Staredit Network

I didn't mean just strategy games. I meant every game that has come out since then. Heck, I even still break out Roller Coaster Tycoon once in a while because I love theme parks. And yes, Lucasarts has made many, many good Star Wars titles. My favorite to date would have to be Jedi Outcast. Call of Duty is very, very balanced, probably more so than StarCraft. C&C Generals is nearly as fun. The Battle for Middle-Earth (although failing to meet my expectations for castle construction ) is still one of the most gorgeous games to play, not to mention Helluva fun to immerse myself in Middle-Earth with. And you are a complete noob to limiting yourself to StarCraft, but I'm sure you'll come back and prove me wrong, but there are so many other good games out there that limiting myself to StarCraft is a travesty, and it's just plain wrong.

*Edit* And I may be the first to say it on this site. I personally think that newer games have come out that are better than StarCraft.

Hahahaha, what a newb! That doesn't even make sense! Do you realize what you are saying...? This is so obvious that it's hard to describe in words.

From here on out, "normal maps" will refer to "melee maps", because that is a pointless and misleading term.

UMS maps are not normal maps. In other words, a UMS guy doesn't sit down and say, "I am going to make the equivalent of a normal map, but add in the equivalent triggers!". No, instead, they say, "I am going to make a UMS map with my own triggers, and my own gameplay."

I don't think you realize how hard it is to balance every position against every other position for 9 matchups. That is an insane amount of work. For example, a map is balanced avery position except PvT 12:00 vs 6:00, because the middle isn't open enough for a 12:00 toss to break a 6:00 terran's push. So, you widen the middle. Uh oh! Now, the middle is too open for 9:00 vs 6:00, and you have also made TvZ imbalanced!

A better analogy would this: Someone has to solve a problem with very strict ruleset, and whatever he does will go under intense scruitny. Someone else has to paint an abstract picture. The second guy has the freedom to do whatever he wants. There is very little scrutiny on him. The first guy has to rake his mind trying to solve the problem, and once he thinks he has solved it, he gets pages of criticism from his peers, explaining why he his solution sucks, and what he has to do to change it Those changes are made, but they invalidate a different part of the problem.


See the thread for more details on this arguement, if you keep ignoring it I am going to start quoting posts from it.

I don't think you do. UMS players start from scratch. They have to make up their own unit statistics, and then balance them with triggering, amount, etc. Their terrain is every bit as important as (often more important than) a melee map's is. I respect melee maps enough now (because of wes's rather good post), that I won't flame.

But, all you're doing is calling every UMS mapper a noob, and Alpha is a rather cool guy. I don't think this line of reasoning will get you very far.

For being one of the smartest persons (alpha) I've seen on this whole forum, I can't believe you would make a comment like that. And to even try to compare terraining is totally absurd. 80%+ UMS maps are just some blocky terrain thrown together. As for the other ones, their terrain doesn't need tested possibly hundreds of times for all 9 possible race matchups, the position balances as well. UMS mapmakers can just go ahead and make what they want, you can't do that with melee, it wouldn't be balanced.

Incase you're still too ignorant, I'll use The Lost Temple, Starcraft's most played map, as an example. The map came out with the game SC, it was made by Blizzard. I could give you at least 20 versions (mabye more like 30) of The Lost Temple. Pro Tours such as PGT, WGT, and even WCG have created many versions of LT, because constant balance issues are always exploited, along with position balances. Just like in any game, a big exploit giving someone a favor will be used to an advantage constantly. In patch 1.12 Blizzard took it to themselves to update The Lost Temple. Wow.

Please don't try to use crappy UMS maps to compare to elite melee maps. You have to keep the quality the same. I could just easily say "OMG, GO PLAY A UNBALANCED BLIZZAARDAM AP!!!!"

Sorry, edited that out of my post.

Wesmic, it all depends on what type of UMS map you're making that determines the importance of the terrain. Even a bound has to be terrained somewhat (the ones with actual terrain that is with obstacles and whatnot), but some maps have terrain that is every bit as important as melee terrain. A strategic warfare map has balanced terrain all across the map (they are generally excellent maps), with terrain designed in mind for a plethora of strategies.

Some UMS maps don't require melee level terraining, but most do, though most are done very poorly. I'm just saying that UMS maps have the ability to be much easier or much more difficult to map than melee. It's all relative to the type.

Name the most "elite" UMS map you can think of and lets compare it to the most "elite" melee map.

I don't know about you.. but this arguement is pointless.

It's like asking, which is better? Oranges or Banana?

The two cannot be compared! However, if we're asked to judge the difficult in creating the map, the two most essential things for both is terrain balancing in melee and triggering in ums.

(I can safely ignore other aspects of ums such as balancing because not all maps will require it)

Triggers can be extremely easy or extremely difficult. Terrain is at a constant difficulty, which is extremely high. However, if I had to judge, I would say ums has potential to be more difficult but the average to somewhat-advanced maps don't come nearly close to the difficult in melee.

Making balanced maps is much harder than programming, and programming is 10x harder than UMS. 'Nuff said.

And no, balancing in UMS maps is not nearly as refined -- and does not nearly have as high standards -- as balancing for normal maps.

That's impossible.

Consider starcraft is programming and it is much more difficult to make than melee mapping because the engine has to not only balance terrain, but also units and abilities.

To say triggers is always more difficult than melee balancing is absurd. I think you don't know half of the more advanced side of ums making.

-Don't criticize Melee mapping until you go and create a good map for melee. But hold on a second, shouldn't this be true Vice Versa? People who criticize UMS should go out and make a good UMS map before shoving it down the toilet.

-Melee is not solely responsible for Starcraft's popularity. It is a combination of both Melee and UMS.

-Its true that there are terrible UMS maps out there, but the best ones absolutely rock. My favorite is the original Protoss Fortress (No infinite cash!). That map kicked so much ass!

I don't believe they can be compared though gameplay wise Melee will always be better than any UMS out there, it has the most depth to it.

Hey, you were quick enough to compare, so why can't we?

Most indepth? It has some of the most stereotypical RTS gameplay. WarCraft III and The Battle for Middle-Earth are more indepth because WCIII has RPG style elements with its heroes and TBfM-E has a great unit leveling system. StarCraft is a very static game when you compare it to newer Strategy titles. UMS can make it a lot more indepth, but melee will always be the same old game.

Both types are difficult in many ways. Even though USUALLY making UMS maps is a more tedious process, it doesn't necessarily mean it is harder.

What makes a map hard is not the process in which you make it, but what the outcome is. In this sense, it is harder for people in general to make good UMS or melee maps.

And i've said this before but i'll say it again:
People with inventive minds usually should like UMS maps better
People with artistic minds usually should like Melee maps better

Oh so now we are comparing it to OTHER games? No UMS has as much depth as Melee are you kidding me? Yea I'm sure there's a UMS map that requires as much strategy, micro, and macro that Melee needs. You should try playing a melee game.

I wasn't really comparing I was giving reasons as to why they can't be compared and explaining their differences even though they do share some similar qualities

It doesn't matter that Starcraft doesn't do anything outside of the RTS genre... that doesn't mean that it isn't a deep game!

There are so many strategies, so many counters, so many subtleties of every battle that can turn the tide of the game; no other game requires the insane amount of both micro and macro as Broodwar, and every player, even at the top, still has a tremendous amount of room for improvement. All of this together has made Brodwar the most played, the most watched, and I would be willling to bet the most valued game in terms of sponsorships retail game ever.

Oh here comes aEp's favorite SEN member, ihatett.

Really, there are a select few UMS maps that are more indepth than melee. UMS has the ability to be much simpler, but it has the ability to be much, much more complex. I hope I don't have to say it again.

*Edit* There aren't that many strategies when compared to, say, Rise of Nations or Civilization III. But, with all that triggering, you can have scripted events (even random!) events, that add a whole new twist to gameplay, forcing people to micro and/or macro in a split second, having a dozen different small battles going on at the same time that it is imperative that they succeed in each, or simply immersing them in an entirely new world.

... rofl? Would you like to provide some examples of these "great" maps that are so great they are all over bnet? Show me these great maps that should be played by everyone over and over because they are so indepth and require more strategy etc than Melee.

Just like public melee on b.net is plagued to the very core, so is UMS. I'll just direct you to the download database and you can take your pick.

Rofl you call those maps indepth? Do you even know what we mean by indepth? Wow... none of those maps has more depth than Melee does, seriously.

Name ONE UMS that is more indepth than Broodwar. ONE.

Can it sport a proffesional scene? Can it sport insane amounts of micro and macro? Can it support improvement at the highest levels of player after 7 years?

ADDITION:
You can't even talk, look at my sig for the proof of your cluelessness.

I had a little debate with a friend of mine from church. He use to play SC for a little bit got Got WC3 soon and is now addicted to that game. I tried to convert him back but he says wc3 is better and has more strategy.

Lies...

I prefer to follow the jedi way and not even try the "dark" side of the force, because it's deceptive ways can suck you in and it is hard to come back to the light

In Starwars episode three, Palpatine said that sometimes one must use the dark force for power beyond imagination or w/e and that it is necessary to explore some of its dark secrets