|
Sweden33719 Posts
NOTE: This is for MELEE play primarily, that is, I want these features to be possible even in a non UMS map.
To start you off, here's a quote by Kwark from a thread on a similiar topic:
On April 30 2008 11:46 Kwark wrote: I think it's fair to say that if you can imagine it, it ought to be in the map editor. Simply because that way the map makers have as much potential as possible. Take Troy, it's basically your standard bridge map. You can damage a building which makes the route harder to cross, and then uncrossable. By intelligent use of what they have they have created an awesome map. Or Demon's Forest, the idea behind it was that you had no vision in the middle. The map sucked but that was only because the editor could not create the concept without also creating pathing issues. If he'd been able to put a localised eclipse across the middle we'd all be happy and you'd have a good map. Realism is unrelated to any question because gameplay always trumps it in any debate. It all depends on if the mapmakers can get it to work. Early bw mapmakers had no clue (blade storm excluded) and it took a while for people to work out what made a good map. I expect the same in SC2. Basically, we have no idea what a good SC2 map will look like so the idea that we can rule stuff out is silly. We should give mapmakers as many options as we can and just trial and improvement it.
Night/Day It has been discussed a few times and everytime there are some (in fact, I may have been one of them in the past) saying "ok, but only as aesthetics".
Now I have to ask myself - why only as aesthetics? It would be an optional feature in the map editor, if it's not good, you don't use it in serious maps. Some people have brought up how it's harder to see things (as a player) during the night, but I'm not sure I think this would be an issue.
First of all, I've never had trouble with visibility during night time in WC3, and secondly - how exactly is it different from the difference between a Jungle and a Twilight map in SC?
So, I propose Day/Night should be an option for maps - permanent night/day, maybe being able to set your own day/night length.
Terrain properties Many silly suggestions about giant sandworms eating marines on desert maps have been made - I'm here to propose nothing of the sort.
Instead of random events I'm thinking of something along the lines of: * Dust/Snow/Sand/Ash-storms/Fog - limiting the vision radius of any unit within them. This would have no impairing effects on visibility. Let me elaborate; you know how a fog looks really thick from a distance but as you enter it you can still see around you a fair bit?
Basically, under the "fog of war" the sandstorm would be "visible", but as your units enter they wouldn't be covered in sand (although corpses of dead units could perhaps get buried in sand), they would simply have a slightly smaller field of view.
It could also work similiarly to the already introduced concept of High Grass (where no units outside the High Grass can see into it)
* Swamps/Quicksand/etc Self-explanatory I would think - an area with reduced movement speed. It could make a short physical distances much longer (maybe you could customize the exact speed reduction), and would be an interesting feature I think.
* Cover I am not sure about this one.. It's not an idea alien to SC in any way, as trees (and other vegetation) in SC work in a similiar fashion, where a unit behind a tree has a 30% chance of not being hit by enemy ranged attacks. Perhaps simply changing the 70% to hit into to 70% damage.
Xel'Naga Neutral Buildings and other Doodads I feel there's a lot of room for more of things here than they've introduced so far.. To recap we have: * Xel'Naga Watch-Towers - Provides vision in an area to the controlling player.
* Rock Barricades - Basically the same thing we use Neutral Buildings for in SC maps.
Ok, that's good but I would like to see more options, how about:
* Xel'Naga force field - Unpassable force field that can only be de-activated by the player controlling the on/off mechanism (which would be located wherever the map creator chooses, from near to far, you could even have more than 1 switch if you want). This would provide an interesting twist to the traditional blockades.
* Xel'Naga Warp Gate -
These things in melee maps (as destructible or indestructible, on the map makers discretion) would create some interesting Island map hybrids.. The WC3 map Centaur Groove had Warp Gates which could teleport you across the map, I always liked that feature (it was a really cool map actually, with a lot of unique strategies due to the unusual Merc camps).
* Destructible/Switchable Bridges/Paths - as suggested by many people. Being able to destroy or switch up/down bridges/paths, sort of like how the map Troy works in SC (although that requires some very fancy map editing).
* Xel'Naga Palantirs - I think this is what they were called in LotR.. Granted, I haven't read the books for almost a decade but I read them all 7 times each before that so I feel like I should remember.. Hopefully the swedish version used the word without translation. Anyhow, in LotR the Palantirs were basically globes you could look into and see the surroundings of the other Palantirs.. Like medieval video phones So it would basically be like the already existing Xel'Naga Watch Towers except they would give vision of an area somewhere else, not where you are.
Last of all, the most controversial suggestion - in fact it's more of a thought than a suggestion at this point: * Xel'Naga Upgrade Facility WC3 had Merc camps, and some people were hoping they'd be in SC2 as well.. Well, there's a problem with this - how the hell do you justify a Zerg mercenary ? In WC3, with its myriad races and fantasy setting, merc camps work. In SC2, not so much.
However, what about Xel'Naga facilities that offer upgrades to your already existing units (or items, although that would be dependant on units having an inventory even in melee)? Now, I know many are against veterancy and would feel this to be too similiar to that, but hear me out.
I'm not proposing an upgrade in manner of a Forge or Engineering Bay Upgrade, but rather something like Muta -> Guardian, or Hydra -> Lurker. Basically, a change of purpose for a price - the unit doesn't become better or worse, just different.
Here are some more ideas posted on Blizzforums: http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?t=22556
|
Imo, Its called Starcraft for a reason.. Not WC4 -.-'
|
Thats all possible in WC3 editor, so no reason why it shouldn't be possible in SC2 editor!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
IMO, give reasons for why you shouldn't give as many possibilities to map makers as humanly possible or go away -.-'
|
On February 05 2009 06:30 JinSin wrote: Imo, Its called Starcraft for a reason.. Not WC4 -.-'
Imo, Its called Starcraft 2 for a reason.. Not SC:BW. -.-'
|
how about the option of wrapping maps for those Diplo or Civilization style ums maps? Then you can go around the world~
|
We owe 50% of the success of BW as an e-sport to the Kespa Map Makers. It is the, who keep the three races balanced and the game interesting after Blizz stopped patching. Too few terrans? Ok next league will have more terran favoring maps. Balancing through community maps is much faster/efficient/interesting than balancing through official patches.
That said, the more tools Blizzard adds to help map makers to assist in balancing games and leagues are only good. And Blizzard should invest heavily on that side IMHO. Day/Night affecting balance, slowing terrain, Troy-ish gates etc. Those are all great. I like all of FA's suggestions.
What I would also like to see was something specific to help make air units more powerful and something else specific to make them weaker. For example: - some thunderstorm that damages air units on an area, but not ground units. So these could be used on maps that, for example, mutalisk harass is too powerful on specific expansions. - deep clouds that hides air units or makes them survive better inside those. Those could be used to incentive dropship play or air harass on maps that those strats aren't used often.
I think that ideally we should have map artifacts that help and others that nerfs each type of unit. So if anything is deemed op in a specific map. The map maker can quickly fix it by adding specific stuff to change that.
|
On February 05 2009 06:32 SlickR12345 wrote: Thats all possible in WC3 editor, so no reason why it shouldn't be possible in SC2 editor! It's about melee.
I totally support this thread, obviously :3
|
Blizzard give the tools, as many as they can, we make them useful, im all for any new feature to please map maker community
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 05 2009 06:42 VIB wrote: We owe 50% of the success of BW as an e-sport to the Kespa Map Makers. It is the, who keep the three races balanced and the game interesting after Blizz stopped patching. Too few terrans? Ok next league will have more terran favoring maps. Balancing through community maps is much faster/efficient/interesting than balancing through official patches.
That said, the more tools Blizzard adds to help map makers to assist in balancing games and leagues are only good. And Blizzard should invest heavily on that side IMHO. Day/Night affecting balance, slowing terrain, Troy-ish gates etc. Those are all great. I like all of FA's suggestions.
What I would also like to see was something specific to help make air units more powerful and something else specific to make them weaker. For example: - some thunderstorm that damages air units on an area, but not ground units. So these could be used on maps that, for example, mutalisk harass is too powerful on specific expansions. - deep clouds that hides air units or makes them survive better inside those. Those could be used to incentive dropship play or air harass on maps that those strats aren't used often.
I think that ideally we should have map artifacts that help and others that nerfs each type of unit. So if anything is deemed op in a specific map. The map maker can quickly fix it by adding specific stuff to change that. Instead of damage, how about: * Thunderstorms - Movement speed and/or Visual Radius reduced.
* Deep Clouds - like High Grass but for Air Units? I'm not sure how you'd implement it over land tho, but fairly easy to do over water/space..
Hm. I guess you could have clouds work like a sandstorm (ie visible under fog of war, not visible while you are in it.. but since only air units would get an advantage from it, it might get confusing - ie air units can "hide in it" so ground units need a lowered sight range.. but only vs Air units).
Ok how about this; Air Units can become invisible while standing still inside a cloud..? It would sort of be like how attacking over a cliff with air units works now (ie you can't target carriers without vision up the cliff, you only see their interceptors, mutas are only visible temporarily as they dart back and forth).
|
Calgary25939 Posts
If you can think it, it should be in the game. If you can't think it, tools to develop these ideals after release should be in the game.
Edit: Everything should be variable. Mineral size. Mineral return rate. Number of workers allowed per mineral. Automatic mineral depletion rate. Minerals taken per peon trip. Mineral regeration rate.
Now take that amount of properties and apply it to every piece of terrain in the game.
|
On February 05 2009 06:42 VIB wrote: What I would also like to see was something specific to help make air units more powerful and something else specific to make them weaker. Different stuff for air units is especially important, in my opinion. Not only it could help balancing island / semi-island maps, which add really good diversity to the map pool, but it will also make them much more entertaining and interesting.
|
On February 05 2009 07:15 Chill wrote: If you can think it, it should be in the game. If you can't think it, tools to develop these ideals after release should be in the game.
Edit: Everything should be variable. Mineral size. Mineral return rate. Number of workers allowed per mineral. Automatic mineral depletion rate. Minerals taken per peon trip. Mineral regeration rate.
Now take that amount of properties and apply it to every piece of terrain in the game. I completely agree with this, it doesn't matter whether or not it will actually be used in melee maps. Everything should be there so if a thousand mapmakers find no use for something then even one person can stumble upon an innovation.
|
On February 05 2009 07:15 Chill wrote: If you can think it, it should be in the game. If you can't think it, tools to develop these ideals after release should be in the game.
Edit: Everything should be variable. Mineral size. Mineral return rate. Number of workers allowed per mineral. Automatic mineral depletion rate. Minerals taken per peon trip. Mineral regeration rate.
Now take that amount of properties and apply it to every piece of terrain in the game.
Yes, the editor can. Well, at least thats the standard answer from the devs. Judging from the WC3 editor and how much they say it improved, you can edit everything. If the editor doesn't allow you to change it as a variable, you just write a trigger for it.
Or do you mean for melee play? As soon as you change anything like that in the WC3 editor, its a UMS.
On February 05 2009 06:21 FrozenArbiter wrote: * Xel'Naga force field - Unpassable force field that can only be de-activated by the player controlling the on/off mechanism (which would be located wherever the map creator chooses, from near to far, you could even have more than 1 switch if you want). This would provide an interesting twist to the traditional blockades.
I would really love this one. It offers many great possibilities for map making.
How do you activate the switch? I am thinking of two possibilities: -Send any unit near it and 'use it' by selecting it and using the switches ability of turn field on/off. -Make a worker use it, which will take a few seconds
|
We're talking about melee here. If Blizz only uses official maps for ladder, and on melee mode, then the changes need to be applicable to the melee map, not just ums.
We're not talking about changing SC2 into DotA, we're talking about adding as much diversity and options to melee SC2 mapmaking as possible.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Yeah, I noticed Santrega had posted a really similiar idea in their thread too, in fact I might have seen his before I wrote mine - I'm not really sure. (the Force Field bit)
And yes, I mean all of this for melee - I was never really sure when people said "The WC3 editor can do that already" if they meant for Melee or UMS
|
On February 05 2009 06:21 FrozenArbiter wrote: To start you off, here's a quote by Kwark from a thread on a similiar topic:
Night/Day It has been discussed a few times and everytime there are some (in fact, I may have been one of them in the past) saying "ok, but only as aesthetics".
Now I have to ask myself - why only as aesthetics? It would be an optional feature in the map editor, if it's not good, you don't use it in serious maps. Some people have brought up how it's harder to see things (as a player) during the night, but I'm not sure I think this would be an issue.
First of all, I've never had trouble with visibility during night time in WC3, and secondly - how exactly is it different from the difference between a Jungle and a Twilight map in SC?
Because it alters sight ranges, maybe? It's not a huge deal, but some gamers will hate that kind of thing.
So, I propose Day/Night should be an option for maps - permanent night/day, maybe being able to set your own day/night length.
Having said that, I would definitely like a day/night option. (In fact, we've seen this from screenshots.) You can alter time in Warcraft III with triggers, so this ability will probably be available in StarCraft II.
In the Fury of the Xel'Naga cinematic, the sun rises over Shakuras, so I'd expect to see a "daylight" twilight map.
Terrain properties Many silly suggestions about giant sandworms eating marines on desert maps have been made - I'm here to propose nothing of the sort.
What was so silly about that? (Well, okay, maybe campaign only.)
]* Cover I am not sure about this one.. It's not an idea alien to SC in any way, as trees (and other vegetation) in SC work in a similiar fashion, where a unit behind a tree has a 30% chance of not being hit by enemy ranged attacks. Perhaps simply changing the 70% to hit into to 70% damage.
I think something like this would be great for installation maps. To get people to use this, however, I think
1) It should be clear which units are under cover and which aren't. 2) It should be clear it's working. (If a dragoon shoots at a unit under cover, and it misses, you'll see the energy ball actually miss. However, for nearly any other unit, it looks just like it hit, and you'll only notice the miss if you click on the "wounded" unit and notice it has taken no damage or less-than-expected damage over time.) 3) In Warcraft III, if a ranged unit misses, the miss! sign pops up over its head. IMO that's backwards. The miss! sign should appear over the unit that gained cover. (Maybe the sign would need to say something else.)
* Xel'Naga force field - Unpassable force field that can only be de-activated by the player controlling the on/off mechanism (which would be located wherever the map creator chooses, from near to far, you could even have more than 1 switch if you want). This would provide an interesting twist to the traditional blockades.
Last of all, the most controversial suggestion - in fact it's more of a thought than a suggestion at this point: * Xel'Naga Upgrade Facility WC3 had Merc camps, and some people were hoping they'd be in SC2 as well.. Well, there's a problem with this - how the hell do you justify a Zerg mercenary ? In WC3, with its myriad races and fantasy setting, merc camps work. In SC2, not so much. However, what about Xel'Naga facilities that offer upgrades to your already existing units (or items, although that would be dependant on units having an inventory even in melee)? Now, I know many are against veterancy and would feel this to be too similiar to that, but hear me out.
These need to make sense from a lore perspective. I'm not sure if these actually do this. (Anything involved with xel'naga needs detailed lore. Can't wait to see the lore behind the watch towers.) For instance, while the xel'naga may have been great biologists, breeds like the lurker have only existed in the last four or five years.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Because it alters sight ranges, maybe? It's not a huge deal, but some gamers will hate that kind of thing. Yes, then you don't play on night maps if you don't like it ? It's like saying "omg ban BGH". Pff.
These need to make sense from a lore perspective. I'm not sure if these actually do this. (Anything involved with xel'naga needs detailed lore. Can't wait to see the lore behind the watch towers.) For instance, while the xel'naga may have been great biologists, breeds like the lurker have only existed in the last four or five years. Ah but I didn't mean lurkers specifically. It would be really easy to write up some fluff for it; crystal energies causing mutations, abandoned Xel'Naga laboratories.. The shields are really easy to explain as well, honestly any crystal mumbo jumbo will do
|
I support all of these ideas. Give map editors the most tools you can. Most of these will not be used in competitive maps probably but that will be because the maker CHOSE not to use them.
More options cannot hurt the game, they can only improve, because if it hurts, then that map won't be popular and the mapmaker will make it without it next time.
|
I don't see why you made this thread.
It's impossible to object to your suggestions because you'd go "well then you don't have to include it in your map."
The only thing preventing this from happening is development time. I'm sure Blizzard would prioritize other things over making a ton shiny effects on the map editor.
|
|
|
|