[GUI] Unit Fusion System 0.05

[Moderator]

12th Dec 2015
IcemanBo: Too long as NeedsFix. Rejected.

02:35, 30th Aug 2012
Magtheridon96: I've been trying to moderate this for quite some time, but every time I get to it, I get discouraged because of the variable names :L
ufsVAR_ is a really bad prefix because the VAR is extraneous and it's camelCamed.
In GUI, variable names should be written LikeThis because they're clearer that way.
In JASS, they are camelCased because they make the code look clearer.

I'm really sorry for this mediocre review, but it would still be a great improvement if you were to change the variable names.

ufsVar_unitTag can be something like FusionUnitTag or maybe FusionSysUnit. Really, anything to add clarity would be awesome.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and thank you for the submission.

 

[defskull]

• For each (Integer B) from 1 to ufsVAR_unitId, do (Actions)

You could use IntegerVariable, remember ?

(Owner of (Triggering unit)))

(Owner of (Triggering unit)) -> (Triggering player), uses less function calls

Does this system only for Units ?
What about Heroes ?
I think it's pretty cool to fuse Hero-unit (but you gotta have limits to it (something like limit production of Unit A (Unit A + Unit A = Unit B), because Hero holds unique data, could possibly takes up the game engine space if you replace too many Hero)

Indexing is inefficiently done using a for loop; a future version will use hashtables instead.

You should, to avoid unneeded loops.

 

[rulerofiron99]

(Owner of (Triggering unit)) -> (Triggering player), uses less function calls

Will this work even though the event is a unit event? Or does that imply the owning player as triggering player?

Does this system only for Units ?
What about Heroes ?
I think it's pretty cool to fuse Hero-unit (but you gotta have limits to it (something like limit production of Unit A (Unit A + Unit A = Unit B), because Hero holds unique data, could possibly takes up the game engine space if you replace too many Hero)

It will work with heroes as if they are units.

I'll add hero-specific functionality, such as combining stats, experience and items.

 

[moyackx]

Shouldn't be easier to use an ability based on mount glyphon?? just wondering...

 

[rulerofiron99]

Shouldn't be easier to use an ability based on mount glyphon?? just wondering...

AFAIK that only works for 2 units?

 

[defskull]

Will this work even though the event is a unit event? Or does that imply the owning player as triggering player?

(Triggering player) = (Owner of (Triggering unit))

Why would you use a function that calls 2 function when you can use a function that calls 1 function ?

 

[rulerofiron99]

(Triggering player) = (Owner of (Triggering unit))

Oh wow, just tested this because I didn't really believe it, I've been using the "wrong" way for years, always taking the logical expressions at grammatical value. Blizzard

Thanks for the tip, as always

 

[defskull]

However you should not use (Triggering player) for Unit - Enters/Leaves Region and such, it returns a null Player.

You should only use (Triggering player) for Unit - Specific / Player-Owned / Generic - Unit Event.

 

[rulerofiron99]

Good to know! Thanks again.

 

[CoLd Bon3]

Another good system from ruleronfire. I like it. But it needs more unit combinations. Also you can make it with levels. For example if unit1 and unit2 get combined, you create level 1 of unit3. But if 2 types of unit1 and 2 types of unit2 get combined, you create level 2 of unit3. This will be a good addition.

By the way, uploading things "under construction" is forbidden, isn't it?

 

[rulerofiron99]

Another good system from ruleronfire. I like it. But it needs more unit combinations. Also you can make it with levels. For example if unit1 and unit2 get combined, you create level 1 of unit3. But if 2 types of unit1 and 2 types of unit2 get combined, you create level 2 of unit3. This will be a good addition.

Thanks for the input and idea, I'll add that functionality after I fix multiples of same unit types in the recipe.

By the way, uploading things "under construction" is forbidden, isn't it?

Technically the system works, albeit in a hard-to-configure way.

I added the "under constuction" note so that moderators shouldn't waste their time reviewing this until it meets the proper requirements. I uploaded it in case anyone wants to use it; and of course so that I can get feedback from you lot

 

[defskull]

Suggestions;
- Add Selection to the newly fused unit to the Player (you don't have to re-select the fused unit)
- Add a proper documentary (both on this thread and inside Trigger Editor) on how to actually use it (I just blindly picking up 2 units and accidentally cast the Fuse ability), so I discover how to use your system (in-game) by accidents. That is in-game, but what about in Trigger Editor (Setup) trigger ? You should add a Trigger Comments there to let people easier to understand how to manipulate your system.

 

[rulerofiron99]

Will do.

 

[baassee]

This only works for player 1

• Unit - Create 1 ufsVAR_unitType[forA] for Player 1 (Red) at tempLoc facing Default building facing degrees

also put some prefix on x/y variables - to common name

edit

and wtf who said indexing is inefficient

 

[rulerofiron99]

This only works for player 1

• Unit - Create 1 ufsVAR_unitType[forA] for Player 1 (Red) at tempLoc facing Default building facing degrees

also put some prefix on x/y variables - to common name

Whoops, fixing.

and wtf who said indexing is inefficient

If the system is used to check a few hundred unit types, wouldn't a hashtable be more efficient than checking each element in an array?

 

[edo494]

array lookup is faster then hashtable, hashtable works the way that more filled it is the slower it is so no if you are not working with things like unit-type Id's there is no need to use hashtables
EDIT:
also you can only have 255 hashtables per map and when you init it you cant get rid of it(there is no destroy hashtable, the max you can get is flush parent hashtbale)

 

[rulerofiron99]

Good to know, thanks!

I assumed that hashtables would be faster since there would be no looping through functions - just a simple "it's at this coordinate".

 

[baassee]

If the system is used to check a few hundred unit types, wouldn't a hashtable be more efficient than checking each element in an array?

Well hashtables are just double arrays instead and doesnt use O(N) like arrays (in GUI). Also hashtables have limits (256).

 

[defskull]

Well hashtables are just double arrays instead and doesnt use O(N) like arrays (in GUI). Also hashtables have limits (256).

You can remove this limit if you're using Table

 

[baassee]

You can remove this limit if you're using Table

Table for GUI users right. Will never happen.

 

[TaShadan]

wow this is awesome
was always looking for something like that!
does it work properly?

 

[rulerofiron99]

wow this is awesome
was always looking for something like that!
does it work properly?

Yes, but there are improvements to be made.