I'm never up to date with this sort of things, but I'm glad their ways were finally shown to be wrong. Their LOTR: BFME had so much potential and they never fixed the bugs nor gave it any attention. 1 patch was all they did and they never looked at it again, even with all the bugs and imbalance.
I highly doubt Blizzard will listen to any of that, though. They'll simply say «we're not EA», «we don't run like them» or a variant along those lines. Unfortunately, life is just like that: no matter how much you say it to them, people have to bash their heads into a wall before they realize they're blind.
@Mozared: Go
Agreed man! I too noticed a lot of people saying they disliked HotS story, but I think it wasn't that bad. Definitely not too interesting either, but the idea they came up with for the Zerg and the Primal seemed good. I admit that I found the characters they introduced the poorest of all. Dahaka wouldn't shut up about the essence, Izsha was monotonous, maybe because of her voice (HotS voices seemed even worse than in WoL), and Stukov's appearance just felt random overall. Still, the overall plot was decent, I just think Blizzard has grown a bad habit of unveiling entire plots during trailers.
Wow, I didn't realize so many other people were being bugged by the map dimensions and texture limitations, I only ever saw myself complaining about them.
So, for me:
Priority 1: Map dimension limits increase
Description: The map dimensions, limited to a 256x256 smaller than its Warcraft III (and apparently StarCraft 1, says maticpl) homologues, was what alienated me from trying to do anything with the editor right off from the start. It has come to my attention that the StarCraft II Editor can actually support larger maps, so it's just a matter of giving the authors the possibility to enlarge their maps and make it playable on Battle.Net.
Priority 2: Texture limitations lift
Description: Self explanatory. Game as old as Age of Empires allow all textures in the game to be used, there's no reason for a 2010 game to still be stuck in the feudal age with this.
Priority 3: Full editor documentation
Description: It would have been better if someone had accurately and rigorously documented every field and its function while creating the editor. Perhaps it is not too late still?
Oh, and if I recall correctly, you could change tiles with triggers, thus you could have potentially unlimited tiles. Very sure you can't do that in SC2.
Not exactly so. I am not 100% sure of this, but the limit is 16 even with triggers. In RP maps, they had triggers for us to change the tiles to our liking and, imagining an Ashenvale tileset, you could add, for example, Lordaeron Winter Snow, Icecrown Glacier Dark Ice, Village Crops... at some point, you'd try to place some texture and end up getting Ashenvale Dirt or Leaves instead.
This is because the map had reached the limit. Even if you had limited yourself to just the initial tileset, the engine would accept adding a few more tiles, in-game and in real time, but would eventually reach a limit and choose a random(?) one from the array when attempting to add a new one from that point on.
@Wc3SRui: @Mozared: Many WC3 games were from sc1, and even in the
editor u seem many remnants of sc1 campaign editor. The advancement of
the editor allowed the advancement of game concepts and creation of more
advance games that were not possible before. but sc1 was the first to do
battle for middle earth games and DOTA(AEON). (...)
I believe so, but me and Mozared are centered on the gameplay here. I'm well aware that most concepts, such as AoS, derive from others in SC, but no doubt WC3 allowed for huge improvements and, equally important, a more fitting environment. Someone once said: the units in the LotR maps were aliens for god's sake! =P
(...) Why say "imporvements" in quotes? So according to you they haven't made
any graphic improvements from WoW? yay cartoony graphics? They made
perfect balance between not too high technical specs and awesome
graphics - fact.
(...)
Some people believe that's not a positive aspect of the graphics. Quoting shamanyouranus, «Starcraft 2 has the perfect balance of over-complexity and dated technology to attract absolutely no modelers or artists». See "StarCraft 2 Modeling, why is it failing". The specific post I quoted is #9.
(...)Are you telling me that there aren't many people watching WCS,
Dreamhack, IEM, MLG, many others? (...)
«Many» is relative, but I can say I watched DreamHack on July (about a week ago) and there were over 60 thousand people watching close to the finals. Did someone say they lacked ads? I don't remember how many different ads they had, but DreamHack was annoying, seriously, they were on commercial break over 50% of the time. Had the finals not been so close when I ran out of patience, I swear I'd have turned off my browser.
@FockeWulf
(...) don't take yourself so seriously, MANY have contribution to get some
features back, you are saying it as if it wasn't you, Blizzard wouldn't
listen, Blizzard should only listen to you...
(...)
Nah, just looks like it amidst the indignation and frustration (don't take that as a provocation). He's saying he did everything within his reach to no avail. While commendable, it didn't bear fruit, but he has the moral ground to say «at least I tried». As someone who has recently had exams whose grades did not correspond to the expended effort, I am a partisan of his point of view and the indignation that comes with it. =P
(...) I don't think the lack of originality is at all a SC2-specific problem. It just shows more in SC2 because it is one of the few large games around with such an easily accessible potential for modding/editing. The lack of originality is an issue that is platform-wide, and not limited to one game. (...)
I reckon that on another level: I doubt any game had such a wide plethora of diversified models as Warcraft III.
I agree with your opinion, there's certainly a lot less room for innovation.
(...)
First of all, back in WoL Beta the mapping section was more alive than it has been before or since. The smart ones left before StarCraft 2 came out. They saw what the popularity system would do ahead of time. They warned about it. They were ignored. In fact almost everyone was claiming with confidence (myself included) that Blizzard would fix it.
(...)
But if the Galaxy Editor was difficult for the WarCraft 3 people, it was completely alien to the StarCraft 1 mod makers. And since no documentation or tutorials (minus a few, like those made by OneTwoSC. Without him the community may not be alive at all today) were ever made by Blizzard they were left out on a limb. So most of them jumped ship.
(...)
The popularity system, and the lack of documentation or ease of use in the editor is what did the initial damage. Whatever fault may be of the community, maker and player alike is irrelevant. No one was going to risk the time it took to make a genuinely new and innovative map because the cost of failure, all that work going down the drain, is was and is so high that almost every single mapper that held on decided the tried and true was a better bet that all their work wouldn't be for nothing.
Again its a flaw in the design of the system that was never fixed. And the responsibility for that rests solely in the hands of Blizzard.
(...)
Applause! I too spent some time criticizing the lack of documentation for the editor, and that was precisely how I felt about the popularity system as well.
I can't find the post where someone mentioned players couldn't progress in StarCraft II melee. Well, I played Wc3 melee and still do at times, mostly team games, and I can tell you how it looks from my perspective.
Just some time ago, I was playing a wc3 game and I chose the Alchemist hero. Even though I lost, it ended up being the best game I had in a while. I kept pawning other players and saving my allies until my resources ran out (I didn't expand XD), excuse me for the immodesty, but I still believe I was the most valuable player in the game, as my allies would have been defeated so early if I hadn't helped them as often as I did — one of them had a ton of gryphons.
That just happens to be one of the things I love about wc3 melee: even if you don't expand and even if you don't train a lot of units, you can definitely make the difference. In this case, I was using an Alchemist and a Tauren Chieftain and my units were only a few headhunters and 1 or 2 tauren. In SC2, if you get rushed too early or your expansion keeps cracking after you made an investment, you spend the entire game crawling.
In close relation, things in SC2 run too fast. You focus a single unit with a bunch of marines and it's dead. Individual units are of no value, which makes it hard for a single unit, on its own, to be of any use. In Wc3, you have time to micro properly and decently. Game speed is one of the things I noticed mostly about StarCraft II. I am convinced StarCraft 1 players notice it too to some extent, because units in BW suffered heavy from collision. In SC2, collision is smooth. As a result, in BW it's harder to use a bunch of marines to smite down a dragoon whilst in SC2 you can get your marines under a colossus and shoot it down before the player has barely had the chance to notice.
Finally, in WC3 you had the occasional ill-disposed guy flaming and moaning, but it ended up being fun. In SC2, the homologues I have met pretend that they're smart and force their broken logic into you, it's annoying. The even matching system also seems like a big lie at times.
(...)
Think about it: back in WarCraft 3, the map editor literally spawned a new generation of games. There were a number of completely new games: Tower Defense was an original concept, DOTA fermented itself and Hero Defenses came into being. And then there were maps like Life of a Peasant, "Escape from X", The Silmarillion, Footman Wars and Cat and Mouse. Life of a Peasant was something not really done before at that time, "Escape from X"-style maps were completely new in their format (they used to only exist in older and arcade style games, like Frog), The Silmarillion was a combination of styles that had only existed strictly seperated before (Total War series and Total Annihilation), Footman Wars had only been done before with way less features in StarCraft and Cat and Mouse was a game that had never existed in a digital form.
(...)
@FockeWulf: Go
(...)
You're missing my point completely when it comes to originality, though. I guess that's partly my fault, because 'originality' is a very subjective word. Let me try and explain what I mean by it. You linked Subsistence. Ask yourself - what is Subsistence? It's a total conversion of the StarCraft 2 engine. Great, so what does it turn StarCraft 2, this great story-driven military-focused RTS game, into? That's right - a story-driven military-focused RTS game. That isn't originality.
And by saying that I mean absolutely no offense to the lads of Blue Isles Studios: the mod is looking splendid. The point is: it's yet another staple RTS. The names and places change but the faces are the same. It doesn't compare to the first Tower Defense or DOTA maps in WarCraft 3. Those maps literally encouraged a COMPLETELY different playstyle. An entirely different way of thinking and handling your units. THAT is what I call originality - SC2 doesn't have it. And shit; even the original DOTA was nothing more than a clever combination of RPG and RTS. DOTA in turn doesn't even get near to games that really defined genres, like Dune 2 or Wolfenstein 3D.
In StarCraft 2, even the slightest hint of that kind of originality is missing. There are only a couple of maps that come close - Mafia can be compared to Cat Mice, and has thus (rightfully so) been played as one of the most popular maps in the game. Aside from that, there's Eiviyn's maps (Catalyst, Battleships and Magicide), which really are just DOTA maps with a very unique twist (ridiculous amounts of balanced hero customization). These maps too, rightfully so, were immensily popular for at least a short time. Everything else in the popularity list is Nexus Wars - and THAT is the kind of map that melee players hop into when they don't feel like laddering for a bit.
My views are conditioned by the fact I was a child when I entered WC3 and I never played anything for real, on the Internet, besides other RTSes like Age of Empires, Age of Mythology and this or the other RPG (NWN), along with a few console games. As such, my knowledge of different gameplays was relatively limited, which allowed WC3 to introduce me to quite a few. I'll allow myself to believe most of the genres spawned there.
However — and someone spoke about it too —, I believe if there was any sort of «decay» in the userbase itself, it happened long before StarCraft II.
For me, the golden age of WC3 was before WoW came out and the first blowns were dealt to WC3. I remember the RP maps (TheBlackMage remade the map for SC2, but SC2 is just a whole different game, medieval/fantasy theme forever :D), the loooong hours I spent roleplaying with those that were my best WC3 friends of all time, playing "Battle for Middle Earth" (then in its golden days, from v2.5 to v3.1, 2005/6(?), it was never the same again).
Back then, it was possible to have some fun and expect some degree of intelligent input from people, even with more or less swearing, in both games and forums. Right now, what I see are ever more bored and decadent communities: people can only have fun feeding off drama, destroying and striving for power, spamming picture responses, injuring, provoking, trolling, and whatnot — I think the term «trolling» didn't even exist back then. If it did, then I only came to know it muuuch later on.
I still remember their nicknames: Sargent-Moose, Eyrie, Balderon, Sonic-X, chaos11. As soon as WoW hit the shelves, all those people vanished, I never saw many of them again. Most of them told me they had been moved on to WoW or something else, others just disappeared and I never heard of them again. Ah, heck, I know it's obvious I'm being led by nostalgia here, but those are the times I do remember as being WC3 at its best. Followed by that was another period in which people — map makers, roleplayers and whatnot — had good ideas or perfected already existing ones, but things were getting repetitive.
Safe to say I never found anything remotely like it in SC2. What you said about originality is what I have always felt about SC2 exactly. I look at the custom maps list and I'm immediately overwhelmed with nausea, such is the lack of originality and poorness of the execution. Cheap TDs, arena/AoS mixes, slay endless waves of Zerg (the campaign turned the idea cliché even before the map makers exhausted it)... meh.
@Mozared: Go
(...)
Even the most popular SC2 maps aren't that popular. I'm the main developer for SquadTD and our actual community is pathetically small, I've tried to encourage a lot more in-game chat and forum use but it's just not happening as there really aren't that many people playing it. Sure Blizzard could have and should have done a lot of things better (more visibility to custom maps, better arcade system, open-lobbies from the getgo, etc) but there really just aren't that many people interested in playing custom maps that much anymore. And I doubt it's even a creativity issue at this point.
You are the maker of Squadron TD? I've got to admit I hate TDs in general, but I actually played Squadron a few times. It fell into one of those categories I mentioned earlier: idea already executed, but yours was a perfecting of its execution. Implementing some degree of strategy into it, like where to place towers, decide when you're investing on income or towers or units in order to defeat your enemy, made it very interesting and worthy.
I see a lot of people here with a certain reverence for "Nexus Wars". If I'm associating the map and name right, I have to admit I did encounter other better maps. For some reason, the creator of that map decided that it was a nice idea to have Ultralisks with 1k hp and tons of damage and armor increase. Every time I played the game and people went for those, it was a «meh» game, I felt like my time had been wasted. Hopefully he's reverted that.
I'm talking about the original assets you find with the game. The amount of models and icons on wc3 was bigger due to the jungle creeps and the amount of abilities/icons was huge due to heroes. When I first used the SC2 editor it was one of the first things I noticed, it had less then 50% of assets due to his different nature, less RPG more RTS...
God YES! Finally, a twin soul. PurplePoot insisted with me that I was being stupidly persistent about it, but I advertised countless times how the lack of creep models would hurt SC2's diversity and how you could not easily grab a SC2 asset and call it medieval. Glad I'm not the only one who things that is right. =)
Now back to the point of map making,
As for Galaxy, the Data Editor's complexity was intimidating, but that's not what set me off. Guess that's the only thing original I'm adding to this topic (=P): In the nearly 10 years of WC3 now, I've heard all sorts of bickering about the World Editor's bad design, limitations and whatnot. As such, in my head, Blizzard said «so you want a better editor? Here». I dearly hope they don't remove functionalities from it in future RTSes, if they make any.
Because of having played RP maps, "Battle for Middle Earth" and "Azeroth Wars Strategy/Legacy Reborn", my primary concern was always the limitation on map size and ground textures. I just found it plain stupid how games as old as AoE 1 allow you to use all textures in the game and Blizzard is still stuck with forcing this limitation. Then, like I said, I spent a lot of time warning as to how the lack of diversified models and documentation for the Editor would be a turndown for SC2. With the broken promise of multiplayer campaigns, the popularity system, the not-so-fun melee games, the poor maps and the overall state of things, I just didn't even try to do anything with the Editor. I admit I didn't even buy HotS.
Also, I like this thread, it's good to see a lot of people give smart input into a topic instead of spamming it or posting picture responses (until now...).
My computer is sort of old. For me, the Editor has always taken next to an eternity to load things. Opening up the Actors tab was a pain. I never dug into the Trigger Editor, but the last thing I wanted to hear is that it lags =s
This time, there's not even a Brush List to turn off. I do hope they plan to make things run faster.
I think WarCraft III's system worked well enough. All that was needed for SC2 was the idea they had of condensing all lobbies of the same map (the BNet hosting is nice too) so you don't get to see 20 DotAs. That plus Wc3's system and it would have been perfect. I don't see why it is taking them so long to realize this and why they insist on having this popularity list that advertises maps which do not need advertisement.
I keep my graphics low as my computer can't handle too much, so I bet the zoom in would make everything look horrible. On top of that, I'd have to go through the gigantic, enormous list of actors to scale them all. Tedious to the core. =S
I think the 256x256 limit is likely to hit first. =\ I really didn't get that one. People in WC3 spent years trying to get past 256x256, but Blizzard inserts that limit again and comparatively the SC2 256x256 dimension is smaller than the WC3 one. For RP maps it's a killer. I do hope they plan to expand it at some point — if not HotS, then LotV.
Well, SotIS never felt too good. It did look like, in my opinion, a cheap carbon copy of DotA minus the little balance it sometimes appeared to have to be something completely obnoxious.
EDIT: Not sure what the «the staff was incompetent» is about, but that, paired with the «I'll get back to you», sounds way familiar. Smells a bit like bullshit. It is very easy to, after having the moderators run without defined objectives and code of conduct, come down and say they're all incompetent. The explanation doesn't please me at all.
0
I'm getting largely confused here. So a user-made project was sued and Blizzard did not provide legal assistance at all?
0
Possibly, some people did not mention their wanted features because they had already been posted.
0
I'm never up to date with this sort of things, but I'm glad their ways were finally shown to be wrong. Their LOTR: BFME had so much potential and they never fixed the bugs nor gave it any attention. 1 patch was all they did and they never looked at it again, even with all the bugs and imbalance.
I highly doubt Blizzard will listen to any of that, though. They'll simply say «we're not EA», «we don't run like them» or a variant along those lines. Unfortunately, life is just like that: no matter how much you say it to them, people have to bash their heads into a wall before they realize they're blind.
0
@Mozared: Go Agreed man! I too noticed a lot of people saying they disliked HotS story, but I think it wasn't that bad. Definitely not too interesting either, but the idea they came up with for the Zerg and the Primal seemed good. I admit that I found the characters they introduced the poorest of all. Dahaka wouldn't shut up about the essence, Izsha was monotonous, maybe because of her voice (HotS voices seemed even worse than in WoL), and Stukov's appearance just felt random overall. Still, the overall plot was decent, I just think Blizzard has grown a bad habit of unveiling entire plots during trailers.
0
2nd.
0
Wow, I didn't realize so many other people were being bugged by the map dimensions and texture limitations, I only ever saw myself complaining about them.
So, for me:
Priority 1: Map dimension limits increase
Description: The map dimensions, limited to a 256x256 smaller than its Warcraft III (and apparently StarCraft 1, says maticpl) homologues, was what alienated me from trying to do anything with the editor right off from the start. It has come to my attention that the StarCraft II Editor can actually support larger maps, so it's just a matter of giving the authors the possibility to enlarge their maps and make it playable on Battle.Net.
Priority 2: Texture limitations lift
Description: Self explanatory. Game as old as Age of Empires allow all textures in the game to be used, there's no reason for a 2010 game to still be stuck in the feudal age with this.
Priority 3: Full editor documentation
Description: It would have been better if someone had accurately and rigorously documented every field and its function while creating the editor. Perhaps it is not too late still?
Not exactly so. I am not 100% sure of this, but the limit is 16 even with triggers. In RP maps, they had triggers for us to change the tiles to our liking and, imagining an Ashenvale tileset, you could add, for example, Lordaeron Winter Snow, Icecrown Glacier Dark Ice, Village Crops... at some point, you'd try to place some texture and end up getting Ashenvale Dirt or Leaves instead.
This is because the map had reached the limit. Even if you had limited yourself to just the initial tileset, the engine would accept adding a few more tiles, in-game and in real time, but would eventually reach a limit and choose a random(?) one from the array when attempting to add a new one from that point on.
0
I believe so, but me and Mozared are centered on the gameplay here. I'm well aware that most concepts, such as AoS, derive from others in SC, but no doubt WC3 allowed for huge improvements and, equally important, a more fitting environment. Someone once said: the units in the LotR maps were aliens for god's sake! =P
Some people believe that's not a positive aspect of the graphics. Quoting shamanyouranus, «Starcraft 2 has the perfect balance of over-complexity and dated technology to attract absolutely no modelers or artists». See "StarCraft 2 Modeling, why is it failing". The specific post I quoted is #9.
«Many» is relative, but I can say I watched DreamHack on July (about a week ago) and there were over 60 thousand people watching close to the finals. Did someone say they lacked ads? I don't remember how many different ads they had, but DreamHack was annoying, seriously, they were on commercial break over 50% of the time. Had the finals not been so close when I ran out of patience, I swear I'd have turned off my browser.
It's probably the new NWN MMO.
Nah, just looks like it amidst the indignation and frustration (don't take that as a provocation). He's saying he did everything within his reach to no avail. While commendable, it didn't bear fruit, but he has the moral ground to say «at least I tried». As someone who has recently had exams whose grades did not correspond to the expended effort, I am a partisan of his point of view and the indignation that comes with it. =P
0
I reckon that on another level: I doubt any game had such a wide plethora of diversified models as Warcraft III.
I agree with your opinion, there's certainly a lot less room for innovation.
0
So I spent a few hours reading this thread after waking from a year sleep *.* xD
Applause! I too spent some time criticizing the lack of documentation for the editor, and that was precisely how I felt about the popularity system as well.
I can't find the post where someone mentioned players couldn't progress in StarCraft II melee. Well, I played Wc3 melee and still do at times, mostly team games, and I can tell you how it looks from my perspective.
Just some time ago, I was playing a wc3 game and I chose the Alchemist hero. Even though I lost, it ended up being the best game I had in a while. I kept pawning other players and saving my allies until my resources ran out (I didn't expand XD), excuse me for the immodesty, but I still believe I was the most valuable player in the game, as my allies would have been defeated so early if I hadn't helped them as often as I did — one of them had a ton of gryphons.
That just happens to be one of the things I love about wc3 melee: even if you don't expand and even if you don't train a lot of units, you can definitely make the difference. In this case, I was using an Alchemist and a Tauren Chieftain and my units were only a few headhunters and 1 or 2 tauren. In SC2, if you get rushed too early or your expansion keeps cracking after you made an investment, you spend the entire game crawling.
In close relation, things in SC2 run too fast. You focus a single unit with a bunch of marines and it's dead. Individual units are of no value, which makes it hard for a single unit, on its own, to be of any use. In Wc3, you have time to micro properly and decently. Game speed is one of the things I noticed mostly about StarCraft II. I am convinced StarCraft 1 players notice it too to some extent, because units in BW suffered heavy from collision. In SC2, collision is smooth. As a result, in BW it's harder to use a bunch of marines to smite down a dragoon whilst in SC2 you can get your marines under a colossus and shoot it down before the player has barely had the chance to notice.
Finally, in WC3 you had the occasional ill-disposed guy flaming and moaning, but it ended up being fun. In SC2, the homologues I have met pretend that they're smart and force their broken logic into you, it's annoying. The even matching system also seems like a big lie at times.
My views are conditioned by the fact I was a child when I entered WC3 and I never played anything for real, on the Internet, besides other RTSes like Age of Empires, Age of Mythology and this or the other RPG (NWN), along with a few console games. As such, my knowledge of different gameplays was relatively limited, which allowed WC3 to introduce me to quite a few. I'll allow myself to believe most of the genres spawned there.
However — and someone spoke about it too —, I believe if there was any sort of «decay» in the userbase itself, it happened long before StarCraft II.
For me, the golden age of WC3 was before WoW came out and the first blowns were dealt to WC3. I remember the RP maps (TheBlackMage remade the map for SC2, but SC2 is just a whole different game, medieval/fantasy theme forever :D), the loooong hours I spent roleplaying with those that were my best WC3 friends of all time, playing "Battle for Middle Earth" (then in its golden days, from v2.5 to v3.1, 2005/6(?), it was never the same again).
Back then, it was possible to have some fun and expect some degree of intelligent input from people, even with more or less swearing, in both games and forums. Right now, what I see are ever more bored and decadent communities: people can only have fun feeding off drama, destroying and striving for power, spamming picture responses, injuring, provoking, trolling, and whatnot — I think the term «trolling» didn't even exist back then. If it did, then I only came to know it muuuch later on.
I still remember their nicknames: Sargent-Moose, Eyrie, Balderon, Sonic-X, chaos11. As soon as WoW hit the shelves, all those people vanished, I never saw many of them again. Most of them told me they had been moved on to WoW or something else, others just disappeared and I never heard of them again. Ah, heck, I know it's obvious I'm being led by nostalgia here, but those are the times I do remember as being WC3 at its best. Followed by that was another period in which people — map makers, roleplayers and whatnot — had good ideas or perfected already existing ones, but things were getting repetitive.
Safe to say I never found anything remotely like it in SC2. What you said about originality is what I have always felt about SC2 exactly. I look at the custom maps list and I'm immediately overwhelmed with nausea, such is the lack of originality and poorness of the execution. Cheap TDs, arena/AoS mixes, slay endless waves of Zerg (the campaign turned the idea cliché even before the map makers exhausted it)... meh.
You are the maker of Squadron TD? I've got to admit I hate TDs in general, but I actually played Squadron a few times. It fell into one of those categories I mentioned earlier: idea already executed, but yours was a perfecting of its execution. Implementing some degree of strategy into it, like where to place towers, decide when you're investing on income or towers or units in order to defeat your enemy, made it very interesting and worthy.
I see a lot of people here with a certain reverence for "Nexus Wars". If I'm associating the map and name right, I have to admit I did encounter other better maps. For some reason, the creator of that map decided that it was a nice idea to have Ultralisks with 1k hp and tons of damage and armor increase. Every time I played the game and people went for those, it was a «meh» game, I felt like my time had been wasted. Hopefully he's reverted that.
God YES! Finally, a twin soul. PurplePoot insisted with me that I was being stupidly persistent about it, but I advertised countless times how the lack of creep models would hurt SC2's diversity and how you could not easily grab a SC2 asset and call it medieval. Glad I'm not the only one who things that is right. =)
Now back to the point of map making,
As for Galaxy, the Data Editor's complexity was intimidating, but that's not what set me off. Guess that's the only thing original I'm adding to this topic (=P): In the nearly 10 years of WC3 now, I've heard all sorts of bickering about the World Editor's bad design, limitations and whatnot. As such, in my head, Blizzard said «so you want a better editor? Here». I dearly hope they don't remove functionalities from it in future RTSes, if they make any.
Because of having played RP maps, "Battle for Middle Earth" and "Azeroth Wars Strategy/Legacy Reborn", my primary concern was always the limitation on map size and ground textures. I just found it plain stupid how games as old as AoE 1 allow you to use all textures in the game and Blizzard is still stuck with forcing this limitation. Then, like I said, I spent a lot of time warning as to how the lack of diversified models and documentation for the Editor would be a turndown for SC2. With the broken promise of multiplayer campaigns, the popularity system, the not-so-fun melee games, the poor maps and the overall state of things, I just didn't even try to do anything with the Editor. I admit I didn't even buy HotS.
Also, I like this thread, it's good to see a lot of people give smart input into a topic instead of spamming it or posting picture responses (until now...).
P.S. — I apologize for the long post. =P
0
My computer is sort of old. For me, the Editor has always taken next to an eternity to load things. Opening up the Actors tab was a pain. I never dug into the Trigger Editor, but the last thing I wanted to hear is that it lags =s
This time, there's not even a Brush List to turn off. I do hope they plan to make things run faster.
0
I think WarCraft III's system worked well enough. All that was needed for SC2 was the idea they had of condensing all lobbies of the same map (the BNet hosting is nice too) so you don't get to see 20 DotAs. That plus Wc3's system and it would have been perfect. I don't see why it is taking them so long to realize this and why they insist on having this popularity list that advertises maps which do not need advertisement.
0
I keep my graphics low as my computer can't handle too much, so I bet the zoom in would make everything look horrible. On top of that, I'd have to go through the gigantic, enormous list of actors to scale them all. Tedious to the core. =S
0
@DrSuperEvil: Go
I think the 256x256 limit is likely to hit first. =\ I really didn't get that one. People in WC3 spent years trying to get past 256x256, but Blizzard inserts that limit again and comparatively the SC2 256x256 dimension is smaller than the WC3 one. For RP maps it's a killer. I do hope they plan to expand it at some point — if not HotS, then LotV.
0
Well if it's 1000 degrees Fahrenheit and Zerg live there, then they're adapted to the heat. No Firebats are gonna work ;-(
0
Well, SotIS never felt too good. It did look like, in my opinion, a cheap carbon copy of DotA minus the little balance it sometimes appeared to have to be something completely obnoxious.
EDIT: Not sure what the «the staff was incompetent» is about, but that, paired with the «I'll get back to you», sounds way familiar. Smells a bit like bullshit. It is very easy to, after having the moderators run without defined objectives and code of conduct, come down and say they're all incompetent. The explanation doesn't please me at all.