[Trigger] Is it possible to create ''multi-Multiboards''?

[EmoBrother]

Is it possible to create Multiboards (means more than one) ?? Because I can create many multiboards but only the last created multiboard shows up.Help
_____________________________________________________________

PLEASE HELP ME !

 

[gorillabull]

not the way you are doing it it sounds like you arent even using variables post your code pls

 

[deathismyfriend]

Yes u can but like gorillabull said u need to set each (last create multiboard ) to a variable. U can also only show one multiboard at a time so u need to make a trigger tht changes which multiboard is shown to u. I normally made it w when player 1 types a message it changed the multiboard

 

[EmoBrother]

Thanks to gorillabull and deathismyfriend for replied my thread.
Here's the way I shows my multi-Multiboards

VARIABLE - I have use via act ''Set variable = (Last created multiboard)'' but it is useless

-Events-
-Conditions-
-Actions-
Create a multiboard with 6 columns and 5 rows, titled P1's Inventory
Set Multiboard [1] = (Last created multiboard)
Create a multiboard with 6 columns and 5 rows, titled P2's Inventory
Set Multiboard [2] = (Last created multiboard)
Both actions =

Show all multiboards or Show Multiboard [1], Show Multiboard [2]

Have been used by me but failed.It only shows up last multiboard
But nevermind, I have another idea for my current project

Thread Closed

 

[deathismyfriend]

u can only show one at a time so to show another u have to hide the one u dont want to see the show the one u want to see. i have 4 or 5 multiboards on my map and they all show fine but only one at a time

 

[Wrda]

u can only show one at a time so to show another u have to hide the one u dont want to see the show the one u want to see. i have 4 or 5 multiboards on my map and they all show fine but only one at a time

You can show many at a time, but you'll have to use local player, and be careful with desyncronization things.

 

[deathismyfriend]

u can show different multiboards to different ppl but not multiple multiboards to the same person

 

[Wrda]

Well, in fact, you can, but it causes desynchronization

 

[deathismyfriend]

Well, in fact, you can, but it causes desynchronization

ooo ok tht i didnt know lol

 

[Dr Super Good]

Each player can only have 1 multiboard visible at any time. The GUI multiboard creation action also shows the multiboard it creates. It is perfectly fine to show and hide multiboards locally (using GetLocalPlayer()) however it is not fine to update multiboards locally (high chance of game desynchronization).

 

[WaterKnight]

Strangely, multiboarditems are agents and count to the same id pool as units and the like, which can trigger the broadcast of data, so have to be known under the same id on other clients.

You can update the board locally but if you allocate items, you should instantly put them away again in the right order.

 

[Dr Super Good]

You can update the board locally but if you allocate items, you should instantly put them away again in the right order.

You also cannot create the strings for items locally unless you are sure the string already exists on all clients.

 

[WaterKnight]

I have never experienced a game desync due to an async string table. Why would wc3 send that? Chat events?

 

[Wrda]

A game desync only happens on battle.net, you get disconnected from the game, if the host is a bot, it says: "Warning! Desync Detected!
Players in first state: a, b, c, d.
Players in second state: e, f.
Player e, f where dropped due to desync."
Must be something like that.

 

[Dr Super Good]

I have never experienced a game desync due to an async string table. Why would wc3 send that? Chat events?

It was a common cause of desync when people use GetLocalPlayer. An example would be creating a local special effect from a file path string where only the person going to view the effect has the string setup (everyone else gets a empty string). It is probably due to the check for synchronization (some kind of state checksum?) changing value differently. Mechanicly there need not be justification why it is checked.

 

[WaterKnight]

Theoretically, when sending a repeated chat message, they could just transfer the index in the table.