Microing units in some sort of advantageous fashion seems to be an issue in games like Tug of War and BattleCraft, so out of curiousity, I'd like to know how one goes about remedying it, besides giving the player's combatants to computer controlled forces?

I think I've heard of a way of deselecting units that a player selects with triggers, any truth to that?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 11 2007, 6:45 am by Veta.

Give the units to another player (and back right after). Or give all units permanently to a comp player.

That's stupid.

You want to ELIMINATE micro'ing in an advantageous fashion? How about having the other players micro too; it doesn't take that much skill to select a few units and click continously to build up a push in Tug of War. It's not like it's unfair, I mean they don't really have a physical advantage, just 'cause they're tactically superior doesn't mean its their fault.

You can do it directly with EUD's, but those are overly complicated and patched, so technically no. Nude's suggestions is your best bet, but you may as well just keep all the fighting to computers if you want to do it that way, because in order to detect if the player is micro'ing you'll either need EUD conditions or some incredibly clever triggering.

In a game like BattleCraft or Tug of War, where the objective or intended means of accomplishing said objective does not include the managing of individual units, it's obviously useful. Are you not allowed to eliminate these facets of gameplay in UMS? RPGs elimnate any sense of macro, so why aren't b*tching at some RPG map author?

Where does it say the map isn't intended to use micro'ing? Did the mapmakers tell you this?

The idea of having Macro in an RPG would not even make it an RPG, so that really doesn't make a point. RPG's are a role playing game, to have macro management in a large sense like you're referring to probably has been done before, it's just un-orthodox. Look at Open RPG's. Not that microing and macro'ing and the relations between RPG's and TOW are even relevant.You're suggesting that the players should simply watch haplessly as their waves of units run unrelentingly towards one another, and in no way should be able to influence their attacks by saving up forces to allow for a larger assault, or even do anything with their forces for that matter besides move them to a spawn location and upgrade?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 11 2007, 7:03 am by Durandal.

I've been thinking about this myself, although for different purposes.

The first option is, as NudeRaider mentioned, is to give the units to another player/computer, and then giving it back to the player. This will deselect the unit if you try to click on it. It's very hard to send an order to these units. Also, if you have hyper triggers, it won't "blink" two different colors, but it will remain the color of the second "give units to player."

The other option, which you have stated already, is giving them to a computer player. I don't know the alliance status/actions of players 9-12, but I've heard that if you give a unit to player 9-12, it retains its original color (color of the player) (aside from the minimap). So, you could tell who 'owns' which units, they cannot be controlled, and they won't use any vital computer players' properties.

Triggers can't be used on Hyper Players, so giving the units back to a normal players would be problematic.

Making them deselect is simple, the difficulty is detecting where and when to give the units.

Where the fuck did I even refer to any single map, the keyword was "LIKE", meaning "SUCH AS". But in terms of my specific case, YES, the map maker SPECIFICALLY told me this, smartass.

That's exactly the point, you're arguing against removing any facet of the original StarCraft gameplay, and when I bring up the obvious contradiction in your interests to what you professed in this thread you're quick to disown what you had said. YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE.

I don't give a sh!t, I'm referring to your obvious fallacies your castigation of my motives.


Are you f*cking high? I'm comparing my separation of micro and macro in a game like BattleCraft to the separation of micro and macro in an RPG, they're similar in that they remove an aspect of the game, which you, in your initial post, claimed was a ridiculous endeavor.
I'm referring to my own map, and my friend's BattleCraft map. I only mentioned ToW so it was easier for reader's to relate to what I was saying, but honestly, don't you fucking understand what unit macro is? The distribution of your resources on different units? There's strategy in that of itself, of course I doubt you even play melee.

So, recap: just as generic RPGs remove any aspect of macro, I wanted to remove any aspect of micro is a "unit macro" oriented game, in that the player's choice of units is what matters, more so than how fast he clicks or how well he clicks. CONSEQUENTLY CONCENTRATING ON A PLAYER'S STRATEGY RATHER THAN HIS TACTICS.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 17 2007, 4:29 pm by Merrell. Reason: Deflaming

Two errors.

One. Players with hyper triggers can have other triggers, just preferably no triggers with waits in them (Although if the triggers with waits are above the hyper triggers, they should work fine).

Two. It doesn't have to be player-specific to give a unit to another player. The format is "Give # unit owned by player at location to player." Therefore, the trigger can be owned by any player.

...


I know there were a lot of opinionated comments that were irrelevant to your question, but seriously... Come on...

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 12 2007, 7:11 am by Roy.

Obviously you are going to get a lot of shit about this because this is probably the most pathetic post I have ever read. This is probably the height of newbieness. You are basically saying "I am such a mentally handicapped fucktard that I want to stop people from beating me by making it impossible for them to use skill." But you know, hey, you're Veta, we already knew you were a mentally hadicapped fucktard.

Regardless, there is no way to effectively keep the units under the control of the player who owns them and stop the player from micro'ing their units. If you were to constantly order them to do something or constantly give them between players, they would not be able to attack. Additionally, there probably aren't going to be enough computer players to make sure each player has a designated AI to control their units.

Also your macro argument is stupid. Macro is macro, regardless of whether you control 200 units, 10 units, or 1 unit. It just so happens then when you only control one unit macro is equal to micro.

Obviously you've never played battlecraft with other high level players on several battlecraft maps where his point is relevant. On BattleCraft Rogue for instance, the creator specifically says microing is not allowed, the strategy of the game is supposed to be in unit selection based on unit types and effective combos.


You understanding of his arguement is stupid. His point is that the strategy in RPGS is micro, and he isn't bitching that no macro is involved. Meanwhile, in battlecraft, where the strategy is intened to be almost entirely macro (in several maps), he is bitching that veta is asking a question in order to eliminate micro entirely from the game.

Durandal should at least try to have a basic understanding of the maps he is arguing about before he posts useless information.

Hi Veta, long time no see.

In battlecraft, you are not supposed to micro, you are supposed to make strategic choices to win, and by microing you can either cheat or use tactics that are basically cheese. One of these is getting units off of the path or stopping them from going to the enemy base. YOu bought fucking corsairs, they did their shit, you aren't supposed to be able to use them after that. I can legitimately say that I'm one of the better battlecraft players out there, if you don't believe me, 1v1 me, but if you can beat me in a 1v1 then you understand that cheese micro (Saving sairs, going around to attack the pylon, focus firing the pylon etc are cheese tactics). Well done bc maps don't allow this, but we work with what we get. In the case of battlecraft, micro should be taken out, hands down, good players dont use it cause we're too busy making unit choices and looking at whats happening.

Well, I've never played Battlecraft, but since he used Tug of War as an example I just built my argument on that. He only made it really clear to me later on, after his frustrated flame that he was only using it as an example as well. In ToW micro'ing is pretty vital near the beginning of the game, as it can set the opposite team back and cause them to push out units in a rush.

I was under the impression that certain triggers couldn't be run on Hyper players? Like AI scripts and move orders?

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Nov 13 2007, 1:28 am by Durandal.

No. This is completely wrong. You can run any trigger at any time regardless. The problem is that running a trigger like an AI Script or Move orders extremely often will result in the unit never having a chance to attack as it will be constantly ordered to do something else.

Nothing you described in your post is micro at all. All you described was a shitty, poorly made map in which players can exploit the bugs in order to have a huge advantage.

Yea, let's get rid of micro because good players don't use it. LOLOL~!11`1`1!! lol. There is no such thing as being "too busy." Good players are NEVER "too busy" to do anything. Even suggesting that such a thing could ever be true is pathetic and ignorant.

At least Esponeo agrees with me. That makes one of us. Your points against Jabok were pretty accurate, although the arguement Jabok is making is correct, his reasoning is messed up because he is basing it off outdated maps, and outdated playing styles, from what I can see. No big deal. Veta, the only solution to your problem seems to be the one of which you already knew, giving the units to computer players. The deselecting through triggers was probably something with EUD's. : /

For the record, Veta, might I suggest reporting totally irrelevant posts instead of going off on an angry tirade. If you like using SEN, that is. I won't tell you what you want.

I was refering to players 9-255, not hyper triggers.

I must admit, eliminating micro because you are undoubtedly not good at it is a rather ridiculous solution to a rather minor problem. If you did not want micro to somehow play a role in a map you may or may not be making, then by all means make the game balanced in a fashion that micro'ing wont really help you, or make it so the units that are good for micro'ing, arn't that good for micro'ing. Either that or simply settle for giving to comp, removing the unit or maybe doing some kind of transmission (which I think selects the unit transmissioned on)

Guys, what's your problem? This section is for advice on triggering and such. He asked a question, and you come in insulting him because his concept is stupid. That's not cool.
This guy is making a map and wants help, he doesn't want a bunch of trolls telling him his concept is stupid. Why don't you try actually helping someone in the help forum instead of insulting what they want.

Furthermore, your entire argument is stupid. If he wants to remove certain elements of gameplay, he can do that. It's no different than someone making a tarpit style game without farming (all those maps stink, but still). I would personally prefer a map that effectively did what he wants. Often those sort of things make the game unbalanced, and make it difficult to play with anything other than a certain unit type.

Reporting is a behind the scenes event, and same with moderator noticies. Others won't see the example to be made. His response is only natural to the surrounding provocative behavior.

Anyways, it may be a quite a bit of work, but I may suggest making a series of location layers along the lanes as wide as the lanes, with the depth of probably 10, maybe 20.

------

[Conditions]
Current player bring at least 1 men to location 2
Current player bring at exactly/most 0 men to location 3
Current player bring at exactly/most 0 men to location 4
Current player bring at exactly/most 0 men to location 5
[Actions]
Set Switch 1
Preserver Trigger

[Conditions]
Switch 1 is set
Current player bring at exactly/most 0 men to location 2
[Actions]
Clear Switch 1
Preserver Trigger

[Conditions]
Switch 1 is set
[Actions]
Order all men to at location 1 move to location 2
Preserve Trigger

------

[Conditions]
Current player bring at least 1 men to location 3
Current player bring at exactly/most 0 men to location 4
Current player bring at exactly/most 0 men to location 5
[Actions]
Clear Switch 1
Set Switch 2
Preserver Trigger

[Conditions]
Switch 2 is set
Current player bring at exactly/most 0 men to location 3
[Actions]
Clear Switch 2
Preserver Trigger

[Conditions]
Switch 2 is set
[Actions]
Order all men to at location 1 move to location 3
Order all men to at location 2 move to location 3
Preserve Trigger

------

[Conditions]
Current player bring at least 1 men to location 4
Current player bring at exactly/most 0 men to location 5
[Actions]
Clear Switch 2
Set Switch 3
Preserver Trigger

[Conditions]
Switch 3 is set
Current player bring at exactly/most 0 men to location 4
[Actions]
Clear Switch 3
Preserver Trigger

[Conditions]
Switch 3 is set
[Actions]
Order all men to at location 1 move to location 4
Order all men to at location 2 move to location 4
Order all men to at location 3 move to location 4
Preserve Trigger

------

[Conditions]
Current player bring at least 1 men to location 5
[Actions]
Clear Switch 3
Set Switch 4
Preserver Trigger

[Conditions]
Switch 4 is set
Current player bring at exactly/most 0 men to location 5
[Actions]
Clear Switch 3
Preserver Trigger

[Conditions]
Switch 4 is set
[Actions]
Order all men to at location 1 move to location 5
Order all men to at location 2 move to location 5
Order all men to at location 3 move to location 5
Order all men to at location 4 move to location 5
Preserve Trigger

------

[Condition]
<whatever necessary>
[Action]
Wait 0 ms (x62)
Preserve Trigger

------

It's a tedious method, but it should work.