I mean, it'd be nice and all, but I've yet to see a quality map that even uses the 256*256 space. I think ZHRPG is the only one, and that's a guess.
I use 256x256 in Final Frontier and everything is about 5 times smaller than in real map (at start...), but I dont think anyone else using out 256x256. ( )
(ZHRPG could have smaller units)
@Reaper872: Go
Somebody should make a map like this:
(it wasnt lagging in w3, if nobody had big latency)
Ok Ok fine, screw it. I'll ask for something simpler and in a nicer way. Can we pretty please have a third person SC2 game where you can get in and out of ships, fight hydralisks, pilot a banshee from inside one, things like that would be great. I'm thinking something like a cross between Star Wars Battlefront and Eve Online.
It's called Starcraft Ghost, and it got cancelled.
I have no idea. I personally don't think Blizzard will completely abandon the concept, but I don't think we can expect to suddenly see a release within the year or such.
And pray tell, why can't we have some tweaks for custom games? Just for custom games. Ladder, I can see the latency being necessary, but custom games? Suppose there was an option permitting the mapmaker and/or the players to decide if they want their game to run on lower latency settings or not?
because you cant do that.. I think you missed all the talk about this back in the beta... this is how RTS servers are set up.. they have to send information this way.. they have no way to toggle it for custom maps or non custom maps. It would take a FULL rewriting of their system to do this. Its something they said they want to do very bady.. but its a great great deal of work and no easy task.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Random Information
Tutorials - Map Development - Galaxy wiki
|Issues? PM me|
I mean, it'd be nice and all, but I've yet to see a quality map that even uses the 256*256 space. I think ZHRPG is the only one, and that's a guess.
Mostly for conquest maps. When you're trying to make a diplomacy map that uses the entire world, then 256x256 simply doesn't cut it. Most games don't need this size increase, that's for sure. But some games you simply need a lot of room to move around in. Map I'm making, for example, relies on massive amounts of space and long travel times as a gameplay element, forcing players to use hyperspace instead of just moving normally. This is hard to achieve with the map constraints, even with work-arounds.
Then of course there are the non-conquest maps that make use of such a massive map, but those are few and far between. There's also the fact that doubling the map really isn't a difficult task. I don't know if it's hardcoded in the engine or not, but it's not like it's asking for much since the only concern is it'd lag, and if a player lagged on it they simply wouldn't play it. No harm done. It's one of the easily implemented features that would help a lot of mappers out.
And pray tell, why can't we have some tweaks for custom games? Just for custom games. Ladder, I can see the latency being necessary, but custom games? Suppose there was an option permitting the mapmaker and/or the players to decide if they want their game to run on lower latency settings or not?
because you cant do that.. I think you missed all the talk about this back in the beta... this is how RTS servers are set up.. they have to send information this way.. they have no way to toggle it for custom maps or non custom maps. It would take a FULL rewriting of their system to do this. Its something they said they want to do very bady.. but its a great great deal of work and no easy task.
----
Not necessarily. It might be an arbitrary latency that they can change with relative ease. I CAN see them writing it exactly like that since Blizzard does things like open source devs (which is to say, they do things that make no god damn sense to anyone else), but that would be extremely stupid. In reality they don't even really need the inherent latency like it's set up; a more intelligent option would be to set up whatever is acting as the master server (do they still use peer to peer or is it a dedicated array?) to change it automatically depending on the player's connection speed to keep everyone at the same instance. That's how my network's been set up. Faster everyone's connection is, faster the game. Slower connections, slower game. It's a little longer and takes up a little bit more power to track everything, but it's hardly noticeable. And on the topic, why didn't they do it in the start? Are their programmers seriously this bad at planning?
@colt
It's likely hardcoded into the editor bit, not the engine. To hardcode all of these things into the engine itself would be blatantly idiotic. You could just scale everything down and get a bigger map, at the loss of detail on the terrain primarily, but I'm sure it would be possible to increase it if you modified the editor somewhat. I have no idea what kind of security is on it, if you did that it might not play anymore if they decided to make the game reject anything like that.
With all the limitations of the Starcraft 2 engine it seems like improving the engine for HoTS would be rather convenient. 2 MB limit for scripting seems like such a low number for an entire engine. I'm sure they could raise the cap, though I am not sure how hard changing certain aspects of the engine would be. Perhaps we will be forever doomed to certain limitations that just make certain genres seem laughable. I guess we all can hope for some engine enhancements with the coming sequels but it probably wouldn't benefit Blizzard much to do so (unless they consider the upcoming map market worth spending the extra money on improving the game engine).
I use 256x256 in Final Frontier and everything is about 5 times smaller than in real map (at start...), but I dont think anyone else using out 256x256. ( ) (ZHRPG could have smaller units)
@Reaper872: Go Somebody should make a map like this: (it wasnt lagging in w3, if nobody had big latency)
It's called Starcraft Ghost, and it got cancelled.
@Mozared: Go
Any chance in hell it will get Uncanceled?
I have no idea. I personally don't think Blizzard will completely abandon the concept, but I don't think we can expect to suddenly see a release within the year or such.
At least I have Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic soon.
Sounds like what you want is a new game engine.
because you cant do that.. I think you missed all the talk about this back in the beta... this is how RTS servers are set up.. they have to send information this way.. they have no way to toggle it for custom maps or non custom maps. It would take a FULL rewriting of their system to do this. Its something they said they want to do very bady.. but its a great great deal of work and no easy task.
@Molsterr: Go
well they have 15 years at least to do that. That's how long SC1 lasted.
Mostly for conquest maps. When you're trying to make a diplomacy map that uses the entire world, then 256x256 simply doesn't cut it. Most games don't need this size increase, that's for sure. But some games you simply need a lot of room to move around in. Map I'm making, for example, relies on massive amounts of space and long travel times as a gameplay element, forcing players to use hyperspace instead of just moving normally. This is hard to achieve with the map constraints, even with work-arounds.
Then of course there are the non-conquest maps that make use of such a massive map, but those are few and far between. There's also the fact that doubling the map really isn't a difficult task. I don't know if it's hardcoded in the engine or not, but it's not like it's asking for much since the only concern is it'd lag, and if a player lagged on it they simply wouldn't play it. No harm done. It's one of the easily implemented features that would help a lot of mappers out.
Quote from Molsterr:
Quote from OneSoga: Go
And pray tell, why can't we have some tweaks for custom games? Just for custom games. Ladder, I can see the latency being necessary, but custom games? Suppose there was an option permitting the mapmaker and/or the players to decide if they want their game to run on lower latency settings or not?
because you cant do that.. I think you missed all the talk about this back in the beta... this is how RTS servers are set up.. they have to send information this way.. they have no way to toggle it for custom maps or non custom maps. It would take a FULL rewriting of their system to do this. Its something they said they want to do very bady.. but its a great great deal of work and no easy task.
----
Not necessarily. It might be an arbitrary latency that they can change with relative ease. I CAN see them writing it exactly like that since Blizzard does things like open source devs (which is to say, they do things that make no god damn sense to anyone else), but that would be extremely stupid. In reality they don't even really need the inherent latency like it's set up; a more intelligent option would be to set up whatever is acting as the master server (do they still use peer to peer or is it a dedicated array?) to change it automatically depending on the player's connection speed to keep everyone at the same instance. That's how my network's been set up. Faster everyone's connection is, faster the game. Slower connections, slower game. It's a little longer and takes up a little bit more power to track everything, but it's hardly noticeable. And on the topic, why didn't they do it in the start? Are their programmers seriously this bad at planning?
@colt
It's likely hardcoded into the editor bit, not the engine. To hardcode all of these things into the engine itself would be blatantly idiotic. You could just scale everything down and get a bigger map, at the loss of detail on the terrain primarily, but I'm sure it would be possible to increase it if you modified the editor somewhat. I have no idea what kind of security is on it, if you did that it might not play anymore if they decided to make the game reject anything like that.
Ummm
Island Defense FTW
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorsWas originally going to be a N64 exclusive
Just look at the ScrapCube_Diff.dds texture for some eastereggs
Contribute to the wiki (Wiki button at top of page) Considered easy altering of the unit textures?
https://www.sc2mapster.com/forums/resources/tutorials/179654-data-actor-events-message-texture-select-by-id
https://media.forgecdn.net/attachments/187/40/Screenshot2011-04-17_09_16_21.jpg
With all the limitations of the Starcraft 2 engine it seems like improving the engine for HoTS would be rather convenient. 2 MB limit for scripting seems like such a low number for an entire engine. I'm sure they could raise the cap, though I am not sure how hard changing certain aspects of the engine would be. Perhaps we will be forever doomed to certain limitations that just make certain genres seem laughable. I guess we all can hope for some engine enhancements with the coming sequels but it probably wouldn't benefit Blizzard much to do so (unless they consider the upcoming map market worth spending the extra money on improving the game engine).
Again, these are not limitations on the engine; they are more likely limitations on the editor.