Disapointments with StarCraft 2?

Level 12
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Messages
869
My dissapointment is the online hosting system, its pretty gay.
It may stop people from hosting cheated games or useless games, but what about the maps that are really good but don't have a chance to get popular because of the 'popular scale' instead of the 'games being hosted right now'...
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Again I refer to my lotr Helms Deep in sc2 experience. Aside from the gameplay not living up to the typical wc3 helms deep gameplay, I really felt disconnected from the lord of the rings universe. Seeing marines with guns shooting bullets at zerglings, that just isn't immersion. And immersion is what we are talking about here right?
No and GB2Escapist. You're definitely reading too far into this shit.

It's called aesthetics. Don't try to extend this all the way to concepts like immersion as if there's some deeply rooted fundamental problem here.

I'd also like to point out that Helms Deep was originally a map on the original Starcraft, where marines really were shooting bullets at zerglings. At it was just as much fun.

Again, from a graphical standpoint, the primitive 2D graphics of Starcraft forced us to use our imagination, so a wider array of possibilities were available. Fantasy and Historical were and still are viable options in Olde Starcraft, as anyone who has ever played Helms Deep, Fantasy RP maps, Civilizations, or any other map can tell you.
While in Warcraft 3 I could play parasite (without custom models) and I would feel like im on a space station in the future, trying to kill the alien (which could be played by many many wc3 models).
Yeah, and? They had marine models, so they didn't need custom models. Big fucking deal?

At worst, you could still have someone convert models intended for WC3 for SC2 purposes, and at best, the modding scene is still alive and kicking.

To everyone regarding this topic: Graphics are an obvious trade-off. The more vivid your units and distinct your aesthetics, the less room there is for interpretation. So what can we do about it? Replace shit. Replace the distinct aesthetics and vivid units with other distinct aesthetics and other units. It's called custom models.

Think it's too much work to use custom models? That's fine. Hell, I still play the UMS maps on the original Starcraft for this very reason. It doesn't matter. If you want to utilize Starcraft 2 as the powerful modding medium that it is, you need to compensate for the flexibility with complexity. That's all there is to it. You just can't call the marine an archer anymore. You've been dealing with this in WC3. The inverse is exactly the same.

And for the people spewing copious amounts of "BLAH BLAH PARASITE BLAH WC3", count exactly how many models Parasite used. I'd say a couple different types of insect and a variety of colorful marines from the same model. They had to use the same damn Marine model over and over again. Is this what you call "flexible"? Because if it is, then all I need is a couple of custom models and hot damn, SC2 is the new Mecca of Fantasy gaming!

-.-
 

Rui

Rui

Level 39
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
7,471
If only I could model... Custom models are the only way, yes, but as I have already said, models are beginning to get more and more complex. Starcraft II models take a lot of polygons, three textures, an animated and a static portrait, plus animations, which no modeler seems to do (99% or more of Warcraft III's models have ripped animations).
I have a modeling program on my old computer, I might delve into it and search for tutorials, but judging from the majority of our modelers' skill, I doubt I'll go far if they couldn't go farther... I was always terrible at arts.
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
If only I could model... Custom models are the only way, yes, but as I have already said, models are beginning to get more and more complex. Starcraft II models take a lot of polygons, three textures, an animated and a static portrait, plus animations, which no modeler seems to do (99% or more of Warcraft III's models have ripped animations).
I have a modeling program on my old computer, I might delve into it and search for tutorials, but judging from the majority of our modelers' skill, I doubt I'll go far if they couldn't go farther... I was always terrible at arts.
I personally don't have standards too high. I don't think anyone is running SC2 on excessively high settings. I can't even run it on anything besides lowest :p

But I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than that.

At worst, though, we're going to end up attracting a different kind of modeler than the ones we've had before.
 
Level 2
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
24
They made battle 2.0 completely on purpose and it's nothing but a slap to the fan base of the blizzard rts series and its custom map content. The lack of creeps, and variety of units is because they going be released with different race expansion packs. They also want complete control so they can charge fees if people make a mod project so they wont have another dota happen without them making a cut.

Activation is pulling the shots and this is definitely doing the business model along with tons of garbage now like charging 40$ to see a webcast of blizzardcon( Honestly paying to see a webcast of them advertise products ) charging money for silly thing like pets and mounts for World of Warcraft. I would not be surprised if they do the same sort of thing for starcraft 2 and have tons of micro purchases for units, mods and maps. They mentioned it before in interviews a few times they would like to do that and battle 2.0 is completely build for that.

I really hope this causes a backlash as I for one will not be buying anymore blizzard products and I have brought every game since Warcraft 1. I will be looking forward to the pirates who will create a much better product then the retail Starcraft 2 where you can your host your own maps and not deal with battlenet. And if they release another game would of been interested in buying I will pirate it while before I would of brought it in a heart beat.

I have no fought with the story or campaign gameplay thought.
 
Level 11
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
963
You really think that Blizzard would steal someone's map project and charge money for it?

The way the system will probably work is that if your map is good enough, and if you want to, you can make it a premium map. Thus, it would be completely voluntary on the part of the creator.
And if they release another game would of been interested in buying I will pirate it while before I would of brought it in a heart beat.
So basically what you are saying is that you want to boycott it, but you are too immature to accept that boycotting a game means not having it, and that would be just terrible.


At any rate, if you don't like what a company is doing, don't buy their products.
 
Level 11
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
931
From my experience, you only have to log in once to use the editor, after that you don't. The only reason you'll need to log in again after that would be to publish content or open published content.
 
Level 20
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
2,999
SC armies are too big for formations to be practical.

I disagree, ever played Age of Empires?

BUT saying that, formations generally don't seem to be present in many "shooting unit/sci-fi RTS's" - I can see and respect that point of view.

Disappointments for me was the lack of some old classic units in melee (firebat and medic!?) and the lack of region swapping (upon shipping, I know they plan to implement it...).
 

TKF

TKF

Level 14
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
1,267
Age of empires armies are generally on much larger and more open terrain, emphasize individual units much less, don't incorporate air, and don't have much micro capability in comparison.
Yeah, i liked AoE2 quite much, but I miss 1 thing, attack move. Patrol isn't the same...


Also SC2 armies move A LOT better than in SC1, where they tended to split in rivers instead of synced army movement which is a major improvement.
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Disappointments for me was the lack of some old classic units in melee (firebat and medic!?) and the lack of region swapping (upon shipping, I know they plan to implement it...).
Oh please. Starcraft 2 has enough classic units as it is. Everyone's going to cry over something that Blizzard takes out of Starcraft, whether it's a reaver, a valkyrie or a fucking shuttle. The argument is the same every time:

(Firebat/corsair/shuttle) is a classic Starcraft unit! How can you take them away? I have a (preferred strategy/special affinity/uncontrollable lust) for the (Raven/defiler/ursadon), and it's (completely insignificant/please shoot me in the face).

People are going to complain no matter what you take away. It's pointless. The marauders and the medivacs are completely suitable replacements and, especially the medivacs, offer more interesting strategies to use.
 
Level 26
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,814
Seems im not the only one thinking so.

So I got spammed and flammed by completely clueless naps in my thread in blizz forums (blizz deleted it as I asked them) but any normal guy who understands what A Good Gaming Experience means, says it.
Lol. You want to remove useless stuff like achievements and portraits? why not remove the complete game, i mean its a useless game, lets only do useful things to survive, like, i dont need a house, i'll just go live in woods and eat some rats and fruits.
 
Level 26
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,814
Following your logic, 'Why have food, water and a bed, when we have jewelry - rings, necklaces, bracelets?'

Im not saying a good gaming experience means removing pictures, but focusing on some pictures, making 130++ pictures instead of getting their hands on the important features in the 1st place, as if bnet is made to be Facebook or Photobucket, not its actual meaning. I fully support that other post, though the ladder also needs some fixing and they know it, I might add.

lol? when did i say that i wanted to blizzard to improve the portraits or the achievements and/or remove the game except the portraits and achievements. You are the one that wanted the Achivements removed (WTF).

Then you confirm my previous point that Diamond doesnt say much. But this guy also says he plays some ESL tournaments (that I dont wanna start before getting into good shape), so a Diamond and competing, saying the truth, that's what I like seeing, not a pile of pointless posts and comments as most of what I see. He does sound like the type of people im taking about and I absolutely am not saying hes pro.. just good and obviously with understanding about some things.

Who are you to judge if that pile of posts and comments are pointless or not? You think you can just because a diamond player said something you wanted? There is a lot of diamond players that have fun making Achievements.
 
Level 8
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
499
blizz fails on multiplayer.

1. they forgot to make a model editor again.(but wont be a proplem since maps suck now anyways since its new)
2. wc3 had sc1 models but sc2 doesn't have warcraft models (i really dont care about this but it would've been helpful for legacy maps)
3. Newbies wont be able to create maps since the editor is an ass but in wc3 editor also kinda was annoying but easy to learn and gave of some good/epic/bad map makers.

4. no clans, and friend code BS!(wc3 clans will not be pleased and propley just ignore sc2 till wc3 dies out).

Good things:


1. Host afk wont F over but propley will in game.

2. matchmaking is a bit better but Most people dont like sc2 normal type, and go just for the story mode/ custom maps.

3.Graphics increase, and memory space needed and stuff increase which will make some comps go slow and sorry for the people that use old comps and wasted there money to not be able to play. (good thing for good comp users like meh! :grin:
 
Level 27
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
11,336
WOWWARS, here's the answer to your cryes:
1. Show me at least one 3D game that would have a model editor just for it (Don't say Spore, they make |models" with codes readeable only by the game itself and it's not a real 3D modeling. Blizzard made all their models with 3D software made not by them, like3Dmax, so why should they make something for users? The funcionality of this editor would be really limited and too complicated for more people, making it useless.
2. Pftt, there were only four easter egg models. Made just for lulz. Those Tauren marines, night elf pilots, diablo and others are for lulz too.
3. 1.: Simplicity of WC3 made it a hive for noob moders and five year old "Moddmakers". That was bad.
2.: SC2 gave us more functions than WC3. You can't add so much more functions without making harder to use them!
4. Dude, this is not a WOW where clans change game just to be a clan there. Sc1 is still played because it's one of cyber-sports games. WC3 is cyber sport game too. Actually they did promised clans on one of incoming expansions. WC3 didn't became as it is now in one moment too you know.
1. that's good I think...
2. Maybe that's you who don't like it? Personally I hate WC3 melee, firstly I was completely negative about the melee of SC2, but when I played I realised it's more fun that WC3. So people do play it, they do love it and speak for yourself.
3. I don't really see a thing to be excited here. Graphics allways have to be immproved, else SC1 wouldn't become a game of year and nobody would play it. And poor people who can't play SC2...
 
Level 23
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
3,914
WOWWARS, here's the answer to your cryes:
1. Show me at least one 3D game that would have a model editor just for it (Don't say Spore, they make |models" with codes readeable only by the game itself and it's not a real 3D modeling. Blizzard made all their models with 3D software made not by them, like3Dmax, so why should they make something for users? The funcionality of this editor would be really limited and too complicated for more people, making it useless.
2. Pftt, there were only four easter egg models. Made just for lulz. Those Tauren marines, night elf pilots, diablo and others are for lulz too.
3. 1.: Simplicity of WC3 made it a hive for noob moders and five year old "Moddmakers". That was bad.
2.: SC2 gave us more functions than WC3. You can't add so much more functions without making harder to use them!
4. Dude, this is not a WOW where clans change game just to be a clan there. Sc1 is still played because it's one of cyber-sports games. WC3 is cyber sport game too. Actually they did promised clans on one of incoming expansions. WC3 didn't became as it is now in one moment too you know.
1. that's good I think...
2. Maybe that's you who don't like it? Personally I hate WC3 melee, firstly I was completely negative about the melee of SC2, but when I played I realised it's more fun that WC3. So people do play it, they do love it and speak for yourself.
3. I don't really see a thing to be excited here. Graphics allways have to be immproved, else SC1 wouldn't become a game of year and nobody would play it. And poor people who can't play SC2...
I agree with you tleno.
But i wish they gave people like me a insturction manual. Because i can't figure out the data editor.
 
Level 8
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
499
Lol Tleno your kinda right about the melee how its alot better than wc3's crap.

but it kinda sucks ye need to wait for an expansion and waste more money cuz blizz Failed and added ghey facebook like crap. When they could've used wc3's system to help them create the clan system.

Dude, this is not a WOW where clans change game just to be a clan there.

Ye saying meh username or WoW? cuz were talking about wc3 and sc2. World of warcraft has nothing to do with this.
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
3. 1.: Simplicity of WC3 made it a hive for noob moders and five year old "Moddmakers". That was bad.
No, it wasn't. FUCKING EVERYONE STARTS OUT AS A NOOB. You actually want to discourage new modders from making anything? Well, that's irrelevant. Blizzard should definitely want to encourage new modders, because that's how their modding fanbase can grow.
2.: SC2 gave us more functions than WC3. You can't add so much more functions without making harder to use them!
GUI vs. JASS. GG thanks for playing.

Yes, you can make a user interface that is simple and intuitive while giving people the opportunity to further refine the units' data.
 
Last edited:
Level 8
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
498
The story is like WarCraft III'S?! PLEASE!
At what point do the races all join together? Hmmm?

but it kinda sucks ye need to wait for an expansion and waste more money cuz blizz Failed and added ghey facebook like crap. When they could've used wc3's system to help them create the clan system.

Don't blame Blizzard for the expansion shit, it's actually Activision's fault. They made Blizzard do all this crap during production.
 
Level 7
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
326
I will post my Pros and Contras after finishing the campaign. For now, here is an article I found on the whole Activision Blizzard/Bobby Kotick thing:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128252#
I don't know if all of it is true but it sure makes you think...

This was exactly the stuff I was complaining about that everyone laughed at me for during the beta. Blizzard pretty much just a subsidiary or Activision now and it can be perfectly reflected in Blizzard's current business model. Prior to Activison's "merger" with Blizzard the entire model for Blizzard's games was to take the features that previous fans loved and adding new features to improve the experience while at the same time making the game a reasonably cheap and usable purchase because they understood that their sales depended on the love of their fans purchasing and promoting their games. If you contrast the new business dealings then you can see it's all about profit now: micro transactions, increased amounts of expansions, and ridiculous additions to impress stockholders (facebook integration).

Activision is probably the worst game publisher nowadays due to their sh*t treatment of employees and fans, their insistence that product damaging features such as DRM and no LAN help promote gaming by increasing their profit, and their tireless beating of franchises to the point where they become little more than rehashes of the previous version with new paint and some extra maps and guns.
 
Level 11
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
963
Regarding the editor not being user friendly:

A. Making the editor more user friendly is a noble goal, one that we've actually accomplished several times during development, haha. With great customizability comes great complexity, unfortunately. It can be overwhelming at times, but like many things in life most of the intimidation comes from the fact that it is unfamiliar.

Again, as an aside, we are kicking around a couple of ideas for addressing the intimidation potentially experienced by a new user to the editor. :)
not entirely convinced they actually give a shit, but hey, maybe one day they will :eek:
 
Level 7
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
326
Omg it's not Activision that decides will Bnet 2.0 have chat channels or not, will it have LAN or not.

Maybe you missed the part about how Activision placed Thomas Tipple to oversee Blizzard and report directly to Activision, and also how it was Kotick who pushed for social networking integration in their games which seems like less than coincidence that B.net 2.0 has Facebook integration.

Even the idea to sell in 3 expansions is Blizzard's idea...

Normally I wouldn't nitpick the release of expansions because Blizzard has always previously adhered to the philosophy that you release a complete game experience first and then add new features shortly after. However with the announcement of two expansions before the game was even released it makes them seem more like expensive DLC than expansions.

It's all the damn Blizzard who were like 'Hmm let's see what will happen if we dont add channels' 'Hey no LAN = less trouble for us, who needs LAN', 'Let's make a MMMEGA SPLIT of the ladder to ridicule '. It's all blizzard's decision

Actually Blizzard never used to care about piracy prior to WoW because they understood that B.net was the key feature of their games and while you could multi-install or pirate their games you wouldn't be able to access B.net which meant that even with a large amount of friends your player pool would be limited to who was not busy and willing to connect with either a LAN emulation program or actual wires. Plus the entire split of the ladder in SC2 also is affected by removal of LAN which increases usage of B.net's servers during tournaments (both official and unofficial).


They decided their new approach is much better but the spam on their forums proved else. And they responded that they might add them, apparently confessing their mistake with their experiments

Quite honestly I don't care about chat channels because I never used them however their removal along with the removal of clans pissed me off because quite a few people did legitimately use them to organise games and tournaments with people they didn't know outside of B.net which help to bring the community together.
 
Level 7
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
326
And most importantly - HACKS. If they will show the same 'care' about hacks as they did in War3, just no comment. There are already some hax, im not sure if MH or DH, but there are for example:

achievement hack - I saw this in the forum where i got my copy, i felt like bashing those retards how could they use such shit, not that i care about pictures but still was stupid and I didnt flame/bash/smash that forum only to not be unthankful towards the admin who organized the contest.

Yes Blizzard have changed and yes, they were better in the past.

Blizzard was completely anal about hacking in WC3 for the majority of its early life and it was only later that hacks became widely unbanned which probably had something to do with Blizzard worrying too much about WoW and SC2. As for achievement hacks who really cares? If little whiny kids and obsessive douchebag teens want to hack achievements I could really care less because the only important thing in RTS games are the gameplay and the editor.
 
Level 2
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
15
Biggest disappointment?
To netbased
I know its high-tech 'n all. But I miss Warcraft 3's "Offline" campaign and/or singleplayer modes..
Strange.
 
Level 11
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
963
achievement hack - I saw this in the forum where i got my copy, i felt like bashing those retards how could they use such shit, not that i care about pictures but still was stupid and I didnt flame/bash/smash that forum only to not be unthankful towards the admin who organized the contest.
Doubt it's actually a hack. There was a guy on the NA server who got his Dark Voice portrait about a week ago. He was in Bronze League, and did absolutely nothing but worker rush every single game - a tactic which probably only works about 40% of the time, but takes like 3 minutes to execute regardless. :\
 
Level 8
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
386
dissapointments by order of importance:
1- no lan
2- map style suck
3- the big "took away" of units Q_Q vulture (i dont use to play with protoss but they deserve a dark archon)(same for zerg´s lurker) i really thought that sc2 was gonna add more units to the existent ones.
4- new editor might be more wide in options, but its very unneficient, things that used to take 5 min in the war 3 editor now can takes hours or even more
5- characters in the campaign look nothing like the sc1 one, raynor is completely different (not only cuz of the new graphics)
6-im surely missing something else
 
dissapointments by order of importance:
2- map style suck
3- the big "took away" of units Q_Q vulture (i dont use to play with protoss but they deserve a dark archon)(same for zerg´s lurker) i really thought that sc2 was gonna add more units to the existent ones.
4- new editor might be more wide in options, but its very unneficient, things that used to take 5 min in the war 3 editor now can takes hours or even more
2 - wat?
3 - they added new units and removed old ones. so basically they add more units to some of the existent ones.
4 - not true, if you know how its done everything takes a few mins. But its hard to learn
 
Level 8
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
386
2 map style, most of all the way the map is like an isle that u can fly over the limits, it make u have to reinforce air defenses + resourse distribution + the map style in general, they have no comparation with sc1 maps
3 what i said is that i was expecting all old units + new ones (at leats add the amount that bw added)
4 and yes, even if u know how to, it takes longer
 
Level 11
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
850
2 map style, most of all the way the map is like an isle that u can fly over the limits, it make u have to reinforce air defenses + resourse distribution + the map style in general, they have no comparation with sc1 maps

Just becuase there is a small overhang that allow for air units to mass, doesn't mean they can't be countered. I was playing some comp stomp with a friend, and he normally air rushs from the side. He attacked a Hard AI and they had atleast 2-4 AA's set up were he would normally fly in, and it made it impossible for me to land my squads in to destroy them too.

3 what i said is that i was expecting all old units + new ones (at leats add the amount that bw added)

If I recall, Raynor says its been a few years since the events of SC1 (Mind you I've never played that) and Swan, I do believe, indicates they've lost the schematics to a lot of their tech.

4 and yes, even if u know how to, it takes longer

Takes longer = you'll pay more attention to detail and will probably catch a coding glitch or something sooner
 
Level 8
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
386
the map thing is not cuz of air rushed only (i actually like to use air units) its the whole concept of new maps.
i know it passed 4 years after bw, but he is not only older, he had a completely facial reconstruction, same as mengsk who now has more hair (inverse ageing)?, and kerrigan had rhastas
takes longer = ull pay less attetion due ull try to do things faster to cover the time ur loosing
 
Level 25
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
4,881
My main disappointments with SC2 and its editor:

1. Arrow key and button lag/delays when maps are played in multiplayer

2. Cannot expand map dimensions beyond 256x256

3. Sort of clunky editor UI

If they fix these three key issues I have with the game and it's moddability, I'm a happy guy.
 
1. Arrow key and button lag/delays when maps are played in multiplayer
you need special servers and the game synchronization must be heavily reduced in order for these feutures to work without delay. However, it wasn't obviously intended for multiplayer maps, just look at the GUI commentaries.

2. Cannot expand map dimensions beyond 256x256

I doubt you need more unless you are making a big RPG. They'll add multiplayer cross map linking if that's the case.


3. Sort of clunky editor UI

Agreed, they could have worked a lot more to make the UI way more friendly. Specialy the data editor, that one's a mess.
 

Rui

Rui

Level 39
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
7,471
I have been working on the data editor and things do take longer to get done even if you know the procedure. This is explained by the fact that every time you create something there's five to ten more things that refer to it. No doubt it might (though I'm beginning to get doubts) allow a few things to look and run smoother without having to rely on tricks or triggers, but it definitely takes longer, requires an exorbitant amount of objects, and is definitely not user friendly -- on top of not all fields displaying a help tip, a few of them, which do have, contain tips that are not particularly clarifying, or are even confusing.

BlinkBoy said:
(...) They'll add multiplayer cross map linking (...)
They'll add? Are you telling us that it's not already possible? Because that's quite a blow.As is the inability to make maps bigger than 256x256. It's okay for melee maps, footmen wars or the monotonous TDs, but RP, RPG, and strategy map makers have always fought against such limitations -- not to mention that maps in Starcraft II are incredibly small for their dimensions: a Starcraft II 256x256 looks like a 192x192 in Warcraft. Cross-map won't do much, if anything, at all, to help the last map types I mentioned.In an RP map, players need to receive OOC from everyone, and while it would be, theoretically, possible that cross-map can extend the borders, it forces all players to interact with each other instead of having two or more roleplays progressing at the same time, let us refer a situation in which player A is roleplaying with two other players and his character is far from his city (also under the control of player A), but another roleplay is going on and other characters arrive at his city -- in this case, if player A has went as far as crossing to another map, his city remains inactive, and this is assuming cross-mapping allows something like this, having two maps and call it all a single game, and allow players to travel between them.RPGs seem like the only type of map that would benefit from this, but then again, how big are you going to make a multiplayer RPG when the player limit is 14 individuals?As for strategy maps, such as "Battle for Middle Earth" or "Azeroth Wars Strategy", to cite but a few, it doesn't help them at all. In these maps, you could take your army as far as the other corner of the map, which, in "Azeroth Wars Strategy", was quite bigger than 256x256. How can you be expected to command an army in one map and manage your base in another one?
 
Level 20
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
2,999
My main disappointments with SC2 and its editor:

1. Arrow key and button lag/delays when maps are played in multiplayer

Yeah that's such a shame, so much for the shooting maps =/
It could be down to ping though, sept I'm pretty sure this time round blizz will spend their utmost on STOPPING us from using/making reducers -.-'

@Rui - I think if/when they do include cross map linking all players will have to load the new map, so it'll be pretty useless except for multiplayer campaigns.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if you could have x maps running simultaneously as one game, like in NeverWinter Nights. I'm just not getting my hopes up.
 
Level 10
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
477
Keyboard and mouse lag are artifacts of the RTS engine. However, it is still slower than it should be (it should have the same lag as a normal movement order) so Blizzard is fixing it for a later patch to be more responsive, probably in patch 1.2.

Also, if we can use WSAD, ESDF, etc. why would anyone use arrow key movement? Arrow keys are placed horribly compared to the other keys.
 
Level 16
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
1,433
I doubt you need more unless you are making a big RPG. They'll add multiplayer cross map linking if that's the case.
Goshdarnit he's once again going to attempt to develop a mod that he doesn't have the skill nor the motivation to finish.

As is the inability to make maps bigger than 256x256. It's okay for melee maps, footmen wars or the monotonous TDs, but RP, RPG, and strategy map makers have always fought against such limitations -- not to mention that maps in Starcraft II are incredibly small for their dimensions: a Starcraft II 256x256 looks like a 192x192 in Warcraft.
Any size past 256x256 is unnecessary, really. You can easily scale the rest of the map to accommodate a smaller terrain size.
--
The only major gripe I have so far is the data editor. Instead of support for scripting my own abilities, I'm forced to click around in an awkward GUI.
 
Top