Modern Hyper Triggers tho

By hyper triggers I mean making SC checking the triggers more often, not including them by default.



Heh neat. Still changing the code so that SC would check triggers more often has some advantages. For example waits wouldn't interfere with them.

I guess one additional thing I'd like to see is for them to implement a variable system. That way we don't have to use Death counts and we could have tons of them too. That'd be pretty nifty.

This would single-handedly destroy what remains of the UMS scene, as it would break so many maps. Snake's suggestion could be included in any third-party editor right now, without Blizzard needing to do anything.

Wouldn't it be better to make waits non-blocking instead?

Variables and arrays were introduced in Warcraft III. Like I said, if they want to make the mapmaking tools better, they're most likely to just copy/paste the tools they have already.

Let's not forget that Blizzard's current tool for SC is staredit.exe. I doubt they'd even bring all the existing functionality we have from third-party editors into a new tool that they develop.

Again they don't have to be that way by default. They could add a flag somewhere so that you can choose whether you want your triggers to be hyper or not. Or, more simply, a trigger action that lets you choose how often triggers should be checked (every 1.5 sec, every 0.5 sec, etc.).

Making waits non-blocking can be tricky, because you have to stored all the ongoing wait counters somewhere and SC doesn't use dynamic memory. You could have a finite number of non-blocking waits which could be like 100 per player, but that would probably require more recoding (although not much more). Again it could break existing maps, so I'm going to go for a non-blocking wait action.

Again, this could be done through a third-party editor. Blizzard doesn't need to do anything. You could silently add/remove the hyper trigger with a checkbox instead of showing the trigger in the UI in an editor.

Asynchronous processing already happens for triggers: wait blocks are on a per-player basis because that's the way they were decided to work. Any changes are going to require recoding, so I'm not sure what point you're making here.

Wait blocks are an unintuitive mapmaking quirk that is the source of many of the bugs reported on these forums. Granted, without them, traditional hyper triggers wouldn't work, so you're right that it would break many maps.

I have modified the first post, adding most of the suggestions and explaining them a bit more. Anyone can suggest a feature to be modified/removed.

I don't think Blizzard will care about this either, or if they do they will just get 2 or 3 simple ones done and leave it at that. Still, if we don't give them any suggestions then we know for sure what is going to happen.

Alright, removed hyper triggers from the list. They are not necessary as a hardcoded feature if non-blocking waits are available, but they are a more elegant solution than having a trigger in every map to produce that effect.

I was talking about how expensive would be time-wise for the developer to modify each thing. Modifying how often triggers get executed is as simple as modifying one constant. Adding a trigger action which modifies how often triggers get executed is as simple as adding a global variable, subtituting the constant by the global variable and adding a line in a switch statement to set the new global variable. To have non-blocking waits you need to increase the number of waiting counters per player and edit any piece of code that uses them. The option I have listed (adding a new non-blocking wait action) does not require editing any piece of code working with the old counters, but still requires writing code to update the counters properly and resume trigger execution. But you are right any of this options require some amount of recoding, and this one in particular is not that bad.

I want to ask you what setting the game 'latency' does. It makes it wait a longer amount of time between frames?

It appears I should read the contents within threads before posting in them.

Not sure if this is what you're asking, but a brief background: game latency is a multiplayer setting that affects the time between when you issue an order to a unit and when the unit acts upon that order. Low latency means the unit acts in a short amount of time, and high latency means it takes a while before the unit responds to your command. You can set the game latency between "Low", "High", and "Extra High" in the game options (Options -> Network -> Latency). Setting the game to a higher latency sometimes reduces lag in the event one player's internet connection is too slow to send and receive game network traffic in a timely manner.

In regards to EUDs, we can detect what the latency is set to, and we can set the latency if EUDAs are enabled. Latency technically is implemented on a local level, so players can have different latencies (in fact, there's a latency hack that allows the player to set their latency to an "Extra Low" setting that makes the game about as responsive as a LAN-hosted game). Locking the game at a certain latency can prevent cheesing, and being able to read latency allows us to detect if someone may be cheating.

I see, so I suppose that when you issue an order what SC does is choosing a fordward frame for it to be executed (for example +20 frames from the current frame) and then tries to get all the players to acknowledge they have received the order before that frame comes to avoid the game desyncing. That's pretty clever. I never knew how latency worked.

Blizzard has decided that the bnet forums should be split between world regions and users should only be able to post on the forums associated to their region. Sadly Blizzard interns only lurk the american section of the forums, and I'm locked out. Can someone from the US (probably Canada would also work) post here these suggestions?

EDIT: Already done (see next post).




Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Apr 9 2016, 5:11 pm by Clokr_.

Done.

Thank you Pr0nogo!

I will edit my previous post in case anyone gets confused.

EDIT: Pr0nogo's topic was closed because site advertising is forbidden (my fault). Also it turns out I only had to wait until the Bnet servers refreshed to be able to post on the US forums. So I have created a new thread, that will hopefully last.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Apr 9 2016, 9:12 pm by Clokr_.

Are interns not actually part of dev teams at Blizzard?

Personally, I would love to see a toggleable(ALT+Enter), resizable windowed mode. This will eliminate about 800-1000 lines of code(including whitespace/comments, sorry), quite a few hooks, and a couple of tracked issues from BWAPI, making it easier for me to maintain. =)

That's really it.

I guess they are. What I meant is that you cannot contact a specific dev team directly. You can only hope someone from that dev team will take a look at your topic or someone from another dev team will do and contact the right team.

1000 lines? ;o I thought that would be simpler, like install the hook, listen for keyboard presses, change window mode.

Bumped the thread on the Battle.net forum. I think this is an important thing to get across if they really are doing more than just making an HD version or integrating it into current Bnet.

EDIT:
I recommend liking the top post in that thread, too.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 30 2016, 10:20 am by DevliN.

I doubt they're going to make any improvements to the game engine at all.

But something that should be pretty easy for them to do, and would make a pretty big impact for mappers, is allow the kill count of units to be set. Then we wouldn't need all those crude 'kills to cash' systems.

broken link

see