264 replies to this topic

[Kasrkin84]

Player 5? Surely the AI is either player 2 or player 3, depending on the number of defenders?

[Gambit]

Yes, of course!!

It's just that in the SCaR code, the AI player gets the "5" suffix, a number distanced enough from 1 or 2 to avoid misunderstandings.

 

This is the reason I asked the naming of the Markers for the AI player to be similar to its SCaR naming.

As en example, the SCsR code for placing of turrets for the AI, is MUCH easier if the markers are named with a "5", because it will be independent of number of players - it will ALWAYS be mk_turret51, mk_turret52, etc for the AI.

 

 

By the way, did you also create those wargear map markers ??

I am talking about the mk_wargear marker. If you could place more of them at random places in each map (as many as you like, each map can have a different number depending on size). So instead of mk_wargear, we could similarly have mk_wargear1, mk_wargear2,...) where we would place that hammer....

This way the player will have to SEARCH the map to get his wargear.

IF you have done this, we should also remove the hammer model from the maps, and have SCaR put it at the place of the randomly chosen marker where the wargear will reside.

 

TOO much to ask of you, I know, but hey, you can ALWAYS decline

Edited by Gambit, 07 October 2017 - 10:07 AM.

[Kasrkin84]

Not yet, I've been focusing on getting the impass maps sorted out. As it was previously, there were plenty of areas where it was possible to walk through walls and other solid objects, or places that were impassible for absolutely no reason, so I sorted these out. Plus some of the main "lanes" of the map had problems with odd squares of impassibility due to the roughness of the height map, so I smoothed these out. I've had to adopt a "fuck it, that'll do" attitude, as I could be here forever otherwise. Anyway, that job's finished and I'll be going through all the maps adding the new markers asap.

 

Will the wargear remain in a fixed position after it has been randomly determined at the start of the mission, or will it move around from marker to marker after each wargear is unlocked?

 

By the way, most of the survival maps are missing description text, aside from the basic stuff about fixed start positions and having an AI player in slot 2 or 3. Anyone fancy writing some?

Edited by Kasrkin84, 07 October 2017 - 03:04 PM.

[Gambit]

EXCELLENT!!!

 

Will the wargear remain in a fixed position after it has been randomly determined at the start of the mission, or will it move around from marker to marker after each wargear is unlocked?

Stationary - fixed position for the whole mission. Randomly determined ONCE, and the beginning of the mission. And the player will have to scout the map to uncover its location and get his wargear. The location will be the SAME for BOTH players of course (in case we have 2p vs AI maps).

 

Note 1: We must have the daemonhammer model removed from the current mk_wargear location of each map, of course, since the place will be determined randomly, each time.

But some maps have a different method to depict wargear (like a decal on the ground that writes "Wargear"!!!!). Can you remove those as well??? They must ALL now conform to the unified "daemonhammer scheme. And all the places must be empty/unoccupied.

 

Note 2: What is the floating DaemonHunter's model path and name?? I will have the SCaR place it, similarly to how we will be placing players' Turrets

 

 

As for wargear marker naming, I suppose mk_wargear1, mk_wargear2,.. will be the case right??? All with a number at the end, even the existing one (please rename it).

(I will prepare the code, with the same repeat, so I will have to know the name, in order to put he proper "string"..enumerator check )

Edited by Gambit, 07 October 2017 - 04:33 PM.

[Kasrkin84]

As the daemonhammer (probably) isn't classed as a building, you will need to use a different set of functions to spawn it using Scar than that used for the turrets.

 

As for marker names, I'll go with mk_wargear1, mk_wargear2, etc.

[Gambit]

As the daemonhammer (probably) isn't classed as a building, you will need to use a different set of functions to spawn it using Scar than that used for the turrets.

What is it then?

And which function should I use to spawn in brother K?

 

 

As for marker names, I'll go with mk_wargear1, mk_wargear2, etc.

Excellent!

I will have the code ready in dt.

[fuggles]

It's just an entity, game doesn't care what said entity is.

[Gambit]

Wargear code is also done.

 

... and in the process, again countless other main-code fixes.

The more you see it, the more inconsistencies need rectification.

Closer now.

[Kasrkin84]

It's just an entity, game doesn't care what said entity is.

 

It actually does in some cases. Entity_CreateBuildingPosition (and any similar functions) ONLY work with entities that are defined as buildings in their blueprint files. This is due to the fact that buildings have a "progress" variable that other types of entities lack.

[fuggles]

Well I never knew that!

[Gambit]

It actually does in some cases. Entity_CreateBuildingPosition (and any similar functions) ONLY work with entities that are defined as buildings in their blueprint files.

Then, we create a copy of the existing daemonhammer entity, and make it a building.

It had zero ebps dimension (so you could build or walk INTO it), so we can fix that as well, this way

But what is the model path of that warhammer in the art assets? And is there an rgd defining it? Or I should make a new one?

... I do not know how these things are defined in the Maps, that is why I am asking.

[Kasrkin84]

No need to create anything new. For spawning non-building entities I just use this custom function (although I'd prefer you rename it to something else to avoid clashes with Strongholds code):

function Util_CreateEntity( player, egroupName, markerName, blueprint )
	
	local entity = Entity_Create(blueprint, player, Marker_GetPosition(Marker_FromName(markerName, "basic_marker" )))
	
	EGroup_Add(EGroup_CreateIfNotFound(egroupName), entity)
	Entity_Spawn(entity)
	
	return entity
	
end

RGD for the Thunder Hammer is Data\attrib\ebps\environment\single_player\bitz\floating_daemon_hammer.

[Gambit]

THANKS!

 

...I'd prefer you rename it to something else to avoid clashes with Strongholds code...

No need to use it as a function...!

I will embed it in the code at the point when the hammer is spawned, and we are done.

Not neat, but hey, when you call a function only once... No need to use it as a "function"

 

So, all is set now.

 

Just to say that, the code for the building AND the turret AND the hammer markers does NOT need knowing the total number of markers created per map (I check with the if exists "marker_name"..i you suggested in the repeat loop), so place as many markers as you want of each type!

1] For buildings, we need at least 2, ideally.

2] For turrets, the maps already have them (you only have to rename them, per player), but if you want you CAN add more defences when it comes to the AI enemy - especially in 2vsAi Maps... Whatever you want!

3] For the hammer, I know that in small maps it will be a bit trivial, but in larger maps, please use as many markers as you want!! Better choose most of them, NOT very close to the player(s), because we WANT them to scout the map to recover their wargear!

 

 

P.S.: By the way, when all players have gotten their wargear, I will have the code to REMOVE the Hammer !

Or even better, I will place 2 hammers if 2 players, and each one will disappear when a player gets his WG

Edited by Gambit, 10 October 2017 - 03:55 PM.

[Gambit]

So, I started updating the Wargear WinCon to conform to the agreed changes... Only to rewrite many parts!!!

The hammers (I created a new RGD) are assigned to the World, you cannot build on them, they are INVISIBLE (you must search to find them  ), and each disappears when your hero gets it!

I am saying Hammer(s), but if only one player is in, only one hammer is spawned, obviously.

Also incuded support for NON-vanilla races, and a boolen to disable it if you do not like it. (But I do not see why you wouldn’t)

Last, if you are TOO late to detect them, I added a notifier so that you will eventually know where they are. This notifier is random, and happens from 10 to 40 minutes.

It is a VERY detailed approach, all in all.

 

Bottomline: Everything is more than ready.

I am spending many hours coding these things, I wonder who  - besides us (I mean.. mostly me) - will enjoy them

Let's hope there are still players out there that play DoW1.

.. As far as I know, almost NONE plays DoW3 . And I am glad!

Edited by Gambit, 10 October 2017 - 11:35 PM.

[Kasrkin84]

Should have the maps done by the end of the week - sorry for the wait.

[Kekoulis]

Let's hope there are still players out there that play DoW1.

.. As far as I know, almost NONE plays DoW3 . And I am glad!

I will confess to you brother. I did play a little bit of DOW3. I liked the Eldar but I eventually gave up.DOW3 in a taste of irony,fueled me to concentrate even more on DOW!

Probably I will return to it for a little while when they add the Sisters(and IF they add them) or if they eventually fix it and make it more like DOW with characteristics from DOW2.

[Gambit]

Should have the maps done by the end of the week...

 

...sorry for the wait.

27 maps with all those upgrades???

Brother K, it started as a simple renaming, and you added so many markers and fixes some issues and made all those additions...!

THANKS.

With your ideas, we have now a CONCRETE addition.

I won't like, I coded A LOT myself as well

 

 

I did play a little bit of DOW3.

Well, brother Kekoulis, it's a game that has limited potential...

I spoke with Gorb about this, and warn him about DoW3's imminent failure, from day 1.

He was insisting that "it was my point of view". And "other players think otherwise".

Well, it was not "mine" alone, after all

Do not expect much on the expansions.... DoW1 is still more preferable! See here:

http://steamcharts.c...5190,56400,9450

Edited by Gambit, 11 October 2017 - 08:06 AM.

[Gambit]

Ah, and since everyone sees this, brother Miros has just released a NEW Tyranids internal build!!!

The Tyranids team is even closer, as well

Edited by Gambit, 11 October 2017 - 08:14 AM.

[Norwegian_Loki]

 

Ah, and since everyone sees this, brother Miros has just released a NEW Tyranids internal build!!!

The Tyranids team is even closer, as well

OOOOOHHHHHH YEAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!   

[Gambit]

OK, new small issues: The code that detects chosen difficulty...

This code is based on how much resources a race has gathered.

But for Necrons and Tyranids... It is problematic.

Does anyone have an alternative method coded? (most possibly not )