The New Editor Compared to the WarCraft Editor

[Tyman2007]

If you're good enough, you can design a really good game using nothing but the data editor.

That's all I have to say about it.

Well that.. And it's not user friendly at all..

 

[punwisp]

Starcraft and warcraft are 2 VERY different games.

Warcraft II was pretty much like Starcraft. Warcraft III on the other hand is a very different story.

Wc3 focused on very small armies, with the primary focused being you're hero, of which you have to micro a lot. Its a lot slower pace.

Starcraft 2 is the opposite. Sc2 focuses on large armies, without a primary focused unit (Heroes), with a fast paced battles, of which have to be strategically planned, other wise its just a big mess.

In the long run, Sc2 requires more effort and strategy than wc3. Not to mention its a lot faster pace.

Bloodcount- You are recommending a game not even in the same genre, how irrelevant .

And he is right, Dota, which is a AOS (Aeon of Strife), didn't actually start on wc3. The concept anyway.

Dota was REALLY good on RoC, because it was very unique, including with how things were when it was just RoC. Then TFT came out, and that uniqueness went poof. What kept it alive and soaring was how bloody simple of a game it was. Very easy to play and learn. The downside was it had a VERY shitty community, this cannot be disputed. Also was the fact that it hogged 90% of the hosts, which leaves other maps that were far unique and better, to the sewer, to never be seen.

Thats one thing I love about Battle.net 2, and I hope in a sense it stays. How things are hosted. So instead of seeing 500 Dota hosts and nothing else. Its a single category, and you randomly join one, which is also very good.

Bad thing is, you'll only find your game on the list if you have a lot of people hosting the map.


Anyway, stop bitching about the editor, you guys aren't giving it a hint of chance. Wc3 and Sc1 was only good after x years. And if WE is better, then why is it we see maps that would take years before we would see in WE, yet in Sc2 we see them in a matter of a couple weeks, if not less.

Lot of type of things you could do in Sc2 would take a LONG time to do in WE, and be a LOT of hard work, yet in Sc2, its far easier.

Yea, we expected it to be a easy learning curve, we expected everything to be simple. Shit we were wrong. How do we fix this? We adapt.

Who cares of its a steep learning curve? It means less noobs will flood crap maps. Not to mention all it takes is time, just like wc3. And it doesnt take long to know what everything means and goes.

 

[Karawasa]

Who cares of its a steep learning curve? It means less noobs will flood crap maps.

The popularity system is what really prevents crap maps from going anywhere. They'll start at the bottom and never move up. But...I agree with you on the point.

 

[Sevion]

The popularity system is what'll keep some great maps from going anywhere as well. As well as maps with potential. :-/

 

[tom_mai78101]

If we could get about 500 people telling others not to play a specific map, then we'll be able to play a new batch of maps we haven't seen yet.

 

[Sevion]

GL. No chat channels... :thup:

 

[Siretu]

GL. No chat channels... yet :thup:

Let me fix that for you.

They said they would implement chat channels(or something very simmilar) but not by release. This is fine by me because they got lots of other stuff to work on as well. Things that I'd rather have take priority over chat channels.

 

[Darthfett]

If we could get about 500 people telling others not to play a specific map, then we'll be able to play a new batch of maps we haven't seen yet.

Going against the popular vote never works. Majority will still rule. It's different if you have about 500 people telling others to PLAY a specific map (better yet, hosting it).

 

[tom_mai78101]

Here's a place for people to actually post their questions regarding SC2 Editor here.

Official Blizzard Post.