Why is no one talking about this, especially here! In WC3 they were 7mb per map.
Now they are 10mb per map, 20mb TOTAL (for all your maps), with a 5 map limit. What is this 1998!? nearly all ambitious projects are made impossible by this, unless you decide to make your map "premium"... Maybe there will be a microtransaction system to increase your map size? Because right now...
This is shooting all serious mapmakers in the foot AND groin... Maybe worst of all is the popularity system, making new maps impossible to find, rewarding people who made the first maps. Newer maps won't ever gain traction, and thus less people will be motivated to make new maps, etc. etc.
Now they are 10mb per map, 20mb TOTAL (for all your maps), with a 5 map limit. What is this 1998!? nearly all ambitious projects are made impossible by this, unless you fork over $79.99 to make your map "premium"...
What exactly are you talking about? I've heard the rumours about the whole map market thing but so far have not seen any definitive info. Even with the game out, I can't find anything about maps that cost money anywhere yet.
My brother and I are working on a remake of Culdcept (monopoly meets a trading card game).
The custom picture that is on each card takes up about 60kb. That means, including the terrain, we can only make about 120 or so unique cards. The real game has about 500. And that is the absolute maximum possible size. If we wanted to throw in custom music, 500 cards with unique pictures, unique models.... We could easily, easily easily hit 20mb on this one map.
Lets say blizzard let everyone publish up to 50 mb instead of 20, and they had no map restrictions.... or even if they had no map restrictions on 1 map per account, so that if you wanted you could publish the full 50mb in one map... would that hurt them so badly?
The only big problem I see is loading time. Loading a map with 50mb of terrain data could take a good 10 minutes.
Well, in a way, the limits make sense - now that you upload your maps directly to Blizz' servers to play, they need SOME sort of limit or they're going to get flooded with horrible maps that no one ever plays.
Still, I'm... really unsure as to where this is going. I definitely still want to make my awesome 2-player co-op campaign, but I'm not sure whether I should make it premium, how to share the fees with my partners, or whether I can somehow keep it below the limit as non-premium... Lots of questions there.
They also removed most unused assets (Reaver, Dragoon, Predator (the air unit), etc.), (they literally threw all that work out the window!) and made it so that it is really long and hard to try and copy a unit from campaign (say, the Spectre) into a multiplayer mod. They really are shooting us modders and mapmakers in the foot. It's as if they said "there you go, you can do all this stuff with the editor, but we still want you to make maps like you did with SC1; no custom art and no campaign stuff in multi."
They also removed most unused assets (Reaver, Dragoon, Predator (the air unit), etc.), (they literally threw all that work out the window!) and made it so that it is really long and hard to try and copy a unit from campaign (say, the Spectre) into a multiplayer mod. They really are shooting us modders and mapmakers in the foot. It's as if they said "there you go, you can do all this stuff with the editor, but we still want you to make maps like you did with SC1; no custom art and no campaign stuff in multi."
Ughhh, it's frustrating. >_<
We'll be getting an updated mod for those units in the near future, from what i'm told.
They also removed most unused assets (Reaver, Dragoon, Predator (the air unit), etc.), (they literally threw all that work out the window!) and made it so that it is really long and hard to try and copy a unit from campaign (say, the Spectre) into a multiplayer mod. They really are shooting us modders and mapmakers in the foot. It's as if they said "there you go, you can do all this stuff with the editor, but we still want you to make maps like you did with SC1; no custom art and no campaign stuff in multi."
Jesus christ calm down and stop with the "Blizzard made everything deliberately hard and removed units out of spite!" shit. There are no reaver and dragoon models because they were cut when the models were still placeholders. There are plenty of models in the data files that aren't used in the game but were left in for custom maps to use. And using campaign units in a custom map is fucking trivial and if you can't figure out how to do it maybe mapmaking isn't for you (hint: there's about 30 threads on this very forum on how to do it.)
Jesus christ calm down and stop with the "Blizzard made everything deliberately hard and removed units out of spite!" shit. There are no reaver and dragoon models because they were cut when the models were still placeholders. There are plenty of models in the data files that aren't used in the game but were left in for custom maps to use. And using campaign units in a custom map is fucking trivial and if you can't figure out how to do it maybe mapmaking isn't for you.
Woah, I think you should calm down, buddy.
The thing is this editor is much more complicated in some places than WC3's for absolutely no reason. Whereas in WC3 I could copy a campaign unit, now I need to copy every little bit of the campaign unit and its attachments (models, actors, weapon, upgrades, effects, etc.) and everytime I do that, I have to change the dependencies or switch in between maps. And they weren't "placeholders", they were complete models for complete units. These units were just scrapped from MP and SP probably due to balance issues and because they couldn't fit them all in the campaign. However, it's still quite a shame that they made those models (and probably portraits), only to completely get rid of them, when they could've released them within the game's files and let us use them creatively. All this would seem deliberate on Blizzard's part to encourage people to make their own stuff rather than just copy + paste their work. In that case, I don't understand why copy + paste is so frowned upon, it's not necessarily a bad thing, you can learn that way and sometimes it just speeds things up.
I wasn't whining (well, it was more of me expressing my annoyance and lack of understanding at this decision with the editor) nor assaulting, nor insulting anyone, hey, don't get all worked up.
And besides, the editor shouldn't be hard to use. Mods shouldn't purposely be hard to make to assure that only some type of people make mods rather than others. When you said that it wasn't for me, you almost came off as elitist...And if anything, elitism should be buried. If I want to mod (and I want to), I will, whether I'm some great modder or not, even if you don't necessarily agree that it is a good idea.
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.
I don't see why people complain about the size limit. The popularity system does not allow you to play your map. So, there's no point in making maps. Since no one will make them, 20 mb is enough. No. 0 mb is enough.
Blizzard + Activision = 20 mb limit.
Blizzard + Google = new google gmaps. 1 gb limit. (Maps come with an insight statistic that shows where the maps are being played, how noob the players are, average time they spend on game, average number of players per match, personal comments, players' rating, average score screen, and list of last 10 replays).
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.
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.
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.
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.
The more you talk the more I think you've never actually opened the SC2 editor, particularly the fact that you think it takes more than a few seconds to duplicate a unit. Multiplayer and campaign are different dependencies because they forked the two and some units have different stats in single-player or multiplayer.
All this shit about dependencies literally does not come up when making custom maps, so I have no idea what you're talking about. A quote like "ow 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." does not make any sense whatsoever and makes me think you have not actually done any editor work yourself but just read a few forum posts by people having difficulties adding the campaign assets to their beta maps and misinterpreted what was going on.
I'm ragging on you because a) you appear to have very little experience with the editor yet b) you claim to be able to speak to its flaws and shortcomings. Until you have enough experience to at least understand how things work it's silly of you to comment on whether or not their design decisions were good ones. "It's too complicated for people who aren't willing to learn it" is only a valid criticism if a stated goal of the editor was to be extremely accessible to newbies, and I don't recall them ever making that statement.
I really don't understand the people who disagree that the current system is retarded. Whats the point of defending it when over 90% (teamliquid poll) of the sc2 players does not like the way it's heading.
I agree with theuprising, I hate this system and all the rules it has. From the looks of it now, I'm heading back to wc3.
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.
There is precedent for having various modes corresponding to different experience levels with a piece of software. It really is not tantamount to making a separate piece of software. It usually involves hiding features and menus, and where necessary providing defaults for those features that could otherwise be fine-tuned.
You can call it making an "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."
Alternatively, you can realize that the first bunch of maps made by someone new to the process probably will be shitty, and should be simpler than a highly customized map with it's own unique gameplay.
Softening the learning curve is a good thing, and will lead to better mappers and better custom maps.
Nog
P.S. disclosure: I have yet to play SC2, so I can't speak to whether expertise levels would actually make sense in the map editor specifically. Just that the idea has been used to good effect in the past.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why is no one talking about this, especially here! In WC3 they were 7mb per map.
Now they are 10mb per map, 20mb TOTAL (for all your maps), with a 5 map limit. What is this 1998!? nearly all ambitious projects are made impossible by this, unless you decide to make your map "premium"... Maybe there will be a microtransaction system to increase your map size? Because right now...
This is shooting all serious mapmakers in the foot AND groin... Maybe worst of all is the popularity system, making new maps impossible to find, rewarding people who made the first maps. Newer maps won't ever gain traction, and thus less people will be motivated to make new maps, etc. etc.
What exactly are you talking about? I've heard the rumours about the whole map market thing but so far have not seen any definitive info. Even with the game out, I can't find anything about maps that cost money anywhere yet.
I read somewhere it would cost $79.99 to increase your map size, maybe on team liquid. K I'll edit it out I guess.
My brother and I are working on a remake of Culdcept (monopoly meets a trading card game).
The custom picture that is on each card takes up about 60kb. That means, including the terrain, we can only make about 120 or so unique cards. The real game has about 500. And that is the absolute maximum possible size. If we wanted to throw in custom music, 500 cards with unique pictures, unique models.... We could easily, easily easily hit 20mb on this one map.
Lets say blizzard let everyone publish up to 50 mb instead of 20, and they had no map restrictions.... or even if they had no map restrictions on 1 map per account, so that if you wanted you could publish the full 50mb in one map... would that hurt them so badly?
The only big problem I see is loading time. Loading a map with 50mb of terrain data could take a good 10 minutes.
@SquarelyCircle: Go
Well, in a way, the limits make sense - now that you upload your maps directly to Blizz' servers to play, they need SOME sort of limit or they're going to get flooded with horrible maps that no one ever plays.
Still, I'm... really unsure as to where this is going. I definitely still want to make my awesome 2-player co-op campaign, but I'm not sure whether I should make it premium, how to share the fees with my partners, or whether I can somehow keep it below the limit as non-premium... Lots of questions there.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThey also removed most unused assets (Reaver, Dragoon, Predator (the air unit), etc.), (they literally threw all that work out the window!) and made it so that it is really long and hard to try and copy a unit from campaign (say, the Spectre) into a multiplayer mod. They really are shooting us modders and mapmakers in the foot. It's as if they said "there you go, you can do all this stuff with the editor, but we still want you to make maps like you did with SC1; no custom art and no campaign stuff in multi."
Ughhh, it's frustrating. >_<
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorsWe'll be getting an updated mod for those units in the near future, from what i'm told.
Jesus christ calm down and stop with the "Blizzard made everything deliberately hard and removed units out of spite!" shit. There are no reaver and dragoon models because they were cut when the models were still placeholders. There are plenty of models in the data files that aren't used in the game but were left in for custom maps to use. And using campaign units in a custom map is fucking trivial and if you can't figure out how to do it maybe mapmaking isn't for you (hint: there's about 30 threads on this very forum on how to do it.)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWhere'd you hear that? Will this be Blizzard's making or someone else's?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWoah, I think you should calm down, buddy. The thing is this editor is much more complicated in some places than WC3's for absolutely no reason. Whereas in WC3 I could copy a campaign unit, now I need to copy every little bit of the campaign unit and its attachments (models, actors, weapon, upgrades, effects, etc.) and everytime I do that, I have to change the dependencies or switch in between maps. And they weren't "placeholders", they were complete models for complete units. These units were just scrapped from MP and SP probably due to balance issues and because they couldn't fit them all in the campaign. However, it's still quite a shame that they made those models (and probably portraits), only to completely get rid of them, when they could've released them within the game's files and let us use them creatively. All this would seem deliberate on Blizzard's part to encourage people to make their own stuff rather than just copy + paste their work. In that case, I don't understand why copy + paste is so frowned upon, it's not necessarily a bad thing, you can learn that way and sometimes it just speeds things up.
I wasn't whining (well, it was more of me expressing my annoyance and lack of understanding at this decision with the editor) nor assaulting, nor insulting anyone, hey, don't get all worked up.
And besides, the editor shouldn't be hard to use. Mods shouldn't purposely be hard to make to assure that only some type of people make mods rather than others. When you said that it wasn't for me, you almost came off as elitist...And if anything, elitism should be buried. If I want to mod (and I want to), I will, whether I'm some great modder or not, even if you don't necessarily agree that it is a good idea.
If you think there's no reason why the editor is more complicated than WC3's you really do not know what you're talking about.
N3RDRAAAAAAAAAGE
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium@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.
I don't see why people complain about the size limit. The popularity system does not allow you to play your map. So, there's no point in making maps. Since no one will make them, 20 mb is enough. No. 0 mb is enough.
Blizzard + Activision = 20 mb limit.
Blizzard + Google = new google gmaps. 1 gb limit. (Maps come with an insight statistic that shows where the maps are being played, how noob the players are, average time they spend on game, average number of players per match, personal comments, players' rating, average score screen, and list of last 10 replays).
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.
If you want a real list of stuff the editor needs here's a good place to start: http://forums.sc2mapster.com/mapping-utilities/editor-bugs-and-feedback/5279-what-to-change-in-the-galaxy-editor/?page=3#p41
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI 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.
The more you talk the more I think you've never actually opened the SC2 editor, particularly the fact that you think it takes more than a few seconds to duplicate a unit. Multiplayer and campaign are different dependencies because they forked the two and some units have different stats in single-player or multiplayer.
All this shit about dependencies literally does not come up when making custom maps, so I have no idea what you're talking about. A quote like "ow 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." does not make any sense whatsoever and makes me think you have not actually done any editor work yourself but just read a few forum posts by people having difficulties adding the campaign assets to their beta maps and misinterpreted what was going on.
I'm ragging on you because a) you appear to have very little experience with the editor yet b) you claim to be able to speak to its flaws and shortcomings. Until you have enough experience to at least understand how things work it's silly of you to comment on whether or not their design decisions were good ones. "It's too complicated for people who aren't willing to learn it" is only a valid criticism if a stated goal of the editor was to be extremely accessible to newbies, and I don't recall them ever making that statement.
I really don't understand the people who disagree that the current system is retarded. Whats the point of defending it when over 90% (teamliquid poll) of the sc2 players does not like the way it's heading.
I agree with theuprising, I hate this system and all the rules it has. From the looks of it now, I'm heading back to wc3.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium@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.
There is precedent for having various modes corresponding to different experience levels with a piece of software. It really is not tantamount to making a separate piece of software. It usually involves hiding features and menus, and where necessary providing defaults for those features that could otherwise be fine-tuned.
You can call it making an "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." Alternatively, you can realize that the first bunch of maps made by someone new to the process probably will be shitty, and should be simpler than a highly customized map with it's own unique gameplay.
Softening the learning curve is a good thing, and will lead to better mappers and better custom maps.
Nog
P.S. disclosure: I have yet to play SC2, so I can't speak to whether expertise levels would actually make sense in the map editor specifically. Just that the idea has been used to good effect in the past.