EPT
Data Editor: Mod Examples - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Tsagacity
United States2124 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 28 2009 06:55 Pieguy314 wrote: zombie defense anyone??? I think it would be cool if there would be a number of ghosts running around the map (3rd person view) and they had to gang on an "uberlisk" and complete objectives to do it. So basically L4D in 3rd person. | ||
Xeofreestyler
Belgium6773 Posts
On August 23 2009 11:26 Shade692003 wrote: There you go guys. Someone. Managed. To whine. Nah that guy must be trolling. | ||
|
DeCoup
Australia1933 Posts
On August 28 2009 05:04 Badjas wrote: What a crappy argument for that. I respect that they can have reasons for Dota size/style/type/whatever maps not becoming premium games. But a whole bunch of coding in triggers, designing balance and testing, surely counts as original content to me. The reason DoTA does not count is that it does not have 'all original context', ie. It does not have its own models/textures and sounds. Look at the examples blizzard gave, Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat. They have all new graphics and sounds. Thats the only reason why DoTA would not qualify. There will be hundreds of good free UMS in SC2, because there are a lot of very talented people who have no animation skills who won't bother taking it that extra step (paying for models etc) for their games. | ||
|
dcttr66
United States555 Posts
On August 28 2009 04:39 zazen wrote: Who's up for starting a SC2 mapping website? I'm serious. TL absolutely rocks but it's no doubt a pro-gaming oriented website. We need a proper structure and a proper community devoted solely to the SC2 Galaxy Editor. I've been modding Blizzard games ever since War2 (yes, I modded even Diablo 2!) and it's always been what I like doing the most. I'm the kind of guy who gets just too pissed when I lose 1v1's (and I have no talent at all!) so map making has always been a "healthier" hobby for me hahaha yeah i'm all for it...i've been working on a few warcraft 3 maps for quite a while and have been in a couple or so war3 map making sites but after this latest blizz con news i'm totally so scarce at those websites compared to before... like everything about the war3 editor was totally weird to me like i didn't understand a lot of stuff even though i thought i understood, but when i hooked up with the websites that talked about the war3 editor everything changed... so to have a map making community for sc2 would be awesome and i would definitely want to be a part of it. for sure. i think anyone here wowed by that video presentation should be interested in checking into helping make a sc2 galaxy editor community...even if you don't wanna make a game, getting others who do want to make one know about the community will be fabulous for them. edit: but thinking about it, lazy me hopes blizzard will make a map making community unnecessary...but for sure i doubt that'll happen, haha. but it would be a nice surprise. On August 28 2009 05:03 Spartan wrote: http://staredit.net http://hiveworkshop.com (I know it's W3, but there's no doubt they'll move to SC2.) it's a good guess...but idk...maybe not? we'll see. they are one of the coolest sites around. hiveworkshop that is. staredit.net is sc right? i NEVER figured out sc editor so to hell with that site, lol. and another good one is... thehelper.net keep those in mind, guys...if no other super awesome site comes up, those will be good ones to go to most likely. so yeah...hiveworkshop and thehelper.net were awesome for wc3, so they might do the same for us in sc2... | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On August 28 2009 09:52 DeCoup wrote: The reason DoTA does not count is that it does not have 'all original context', ie. It does not have its own models/textures and sounds. Look at the examples blizzard gave, Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat. They have all new graphics and sounds. Thats the only reason why DoTA would not qualify. There will be hundreds of good free UMS in SC2, because there are a lot of very talented people who have no animation skills who won't bother taking it that extra step (paying for models etc) for their games. Lets say you put all this effort into making DOTA. Now why wouldnt you make it premium? Your going to pass on potentially hundreds or even thousands of dollars? | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 28 2009 11:54 Archerofaiur wrote: Lets say you put all this effort into making DOTA. Now why wouldnt you make it premium? Your going to pass on potentially hundreds or even thousands of dollars? As far as I know, that's not your choice. You can request to make your map premium, but the decision rests with Blizzard whether or not your map meets the criteria necessary to be deemed Premium. | ||
|
DeCoup
Australia1933 Posts
On August 28 2009 11:54 Archerofaiur wrote: Lets say you put all this effort into making DOTA. Now why wouldnt you make it premium? Your going to pass on potentially hundreds or even thousands of dollars? If you use your own graphics and music yes, thats fine. But DOTA does not have its own set of graphics and sound. Thats the point of what i'm saying. If you want to make money off maps in SC2 you have to spend the money (or have the skills) to create original content, or just upload it as a free UMS. Triggers/Code=UMS, Triggers/Code+Graphics+Sounds=Your choice of UMS or Premium. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On August 28 2009 12:39 TheYango wrote: As far as I know, that's not your choice. You can request to make your map premium, but the decision rests with Blizzard whether or not your map meets the criteria necessary to be deemed Premium. If its Blizzard that maintains quality control then I dont have any problem. What I was worried about was if any map maker can make his map premium then the temptation to profit from the map will result in very few free maps (cause a small number of people will buy it even if it sucks). | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
However, the the problem is: if its seen as a 'eligibility' thing, then why 'wouldn't' you make it pay-for? So, this might solve a short term problem, but instead compound the issue... Paradox. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 28 2009 13:02 Archerofaiur wrote: If its Blizzard that maintains quality control then I dont have any problem. What I was worried about was if any map maker can make his map premium then the temptation to profit from the map will result in very few free maps (cause a small number of people will buy it even if it sucks). Yeah, I'm pretty sure they aren't stupid enough to let that happen... | ||
|
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
On August 28 2009 06:55 Pieguy314 wrote: zombie defense anyone??? I think it would be cool if there would be a number of ghosts running around the map (3rd person view) and they had to gang on an "uberlisk" and complete objectives to do it. Ooooh and then someone could dungeon master the whole thing from a top view, setting off boulder traps, unleashing vampiric bats and causing lightning strikes. Hand out special spells for temporary usage to a player.. I foresee some cool maps for SC2. | ||
|
closed
Vatican City State491 Posts
| ||
|
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
Something along those lines. Hey, another reason to not allow lan play. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
| ||
|
DeCoup
Australia1933 Posts
On August 29 2009 00:44 Archerofaiur wrote: You got to wonder if they intend BNET 2.0 compete with steam. I mean a quick check shows that steam has 1740 games to download :p The only difference is that steam also sell games not made by them or on their engines. Eg, Oblivion. | ||
|
Polyphasic
United States841 Posts
if blizzard is really trying to get legit money to map makers with the pay-for-play, there better be some copyright map design, but you know how hard as hell that will be to implement, and furthermore that will just stifle community creativity because the best ideas come when lots of people work together, not when one person takes ownership and tries to do everything. the other option is that one group of people make a map that is just completely in the stratosphere and so good that other people can't copy it even if they wanted to. that is possible because there is going to be fanatics out there, and as soon as a map gets more players, the mapper decides to spend more time with it to make it even better. i think there should be two versions of a map. the run version and the build version. the run version, everyone can play. the build version, people can play, and they can open up in their map editors and see all the code and wheels and gears and what not. this means that for the run version, any player can see the dynamics and have ideas for how to improve it. but if they wanted to make a map too, they better be able to code it on their own, or else they will have to ask the mapper for the build version. when creating a map, at the start screen, there should be some fields designating who made the map, their contact, and importantly, their webpage for if a player wants to join the build team. this way, anyone can add design ideas to the map. anyone can make similar maps based on what they see on the run version. but to an extent, when the map becomes too complex, other mappers wont want to recode the whole thing, so there is a little bit of protection against massive amounts of copy cats. when the map gets more popularity and then gets designed to be more complicated, the only way to add on is by joining the build team. seems like a good balanced system that addresses all issues. - it lets everyone pool their creativity because anyone can play the run version - it lets any mapper compete with that map with their own map, so "natural selection" choose which map is the best, because anyone can make a map. in the early stages, the map will be easy to copy by another mapper by copying the ideas of the run version. - it still has some ownership - in other words, prevents other mappers from making the same map. when a map does well, it will become more complicated as the owner adds more material. as more material is added, other mappers wont want to copy the ideas of the run version anymore because there is too much stuff. then, instead of competing with the idea, other mappers will want to ask for the build version, so they can add to the momentum of that one map. * a simple tweek (run version and build version with contact page for each map), but it creates a perfect dynamic without too much micromanagement by blizzard over the community. disadvantages  - the sc and wc3 mod community has been strong because everything is open source, and it's so easy to learn just by opening up a map and tweeking it. that is how most people get into modding. making maps to an extent, closed-source hurts the modding community. sure, there will be tutorials and stuff, but it just aint the same. - solution: maker of the map can make the map either open source or closed source. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
| ||
|
dcttr66
United States555 Posts
and polyphasic, there's been a lot of talk about this sort of thing...and i'll give you my idea on how it would work best... every map anybody would make with the editor...while they're making the map, it has to be online, with battle.net...now when loading or saving the map, you have to enter the save and load passwords...you could maybe give friends the load password if you really trusted them or if they were helping you make the map but you'd keep the save password for yourself only most likely. and the vast public wouldn't be able to open your map. it would be like signing on with an account. it would be the perfect map protection. maybe i should submit the idea to the monthly Q&A...because i think it's a fabulous idea... I mean, it's logical and I don't see any flaws in it. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
| ||
