Staredit Network

EDIT: for an even simpler version see a later post. also please disregard anything Kept_Wheat has said as he has yet to give any evidence for his claims.

A tutorial shows a simple way to do looping hyper triggers, there is a slightly more simple way to do it:

Trigger

Players:

¤ Player 1

Conditions:

¤ Switch 1 is set

Actions:

¤ Wait for 0 milliseconds

¤ Preserve Trigger

Trigger

Players:

¤ Player 2

Conditions:

¤ Always

Actions:

¤ Set Switch 1

¤ Wait for 0 milliseconds

¤ Preserve Trigger

That's it. Note I still prefer the multiple wait 0 63 time hyper triggers because it only uses up the waits for 1 player, but this method requires 2. To be honest I don't fully understand why this works, just that it works. I think it is impossible to do looping hyper triggers using 1 player, but it sure would be nice. Anyways this stuff doesn't really matter but I thought I should post it since it is a little better than the method in the tutorial.

That wouldnt work one bit. You shouldnt suggest things you dont know about. That would do absolutly nothing to increase speeds at which triggers run.

This works I tested it in a map, it is hyper triggers. How do you think I came up with it?

So basically you just "You shouldnt suggest things you dont know about."

And btw I posted I don't understand why it works, but after doing some more test I know exactly why it works. I don't want to be mean, but if you are going to correct someone you really should make sure you know what you are talking about, especially if you are going to tell them they need to make sure they know what they are talking about.

Dude, Someone already made this, it's in the tutorials.

Yeah, it's the Hyper Triggers Conceptual or something. Though, I don't see whats so hard to just use the normal 62 waits triggers.

Yeah i agree with fwop, and plus you save 1 swith

Like I said, this is simplER hyper triggers, the method in the tutorial has extra waits and useless stuff. Using a switch is really a moot issue, you can use anything like a death counter if you want to.

And I agree 3x63 wait is a good method too.

What is that switch there for anyway? Couldn't you just have the waits with an always condition? If the switch is never getting cleared on only being set the whole time, whats that point of having it?

The switch is there so that it doesn't start to execute until the second trigger is half way. Here is a trace, lets call 1/12th a second a frame:

frame 1:
trigger 1, condition not met
trigger 2, set switch 1, wait 0
frame 2:
trigger 1, condition met, wait 0
trigger 2, preserve trigger
frame 3:
trigger 1, preserve trigger
trigger 2, set switch 1 (does nothing now), wait 0

from here circumstances are the same as they are at the end of frame 1 so this repeats forever, so as you can see each of these triggers executes every other frame but all other triggers execute every frame.

Also an important thing to note is that trigger 1 needs to be for a player number that is less than trigger 2 or this won't work

ADDITION:
Woot, simplest hyper trigger. 1 trigger infinite hyper triggers:

Trigger

Players:

¤ Player 7, Player 8

Conditions:

¤ Score("Current Player", Custom, Exactly, 0);

Actions:

¤ Set Score("Player 7", Set To, 0, Custom);

¤ Wait(0);

¤ Set Score("Player 7", Set To, 1, Custom);

¤ Preserve Trigger();

Notes:
make sure this is copied exactly or it won't work
you can use death counter insead of custom
the hyper triggers won't start until after first execution, so about 1 second delay then infinite hyper triggers.

again this is pointless but some people don't like to waste space, so this is for them

There is nothing that requires hyper triggers to be any simpler than they already are.

The only thing that's useful if you're using hyper triggers is this thing I just thought of:

Since Hyper Trigs tend to really screw with other waits, you can put them on a switch.

For your hyper trigger, set the condition as "Switch x is set."

When you want a wait to happen in your map, first simply "Clear Switch x." After the wait is over, immediately "Set Switch x."

I think this will work...

or you could just put the hyper triggers on a player that doesn't use any waits

Um, the problem with this is that it requires two players. Norms are just better. BTW this is in the tutorials so it isnt new. Sorry, but good try.

Ok first off, I already pointed out that 2 players is the disadvantage of it, and secondly I already mentioned that there is a tutorial, but that this is much simpler than the way the tutorial does it, I believe the tutorial thing has been mentioned five times now. Please actually read the stuff before you post like you know what is going on. When you don't it just clutters it, detracting from actual content.

Do you see the point of what I said, though? I know that it helps with some RPGs and similar maps that use alot of waits, but sometimes still need hyper triggers. A perfect example is my unfinished map, SST v.DaM.

It got very screwed up because I wasn't using this system.

I see your point, but I think you fail to see mine. In most cases there is at least 1 player (be it cpu, neutral, or whatever) that does not use any waits, if this is the case then just stick the hyper triggers here and all other players can use waits without any problem, this is much simpler than doing a bunch of stuff with switches. (This is a widely known already, I think bolt head says this in some tutorial)

Bloody hell you guys. This guy xws comes in here with an improvement to an existing method, and you complain that it doesn't need to be simplified. By posting this here he's trying to be helpful to others. Of course the disadvantages have to be kept in mind, but one has to pay attention to the side effects of conventional Hyper Triggers as well. Some people will find this useful, some people won't; it depends on the kind of map.

I just tested this, the triggers he posted work fine and at the same speed that normal Hyper Triggers do.

It's hyper triggers for fat people.

Thanks ZPD

Triggerable Hyper Triggers, Im sure someone may find a use for this.

No it works but its slower than the 62x3 method because the neo hits very quickly. THis is exactly like putting in 2 triggers with 0 waits for the same player. The 2 player thing does absolutly nothing to help it and it completely wastes a switch. The one in the tutorial has triggers that make it so the neo NEVER hits. This one hits multiple times an average game length.

Yeah it works you tested it but you tested what like 30 seconds of a game. Oh yeah you tested it alright...
And the triggers you made after that were just examples of the switch triggers in the tutorial that had a never ending neo. so really you just copied his work and didnt make it better in any way. At first you even made them worse.

Sigh, :\ What happened to the SEN that was supportive of people venturing into new concepts or making efforts to improve existing concepts? In 2004 people didn't riddle their posts with unconstructive sarcasm. When someone found something that could cause some people issues with a triggering method, then it was mentioned in a polite way that didn't discourage peopless creativity.

Most of the better members have left and now all SEN has are left are pessimists which discourages newer members. All least xws is actually trying to do something and sharing his ideas and discoveries with the community. Whether they're new or old is irrelevant.

Staredit.net used to be about helping new StarCraft mappers learn something new and the community actually cared about new members. For the majority of the current memebrs, this is no longer true.

dude kept wheat give him a break not everyone has read all the tutorials some dont know that things were already known.

But regards to the hyper triggers you can start later in game but once started you cannot stop cause of the math behind it, if you wanna know more read in the tutorials, but there MIGHT be a way to stop them using the loop method but it requires them to be the last triggers and some other things, i would look into it right now but i have to go to school im an hour late as is. Later

Kept does make a good point about the NEO coming up sooner, if it is true. However, I'm not sure if it would be a big deal in most maps.

Also, I know this has been brought up several times already, and you have responded claiming your triggers ARE different. However, the only difference I see between your method and the one stated in the tutorial is it has ONE more wait, and an action to clear the switch.

This I think is hardly improved. One less wait and one less action isn't a big deal. It's still using the same amount of switches, triggers, and players. And if what Kept said is true then this "simpler" method just defeats the purpose of the method in the tutorial. It is more "complex" because it is causing the NEO just to never occur.