I'm just going on memory here. But I think abilities have separate ranges for autocast and for the ability itself. There's a range for how far away the ability can be used on someone, and then an autocast range. That's the max range that autocast will cast the ability at.
If they're chasing you, one of those ranges could just be set to melee range.
I had the same problem. While trying to figure it out, I learned that the critters are affected by click response effects, but other units are not. So I set about trying to figure out what the difference is between a fighting unit (like the Marine) and a critter. It turns out critters can "Be Clicked" and other units "Cannot Be Clicked".
The solution is this: Check the unit you're trying to put the click effect on. Go to the Unit tab and go to "Unit: Flags". Uncheck "Cannot Be Clicked".
Now your unit should be affected by click responses.
I haven't had a chance to try any of this yet. But here's what I'm going to try.
I'm thinking of having the ability depend on a certain upgrade that only the enemy player will have. (This is going to be an asymmetric game, so I don't need players to be able to do it to each other.) Though I don't know yet whether it would be possible to have it appear for one player and not the other. I'm worried that it might only show/not show the abilities based on the upgrades for the player that owns the unit.
I was just using an explosion as an example of what kind of thing I'm going for. I think it would actually be much cooler if I could allow selecting the unit itself to activate this "explosion". I plan on giving the casting player sight of the unit for about a minute or so and giving them the ability to "detonate" that unit within a certain timeframe.
If the idea I'm thinking of won't work, then I may just have to try a dummy unit.
EDIT: It actually won't work, will it? I've just been thinking about it and trying to figure it out. Even if I could make different abilities check different players on the same unit, the unit will simply display abilities to both players based on the requirements it checks, right? IE, the checks will be done, and then both players will see the abilities after those checks. I doubt it'll display different abilities to different players on the same unit.
If so, I'll have to use a dummy unit to get the effect I want. Or maybe I can use a click response to get something almost like what I want. Maybe when an enemy player double clicks the unit, it can explode. I really wanted it to be a button on a command card, but this is the next best idea I can come up with in lieu of that. And a bit less hacky than using a dummy unit.
Heya. Here's the scenario I'm trying to set up. I have a unit that puts a negative buff on an enemy unit. When the enemy unit has this buff, I want the enemy unit to gain a button on its command card, so I can click that unit and press the button. (The button would make the unit explode or something.)
How can I do this while letting the enemy player keep control of his unit? I basically want it so that, when this buff is on him, me and the enemy can both command the unit at the same time. But the only button/ability I get is the explode ability, while my enemy keeps control of all the other abilities, such as move, attack, etc.
EDIT: I made huge progress. I used an Interact ability, with range 500 and autocast range 500. Autocast filter is set to only Enemy. Same with Target filter. I set up a validator to check whether the behavior I'm looking for is on the unit, and I used that as an autocast validator. I set it to autocast, exclusive, share control, and share vision.
In effect, this is what happens: I attack with the unit, put the behavior on the enemy unit, and then I gain shared control of the enemy unit. His command card becomes available to me and I can command him. But he remains the enemy's unit and shoots at my units whenever he isn't on a move order.
It should be easy from this point to just hide the marine's abilities from me and hide the "explode" ability from his owner.
To condense this down a bit, and make it simpler to read:
I've gotten it working now, with inspiration from DrSuperEvil. The barracks now lets me build an addon. I got it to work by adding Barracks Point as the BuildOn unit for the addon.
Now there's only two minor problems left. One, it makes you place the barracks/addon combo rather than starting to build as soon as you press the hotkey. And two, it still doesn't show a green ghost of the building on the Barracks Point when you're placing the Barracks for the SCV to build. See above post for example map of what I have so far.
FIXED THE PROBLEM WITH BUILDING ADDONS. See second edit.
Heya, long time. My computer died for a while, but now I'm back.
Art: Model (Placement) gives you the green ghost of the building you want to place, but it doesn't create additional ghosts of the building at the build on unit(s). As far as I can tell. I don't know what the difference is between a refinery and a barracks in this regard. I don't know why placing the refinery shows those additional ghosts on the guysers, but I can't get the barracks to do the same thing on my Barracks Point unit.
What do you mean that the unit you built the barracks on needs to include the addon unit? After reading what you said, I got a lot closer to success I think! I checked the tech lab's footprint and found that its footprint was the size of both itself and the barracks, which I didn't expect. So I made the tech lab also be built on the Barracks Point unit, and the way it acted changed.
Now when I try to build the tech lab from the barracks, it still doesn't automatically start building it like it should. But now, instead, it lets me place the barracks/tech lab as a whole, as if there were still something in the way. When I place it (in the right spot), the barracks lifts off, flies slightly away, flies back to where it started, lands, and then tells me that it's blocked and fails to build the tech lab.
Updated test map to see it in action. Build the rax on the point, and then try to build the tech lab, and you'll see what it does.
EDIT: The error it gives when it fails is that it can't find the placement location or something. And I noticed that the placement ghost of the barracks shifts slightly before it lands. So I think the problem is it's not landing right.
EDIT EDIT: Okay I got that working now. The problem was the placement of the Barracks Point unit was off because I wasn't using a footprint to place it, so it wasn't snapped to the right place for the barracks to be.
It still gives me the option to place the barracks though, which is a little off. I was hoping it would just automatically build it. But once I place it, it does start building without lifting off, which is good.
The only thing left to figure out is, maybe, how to get it to automatically start building the addon. And how to get the green ghost to appear when placing the barracks.
I did three things. I created an actor named Barracks Point. It uses Invisible as its model, and uses Ball1x1 as its model in the editor. Then I made a unit named Barracks Point, I set the unit of the Barracks Point actor to the unit I made. (Linked them together.) Then I made the Barracks BuildOn (in Behaviors tab) use Barracks Point.
You can see both of the problems in this example map.
A: The Barracks will build on the invisible unit (in the middle of the highway) but will not build an addon or land once you lift off.
B: If you choose to place a Refinery, you can see the green glowing wireframe of the Refinery on both geysers. But if you try to place the Barracks, you don't see the green glowing wireframe on the Barracks Point until you move your mouse there.
EDIT: Oh, I also tested the command center. It can successfully turn into an orbital. So it must do that differently than the Barracks attempt to build an addon.
Heya. I've been looking through data for hours trying to solve this, but I can't figure it out.
I wanted to make it so some Terran buildings (Command Center, Barracks, Engineering Bay, Fusion Core) are only buildable atop something that I placed on the map, to control where they can be built. I succeeded in this, with a separate invisible unit for each one to be built on.
When it comes to building them with an SCV, everything works like normal. If I try to place them on the ground, I get an error about placing that on a vespene geyser. The building ghost for placement even snaps to the location when you hover close enough.
Problem 1: Vespene geysers get the placement ghost refinery on top of them when you're choosing a place to place your refinery, to suggest to you that that's where you build it. I can't figure out how to make my invisible units do that. I get the normal building ghost that you place, but no building ghost on the point you place it on. I've looked through geyser and refinery data for hours on end and I haven't been able to figure it out.
Problem 2: The Barracks, like the other buildings, builds on its BuiltOn unit perfectly. However, it can't build any addons once it's there. If I attempt to rapidly enough while clicking with the mouse, I can glitch a placement attempt in the spot it's at, which shows red like it's being blocked, and tells me that it needs to be placed on a vespene geyser when I click. If I try to land a flying barracks on the spot, same thing. Needs to be placed on a vespene geyser.
So it seems like you can initially build a barracks on that point, but it's impossible for a barracks to morph onto that point. It can't land which is a morph, and it can't build an addon because that's probably a morph too.
Does anyone know the solution to either of those problems?
I apologize for reviving an old thread, but are you sure it's not just a problem with your barracks footprint?
I've just recently done what you're doing, except I made an invisible unit instead of made my stuff placed on supply depots. It works just fine for me with no need to copy stuff from the refinery.
Try removing the BuiltOn thing from your barracks and test to see if you can build on top of them normally. If so, you probably don't have a footprint on your Barracks.
I think a mark sounds like a good idea. The attack itself will be a pounce from a distance that stuns on hit. Marking right when the pounce is going to begin would be a good way to make sure that pounces are to unique targets.
Thank you! I'll take a look at how widow mines work. I kind of hope it's an attack and not just an ability, haha.
EDIT: I'll have to add the stun to test this, but I think I know how I'm gonna do it.
The weapon target filters has e_targetFilterStunned as one of the things you can set. I set that to Excluded. I'll also use a marker for both the leap effect and the stun effect, and make them use the same marker. This should theoretically make it so the pouncer can't target stunned units, and can't leap at units that are being lept at or stunned.
Now the only question is how to apply the stun. The leap effect is just a missile effect that doesn't specify a missile unit, so the unit uses itself as the missile. There's a field for impact effect, but I don't know if that means it applies an effect to the casting unit or the target unit.
EDIT EDIT: Impact Effect should work... according to the wiki, Launch Effect applies an effect where the missile was launched, and Impact Effect applies an effect where the missile targeted. I targeted the target unit, so this should work.
I heard I could make requests. Normally I wouldn't, but it's a small one that I don't have the skills or software to do. Only do it if you're interested in it and you see value in it.
Basically, I was hoping to have a scientist as a playable unit. He was going to be a commanding officer type. He has the perfect look for it.
But his skeleton has no attachment point on his hands for any weapons. The only attachment points are in the middle of him. And he probably has no animations for attacking with a ranged weapon either.
I already have a pistol I want to attach to him. (A piece someone took off of the Reaper.) So I guess all I (or anyone else) would need is to get an attachment point for his right hand, and an animation for holding the pistol steady and shooting.
Since he's going to be the commanding officer type, I'd prefer it if his position were like this:
That stance seems like a better stance for a commanding officer type of unit. Realism aside, this one-handed stance looks more proud and confident than the traditional two-handed controlled stance. Artistically, I think that would make the most sense for this.
Once again, nobody has to do this. I understand that I'm basically a beggar here. But if someone finds this interesting and wants to see it happen, then I'd love it if you did. I already have a use for it and I'm sure there are others who could use it too.
I've seen it mentioned before that you can make an ability only use one caster to cast it, even if you have a group of them selected. (In fact, pretty much every unit with spells can do this.) But I can't figure out how to apply this to the Attack ability.
I want to make a melee unit that pounces on something and stuns it for its attack. But the stun will have a length of time where both the pouncer and the pouncee are immobile. And I want only one of the pouncing unit to be able to hit a victim at a time. The pounce attack will have a cooldown, so ideally I want each pouncing unit to hit a unique target, and I want it to be possible for a player to micro them by right clicking targets while having a group of the pouncers selected.
I'm not too worried about implementing the stun effect. That'll be easy and I could do that at any time. I'd just like to know how to get the attacking to behave right so that there aren't pouncers wasting their cooldown on the same unit.
Maybe I could look at siege tanks to see how their overkill avoidance thing works.
Wish I could've figured out a way to just ask it in the title. But...
Let's say I have a mod published, and I make a minor update to it. Do players have to download the whole mod again, or will they only have to download the difference and it gets updated?
Essentially, if I'm going to have media in the mod (audio files, etc), is it smart to put that all in a separate mod from your main mod, so users have a smaller download whenever you change data?
0
I'm just going on memory here. But I think abilities have separate ranges for autocast and for the ability itself. There's a range for how far away the ability can be used on someone, and then an autocast range. That's the max range that autocast will cast the ability at.
If they're chasing you, one of those ranges could just be set to melee range.
0
I had the same problem. While trying to figure it out, I learned that the critters are affected by click response effects, but other units are not. So I set about trying to figure out what the difference is between a fighting unit (like the Marine) and a critter. It turns out critters can "Be Clicked" and other units "Cannot Be Clicked".
The solution is this: Check the unit you're trying to put the click effect on. Go to the Unit tab and go to "Unit: Flags". Uncheck "Cannot Be Clicked".
Now your unit should be affected by click responses.
0
I haven't had a chance to try any of this yet. But here's what I'm going to try.
I'm thinking of having the ability depend on a certain upgrade that only the enemy player will have. (This is going to be an asymmetric game, so I don't need players to be able to do it to each other.) Though I don't know yet whether it would be possible to have it appear for one player and not the other. I'm worried that it might only show/not show the abilities based on the upgrades for the player that owns the unit.
I was just using an explosion as an example of what kind of thing I'm going for. I think it would actually be much cooler if I could allow selecting the unit itself to activate this "explosion". I plan on giving the casting player sight of the unit for about a minute or so and giving them the ability to "detonate" that unit within a certain timeframe.
If the idea I'm thinking of won't work, then I may just have to try a dummy unit.
EDIT: It actually won't work, will it? I've just been thinking about it and trying to figure it out. Even if I could make different abilities check different players on the same unit, the unit will simply display abilities to both players based on the requirements it checks, right? IE, the checks will be done, and then both players will see the abilities after those checks. I doubt it'll display different abilities to different players on the same unit.
If so, I'll have to use a dummy unit to get the effect I want. Or maybe I can use a click response to get something almost like what I want. Maybe when an enemy player double clicks the unit, it can explode. I really wanted it to be a button on a command card, but this is the next best idea I can come up with in lieu of that. And a bit less hacky than using a dummy unit.
0
Heya. Here's the scenario I'm trying to set up. I have a unit that puts a negative buff on an enemy unit. When the enemy unit has this buff, I want the enemy unit to gain a button on its command card, so I can click that unit and press the button. (The button would make the unit explode or something.)
How can I do this while letting the enemy player keep control of his unit? I basically want it so that, when this buff is on him, me and the enemy can both command the unit at the same time. But the only button/ability I get is the explode ability, while my enemy keeps control of all the other abilities, such as move, attack, etc.
EDIT: I made huge progress. I used an Interact ability, with range 500 and autocast range 500. Autocast filter is set to only Enemy. Same with Target filter. I set up a validator to check whether the behavior I'm looking for is on the unit, and I used that as an autocast validator. I set it to autocast, exclusive, share control, and share vision.
In effect, this is what happens: I attack with the unit, put the behavior on the enemy unit, and then I gain shared control of the enemy unit. His command card becomes available to me and I can command him. But he remains the enemy's unit and shoots at my units whenever he isn't on a move order.
It should be easy from this point to just hide the marine's abilities from me and hide the "explode" ability from his owner.
0
To condense this down a bit, and make it simpler to read:
I've gotten it working now, with inspiration from DrSuperEvil. The barracks now lets me build an addon. I got it to work by adding Barracks Point as the BuildOn unit for the addon.
Now there's only two minor problems left. One, it makes you place the barracks/addon combo rather than starting to build as soon as you press the hotkey. And two, it still doesn't show a green ghost of the building on the Barracks Point when you're placing the Barracks for the SCV to build. See above post for example map of what I have so far.
0
FIXED THE PROBLEM WITH BUILDING ADDONS. See second edit.
Heya, long time. My computer died for a while, but now I'm back.
Art: Model (Placement) gives you the green ghost of the building you want to place, but it doesn't create additional ghosts of the building at the build on unit(s). As far as I can tell. I don't know what the difference is between a refinery and a barracks in this regard. I don't know why placing the refinery shows those additional ghosts on the guysers, but I can't get the barracks to do the same thing on my Barracks Point unit.
What do you mean that the unit you built the barracks on needs to include the addon unit? After reading what you said, I got a lot closer to success I think! I checked the tech lab's footprint and found that its footprint was the size of both itself and the barracks, which I didn't expect. So I made the tech lab also be built on the Barracks Point unit, and the way it acted changed.
Now when I try to build the tech lab from the barracks, it still doesn't automatically start building it like it should. But now, instead, it lets me place the barracks/tech lab as a whole, as if there were still something in the way. When I place it (in the right spot), the barracks lifts off, flies slightly away, flies back to where it started, lands, and then tells me that it's blocked and fails to build the tech lab.
Updated test map to see it in action. Build the rax on the point, and then try to build the tech lab, and you'll see what it does.
EDIT: The error it gives when it fails is that it can't find the placement location or something. And I noticed that the placement ghost of the barracks shifts slightly before it lands. So I think the problem is it's not landing right.
EDIT EDIT: Okay I got that working now. The problem was the placement of the Barracks Point unit was off because I wasn't using a footprint to place it, so it wasn't snapped to the right place for the barracks to be.
It still gives me the option to place the barracks though, which is a little off. I was hoping it would just automatically build it. But once I place it, it does start building without lifting off, which is good.
The only thing left to figure out is, maybe, how to get it to automatically start building the addon. And how to get the green ghost to appear when placing the barracks.
0
Here ya go.
I did three things. I created an actor named Barracks Point. It uses Invisible as its model, and uses Ball1x1 as its model in the editor. Then I made a unit named Barracks Point, I set the unit of the Barracks Point actor to the unit I made. (Linked them together.) Then I made the Barracks BuildOn (in Behaviors tab) use Barracks Point.
You can see both of the problems in this example map.
A: The Barracks will build on the invisible unit (in the middle of the highway) but will not build an addon or land once you lift off.
B: If you choose to place a Refinery, you can see the green glowing wireframe of the Refinery on both geysers. But if you try to place the Barracks, you don't see the green glowing wireframe on the Barracks Point until you move your mouse there.
EDIT: Oh, I also tested the command center. It can successfully turn into an orbital. So it must do that differently than the Barracks attempt to build an addon.
0
Some progress has been made. See this post (#7) for updated, simplified details.
http://www.sc2mapster.com/forums/development/data/54602-two-problems-with-built-on-placement-ghosts-and-barracks/#p7
_
Heya. I've been looking through data for hours trying to solve this, but I can't figure it out.
I wanted to make it so some Terran buildings (Command Center, Barracks, Engineering Bay, Fusion Core) are only buildable atop something that I placed on the map, to control where they can be built. I succeeded in this, with a separate invisible unit for each one to be built on.
When it comes to building them with an SCV, everything works like normal. If I try to place them on the ground, I get an error about placing that on a vespene geyser. The building ghost for placement even snaps to the location when you hover close enough.
Problem 1: Vespene geysers get the placement ghost refinery on top of them when you're choosing a place to place your refinery, to suggest to you that that's where you build it. I can't figure out how to make my invisible units do that. I get the normal building ghost that you place, but no building ghost on the point you place it on. I've looked through geyser and refinery data for hours on end and I haven't been able to figure it out.
Problem 2: The Barracks, like the other buildings, builds on its BuiltOn unit perfectly. However, it can't build any addons once it's there. If I attempt to rapidly enough while clicking with the mouse, I can glitch a placement attempt in the spot it's at, which shows red like it's being blocked, and tells me that it needs to be placed on a vespene geyser when I click. If I try to land a flying barracks on the spot, same thing. Needs to be placed on a vespene geyser.
So it seems like you can initially build a barracks on that point, but it's impossible for a barracks to morph onto that point. It can't land which is a morph, and it can't build an addon because that's probably a morph too.
Does anyone know the solution to either of those problems?
0
I apologize for reviving an old thread, but are you sure it's not just a problem with your barracks footprint?
I've just recently done what you're doing, except I made an invisible unit instead of made my stuff placed on supply depots. It works just fine for me with no need to copy stuff from the refinery.
Try removing the BuiltOn thing from your barracks and test to see if you can build on top of them normally. If so, you probably don't have a footprint on your Barracks.
0
I think a mark sounds like a good idea. The attack itself will be a pounce from a distance that stuns on hit. Marking right when the pounce is going to begin would be a good way to make sure that pounces are to unique targets.
Thank you! I'll take a look at how widow mines work. I kind of hope it's an attack and not just an ability, haha.
EDIT: I'll have to add the stun to test this, but I think I know how I'm gonna do it.
The weapon target filters has e_targetFilterStunned as one of the things you can set. I set that to Excluded. I'll also use a marker for both the leap effect and the stun effect, and make them use the same marker. This should theoretically make it so the pouncer can't target stunned units, and can't leap at units that are being lept at or stunned.
Now the only question is how to apply the stun. The leap effect is just a missile effect that doesn't specify a missile unit, so the unit uses itself as the missile. There's a field for impact effect, but I don't know if that means it applies an effect to the casting unit or the target unit.
EDIT EDIT: Impact Effect should work... according to the wiki, Launch Effect applies an effect where the missile was launched, and Impact Effect applies an effect where the missile targeted. I targeted the target unit, so this should work.
0
Thank you!
0
I heard I could make requests. Normally I wouldn't, but it's a small one that I don't have the skills or software to do. Only do it if you're interested in it and you see value in it.
Basically, I was hoping to have a scientist as a playable unit. He was going to be a commanding officer type. He has the perfect look for it.
But his skeleton has no attachment point on his hands for any weapons. The only attachment points are in the middle of him. And he probably has no animations for attacking with a ranged weapon either.
I already have a pistol I want to attach to him. (A piece someone took off of the Reaper.) So I guess all I (or anyone else) would need is to get an attachment point for his right hand, and an animation for holding the pistol steady and shooting.
Since he's going to be the commanding officer type, I'd prefer it if his position were like this:
That stance seems like a better stance for a commanding officer type of unit. Realism aside, this one-handed stance looks more proud and confident than the traditional two-handed controlled stance. Artistically, I think that would make the most sense for this.
Once again, nobody has to do this. I understand that I'm basically a beggar here. But if someone finds this interesting and wants to see it happen, then I'd love it if you did. I already have a use for it and I'm sure there are others who could use it too.
0
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I mean lay down on a table or possibly fall onto its back if it falls unconscious.
0
I've seen it mentioned before that you can make an ability only use one caster to cast it, even if you have a group of them selected. (In fact, pretty much every unit with spells can do this.) But I can't figure out how to apply this to the Attack ability.
I want to make a melee unit that pounces on something and stuns it for its attack. But the stun will have a length of time where both the pouncer and the pouncee are immobile. And I want only one of the pouncing unit to be able to hit a victim at a time. The pounce attack will have a cooldown, so ideally I want each pouncing unit to hit a unique target, and I want it to be possible for a player to micro them by right clicking targets while having a group of the pouncers selected.
I'm not too worried about implementing the stun effect. That'll be easy and I could do that at any time. I'd just like to know how to get the attacking to behave right so that there aren't pouncers wasting their cooldown on the same unit.
Maybe I could look at siege tanks to see how their overkill avoidance thing works.
0
Wish I could've figured out a way to just ask it in the title. But...
Let's say I have a mod published, and I make a minor update to it. Do players have to download the whole mod again, or will they only have to download the difference and it gets updated?
Essentially, if I'm going to have media in the mod (audio files, etc), is it smart to put that all in a separate mod from your main mod, so users have a smaller download whenever you change data?