Patch 1.27

[Warseeker]

Guys. We are actually in contact with Blizzard about the patch now. I think we should send them a link to this thread and let them decide what should be improved.

I was wondering why Blizzard is back to Warcraft 3 after all this time since the last patch 1.26? In anyways, I don't see anything bigger, all Blizzard does in a patch is to make small changes or fixing some data, script units and spells for example.

To be honest, I'm not suprised so much by this new patch.

 

[TheJackal47]

I was wondering why Blizzard is back to Warcraft 3 after all this time since the last patch 1.26?

Well Warcraft 3 is still popular and Blizzard has stated several times that they are hiring new people to look after/update classical games like Warcraft 3, Diablo 2 etc. since Blizzard has a history of maintaining old games for a long time and these games are becoming incompatible as new OS appears. Plus other companies are also updating their old games and releasing them as "HD" versions even if they only add Widescreen resolution and nothing more. So I guess it would be a logical step for Blizzard to try and maintain their classical games too.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

To be honest, after the announcement of the warcraft movie and the windows 10 support issues, I always thought that we will eventually get 1.27, but I expected it more to be a pure compatibility patch.

Now that blizz employees are actually in touch with Ralle... that is awesome!

We got to make sure to send them a complete list of bugs in WC3 and the editor.


For the wishes, I guess it would be smart to stick to the ones that are likely to be implemented without a complete overhaul of the game engine.
So stuff like widescreen support? Maybe possible. But changes to the shaders? Or the light engine (hey there buggy light seams!)? Very unlikely.
A new native or two? Or a new event ("Any unit takes damage")? Maybe possible. Control over missiles? Unlikely, as I expect missiles to be hardcoded from the ground up.
Increasing the multiplayer map size? Very likely (it's just a game constant after all). Increasing the tile capacity? Unlikely.

@Ralle: can we get a preview of what is "on the list" in the mod forums? I'd love to see what issues you guys collected so far.

 

[SpasMaster]

I'll just share my wishlist. I realise some of the following points might not be in the scope of changes Blizzard plans to do (or is able to do with the current engine), but oh well...

• Proper <A unit is attacked> event. Rename the current one to <A unit begins an attack>.
• Let us use all those damage types you have in the editor as conditions. We have Attack Types, Spell Damage type, and that big list of Fire/Sonic/Universal damage types. Let us detect them via conditions.
• Storing Armor amount and Armor type into a variable. Possibly add functions to manipulate Armor amount, similarly to how you can manipulate hero attributes.
• Give us a function to reduce current Upgrade Level. It can be increased, but not reduced.
• Allow heroes to have more than 5 Hero-type abilities at a time.

That's all for now. Will edit if I come up with other stuff.

 

[Deolrin]

I'm definitely hoping for proper widescreen support, but I think that's a bit optimistic seeing as it would probably require editing the UI textures and such. Any existing incompatibility with Windows 10, Mac, and other OSs should be pretty high on the list as well. However, it's pretty crucial that the new patch doesn't break the current custom maps, as few are likely to update their maps at this point and it would be a potentially critical blow to the community.

 

[Dr Super Good]

I was wondering why Blizzard is back to Warcraft 3 after all this time since the last patch 1.26? In anyways, I don't see anything bigger, all Blizzard does in a patch is to make small changes or fixing some data, script units and spells for example.

It does not work out of the box on Windows 10 and does not work at all on Mac. Also they probably want to phase out BattleNet so they only have to run BattleNet 2.0.

Plus other companies are also updating their old games and releasing them as "HD" versions even if they only add Widescreen resolution and nothing more.

Most companies outsource making the "HD" versions to smaller game developers. For example the teams/people working on Twilight Princess HD are completely different from those which originally worked on it for GameCube and Wii (which I believe are some of the people working on the Legend of Zelda Wii U).

The reality is that your main/experienced teams will always be better off developing new content, than revising old content.

 

[Avahor]

Guys. We are actually in contact with Blizzard about the patch now. I think we should send them a link to this thread and let them decide what should be improved.

that's awesome!!

Here are some needed functions from mapping experience

//these for object detection

native GetNearbyWidget takes real x, real y, real radius returns widget
native GetNearbyWidgetOfType takes integer widgettype, real x, real y, real radius returns widget
native GetUnitNearbyWidget takes unit u, real radius returns widget
native GetUnitNearbyWidgetofType takes integer widgettype, unit u, real radius returns widget

native TriggerRegisterWidgetInRange takes trigger whichTrigger, widget whichWidget, real range, boolexpr filter returns event

//these for terrains
//fix bug on SetTerrainPathable function

native SetTerrainPathableHeight takes real x, real y, real z, real height, pathingtype t, boolean flag, returns nothing // blocks the way under required height.

 

[Dr Super Good]

native SetTerrainPathableHeight takes real x, real y, real z, real height, pathingtype t, boolean flag, returns nothing // blocks the way under required height.

What is that meant to do exactly?

 

[BlackEnvyX]

Since I don't really play Melee that much I can't speak for balancing issues, but I'm definitely hoping for several specific changes.

- Improve the net code of Battle.net
- Once net code is improved, allow maps up to 12 megabytes in size for multiplayer
- Disallow all encompassing bot servers (such as ENT) via checking for auto-hosting bots and shut them down
- Remove stacking glitches in WC3's base JASS code

 

[_lycan]

Guys. We are actually in contact with Blizzard about the patch now. I think we should send them a link to this thread and let them decide what should be improved.

Wow this is huge so this is actually true.

 

[Dr Super Good]

- Improve the net code of Battle.net

What is wrong with it?

- Once net code is improved, allow maps up to 12 megabytes in size for multiplayer

They should just raise it to 25 or 50 MB.

- Remove stacking glitches in WC3's base JASS code

What stacking glitch?

 

[Avahor]

What is that meant to do exactly?

Most of mappers use custom scaled doodads to design realistic terrain ambients. They are forced to use walkable doodads to deal with pathability issues like stairs, caves or levers but collision detection only is possible over the plane XY and we cannot detect pathing blockers (or doodads) height directly from natives.

If blizzard give us that function, we will be able to make layers of pathability over z ranges. useful for jump and collision systems turning warcraft 3 into a real 3d environment.

 

[BlackEnvyX]

What is wrong with it?


They should just raise it to 25 or 50 MB.


What stacking glitch?

1. The fact that regardless of one's connection speed, download speed is still capped at 1 MB per second on WC3

2. I can agree with that

3. Stacking units, it's prevalent in games such as Island Defense.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Most of mappers use custom scaled doodads to design realistic terrain ambients. They are forced to use walkable doodads to deal with pathability issues like stairs, caves or levers but collision detection only is possible over the plane XY and we cannot detect pathing blockers (or doodads) height directly from natives.

If blizzard give us that function, we will be able to make layers of pathability over z ranges. useful for jump and collision systems turning warcraft 3 into a real 3d environment.

Requires a major engine change so not possible. WC3 uses 2D pathing (cannot deal with 3D pathing) and walkable destructibles are part of the graphic system.

1. The fact that regardless of one's connection speed, download speed is still capped at 1 MB per second on WC3

Fact remains most people do not have 1 MB/sec upload.

3. Stacking units, it's prevalent in games such as Island Defense.

What does that mean? Putting 1 unit on top of another?

Fixing crashes for lowering/raising terrain too much would be useful. Also improving determinism between Windows and other OS clients.

 

[rcshaggy]

I hope they don't break custom maps.
Got some custom maps I am working on my Campaign and by I put a lot of time and effort into them.

Not really sure what I want for the new patch.

 

[Spellbound]

Here are some needed functions from mapping experience

//these for object detection

native GetNearbyWidget takes real x, real y, real radius returns widget
native GetNearbyWidgetOfType takes integer widgettype, real x, real y, real radius returns widget
native GetUnitNearbyWidget takes unit u, real radius returns widget
native GetUnitNearbyWidgetofType takes integer widgettype, unit u, real radius returns widget

native TriggerRegisterWidgetInRange takes trigger whichTrigger, widget whichWidget, real range, boolexpr filter returns event

There should also be one that considers ground pathability so one can make custom lumber harvesting. Like GetNearbyWidgetWithPathing takes real x, real y, real radius, unit referenceUnit returns widget. It will consider the pathing of the referenceUnit and check for the closest one in walking distance. Or something like that.

An integrated DDS and Missile system (this one sounds very unlikely) would be legendary. The only hiccup I have with existing DDSs is that if you want to completely customise your attack with a missile system, you make the unit attack instantly with maximum missile speed, nullify the damage, then launch a missile with a missile system. This works except for the fact that the target registers getting hit when the custom missile launches because the real missile has already hit.

 

[TheBronze]

Since I don't really play Melee that much I can't speak for balancing issues, but I'm definitely hoping for several specific changes.

- Improve the net code of Battle.net
- Once net code is improved, allow maps up to 12 megabytes in size for multiplayer
- Disallow all encompassing bot servers (such as ENT) via checking for auto-hosting bots and shut them down
- Remove stacking glitches in WC3's base JASS code

I disagree with the bot changes unless the UI is going to be overhauled to make searching for maps better.

The biggest thing, no matter what Blizzard does, is not to break existing custom maps. There are so many awesome custom maps that are no longer updated that would be gone forever if they broke them

 

[karaulov]

1.27:

Need more new JASS natives. (Full access to terrain, full access to game/objects settings, "full access to world" )
Need full access to game variables/settings without limits. (MAXUNITSPEED, FOGOFWAR settings, etc) from JASS code /config files
Need full access to objects (units,etc) data from JASS (Example: SetUnitModel, SetUnitAttackModel, etc)
Need remove map file size limit (example : from 8MB to 512MB or without limit )
Need graphic improve

etc


I want to believe.

 

[Sunfall]

skill toggles for dispellability, autocastability. some more unit targeting types. what i feel is needed alot off the top of my head.

just make tick boxes for em in the object editor, would be amazing control over skills to have.

 

[Kazeon]

Pretty much my personal wish list for more convenient map making experience:
- Complete keyboard key events (all necessary keys) without synchronization delay
- Mouse events: left/right click event, scroll event, double click, etc
- Accessible mouse properties (UV & XY coordinates) to replace trackable
- New natives to:

- Change widget's pitch and roll angle
- Create/remove/manipulate doodads since they're less costy than destructable
- Freely manipulate destructable's properties (scale, position, etc)
- Get terrain pathing color and type (walkable, flyable, buildable, etc), with option to disregards pathing by units
- Create missiles, with their events as well (missile death/collide/etc.)​

- Complete access to unit's (or other objects') object editor datas (via trigger)
- Increase text tag limit (currently ~100)
- Freely modificate map's terrain via trigger (add cliff, raise, lower, etc.) without leaks
- Unlimited tile variation
- This issue once brought up by Zweibelchen (read the documentation), perhaps it can be fixed.
- Complete damage event, without event leak, and with accessible damage properties (damage/attack/weapon type, ranged/melee, damage source/target/amount, normal attack/ability, etc.)
- I'm not sure about this, locally modifying unit's vertex color causes desync in certain cases which is unnecessary I think
- Remove leaks caused by unit (or perhaps all other type of agents too) creation native(s)
- Increase unit selection group size limit (currently only 12)

Hehe.. I expect a lot

 

[_lycan]

A small issue that should be fixed too should be tomes leaking memory (you can notice a small golden pixel left behind when a tome is consumed).


Melee changes would be cool too, like some rebalancing and an item or too added (cloak should be lowered invisibility fade by a little bit so that it's better cause right now everyone sells it)

 

[Kyrbi0]

You know what would be sick? Just give us one ability (in the WE); a single-target, does-whatever, fires-a-projectile spell, with no buffs. Every single solitary spell in the game which is single-target & fires a projectile also does something (mostly Stuns), and is thus incompatible with other spells of that type and/or the need for not-Stunning (even instantaneously, or @ 0.01 sec, it still happens & messes things up).

~~~

Ralle, this is almost too good to believe. Do we have any idea to what level they are looking at changing things? Or to what degree they are reading stuff like this, like this very thread?

 

[_lycan]

You know what would be sick? Just give us one ability (in the WE); a single-target, does-whatever, fires-a-projectile spell, with no buffs. Every single solitary spell in the game which is single-target & fires a projectile also does something (mostly Stuns), and is thus incompatible with other spells of that type and/or the need for not-Stunning (even instantaneously, or @ 0.01 sec, it still happens & messes things up).

~~~

Ralle, this is almost too good to believe. Do we have any idea to what level they are looking at changing things? Or to what degree they are reading stuff like this, like this very thread?

Most likely true considering that the developers have just joined Blizzard (most of them i believe?) so they probably want to get good relationships with the community, it's really nice if they indeed implement some of the stuff that the community has been long asking for

 

[Dr Super Good]

- Complete keyboard key events (all necessary keys) without synchronization delay

They can also solve world hunger and climate change while they are at it. Latency is required for network synchronization.

- Create missiles, with their events as well (missile death/collide/etc.)

Already in StarCraft II. Doubt they will backport that or people in WC3 community will accept it/like it if they did.

- Freely modificate map's terrain via trigger (add cliff, raise, lower, etc.) without leaks
- Unlimited tile variation

Might require major engine changes that raise the system requirements.

- Complete damage event, without event leak, and with accessible damage properties (damage/attack/weapon type, ranged/melee, damage source/target/amount, normal attack/ability, etc.)

Events do not leak as far as I can tell. When you destroy the trigger it destroys the events attached to it.

- Increase unit selection group size limit (currently only 12)

Might break some maps. Also is already a feature of StarCraft II.

 

[Kyrbi0]

Most likely true considering that the developers have just joined Blizzard (most of them i believe?) so they probably want to get good relationships with the community, it's really nice if they indeed implement some of the stuff that the community has been long asking for

Sure, absolutely. So then why are they starting now? It's been 13 years, and some of the issues being discussed here aren't new; every single time a Patch has been suggested or hinted at, people have clamored with suggestions. Many of them salient, many of them repeated, many of them old & many of them (potentially, hopefully) simple.

I am not complaining. But I've never known them to be so "open to suggestion " before (though I'll admit, my memory may simply be failing me). I'm glad, but why now?

 

[SpasMaster]

They can also solve world hunger and climate change while they are at it. Latency is required for network synchronization.

I don't get the sarcasm here. You have absolutely no idea what Blizzard plans to do and to what extent they are willing to go with changes to the game. Sure, they may only do compatibility and system changes, but what makes it so impossible for them to make some changes to the editor? Everyone in here has big "dreams" about what could be done to the Warcraft 3 editor and has the right to share them here, regardless if anyone is ever gonna read them or make them come true. So let the people express their wishes instead of going around acting like you know it all and stomping people's ideas.

Already in StarCraft II. Doubt they will backport that or people in WC3 community will accept it/like it if they did.

Excuse me, but who gives a **** about what the Starcraft II editor can do? So, if something cannot be done in the World Editor, we cannot wish for it to be implemented, simply because it exists in some other editor? So what if Starcraft II offers everything that one could wish for in the World Editor? What if I hate Starcraft? (Which I don't) What if I am a regular pleb and find it stupidly user unfriendly? (Which I do)
"Oh well, Blizzard may be doing some changes to the Editor, who knows, but... Starcraft II already has the things I need in the World Editor, so I better stop wanting them."
???????????????????????????????????????????

Might break some maps. Also is already a feature of StarCraft II.

.....

 

[DracoL1ch]

I don't get the sarcasm here. You have absolutely no idea what Blizzard plans to do and to what extent they are willing to go with changes to the game. Sure, they may only do compatibility and system changes, but what makes it so impossible for them to make some changes to the editor? Everyone in here has big "dreams" about what could be done to the Warcraft 3 editor and has the right to share them here, regardless if anyone is ever gonna read them or make them come true. So let the people express their wishes instead of going around acting like you know it all and stomping people's ideas.

indeed he has a point. you can't ignore syncing in any trigger, and there are no 0 delay web. delay will always be a bitch and nothing can change it. blizzard won't make game from scratch, at best they will make small improvements there and here. Reworking network code = rework whole core. Nobody have time for that

 

[_lycan]

Sure, absolutely. So then why are they starting now? It's been 13 years, and some of the issues being discussed here aren't new; every single time a Patch has been suggested or hinted at, people have clamored with suggestions. Many of them salient, many of them repeated, many of them old & many of them (potentially, hopefully) simple.

I am not complaining. But I've never known them to be so "open to suggestion " before (though I'll admit, my memory may simply be failing me). I'm glad, but why now?

Because before you had the old timers are Blizzard who were much more conservative about game design, until it backfired with Starcraft 2 (when they fucked up everything that worked with Warcraft 3)

 

[SpasMaster]

indeed he has a point. you can't ignore syncing in any trigger, and there are no 0 delay web. delay will always be a bitch and nothing can change it. blizzard won't make game from scratch, at best they will make small improvements there and here. Reworking network code = rework whole core. Nobody have time for that

You are missing the point. I am not saying Blizzard should do X or Y and I have no idea if the things everyone in here wants are within the realm of possibility. I have no idea if Blizzard plans to spend 5 minutes working on the next patch or 5 months. But we all have some desires and needs, so what's wrong with expressing them in here, regardless if they are crazy/impossible/take a lot of time/require a better engine/etc... Who knows? You'd say that there is nothing wrong with that, yet someone is going around in here being sarcastic with people's ideas and wishes.

 

[DracoL1ch]

You are missing the point. I am not saying Blizzard should do X or Y and I have no idea if the things everyone in here wants are within the realm of possibility. I have no idea if Blizzard plans to spend 5 minutes working on the next patch or 5 months. But we all have some desires and needs, so what's wrong with expressing them in here, regardless if they are crazy/impossible/take a lot of time/require a better engine/etc... Who knows? You'd say that there is nothing wrong with that, yet someone is going around in here being sarcastic with people's ideas and wishes.

as well as speaking your mind is not a big deal, criticizing your ideas isn't too. if idea looks totally unrealistic people will become sarcastic about it. and thats fine.

 

[PurgeandFire]

The thing is, if they want to make Warcraft 3 relevant again, they kinda have to rework the networking code. The code they used was made at an older time optimized for older modems (remember baud modems?). Their systems in Sc2 and WoW are far superior even when syncing a lot of game state. Of course they can't remove delay, but that isn't what Quilnez meant (and we all know what he meant). Rather, reduce the amount of delay by improving the synchronization system.

Is it an easy task? Not at all. But it would fix a ton of the major complaints about Wc3 in its current state. That's why a lot of people expect 'Warcraft 3 HD' to be based off the Sc2 engine (for gameplay mechanics, at least. The visuals would definitely be different)--all the work would be mostly done for them. But there are a lot of ways to approach it.

Sure, absolutely. So then why are they starting now? It's been 13 years, and some of the issues being discussed here aren't new; every single time a Patch has been suggested or hinted at, people have clamored with suggestions. Many of them salient, many of them repeated, many of them old & many of them (potentially, hopefully) simple.

I am not complaining. But I've never known them to be so "open to suggestion " before (though I'll admit, my memory may simply be failing me). I'm glad, but why now?

There are a lot of potential reasons:

• Starcraft 2 just released an expansion (in November) and they'll mostly focus on having "Mission Packs"--they'll continue the story but it won't necessarily be a new expansion that suddenly shifts the meta. That means they'll have a lot of extra programmers, and while some of them may migrate to Overwatch/newer projects, some people figure that they would go work on classic games since it is in the same "scene". (RTS)
  .
• China. It is clear that Warcraft 3 still has a lot of support overseas as far as competitive play goes.
  • WCA (World Cyber Arena) still hosts Warcraft 3 tournaments ever year for players from all over the world.
  • NetEase released an amazing Warcraft 3 ladder/client, officially supported by Blizzard. It is specifically for China, but some EU players made guides on how to connect to it and how to use it. But it is updated and has active seasons for 1v1, 2v2, and DotA. And apparently their supporting some 'RPG mode' as of last week? I don't know what it is, but it definitely looks awesome. And the platform has been quite popular!
  • Blizzard China had a tournament very recently: Gold Series. It featured Starcraft 2, Heroes of the Storm, Hearthstone, and of course, Warcraft 3. It is organized by NetEase, so it makes sense. But it got lots of hype.
  • They made an official social media account for Warcraft 3 a while back: weibo. They probably had these tournaments/client planned for a while, so I guess that is what it was made for.
  .
• One or two blizzcons ago, the Q&A team mentioned that they had always thought about revamping the original Warcraft RTS games (including Warcraft I, Warcraft II, and Warcraft III). I'm sure they would get a lot of support for Wc1/Wc2 revamps, but if they really wanted to turn a profit, Wc3 is the one to focus on. It was the game that really distinguished itself from Starcraft by having a hero mechanic, and it definitely passed the test of time.
  .
• Mike Morhaime took the time to talk about Warcraft II's 20th anniversary during the last Blizzcon's opening ceremony. A lot of people thought he was going to announce something relevant to it, but he didn't. Most people were spamming "Warcraft IV" during that part. I'm sure that hasn't gone unnoticed.

Of all these reasons, I feel like NetEase really took initiative in trying to resurrect Warcraft 3. And China was probably a test case. Blizzard probably said, "here guys. We know Warcraft 3 is still a popular e-sport in your country, so you have our support to do whatever you want and let's see where it goes". It was pretty successful, so who knows? I'm optimistic and I could see them resurrecting the game. It might not necessarily be in this patch--to be honest this patch (if it comes) might just be balancing based on feedback from the top Chinese players. But it might be plans for a future patch, or perhaps a future game (e.g. Warcraft 3 HD). Blizzard customer support is always pretty fantastic and they've always shown a lot of respect to their fan sites (e.g. giving away keys, listening to their feedback, making characters of them in WoW, etc.).

I'm still surprised as anyone that the game is getting some love--it really is exciting.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

@Ralle: whatever you do, please do not link blizzard to this thread. :/
I'm pretty sure that when they read it, they go:
"Oh HELL no! They want us to recode the whole game? Fuck this!"

Baby steps guys! Let them fix the most annoying bugs first, then worry about new features.

Let's stay realistic with out suggestions.

that's awesome!!

Here are some needed functions from mapping experience

//these for object detection

native GetNearbyWidget takes real x, real y, real radius returns widget
native GetNearbyWidgetOfType takes integer widgettype, real x, real y, real radius returns widget
native GetUnitNearbyWidget takes unit u, real radius returns widget
native GetUnitNearbyWidgetofType takes integer widgettype, unit u, real radius returns widget

native TriggerRegisterWidgetInRange takes trigger whichTrigger, widget whichWidget, real range, boolexpr filter returns event

//these for terrains
//fix bug on SetTerrainPathable function

native SetTerrainPathableHeight takes real x, real y, real z, real height, pathingtype t, boolean flag, returns nothing // blocks the way under required height.

For example; this. What is the point of that? What will these natives even retrieve? The closest widget? The farthest? What if you want to find a specific one? Why not just implement a normal enumeration like EnumWidgetInRange?
This is just a completely random suggestion you did here without any clear purpose.

 

[BPower]

I agree with Ziebelchen, that the suggestion handed over to the Blizzard team in charge
must be clear, structured, limited and well explained why we suggest exactly this change.

 

[TheJackal47]

@Ralle: whatever you do, please do not link blizzard to this thread. :/
I'm pretty sure that when they read it, they go:
"Oh HELL no! They want us to recode the whole game? Fuck this!"

Thank you Zwiebelchen. That made my day.

Baby steps guys! Let them fix the most annoying bugs first, then worry about new features.

Indeed.

 

[DracoL1ch]

I agree with Ziebelchen, that the suggestion handed over to the Blizzard team in charge
must be clear, structured, limited and well explained why we suggest exactly this change.

sure, but at least we need guidelines from blizzard - what do they want? balance? natives? bugfixes? win10/mac fixes? visuals? it makes really big difference.

 

[WhiteFang]

I feel like visuals is the least important thing here.The graphics may be outdated,but there are bigger,more important issues

 

[Ezekiel12]

In this place I may point you (and dear Blizzard employee if you're watching) to the wish list for 1.27, which contains suggestions from many community members and tries to start with the realistic things, going on to the improbable/impossible.

It will also be updated with all of the suggestions in here that sound reasoned and would provide a real plus for map making despite the work required.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

In this place I may point you (and dear Blizzard employee if you're watching) to the wish list for 1.27, which contains suggestions from many community members and tries to start with the realistic things, going on to the improbable/impossible.

It will also be updated with all of the suggestions in here that sound reasoned and would provide a real plus for map making despite the work required.

That list is actually great and a superb baseline for blizzard to look at.

You will probably get deaththreats over the suggested fix of the preload bug, though.
If they fix the preload bug, then I demand they give us something similar in return, like a gamecache that works in multiplayer (or a feature similar to banks in SC2) so that we can create codeless save/loads.
Save/Load with having to print-screen is not state of the art in WC3 anymore. Let's keep it that way please.

 

[Kazeon]

I wrote my wish list without considering what it takes to do those patches. No surprise that someone jumped and said my suggestions are impossible. It's okay, they are just suggestions anyway which can be re-evaluated. Those are just issues I'm often facing so far while mapping.

I completely disagree with Zweibelchen here. Basically THW is one of the biggest fans of Wc3 franchise, and you don't want Blizzard to hear some suggestions from their biggest fans? From peoples who probably understands the limitations of this game even more than Blizzard itself? Those are just wish lists, suggestions, not a must. "I wish" is less demanding than "I want" I think.

EDIT:
Btw. I love the fact that this thread just explodes, showing how much we still care about this game.

 

[PurgeandFire]

sure, but at least we need guidelines from blizzard - what do they want? balance? natives? bugfixes? win10/mac fixes? visuals? it makes really big difference.

Just our "thoughts and concerns" regarding the future of Warcraft 3. So it really can be anything. They aren't guaranteeing that they'll be able to follow all our desires, but they're willing to take in suggestions.

As others have mentioned, it is important to keep our focuses clear and succinct. It is okay for some of them to be ambitious, because we really don't have a frame on what they're planning (is it a new game? is it a patch?). But the suggestions should be important.

As a modding community, we thrive off players and the ability for people to easily join custom matches. As such, a lot of our suggestions will be focused on improving that system--i.e. solutions for the host bots problem, matchfinding, communicating with friends, match arrangement, etc. They already have the melee community to reach for as far as balance goes (they've already done interviews on what the top players would change). Bugs can be listed and we'll probably request natives, but it should mostly be for functionality that doesn't exist in the game, e.g. keyboard detection, mouse detection, displaying images on a user's screen, etc. Conveniences will probably hit the back burner for now since we want to keep things concise. After all, if Blizzard is able to follow-up on any of our requests, chances are they will be able to do it again in the future. I'm sure they know there are a plethora of things we would have on a wish-list, but if we don't overload them, they'll take our list more seriously.

EDIT: Thank you Ezekiel!

 

[WhiteFang]

In this place I may point you (and dear Blizzard employee if you're watching) to the wish list for 1.27, which contains suggestions from many community members and tries to start with the realistic things, going on to the improbable/impossible.

It will also be updated with all of the suggestions in here that sound reasoned and would provide a real plus for map making despite the work required.

I feel this is a very good list.It would be cool if Ralle could link them that instead of this

 

[Linkin]

While this is in the realm of impossibilities, more player slots? This would drastically change some maps, and make new mods possible.

 

[WhiteFang]

I wouldn't mind a giant 24 player map.

 

[SpasMaster]

Ezekiel's list is just amazing!

 

[karaulov]

Blizzard please just share source code of Warcraft 1.26a!

 

[Vengeancekael]

For real though, from a business point of view, why would they want to improve the editor's (/Warcraft 3's) capabilities when they already have released a better editor with Starcraft II? You would think that they'd want the modders to move to their newer game.

 

[SpasMaster]

For real though, from a business point of view, why would they want to improve the editor's (/Warcraft 3's) capabilities when they already have released a better editor with Starcraft II? You would think that they'd want the modders to move to their newer game.

Better is not always better.
The Starcraft II Editor is as superior to the World Editor as it is unnecessarily more complex for regular gamers who want to get into modding. I've worked for 6 years with the World Editor for now and I spent more than 1 hour, barely managing to create a hero unit. And it was just a "base" hero unit. You do know how long that takes in Warcraft III, right? About 1-2 seconds to copy-paste a Hero and then start modifying him. You could argue that in order for things to be more advanced, they must also be harder to do. But let's be honest here - the Galaxy Editor could use a lot of improvements when it comes to user-friendliness. Some very basic things are ridiculously complex to make.

 

[Avahor]

For example; this. What is the point of that? What will these natives even retrieve? The closest widget? The farthest? What if you want to find a specific one? Why not just implement a normal enumeration like EnumWidgetInRange?
This is just a completely random suggestion you did here without any clear purpose.

Well, those suggestions aren't completely random. by far is known the limited access to widget manipulation that we have on World editor at this moment. Anyway you are right on the main point, I was irresponsible to post these "natives" without previous discussion. I just were amazed with Blizzard news...
As you say It's better Ezekiel's 1.27 wish list link instead of this thread.

 

[DracoL1ch]

For real though, from a business point of view, why would they want to improve the editor's (/Warcraft 3's) capabilities when they already have released a better editor with Starcraft II? You would think that they'd want the modders to move to their newer game.

it's not like we gonna move on SC2 'cause tired of WC3, it's like we love WC3 instead

 

[Epimetheus]

Hate to add to the list of impractical dreams but true wide screen support and true full screen display (no black bars behind ui) with customisable/removable ui would be just GODLY !! Imagine the awesomenimity !!