I figured I'd throw this out there since I don't really like working by myself, but I'm looking for some assistance on my map. The map is a galactic conquest style map, however it has both space and ground portions. You can land troops on planets and fight on the ground, or use fleets in space. That part of it is inspired heavily by Solar Conquest on WC3 if anyone knows it.
The map is Halo themed, set in the Halo universe. It's a 3v3v1 style, with three covenant, three humans, and a flood player. There's a total of 15 planet surfaces that you can fight on and the space portion is quite large as well, putting heavy emphasis on strategic use of FTL jumps rather than just blindly flying around.
I've got a lot of the more basic stuff done, such as scaling and making most of the units. What would be left to get it to an acceptable state would be some trigger work, terrain for the various planets, and polishing of the units. I do have grander plans but for right now I want to focus on getting the map to a playable state.
Here's that checklist from the sticky for further information if you're interested.
1: What region do you play in?
America
2: What time zone are you, and what hours are you available?
I have flexible hours, so whenever.
3: What are some methods of contact(msn, skype, AIM, etc..)?
MSN/skype, forum pms.
4: What are you doing for this project?
Everything so far.
5: What roles do you need filled?
Preferably someone with advanced knowledge on data editing, some basic trigger knowledge would be helpful as well, a terrainer is always welcomed. Really all roles as I am fairly mediocre, so having additional help in all fields would be nice. But priorities are triggers and some data knowledge.
8: How much time are you willing to invest in this project per week?
Already investing a lot of time, will continue to do so.
Oh, I know that all too well. Most of my units are scaled at around 0.007 or so. Sadly with range, it seems zero is as low as it can go. I'm hoping there's some kind of way to fool the game into making their range seem lower than it is, a trigger or something, y'know? Even if their range is zero, if something is preventing them from attacking at a range of zero than the end result is the same. Having such a trick would be an absolute life saver for me, question is if such a trick actually exists or not.
Perfect, the margin in gameplay data solved the camera issue. Thank you very much for that, it will help me reclaim a little lost territory from scaling up. Now if only some techno-wizard could come in here and show me a way to get a range less than zero, would be perfect then.
I can, sadly, understand that for the attack range but what about the camera? Surely that one can be fixed since it's well within the bounds of the map.
I posted this in Misc but was suggested I ask in Data, so here I am.
To start off I'll explain that I'm using a trick to make my map seem larger than it really is. For the space section I've scaled everything down to quite extreme measures. That includes my camera. I have my camera zoomed in to 0.77, works fine and all. However, it cuts off a rather significant portion of the right and left parts of the map. At normal zoom I can see just fine, but when super-zoomed in it's like hitting the camera bounds, which seem to be a dozen more units further than they're suppose to be. I'd really rather not re-arrange the entire map, hard enough fitting things properly as it is. So anyone know how I might fix this?
The second problem is part of the extremely small scale I'm working at. My weapons all have far too great of a range. If I set a weapon range at zero, the lowest it can go, it still let's my ships shoot across half a solar system. That's way way way too far for what I need. Is there any sort of trick out there to reduce their firing range below zero? Anything at all?
Thank you in advanced for taking the time to read this.
Well, the original question isn't strictly data related, and truthfully neither is the second. As the solution could come from somewhere else, that's why I put it in misc. But if you think I should, I shall make a topic there asking as well.
Gonna toss a second question in here so I aint spamming thread.
As I said, I'm working at a very small scale to maximize the space-portion of the map, turns out not everything is so easily scaled. My weapons all have far too great of a range. If I set a weapon range at zero, the lowest it can go, it still let's my ships shoot across half a solar system. That's way way way too far for what I need. Is there any sort of trick out there to reduce their firing range below zero? Anything at all?
To start off I'll explain that I'm using a trick to make my map seem larger than it really is. For the space section I've scaled everything down to quite extreme measures. That includes my camera. I have my camera zoomed in to 0.77, works fine and all. However, it cuts off a rather significant portion of the right and left parts of the map. At normal zoom I can see just fine, but when super-zoomed in it's like hitting the camera bounds, which seem to be a dozen more units further than they're suppose to be. I'd really rather not re-arrange the entire map, hard enough fitting things properly as it is. So anyone know how I might fix this?
And, before anyone says anything, yes this is necessary to fit everything I want. It's a strategy type map and those you need big theaters of war for, especially if you're including both space and ground. So zooming it out really isn't an option.
Wasn't sure where to put this, so it goes into Misc. Anyways, I'm wondering if there's a way to allow me to freely place units on the map. In WC3 you could just place them wherever, or have them snap to grind. So far in the SC2 editor every unit, no matter what, snaps to the grid. I tried the 'snap to grid' option but that apparently doesn't do anything for what I want. My problem is that, to make the most out of the map size I've shrunken units and zoomed in the camera, all that good stuff. But this makes their grid-like placement all that much more noticeable, because I don't think I can scale down the grid as well. It makes things look very inorganic when they're all in neat little squares. At the normal scale it doesn't really matter, but at the scale I'm working with it very much does. So is there anything I can do to break away from the grid placement? Or is that just a charm of the SC2 editor I'll have to live with?
Basically If you have a question regarding blizzards stance on you using additional assets then ask your self these couple of questions
Is the asset owned by blizzard? - Then yes you can use them in your map.
Is the asset a copyright protected item owned by someone else other then blizzard or yourself, and the owner has not publicly stated that the asset is available for public use? - Then you may not use said asset since its illegal. You could use it and get away with it.... but if the author of the asset sues you then ... your map will be removed and you may find yourself very broke..
Is the asset copyright protected under some kind of public domain use or GPL license scheme? - Then yes you may use it as long as you adhere to the license agreement.
I think you should remove the 'sues" part, since the original author will neither know nor care. Only reason blizzard cares now is because they force us to host on their servers, so if anything happens THEY are liable, not us. If, in the 1 in a trillion chance the original author did decide to sue, it'd be blizzard they sued, not you. Since it was hosted on blizzards server. That's why they're nazis when it comes to stuff like that. On SC and WC3 the maps were hosted peer to peer, so blizzard wasn't liable for the content. It could be as offensive or illegal as it wanted to be, it wasn't blizzards problem. I miss that system.
I've been saying it from beta but what they need most is the ability to see games are ACTIVE. Most people don't go past page three, however if they see a game from page 5 that is actually being played, they'd be more inclined to join it. That happened alot on WC3, especially when the dota spam hit. You almost never saw most of the good maps but if you actually hosted one, you almost always got a full house.
People want to play the maps farther down the list, but that's the key here. They want to PLAY those maps, not sit alone in an empty lobby. Seeing how many hours has been played doesn't tell us if it's being played NOW. And that's what blizzard really needs to bloody add already. Let us sort by games that are being hosted at this very minute, so we know what people are playing and can finally get some goddamned diversity in here instead of the same dozen maps endlessly.
I mean, it'd be nice and all, but I've yet to see a quality map that even uses the 256*256 space. I think ZHRPG is the only one, and that's a guess.
Mostly for conquest maps. When you're trying to make a diplomacy map that uses the entire world, then 256x256 simply doesn't cut it. Most games don't need this size increase, that's for sure. But some games you simply need a lot of room to move around in. Map I'm making, for example, relies on massive amounts of space and long travel times as a gameplay element, forcing players to use hyperspace instead of just moving normally. This is hard to achieve with the map constraints, even with work-arounds.
Then of course there are the non-conquest maps that make use of such a massive map, but those are few and far between. There's also the fact that doubling the map really isn't a difficult task. I don't know if it's hardcoded in the engine or not, but it's not like it's asking for much since the only concern is it'd lag, and if a player lagged on it they simply wouldn't play it. No harm done. It's one of the easily implemented features that would help a lot of mappers out.
Its blizzard game and blizzard will do what blizzard wants.
They laugh when we QQ.... they know what they are doing.... they are looking ahead look at WC3 tournaments pretty sure they handle them the same way for the most part.
I for one could give a damn less about what koreans are doing..... and nor should any of you. Unless your from korea that is.
You guys seriously need to look at the bigger picture.... 10 years from now people are still going to be playing SC2, and you can quote me on that.
People likely wont even be playing SC2 in 5 years, let alone 10. SC1 lasted for so long because it was a solid, and adaptable game. SC2 is a solid game, but is rigid as fuck. I mean I for one played SC1 and WC3 for so many years because there was always new and fresh content in the form of custom maps, that wont happen in SC2 so I have no reason to play.
Blizzard also makes it difficult to host tourney's, and as the years go by people are gonna be less and less inclined to deal with their power-hungry nonsense. So this will limit SC2's use as an e-sport.
You're naive if you think Blizzard can do no wrong, and that they'll fix it all. These problems have been around for almost a year now. I know fixing things takes time, but in the 7 or so months it's been, they haven't made a single move to fix it. They haven't done ONE SINGLE THING towards fixing these problems. Hell, they haven't even said they'll fix them. All they've said is 'deal with it'. How you can believe they'll suddenly have a change of heart and fix all this shit is beyond me, since they've very clearly shown they don't care.
But hey, if you being such a rampant fanboy helps you sleep at night, have fun. But in 5 years when SC2's just another dead game, because Blizzard's full of idiots, try not to cry :/
0
I figured I'd throw this out there since I don't really like working by myself, but I'm looking for some assistance on my map. The map is a galactic conquest style map, however it has both space and ground portions. You can land troops on planets and fight on the ground, or use fleets in space. That part of it is inspired heavily by Solar Conquest on WC3 if anyone knows it.
The map is Halo themed, set in the Halo universe. It's a 3v3v1 style, with three covenant, three humans, and a flood player. There's a total of 15 planet surfaces that you can fight on and the space portion is quite large as well, putting heavy emphasis on strategic use of FTL jumps rather than just blindly flying around.
I've got a lot of the more basic stuff done, such as scaling and making most of the units. What would be left to get it to an acceptable state would be some trigger work, terrain for the various planets, and polishing of the units. I do have grander plans but for right now I want to focus on getting the map to a playable state.
Here's that checklist from the sticky for further information if you're interested.
1: What region do you play in?
America
2: What time zone are you, and what hours are you available?
I have flexible hours, so whenever.
3: What are some methods of contact(msn, skype, AIM, etc..)?
MSN/skype, forum pms.
4: What are you doing for this project?
Everything so far.
5: What roles do you need filled?
Preferably someone with advanced knowledge on data editing, some basic trigger knowledge would be helpful as well, a terrainer is always welcomed. Really all roles as I am fairly mediocre, so having additional help in all fields would be nice. But priorities are triggers and some data knowledge.
8: How much time are you willing to invest in this project per week?
Already investing a lot of time, will continue to do so.
9: Who else is working on the project?
Just me.
0
I wouldn't even begin to know how to check that I'm afraid. I've never dabbled in triggers before.
0
Oh, I know that all too well. Most of my units are scaled at around 0.007 or so. Sadly with range, it seems zero is as low as it can go. I'm hoping there's some kind of way to fool the game into making their range seem lower than it is, a trigger or something, y'know? Even if their range is zero, if something is preventing them from attacking at a range of zero than the end result is the same. Having such a trick would be an absolute life saver for me, question is if such a trick actually exists or not.
0
Perfect, the margin in gameplay data solved the camera issue. Thank you very much for that, it will help me reclaim a little lost territory from scaling up. Now if only some techno-wizard could come in here and show me a way to get a range less than zero, would be perfect then.
0
I can, sadly, understand that for the attack range but what about the camera? Surely that one can be fixed since it's well within the bounds of the map.
0
I posted this in Misc but was suggested I ask in Data, so here I am.
To start off I'll explain that I'm using a trick to make my map seem larger than it really is. For the space section I've scaled everything down to quite extreme measures. That includes my camera. I have my camera zoomed in to 0.77, works fine and all. However, it cuts off a rather significant portion of the right and left parts of the map. At normal zoom I can see just fine, but when super-zoomed in it's like hitting the camera bounds, which seem to be a dozen more units further than they're suppose to be. I'd really rather not re-arrange the entire map, hard enough fitting things properly as it is. So anyone know how I might fix this?
The second problem is part of the extremely small scale I'm working at. My weapons all have far too great of a range. If I set a weapon range at zero, the lowest it can go, it still let's my ships shoot across half a solar system. That's way way way too far for what I need. Is there any sort of trick out there to reduce their firing range below zero? Anything at all?
Thank you in advanced for taking the time to read this.
0
Well, the original question isn't strictly data related, and truthfully neither is the second. As the solution could come from somewhere else, that's why I put it in misc. But if you think I should, I shall make a topic there asking as well.
0
Gonna toss a second question in here so I aint spamming thread.
As I said, I'm working at a very small scale to maximize the space-portion of the map, turns out not everything is so easily scaled. My weapons all have far too great of a range. If I set a weapon range at zero, the lowest it can go, it still let's my ships shoot across half a solar system. That's way way way too far for what I need. Is there any sort of trick out there to reduce their firing range below zero? Anything at all?
0
To start off I'll explain that I'm using a trick to make my map seem larger than it really is. For the space section I've scaled everything down to quite extreme measures. That includes my camera. I have my camera zoomed in to 0.77, works fine and all. However, it cuts off a rather significant portion of the right and left parts of the map. At normal zoom I can see just fine, but when super-zoomed in it's like hitting the camera bounds, which seem to be a dozen more units further than they're suppose to be. I'd really rather not re-arrange the entire map, hard enough fitting things properly as it is. So anyone know how I might fix this?
And, before anyone says anything, yes this is necessary to fit everything I want. It's a strategy type map and those you need big theaters of war for, especially if you're including both space and ground. So zooming it out really isn't an option.
0
Ha ha, you're a life saver. Thank you.
0
Wasn't sure where to put this, so it goes into Misc. Anyways, I'm wondering if there's a way to allow me to freely place units on the map. In WC3 you could just place them wherever, or have them snap to grind. So far in the SC2 editor every unit, no matter what, snaps to the grid. I tried the 'snap to grid' option but that apparently doesn't do anything for what I want. My problem is that, to make the most out of the map size I've shrunken units and zoomed in the camera, all that good stuff. But this makes their grid-like placement all that much more noticeable, because I don't think I can scale down the grid as well. It makes things look very inorganic when they're all in neat little squares. At the normal scale it doesn't really matter, but at the scale I'm working with it very much does. So is there anything I can do to break away from the grid placement? Or is that just a charm of the SC2 editor I'll have to live with?
0
I think you should remove the 'sues" part, since the original author will neither know nor care. Only reason blizzard cares now is because they force us to host on their servers, so if anything happens THEY are liable, not us. If, in the 1 in a trillion chance the original author did decide to sue, it'd be blizzard they sued, not you. Since it was hosted on blizzards server. That's why they're nazis when it comes to stuff like that. On SC and WC3 the maps were hosted peer to peer, so blizzard wasn't liable for the content. It could be as offensive or illegal as it wanted to be, it wasn't blizzards problem. I miss that system.
0
I've been saying it from beta but what they need most is the ability to see games are ACTIVE. Most people don't go past page three, however if they see a game from page 5 that is actually being played, they'd be more inclined to join it. That happened alot on WC3, especially when the dota spam hit. You almost never saw most of the good maps but if you actually hosted one, you almost always got a full house.
People want to play the maps farther down the list, but that's the key here. They want to PLAY those maps, not sit alone in an empty lobby. Seeing how many hours has been played doesn't tell us if it's being played NOW. And that's what blizzard really needs to bloody add already. Let us sort by games that are being hosted at this very minute, so we know what people are playing and can finally get some goddamned diversity in here instead of the same dozen maps endlessly.
0
Mostly for conquest maps. When you're trying to make a diplomacy map that uses the entire world, then 256x256 simply doesn't cut it. Most games don't need this size increase, that's for sure. But some games you simply need a lot of room to move around in. Map I'm making, for example, relies on massive amounts of space and long travel times as a gameplay element, forcing players to use hyperspace instead of just moving normally. This is hard to achieve with the map constraints, even with work-arounds.
Then of course there are the non-conquest maps that make use of such a massive map, but those are few and far between. There's also the fact that doubling the map really isn't a difficult task. I don't know if it's hardcoded in the engine or not, but it's not like it's asking for much since the only concern is it'd lag, and if a player lagged on it they simply wouldn't play it. No harm done. It's one of the easily implemented features that would help a lot of mappers out.
0
People likely wont even be playing SC2 in 5 years, let alone 10. SC1 lasted for so long because it was a solid, and adaptable game. SC2 is a solid game, but is rigid as fuck. I mean I for one played SC1 and WC3 for so many years because there was always new and fresh content in the form of custom maps, that wont happen in SC2 so I have no reason to play.
Blizzard also makes it difficult to host tourney's, and as the years go by people are gonna be less and less inclined to deal with their power-hungry nonsense. So this will limit SC2's use as an e-sport.
You're naive if you think Blizzard can do no wrong, and that they'll fix it all. These problems have been around for almost a year now. I know fixing things takes time, but in the 7 or so months it's been, they haven't made a single move to fix it. They haven't done ONE SINGLE THING towards fixing these problems. Hell, they haven't even said they'll fix them. All they've said is 'deal with it'. How you can believe they'll suddenly have a change of heart and fix all this shit is beyond me, since they've very clearly shown they don't care.
But hey, if you being such a rampant fanboy helps you sleep at night, have fun. But in 5 years when SC2's just another dead game, because Blizzard's full of idiots, try not to cry :/