Spell Contest #3 | Theme: Icons | 18.03.09 - 04.04.09

[perkeyone]

so generalized systems that can work for other spells are not allowed
all the code must be directly relevant to the spell?

 

[Flare]

so generalized systems that can work for other spells are not allowed

Generalized systems? Care to give an example? I would call a struct attachment system generalized, but they are allowed. Something more specific might be helpful to make your question/statement(?) a bit clearer

all the code must be directly relevant to the spell?

Well, why would you add code that has nothing to do with the spell?
If the spell makes use of the code, it should be there
If not, there's no point in having that particular piece of code there, since it's just wasting your own time to create it

 

[Builder Bob]

> It just forces us to write some useless code for every spell, when we could just use systems to do those things
It makes things too easy. This way you need to code things yourself, instead of using the "MakeAwesomeSpell()" function.

I would argue that allowing everything would actually up the bar on what is submitted. Not to mention how new coders would get the chance to see more modern open source approaches on how to code spells efficiently. Just having a lot of tools in front of you don't automatically give you the power to build amazing things.

For this contest though, the rules are already set, so we all should just follow them. No reason to argue. I hope there will be an experimental contest where everything is allowed at a later date though.


By the way, this contest's theme is really great! It's fairly open in that we can create whatever we see in the icons. At the same time it's restricting enough to at least expect to see a line of submitted spells that resembles each other in some ways.
I think it's going to get interesting once more submissions come in. Good luck everyone!

 

[Romek]

> I hope there will be an experimental contest where everything is allowed at a later date though.
I'll probably try that soon. We might take a very short break from spells for a while though.

> By the way, this contest's theme is really great! It's fairly open in that we can create whatever we see in the icons.

 

[perkeyone]

im not entirely sure myself.
i was asking in the hopes that it would be more thoroughly explained.
haha

 

[~GaLs~]

To clarify, CSData and CSSafety is allowed?

 

[Romek]

> To clarify, CSData and CSSafety is allowed?
Yes. CSData is an attachment system.
And I'd consider CSSafety a snippet.

 

[Viikuna]

It makes things too easy.

And still you allow attachment systems, because some nubs dont know how to attach integers to some handles..
Dont you think that makes it too easy?

Damage detection can be made in very few lines. It's hardly a system.

So, its about the lines now? Maybe I just split my systems to hundreds of short snippets? Would that make it all right?

For this contest though, the rules are already set, so we all should just follow them. No reason to argue. I hope there will be an experimental contest where everything is allowed at a later date though.

Yes and No. I tried to argue about this during the last spell contest, and now Im arguing for the next one.

edit. More stuff:

And things such as unit indexing can't really be recreated just for a single spell

Unit indexing is still the best way to attach data to units. PUI does it pretty well, but since wc3 maps use units in very different ways, they usually need their own way to index units.
I think that using some GetUnitIndex wrappers for spells would be the best option, so that users can easily make those spells to use any unit indexing system they wish. ( or just H2I(unit) - MIN_HANDLE_COUNT )

Well, custom attachment systems tend to just be "H2I(h) - 0x100000" anyway

Is this a reason to allow them then? And there is many attachment systems, some of them use H2I with some hash algorithm, some of them use H2I and gamecache.

 

[Bloodcount]

Looks a bit WTF. I will make a spell and If I dicide that it is not crappy I will submit it.

 

[Romek]

> And still you allow attachment systems, because some nubs dont know how to attach integers to some handles..
Attachment systems are allowed because some provide functions such as NewTimer or ReleaseTimer, which are pointless to add separately into each spell.
Alos, you'd probably lose marks for using UnitUserData on a target or the caster. But you wouldn't for using PUI.

> So, its about the lines now? Maybe I just split my systems to hundreds of short snippets? Would that make it all right?
It was an example of how simple I think they are. You can't really get any more 'features' on a damage detection than simple damage detecting. You can with attachment systems though.

> Yes and No. I tried to argue about this during the last spell contest, and now Im arguing for the next one.
Well, you're arguing for something that's already going to happen.

> Looks a bit WTF. I will make a spell and If I dicide that it is not crappy I will submit it.
Ok. Good luck.

 

[Builder Bob]

> I hope there will be an experimental contest where everything is allowed at a later date though.
I'll probably try that soon. We might take a very short break from spells for a while though.

Looking forward to it!

Until then, this contest is good as well. Wish everyone who's participating good luck!

 

[Kazuga]

Sorry for being a bit of a noob here, but does HAIL count as an attachment system? (Yes I know it's not used a lot out there but hey, it works great for me. )

 

[Romek]

Yes, HAIL is an attachment system.

 

[Tyrande_ma3x]

I updated my spell with the changes I wanted to make. Well, I think it should be the last if I don't see some other mistakes in the code...

 

[Viikuna]

Attachment systems are allowed because some provide functions such as NewTimer or ReleaseTimer, which are pointless to add separately into each spell.

My point was that it is pointless to add any stuff separately into each spell..
And somehow you see that this only applies to attachment systems, which is not true at all.

It was an example of how simple I think they are. You can't really get any more 'features' on a damage detection than simple damage detecting. You can with attachment systems though.

Rising Dusks system has 300 lines, and it doesnt have any extra features.

( Well I would personaly prefer to have those unit enters playable map area and group all units when game starts -things in different library )

Well, you're arguing for something that's already going to happen.

It is?. Oh nice. Then I guess I gotta stop bitching about this.

And hey sorry about whining this much. I think its really great that you guys host these contests.

 

[Romek]

> Rising Dusks system has 300 lines, and it doesnt have any extra features.
It can apply to any amount of triggers though. And I believe it has things such as RemoveEvent or DisableEvent. I've never checked through the code though.

You'd never need to remove the event in a spell.

> And hey sorry about whining this much. I think its really great that you guys host these contests.
No problem. Thanks.

Enjoy the unique theme for now everyone.

 

[Andrewgosu]

Hello and I'm back to torture you little maggots!

How's this thread going?

 

[Romek]

> Hello and I'm back to torture you little maggots!
Welcome back. I'm sure I told you what the theme was before you left.

As for the thread, it's fine. (How was the trip?)

 

[Naga'sShadow]

I've got a question. As this is the first time I've participated in one of these contests. Can we ask for help either here or in the help threads? I've got most of my spell working but parts of it still don't work for me?

 

[emootootoo]

Would it be allowable to have a second ability as a sort of display to show the cooldown of a certain part of the ability? (as in a passive that only appears during parts of the ability to show cooldowns)