Im having an issue with the hanger count for reavers. is it possible to keep the hanger count constantly at 1 or 2 scarabs? obviously it will be at 0 or 1 when it attacks for a split second. when i use modify hanger count to add at most 1 or 2 it will set its hanger count to 10. its instant cause im using hyper triggers. Im assuming the problem is "Add" at most and the conditions are "Always", so its just maxing the hanger count at all times. If there is suggestions on how to keep it at 1 or 2 to prevent a map max in my map please comment. Thanks

Afaik anything other than a LID system won't work.
http://www.staredit.net/topic/11454/0/&sess=094122e99b9db173110f94c125ac7c22

These take alot of locations depending on how many reavers you have. I think you can determine if a scarab leaves a reaver with this but I don't know for sure. I doubt it but it is the only thing I can think of.

If you can remove scarabs using the remove trigger and then add them that would work. I don't think remove works on scarabs though.

Beyond those two I can't think of anything else. Those probably won't work but are your best shots. Good luck.

There is no realistic way to do this unfortunately because the trigger is 'add' and there is no 'set' option. You can detect scarabs inside a reaver so if you only have one in a location (eg LID or just a single reaver) then you could craft the triggers that way.

hmmm i see. well is it possible to use memory triggers to detect how many scarabs are in the hanger and then just modify it that way? Also i would not have pre placed reavers.

Not really. The memory triggers work against a specific unit ID. The only realistic way to track unit IDs for units is to pre-place them on the map. If you create them during map play it's practically impossible to predict which units will have what IDs (IDs are recycled when units are killed), therefore you don't know if the reaver is going to be at unit ID 50 or 51, for example.

I have a theory, will be testing it briefly...

Perhaps you could constantly remove all scarabs and add one to every hanger subsequently.
Edit: only way I see to remove scarabs is to actually do Remove Unit... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 14 2012, 9:11 pm by TiKels.

I think removing scarabs would remove the ones on the field that reavers had just fired too, so that wouldn't really work.

In addition, even if you did devise a system to figure out which index a Reaver is at (which has been discussed here), what then? You have no reference to the specific Reaver, so unless there's only at most 1 Reaver per player (in which case, you could just use the "Command" condition), you'll have no idea how to create the appropriate action.

An LID, as mentioned earlier, is your best bet, and it fortunately works very well with Reavers. Is there any reason you can't use the system?

I spoke with him, he claims there could be 100+ reavers on the map.

That does create a bit of a pickle. We'll need a system that can recycle LIDs.

What if you just detect if a scarab has been deployed (I believe it's an exactly/at least vs at most to detect units in hangar, anyway), and do the following:

• Center small location on Scarab
  
• Add 1 hangar to Reaver in small location
  
• Give 1 Scarab at small location to a different player

The system you're trying to implement had yet to be fully explained, so I have no idea if what I suggested is viable for it.

Hmmm ok so if im using player 7 and 8 as the computers with both of them possibly able to have 100 reavers. after a scarab is shot from either player 7 or player 8, its counted and added to the hanger count to the reaver right next to it and then the scarab given to player 9 or player 10? would that work?

Question: would giving a unit to a player and back to the computer player within the same cycle and with the same alliance status affect its AI?

Possibly. Give it a shot.
Probably. Give it a shot.

I haven't worked extensively with Scarabs, so I couldn't say which approach would yield the best results. Try them out and see which one, if any, you like.

I haven't messed with reavers and scarabs in quite a while, but I believe the only way to give scarabs between players is to give the reaver that fired the scarab, and then the scarab will go along with it. Also if the scarab kills anything when it's owned by the other player, then it counts towards that players kill counter.

Not an issue if you keep it all within the same cycle.

Another thing, if im cycling all the reavers. would i need a constant cycle then? like every hyper trig i would need to cycle all the reavers?

Not at all, just often enough that the reavers wouldn't run out of scarabs. Once every 18 counts seems fine.

Hmmm though wouldnt it be difficult to tell which reaver is the one shooting the scarab if you arent cycling constantly?

You could try this...

create the unit with properties (1 for hanger)

always add 0 to hanger for player

when scarab is fired give reaver and scarab to another player and add 1 to hanger then give reaver back

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 16 2012, 7:09 pm by staxx.

How do we check when a Scarab is fired? How do we find the firing Reaver? How do we not affect Reavers that have not fired? Why have an "add 0 to hangar" action when it does absolutely nothing?

Yes, it would be difficult. 18 cycles seems like a long time (~1.5 seconds) and may result in some Reavers emptying their hangar because the Scarab moved away before it could be replenished.

You could have a system where any Reaver touching a scarab (which would be assuming the Reaver is just firing the Scarab; I know, it's flawed) is given to another computer (which should give the Scarab as well). All Reavers owned by the second computer would be given back in an iterative manner, adding 1 to their hangar count before giving the unit back to the first computer. The give back should occur preferably after the Scarab has died, but enforcing that rule will yield a poor system. You could give all Reavers back after a certain number of trigger cycles (e.g., using a DC timer) as an easier implementation for this.

There isn't going to be a perfect solution for this problem because of the scale of it combined with the limitation of using unit hangars.