Never tried to have action markers or fx markers in an egroup, not sure what it would even do tbh.
As far as I know you cant put markers into egroups anyway.
You most likely have to connect them via the drop down. Instead of FX_orphan you would use something else, probably inherit?
I have tried fx_attach, but I dont fully understand the functionality. I dont know how to reference an object with it, and I think that youre not even supposed to. Which is odd, because there is an option which states "effect stops when the marker gets removed", yet there doesent seem to be any way to actually remove markers ingame. |
Are you still here?
Can you make this fixes?
https://www.coh2.org/topic/62688/tweak-6-8-redball/page/1#post_id624230
I am in fact still here, but did not realize that you quoted me until now.
I cant open your link either, is it still active?
Also, I assume this was supposed to be for the now cancelled community patch? |
|
Alright, I managed to link two objects together, so if one gets destroyed, the other one will too (either that, or despawn).
Now I will have to find a way to do the same with an actionmarker. Unfortunately, I cant seem to find any scar functions that deal with action markers |
|
Im going to assume (without having tried it), that you could probably link objects together, with various commands like
EGroup_IsEmpty(egroup_object1_name)
and
EGroup_DeSpawn(egroup_object2_name)
If EGroup_IsEmpty -> EGroup_DeSpawn
(as long as an Egroup is considered empty, once all of its objects get destroyed)
Im going to test some things, but I will probably fail at setting things up correctly. However, that is just for objects. Action Markers cannot be put into egroups or sgroups as far as I know?!
Edit: EGroup_IsEmpty() wouldnt work, maybe EGroup_CountAlive() or Entity_IsAlive()or something |
The tank wrecks you are using are incorrect for competitive play and shouldn't even be used, if this isn't the goal in mind then there is no way to remove them and still maintain an fx that disappears after the wreck itself it destroyed.
All wrecks should start with the "map object" in the entity title or they will all be salvageable leading to imbalance due to only certain factions being able to use them and providing a resource advantage due to it.
Linking FX to an object is a huge pain, and as far as I can remember it is completely bugged outside of scar editing, which requires code and a separate file in your map folder that (as far as I know) nobody knows how to use properly.
Hey Tric, thank you for your reply. Yes, I am aware that lots of vehicle wrecks are salvageable, but in this case I am not concerned about that, because it is not my goal to create a competitive map.
And even if I was: Linking mapobject_wrecks to fx would still be something Id like to do.
So if I understand this correctly: You think that it is possible via Scar? |
|
Hey,
does anybody know if there is some way to "link" map fx (created via action markers) to objects, so that when the object gets destroyed/disappears the linked fx disappears too?
Is it maybe even possible to do the same with two objects? (lets say a regular object, that can get destroyed, linked with a sight blocker)
The reason Im asking this is, that im looking to create tank wrecks on my map, that behave like unit wrecks, i.e. create smoke and block LoS. |
|
So is this dead? :/ |
Building a mod with just those features is, quite simply, a complete waste of time. That's because, even if the changes are reasonable, there's nothing interesting to test.
FRPs and Call-ins, sure; everybody knows those need a nerf.
Repair speeds? The only way to test this is playing a game and counting the seconds until your tanks are back online.
Emplacements? To test them, you need to find somebody that builds emplacements, and somebody that loves playing against emplacements. I don't know of anybody like that.
[...]+rest
I am sorry to say this and i certainly dont want to be an ass, but this does not sound like the solid foundation you'd need for a balance patch of this scope. In fact, for a balance patch of any scope.
That doesent mean, that this wont be successful. I appreciate the work you and your team put into this and hope for the best. But to me it sounds like this is the worst starting condition for a patch Ive seen thus far.
This isnt meant to be just another rant either. Its just something to keep in mind for you as a balance mod/patch dev (and your team obviously).
Edit: To clarify: With "foundation" i am, in this case, not refering to your current list of balance changes, but the situation you are facing and the premise under which youre working. |
|
Sorry, but there are way too many changes for it to be considered "good". Lots of which look absolutely unnecessary and many of which are too convoluted. To me it looks like youre adding changes just for the sake of changing things. |
But I meant the game Steel Division,
Look, it is not an advantage in this game, if you zoom to the near.
This is my problem...
I want to fight with near screen like in CoH2 ...
But the game itself is better than coh2 in my eyes
And if u look near in Steel Division it is really undetailed
Considering the scope of the maps it actually is quite detailed. Of course nowhere near the level of detail that CoH has, because that one has a much smaller scale.
In the end things look nice enough even if you zoom in all the way in my opinion.
agree, steel division is much more realistic and tactical than coh2.
Since i tried this game, i never got tempted anymore to give coh2 a try, even with the new balance patch.
And its not just more realistic. A lot of games are "more realistic" than Company of Heroes but fail to create interesting gameplay dynamics at the same time. I am very impressed by the mix of realism and great gameplay that Steel Division offers. It all works so well together.
What bother me is that trucks which transport infantry just disappear...
They had to do that for gameplay reasons, there are few alternatives I think. Just imagine that the trucks drive off map once they unload their stuff  |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
