Knockback v1.0

[Moderator]

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

Knockback v1.0 | Reviewed by Maker | 2nd Jun 2013

NEEDS FIX

There is no proper pathing detection The tree detection method is not good The spell database already has pretty good knockback systems. Unless you can create something exceptionally good, you have low chance of getting a (yet another) knocback system approved Destroy only trees

[tr]

 

[grotx]

Really useful and just generally awesome, thanks!

 

[deathismyfriend]

u should take a look at my tutorial. Things a GUIer Should Know

It will help u with indexing / de-indexing as the method u use is outdated and inefficient.

 

[Daredeamon]

No it's not. It's more efficient than any Hive GUI trigger I've seen before. The reason the entire trigger is long is because I give the user the 3 extra choices, instead of having them as fixed choices. (CatchUnits, DestroysTrees, and TravelCliffs)
>_> Also, as for the indexing, if you mean splitting the system into 3 parts (cast, init and loop trigger) and determining available indexes in the initialization trigger, then you're increasing your variables by two (since you need your cast trigger variables without arrays + system variables with arrays), and increasing the amount of triggers by 33.33%. (Versus a little length on the end of the loop trigger of my code).

EDIT:
I just checked out your tut. First thing I noticed is that your variables names are a pain to read. There's no organization in them (like prefixes and capitalization etc.) which is something you do want if you have multiple systems, and thus something you SHOULD teach. Also, forgive me if I'm wrong, sincerely, it's currently 10.22 AM and I have not closed my eyes yet, but your indexing seems to not take in account the order of index. All you seem to do is subtract the last index. For spell effects which do not define time as a constant, you need to remember the order.

EDIT: Also, I just realized you didn't mean what I said before about the determining available indexes in the initialization trigger, because I can't find any evidence of you doing so at all. Any decent spell should be able to end the effect early/late if needed, and still reorder indexes properly. I don't see that in your tut. Again, forgive me if I'm wrong. I haven't slept.

EDIT: Yeah so I just read your nova ability example a couple of times, and you don't index it efficiently. Your loop trigger will keep iterating through every instance of the ability casted (somewhat) simultaneously, and will only turn off as soon as the index is 0, and only THEN set the "maxindex" to 0. Mine does it dynamically, ergo it is more efficient.

RESOLVED. With that, I thank Velgen for helping me understand deathismyfriend for helping me understand indexing better yet again.

 

[deathismyfriend]

sry but no the method i use is the most efficient method.

when u index u store it into variables
example:

• Set maxIndex = maxIndex + 1
• Set caster[ maxIndex] = triggering unit
• Set target[ maxIndex] = targeted unit

then the rest of the spell variables. This is just an example
now to de-index u do this

• Set caster[ tempInt] = caster[ maxIndex]
• Set caster[ maxIndex] = no unit
• Set target[ tempInt] = target[ maxIndex]
• Set target[ maxIndex] = no unit
• Set maxIndex = maxIndex - 1
• Set tempInt = tempInt - 1

That is how u de-index. It works by taking the last index in the array and storing it in the now unused index. then u null and destroy the last index then lower the max index.

It is the most efficient way because u dont loop through unused indexes. and everything stays 100% MUI

As for the way i write my variables i use standard format for variables.

 

[Daredeamon]

sry but no the method i use is the most efficient method.

when u index u store it into variables
example:

• Set maxIndex = maxIndex + 1
• Set caster[ maxIndex] = triggering unit
• Set target[ maxIndex] = targeted unit

then the rest of the spell variables. This is just an example
now to de-index u do this

• Set caster[ tempInt] = caster[ maxIndex]
• Set caster[ maxIndex] = no unit
• Set target[ tempInt] = target[ maxIndex]
• Set target[ maxIndex] = no unit
• Set maxIndex = maxIndex - 1
• Set tempInt = tempInt - 1

That is how u de-index. It works by taking the last index in the array and storing it in the now unused index. then u null and destroy the last index then lower the max index.

It is the most efficient way because u dont loop through unused indexes. and everything stays 100% MUI

.... Dude. Read my triggers complete and through next time. It is exactly the same concept, I applied it just slightly different but I do the exact same.

 

[deathismyfriend]

i dont understand y u do this.

• If (All Conditions are True) then do (Then Actions) else do (Else Actions)
• If - Conditions
• KB_Integers[2] Equal to KB_Integers[1]
• Then - Actions
• Set KB_Integers[1] = (KB_Integers[1] - 1)
• Else - Actions
• Set KB_temp_Integer[1] = KB_Integers[2]
• Set KB_temp_Integer[2] = (KB_Integers[2] + 1)
• For each (Integer A) from KB_Integers[2] to KB_Integers[1], do (Actions)
• Loop - Actions
• Set KB_Caster[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_Caster[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_DestroysTrees[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_DestroysTrees[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_DestructibleType[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_DestructibleType[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_TravelsCliffs[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_TravelsCliffs[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_CatchUnits[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_CatchUnits[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_VFX[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_VFX[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_Speed[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_Speed[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_Damage[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_Damage[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_Friction[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_Friction[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_Threshold[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_Threshold[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_Target[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_Target[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_TargetX[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_TargetX[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_TargetY[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_TargetY[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_Angle[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_Angle[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_VelocityX[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_VelocityX[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_VelocityY[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_VelocityY[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_SignX[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_SignX[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_SignY[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_SignY[KB_temp_Integer[2]]

Also get rid of the and conditions. Only time u need them is when u use an and condition inside an or condition.

if u de-index like me i just dont see it

 

[Daredeamon]

i dont understand y u do this.

• If (All Conditions are True) then do (Then Actions) else do (Else Actions)
• If - Conditions
• KB_Integers[2] Equal to KB_Integers[1]
• Then - Actions
• Set KB_Integers[1] = (KB_Integers[1] - 1)
• Else - Actions
• Set KB_temp_Integer[1] = KB_Integers[2]
• Set KB_temp_Integer[2] = (KB_Integers[2] + 1)
• For each (Integer A) from KB_Integers[2] to KB_Integers[1], do (Actions)
• Loop - Actions
• Set KB_Caster[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_Caster[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_DestroysTrees[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_DestroysTrees[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_DestructibleType[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_DestructibleType[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_TravelsCliffs[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_TravelsCliffs[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_CatchUnits[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_CatchUnits[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_VFX[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_VFX[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_Speed[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_Speed[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_Damage[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_Damage[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_Friction[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_Friction[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_Threshold[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_Threshold[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_Target[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_Target[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_TargetX[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_TargetX[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_TargetY[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_TargetY[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_Angle[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_Angle[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_VelocityX[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_VelocityX[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_VelocityY[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_VelocityY[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_SignX[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_SignX[KB_temp_Integer[2]]
• Set KB_SignY[KB_temp_Integer[1]] = KB_SignY[KB_temp_Integer[2]]

Also get rid of the and conditions. Only time u need them is when u use an and condition inside an or condition.

THAT is my deindexing and reordering. The reason you can't see it is because you name your variables like you name your jass... Probably. In any case, it's not organized optimally that way. MY way you can see exactly what's going on and by using the temporary integer I make the system more flexible. And it's still efficient.

 

[deathismyfriend]

that de-indexing does not make sense and is less efficient. U should de-index in the loop ur doing it and when de-indexing u should not need a second loop as u need the index for the loop u are on atm and the maxIndex.

Also again i use standard naming for variables. That isnt whats the problem tho. Its the way u de-index.

 

[Daredeamon]

.... *non-expressive sigh*

If you look at the second loop for just about a minute it won't be hard to derive that I'm basically taking out whatever index has ended, taking all the indexes that came after that, and setting them one index down. This effectively takes out just THAT index, no matter if it's the first, the second, the third, or so on.

What you do is you just take the final index, and set the new unit to that index, but it doesn't take in account the actual order in specific units were indexed. The reason I made my indexing system to be able to extract specific indexes and reorder the rest is so it would dynamically recycle them. All you do is put them on the end, and set the trigger to 'off' if the max int is equal to 0.

 

[Daredeamon]

@deathismyfriend

Just to clarify, this system uses very specific measures at which it will take out a specific index and reorder all the next ones one index down.
The deindexing only happens in an iteration if (for example) the speed becomes less than the threshold. This specific trigger does not register time, nor distance, but rather the velocity of x/y under a certain threshold. The threshold only being there to eliminate the ugly aesthetics of the spell when the speed drops below 1.
Two other cases are if DestroysTrees is set to false, and it hits a destructible. The second of those is when it hits a wall.
These three cases are the only thing that will cause a reordering of the indexes.

I will take out the and condition for that though, for that one you are correct.

 

[deathismyfriend]

man watchu watchu u doin ya don cheadle lookin eisssh.
Whatchu? Watchu wan?! Just comin here for attention u self important "my way is the only way" lookin eiisshh.

its not my way lol. its just the most efficient way.
Also no reason to be rude lol. I reported that post btw

@TO
when u re-order everything it is a ton less efficient than the method i use. Also it has a high chance of hitting the op-limit which wil break ur spell.

 

[Daredeamon]

its not my way lol. its just the most efficient way.

@TO
when u re-order everything it is a ton less efficient than the method i use. Also it has a high chance of hitting the op-limit which wil break ur spell.

What do you mean hit the OP limit?

EDIT:
(Also, I edited my previous post for increased clarification).
Second, I still don't think you understand exactly what my system does. It's made to prevent exactly that.

 

[deathismyfriend]

What do you mean hit the OP limit?

when u re-order every instance of the spell it takes a lot of programming speed and power. There are only a certain amount of actions one thread can do b4 it hits the op-limit. ( the operational limit of wc3) After it hits the op-limit every action after that will not run.

Also specific measurements are ok to use and u dont need to keep things in order to keep the measurements in order. Reals are also not 100 percent exact so if u use any equal to real it can be buggy.

 

[Nizarozoid]

its not my way lol. its just the most efficient way.
Also no reason to be rude lol. I reported that post btw

@TO
when u re-order everything it is a ton less efficient than the method i use. Also it has a high chance of hitting the op-limit which wil break ur spell.

maaan so sensitive maaaan take it maaan pls take

 

[Daredeamon]

when u re-order every instance of the spell it takes a lot of programming speed and power. There are only a certain amount of actions one thread can do b4 it hits the op-limit. ( the operational limit of wc3) After it hits the op-limit every action after that will not run.

Against, this is exactly what my system prevents. Basically what I'm doing is I'm decreasing the equivalent of your 'maxint' by 1 every time the effect on a unit is supposed to end... Ultimately decreasing performance required per iteration of the periodic loop. Seriously, please read my triggers properly. A few posts ago you were still saying "I don't get why you do this."

Besides, all I did there was nest ONE loop. ONE loop which I am reducing the loop per iteration for as soon as it's physically possible.

EDIT
Which is something I saw in your tutorial btw, just below the "how to index" section. (Nesting loops)

 

[deathismyfriend]

maaan so sensitive maaaan take it maaan pls take

not sensitive thats just a pointless and rude post. There was no reason to make it. I wont drop to ur lvl and continue this. Im trying to help ppl improve there spells / systems / whatever they need. So if u dont have anything to help just dont post.

 

[Daredeamon]

not sensitive thats just a pointless and rude post. There was no reason to make it. I wont drop to ur lvl and continue this. Im trying to help ppl improve there spells / systems / whatever they need. So if u dont have anything to help just dont post.

You haven't helped me improve anything. All you've done is talk down to me and you haven't even tried to understand my triggers.

 

[deathismyfriend]

if u re-order by setting stuff from index 2 to 1 then index 3 to 2 then 4 to 3 it will hit op-limit and will never be approved. It will hit the op-limit. It does not protect against it. And it will hurt performance and efficiency a lot.

I havent tlked down to u at all. Just trying to help. It is less efficient and im trying to explain y. Also that was pretty rude to make a new account just to say that.
Im trying to explain y ur method is flawed. If i sound rude or tlking down im not its just the typing lol.

 

[Nizarozoid]

not sensitive thats just a pointless and rude post. There was no reason to make it. I wont drop to ur lvl and continue this. Im trying to help ppl improve there spells / systems / whatever they need. So if u dont have anything to help just dont post.

just ignore me then pal, cmon man dont drop to my level. sigh im disappointed.
jesus gave me the right to post, so i will type and click the "post" button as i please. and my comments aren't rude, they speak the truth man, i swears. u aint trying to help nobody man, u just annoying the guy. im so scared pls help me too

 

[Daredeamon]

if u re-order by setting stuff from index 2 to 1 then index 3 to 2 then 4 to 3 it will hit op-limit and will never be approved. It will hit the op-limit. It does not protect against it. And it will hurt performance and efficiency a lot.

Nope. You're lying through your teeth. The OP limit is not that low. One, because I've spammed this system with longer runtimes and sent debug messages, it kept track perfectly. Also, you know you're lying because we use loops to keep track of all the units affected by our spells. You do it too. "for every tempint from 1 to maxint"- do multiple actions. We do this to keep track of our spell progression per instance. With my dynamic system, spell effects hardly go above 15 (since by then the index for that would have been reduced already. ) In fact, with my other projectile system, I spammed a non-cooldown ability with 3 units and couldn't even get past 8 processes being run at a given time. Anyway, nesting is a viable way to trigger. That's my 3rd reason for proof you're lying through your teeth. If you've changed your mind about that, at least take it out of your tutorial.

EDIT: Another piece of evidence... I use a trigger with probably about 6 times as many lines as this system. In Enter the Pit, one of my maps. Actually the only one I've ever uploaded. In any case, in that map, there's at least 30 projectiles with nested loops running. So stop lying. Please. It's pathetic.

 

[deathismyfriend]

Nope. You're lying through your teeth. The OP limit is not that low. One, because I've spammed this system with longer runtimes and sent debug messages, it kept track perfectly. Also, you know you're lying because we use loops to keep track of all the units affected by our spells. You do it too. "for every tempint from 1 to maxint"- do multiple actions. We do this to keep track of our spell progression per instance. With my dynamic system, spell effects hardly go above 15 (since by then the index for that would have been reduced already. ) In fact, with my other projectile system, I spammed a non-cooldown ability with 3 units and couldn't even get past 8 processes being run at a given time. Anyway, nesting is a viable way to trigger. That's my 3rd reason for proof you're lying through your teeth. If you've changed your mind about that, at least take it out of your tutorial.

good luck. just wait for a mod to tell u ur method is completely flawed and shouldnt be used. Also im not lying.

btw I didnt say the op-limit was that low. I never even said how low or high it was. 15 indexes wont nearly be high enough for op-limit tho.

 

[Daredeamon]

good luck. just wait for a mod to tell u ur method is completely flawed and shouldnt be used. Also im not lying.

I still believe you haven't read my triggers and fully understood them. Not that they're hard to understand, just that you haven't taken the decency to.

man this guy's ego just doesn't give up

word.

EDIT:

btw I didnt say the op-limit was that low. I never even said how low or high it was. 15 indexes wont nearly be high enough for op-limit tho.

Yep, because my system dynamically reduces the main index, checks every time one index is taken off the main index, instead of stacking up the main index until all effects have ended, and THEN setting it to 0.

If you are telling me to do it the first of those two ways, then we are on the same page.

 

[Almia]

Hi there
I would like to review your Knockback System, mainly, the "Bad Things":
1) The method of destroying Trees is not that efficient. I would like to suggest to look up some safety Tree destroy methods,which I would suggest, the dummy harvest method.
2) Your Knockback is not pathing friendly.
3) Spell Generator system such as this shouldn't have any Damage Target or any effects, make the system have its own Custom Event, whereas makes the Knockback more user-friendly.


Actually, my Knockback System and Bribe's(but not that pathing friendly)are better than this(as of what the other said)

 

[Daredeamon]

Hi there
I would like to review your Knockback System, mainly, the "Bad Things":
1) The method of destroying Trees is not that efficient. I would like to suggest to look up some safety Tree destroy methods,which I would suggest, the dummy harvest method.
2) Your Knockback is not pathing friendly.
3) Spell Generator system such as this shouldn't have any Damage Target or any effects, make the system have its own Custom Event, whereas makes the Knockback more user-friendly.


Actually, my Knockback System and Bribe's(but not that pathing friendly)are better than this(as of what the other said)

1) Can you elaborate and clarify please? Is there another way of destroying destructibles in GUI? I would like to know.
2) My knockback is pathing friendly because I triggered it to... not get stuck? (by ending the effect on impassible terrain and on destructibles, if said destructibles are not being destroyed.)
3) What? Elaborate?

 

[Almia]

1) By using the Harvest method, you would like to check this : http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/...e-gui-1-1-a-228385/?prev=d=list&r=20&u=Chaosy
2) Try using it in Pathing Blockers,or Structures.
3) My vJASS Knockback System(not in the Spells Section) uses the Real(value) event. Event - Variable becomes equal to(op limit) blah blah. Please check Unit Indexer or Unit Event for examples.

 

[Daredeamon]

1) By using the Harvest method, you would like to check this : http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/...e-gui-1-1-a-228385/?prev=d=list&r=20&u=Chaosy
2) Try using it in Pathing Blockers,or Structures.
3) My vJASS Knockback System(not in the Spells Section) uses the Real(value) event. Event - Variable becomes equal to(op limit) blah blah. Please check Unit Indexer or Unit Event for examples.

1) Hashtables ARE slower than variables, am I correct? Not saying that it makes this point invalid, per se... But ehh.
2) I customized this system for grotx (the first commenter), for who that would come in handy, but I thought I took it out. Basically if DestroyTrees was equal to TRUE, it would destroy whatever given variable, but also move through them rendering them ineffective in terms of blocking altogether. If it was set to FALSE, all destructibles would stop the knockback effect.
3)This is GUI triggering. Also, the system doesn't reach op limit, I tested its functionality, and it handles fine.

As for what you said in chat, I don't see what he's trying to say?

EDIT
STOP, HOLD UP
I get it. I get what deathismyfriend was trying to say. I've been chatting with Vergen for over an hour. He explained to delirious, sleep deprived me what I was doing. I'll be updating the system ASAP.

 

[Maker]

just ignore me then pal, cmon man dont drop to my level. sigh im disappointed.
jesus gave me the right to post, so i will type and click the "post" button as i please. and my comments aren't rude, they speak the truth man, i swears. u aint trying to help nobody man, u just annoying the guy. im so scared pls help me too

Maybe this jesus guy gave you the right to post, but there are people here that can take that right away. Deathismyfriend is trying to help Daredeamon to improve his triggering and is giving the correct advice.

Try to stay constructive and not act childish. Refrain from personal insults. This applies to everyone.

 

[Magtheridon96]

@Almia: It's not about efficiency in this particular case, but rather safety and accuracy.
The harvest method allows you to pinpoint trees almost as accurately as possible with little to no work from the user.

@Nizarozoid deathismyfriend is investing time into helping Daredeamon improve the triggers so the site could have better resources. There are rules that people must abide by when submitting resources and there is a well-defined list of standards that people need to live up to when making resources and posting them here. We can only approve good to high quality resources. What would be the point of a resource section if people posted crap that got approved all the time? It would be more like a "LOOK WHAT I DID" section rather than a proper database of resources that meet user expectations decently.

 

[Daredeamon]

It's not about efficiency in this particular case, but rather safety and accuracy.
The harvest method allows you to pinpoint trees almost as accurately as possible with little to no work from the user.

Alright, good stuff. Got a few projects going, but this I'll get this done ASAP.

 

[Almia]

1) Hashtables ARE slower than variables, am I correct? Not saying that it makes this point invalid, per se... But ehh.
2) I customized this system for grotx (the first commenter), for who that would come in handy, but I thought I took it out. Basically if DestroyTrees was equal to TRUE, it would destroy whatever given variable, but also move through them rendering them ineffective in terms of blocking altogether. If it was set to FALSE, all destructibles would stop the knockback effect.
3)This is GUI triggering. Also, the system doesn't reach op limit, I tested its functionality, and it handles fine.

As for what you said in chat, I don't see what he's trying to say?

EDIT
STOP, HOLD UP
I get it. I get what deathismyfriend was trying to say. I've been chatting with Vergen for over an hour. He explained to delirious, sleep deprived me what I was doing. I'll be updating the system ASAP.

1) Correct
2) Because checking every type of destructable is not friendly,its better to use the Harvest method,because its much shorter and faster.
3)The oplimit im talking about is this:

    constant limitop LESS_THAN                              = ConvertLimitOp(0)

    constant limitop LESS_THAN_OR_EQUAL                     = ConvertLimitOp(1)

    constant limitop EQUAL                                  = ConvertLimitOp(2)

    constant limitop GREATER_THAN_OR_EQUAL                  = ConvertLimitOp(3)

    constant limitop GREATER_THAN                           = ConvertLimitOp(4)

    constant limitop NOT_EQUAL                              = ConvertLimitOp(5)

OH sorry my bad,it was limitop XD

 

[Daredeamon]

1) Correct
2) Because checking every type of destructable is not friendly,its better to use the Harvest method,because its much shorter and faster.
3)The oplimit im talking about is this:

    constant limitop LESS_THAN                              = ConvertLimitOp(0)

    constant limitop LESS_THAN_OR_EQUAL                     = ConvertLimitOp(1)

    constant limitop EQUAL                                  = ConvertLimitOp(2)

    constant limitop GREATER_THAN_OR_EQUAL                  = ConvertLimitOp(3)

    constant limitop GREATER_THAN                           = ConvertLimitOp(4)

    constant limitop NOT_EQUAL                              = ConvertLimitOp(5)

OH sorry my bad,it was limitop XD

I still don't know what you're asking me to do with this 'limitop' xD.

But I'm implementing the harvest method as we speak. o:

 

[Almia]

Game - Variable becomes (limitop) (value)

That's how it makes the system much more user-friendly.

I don't want to say this all over again, so please view Unit Indexer by BRIBE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!