| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Namrufus
United States396 Posts
There is a way to remove the automatic linking, but it requires the use of the data editor and I forget how to do it. Be careful when creating double-tower-blocked passages - if the rocks fall on each other, even by a single square, one of the produced rocks will be destroyed as soon as it falls. The footprints of the fallen rocks are difficult to determine from within the editor, so I like to test falling rocks in game. | ||
|
NinjaDuckBob
187 Posts
| ||
|
Avexyli
United States711 Posts
On May 17 2016 11:52 Namrufus wrote: Rock tower linking is the default for any towers placed sufficiently close together. Just put them down close to each other and they automatically link. There is a way to remove the automatic linking, but it requires the use of the data editor and I forget how to do it. Be careful when creating double-tower-blocked passages - if the rocks fall on each other, even by a single square, one of the produced rocks will be destroyed as soon as it falls. The footprints of the fallen rocks are difficult to determine from within the editor, so I like to test falling rocks in game. Would you mind figuring out what the exact distances are? Knowing this might pose really interesting results. | ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
On May 20 2016 06:36 Avexyli wrote: Would you mind figuring out what the exact distances are? Knowing this might pose really interesting results. The conjoined radius behavior for Towers has a range of 15. or at least that's the range it had the last time I checked (couple months ago) | ||
|
Namrufus
United States396 Posts
On May 20 2016 06:56 Uvantak wrote: The conjoined radius behavior for Towers has a range of 15. or at least that's the range it had the last time I checked (couple months ago) yeah, I just checked, it is still the same: + Show Spoiler [image] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wrvw952.jpg) I'm not sure exactly how it works, but both the behavior and the effect that I've pointed arrows at contain references to 15 radius. and note that this is from the edge of the tower's footprint, not the center: + Show Spoiler [image] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wsMQYzS.jpg) Also note that it is possible to "chain" rock towers. A rock tower can link with a rock tower can link with a rock tower.... and they'll all share the same HP pool, even if not are all within 15 squares of each other. I think you can do this with as many rock towers as you want, though I haven't tested more than three. Also also note that different types of rock towers don't link, so cooling towers don't link with rock towers and diagonal variants don't link with the regular type. some more interesting information about rock towers here (its from early HOTS though, some information might be outdated): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/395769-collapsible-rock-towers As a side note, isn't the amount of damage that falling rocks do to buildings a little disappointing? In order to deal 500 damage you need to kill a 500HP 3 Armor rock, meaning that it isn't really worth it to use rock towers as "building crushers". | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
On May 20 2016 12:30 Namrufus wrote: yeah, I just checked, it is still the same: + Show Spoiler [image] + I'm not sure exactly how it works, but both the behavior and the effect that I've pointed arrows at contain references to 15 radius. and note that this is from the edge of the tower's footprint, not the center: + Show Spoiler [image] + Also note that it is possible to "chain" rock towers. A rock tower can link with a rock tower can link with a rock tower.... and they'll all share the same HP pool, even if not are all within 15 squares of each other. I think you can do this with as many rock towers as you want, though I haven't tested more than three. Also also note that different types of rock towers don't link, so cooling towers don't link with rock towers and diagonal variants don't link with the regular type. some more interesting information about rock towers here (its from early HOTS though, some information might be outdated): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/395769-collapsible-rock-towers As a side note, isn't the amount of damage that falling rocks do to buildings a little disappointing? In order to deal 500 damage you need to kill a 500HP 3 Armor rock, meaning that it isn't really worth it to use rock towers as "building crushers". One thing that I have always liked is the fact that Terran and Zerg Geysers have both 500HP, while Toss's have 900 so if you set up a geyser with collapsible rocks on top of it and a T or Z tries to take them, the enemy can take down the rocks and destroy both the building+the geysers, but if there is a building near by with more than 500hp, then the rocks will blow up and still destroy the extractors/refineries but not the Geysers themselves. Also, the map Enekh did for the TLMC6 (?) which had tons of towers had lots of issues with conjoined behaviors before data edited the map by removing the behaviour, in the initial version if you attacked one, just one of the towers, like half of the map would collapse it was hilarious | ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Mind blown find ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BKZUUJp.jpg) User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
turtles
Australia360 Posts
I've found people reporting the same issue since the games release in 2010 but have not found any solutions. This effect can not be seen with the normal camera view which less people probably know about it. Has anyone figured out how to make the terrain in the border disapear properly? | ||
|
Hellpoo
7 Posts
 | ||
|
Avexyli
United States711 Posts
| ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
On June 05 2016 14:08 turtles wrote: I'm making a space map using a space skybox and hidding terrain cells. It seems there is a bug where terrain cells on the border (gap between map bounds and camera bounds) appear as black ingame (despite being correct in the editor) which means that my space map has a big ugly black rectangle surrounding it. I've found people reporting the same issue since the games release in 2010 but have not found any solutions. This effect can not be seen with the normal camera view which less people probably know about it. Has anyone figured out how to make the terrain in the border disapear properly? As i understood it .. was it not changing the camera to avoid it "focussing" on the borders, the way to go? CameraSetVerticalFieldOfView (trigger) "By default, the horizontal screen space is preserved between aspect ratios, and the vertical space gets cropped or expanded as necessary. When vertical field of view is turned on, the vertical screen space will be preserved between aspect ratios, and the horizontal space will get cropped or expanded as necessary." I'd add changing the camera to pan left or right while remaining centered the same  On June 16 2016 02:24 Hellpoo wrote: hello, how should i take a screenshot of my 1v1 melee map to get the best result ? Thanks for reply You add a third obs player with no game ui. You add a trigger to your map allowing for a camera(s) position(s) to be selected ingame by this special player. (a satellite view that displays the entire layout map with the angle/pitch/lighting(s)/specifications that you want (several cameras : the main/the main and natural/the center/etc (one camera per screenshot) Start a game with 2 ais playing the 1v1 and go from one camera location to another capturing real live footage of the ais "playing/figuring out your map (this would be simultaneously you testing the map) (of course it would behoove the process that real live players play instead, but that would require social work too) Every time you get a good picture opportunity, make a screenshot (via sc2 or your OS) You can then upload these online and showcase them for our benefit. + Show Spoiler [follow up] + at this point you just have to make a movie presentation of your map + Show Spoiler [for that ] + just ask tldr: mapmakers are lazy and still showcase their maps like it is 1990, prove me wrong + Show Spoiler [PS] + if you need any help with the editor to do this, just ask and i'll help | ||
|
turtles
Australia360 Posts
As i understood it .. was it not changing the camera to avoid it "focussing" on the borders, the way to go? CameraSetVerticalFieldOfView (trigger) "By default, the horizontal screen space is preserved between aspect ratios, and the vertical space gets cropped or expanded as necessary. When vertical field of view is turned on, the vertical screen space will be preserved between aspect ratios, and the horizontal space will get cropped or expanded as necessary." avoiding looking at the edge of the map is not a possibility. The camera properties I am using are not top down but angled which means that the edge of the map is clearly visible no matter where on the map you are. Increasing the vertical field of view would make the black border slightly smaller but not disappear. But worse is it would completely mess up the camera perspective and make everything look weird and distorted. if a marine is standing in front and above you his feet would be squashed and his head stretched out. Distorting the camera properties greatly is not a solution (and wouldn't even work 100%). I'd add changing the camera to pan left or right while remaining centered the same I don't understand what you mean to say. I have thought about other solutions such as lowering the height of everything on the map to well below ground level For example setting the height of everything to -50 and that way the ground is way above the camera and cant be seen. As well as other ridiculous possibilities but that is the best solution I can think of unless the problem can actually be solved instead of hacked around. | ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
 The "orientation" of the camera bit: your top view would automatically turn (lets say you are going to see the borders on the right of screen) the camera would turn left and change its angle of view (while retaining the same center as axis all through the turn that would disallow seeing borders, would not retain the "normal sc2 view though, while in these areas it would be a 90° angle change at most.. would be fun  How about "giant" oriented doodad(s) to hide the borders vertically? | ||
|
turtles
Australia360 Posts
"make the camera follow a unit and always point towards the maps center"? That might work for a very specific type of game. For example if I were building a game where you control a space ship in 2D via mouse clicks that would be a possible way to avoid the problem. But that "solution" would only work for that specific game and not for any other type of game. More to the point, that's not what I'm doing so it doesn't apply to me. The trigger to set the vertical field of view would cause worse problems than it is trying to solve. And it wouldn't successfully solve it either. If there is a work around to the problem I'm happy to use it, but what would be better is if anyone knows of a way to solve the root problem which is that the hidden terrain cells are not hidden in the game (despite being hidden in the editor). EDIT: giant doodads are another possibility but it would look bizare if there was just a ring of doodads. I would have to surround the entire map in a giant sphere of doodads for that to work. no computer would be able to handle that and it would look terrible. DOUBLE EDIT: I have been able to create a spherical doodad to enclose the entire map but that has further problems and complications. I just want to know if the problem has an actual *solution* | ||
|
Adelull
39 Posts
Is it possible to have all the campaign dependencies without them messing with multiplayer stuff? Or is there an easier way to transfer a unit from the campaign dependency to my mod without having to recreate it myself? | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
Unless there is some way to force the multi mod to be the "top" dependancy that I don't know of. I struggled with this problem for a long time in creating my extension mod. You can sometimes copy / paste assets as new units by loading your mod and then opening a blank map with the campaign dependancies loaded and copying what unit you want, switching between maps and pasting. This should place a new custom unit in your mod and give it the highest number making it the default. Then save and repeat for all of the unit's actors, models, sounds, behaviors, and effects. You can sometimes copy multiple things at once. If you still have issues after doing that just change the ID of the asset. | ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
If only the quake angled view is to be used then you have the limit of that aspect. It has to have a "limit.. and now that i think of it.. i guess i by passed it by making my map an enclosed city with doodads all around .. yeah.. lame no help at all. I think hard coding a visual (more likely many visuals) in front of all the 4 sides is the only way besides hard coding it in the game display. The mod with the wraith/banshee/whatever type ship did it.. no reason you can't go see him/her/it no? i agree that hard coding is preferable in all cases.. i however hate hard coding and have no valuable insight except to say this: did you see what you have in mind done elsewhere? #favorite turtle ps: i genuinely think a couple dozen of "well oriented giant" doodad featuring the "space" you need (?) would work but you know best their requirements -)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-) . . . -)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-) . . . -)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-)-) On June 28 2016 09:09 Adelull wrote: I want to make an extension mod and add one or two campaign units. First I tried adding campaign dependency but some of the multiplayer stuff got overridden by those so that didn't work too well. I know it's possible to recreate the unit with existing assets but that seems hard and I wonder if there's a more convenient way. Is it possible to have all the campaign dependencies without them messing with multiplayer stuff? Or is there an easier way to transfer a unit from the campaign dependency to my mod without having to recreate it myself? Do a second map with the units you want pasted on it (requiring several dependencies) Paste the units on a copy of your "laddermod" dependency map Test / troubleshoot Fix .. or by changing what you import (unto a virgin laddermod) or by changing the destination map / mod Once you are satisfied / the map is working = change the map in a mod | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3533 Posts
| ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
On July 02 2016 19:06 ejozl wrote: Anyone know how to change Siege Tank(sieged) set up time, when dropped from a dropship in the Data Editor? "set up time" = ? Time before the turret fires? Time before it can become a moving unit ? Time before it gets on a date? .. before it takes the fall? (joke sorry)The siege tank, last i heard was "hardcoded" to be fixed by blizz, so .. if that is the case it will be hardcoding that can do it. You can try to change the turret/unit (again, don't know what u mean by "set up") | ||
| ||
|
Afreeca Starleague
hero vs ggaemo
Larva vs Mong
The Patches Monday
Afreeca Starleague
Soulkey vs PianO
JyJ vs sSak
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Mini vs Calm
Queen vs EffOrt
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
IntoTheTV X SOOP
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
