Staredit Network > Forums > SC1 UMS Theory and Ideas > Topic: Quaternary Countoffs
Quaternary Countoffs
Aug 4 2010, 5:55 am
By: jhuni  

Aug 5 2010, 8:19 am CecilSunkure Post #21



Quote from name:yoonkwun
You can't honestly argue adding two extra players as being over-complicated. If anything just a minor personal annoyance.
Quote from CecilSunkure
I'm not saying quaternary countoffs are plain over-complicated
Quote from CecilSunkure
it seems like it could get unnecessarily tedious for my own personal preferences.




None.

Aug 5 2010, 10:18 am Ahli Post #22

I do stuff and thingies... Try widening and reducing the number of small nooks and crannies to correct the problem.

I've tested this with the trigger limit for savegames (65535 triggers = crash while saving).

This system consumes more triggers.

BTW, I just found out that the savegame trigger limit is at 65534 triggers per player.
That means, you can have 524272 triggers in your map, if you are using all 8 players.




Aug 5 2010, 2:26 pm Azrael Post #23



Quote from rockz
IDK about you guys, but I like using "current player".
Same. Not sure how that's relevant though.

I'll use this the next time I have to do countoffs. Considering how slowly StarCraft transfers maps between players, being able to cut map size with no drawbacks is an ideal optimization.

I don't see this being any harder to use than binary. If anything, it's easier, and certainly more efficient.

Edit: Currently implementing it in a map, as it reduces the map size significantly more than binary would.

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Nov 17 2012, 10:24 pm by Azrael.




Aug 5 2010, 3:38 pm rockz Post #24

ᴄʜᴇᴇsᴇ ɪᴛ!

Quote from name:Azrael.Wrath
Quote from rockz
IDK about you guys, but I like using "current player".
Same.
I said that before I realized how the system works. I still like organizing my triggers properly. With this, it's all over the place. Complexity adds a lot of difficulty to understanding a map.

Still, it works. It adds more triggers but takes up less space. IMO, the few bytes isn't worthwhile.



"Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman - do we have to call the Gentleman a gentleman if he's not one?"

Options
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[03:08 pm]
Sylph-Of-Space -- woah! nice! thank you!
[04:05 am]
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- the setting exists, it's just hidden in a weird place
[04:04 am]
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- instead change "Microtile Overlay" to "Impassable"
[04:04 am]
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- er, wait, idk why i was looking for height
[04:03 am]
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- below the minimap should be a thing that says "Overlay Settings" with a little + button in the corner, press the + to expand it, uncheck Use Defaults, then change "Tile Overlay" to "Height"
[03:57 am]
Sylph-Of-Space -- Unless I'm dum (possible)
[03:57 am]
Sylph-Of-Space -- It would be so so so nice if SCMDraft had some kind of dedicated "walkability" view for the tilesets.
[03:53 am]
Sylph-Of-Space -- :'( dont cry for me cat-gentina
[09:18 pm]
Ultraviolet -- 🔪🐈
[2024-5-19. : 12:34 pm]
NudeRaider -- curiosity kills the cat!
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: Sylph-Of-Space, Roy, Excalibur