If You Could Add Anything You Want to SC2's Editor..

[IskatuMesk]

And I would rather they keep the hardcoded limits; some map people take things just a little too far and plaster everything they possibly can on every tile to make everything look busy.

Lol... people do that anyway. Don't make real mappers suffer because of other people's inability.

if you want a larger playing field, shrink the game.

LOL

Dear christ. Someone has never played a fleet conversion before.

And has no idea how physics work.

Just because I want the editor to be open-ended doesn't mean I expect every tom and dick to jump at the chance to do what I want to do. Not everyone will use these features, but I will. I want a map big enough to support a realistic fleet conversion. I want to be able to populate a large city map. I want the editor to be open-minded and available to everyone, no matter how grand or minute their project is.

I like how every time SC2 comes out of my mouth WB has to jump out and try to rationalize it and try to talk me down. Yeah, no. It doesn't work.

You wanted me to make ITAS 2? This is what I want.

Oh, and to clearify. You can't properly populate a 256x256 map inside wc3 as it is. With one of your city maps, I hit the maximum doodad and unit limit long before I could begin to populate the outer areas. Third party tools provided, and at double the doodad limit, I was still not finished. Of course the third party tools only work on certain versions. Hence the need to eliminate the barrier between modder and utility. Did the map run fine inside wc3? Hell yes. I even sent you it.

The only thing blizzard would have to do to justify adding these functions is to have a little dialog that says "This may impact system performance."

I'm a person that likes to reach out of a crowd and say, "Hay, here's an idea. It's not something the game usually does, but I like to test the limits and expand outside everyone's common concepts. That's what makes me different."

Most people would say what I've done in AO is impossible. Hell, I've done a lot of pretty crazy stuff in wc3, too. That doesn't mean the game should be arbitrarily limited "just because". Some engines simply don't support X amount of Y. In wc3 it's most often a case of the developers forcing arbitrary limitations. Maybe it's because like RCX said, and they thought hardware couldn't handle it, without actually ever testing it. Most of the major modded games, including Source, UT, ect. don't just arbitrarily throw in so and so. That's why they're modded. Your imagination and your skill is your limit. Yeah, throwing in 30k doodads using 10k polies a piece might slow down older computers. But you do that knowing the impact will come.

If Blizzard ever wants to consider supporting modding they have to start at making their game more open and inviting to modders. That means not throwing in random decisions for them.

I don't expect to be able to make a 1024x1024 map and have it totally detailed to the core. I just want a 1024x1024 space map so I can properly balance strike craft, jump drives, ship speeds, and map control. If I downsize everything, the balance gap becomes a lot closer. It's not something I care to explain in the scope of this topic.

The OP is, "If you could add anything you want to SC2's editor"... and my response is, "An editor that isn't arbitrarily limited just because."

Arguing my points is futile. I know they won't happen, okay. I know the editor won't reach my expectations. I know compromises would have to be made. I'm just saying, if I had a say, this is what I would want.

[Lavarinth]

The OP is, "If you could add anything you want to SC2's editor"... and my response is, "An editor that isn't arbitrarily limited just because."

Arguing my points is futile. I know they won't happen, okay. I know the editor won't reach my expectations. I know compromises would have to be made. I'm just saying, if I had a say, this is what I would want.

Applaud.

[Marco]

Also a potential drawback would be a "game cache"-based banlist for specific maps although if it's not implanted right, the map creator is usually an idiot anyway on bad maps.

The only reasonable solution to that is to have a record on Battle.net for each unique custom map, a W-L-D record for each specific map.  For instance, DoTA 1.0 someone would have a record of 1-2-0 while if they never played  DoTA 1.1 they'd have a record of 0-0-0 for that specific map.  Basically the first time a map is played on Battle.net, it'd generate a unique map ID, and that would be used to keep statistics of wins, losses, and disconnects from there on out for that specific map.  So if someone edited the map just a little, the records for the new edited map would read 0-0-0.  I don't think it would be too difficult to implement.

[RazorclawX]

The OP is, "If you could add anything you want to SC2's editor"... and my response is, "An editor that isn't arbitrarily limited just because."

It's never 'just because'. That's your imagination.

[Ricky_Honejasi]

Also a potential drawback would be a "game cache"-based banlist for specific maps although if it's not implanted right, the map creator is usually an idiot anyway on bad maps.

The only reasonable solution to that is to have a record on Battle.net for each unique custom map, a W-L-D record for each specific map.  For instance, DoTA 1.0 someone would have a record of 1-2-0 while if they never played  DoTA 1.1 they'd have a record of 0-0-0 for that specific map.  Basically the first time a map is played on Battle.net, it'd generate a unique map ID, and that would be used to keep statistics of wins, losses, and disconnects from there on out for that specific map.  So if someone edited the map just a little, the records for the new edited map would read 0-0-0.  I don't think it would be too difficult to implement.

I fear that would be actually worse than the banlist potential problem and is useless down the road in all honesty.

It's useless since it only needs the map to be played in specific conditions to make the record wrong (play only with unskilled friends, play only rigged teams, etc.), you only need to see the SC old ladders and you will see what I mean (ex : 9999-15-34 records). In addition, lots of victories isn't a true measure of skill yet ignorants tend to interpret that way anyway (and thus might boot/ban the supposed unskilled player or newbie).

That's why that if I can use a multiplayer game cache, I won't keep a W-L-D kind of record.

Closest I would keep statistic-wise would be the number of games played since it's less likely to be misinterpreted.

Note in terms of banlist, I implied some kind of "anti-idiot" system that mapmakers might want to implant in their maps. For example, if more than half of players got a specific player in their banlist, he is auto-booted at the start of the game. But when I think of it, I believe external banlist programs will be more practical since hosts would prefer players on their banlist to be booted BEFORE the game starts instead of being booted at the beginning of it.

So I guess the likelyhood of the problem is slim in the end.

[WB]

All the stuff mesk wrote.

I actually meant to literally shrink the game, ie make all units smaller physically, that would compensate for the map size because then the map would be larger relative to the units. You can even zoom the camera in some to make it look like things aren't shrunk.

@Hunter_Killers - have you ever tried to target anything in mesk's mods? I don't think visibility and clarity is a concern of his, its very explodey everywhere. no offense meant.

[UntamedLoli]

Did you help make/test majority of them? Picking out something to attack in SC wasn't an issue explosions or not, having an advanced mode to the editor unlocking such things and maybe even a warning doing so wouldn't kill anyone either.

But of course someone backdooring the exe and removing/raising the limitations without instability is far more likely than someone involved in development having an open mind towards modding/mapping enthusiasts that want to push limits.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you never tried to populate a 256x256 map, or you just block out how barren it is compared to a smaller map with the same 6144 doodad limit, you can't even fit enough things on the screen to lag someone.

[IskatuMesk]

I can safely say WB has never played a single one of my mods. But I believe he told me that before, too, so basically he has absolutely no say on how they are designed and pretty much has no idea how they play. Visibility is never a problem and never are units too small to click on.

WB, there is something called physics accuracy. It isn't just in physics engines, its in general accuracy as well in projectile and collision detection. If SC2 has hardpoints, this will play a huge role in all sorts of things. You can't shrink shit just because. When you do that, it turns into a big mess. Throw in hardpoints for, say, destructible components, and now you've got some serious problems.

I like the idea but it won't work for something like this.

It's never 'just because'. That's your imagination.

Whatever you say.

[Lavarinth]

All the stuff Ricky said.

Games now a days seem to have both wins/losses and exp progression bars due to the likelyhood of abuse. Face it- It's unavoidable through wins and losses, there's no "potential problem," it's just the way it is and has always been. This isn't something to take into account like that, to just toss away a whole recording system because of win/loss abuse, come on now. That's what the EXP bar is for. You play with the same people a lot, you get less EXP. Simple. So yes, there is no true measure of skills through victories because of wins/losses, but Ricky, honestly, what game WOULD let you measure true skills through victories? Every RTS has comp stomps, every RTS has abuse on records.

[Whiplash!]

Think of an exp bar or what not for dota as a step to get to higher level game play on maybe a semi competitive level, that rank is good and people will consider you instead of laughing at you for being a no skilled noob.

Personally I prefer Iccup's ladder system over any other type of ladder I have played.

[Ricky_Honejasi]

Games now a days seem to have both wins/losses and exp progression bars due to the likelyhood of abuse. Face it- It's unavoidable through wins and losses, there's no "potential problem," it's just the way it is and has always been. This isn't something to take into account like that, to just toss away a whole recording system because of win/loss abuse, come on now. That's what the EXP bar is for. You play with the same people a lot, you get less EXP. Simple. So yes, there is no true measure of skills through victories because of wins/losses, but Ricky, honestly, what game WOULD let you measure true skills through victories? Every RTS has comp stomps, every RTS has abuse on records.

Thing is, we were talking about a win/loss system for custom maps, not melee (since the base discussion was about any kind of ranking or win/loss in multiplayer game cache for custom maps). War3's b.net melee ranking system is pretty much decent in addition of being used to pair up similar skilled players so I don't have a problem with that part.

The thing is for custom maps I fear it's more likely to be counterproductive for the most part since idiots might decide to boot you (via some in-map triggered command) out of the game because you are new in trying that specific new map and they are "anti-newbie" of that map ... or something similar to that.

[WB]

Well if custom victory conditions would dictate loss/victory, then all you'd have to do is make it so player getting booted == TIE, not victory or defeat, so it wouldn't affect their record. It would fall on the modder to configure their map correctly.

[WedgeAntilles]

I think the StarCraft II map editor should include:

a. Auto-Complete: Detects patterns in triggers and offers suggestions for subsequent triggers that are automatically filled out when you press a certain key or click something (or you can just ignore the suggestion). For example: 1st Trigger Actions: Create 1 Terran Marine at Location 1, 2nd Trigger Actions: Create 2 Terran Marine at Location 2. The editor sees a pattern and suggests: 3rd Trigger Actions: Create 1 Terran Marine at Location 3, then the next, and the next, etc. etc.

b. Triggers for detecting HP (and SP).

c. Protoss City tileset.

d. Triggers that allow choices made in a scenerio to be carried over into the next scenerio (e.g. If you have 2 marines left when you win, the next scenerio starts you out with two marines).

e. A less cumbersome trigger editor. Some system that is faster to use.

f. Support to add more than 8 players and more than 4 forces.

g. Larger map sizes, and the ability to choose the exact dimensions of the map.

h. Triggers for editing of the fog of war (e.g. Completely reveal a region, then black it out as if it's never been explored).

i. Triggers for adding, removing, and moving doodads.

j. Triggers for editing terrain.

[Ricky_Honejasi]

I think the StarCraft II map editor should include:

a. Auto-Complete: Detects patterns in triggers and offers suggestions for subsequent triggers that are automatically filled out when you press a certain key or click something (or you can just ignore the suggestion). For example: 1st Trigger Actions: Create 1 Terran Marine at Location 1, 2nd Trigger Actions: Create 2 Terran Marine at Location 2. The editor sees a pattern and suggests: 3rd Trigger Actions: Create 1 Terran Marine at Location 3, then the next, and the next, etc. etc.

b. Triggers for detecting HP (and SP).

c. Protoss City tileset.

d. Triggers that allow choices made in a scenerio to be carried over into the next scenerio (e.g. If you have 2 marines left when you win, the next scenerio starts you out with two marines).

e. A less cumbersome trigger editor. Some system that is faster to use.

f. Support to add more than 8 players and more than 4 forces.

g. Larger map sizes, and the ability to choose the exact dimensions of the map.

h. Triggers for editing of the fog of war (e.g. Completely reveal a region, then black it out as if it's never been explored).

i. Triggers for adding, removing, and moving doodads.

j. Triggers for editing terrain.

a) Could be good but I believe it's a feature that would take a bit too much time for the programmers vs other more interesting features, personally I would be tempted to turn it off and just mass paste or use loops if needed.

b) Already possible in War3 for HP/mana so it's certain that you will be able to detect a specific unit's HP/Shields/Energy.

c) No clue but probably possible if they already did some efforts on the terrain's side of it.

d) That's related to the game cache features and it was already present for singleplayer/campaign use in Warcraft 3 (but wasn't for multiplayer use). Pretty much certain to be included in SC2 at least for singleplayer/campaign.

e) That can be a royal pain for programmers to do without hiding potential features or dumbing down the editor itself. I think they did a fairly good job with Warcraft 3's trigger editor even if it takes a bit to get used to initially since it's at least put logically (ex : if you want to modify a player's specific resource, it's under "Player - Add Property").

f) I presume they will let the 12 players and 6 forces max from Warcraft 3 for custom maps but keep their ladder melee to 8 players max like did in War3. I think there might be a slim chance that they increase it to 16 players but 12 is already a good number for a RTS anyway.

g) From the side of Blizzard, they will probably hardcore them as usual although 3rd party tools will allow you different and bigger sizes as usual.

h) Already possible in War3 under the trigger "Visibility - Create Visibility Modifier Region" which you can show and then black fog a portion of the map. Since it's not something that should be hard to implement, it will be included in SC2.

i) Partially possible in war3 but only with destructible doodads. However if you needed to add specific-looking doodads to be destroyed, you could just create a new destructible doodad type with the model needed (ex : rocks) and then delete it via triggers in-game. So I presume it will be possible in SC2.

j) Partially possible in war3, you could use any tileset of terrain wanted (even from different tilesets) although it was on a square-to-square basis and won't "merge" with nearby squares' tilesets (ex : a square of snow next to a grass square that don't look mixed in-between). So I presume they will include that in SC2.

EDIT : Also I think it's impossible to add water terrain via the triggers in War3 if I remember well.

[Aiursrage2k]

A converter that will change war3 maps into sc2