Staredit Network

The way I made my RPGs before, the triggering process for map interaction went like this.

1) Make Center Location trigger for Hero (P1)
Make Center Location trigger for Hero (P2)
etc.

2) Enter Buildings for P1
Enter Buildings for P2
etc.

3) Exit Buildings for P1
Exit Buildings for P2
etc.

3) Spellcasting for P1
Spellcasting for P2
etc.

This was the logical way to build a map up quickly and logically, but as I was halfway through Majesty, I realized something.

In the old method, a separate location for each player was required just because that was the only way it can run. However, this only applied because of the trigger creation order, and thus the way triggers are executed (each player checks his own location).

However, in reality, you can actually center one single location for "Current Player" under the force for which all players belong to, and thus only have to create Enter/Exit building and Spellcasting triggers for that one single location.

This is possible due to the way SC checks the triggers, which ensures that all the triggers will be run for one player before it runs for the next. The one single location would jump quickly from one Hero to the next, and no mix ups should arise.

The resulting triggering process would be like this

1) Make Center Location trigger for "Current Player"
2) Make Enter/Exit building triggers run at Location for "Current Player"
3) Make Spellcasting effects run at Location for "Current Player"

Less triggers, less work, less size, more uberness.

Concept map can be done to illustrate this if anyone needs a better representation.

Does that need hyper triggers to work properly?

Yup.

You've found a way of greatly improving your efficiency here, which is great. It can be applied to very many maps too, which is very useful.

I thought of this when I heard of Bolt's "One Location Bound" - I haven't actually looked at or played the map, but I imagine he must have done the same or a very similar thing (as well as other things like burrowed grids, of course).

Actually, I don't think your old method necessarily requires you to have a separate location for each player. If you used the same location for each player, the old method should be equivalent to the new method, except the triggers are made separately for each player instead of doing them all at the same time under "Force 1". Remember that creating a trigger for a force is equivalent to applying that trigger to each player in the force, and is also equivalent to creating a separate trigger for each of those players.

This method of using less locations and less triggers doesn't actually require hypertriggers in itself - the hypertriggers are probably required for some other reason, such as getting accurate death counter timers or for improving gameplay.

Yes, the old method and the new method vary only fundamentally in the use of the primary location centered on the Heroes. I only assumed that many people used the old method, just like me, so "new" is only used to distinguish between the two ways, not to actually label it a brand-new achievement in triggering.

Bolt's One Location Bound moves the single location multiple times within a single trigger cycle. In an RPG, that is not necessary.

However, I'd say Hyper Triggers are essential to all RPGs in general.

I do this all the time. IF I can, I always use CP and minimize the Number of locations I use. I personally like having to do fewer triggers for the same effect. But, I wouldn't want to do more triggers to save locations so I end up with a good balance of effiency on both. Note: Thats not less tirggering, but more mindles triggers.


Also, Having more efficient locations means fewer changes when you have to edit the trigger.

Ya, but you never posted anything on it.
This isn't news for me either, I have always been on a quest for as little locations as possible in anything, except when that requires more work than I'm willing to put in.

There are actually many other ways to create efficant systems using a single location and correctly identify each player when it reaches them.

This is the most basic and might be simplest but for more complex operations, is extremely hindering to the concept of location usage maximization.

Systems can be used to cycle any location on a map. A good example of this is to use burrowed units which locations cycle around and the number of burrowed units to identify the type of location relating to size and what action it should have. This might use up the max units on a map. But if your working with an RPG, you have a max of 1250 I believe to place and spawns should not be constant throughout the map with this system. Units should be conserved using many methods.

Everything from cave entrance and exits can be narrowed down in numbers as well as creating and spawning patrol points, patrol destinations, and difficult routes for a town which do not exist until you reach the area. In which case, the units are loaded using re-cycled locations from around the map.

Crescent Dyne will use max location number just for all of the directions used to display the intricut cinematics and view scrolling.

Location efficancy is very important and should be considered only on location-intensive maps. These include cinematic type maps like RPGs and Action games and Bounds and many other catagories.

Actually, no external identifying methods are necessary for the Hero Moving Location aspect. When a Force is used (instead of separately checking each player), all the triggers will run for a individual player at a time.

Just a thought... consider a system that has 1 or more players with a rather large following location each.

When the character walks up to ANY inn in the game (they're all the same), a trigger moves that player's individual "inn enter" location to the nearby in. When the player goes into the inn, the location stays there to remember which inn the player came from. Use some imagination for the method of moving the hero back. With this, you could place an unlimited number of inns, shops, and other generic buildings all over the map but only use two or three locations.

Exactly right. Then again, efficiency isn't always the way to go. If there's an easier way to do it then it should be done rather then saving locations.

Unless you are afraid you will run out of locations.

Nothing new.

I was kinda sorta thinking that that was indeed something that has already been dome. I read it a few times and I could't think of anything that was new. Sorry. >_>

See, unlike other people, I've been living under a rock, this is news to me.

I used this method with my one location bound as well as several other maps that I have made. In the one location bound the same location that moves along the grid is also centered on each players zergling, and a condition is checked to see if he reached the line of burrowed units at the end of the obstical. Its cool cause the same location that kills the lings is also constantly centered on them.

What About for explosions and whatnot for the bound?

They're done at that one location (when it's centered on some grid location, not necessarily when it's on top of your ling =P)

Finally! Something I actually understand.
If only I could think of a map that would actually implement this...

RPGs mostly, but I'm sure others can use it as well.

I'm very confused about the system but correct me if in terms if this is the system or if this is a system no one has mentioned. The location follows the player. The player would move a hero or unit to an inn for example. The conditions for the inn heal trigger would be to bring hero unit and the inn building or burrowed unit to the location that is following the player, or the alternative would move to the inside of an inn which would be the universal inside of the inn through the entire game, thus shows how bring locations pre placed are not needed and you save triggers. Is this the system because im sorta dumb and confused..

One sign of a map maker who has learned to streamline his/her triggers is greater use of "current player"

Current player is also great if two players are going to have the same triger, as it allows you to make the trigger and then just make x copies of it for different players (if they are using diff locations, otherwise you can probably just iuse one trigger).

The other thing to notice about triggers is how much stuff is in "actions" and "conditions".
An one can load up actions, especially with all the turtorials oput on how to do "special effects" the sign of a competent map maker is carefull and through use of conditions, such that all possibilities are covered and there are no "trigger holes" that cause things in the game to stop working if a player does something unsual.

(I especially hate the occasional map where you can make things keep spawning by doing something the map maker did not intend. One defense map spawned an entire level for a human player rather than for the computer... the player with 74 valkyries ended up killing all the air enemies thereafter.)