[quote=name:Brontobyte][quote=name:Impeached]You think it's OK that your map can crash many players? It's a very easy fix that won't hurt your map at all. Don't be an [b]idiot[/b], Brontobyte.[/quote] The whole idea of Micro Bound was to be as tiny as possible. If the user can't read then what more do you want me to do? I'm not going to [i]change[/i] my map to fix this. I will also make adjustments so that its everywhere possible, Map Description, Mission Brief, Objectives.[/quote] Where does this say that I want the user to crash? [quote=name:Impeached]Your map will be exactly the same as 64x64, but you refuse to stop being stubborn & stupid, [u]saying that because the idea of your map is to make it crash for many users, that it's ok. :)[/u][/quote] Where did I say this? The idea is to be small, hence "Micro Bound" I don't want it to be 64x64. I never said that the idea of my map was to crash people. [quote=name:Impeached][quote]Orly? Where did I say that?[/quote] [quote]If the user can't read then what more do you want me to do? I'm not going to [i]change[/i] my map to fix this.[/quote] [quote]Orly? Where did I say that? o.O[/quote] [quote]The whole idea of Micro Bound was to be as tiny as possible[/quote] I still don't see where I said that I wanted the users to crash...that was the idea of my map... It must be in code. >.> [quote=name:Impeached]But alright, it's your decision if you want to be an [b]idiot[/b]. [u]I was only trying to help you[/u].[/quote] Yeah I bet... Idiot Count [2]... Unless is the newest way to get someone to do something you want by calling them names...

Quote from Brontobyte

Quote from Impeached

You think it's OK that your map can crash many players? It's a very easy fix that won't hurt your map at all.

Don't be an idiot, Brontobyte.

The whole idea of Micro Bound was to be as tiny as possible. If the user can't read then what more do you want me to do? I'm not going to change my map to fix this. I will also make adjustments so that its everywhere possible, Map Description, Mission Brief, Objectives.

Where does this say that I want the user to crash?

Quote from Impeached

Your map will be exactly the same as 64x64, but you refuse to stop being stubborn & stupid, saying that because the idea of your map is to make it crash for many users, that it's ok.

Where did I say this? The idea is to be small, hence "Micro Bound" I don't want it to be 64x64. I never said that the idea of my map was to crash people.

Quote from Impeached

[quote]Orly? Where did I say that?

Quote

If the user can't read then what more do you want me to do? I'm not going to change my map to fix this.

Quote

Orly? Where did I say that? o.O

Quote

The whole idea of Micro Bound was to be as tiny as possible

I still don't see where I said that I wanted the users to crash...that was the idea of my map... It must be in code. >.>

Quote from Impeached

But alright, it's your decision if you want to be an idiot. I was only trying to help you.

Yeah I bet... Idiot Count [2]... Unless is the newest way to get someone to do something you want by calling them names...

So....if a player who has not played a regular sized map plays this with players that have, will everyone crash, or just the non-regular-sized-map player? I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping the map as 20x12. Anyone who downloads it from this website and reads the first post will know about the play-regular-sized-map first rule. If he/she hosts it on battle.net he/she can tell people of the requirement. However, if a random pubbie downloads the map from some other bnetter, and forgets/doesn't know the requirement, then that could cause problems. The person could host it, get himself and other people crashed after the game starts, and never attempt to play the game again. But, if you do that force-renaming idea you had mentioned above, then hopefully this won't be too common of a problem.

So....if a player who has not played a regular sized map plays this with players that have, will everyone crash, or just the non-regular-sized-map player?

I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping the map as 20x12. Anyone who downloads it from this website and reads the first post will know about the play-regular-sized-map first rule. If he/she hosts it on battle.net he/she can tell people of the requirement.
However, if a random pubbie downloads the map from some other bnetter, and forgets/doesn't know the requirement, then that could cause problems. The person could host it, get himself and other people crashed after the game starts, and never attempt to play the game again.
But, if you do that force-renaming idea you had mentioned above, then hopefully this won't be too common of a problem.

I will put it in the mission briefings that you have to play another regular sized map before you can play this or any other non-standard sized map. I will put it in the first slide so that someone would eventually see it.

I will put it in the mission briefings that you have to play another regular sized map before you can play this or any other non-standard sized map. I will put it in the first slide so that someone would eventually see it.

Just some FYI, I don't know how much it would help to put in mission briefings because if a player joins the game and the doesn't understand what he needs to do by the time the creator presses "Start," he's screwed. You can strongly suggest that he or she presses "Cancel" during the briefings, as well, but most people just click "Start" ASAP. Human ignorance is incredible.

Just some FYI, I don't know how much it would help to put in mission briefings because if a player joins the game and the doesn't understand what he needs to do by the time the creator presses "Start," he's screwed. You can strongly suggest that he or she presses "Cancel" during the briefings, as well, but most people just click "Start" ASAP. Human ignorance is incredible.

[quote=name:DevliN]Just some FYI, I don't know how much it would help to put in mission briefings because if a player joins the game and the doesn't understand what he needs to do by the time the creator presses "Start," he's screwed. You can strongly suggest that he or she presses "Cancel" during the briefings, as well, but most people just click "Start" ASAP. Human ignorance is incredible.[/quote] Yeah you have a point but I will try my best to satisfy impeach the best I can.

Quote from DevliN

Just some FYI, I don't know how much it would help to put in mission briefings because if a player joins the game and the doesn't understand what he needs to do by the time the creator presses "Start," he's screwed. You can strongly suggest that he or she presses "Cancel" during the briefings, as well, but most people just click "Start" ASAP. Human ignorance is incredible.

Yeah you have a point but I will try my best to satisfy impeach the best I can.

[quote=name:Brontobyte][quote=name:DevliN]Just some FYI, I don't know how much it would help to put in mission briefings because if a player joins the game and the doesn't understand what he needs to do by the time the creator presses "Start," he's screwed. You can strongly suggest that he or she presses "Cancel" during the briefings, as well, but most people just click "Start" ASAP. Human ignorance is incredible.[/quote] Yeah you have a point but I will try my best to satisfy impeach the best I can.[/quote] I think a simple hug will do.

Quote from Brontobyte

Quote from DevliN

Just some FYI, I don't know how much it would help to put in mission briefings because if a player joins the game and the doesn't understand what he needs to do by the time the creator presses "Start," he's screwed. You can strongly suggest that he or she presses "Cancel" during the briefings, as well, but most people just click "Start" ASAP. Human ignorance is incredible.

Yeah you have a point but I will try my best to satisfy impeach the best I can.

I think a simple hug will do.

:hug: @ impeached :D

:hug: @ impeached

:sadwalk: <-- Before hugs :D <-- After hugs

<-- Before hugs

<-- After hugs

[quote=name:Brontobyte][quote=name:Sarge]Trigger looping has a set amount of time that it is delayed. [b]Subtract that time from your desired wait time[/b], and it will run 'smooth' if your really that worried about 5 ms. Making it dc's doesn't really improve anything, but if you prefer that go ahead.[/quote] Yes it does. If I wasn't so meticulous in my map making habits, I wouldn't care. That time is noticeable and it adds that ~5ms to the obstacle and thats not what I want it to do.[/quote] With all the comments on your map so far and your replies, I'm starting to suspect you don't read them at all. Theres nothing wrong at all with using DC's, but it isn't 'better' than wait times.

Quote from Brontobyte

Quote from Sarge

Trigger looping has a set amount of time that it is delayed.
Subtract that time from your desired wait time, and it will run 'smooth' if your really that worried about 5 ms.

Making it dc's doesn't really improve anything, but if you prefer that go ahead.

Yes it does. If I wasn't so meticulous in my map making habits, I wouldn't care. That time is noticeable and it adds that ~5ms to the obstacle and thats not what I want it to do.

With all the comments on your map so far and your replies, I'm starting to suspect you don't read them at all.
Theres nothing wrong at all with using DC's, but it isn't 'better' than wait times.

[quote=name:Sarge]With all the comments on your map so far and your replies, I'm starting to suspect you don't read them at all. Theres nothing wrong at all with using DC's, but it isn't 'better' than wait times.[/quote] Through all of my bounding experiences, most of the map makers use waits. The use of waits rather then death counters, adds some minute amout of milliseconds to the trigger before it repeats. I didn't like this so I used death counters. :D

Quote from Sarge

With all the comments on your map so far and your replies, I'm starting to suspect you don't read them at all.
Theres nothing wrong at all with using DC's, but it isn't 'better' than wait times.

Through all of my bounding experiences, most of the map makers use waits. The use of waits rather then death counters, adds some minute amout of milliseconds to the trigger before it repeats. I didn't like this so I used death counters.

[quote=name:Sarge]Trigger looping has a set amount of time that it is delayed. [b][size=15]Subtract that time from your desired wait time[/size][/b], and it will run 'smooth' if your really that worried about 5 ms.[/quote] Now its bolded AND enlarged. ^^ That being, on the final wait of your trigger, you subtract 5 ms from what your actual desired time is.

Quote from Sarge

Trigger looping has a set amount of time that it is delayed.
Subtract that time from your desired wait time, and it will run 'smooth' if your really that worried about 5 ms.

Now its bolded AND enlarged.

That being, on the final wait of your trigger, you subtract 5 ms from what your actual desired time is.

[size=18]I like death counters better.[/size] :bleh: Their, is that more specific? I knew that if you just subtract it, but I like the whole idea of it being step by step instead of all in one trigger. Plus it makes it easier because with big obstacles, requiring a lot of different locations, I would run out of [i]actions[/i] before I would finish up the obstacle.

I like death counters better.

Their, is that more specific? I knew that if you just subtract it, but I like the whole idea of it being step by step instead of all in one trigger. Plus it makes it easier because with big obstacles, requiring a lot of different locations, I would run out of actions before I would finish up the obstacle.