|
On December 01 2012 13:31 SirPsychoMantis wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 10:16 JaKaTaK wrote:
I think the Macro vs Multitasking Steps have to be in the hands of the player. Its not clean cut enough to make a hard restriction IMO. I feel like like losing control of a unit after a-moving could work (excluding workers). It would make you send them on one action and be done while keeping you quick since you only have one shot at the action.
The problem being that this could essentially be suiciding your units. All though macro steps are blind play, you can tell if you are taking heavy losses and retreat your units back to your base. Also, you wouldn't be able to attack anything other than the main base. Attacking an expansion would cause the units to just sit around after that is dead. Now, I could give control back after a unit completes an A-move command I suppose.
There is also the concern of a user not A-moving at all. A-moving can easily be accomplished via patrol. Also, they could simply studder step the entire map using hold position.
In the end, there is not a legitimately sound way to limit the player to these macro step rules.
|
Actually, you are supposed to be suiciding units on the Macro Steps. The idea is that you don't make any decisions with battles, you just send the units to where the enemy is. There is the problem with having to send them to places other than the main base though.
|
New build.
Added Staircase Graphic to loading screen.
Changed the way supply blocks are monitored.
Added message referencing how to restart map.
|
On December 01 2012 13:31 SirPsychoMantis wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 10:16 JaKaTaK wrote:
I think the Macro vs Multitasking Steps have to be in the hands of the player. Its not clean cut enough to make a hard restriction IMO. I feel like like losing control of a unit after a-moving could work (excluding workers). It would make you send them on one action and be done while keeping you quick since you only have one shot at the action.
No, it wouldn't.
It could easily be overruled by using move and stop commands (move to move, stop to stop moving and automatically attack). Even if you do prevent people from using the stop command (which is a bit of an unnecessary stretch), instead of making things simpler like macro steps should do, this would force people to think about where they will send their units. For example, "Oh it's a drop, I should go kill it" is replaced by "Oh it's a drop, I should either permanently split my army to kill it or base race with my entire army or just die."
|
New build.
Complete menu redesign with addition of macro steps. Tooltip for buttons now describes unlocked units and structures.
Added game timer that starts and resets to correspond to when you begin playing.
|
New build.
Adjusted supply block checking to have a minimum value before check occurs.
Added messages for Macro/Micro steps explaining what they mean.
Reset game timer on map reset.
Increased game timer width.
Added Goal label for league goal pull down menu.
|
Damn CL, you're getting work done today!
|
On December 03 2012 01:52 JaKaTaK wrote:
Damn CL, you're getting work done today!
Word brah
|
I'll start joining TheJaKaTaK channel in game while developing. If anyone is testing at the same time, they can ask questions or make suggestions.
|
New Build
Removed case where max supply would cause a supply block trigger.
Multi-threading asynchronous calls for supply block added.
|
Multi-threading what?!?! I want to know what that means please :D
|
On December 03 2012 09:32 JaKaTaK wrote:
Multi-threading what?!?! I want to know what that means please :D
Threads are paths of instructions.
For example, if only one thread was present, every action would be performed on it. This causes problems when I need the thread to wait for a certain action. So, if I told a thread to sleep for 20 seconds, then the game would look frozen for 20 seconds.
SC2 is multi-threaded (its pretty rare to find a program that isn't), so when the map checks for supply blocks, it sleeps the thread and then rechecks the supply block. Previously, there was a problem where you could cause the thread to try to check for a supply block many times, each one spawning their own thread, and when they all expired, the chat would be flooded with the same message.
Now, only one thread stays spawned if a user is possibly supply blocking.
|
New build.
Finally tracked down the Warp Gate problem. Can now upgrade Gateways to Warp Gates and the reverse.
Altered upgrades and unit restrictions to reflect new steps.
Changed text of buttons to "Step #" rather than "Level #".
|
On December 02 2012 08:17 Antylamon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 13:31 SirPsychoMantis wrote:On December 01 2012 10:16 JaKaTaK wrote:
I think the Macro vs Multitasking Steps have to be in the hands of the player. Its not clean cut enough to make a hard restriction IMO. I feel like like losing control of a unit after a-moving could work (excluding workers). It would make you send them on one action and be done while keeping you quick since you only have one shot at the action. No, it wouldn't. It could easily be overruled by using move and stop commands (move to move, stop to stop moving and automatically attack). Even if you do prevent people from using the stop command (which is a bit of an unnecessary stretch), instead of making things simpler like macro steps should do, this would force people to think about where they will send their units. For example, "Oh it's a drop, I should go kill it" is replaced by "Oh it's a drop, I should either permanently split my army to kill it or base race with my entire army or just die."
You could possibly throw a little bit of AI on them (nothing too complex), for example, they a-move to where you told them, then they automatically a-move towards where the enemy spawned. Just throwing out some ideas.
|
On December 03 2012 11:08 SirPsychoMantis wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 08:17 Antylamon wrote:On December 01 2012 13:31 SirPsychoMantis wrote:On December 01 2012 10:16 JaKaTaK wrote:
I think the Macro vs Multitasking Steps have to be in the hands of the player. Its not clean cut enough to make a hard restriction IMO. I feel like like losing control of a unit after a-moving could work (excluding workers). It would make you send them on one action and be done while keeping you quick since you only have one shot at the action. No, it wouldn't. It could easily be overruled by using move and stop commands (move to move, stop to stop moving and automatically attack). Even if you do prevent people from using the stop command (which is a bit of an unnecessary stretch), instead of making things simpler like macro steps should do, this would force people to think about where they will send their units. For example, "Oh it's a drop, I should go kill it" is replaced by "Oh it's a drop, I should either permanently split my army to kill it or base race with my entire army or just die." You could possibly throw a little bit of AI on them (nothing too complex), for example, they a-move to where you told them, then they automatically a-move towards where the enemy spawned. Just throwing out some ideas.
It's way too much effort to put into something like this.
Micro, and the lack thereof, should be up to interpretation by the player. For example, I use minimal micro on macro steps, such as retreating and Blinking (just to snipe BLs, Medivacs, etc.) because I am confident that my macro is good enough to handle that. To take away the player's choice is to take away any personalization, which is important. One method might work for some people but not others, even on such seemingly small details as the interpretation of micro.
I appreciate the amount of thought you have put into this, but Jak has already made the decision not to include extensive micro prevention.
|
New build.
Altered supply blocking to more correctly monitor changes in supply.
Supply blocking now applies to all players rather than just player 1.
|
Hey Coldlogic, love the map, can't imagine all the work that goes into making that, thanks. One thing I noticed though is that the level 13 step for Terran doesn't allow you to build reactors.
|
Venezuela15 Posts
Hey Gratz on the map i really like it, i belive i can learn a lot from it  one thing i belive could make it better is that the gg/restart command also resets the minerals and gas, somethig like the -r that uses YABOT, just an idea hope it helps and keep up the good work :D
|
On December 03 2012 12:54 Danagor wrote:Hey Gratz on the map i really like it, i belive i can learn a lot from it one thing i belive could make it better is that the gg/restart command also resets the minerals and gas, somethig like the -r that uses YABOT, just an idea hope it helps and keep up the good work :D
Are you saying your money doesn't reset with gg/restart or when you start the next round?
|
On December 03 2012 11:51 Faldinerous wrote:
Hey Coldlogic, love the map, can't imagine all the work that goes into making that, thanks. One thing I noticed though is that the level 13 step for Terran doesn't allow you to build reactors.
I'm on it.
This appears to be a bug in the SC2 Editor. I found a work around. New build uploaded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
