Recipe System v1.5.0.0

[Moderator]

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


9th Nov 2011
Bribe: Be careful with using strings inside GetLocalPlayer blocks, yours for one doesn't need to be in one. If you want to display a message to a player without creating and destroying a force you can do this:

• Custom script: set udg_TempForce = bj_FORCE_PLAYER[GetPlayerId(GetTriggerPlayer())]
• Game - Display to TempForce the text:

Currently unnacceptable in its current state as initializing a string locally causes desync.

 

[thekebecer]

Just a suggestion like this, if the recipe cost something the system should return the gold value to the player.

 

[RakEnRoL]

You should at least be humble.

 

[Adiktuz]

What I don't like is that you need a clickable recipe...

 

[maddeem]

What I don't like is that you need a clickable recipe...

I dislike this myself. =p I might change this later.

You should at least be humble.

Any particular reason?

Just a suggestion like this, if the recipe cost something the system should return the gold value to the player.

Could you elaborate on this? xD

 

[Adiktuz]

I don't his point too... Why add a gold requirement if you're just gonna return it... I thought its for a disassemble trigger, but this map doesn't seem to have one...

 

[Magtheridon96]

Another one? ._.
Man, I'm gonna look sooo nooby when I update my old one =P

 

[thekebecer]

Oh, I've just understand something, you have to use the recipe for create the new item. I was thinking that you have to buy the recipe from a shop and it is auto use.

 

[Magtheridon96]

This is the best recipe system I have ever seen/made. For a couple of reasons, such as it supports stacks. And 2 or more of the same item type can be in the same recipe. Which is very cool

Isn't that the basic functionality required? ._.

Your system doesn't support player specific recipes D:

It should also support item charges :3 (My system doesn't, but it's going to =P)

One other thing: Don't use (Integer A) >.>

 

[maddeem]

Isn't that the basic functionality required? ._.

Your system doesn't support player specific recipes D:

It should also support item charges :3 (My system doesn't, but it's going to =P)

One other thing: Don't use (Integer A) >.>

It supports charges AND item amounts. I didn't use Integer A, I made my own variable Integer_A. =p
And player specific recipes seems pointless, plus, that would only take me all of 2 mins to add, but as I said before, pretty pointless.

Oh, I've just understand something, you have to use the recipe for create the new item. I was thinking that you have to buy the recipe from a show and it is auto use.

Good point, very possible. Just set the item to use when pickup. Maybe I should add another required item slot n such? Dunno, I'll think about this.

 

[Magtheridon96]

It supports charges AND item amounts. I didn't use Integer A, I made my own variable Integer_A. =p

Haha
That was very misleading ;p (You're as evil as Vexorian >)

And player specific recipes seems pointless, plus, that would only take me all of 2 mins to add, but as I said before, pretty pointless.

What if you want a recipe to compile only for a certain player (Say, a player has to have some 'award'/'achievement' in order to compile a specific recipe.
I know it takes 2 minutes to add, so why don't you do it? ;p

 

[Adiktuz]

and another thing aside from it requiring the unit to use the recipe, is the presence of a recipe itself... The system should support, recipe's which are auto-combined when you obtain the items without the need for a recipe item...

Like 2 Claws of attack = One new item...

 

[maddeem]

and another thing aside from it requiring the unit to use the recipe, is the presence of a recipe itself... The system should support, recipe's which are auto-combined when you obtain the items without the need for a recipe item...

Like 2 Claws of attack = One new item...

I like my way much much more.
For one good reason, lets say someone didn't want to make said item and it did it without them controlling it. But with this, the player can be sure of what and when they will make the item.

Plus you could make the claws of attack recipes themselves, so when they are clicked it will equal 1 new item.

 

[Magtheridon96]

That's what disassembling is for ;o

 

[maddeem]

That's what disassembling is for ;o

This isn't a disablement system.

 

[Magtheridon96]

All the cool recipe systems allow you to disassemble the items.
All you have to do is store the index of the recipe array inside a hashtable using the handle id of the created recipe item.
When someone wants to disassemble an item, check his inventory size/space and if he has enough space (add 1 because you're going to remove the recipe item), turn off your system trigger and give him all the required items for the recipe system.

This has to be built in. You can't have a seperate system do the disassembling because only this system should have access to the recipe data.

 

[maddeem]

This isn't a disablement system.

Now you can quit bothering me about disablement xD
(Updated it with disablement)
Off topic, what you said made me think of "All the cool kids are doing it...." Lol.

 

[maddeem]

Currently unnacceptable in its current state as initializing a string locally causes desync.

Please actually be sure of what you say before you say it. I have used this in multiplayer. It works without desyncs. And unless repeating something over and over with local player causes desyncs then this system is fine as it is. Please test in the future before you shoot down a system.
Also, I did this to spare people from having an extra variable. If you can, try the spell in multiplayer and see how it goes. Until then, I think you are obliged to take my word for it.

 

[Adiktuz]

Of course, if the user don't want the item to be build with just the items, he will then add a recipe... So actually making this system run on obtaining an Item will make it more flexible because it supports both items with recipe and without recipe...

example:

Claws of IMBA - requires 2 claws of attack

then I could make another which is

Claws of more IMBA - requires 2 claws of attack + ClawsofMoreIMBA recipe

So in your current system which requires the user to use a recipe item, you can only support the second one, but not the first...

Also as you said they could make the item clickable, but what if they use item clicking for like The_Witcher's inventory system? then your system will collide...

 

[maddeem]

Of course, if the user don't want the item to be build with just the items, he will then add a recipe... So actually making this system run on obtaining an Item will make it more flexible because it supports both items with recipe and without recipe...

example:

Claws of IMBA - requires 2 claws of attack

then I could make another which is

Claws of more IMBA - requires 2 claws of attack + ClawsofMoreIMBA recipe

So in your current system which requires the user to use a recipe item, you can only support the second one, but not the first...

Also as you said they could make the item clickable, but what if they use item clicking for like The_Witcher's inventory system? then your system will collide...

First of all, people wont be equipping recipes... Which is weird to suggest in the first place. And if they were, this system would run checking if the unit has the required items and it would equip it at the same time. The bad thing about his system is though, that he used the left click. He should have done double right click. (Which I can make this system do no problem)
And they wouldnt collide in the first place, this system doesn't activate unless a recipe is in the system. So clicking an item like gear to equip it would have no effect.
Maybe try a system before you judge it? Perhaps even just look at the code?

 

[Adiktuz]

The collision was for your suggstion of making the claw a recipe itself... It will collide as the claw is both an equippable item and a recipe...

And since no one will bring a recipe in his inventory if it does nothing, th why not create the item automatically when you get all required items rther than needing to click the first?

Amyway its just a suggestion... Its still up to you...

Or rather just retain this, there's still maggy's system...