Light Shield

02-18-2009, 09:17 PM

Ok people, this is the return of my infamous Light Shield. After a discussion with Rising_Dusk complaining about me not using systems and doing things in an insane way, I quited the spell again, after all it worked well. However, recently (once again) I started working on the spell to make it approved, I decided that after so much time wasted on the spell, it would be a crime not to make an acceptable version of it to wc3c. Therefore I returned from the shadows making this spell as modular as I can, with as much experience as possible for a newbie like me xD
I know the mods are having problems with the unstoppable waves of submissions (or so I have been told) and I also know that the server was down for a few days, so instead of blasting the spell right in the submitting section (as I usually do when I finish) I decided to be more helpful and to post it on the Triggers and Scripts section of wc3c and THW so I could get critics on the code and suggestions for ideas and improvements.
Anyway, I think I did all I could to ease the job of the moderators, and somehow, I think I am addicted to the high standards of wc3c (it's a curse, trust me...) so here i am presenting another spell for the community.

Description:
- A JESP spell that allows the hero to cast a shield on a not Ud ally or on an Ud enemy (just like Holy Light). The shield will absorb an amount of damage for the allied unit thus protecting it from harm, or it will amplify the damage caused to the unit if it is enemy. When the shield dies, the shield unit will get healed by the remaining energies of the shield if it is an ally, or it will be damage by the remaining energies if it is an enemy.

Click image for larger version

Name: LightShield1.jpg
Views: 158
Size: 216.9 KB
ID: 40580

Click image for larger version

Name: LightShield2.jpg
Views: 347
Size: 174.8 KB
ID: 40579

Requirements:
- Jass NewGen Pack (uses vJASS)
- Timer Utils ( I use Blue flavor)
- xe basic and xedamage module
- ABuff and ADamage
- LastOrder(stand alone version) and AbortSpell

History:

Hidden information:

code:
LightShield 2.1.3.txt

I am sorry, but I can not post the entire code here... it is too long, so instead I just post a txt file with it.

Attached Images

	LightShield2.jpg (174.8 KB)
	LightShield1.jpg (216.9 KB)

Attached Files

	Light Shield 2.1.3.w3x (101.0 KB)
	LightShield 2.1.3.txt (16.8 KB)

02-19-2009, 06:16 AM

darkwulfv

Quote:

I think I am addicted to the high standards of wc3c (it's a curse, trust me...)

I wouldn't consider it a curse, since it makes you create things with a high standard by default; and since when has that been a bad thing? =P

02-19-2009, 12:46 PM

emjlr3

i was under the impression Dusks lastorder doodad was built to work through the issueorder event, though perhaps it makes no difference

JASS:

call SetWidgetLife(shieldData.shielded, damage * 0.9)

i say save the multiplication and just use 1., or .5 - how often does someone actually take damage that is less then 1.? and how often does it actually matter? the overhead is negligable, but neglibable is the name of the game here - also I wonder, what if damage*.9<.405? ( I haven't run the math with your expression but it seems possible)

also, won't that method screw with assistance systems? - I see no internal way you can pass out who did the life reduction...currently

02-19-2009, 12:58 PM

Flame_Phoenix

Quote:

I wouldn't consider it a curse, since it makes you create things with a high standard by default; and since when has that been a bad thing? =P

Lol, it was supposed to be a joke, but it is annoying to have people trying to destroy your codes all the time =P

Quote:

i say save the multiplication and just use 1., or .5 - how often does someone actually take damage that is less then 1.? and how often does it actually matter - also, the damage*.9 does not take into consideration armor/spell resistance/etc. (I think), therefor that could fail as well

I make no idea the attack that my victim will take, so the multiplication works for all cases. It is safe bet.
About armor, the extra damage is calculated based on the incoming damage, which is reduced by armor, so the extra damage will depend on the armor afaik.
And it will not screw assistance systems, first because the extra damage will be caused by the attacking unit and second because it can't die due extra damage, it dies due to the final damage.
In case my english skills fail, I just want to say that I am 100% this will not mess up assistance systems because we always have the attacker doing the damage in last place, thus the attacking unit always gets credit.

02-19-2009, 02:29 PM

Rising_Dusk

Quote:

Originally Posted by emjlr3

i was under the impression Dusks lastorder doodad was built to work through the issueorder event, though perhaps it makes no difference

It works on both, but it works the best on the ISSUED_ORDER events.

02-19-2009, 03:39 PM	#6
emjlr3	FP, looks like you commented on a pre-edited version of my post, look at it again

02-19-2009, 03:52 PM

Flame_Phoenix

Quote:

also I wonder, what if damage*.9<.405?

For that to happen we would need to have a damage value lower than 1, and in wc3 the lowest attack a unit can have is 1. Therefore this case is impossible.

Quote:

also, won't that method screw with assistance systems? - I see no internal way you can pass out who did the life reduction...currently

I think I already answered this question, but since I don't remember, I will just say it again: it doesn't matter who is doing the extra damage, because the unit making the extra will inevitably do the normal damage after. Because a unit can not kill with extra damage, we ensure a unit always damages the enemy (or kills it). This is I am sure I don't screw up kill systems or assistance systems.
Besides I am really not sure if it is my obligation to make my spells compatible with all other systems out there, because that is impossible.

Quote:

It works on both, but it works the best on the ISSUED_ORDER events.

I make no idea what you guys are talking about, but I just want to say I am using the same tactic I used in Launch Seal spell to cancel the spell and re-cast it again. If Dusk says it is Ok in Launch Seal, than it must be Ok here as well.

02-19-2009, 04:30 PM	#8
Rising_Dusk	It could still be better using the same library. If you read the AbortSpell library documentation, it works best on the ISSUED_ORDER events. It still works on the SPELL_CAST event, but it's a quick change and improves the order intercepting significantly. If you're doing it in that launch spell with SPELL_CAST, I recommend changing it there as well.

02-19-2009, 04:51 PM

Anitarf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flame_Phoenix

For that to happen we would need to have a damage value lower than 1, and in wc3 the lowest attack a unit can have is 1. Therefore this case is impossible.

You are forgetting armour damage reduction.

02-19-2009, 05:52 PM	#10
emjlr3	along with spells, etc. maybe I am entirely blind, but when exactly do you use the method damaged?

02-19-2009, 06:31 PM

#11

Anitarf

Quote:

Originally Posted by emjlr3

maybe I am entirely blind, but when exactly do you use the method damaged?

It is used here.

F_P, you should only list the spell's actual requirements. For example, you don't use TimerUtils or Table, ABuff uses them; a different implementation of ABuff might not need them.

Also, you really should be using the order event for aborting spells.

02-19-2009, 08:08 PM

#12

Flame_Phoenix

Quote:

If you read the AbortSpell library documentation, it works best on the ISSUED_ORDER events. It still works on the SPELL_CAST event, but it's a quick change and improves the order intercepting significantly.

If you're doing it in that launch spell with SPELL_CAST, I recommend changing it there as well.

Ohh....
Mmm, it seems a quick change in fact I will change that asap.

Quote:

You are forgetting armour damage reduction.

Werrmm, since it is extra damage, should it really be reduced?
Besides, how am I supposed to do that with the method Moyack suggested ? I just can't. For some reason amplifying damage with ADamage is nearly impossible, it is a nightmare to avoid an infinite loop, and xedamage doesn't help at all.

Quote:

F_P, you should only list the spell's actual requirements. For example, you don't use TimerUtils or Table, ABuff uses them; a different implementation of ABuff might not need them.

Right, I'm on it.

Ok guys, I will make a few changes and then will update this post telling what I changed.

EDIT EDIT EDIT

Ok guys, I made a few updates, see changelog (or code) for more info.
Meh, heck with it:
1 - I changed the event to issue order (as requested by Dusk)
2 - simplified the SETUP section and therefore the inner code related to it
3 - fixed a few typos
4 - fixed a bug (or so I think it was one)
5 - Removed Table and TimerUtils from the requirements (as requested by Ani)

I think this is all =P

03-09-2009, 02:47 AM

#13

Anitarf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flame_Phoenix

5 - Removed Table and TimerUtils from the requirements (as requested by Ani)

My request was broader than that.

Your spell now conflicts with any other spell using the same orderstring, fix it.

03-09-2009, 11:39 AM

#14

Flame_Phoenix

Quote:

My request was broader than that.

I also did other changes. Anyway please Elaborate.

Quote:

Your spell now conflicts with any other spell using the same orderstring, fix it.

?? I don't understand how can it conflict? I think I changed the spell to go as Dusk intended to, using an order string. I don't understand Ani, please Elaborate.

EDIT EDIT EDIT

Version Updated to meet (some of) Anitarf's demands:
- Now the shield considers armor
- Added TimerUtils to requirements because now I use it on code directly

Please see change log for more info.
Ani, I still need your help to understand what you want me to change about he conflicting order.

Quote:

Your spell now conflicts with any other spell using the same orderstring,

Isn't this suppose to happen?

03-09-2009, 12:43 PM	#15
emjlr3	if another hero uses a spell with with the same order string, al biet of a different ability, this will consider it the same thing that should not be the case