Which is best? WC3's or SC2's?

[Crazy_Dead]

I thought this may be obvioius for some people, but for me i think it's a good question.
SC2's WE, is very very hard to master and use. But still, when you get that character done, it may be better than if you would done it in WC3's. You can choose anything in the SC2's WE. Also the trigger editor is going insane. But still, very precise.

So, what do YOU think? Post some arguments!

 

[Dave312]

Definitely SC2. Although it is harder to learn you can do more complex things. Plus learning is half the fun.

I do miss all the random neutral hostile units that were in WC3 though. They were very useful for custom maps.

 

[Inflicted]

WC3 is simpler, and makes it alot easier for noobs to edit. Encouraging more people to do so?

fair point?

 

[Adovid]

If your going to edit maps, might as well know the tools.

It took people a long time to learn wc3 editor as well. I think people give it more credit simply because they are more familiar with something they have been using for 6 years.

Sc2 Editor is better and way more efficient for doing the things you want to do.

 

[Frozenwind]

SC2 looks harder when you're new to the SC2 editor (even if experience with WC3 editor), because of the object editor. But over-time, you'll understand it, and then the advantages are far greater as the disadvantages.

 

[SH4D0WS1N]

SC2 looks harder when you're new to the SC2 editor (even if experience with WC3 editor), because of the object editor. But over-time, you'll understand it, and then the advantages are far greater as the disadvantages.

This.

But I'm loving what you can do with dialogs.

 

[Flare]

SC2 looks harder when you're new to the SC2 editor

Looks? To be honest, I'd go as far as to say it truly is more difficult, regardless of experience - obviously, getting to grips with it makes it much, much easier, but there is still so much editting required (in comparison to WC3) to get a fully-functional unit.

The time-consuming nature of even the most basic tasks is a pain in the arse, but I personally prefer SC2's Editor, and think that it is better - then again, that could be greatly influenced by the fact that it's a new toy right now

But I'm loving what you can do with dialogs.

<3 - dialogs are pretty awesome now. Some things still left to be desired, but it's still really cool

 

[Narks]

there are some serious failings in the sc2 editor where there is less functionality then warcraft 3

like adding abilities to units on the fly

or the 2mb script / variable / stuff limit

or cliffs...

 

[LurkerAspect]

I prefer warcraft 3's editor because of it's simplicity, even though if you were experienced and after learning the simple coding language it was extremely powerful. I opened sc2's editor and was like wtf. To a beginner, it's immensely complicated, with all these actors and values all over the place, I don't even know where to begin!

As a side note, I'm not sure what it's like in sc2, but in wc3 it felt like there was pressure to use only custom and coded abilities in order to create a good map, which added months onto production times. Is that so with sc2?

 

[Flare]

but in wc3 it felt like there was pressure to use only custom and coded abilities in order to create a good map, which added months onto production times. Is that so with sc2?

Well, I think that 'pressure' was source mainly from the fact that the standard WC3 skills are, configuration-wise, very restricted (you can change basic properties, but the skill itself couldn't be changed drastically). Since you're given all the basic elements to assemble your own skills, the requirement to code stuff is less prevalent - although, I guess custom abilities are still highly sought after, the fact that you're given a foundation with which to work with (i.e. Behaviours, Effects, Actors, etc.) rather than having to build them from nothing, like in WC3, does make it easier (IMO) and a hell of a lot more fun

 

[Adovid]

Yes, the SC2 editor almost makes it pointless(almost) to use triggers for abilities. With buffs alone you can do all kinds of things like change a unit's morph rate, or sound set or life or armor or shields or most any unit attribute including enabling weapons or keeping a unit from dieing(and activating an effect when that would happen), you can even specify what happens when a unit takes damage from certain weapons. On top of that buffs can be linked with effects and actors to change or apply animations, issue orders, apply other buffs, select units... All kinds of things.

@Flare Sig, Dream Theater . Did you hear about Mike? .

 

[Inflicted]

If your going to edit maps, might as well know the tools.

It took people a long time to learn wc3 editor as well. I think people give it more credit simply because they are more familiar with something they have been using for 6 years.

Sc2 Editor is better and way more efficient for doing the things you want to do.

you do realise that its easier for some people, i can't really compare cos i havent seen the SC2 editor. but i picked up how to use the WC3 editor really fast. Everything is simple and even noobs will be able to do a few functions without trouble.

 

[Tyman2007]

Just thought I'd revive a week-dead thread It deserves more responses than this

As far as a preference, It's really hard to say. I will make a Pros, Cons, and comparisons list.

Starcraft 2 Editor;

Pros:
-EXTREMELY Dynamic.
-EXTREMELY Dynamic.
-More Efficient
-Encourages more professionality among editors
-Teaches you something about making games.
-Larger arrays!
-More categorization
-More efficient language
-More options / Better functionality.
-Custom resource available
-Very high food limit

Cons:
-Harder than climbing mt. Everest with no arms and legs.
-Quite a few relatively (relatively) useless fields.
-Takes longer to do simple tasks.
-Harder to modify editor
-More strict on key limits (HP, Shields, Etc.)
-Few limitations on language and uses C. (Why not C++, I don't know..)

WC3 Editor;

Pros:
-Easy
-Easy
-EASY
-Simple to make quick maps and minigames.
-Easy to modify editor
-Lenient limits (Hp, Mp up to 2 billion)
-Simple tasks are simple
-A blind monkey can make a decent map

Cons:
-Fairly static as far as abilities.
-Not very efficient
-Jass had a lot of limitations
-Strict food limit (300)
-Fairly static in general
-Could never make "The game of your dreams"
-Didn't teach the user anything special about making games

However, some key things that I would like to point out in my comparisons list.

Comparisons:
-Warcraft 3 Trigger Editor to Starcraft 2 Trigger Editor
--The warcraft 3 trigger editor was limited as far as its language goes. It seemed incomplete, and people even went on to making modifications to it. Modifying the function list inside of starcraft 2 feels like a dream in comparison to making a new warcraft 3 function, However.
--The starcraft 2 editor is way too categorized. The search bar may make finding the functions easier, but changing the fields is a pain. Inside of the warcraft 3 editor, you could modify fields in a few seconds. Although the categorization is a good thing, as it allows you to change specific fields MUCH easier, I just don't think I will be using that too much.

-Warcraft 3 object editor to Starcraft 2 data editor.
--Oh my god.. where do I begin.. You can change the looks of the Starcraft 2 data editor to look just like the warcraft 3 editor, however, just creating 1 unit can take ages. I will never see me modifying very much more than what the warcraft 3 editor offers me. This isn't all bad, however, as the limitless possibilities with the starcraft 2 editor make up for the loss. You can change a unit's weapon VERY easily via trigger, which wasn't something you can do with this warcraft 3 editor without replacing the unit.

This is my idea, and in my opinion, the Starcraft 2 editor wins by a LONG shot.

 

[Sevion]

In terms of power, SC2's wins.

In terms of coding, WC3's wins (AT THE MOMENT BECAUSE OF MODS).

In terms of objects, SC2's wins.

In terms of terrain, SC2's wins (with some limitations as described above).

In terms of ease of use, WC3 wins (hands down).

In terms of fun to use, WC3 wins (for me hands down).

I spent more time in WC3's editor than I did in SC2's editor. After SC2, I moved straight into C#. I just couldn't get used to the user-UN-friendliness of it.

All in all, however, SC2 wins with it's flexibility and power.

The only lacking part is a few things that WC3 could do, WTF is up with scripting?, and the epically fail user-friendliness.

 

[Arkless]

hmm, just my opinion, I'm not saying what you said is wrong, feel free to talk about my opinion as well

In terms of power, SC2's wins.
true
In terms of coding, WC3's wins (AT THE MOMENT BECAUSE OF MODS).
Using any coding environment outside the editor, you can do the same stuff you could do with the so called "mods" (except editing data via script, but that's nothing I liked anyways). Using a preprocessor is nothing that only wc3 mods can offer, just write your own functions for it.
In terms of objects, SC2's wins.
xD well, wc3 had nothing to offer here, so yeah
In terms of terrain, SC2's wins (with some limitations as described above).
same
In terms of ease of use, WC3 wins (hands down).
Yeah, wc3 was cool ^^ I think I already spend 200+ hours on the sc2 data editor and I still lack a lot.
In terms of fun to use, WC3 wins (for me hands down).
It's slightly shiftig to sc2s for me. I clearly enjoy trying stuff with the data editor.
I spent more time in WC3's editor than I did in SC2's editor. After SC2, I moved straight into C#. I just couldn't get used to the user-UN-friendliness of it.
I don't think it's unfriendly, they fucked up some stuff, but all in all you can find your way around. I think I found out everything (well, nearly everything) I know on my own.
All in all, however, SC2 wins with it's flexibility and power.
The main point for me is that you can do stuff without huge laggs accomplishing you ingame. The data and the trigger editor can work together in a whole new way!
The only lacking part is a few things that WC3 could do, WTF is up with scripting?, and the epically fail user-friendliness.
Let me ask you here what you think is so unfriendly. You can, by the way, add custom script sections in the data editor, you can even require libraries and add variables in that part by simply declaring em. You a field where you can input a funktion name for initialization.

 

[Sevion]

Unfriendly? It takes AGES to do anything and the learning curve is like a sheer wall.

Custom Script? Please! [del]Custom[/del] Scripting in SC2 is a JOKE.

 

[Tyman2007]

From experimentation with the Data editor, it is hardly user-friendly. People are unfamiliar of the use of multiple objects to create a single item. Creating a new unit for example, requires 3 main objects, that being the Unit data, the Actor data and the Model data. Nobody just starting to use the editor would ever guess that.

Although it's easier for some people, those people have used something similar, or are fast learners.
A safe assumption would be that 30% of the general editor community will find this an easy to use editor.

The scripting language is C, which is a less than preferred language. There are many limitations when comparing it to something more advanced, such as java, and not only that, java is a lot more user friendly as it offers more basic principals, however the power of java is MUCH more than that of C.

Does that mean the scripting for SC2 is worse than that of WC3? No. Not at all. The scripting language had been massively improved from WC3. Hands down the SC2 language "Galaxy" is much better than Jass. The starcraft 2 editor is fairly static in terms of basic modification, such as changing some colors of the syntax checker. The WC3 editor did not have these limitations, mainly because it's an old game with an easy to crack engine.

vJass would have beaten galaxy by a long shot, if only vJass didn't compile using jass, which is basically impossible.
Jass is very static. If you don't do something a certain way, TOO BAD! vJass had to abide by that.
Galaxy is still very static, however creating your own functions in galaxy is a breeze. They really are "Fun"ctions.

The post above me implies that SC2's Galaxy isn't custom script. Custom script isn't custom in the ways you are talking about. Custom script means avoiding the limitations of the GUI functions and going past them, such as having a weird value like 'askdkfs' as an integer.

 

[Sevion]

The post above me implies that SC2's Galaxy isn't custom script. Custom script isn't custom in the ways you are talking about. Custom script means avoiding the limitations of the GUI functions and going past them, such as having a weird value like 'askdkfs' as an integer.

No. Completely missed what I was pointing at.

What I'm talking about is how scripting is so virtually unsupported. In essence, they REMOVED it.

 

[Arkless]

No. Completely missed what I was pointing at.

What I'm talking about is how scripting is so virtually unsupported. In essence, they REMOVED it.

How the fuck is it unsopported? I always hear guys say it but I never experienced any problems with it (except a 15 seconds wait time after pasting about 500 lines of text).

 

[Sevion]

You can't tell me that scripting in Galaxy is supported right now. No. Don't. You can go ask any scripter and they'll tell you the same thing. Galaxy is virtually unsupported in SC2.