The New Editor Compared to the WarCraft Editor

[Flare]

Also, why the hell would you ever LIMIT how many variables you can have... That makes NO SENSE what-so-ever...

Where would you ever need a limitless amount of variables? Having no limits is all fun and whatnot, but imposing reasonable 'limits' (e.g. what you expect/anticipate is required, with a buffer in case your expectation is less than actual) isn't really an issue if you're being limited by another factor which you may not have the luxury of increasing (e.g. a vast number of units on the map which begins to impede on map performance which is going to be more bothersome than a limitation on variable allocation).

Not having to worry about these things is nice, but I can't think of any situations (of the top of my head) where a limitation is detrimental. Feel free to add any that you think of though, I'd be interested to see.

To sum up - allocating a quantity of memory which you know damn well WON'T be used, that doesn't make any sense either.

In galaxy you can use a maximum size of 8192*8192*8192*8292 (actually thats the gui limit, dunno if you can add more with the script, never had the urge to test it).

8192^4? (I assume that 8292 is meant to be 8192) - if you're only permitted to allocate 2MB of memory to variables and, if you are correct in saying that'd it be ~500k, then how can the limit be 8192^4 (unless array allocation would differ from allocation of a number of non-arrayed variables equivalent to the size of the array). While the GUI may present it as possible (I don't think it'd have been the first time a particular value appeared to be valid, but was actually invalid), it may be impossible.

 

[Darthfett]

Where would you ever need a limitless amount of variables? Having no limits is all fun and whatnot, but imposing reasonable 'limits' (e.g. what you expect/anticipate is required, with a buffer in case your expectation is less than actual) isn't really an issue if you're being limited by another factor which you may not have the luxury of increasing (e.g. a vast number of units on the map which begins to impede on map performance which is going to be more bothersome than a limitation on variable allocation).

Not having to worry about these things is nice, but I can't think of any situations (of the top of my head) where a limitation is detrimental. Feel free to add any that you think of though, I'd be interested to see.

Seriously, you can't think of ANY situations where a limit is detrimental? These limits might have made sense in Warcraft III, where mainstream computers were so slow that they had trouble with melee games, but nowadays, 2MB is practically nothing. With anything you buy today, they don't even measure with MB (unless you count the Cache on a Processor). A limit on these things only hinders the game in the long term, and is completely impractical.

It seems that there's a lot of people on the far end of the spectrum with how much they like/hate the Galaxy Editor, but we should be realistic.

The GUI has been improved. That is an improvement, not a con.

Personally, I've only fiddled around with it a little bit, since I was only in the beta for a short amount of time.

TL;DR: Be realistic and back up your points with evidence.

 

[Siretu]

I thought records were SC2's version of structs?

 

[Arkless]

8192^4? (I assume that 8292 is meant to be 8192)
you are right
- if you're only permitted to allocate 2MB of memory to variables and, if you are correct in saying that'd it be ~500k
I got no idea, it was just en example to explain why we have to think before we create thousands of useless variables. I don't even know if the limit is 2mb, thats only what everybody is saying so I guess it is true.
, then how can the limit be 8192^4 (unless array allocation would differ from allocation of a number of non-arrayed variables equivalent to the size of the array). While the GUI may present it as possible (I don't think it'd have been the first time a particular value appeared to be valid, but was actually invalid), it may be impossible.
My point was that wc3 did not allow to specify a size, it always set it to 8192, in sc2 we can chose the size ourselves. The gui allows to choose a size between 1*1*1*1 (not an array) and 8192*8192*8192*8192. And then i set my "However" to limit what i said before.

I just tested it, the amount of integer variables supported in an empty map is bigger then 450000 and smaller than 500000.

 

[Flare]

Seriously, you can't think of ANY situations where a limit is detrimental? These limits might have made sense in Warcraft III, where mainstream computers were so slow that they had trouble with melee games, but nowadays, 2MB is practically nothing. With anything you buy today, they don't even measure with MB (unless you count the Cache on a Processor). A limit on these things only hinders the game in the long term, and is completely impractical.

Maybe I'm just unimaginative when it comes to the scale of things that people will make with the editor - first thing that'd spring to mind for a significant usage of arrays would be for indexing units - something such as, say, Income Wars (plenty of units floating around there) could get to 1500 active units with ease IMO (if not more), if you were to ignore lag (perhaps more/less and yes, it does get quite laggy once units start flowing heavily and I would say my PC is pretty damn good). If you were to index them and store a variety of attributes associated with them (Current/Max Health, Mana, Shields, Damage, Hero-type stats, just to give a reasonable number of values) - now, that's roughly 10 attributes (each with an array of size 2500, to give a reasonable buffer in case the estimation is off). That'd be 25,000 allocated array slots - you're well short of the limit* - in a map which revolves solely around the idea of massing units to destroy the enemy base, there isn't a whole lot else that could be done to use up those remaining available variable allocations, save the declaration of variables for the lulz.

If you take the map type into consideration (although, who knows, maybe someone will devise a worthwhile map idea that revolves around massive quantities of units, along with some particular style of gameplay which isn't "Watch your units uncontrollably charge at the enemy's base"), limits aren't necessarily a bad thing (more an inconvenience that you have to choose the limit) since it's likely you won't exceed them anyway. In terms of the actual fact that a low limit exists, it's annoying - in terms of how it impacts the game, I honestly can't think of a situation where a mapmaker would need to exceed the limitation*. As I said in my previous post, feel free to add anything you think of - both this post and my previous one are based on my thoughts and expectations given some of the maps I have seen, so I can't vouch for what future maps will be. Only time will tell, I suppose.

In hindsight, I probably could've worded that last bit a tad better

*Again, assuming Arkless is correct in saying that 2MB translates to roughly 500,000 allocations. If not, then that pretty much invalidates what I have said

 

[Narks]

that 2MB limit also includes the galaxy code itself

so you can't have big libraries of code either

 

[Flare]

that 2MB limit also includes the galaxy code itself

so you can't have big libraries of code either

Oh... guess that invalidates my ramblings then, somebody could've corrected me sooner Although, it would've been nice if that much had been clarified in the first place

2MB variable limit

LIMIT how many variables you can have...

 

[Narks]

http://www.sc2mod.com/board/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=77

this can explain it better then I can

 

[Sevion]

you are giving me a custom function as example? Geeze...

No... I'm not... Where you get that, I don't actually know. Screen Buttons are part of the game. What I mean is try doing what a friend of mine did and have a Ready/Cancel button that is dynamically shown for each player. (Players have different buttons on screen.)

It's not possible without regular dialogs.

 

[Dave312]

No... I'm not... Where you get that, I don't actually know. Screen Buttons are part of the game. What I mean is try doing what a friend of mine did and have a Ready/Cancel button that is dynamically shown for each player. (Players have different buttons on screen.)

It's not possible without regular dialogs.

Regular dialogs can be shown/hidden for each player as required. I have already implemented a Ready/Cancel system in a map and it works fine.

 

[Sevion]

Please reread my post.

 

[Dave312]

Ahh... my bad

 

[Blackveiled]

Well you guys should also wait and see how the editor plays out since its not done yet.

 

[Sevion]

Well you guys should also wait and see how the editor plays out since its not done yet.

Thus far, Blizzard has ignored a lot of complaints about the editor.

 

[tom_mai78101]

Maybe because it's really hard to implement or fix those issues mentioned in the complaints about the editor.

Maybe there are other technical issues outside of the game that's also affecting some planned implementations.

 

[Blackveiled]

Thus far, Blizzard has ignored a lot of complaints about the editor.

The game just came out, they're probably getting flooded.

 

[Arkless]

No... I'm not... Where you get that, I don't actually know. Screen Buttons are part of the game. What I mean is try doing what a friend of mine did and have a Ready/Cancel button that is dynamically shown for each player. (Players have different buttons on screen.)

It's not possible without regular dialogs.

Oh sorry, last time you talked about it I thought it was just a way to get your point through ^^ if it's really a problem then I am glad to give you a solution:

Use the normal Show/Hide dialog with "Screen button dialog" as the dialog.
That function just gives you the content of the variable ScreenButtonDialogs wich you could use directly via script code


edit: Oh, and just to burst your bubble, a screen button couldnt possibly be a localplayer thingie, as it creates net traffic. Desync ftw!

 

[Sevion]

>_> You still don't get it Arkless -_-' Blizzard could have made Screen Buttons exactly like Dialogs. But they didn't.

The point is, Blizzard could have made Screen Buttons showable and hidable for specific players. But they didn't.

 

[Arkless]

>_> You still don't get it Arkless -_-' Blizzard could have made Screen Buttons exactly like Dialogs. But they didn't.

The point is, Blizzard could have made Screen Buttons showable and hidable for specific players. But they didn't.

Actually screen buttons are not natives. They are just normal dialogs... A dialog button on a dialog with hidden background.
And since they are normal dialogs, you can hide em with the normal Show/Hide dialog function. They are actually giving you access to the dialog AND the dialog button.
YES, they COULD have created an extra action for that wich executes just ONE SINGE LINE OF CODE. But, why?

 

[Sevion]

If that truly is the case, then I was lied to