Starcraft Maps 8 Player Download

So we all know it is just a matter of time. Just like warcraft 3, eventually people will be making tons of maps with the maximum number of players that the game allows (16). I figure I'm ahead of the curve on this one.

Basically, the first 15 players (players 1-14 + hostile which is player 15) all work perfectly fine in a normal melee game. The difficulty comes with that 16th player, which is player 0 (or white). By annexing the last player, there is no place left for anything neutral - including resources. This means that by default, if you make a 16 player melee map and try to play it in FFA mode for example, the other 15 player's resources will have RED outlines instead of the normal neutral yellow when clicked on and be unharvestable since they are owned by an enemy.

DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://shoxet.com/2y2DAR 🔥

So clearly, a workaround is needed. Somewhere in some form, the game defines what alliance configuration resources are harvestable under (allied, neutral, own, hostile) - it must since you CAN harvest resources when they are owned by neutral or yourself and CAN'T when they're owned by the enemy. My first idea was to try to hunt this down by looking in unit traits and abilities for anything related to this such as minerals, gas, scv, the SCV gather ability. But so far, I haven't been able to find it. If the editor organized abilities the way warcraft 3 did, I bet I could have found it pretty easily, but they reorganized the editor in starcraft 2 and now I can't find it. I'd assume it's in there somewhere though. Ideally everyone would be able to harvest normally, albeit with the strange caveat that their minerals and gas would be red, but that would just be an unavoidable side-effect.

Edit: By default you can have up to 14 players, with player 0 being neutral and player 15 being hostile. It's different from warcraft 3 where you could have up to 12 players + neutral hostile and neutral, because in starcraft 2, you have the option of making neutral+hostile into players, which brings the player count from 14 to 16. Replacing neutral hostile with a player is fine, the problem is with player 16.

this argument has been made countless times, but i still disagree. I've played 14 player maps with other people and it was lag free. 2 extra people shouldn't make an "end of the world" difference, especially since you can lower settings, and as time goes by, people will start getting better and better pcs. I used to have a computer that couldn't play wc3...few years later i could play it with 12 ppl, max settings and max armies.

Then i look at the observer slots. In beta, if there were 8 slots in the game, there would be 8 available for observing. THERE ARE ONLY 7 NOW!. yes, including the slot i filled in. So the game apparently is actually 15 players???

so i made a quick quick map purely for testing purposes where placed 16 locations and minerals under control of each player. I also set each player (including neutral and hostile) to user and published it.

It publishes alright, and in the listing screen it shows with a (16) next to it. Unfortunately, it will not let you have people/ai's in it. It leaves 1 spot empty in the game lobby. The AI button remains visible (it doesn't grey out like in maps where all the positions are filled), but it won't add that final 15th ai (16 including me). So i tried to invite a friend instead and it actually removes one of the ai's to make room for him, limiting it again to 15.

Do you guys think this is a bug or intentional? Remember, you're able to publish 16 player maps, but it won't let you have 16 people in it. It definitely doesn't look like when you fill up a 4/8/14 player map.

Actually, it can and does make an "end of the world difference". Most RTS games use a peer to peer connection model, and it's nothing to do with your graphical settings, its the data that needs to be sent to each player, which increases exponentially for each extra player because every player connects to every other player. Makes it very laggy.

If this is impossible or requires a very high level of knowledge to perma ban a player from custom or arcade maps you own, Blizzard really dropped the ball as anyone over 10 seems to be able to circumvent a ban and has no issue spending 3-6 hours a night making a mess of things for their own enjoyment.

edit: just read some guy petitioning Blizzard to remove custom/arcade map banning capabilities and going into extreme detail on why it's bad for the community. I get not banning from lobbies and even get the idea behind the totally confusing and useless arcade map ranking system, but come on. If you need someone gone from a map, you need a feature that forces them to buy new accounts.. Get player handle I thought was the answer, guess not.

you have to hardcode it in triggers or data tables not in banks.i have created a custom action that returns a bool called isBanned. it takes a player handle (as parameter) and compares against a list of player handles from players that are banned ( a huge OR condition Plyer_Handle == 1-S2-...., Player_Handle ==1-S2-..., if one condition is met the action returns true which results in a kick and a msg to the player (not in this order)).

you also have to write a parser to filter the 3 element of the ID: 1-S2-X-..... because X might change in the future with buying an expansion. i bet you can unban yourself in most games once by buying an expansion.

Well it's a little difficult to be this patient when you get people who behave like this 5-6 nights a week. Rewards are earned like being able to play a sound or using a pet and certain people would spam the sound constantly for minutes straight. So I had to set timers because people started muting in game sounds, making the rewards pointless. Then you get people who will drive away lower league players by bashing their play, leaving me with less players. Then you get people who are much higher leagues than everyone else and force an entire night of one team completely dominating and no one has any fun (except maybe they teamsters) for wrecking teams that include variations of bronze through diamond.

So I got rid of that method and just created a rotation of maps and would change the map more often if it was clearly unpopular. We use Blizzard's current ladder maps until the last 2 weeks of a season. Now I have started getting people coming in, basically pissed off if they don't get to play or if the king of the hill or teaming is turned on or off and blame me for it. I ignored the trash talking and bigotry for a couple weeks, but it got pretty old because people started questioning why (x player hates me so much).

I'm only a gold/silver player and typically play with whoever and end up facing diamond teams so I get shit on by my teammate (my fault or not often). I work 60 hours a week and this is the thanks I get for trying my best to make things fair and fun for everyone.

This is the kind of thinking I was talking about. Identifying a mechanic abuse, designing a solution and implementing. This is by far the best way to do things as you are improving your maps quality rather than wasting time on the here and now.

I used to do this to maps back on WC3 where I could literally 1v6 publics in some games. It is completely fair and encourages high level play. The only bad thing about it is if the expert player add insult to injury by showering players with abuse however again that can be reported as harassment and is not your concern.

Observers reporting information is a common problem. This is why in truly competitive games with no environmental control there are no observers or the observers only have vision of the side they support. The actual best solution is to never remove players from the gameplay, always have them there but they might be so far behind that they cannot win.

You need to consider people above your skill level. Competitive melee style maps have to be aimed at Platinum/Diamond level players at least since anything below will cause major imbalances due to a lack of available skill toolset. Just look at the SC2 official forums and the number of people complaining how "X is imbaleneced, nerf/buff it" when they are only in gold/silver. Their balance suggestions are often based on their most recent win/lose and full of emotions that it does not even make sense.

I don't know about that. I think you more of need to filter ideas. I know I've definitely had some improvements in my maps based on player suggestions. Some of it was because previously I had an idea in my head that the map should be a certain way, but I decided to try the change anyways, and the map ended up better off. Two examples would be implementation of a hero revival system (I had wanted death to be an end game scenario), and a second would be far too many AI siege tanks about the map. Ended up having to reduce them and it affected gameplay positively.

I think there are far too many personality types in the world to make that statement. Plus, I'm assuming we're mostly adults here on mapster. We tend not to care as much about what idiots on the internet say, however, there are teenagers and kids who play the arcade and can let their feelings get the better of them.

Anyway, I have an idea you can do. You see that link in my signature? It lets you "update" certain things in your game without having to upload a patch. This makes it really easy to add players to the banlist. ff782bc1db