Granted I don't agree with about 90% of what you said but I'll pass over the biggest part (where the popularity system is the only thing preventing the success of a map) but I'll pass over that for now.
I can help when I have time. I work some random days but I'm usually open on the weekends, as well as Monday and Wednesday.
What qualifications do I have?
-I've made a lagless FPS engine (can prove). I'm actually the one who taught bounty how to do it (he never heard of "Create thread" before I told him - although I think he did a bad variation of it).
-I've made some pretty crazy things with actors, and I have a generaly decent amount of knowledge of the data editor.
-I have also (on my own) pulled out the UI models and replaced them with one of my own creation (can prove as well) - although I need someone else to texture the model.
-Done a bit with most everything else. Lots of stuff about lag reduction (thanks to WW2 Diplo), generally decent amount of Data Editor knowledge (I mean.. WW2 Diplo alone has over 600 actors).
-I've also written a guide here and there. I did one back in the day about how to build on ramps, and I did one here recently about how to make a good and simple amphibous system in SC2 (granted video quality is crap because I don't know what settings I need to save the video on in windows movie maker).
Anyways if you're interested I'll check back here once in a while, as well as PM's.
Edit: BTW a better to approach would be to say: "Yes we all know Blizzard is made up of ignorant retards but lets do the best we can even knowing they don't give a sh*t".
Ok for stuff like this the site actor you listed is a bit wrong.
the thing is the "host supporter+" field is what really determines it.
So what I did (this didn't work in the attack actor but it DID work in the site actor) is I set the actor (site) fields to these:
Host+ = the turret model.(actor find)
Host Supporter+ = the turret model (actor find)
When I did that and linked it back to the attack actor it worked perfectly. Even better, the missiles fire from alternating left and right launchers on the missile turret, just like in game!
Anyways thanks a bunch! You have made some VERY helpful guides here. I got some great leads from them :)
I'm helping this guy with his map and I'm putting my naval ships in for him.
I'm currently making him a missile cruiser which has 2 of the terran missile turrets as weapons, fore and aft.
I've set it up according to the guide and have "launch force shite" checked. However it will still come from the core model (this is a custom model I made for ww2 diplo and it has 4 weapon attachment points, of which this one is attached to weapon 01.
Now if I change the "target - launch request+" field to the turret actor modelattachment it will fire from the base of the turret. However I want to fire from "overhead" or some other attachment point that is not buried in the "hull" of the boat. The missile launches fine its just the launch point.
Now in the launch effect I have the Launch Location+ field set to "outer point" and the site actor is as follows:
Host site ops+ sopattachweapon01 (the missile turret model has no "weapon" attachment point but it has weapons 01-04. I have tried overhead as well but still no luck.
The missile turret modelattachment is linked properly to the host unit model with all the offsets etc. Its core attachment is origin (center bugs out if it has too many actors attached to it for some reason).
Can you (or anybody else) give me a hand here?
The guy I'm helping has asked for me not to share the map, but I could pm it if needbe.
I'm pretty much done map making. This has been far too much of a dissapointment for me to bother doing much of anything with Blizzard anymore. I can't play what I want to play, and what I can play is, lets face it, pure crap.
But before I fade off there have been many people asking me about WW2 Diplo, specifically the naval and amphibous systems.
For the naval warships... I might help one guy who came and hunted me down but besides that the whole concept is probably going to dissapear for another year or more if I would dare to guess.
For the amphibous system, well your in luck. Its not a perfect video but here it is. The official (because I pioneered it) StarCraft 2 Amphibous System.
I may check it once in a while to see if there are any questions but I won't promise anything.
2 Notes Before I post it. I forgot to mention for the Boat Model that you need to uncheck: scale, model scale, and opacity (the last being the most important).
Although I thank you for adding my map to the list I would ask you to remove the "complex" from the mode of it. Kinda don't want people getting the wrong idea :)
Also if it would be better I can just remove the other mode from the triggers. Its not finished yet anyways (although Diplomacy mode IS finished and working, I have been evolving the project, although not in the last few days due to frustration over "the system", so although it works just fine and is technically finished some of the stuff in there is work in progress - ie making the research system dialog based instead of from a structure).
All you gotta look for is the list of people that got layed off around the time WoW Burning Crusade was being made/released. Thats pretty much your list.
And OneTwo just Fyi, the reason why there is so much "passion" is that I was literally raised on Blizzard.
Played WC2 single player (before I had internet) then eventually one of my friends lent me one of his copies of Starcraft and Starcraft:Brood war so I could play with him. He let me keep it for 3-4 years. Then I went the WarCraft 3: TFT, and that took me from... lets see... '03 to '11. The sheer amount of custom maps kept that game interesting and fun, and I came to it late!
If you are wondering why about that let me inform you this. I didn't get high speed until we moved into town before we were going to move to vegas. And that was 1/3 through my senior year in highschool. so that ment I was either at school, doing homework, working outside (parents first bought a fixer-upper "crumbling acres" then built a whole new house in a hay field "pain in my ass acres"), or playing video games. And the only video games I really had were Hearts of Iron, StarCraft and Warcraft 3 - oh and WoW but I had to get the patches from a friend cause downloading 500mb patches on 28.8k (when the weather was nice) was pretty painful.
So ya having a game like StarCraft 2 being this fucked up kinda hits a critical nerve whether I like it or not. Especially since this was the version I finally decided to make maps for and I literally started the day after the beta map editor came out and this stupid popularity system wasn't released until a little later. And then EVERYONE expected they would fix it - after all they always did in the past. When its a full year later AFTER release (which means about a year and a half of everyone expecting them to fix it if you count the Beta) I'm naturally rather on edge about it.
I don't know about you guys but you could stamp my left ass cheek "Raised by Blizzard" and have it be partially true.
"Unless the Marketplace seems like a profitable venture for Blizzard, they really have no responsibility to make that happen. Nor do they have a responsibility to roll out a red carpet for the map-making community.
-Ok so you just directly implied that Blizzard has lost control of both Battle.net AND Starcraft 2
"I've got news for you: $60 for a game development platform is damn cheap. The editor alone is a good value proposition, and any support Blizzard might give to it or the community is purely a bonus. Given that the vast majority of SC2 players buy the game for the competitive RTS aspect (and NOT the custom games,) I seriously doubt that it would be a great benefit to Blizzard to spend more time and money flowering up the custom games aspect. It's not greed. Please. It's logic."
-Seriously, find me an engine that costs $60 dollars to mod (and do it not counting expansions - we can add up that cost after HotS is released for another $40 making $100). All that I know of or have worked on are either opensource conversions of "open source games" (like vega trek) or total conversions or partial conversions of games that also don't cost $60 for the base version (don't add in expansions, Blizzard hasn't put an expansion out for SC2).
"I don't blame Blizzard for not bowing to every whim of the map-making community. If you're that fed up with it then quit. I won't because I still like the platform even with its flaws. And because it's still cheap."
-Well if your just gonna cave thats your problem. I suspect eventually you will wake up. And I never said I would *quit* I said I am not spending my money on HotS. And if you even bothered to read my post I pointed out that not everyone is going to buy the expansion right away.
-Point two is... Where did that large and active playerbase that played only custom maps on WARCRAFT 3 that were looking foward to *even better custom maps* on StarCraft 2 go? I played Warcraft 3 for 7 years and I can tell you that community exists - or did Blizzard lose that already?
1. Ever since this system came out in BETA people were pointing out the issues with it.
2. Blizzard merged with activision.
Keep in mind people that these people are NOT the old Blizzard... Activision made sure those guys who knew wtf they were doing were fired (a certain writer fired after burning crusade comes to mind).
Bottom line... the same novice team who made SC2 also made Wraith of the Lich King.. and Cataclysm.
Here is another issue that they will face when they release the map market: The bulk of the people with the nessesary skills to make those kinds of maps are no longer making mods on the Blizzard Engines and/or they have rolled back to previous mods because those still work.
Also as far as "whining" goes... Keep in mind that he specifically said he would like Blizzard to read this. That means its not ment entirely for you.
My person position is this: I will remind Blizzard every chance I get and to heck with you guys. I will make as much as I can and to heck with you guys. I don't know about you but I tend to expect more from $60 than I'm getting from this game. And keep in mind that I, and so many others, bought StarCraft 2 based on promises and statements they made that turned out to be nothing but lies and BS. $60... you know what else costs that much? Think about it. That $60 was my game budget for a whole year. There were a couple of titles I was looking at, yet i chose StarCraft 2. Blizzard had a reputation I thought I could rely on. And what did I get with my $60? A game that lacks basic functionality. A game that failed to live up to promises. A game that honestly.. dispite my best efforts, Is not fun. I am still trying to make it fun, it certainly has the potential - even a peron in the world of the blind can see that. If I could trade my copy of SC2 in for a $60 dollar refund I'd do it in a heartbeat - but I can't. So I have to make do. And I'm simply not the type to sit still and offer "constructive critism". That has been going on for a whole year now - everyone taking their turn at it. They have not even curled up a lip in response.
And yes I am doing something about it. I have my new game budget for this year. And I am going with a company who has been a LOT more public about what is going on with the game and what exactly the gameplay looks like. And they can show all of these things that Blizzard seems to reguard as "company secrets" and be owned by EA.
Besides that, I suspect that the release of HotS is not going to end my days of StarCraft nor the map projects I have going. And TBH its a waste of time for us custom mappers to buy it for a long while. Think about this: HotS means a HotS dependency. And unless they release that for regular StarCraft, only people who bought HotS will be able to use any HotS content. You know what I think that means? Right, its going to be another year before I can risk with any real confidence putting HotS content into any of my maps and having the "mass bulk" of the community be able to play it. A lot of people don't buy expansions right off the bat - made (potentially) even worse by the failure of Blizzard/Activision to put in any successful functionality for SC2 custom maps.
Anyways, if you still call the post "whining" think the last paragraph through and decide what you're going to do. Maybe some sales falling short will wake them up. We don't have much else to go off right now and "constructive critism" is sure as heck not working.
I know about the StarTrek models for those various games. Used more than a few myself.
The chief reason I'm avoiding this for now is because A: Need to start small and B: A lot of those models are made by 3rd party people who have asked they be contacted about their model being used in another game. We will probably get there but making units out of 4 races all the way from frigates to battleships will take some time.
If you have models that we could use (texture resolution of 256x256 or 512x512 is best.. we use .dds to reduce texture size so that means it has to be a multiple of 4) we would most certainly LOVE them.
Even better if you would like to join the project, since you seem to have more of an idea of what your doing than we do (we are learned the 3d studio max just to do this shit) we would more than welcome you helping or even joining the project :)
Like my WW2 Diplo map and its full amphibious system including realistic naval warships I am not adverse to consolidatating it and releasing to others as a dependency. So we can have a WW2 Dependency (so map makers who want to make maps but not dig into it too much or are new to it can simply download the dependency from bnet and use the units in there) and a Star Trek Dependency :)
We are debating between making an armada style game that is centereed around your main starbase (like wc3 and the castle) with simple resource harvesting etc or making an AOS, since our weapon attachement points are based off realistic 2d firing arcs.
0
@Builder_Bob: Go
Thanks a bunch!
This makes it a LOT nicer to work with custom models and use them. You're a genius!
0
@ProzaicMuze: Go
Ok I'll play,
Granted I don't agree with about 90% of what you said but I'll pass over the biggest part (where the popularity system is the only thing preventing the success of a map) but I'll pass over that for now.
I can help when I have time. I work some random days but I'm usually open on the weekends, as well as Monday and Wednesday.
What qualifications do I have? -I've made a lagless FPS engine (can prove). I'm actually the one who taught bounty how to do it (he never heard of "Create thread" before I told him - although I think he did a bad variation of it). -I've made some pretty crazy things with actors, and I have a generaly decent amount of knowledge of the data editor. -I have also (on my own) pulled out the UI models and replaced them with one of my own creation (can prove as well) - although I need someone else to texture the model. -Done a bit with most everything else. Lots of stuff about lag reduction (thanks to WW2 Diplo), generally decent amount of Data Editor knowledge (I mean.. WW2 Diplo alone has over 600 actors). -I've also written a guide here and there. I did one back in the day about how to build on ramps, and I did one here recently about how to make a good and simple amphibous system in SC2 (granted video quality is crap because I don't know what settings I need to save the video on in windows movie maker).
Anyways if you're interested I'll check back here once in a while, as well as PM's.
Edit: BTW a better to approach would be to say: "Yes we all know Blizzard is made up of ignorant retards but lets do the best we can even knowing they don't give a sh*t".
0
@thepumaman1: Go
Uhh.. FYI I figured this out like... yesterday :/
0
Aha!
I belive I have done it.
Ok for stuff like this the site actor you listed is a bit wrong.
the thing is the "host supporter+" field is what really determines it.
So what I did (this didn't work in the attack actor but it DID work in the site actor) is I set the actor (site) fields to these:
Host+ = the turret model.(actor find)
Host Supporter+ = the turret model (actor find)
When I did that and linked it back to the attack actor it worked perfectly. Even better, the missiles fire from alternating left and right launchers on the missile turret, just like in game!
Anyways thanks a bunch! You have made some VERY helpful guides here. I got some great leads from them :)
0
Ok I sent the PM.
Thanks a bunch :)
0
Hey ProziacMuze I've got an issue myself.
I'm helping this guy with his map and I'm putting my naval ships in for him.
I'm currently making him a missile cruiser which has 2 of the terran missile turrets as weapons, fore and aft.
I've set it up according to the guide and have "launch force shite" checked. However it will still come from the core model (this is a custom model I made for ww2 diplo and it has 4 weapon attachment points, of which this one is attached to weapon 01.
Now if I change the "target - launch request+" field to the turret actor modelattachment it will fire from the base of the turret. However I want to fire from "overhead" or some other attachment point that is not buried in the "hull" of the boat. The missile launches fine its just the launch point.
Now in the launch effect I have the Launch Location+ field set to "outer point" and the site actor is as follows:
Events+ UnitBirth.MissileCruiser Create UnitDeath.MissileCruiser Destroy
Host+ (Missile Turret Model Attachment)
Host site ops+ sopattachweapon01 (the missile turret model has no "weapon" attachment point but it has weapons 01-04. I have tried overhead as well but still no luck.
The missile turret modelattachment is linked properly to the host unit model with all the offsets etc. Its core attachment is origin (center bugs out if it has too many actors attached to it for some reason).
Can you (or anybody else) give me a hand here?
The guy I'm helping has asked for me not to share the map, but I could pm it if needbe.
0
Hey all,
I'm pretty much done map making. This has been far too much of a dissapointment for me to bother doing much of anything with Blizzard anymore. I can't play what I want to play, and what I can play is, lets face it, pure crap.
But before I fade off there have been many people asking me about WW2 Diplo, specifically the naval and amphibous systems.
For the naval warships... I might help one guy who came and hunted me down but besides that the whole concept is probably going to dissapear for another year or more if I would dare to guess.
For the amphibous system, well your in luck. Its not a perfect video but here it is. The official (because I pioneered it) StarCraft 2 Amphibous System.
I may check it once in a while to see if there are any questions but I won't promise anything.
2 Notes Before I post it. I forgot to mention for the Boat Model that you need to uncheck: scale, model scale, and opacity (the last being the most important).
Ok here it is:
0
Hey Rodrigo,
Although I thank you for adding my map to the list I would ask you to remove the "complex" from the mode of it. Kinda don't want people getting the wrong idea :)
Also if it would be better I can just remove the other mode from the triggers. Its not finished yet anyways (although Diplomacy mode IS finished and working, I have been evolving the project, although not in the last few days due to frustration over "the system", so although it works just fine and is technically finished some of the stuff in there is work in progress - ie making the research system dialog based instead of from a structure).
0
If you don't mind,
I'll submit WW2 Diplo to this project.
Map mode will be the more complex diplomacy mode.
I'll also help promote it on NA, but I will need some info as to the times to play these maps.
FockeWulf.178 NA
0
@Tolkfan: Go
All you gotta look for is the list of people that got layed off around the time WoW Burning Crusade was being made/released. Thats pretty much your list.
And OneTwo just Fyi, the reason why there is so much "passion" is that I was literally raised on Blizzard.
Played WC2 single player (before I had internet) then eventually one of my friends lent me one of his copies of Starcraft and Starcraft:Brood war so I could play with him. He let me keep it for 3-4 years. Then I went the WarCraft 3: TFT, and that took me from... lets see... '03 to '11. The sheer amount of custom maps kept that game interesting and fun, and I came to it late!
If you are wondering why about that let me inform you this. I didn't get high speed until we moved into town before we were going to move to vegas. And that was 1/3 through my senior year in highschool. so that ment I was either at school, doing homework, working outside (parents first bought a fixer-upper "crumbling acres" then built a whole new house in a hay field "pain in my ass acres"), or playing video games. And the only video games I really had were Hearts of Iron, StarCraft and Warcraft 3 - oh and WoW but I had to get the patches from a friend cause downloading 500mb patches on 28.8k (when the weather was nice) was pretty painful.
So ya having a game like StarCraft 2 being this fucked up kinda hits a critical nerve whether I like it or not. Especially since this was the version I finally decided to make maps for and I literally started the day after the beta map editor came out and this stupid popularity system wasn't released until a little later. And then EVERYONE expected they would fix it - after all they always did in the past. When its a full year later AFTER release (which means about a year and a half of everyone expecting them to fix it if you count the Beta) I'm naturally rather on edge about it.
I don't know about you guys but you could stamp my left ass cheek "Raised by Blizzard" and have it be partially true.
0
0
@RodrigoAlves: Go
You're forgetting:
1. Ever since this system came out in BETA people were pointing out the issues with it.
2. Blizzard merged with activision.
Keep in mind people that these people are NOT the old Blizzard... Activision made sure those guys who knew wtf they were doing were fired (a certain writer fired after burning crusade comes to mind).
Bottom line... the same novice team who made SC2 also made Wraith of the Lich King.. and Cataclysm.
Here is another issue that they will face when they release the map market: The bulk of the people with the nessesary skills to make those kinds of maps are no longer making mods on the Blizzard Engines and/or they have rolled back to previous mods because those still work.
Also as far as "whining" goes... Keep in mind that he specifically said he would like Blizzard to read this. That means its not ment entirely for you.
My person position is this: I will remind Blizzard every chance I get and to heck with you guys. I will make as much as I can and to heck with you guys. I don't know about you but I tend to expect more from $60 than I'm getting from this game. And keep in mind that I, and so many others, bought StarCraft 2 based on promises and statements they made that turned out to be nothing but lies and BS. $60... you know what else costs that much? Think about it. That $60 was my game budget for a whole year. There were a couple of titles I was looking at, yet i chose StarCraft 2. Blizzard had a reputation I thought I could rely on. And what did I get with my $60? A game that lacks basic functionality. A game that failed to live up to promises. A game that honestly.. dispite my best efforts, Is not fun. I am still trying to make it fun, it certainly has the potential - even a peron in the world of the blind can see that. If I could trade my copy of SC2 in for a $60 dollar refund I'd do it in a heartbeat - but I can't. So I have to make do. And I'm simply not the type to sit still and offer "constructive critism". That has been going on for a whole year now - everyone taking their turn at it. They have not even curled up a lip in response.
And yes I am doing something about it. I have my new game budget for this year. And I am going with a company who has been a LOT more public about what is going on with the game and what exactly the gameplay looks like. And they can show all of these things that Blizzard seems to reguard as "company secrets" and be owned by EA.
Besides that, I suspect that the release of HotS is not going to end my days of StarCraft nor the map projects I have going. And TBH its a waste of time for us custom mappers to buy it for a long while. Think about this: HotS means a HotS dependency. And unless they release that for regular StarCraft, only people who bought HotS will be able to use any HotS content. You know what I think that means? Right, its going to be another year before I can risk with any real confidence putting HotS content into any of my maps and having the "mass bulk" of the community be able to play it. A lot of people don't buy expansions right off the bat - made (potentially) even worse by the failure of Blizzard/Activision to put in any successful functionality for SC2 custom maps.
Anyways, if you still call the post "whining" think the last paragraph through and decide what you're going to do. Maybe some sales falling short will wake them up. We don't have much else to go off right now and "constructive critism" is sure as heck not working.
0
@FockeWulf: Go
Here is what they said:
"Greetings,
I asked around and the general concensus was that the SC2 forums would be the best place to ask =) http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/"
I really really want to give blizzard a piece of my mind right now...
0
I know about the StarTrek models for those various games. Used more than a few myself.
The chief reason I'm avoiding this for now is because A: Need to start small and B: A lot of those models are made by 3rd party people who have asked they be contacted about their model being used in another game. We will probably get there but making units out of 4 races all the way from frigates to battleships will take some time.
If you have models that we could use (texture resolution of 256x256 or 512x512 is best.. we use .dds to reduce texture size so that means it has to be a multiple of 4) we would most certainly LOVE them.
Even better if you would like to join the project, since you seem to have more of an idea of what your doing than we do (we are learned the 3d studio max just to do this shit) we would more than welcome you helping or even joining the project :)
Like my WW2 Diplo map and its full amphibious system including realistic naval warships I am not adverse to consolidatating it and releasing to others as a dependency. So we can have a WW2 Dependency (so map makers who want to make maps but not dig into it too much or are new to it can simply download the dependency from bnet and use the units in there) and a Star Trek Dependency :)
We are debating between making an armada style game that is centereed around your main starbase (like wc3 and the castle) with simple resource harvesting etc or making an AOS, since our weapon attachement points are based off realistic 2d firing arcs.
0
I can make meshes and pull off Uvwraps, but I cannot paint the textures.
If someone could volinteer for that, taht would be great cause between naval warships and many others there is potenial for some good maps here.
I think the big question is whether or not blizzard will say ok.