Just to clear this up, sixen posted about this on a topic in the SC2mapster forums, that's why I talked about it...Not sure if it was something I should've kept my mouth shut about, but for some reason, I have a feeling starting a rumor like that is not a good idea. :S
Anyways, best idea would've been to PM him, I guess, Gna.
Maybe the easiest solution, at least for now. Would be to know the units that have differences between the singleplayer and multiplayer. For example: Siege tank Siege Mode. 60 Damage single player. 50 Damage multiplayer.
Load the campaign dependencies this way:
Liberty (Mod)
Liberty Campaign (Mod)
Don't load Liberty Story (Mod), that will override the MP unit stats with the SP ones. This way, you can have the MP Dependency but also easily add units based on Campaign ones, like the Scourge, Diamondback and Spectre. Problem here is that when the game is updated, the new balance changes will not reflect on your mod/map. For that, you'd have to load Liberty Multi (Mod), but that overrides the Campaign units completely for some reason...
Though yes, the way you did it is perhaps the best way to facilitate editing the mod when the game is updated.
Just tried it out in the editor for myself and its really odd how unreliable it is. The first time I placed the geyser and put the assimilator over it, the geyser disappeared. But then when I undid the changes and replaced the geyser and tried it a second time, the geyser didn't disappear... Somewhat odd bug, but it is possible to work around it.
I guess this "bug" is due to the editor making the geyser invisible when you want to place a refinery over it so that it doesn't look odd, just like how the geyser is removed in-game (though it has an animation in-game) when you build a refinery on top of it. What's really strange is it happened when I wasn't placing the refinery on top, just put the cursor over the geyser.
Just noticed this weird bug...I opened a custom map (Midnight action, it's in the maps section here), and selected the armory building. I put my cursor over a geyser, with the armory appearing in red because I can't place it. Then I went and selected the assimilator and placed my cursor on top of the same geyser...It disappeared, though the editor still reads the geyser as being there.
I still have the old beta files before the 2nd beta launched, which has the Albion and Helios tilesets. Where are they inside the files? I could extract them and you could make maps with them if you'd like.
Managed to make it work on maps, but it won't work with mods...Strangely. Anyone can offer insight?
Dependancy for campaign still needs to be loaded, though...
EDIT: Turns out there's a bug that makes the data editor not load the new dependancy if you do not open it before adding the dependancy!
EDIT 2: It seems when I reload the map, gone is everything that is from the campaign. The editor has problems reloading both dependancies. Maybe when opening a map it checks for one specific dependancy (campaign or multi), and if it finds both, will only load the default (multi), but not when you add it the first time? Or maybe this is part of some sort of protection against stealing mods?
You could try looking at the Loki's lift-off ability, its ability can be used even after first lifting the unit off, and it slowly levitates the unit a bit everytime it is used. Maybe that could help you...
Hi, I want to add a campaign unit into a map's multiplayer. I've seen that the edited Lost Temple phantom map has the Scout from SP, yet it seems I can't figure out how to copy an SP unit completely into MP without keeping the Campaign dependancy loaded with the map. I don't want it to remain loaded, as I don't want the SP gameplay mode with all the Terran units and lack of in-game upgrades. I also don't want to keep multiple dependancies (MP and SP), as it will mess up the map and sometimes the editor only loads the MP stuff when re-opening the map.
Is there any way to do this or do I have to make the unit from scratch? I tried even copying the unit, but all it does is make a unit that can't be placed in the editor, and it lacks tons of other features (upgrades, effects, etc.). Do I have to start with those then copy the unit, etc?
If you have it replace the original map in the SC2 files, then yes, but it will be incompatible with BattleNet, you'll have to play it offline.
Alternatively you could make a mod.
If I want to say, use the spectre model, I can just take the actors and art from the campaign unit. But either this will take a long time or I will have to do it from scratch which also takes time. So the campaign unit models will be hard to use in mods and maps, only the stuff that's already in multiplayer will be easy to copy. That's what I meant. I want to make a mod that uses some of the campaign stuff but to do so I have to remake some of the code from scratch or copy it piece by piece.
As for dependencies being different, they could have always cloned a unit and made it SP only if they wanted maybe a different Hellion for campaign or still let us access the campaign stuff even while in MP mode in the editor, but not have it load up in the dependency (like you can search for say, an ability that's only in the campaign, like life steal, but it isn't in the multiplayer map unless you copy it entirely).
And it's usually best to start with the multiplayer dependency for custom maps meant to be played in multiplayer...
Anyways, it's true that I'm not very experienced with the editor. I can work with triggers easily and copy units and change some of their stats and abilities, but to a limit. I'm still learning, but some things are longer to do than they used to be with the WC3 editor. Though yes I admit it has many new great features, but I still have to learn to use those.
So you're saying that should basically make an entire 2nd editor for people who don't want to invest the time to learn how the game engine works, so those people can spit out tons of crappy maps.
If it makes me elitist then fine I'm an elitist for thinking a quality map takes hundreds upon hundreds of hours of work and if you aren't willing to spend a small amount of time learning the editor then you clearly aren't going to spend the time to make something worthwhile anyway. Really this is like going onto a forum for Photoshop or 3d studio and complaining that it's too powerful and hard to use and not catered for your personal level of (dis)interest.
I don't think you understand. I didn't say remake the editor or make a new one, all it would have required is some small features here and there and perhaps even a tutorial (those will come anyways eventually, whether they're made by Blizzard or not). I don't have a level of dis-interest, I just want to manage my time properly. If I can do something in 20 hours or in 4 hours, I'll choose to do it in 4 hours. (Considering that the result is the same, in the context of using this editor, not talking about cleaning up a mess and botching it, or other situations, don't take it out of context...) Instead of having different dependencies, why not make it all into 1 (or at least be able to open other dependencies or mods to copy some of what they have inside. And no, it wouldn't allow for stealing necessarily, as people can easily lock mods like they do with maps. And even without this feature people would still be able to copy or steal mods.), like with WC3 and its expansion? Why not be able to copy entire units and their attachments or export them like in WC3? Now you have to load a map with the campaign dependency, copy one thing from a unit, move over to the melee dependency or your own, copy that unit's, say, effect, then do the same for every upgrade, model, effect, weapon, etc. It's not an efficient use of time available. I never said sacrifice some great feature so that the editor is easier for n00bs, but rather, add a few small features here and there to make the editor more time-efficient.
Some great mappers made great, original and interesting maps in WC3, yet you would say that the editor is too n00b friendly. Same with SC, no?
Also, I'm not talking about map and gameplay, but rather modding and being able to make new units by copying existing ones and editing some things, just to at least be able to test some new feature or something.
Actually, they could've made the editor in both advanced and standard modes. Advanced mode would be like now and standard would be closer to WC3 TFT's editor, but it would lack some of the freedom of the advanced mode. That could've made things easier.
Some features are there in a certain way, but they could always work to make them easier to use. (In example, you can always have a raw data editor, but if you add tooltips, sections, etc., it becomes easier to use it and learn from it than if you were on a text editor like notepad.) In that sense, being complicated is not absolutely the correct expression, it's rather "less user-friendly" that would fit. I picked up the WC3 FT editor and made a small mod quick and painlessly on it, but with SC2, it's not as easy to understand what to do.
Did the guy really steal your map or was it that he just wanted to play it online or distribute it, so he published it on his BNET account?
Because hosting a map in stead of its creator on BNET doesn't seem like much of an issue. But then if he did that wouldn't your name still appear on the map list? If it doesn't, then it might be an oversight on Blizzard's part when they made this map publishing system.
And guys, please, try not to jump the gun and judge the poor guy and insult him.
"Hey I got hit by a car"
"You're an idiot then! Why didn't you watch the road?"
"I did, you retard, but I couldn't expect a guy's car to have an issue and start rolling, dumbass"
"oh take some responsibility"
This is the kind of issue I'm talking about. You don't know exactly what happened, stop assuming that the other guy is immediately an idiot or whatever, and don't let anger get the best of you.
BTW, Galois, I agree that just running here for help and asking US to do something is not necessarily going to help you. I guess if you had asked nicely for help ("Hey, can someone help me figure out what to do, please?"), it wouldn't have angered some people here.
I myself at one point submitted a mod in the Maps section and it was removed for a reason that wasn't logical (I had no image to show, but it was a mod and the project was in planning stages), so instead of insulting the guy who deleted it and getting angry, I assumed I must've done something wrong or didn't correctly understand something (or possibly the guy who deleted it), so I asked nicely on the report if what I did was ok and explained this situation and asked what I could do instead. I was told to post it in the assets section and it was all fine and dandy afterwards. Now had I incorrectly reacted to this and said something like "why the f did you m's delete this for this reason? It makes no f-ing sense!", that, would've not been helpful at all and may have ruined someone's mood. Both I and the moderator would be in a bad mood and both of us would gain nothing. Rather than assuming the other is clueless about everything, try and see what went wrong. Did you do something wrong? Or did he do something wrong? Two people don't see things or understand them the same way, nor do they think the same way.
0
Just to clear this up, sixen posted about this on a topic in the SC2mapster forums, that's why I talked about it...Not sure if it was something I should've kept my mouth shut about, but for some reason, I have a feeling starting a rumor like that is not a good idea. :S
Anyways, best idea would've been to PM him, I guess, Gna.
0
You can if you hold shift.
0
Load the campaign dependencies this way:
Don't load Liberty Story (Mod), that will override the MP unit stats with the SP ones. This way, you can have the MP Dependency but also easily add units based on Campaign ones, like the Scourge, Diamondback and Spectre. Problem here is that when the game is updated, the new balance changes will not reflect on your mod/map. For that, you'd have to load Liberty Multi (Mod), but that overrides the Campaign units completely for some reason...
Though yes, the way you did it is perhaps the best way to facilitate editing the mod when the game is updated.
0
I guess this "bug" is due to the editor making the geyser invisible when you want to place a refinery over it so that it doesn't look odd, just like how the geyser is removed in-game (though it has an animation in-game) when you build a refinery on top of it. What's really strange is it happened when I wasn't placing the refinery on top, just put the cursor over the geyser.
0
Just noticed this weird bug...I opened a custom map (Midnight action, it's in the maps section here), and selected the armory building. I put my cursor over a geyser, with the armory appearing in red because I can't place it. Then I went and selected the assimilator and placed my cursor on top of the same geyser...It disappeared, though the editor still reads the geyser as being there.
Strange bug...Has anyone else had this happen?
0
I still have the old beta files before the 2nd beta launched, which has the Albion and Helios tilesets. Where are they inside the files? I could extract them and you could make maps with them if you'd like.
0
@AlexO6: Go
Managed to make it work on maps, but it won't work with mods...Strangely. Anyone can offer insight? Dependancy for campaign still needs to be loaded, though...
EDIT: Turns out there's a bug that makes the data editor not load the new dependancy if you do not open it before adding the dependancy!
EDIT 2: It seems when I reload the map, gone is everything that is from the campaign. The editor has problems reloading both dependancies. Maybe when opening a map it checks for one specific dependancy (campaign or multi), and if it finds both, will only load the default (multi), but not when you add it the first time? Or maybe this is part of some sort of protection against stealing mods?
0
You could try looking at the Loki's lift-off ability, its ability can be used even after first lifting the unit off, and it slowly levitates the unit a bit everytime it is used. Maybe that could help you...
0
Hi, I want to add a campaign unit into a map's multiplayer. I've seen that the edited Lost Temple phantom map has the Scout from SP, yet it seems I can't figure out how to copy an SP unit completely into MP without keeping the Campaign dependancy loaded with the map. I don't want it to remain loaded, as I don't want the SP gameplay mode with all the Terran units and lack of in-game upgrades. I also don't want to keep multiple dependancies (MP and SP), as it will mess up the map and sometimes the editor only loads the MP stuff when re-opening the map.
Is there any way to do this or do I have to make the unit from scratch? I tried even copying the unit, but all it does is make a unit that can't be placed in the editor, and it lacks tons of other features (upgrades, effects, etc.). Do I have to start with those then copy the unit, etc?
What is the fastest way to do this?
0
@Wizaerd69: Go
If you have it replace the original map in the SC2 files, then yes, but it will be incompatible with BattleNet, you'll have to play it offline. Alternatively you could make a mod.
0
OOoh, mind releasing the other unused tilesets, like Helios? :O
0
@RileyStarcraft: Go
If I want to say, use the spectre model, I can just take the actors and art from the campaign unit. But either this will take a long time or I will have to do it from scratch which also takes time. So the campaign unit models will be hard to use in mods and maps, only the stuff that's already in multiplayer will be easy to copy. That's what I meant. I want to make a mod that uses some of the campaign stuff but to do so I have to remake some of the code from scratch or copy it piece by piece.
As for dependencies being different, they could have always cloned a unit and made it SP only if they wanted maybe a different Hellion for campaign or still let us access the campaign stuff even while in MP mode in the editor, but not have it load up in the dependency (like you can search for say, an ability that's only in the campaign, like life steal, but it isn't in the multiplayer map unless you copy it entirely).
And it's usually best to start with the multiplayer dependency for custom maps meant to be played in multiplayer... Anyways, it's true that I'm not very experienced with the editor. I can work with triggers easily and copy units and change some of their stats and abilities, but to a limit. I'm still learning, but some things are longer to do than they used to be with the WC3 editor. Though yes I admit it has many new great features, but I still have to learn to use those.
0
I don't think you understand. I didn't say remake the editor or make a new one, all it would have required is some small features here and there and perhaps even a tutorial (those will come anyways eventually, whether they're made by Blizzard or not). I don't have a level of dis-interest, I just want to manage my time properly. If I can do something in 20 hours or in 4 hours, I'll choose to do it in 4 hours. (Considering that the result is the same, in the context of using this editor, not talking about cleaning up a mess and botching it, or other situations, don't take it out of context...) Instead of having different dependencies, why not make it all into 1 (or at least be able to open other dependencies or mods to copy some of what they have inside. And no, it wouldn't allow for stealing necessarily, as people can easily lock mods like they do with maps. And even without this feature people would still be able to copy or steal mods.), like with WC3 and its expansion? Why not be able to copy entire units and their attachments or export them like in WC3? Now you have to load a map with the campaign dependency, copy one thing from a unit, move over to the melee dependency or your own, copy that unit's, say, effect, then do the same for every upgrade, model, effect, weapon, etc. It's not an efficient use of time available. I never said sacrifice some great feature so that the editor is easier for n00bs, but rather, add a few small features here and there to make the editor more time-efficient.
Some great mappers made great, original and interesting maps in WC3, yet you would say that the editor is too n00b friendly. Same with SC, no?
Also, I'm not talking about map and gameplay, but rather modding and being able to make new units by copying existing ones and editing some things, just to at least be able to test some new feature or something.
0
@RileyStarcraft: Go
Actually, they could've made the editor in both advanced and standard modes. Advanced mode would be like now and standard would be closer to WC3 TFT's editor, but it would lack some of the freedom of the advanced mode. That could've made things easier.
Some features are there in a certain way, but they could always work to make them easier to use. (In example, you can always have a raw data editor, but if you add tooltips, sections, etc., it becomes easier to use it and learn from it than if you were on a text editor like notepad.) In that sense, being complicated is not absolutely the correct expression, it's rather "less user-friendly" that would fit. I picked up the WC3 FT editor and made a small mod quick and painlessly on it, but with SC2, it's not as easy to understand what to do.
0
Did the guy really steal your map or was it that he just wanted to play it online or distribute it, so he published it on his BNET account? Because hosting a map in stead of its creator on BNET doesn't seem like much of an issue. But then if he did that wouldn't your name still appear on the map list? If it doesn't, then it might be an oversight on Blizzard's part when they made this map publishing system.
And guys, please, try not to jump the gun and judge the poor guy and insult him.
"Hey I got hit by a car" "You're an idiot then! Why didn't you watch the road?" "I did, you retard, but I couldn't expect a guy's car to have an issue and start rolling, dumbass" "oh take some responsibility"
This is the kind of issue I'm talking about. You don't know exactly what happened, stop assuming that the other guy is immediately an idiot or whatever, and don't let anger get the best of you.
BTW, Galois, I agree that just running here for help and asking US to do something is not necessarily going to help you. I guess if you had asked nicely for help ("Hey, can someone help me figure out what to do, please?"), it wouldn't have angered some people here.
I myself at one point submitted a mod in the Maps section and it was removed for a reason that wasn't logical (I had no image to show, but it was a mod and the project was in planning stages), so instead of insulting the guy who deleted it and getting angry, I assumed I must've done something wrong or didn't correctly understand something (or possibly the guy who deleted it), so I asked nicely on the report if what I did was ok and explained this situation and asked what I could do instead. I was told to post it in the assets section and it was all fine and dandy afterwards. Now had I incorrectly reacted to this and said something like "why the f did you m's delete this for this reason? It makes no f-ing sense!", that, would've not been helpful at all and may have ruined someone's mood. Both I and the moderator would be in a bad mood and both of us would gain nothing. Rather than assuming the other is clueless about everything, try and see what went wrong. Did you do something wrong? Or did he do something wrong? Two people don't see things or understand them the same way, nor do they think the same way.