The Virus Buff v1.03

[Moderator]

12th Dec 2015
IcemanBo: For long time as NeedsFix. Rejected.

01:27, 17nd Feb 2015
IcemanBo: https://www.hiveworkshop.com/threads/virus-buff-v1-02-a.260573/post-2654147

old

15:32, 2nd Feb 2015
IcemanBo: https://www.hiveworkshop.com/threads/plague-v1-1a.260573/post-2648103

 

[Sunreaver]

Many people had died from the virus and u are still playing jokes with it ?

 

[Tal'Rarity]

It's a great spell idea, besides you'd be hypocritical to think this is a joke while you don't mind nuke spells or other fun stuff.

I am pretty sure that this isn't properly indexed however.

 

[GywGod133]

^ im agree

= ===

in your code
i dont know where starting trigger?

if the call trigger does have event
so the loop is turn on
but if the int = 0
the trigger off

i cant test this on mobile phone

 

[Almia]

This thing is satanic.

 

[A Void]

Please rename the spell title and everything linked to Ebola. It's a good "spell" but a bad concept.

Also take down that horrific image.

 

[Tal'Rarity]

Please rename the spell title and everything linked to Ebola. It's a good "spell" but a bad concept.

Also take down that horrific image.

Agreed with the image because it needs a in-game screenshot there instead however it is just a name and well there is no reason to rename it.

Just reviewed the rules and as long as you remove that bad image and replace it with your spell in-game then its fine and acceptable.

 

[Sunreaver]

Description is better now instead of Ebola

 

[A Void]

Much better, +rep

 

[Gismo359]

I dont understand why people have so much against a name. The plague killed much more people, yet it is better. The nukes killed much more people too, yet they arent hated on.

Other than the image - afaik, it is better to use 2 variables for indexing instead of one array.

 

[Tal'Rarity]

I dont understand why people have so much against a name. The plague killed much more people, yet it is better. The nukes killed much more people too, yet they arent hated on.

Other than the image - afaik, it is better to use 2 variables for indexing instead of one array.

Simple, time made them forget. They're people who have forgotten the real horrors.

 

[A Void]

Simple, time made them forget. They're people who have forgotten the real horrors.

True, it is better to forget the past and move on to the future. Those horrors were the result of bad hygiene [mostly].

 

[dark09cry]

True, it is better to forget the past and move on to the future. Those horrors were the result of bad hygiene [mostly].

"That's the point, though almost all people don't realize that they are the once to blame for these things. The people who destroy Earth polluting every single resources it has. Thus making uncertain changes to everything we destroy. Its not Earth or nature to blame, its the intelligent ones who live in it."

 

[BPower]

You have to check if the casted spell is plague.

I really don't like your indexing, I recommend to check out the tutorial about dynamic indexing in my signature.

2. Your configuration trigger posted in the description is incomplete.
--> You use a lot of variables in cast which are not specified in the config.

3. The conditional check for turning of the loop trigger should be found at the bottom, otherwise you will have an needless delay of 0.03

4. In the end we can discuss how to use only one dummy caster, instead of one per spell cast.

5. You shouldn't use hardcoded values i.e. 155. Please add them as variables to the spell configuration trigger.

 

[dark09cry]

"nice"

Its nice that you notice some things rather unnoticed. Well the call depends on the GUI user whether he creates a trigger for the spell... I'll just add a sample starter call for the triggers since its more efficient because you use less variables... About creating dummy units I've decided to use your words and use only one dummy per caster (not per virus spread since that's the cause of the major lag when the virus spread). Great words. I'll update soon.

"And perhaps what I need is a good documentation format for things to really work efficiently."
______________________
PS: We want things our way, don't we? (So don't bother about my ways in implementing codes.)

 

[Tal'Rarity]

He's trying to help you, don't do it the best way then your spell will likely get rejected. More variables is better for your every day mapmaker, for us it might be easier. Also variables are faster then function calls. Example!: Triggering unit is a function call while set someunit = triggering unit is a variable which is even faster. For most stuff this doesn't matter, but speed matters now. Also of course need documentation.

 

[Maker]

Dead units do not have buffs, so no need to chekck if a unit is dead AND if it has the buff. Also no need to remove the buff from a dead unit.

How can FB_Integers[0] be 0 if you do not subtract from it?

 

[IcemanBo]

Do not user integer array for indexing or looping.
It is not needed, and makes the code less readable.

The damage dealt is done by caster[index]. But you want
to continue the effect even when the caster is dead.
Seems like a logical mistake to me. Or check if caster is alive,
or use a dummy to deal damage. Else, please explain.

The damage dealt could be calculated once, onRegister. (damage*0.03)

Radius of infection could be variable. User could set it when register.

OwnerOfTarget may be indexed, too.

When you infect new units there is no need to check if unit is alive.
Units with buffs are always alive.

The check currently done to ensure the damage <= 2x damage_default is invalid.
Because it is actually not the real damage_default, but only the damage registered
by the instance that is currently operating.
User simply could register a MaxDamage instead, if the feature should stay in the system.

Make the plague delay configurable.
Make the attack type configurable.

You have to null all unit[maxIndex] variables onDeindex.
The check to turn off the loop should only be done onDeindex.

System is fair and simple to use. But some things have to be changed for now.

 

[Wrda]

Many people had died from the virus and u are still playing jokes with it ?

Seriously? Worst comment. This is a spell for a game not real life...
I must say that it made me laugh when I saw Ebola on hero.
Now you need to improve the description of the spell...because I really didnt understand a word of it.
Pretty sure you don't need 4 triggers for this spell. 3 are enough.

 

[Almia]

Seriously? Worst comment. This is a spell for a game not real life...
I must say that it made me laugh when I saw Ebola on hero.
Now you need to improve the description of the spell...because I really didnt understand a word of it.
Pretty sure you don't need 4 triggers for this spell. 3 are enough.

Actually the spell was named Ebola Virus FYI

 

[IcemanBo]

Is it "The Plague" or "The Virus Buff" or "Fire Buff"? I saw these three different names.

• Explode effect should be configurable.
• The exact definition of unit visuals should be configurable. (you change vertex color)

• Custom script: set udg_TempGroup2 = CreateGroup()

  ^Why? It might already exist. (and certain that it exists after init.)
• Why you infect only one random unit in range?
• As said before, damage can be calculated once only.
• The "Or - Multiple Conditions" block can be avoided.
• No real variable is needed to check the explosion chance. You directly can use the expression in the comparisson.

• -------- Infection Damage/Duration per spread. Expressed in (%) --------

  ^I don't think this comment is quite correct. User might get confused. (damage/duration constants in config part)
  

 

[leventopoulo]

Hahaha, I like the idea man! keep it up

 

[Lambdadelta]

Virus spread by an airborne pathogen which causes explosions. Lol. Seems interesting.

 

[dark09cry]

Is it "The Plague" or "The Virus Buff" or "Fire Buff"? I saw these three different names.

Ok to be clear this spell is not really intended to be a virus buff in the first place. Before I really got the idea of a virus buff this spell was just a simple fire buff that spread & spread. Then I realized something more interesting than a simple fire buff and that is why it has the Fire Buff tag in it.

@UnitGroup2: ^Why? It might already exist. (and certain that it exists after init.)

No worries it is destroyed after its been used.

Why you infect only one random unit in range?

I changed it from area infection to single infection so that logical values can be more efficient because area infection per delay is inefficient and only spread let say 10 DPS from host then infect adds 10% damage is now 11 where in some cases doesn't reach the max damage.

As said before, damage can be calculated once only.

Well as I am using your method I didn't like the result, GUI reals only accept 2 decimal ends and when the resulting DPS with a (registered damage * 0.03) becomes somewhere below 0.00101 no damage is applied since I'm using another multiplier to register another damage on infect.

The "Or - Multiple Conditions" block can be avoided.

Which in particular?

Updated

 

[IcemanBo]

Which in particular?

The very first in loop.

No worries it is destroyed after its been used.

But it does already exist after map initialization. GUI will automatically create a group.

You currently have 3 temporary unit groups, which you create/destroy.
You need only 1 temp group, and 1 static group.
The temp one can be used for creation like "PickEveryUnits....".
The static one can be used for evaluating your random target. You only
have to add units to this group, and then use the "Clear group" function afterwerds.
No need to create/destroy it each time.