Most of your post assumes that this massive overhaul of co-op that I'm recommending would leave all current issues (or mechanics that would cause issues what what I've proposed) intact. Yes, all of those problems you've outlined would exist if you just blindly applied all of my suggestions, but the point of being more mindful of interactivity and variety is to keep all these concerns and more in mind during development. Make the AI harass more often, or give them multiple attack patterns that vary based on their race to make them more distinctive (would easily give more replay value since currently it really doesn't matter what race you play against in co-op, they all feel very similar). Allow the zerg be able to harass more, or give them something else that allows them to facilitate disruption against the AI. These are all changes that would increase the amount of interactivity and variety that is currently displayed in the co-op mode, and would also stand a greater chance of Blizzard recognizing your map, since it bucks the trend in that manner.
You are assuming that the majority of players playing co-op understand these sorts of playstyles. Please remember that Co-op has the most players, and thus has some of the more casual players. Not only do they have to worry about the objectives, but now they have to worry about the enemies macro/positioning/rebuild status.
If players have problems adapting and fighting, they can play on lower difficulties until they get used to the changes. Brutal is incredibly easy and its difficulties come from unfair and uninteractive elements, i.e. massive waves that spawn shit with no way to stop them or thin their ranks.
Most of your post assumes that this massive overhaul of co-op that I'm recommending would leave all current issues (or mechanics that would cause issues what what I've proposed) intact. Yes, all of those problems you've outlined would exist if you just blindly applied all of my suggestions, but the point of being more mindful of interactivity and variety is to keep all these concerns and more in mind during development. Make the AI harass more often, or give them multiple attack patterns that vary based on their race to make them more distinctive (would easily give more replay value since currently it really doesn't matter what race you play against in co-op, they all feel very similar). Allow the zerg be able to harass more, or give them something else that allows them to facilitate disruption against the AI. These are all changes that would increase the amount of interactivity and variety that is currently displayed in the co-op mode, and would also stand a greater chance of Blizzard recognizing your map, since it bucks the trend in that manner.
If players have problems adapting and fighting, they can play on lower difficulties until they get used to the changes. Brutal is incredibly easy and its difficulties come from unfair and uninteractive elements, i.e. massive waves that spawn shit with no way to stop them or thin their ranks.
You're proposing that we enable more methods of play (air harass, tech sniping, etc.). And the problem I pointed out is that some commanders have many things better than other commanders (most commanders have better air units than Alarak for example), which doesn't go well with your specialized enemy macro. But you're proposing to "fix" other commanders to help that. So:
Don't you worry that you'll make commanders more generic as you make maps more "special"? Instead of having commanders that have extremities, you have to make sure every commander has units that are "good enough" to harass, hit tech units, etc. Is that really depth and replayability? People need to be incentivized to buy these commanders, and extremes is (I would guess, based on the success) a great way to do so. Maps are probably simple to allow these extreme commanders to exist, as less requirements are needed for a commander (pretty much all they need to do is hit ground, hit air, and at least have some mobility).
Or of course you could just make it easier to destroy the tech trees/harass, but then what makes it different from a co-op map except you need to send a few units somewhere before the "x minute" mark. Is that really depth?
Is it really fun to use a calldown to wipe out a base? Is it interesting to "lock" one of your abilities just so you can actually play the mission?
I would like people to evaluate the proposed paths for my one idea. Paths are the red lines. What changes would you suggest to make the two variants more equal from a tactical point of view?
Maps are probably simple to allow these extreme commanders to exist, as less requirements are needed for a commander (pretty much all they need to do is hit ground, hit air, and at least have some mobility).
What extreme commanders are allowed to exist by the AI not defending itself when attacked? What extreme playstyles are facilitated by having zero interactivity surround attack waves? Are you seriously stating that, if the players are good enough to wipe the entire map of enemy units and structures, that they shouldn't be rewarded for that? Because currently, doing that offers you just as many benefits as sniping workers or tech structures. Hint: there are no benefits to doing that, just like in the majority of the campaign maps.
Is it really fun to use a calldown to wipe out a base? Is it interesting to "lock" one of your abilities just so you can actually play the mission?
How is that at all what I am suggesting? Create more bases for the AI to use, thus making individual bases mean less, but still contribute to the AI's aggression against the players. When players harass, disrupt, or outright destroy entire bases/outposts, have that actually mean something, instead of being a pointless show of force for when the players are bored between attack waves and bonus objectives and want some kind of gameplay to occupy themselves with.
Obviously, the commanders in their current form (especially Raynor/Vorazun/Alarak) are incredibly overtuned and their abilities trivialize most encounters. The issue of certain commanders feeling underwhelming vs other commanders feeling overwhelming is not solved even partially by the current system, and would need to be addressed as a balance problem of its own in tandem with an overhaul of the AI and terrain. That the current system has an issue doesn't invalidate the merits of a new system that would also change the mechanics by which the original issue is created in the first place.
I would like people to evaluate the proposed paths for my one idea. Paths are the red lines. What changes would you suggest to make the two variants more equal from a tactical point of view?
What a joke. As if a massive overhaul of the current co-op gameplay systems is the same thing as a 'different perspective'. If you want meaningful discussion that could assist someone in designing a unique map for this contest, either leave it be or contribute something worthwhile as opposed to misleading.
What extreme commanders are allowed to exist by the AI not defending itself when attacked? What extreme playstyles are facilitated by having zero interactivity surround attack waves? Are you seriously stating that, if the players are good enough to wipe the entire map of enemy units and structures, that they shouldn't be rewarded for that? Because currently, doing that offers you just as many benefits as sniping workers or tech structures. Hint: there are no benefits to doing that, just like in the majority of the campaign maps.
Okay first off you're maliciously picking "attack waves". I picked the stuff you wanted to add, harass/base destruction, not this ghost concept of "wave interactivity" as my example. if you want examples of commanders with poor harass, take Alarak/Zagara and maybe even stukov.
Second, yes, I am seriously stating that, if the players are good enough to wipe the entire map of enemy units and structures, that they shouldn't be rewarded for that. Why should you make the missions even easier when you complain they're too easy to begin with?
Third, you've changed your phrasing. First, you say that they HAVE to clear the bases. See here:
For everyone who enters into this contest, buck the trend. Make a map that has truly-engaging gameplay with AI that feels like alive; have it defend itself when attacked, lose map control when its harvesting is disrupted, attack with less-terrifying forces when its tech structures are sniped, but will tear you a new one if you leave it unchecked.
Now you're saying that it should be a reward for being "good". There is a difference between the two. One is a requirement, the other is a reward. Please make consistent.
Obviously, the commanders in their current form (especially Raynor/Vorazun/Alarak)
"especially Raynor/Vorazun/Alarak" Man if you think those are the most powerful commanders.... Vorazun and Alarak sure, but Raynor has a lot of issues with high skill requirement to play extremely well. Nova far outperforms him.
are incredibly overtuned and their abilities trivialize most encounters. The issue of certain commanders feeling underwhelming vs other commanders feeling overwhelming is not solved even partially by the current system, and would need to be addressed as a balance problem of its own in tandem with an overhaul of the AI and terrain. That the current system has an issue doesn't invalidate the merits of a new system that would also change the mechanics by which the original issue is created in the first place.
True, but we haven't seen this "new system". Just complaints that the old one sucks. You can't judge a new system on merit if it hasn't even been planned yet.
What a joke. As if a massive overhaul of the current co-op gameplay systems is the same thing as a 'different perspective'. If you want meaningful discussion that could assist someone in designing a unique map for this contest, either leave it be or contribute something worthwhile as opposed to misleading.
...
I noticed that you left out my paragraph of sacrificing commander variety so that they can do at everything decently.
I feel like you have consistently ignored or misinterpreted my points. I'll start a different thread to discuss this topic, so as to not further derail this one which should be about this contest.
Man havent been here in a while. Read the contest on twitter and imminently thought of all the talent on scmapster. Outsider,bilxor,hulmanable,cybros,edhriano (i bet she could make some cool boss battles which we never had in co-op). I cant wait to see what your genius will come up with.
Oh whats this even the site has changed. Man that brightness is blinding.
Q: Hey Blizz Moderators, What's about dialogs voice? I mean, do we have to record ourselves for every transmissions made during our map, or we can simply put a text and your developpers will adjust the voices?
Blizz mod: There is no expectation for you to record your own VO but, as you know, we've had entries into previous RTC's that have incorporated custom audio, including VO.
Q: Can the participants use blizzard campaign maps?Use the original maps but tweak it?
Blizz mod: Yes, you can use existing StarCraft II content as a base for your ideas.
Nah. I think we can do better terrain than blizzard for Our coop ideas . We are smart Community 🙃
well yea. THIS community is only - ummm - 1 million times better than anything else i have seen. :D As for the Terrain bit - I suck at terrain, i mean really, lol. Its like my own drawing skills is limited to a stick figure. on the up side - i can make about any unit you would/could think of in sc2. :D
There is something I don't get... why is everyone saying they are bad at terraining? I know few good terrainers, but most people just kind of "don't like" or just don't have the artistic touch to it? I don't know... It is, for me at least, one of the easiest thing in the editor and it gives direct output on what you are doing, not like triggering or data. If you go through step by step and terrain bits by terrain bits, it just build itself like a charm.
What would make people try more to be better at terraining? Short and sweet tutorials? (Like not stuff 100 000 words?) Just better explaination? Better tips?
Man i cant do terraining when i am nervous. Now when i imagine that my coop wont be (i am scared of that) interesting i am really scared Ánd stressed oh goood i hate competitions!!!! I will be the most dissapointed man if i dont get into best 10 ... i can sound selfish But after really hard work Ánd finished custom campaigns.... i use to have a good stuff, playable missions.
I need some help Ánd testers... i hope community can help me.
Alarak is trying to get help out of the past, by resurecting Heroes that died, under his control.
Try to retake the 5 points that are charging, the Tomb what resurect Heroes.
Becarefull those points are heavily protected by: Alarak Guardians.
What do you think?
For example: Raynor --> you will face Tychus.
For example: Kerrigan --> You will face Arthur mengsk.
For example: Artanis ---> you will face Zeratul.
"I" like that idea but i must inform you that i offered suggestions as to a Reactive AI - which that would be because of hero unit - was steadily declined because it is "to specific" for a co-op theme map/game. ~anywho~
Most of your post assumes that this massive overhaul of co-op that I'm recommending would leave all current issues (or mechanics that would cause issues what what I've proposed) intact. Yes, all of those problems you've outlined would exist if you just blindly applied all of my suggestions, but the point of being more mindful of interactivity and variety is to keep all these concerns and more in mind during development. Make the AI harass more often, or give them multiple attack patterns that vary based on their race to make them more distinctive (would easily give more replay value since currently it really doesn't matter what race you play against in co-op, they all feel very similar). Allow the zerg be able to harass more, or give them something else that allows them to facilitate disruption against the AI. These are all changes that would increase the amount of interactivity and variety that is currently displayed in the co-op mode, and would also stand a greater chance of Blizzard recognizing your map, since it bucks the trend in that manner.
If players have problems adapting and fighting, they can play on lower difficulties until they get used to the changes. Brutal is incredibly easy and its difficulties come from unfair and uninteractive elements, i.e. massive waves that spawn shit with no way to stop them or thin their ranks.
My YouTube | My SoundCloud | My Twitter
The condensed Custom Campaign Initiative is on this Google Sheet!
List of my Custom campaign text reviews (warning: only the first half of each is serious)
I would like people to evaluate the proposed paths for my one idea. Paths are the red lines. What changes would you suggest to make the two variants more equal from a tactical point of view?
Contribute to the wiki (Wiki button at top of page) Considered easy altering of the unit textures?
https://www.sc2mapster.com/forums/resources/tutorials/179654-data-actor-events-message-texture-select-by-id
https://media.forgecdn.net/attachments/187/40/Screenshot2011-04-17_09_16_21.jpg
My YouTube | My SoundCloud | My Twitter
The condensed Custom Campaign Initiative is on this Google Sheet!
List of my Custom campaign text reviews (warning: only the first half of each is serious)
I feel like you have consistently ignored or misinterpreted my points. I'll start a different thread to discuss this topic, so as to not further derail this one which should be about this contest.
My YouTube | My SoundCloud | My Twitter
Man havent been here in a while. Read the contest on twitter and imminently thought of all the talent on scmapster. Outsider,bilxor,hulmanable,cybros,edhriano (i bet she could make some cool boss battles which we never had in co-op). I cant wait to see what your genius will come up with.
Oh whats this even the site has changed. Man that brightness is blinding.
I am really dissapointed with myself now....SHAME ON ME because i cant make fun coop mission :c
ANd if i will make fun coop mission..dont judge my terrain pls :c This cybros's coop mission is going to be disaster.
U have time man dont be to hard on yourself. Even blizz makes maps that they dont like and start over.
@CyborsX Don't worry on terrain, you might just ask for some help ;) (Coming from a terrainer) haha.
Working on projects:
Haha thanks man. I know how to make terrain fór Campaign But its harder for coop ;(
Moderators just responded to these questions:
Q: Hey Blizz Moderators,
What's about dialogs voice? I mean, do we have to record ourselves for every transmissions made during our map, or we can simply put a text and your developpers will adjust the voices?
Blizz mod: There is no expectation for you to record your own VO but, as you know, we've had entries into previous RTC's that have incorporated custom audio, including VO.
Q: Can the participants use blizzard campaign maps?Use the original maps but tweak it?
Blizz mod: Yes, you can use existing StarCraft II content as a base for your ideas.
Nah. I think we can do better terrain than blizzard for Our coop ideas . We are smart Community 🙃
There is something I don't get... why is everyone saying they are bad at terraining? I know few good terrainers, but most people just kind of "don't like" or just don't have the artistic touch to it? I don't know... It is, for me at least, one of the easiest thing in the editor and it gives direct output on what you are doing, not like triggering or data. If you go through step by step and terrain bits by terrain bits, it just build itself like a charm.
What would make people try more to be better at terraining? Short and sweet tutorials? (Like not stuff 100 000 words?) Just better explaination? Better tips?
Working on projects:
Man i cant do terraining when i am nervous. Now when i imagine that my coop wont be (i am scared of that) interesting i am really scared Ánd stressed oh goood i hate competitions!!!! I will be the most dissapointed man if i dont get into best 10 ... i can sound selfish But after really hard work Ánd finished custom campaigns.... i use to have a good stuff, playable missions.
I need some help Ánd testers... i hope community can help me.
CybrosX
I test your maps and any other mission the community throws at me.
I had this idea.
Map: The Acient tomb.
Alarak is trying to get help out of the past, by resurecting Heroes that died, under his control.
Try to retake the 5 points that are charging, the Tomb what resurect Heroes.
Becarefull those points are heavily protected by: Alarak Guardians.
What do you think?
For example: Raynor --> you will face Tychus.
For example: Kerrigan --> You will face Arthur mengsk.
For example: Artanis ---> you will face Zeratul.
Think he meant terran, zerg and protoss.
Contribute to the wiki (Wiki button at top of page) Considered easy altering of the unit textures?
https://www.sc2mapster.com/forums/resources/tutorials/179654-data-actor-events-message-texture-select-by-id
https://media.forgecdn.net/attachments/187/40/Screenshot2011-04-17_09_16_21.jpg