargo is full. I've also tried an approach where I remove the unit the moment it's created and then make one of the same type directly inside the cargo via another trigger, but the unit is still visible very briefly, and this doesn't effect the second case (I'd like to prevent the network from even being able to train units if its cargo is full).
I could probably satisfy the latter condition if I made a more detailed trigger, but I'd really prefer to do it in data, as I've been using this map as an excuse to actually learn how the data editor works (also data is much faster than triggers!)
I realize I've been asking a lot of questions lately without giving much back to the community, so I hope I haven't worn out my welcome yet :<
0
I'll start working on this segment of my project soon, and will post my methods when (if) I am successful!
0
That definitely looks pretty complicated, but I'll see what I can do.
There are 2 teams. Each team has a single computer player and up to 2 human players. Only the computer player is of concern in this case, as only it controls the units required to capture the building. The players have the ability to issue the command to capture a structure to the computer player's units, but the computer player retains ownership of the units.
The building changes ownership to whichever computer player manages to get 5 units into their respective cargo.
Whenever a unit is loaded into cargo, it removes (and kills) one unit from the enemy's cargo. For example:
Team 2 has 4 units loaded, Team 1 has 0 units loaded -> Team 1 loads 1 unit into the structure -> Team 2 has 3 units loaded, Team 1 has 1 unit loaded
Once the structure has been captured, the capturing units remain in cargo. The structure remains under the capturer's control until the other team manages to get 5 units in cargo, and thus 0 units in the enemy's cargo.
Dropping the units is not a concern, as they never leave cargo short of being killed by the enemy team's units being loaded into cargo. Once a unit is committed to capturing the structure, it is considered lost.
0
Nifty, thanks for the tip on the colors! I have a vague idea how I might do it with triggers, but it'd be messy and have unnecessary UI or work like a vendor building or something, and really I prefer doing things in Data when I can. I'd love it if you have any further suggestions, but don't feel bad if it's not possible; I kind of expected this from the start and I've been pondering other ways to get the same functionality.
0
I'm trying to create a load ability for a neutral structure that allows it to be "captured" and thus transfer ownership to a player if they manage to get 5 specific units inside of it. Is there a way to do this with two seperate cargos, used for each specific team? I know I can give the structure a generic load ability that allows both allied + enemy + neutral targeting, but I'd like to have to separate cargo bars below the structure's shield and health bars so that the player can easily tell how many of each team's units are inside the structure.
I do have my doubts whether this is actually possible, but if it is, is there also a way to change the color of the bars associated with each cargo bay? Ideally I'd like to have the structure showing a cargo of red units and blue units.
I apologize for asking advice on how to do what is probably impossible in the SC2 editor!
edit: as of post #9, the title of this topic was changed from "Creating a unit that can load both allied and enemied players in seperate cargo holds" to "Creating a structure that can be "captured" by moving a certain amount of units near it"
0
I'm not having much luck with this and as no one has responded I'm inclined to believe what I'm trying to do isn't possible, at least purely with triggers. I'm probably going to try doing it through data with some light trigger assistance.
0
Unit Weapon Firing returns true as long as the weapon is, well, firing, and Unit Weapon Animating unsurprisingly does the same for animation. This isn't quite the desired effect though, as I'd like it to only return true the exact frame(s) when damage is dealt.
However, I found an alternate solution to the problem by just timing the period of buff using the validator to exactly the period of the unit's weapon.
0
You could try something like this:
sorry I'm so terrible at drawing things :<
You might have to change the angles of the triangle to make lane distances even (or you could just eyeball it because who cares)
0
For one final question, I'm trying to make a data validator that returns true the exact moment a unit fires its weapon and false immediately afterwards, until it fires it again, such that, in the case of a marine, it returns true the exact frame the marine deals damage, and false for the rest of the shooting animation. I've tried using the "Caster Is Firing Weapon" validator with my desired effect in the Effect: Effect - Initial field, but it doesn't work.
If you have any suggestions on how to do this, I'd really be indebted. If not, that's fine, and I'll probably figure it out eventually or try some other approach. You've already helped a ton with the fuel problem, and I'm extremely grateful for your assistance!
0
Thanks for the help, I got it working!
I used this structure:
Behaviors
Fuel -> Attribute
FuelB -> Buff (stacks to 100, each one modifies Fuel attribute by 1)
Consume Fuel -> Buff (Periodic Effect: Fuel Movement Consumption, period of 0.75, Validator to disable is Caster Is Moving)
Out Of Fuel -> Buff (modification suppresses movement, Validator to disable is Has No Fuel)
Replenishing Fuel -> Buff (Periodic Effect: Give Fuel, Period Count is 100, Validator to remove is Needs Fuel)
Effects
Fuel Movement Consumption -> Remove Behavior (Removes FuelB)
Give Fuel -> Apply Behavior (Applies FuelB)
Validators
Caster Is Moving -> Unit Compare Speed (Checks if caster's speed is not equal to 0)
Has No Fuel -> Unit Compare Behavior Type (Checks if FuelB is 0)
Needs Fuel -> Unit Compare Behavior Type (Checks if FuelB is less than 100)
I hope this helps anyone trying to do the same thing in the future. I really appreciate the support!
0
Snipe
I don't think snipe is a bad idea against enemy heroes, but I do have a problem with it being used on structures, especially when it one-shots unupgraded turrets that have been otherwise safe most of the game due to smart lane control. On units and heroes, it's fine as it has enough windup and a pretty blatant tell, so I figure if you get hit by it you deserve the damage. If anything, I actually find Remi to be one of the weaker heroes due to her nuke which is generally inferior to Valac/Saru's AoE spells until it starts hitting max level.
Valac inflate skill
This is just another minor observation, but an enemy killed by inflate or the surrounding AoE doesn't give a gold bounty. This may be intentional, though.
Preserver Hero phase shift
I managed to kill a preserver in phase shift the other day and he couldn't respawn afterwards, which caused him to leave the game in frustration. I don't remember how I killed him, but I remember I was playing Remi and I'm guessing it was one of those infinite range snipes that occasionally happens.
AoE spells and unit health upgrade
You stated that you don't want to reduce rank 5 AoE damage, and I can kind of see the idea as it takes so long to reach rank 5; however, the problem with this is that it still eventually happens, and when it does the map is instantly stripped of any tactical reason to use low-HP units. High damage AoE spells aren't necessarily a bad thing, as I like to use them to kill enemy heroes at the end of a combo of stuns and attacks. It's the ability to wipe out entire armies that's the big issue.
I think there is an alternate solution to weakening AoE skills that can solve this issue: you can make the health upgrade for army units much more powerful, or make it a percentage increase from base or something. As things stand, the health upgrade gives 10HP per level. If you were able to acquire all 20 levels of it (completely impractical, as most games never see upgrades beyond 9 or so in weapons and armor), your units would have a 200 HP bonus, which brings the starting units up to around 300HP, still too weak to survive most rank 5 AoE. So the health upgrade is more or less a waste when you could be getting more damage or armor for the same cost! By increasing the potency of this upgrade, you'd be creating a way for armies who invest in low-tech units to stay relevant even in the presence of massive AoE damage, and thus add more tactical complexity to the game. This could also benefit an army's workers, giving them some defense against the opponent running in and wiping out all mining capability.
If you do choose to increase the health upgrade's strength, do so with caution, especially if you choose a percentile approach, as you may end up making tier 3 units even more necessary instead of providing a justification to use weaker ones. I suggest each upgrade gives low HP units a significant increase, and high HP units a more minor one, so we don't end up just fighting massed 4000HP Ultralisks or something. The idea is to give weaker units the ability to survive 2 and eventually 3 or 4 AoE spells.
Zerg static defenses
From what you said earlier, it seemed like the problem with having only one entrance covered by two turrets was that the turrets could hit other players' B.O.B., virtually guaranteeing a Zerg win if it got close enough. I'd like to know how this is different from the way it is for the other two races right now, as they have a single entrance covered by two turrets, and if you get close enough to it with B.O.B. it's pretty much the same deal. I'd think with a bit of clever map restructuring you could find a way so that the top spine crawlers both covered a single entrance as well as their respective sides.
0
Thanks for the reply! I really appreciate someone taking the time to clear things up.
I've been trying what you said and I'm a bit confused at how I should organize this.
From what I understand, I need the following behaviors:
This isn't working very well for me, and I know I'm obviously doing it wrong but I'm not sure what's causing problems. The unit spawns with 0 fuel (Out of Fuel is disabled for the time being), but gains 1 Fuel when moving; when it stops moving, the fuel returns to 0. This suggests that Consume Fuel is indeed working but is adding instead of decrementing fuel, despite setting a negative number in attribute changes.
I think I'm unclear on the concept of stacking buffs, or how I should go about doing that. I thought it was done in the attribute changes window under modifications, but now I'm not sure.
I'm sure I'm making a few novice mistakes here, I'm sorry! This is my first time really using the data editor for this kind of thing; in the past I've always done it through triggers. I really want to learn how to do things in data, though, as it seems much faster and more efficient.
0
In other news, I discovered today that you can permanently kill Bob using Valac's inflate skill. Welp!
0
I can't be the only one who's annoyed by the placement of the spine crawlers for zerg. The other two races have one entrance from the center area, which is covered by two cannons/bunkers at once, but zerg has two northern entrances which are only protected by one spine crawler each. This means I find myself losing all my drones early game do to attacks that simply are not possible against the other two races.
Other balance thoughts:
Gregor needs to be toned down; he can just rush into bases and solo their spawn buildings with his enrage thing, and his stun thing has way too little cooldown.
Valac is pretty ridiculous as well, with an instant-kill for move to deal with carriers and battle cruisers that's the envy of the other two races, and two outrageously powerful and easily spammable area of effect spells.
Saru is similar to Valac in terms of ridiculous AoE, but I find that he's more fragile and one of his AoE has some wind up so you can interrupt him.
I guess my biggest problem with the map is that the heroes are actually too strong in the end game, to the point where lesser units become completely useless as they are instantly killed by huge AoE abilities, so it just turns into a Battlecruiser/Carrier/"you're outta luck if you're Zerg 'cause your strongest units can't hit air, guess you might as well spend tons more money getting both Ultras and Corruptors even though they're both considerably weaker" spamfest.