[Trigger] How do I do this properly?

[LemonPie]

I'm working on a DotA like map,
and as I set the paths for monster groups,
something didn't work as expected.

Sure, the mons spawn and follow their path,
however, not only the spawned ones, but
every that enters the region. I tried
to look for a condition that makes
only a Certain Player's units follow the path.
The most similiar thing I found was that
allied player's units only will be following it.
So, the opposing side will have their own
paths too, and they don't get messed up.

However, heroes from said player's side
will still follow it. Let's say you're playing
the map online, and your hero joins the
wave and follows along with them. Ofc,
you can order them to move somewhere
else and they'll follow your orders only again,
but it's still an issue I don't want to be present
in the map. So, how do I fix that?


To put it more simply:
Player 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are in one force and allied.
1, 2, 3, 4 are user controled while 5 is
a computer player. Not does only player
5 follow the paths, but also the other ones
once they enter certain regions.

In the condition category I was unable
to find something that makes just ONE player's
units follow them.

 

[Bribe]

The condition should check if the entering unit is Player(5)

 

[LemonPie]

The condition should check if the entering unit is Player(5)

YES, that's what I wanna achieve.
But I can't find a condition that does that. Just the ally one.

 

[LordDz]

• adsasd
  • Events
    • Unit - A unit enters Region 000 <gen>
  • Conditions
    • (Owner of (Triggering unit)) Equal to Player 1 (Red)
  • Actions
    • -------- bla bla bla --------

Go to conditions and press P.

 

[Dr Super Good]

You can also add all heroes and summons to an exclusion group. You can then test if the entering unit is in the exclusion group and if not only then progress it along the path. Do note that removed units are not removed from groups so you may need to periodically re-build the exclusion group to prevent leaks.

 

[Wietlol]

But a unit group check is way heavier than a simple player check.
Yes it does give you more potential to do some lovely things like make an AoS with 6vs6 but having the player check is just a lot easier and faster.

 

[Blightsower]

i vote for unitgroup check

 

[Wietlol]

In that case, do at least a unit type check, hero check or make it even better and use a unit indexer and store a boolean to be checked.
Unit groups are soooo 2003.

 

[Blightsower]

unitgroup is the easiest way. just store units that u want to follow the path in a unit group then check which side the unit is. remember to remove the unit from the unit group once they die. really up to u man.

 

[Dr Super Good]

But a unit group check is way heavier than a simple player check.

So what? It will only run a couple of times a minute...

Unit groups are soooo 2003.

Yet practically every GUI spell uses them...

 

[Wietlol]

GUI is sooooo 2003 as well.
It will run like every unit per wave multiplied by number of waves multiplied by the number of waves per path plus the number of units that arent the creeps that walk into those regions...
Id go for a bit more efficient method.

 

[Blightsower]

Eh... The boolean condition unit is in unitgroup is slow? How come?

 

[Dr Super Good]

It will run like every unit per wave multiplied by number of waves multiplied by the number of waves per path plus the number of units that arent the creeps that walk into those regions...

But it does not leak, has a reasonable execution time and a few thousand times per game is nothing.

I think you are trying to pre-maturely optimize (or worry about optimization). It is a trap practically everyone has fallen into at some stage in their youth.

For smaller groups a group contents test is approximately O(1) complexity. It also scales fairly well with larger groups. Hashtables will be faster for larger groups but they are more complex to use as you need to be careful not to leak mappings. Groups can always be periodically purged to clean them of removed units.

 

[Wietlol]

Eh... The boolean condition unit is in unitgroup is slow? How come?

Because it uses ForGroup iteration.
It creates a new thread and run that to check and it does not stop when it has found the unit, instead it will continue to look for all other units in the group as well.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Because it uses ForGroup iteration.

It surely is the native blow?

constant native IsUnitInGroup takes unit whichUnit,group whichGroup returns boolean

It creates a new thread and run that to check and it does not stop when it has found the unit, instead it will continue to look for all other units in the group as well.

It is run in a single thread as a single function call to native functionality? At least that is what I thought.

 

[Blightsower]

Its like .contains in most programming language yes?

 

[Wietlol]

Well... I think I misplaced it for another function.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Well... I think I misplaced it for another function.

Probably random unit in unit group, since that iterates through every unit in the unit group just like you described to some extent.