Yes, much more sensible list of things than Zoan's post. A lot of his stuff would be used in 0.1% of maps (perhaps quite popular maps, but very few) and would take a lot of work to implement into the engine. Lets be realistic and asks for things that would provide the biggest bang for buck.

Yes, have a trigger condition that can reference a specific unit ID, and then have a generic memory offset. That way map-makers can look at any part of the unit structure they like and come up with their own crazy ideas, eg the unit-facing-direction request of Zoan. Sure it might be more work, but the mappers should put in that effort - it'll set their maps apart.

Similarly have a trigger condition that isn't tied to a unit ID, and can be used to read any part of memory that we want. That would allow things like mouse pointer co-ordinate detection and some of the other very technical things Zoan listed.

Easy way to meet this requirement is just to extend Switches. They currently have boolean operations - that can be retained by treating false == 0 and true != 0. They could be made into 4 byte signed integers with add/subtract/multiply/divide/compare operators.

Making hyper-triggers part of the base system would break any custom maps that weren't expecting them, and particularly all of the campaign maps. Such a change as this would require a new version number for the map. Which is what they should do - and tie any new trigger conditions/actions to the new map version. That way historic maps could be unaffected by any changes.

And change unit size from Small, Medium and Large, and Robotic / Organic.

Can we get an ability to toggle blind on off on units oh and can map revealers be detectable in locations

This is frustratingly unhelpful, I didn't expect them to make EUD actions a thing again (we can execute code with techniques many times less powerful), but it doesn't answer the question of whether EUD conditions are going to be messed with (beyond the obviously needed memory changes) or if EUPs are going away (which I would lament but would expect since we do have executable code through them).

Would assume by default, the setting would be off. So older maps would obviously be unaffected. However new maps, could utilize it.

Yeah I got a little excited. The condensed posts are much better than mine.

Another important thing I forgot to mention:

Is there a way to make the downloads on battlenet faster. Right now something, I'm not sure what it is, actually gimps download speed of maps badly, no matter how fast everyone's connections are. In today's advanced mapping world map sizes are getting bigger and bigger, some even 100mb. These maps could 'go viral' a lot easier if they were easily downloadable via battlenet.

They probably will fix that. I don't see a reason why they'd leave it as a 56kb connection expectation.

My guess on the slow file download, is that they have a maximum limit on the TCP window size enforced by the client. That'll effectively cap the download speed, although people who have lower pings with each other would still be able to get faster speeds.

Back when Starcraft came out, TCP wasn't really standardised to the extent it is now. If they've got their own TCP implementation then they'd have to replace it to improve this, but if they're making changes to the b.net side of things then it's highly likely they would replace any custom implementation if one exists.

Oh, another cool thing would be to make maps any size, not just 64, 96, 128, 192, or 256.

A 500x500 epic map would be so stupid cool lol. Probably not used much but w.e

Nooks and crannies is an issue as well.

A map should seldom ever be 256x256. What would you even do with 500x500? I guarantee you would never terrain that whole thing, and no sane person would ever play a map that required them to go across such a large area. tbh.

Cuz a huge map would be cool

Probably run out of memory because the ISOM section is too big , I can see such a map being used for two purposes: ton sof cutscenes or something like Zelda Oracle of Ages/Seasons where you flip between similar but distinct worlds

I run into nooks and crannies at 256x256 so 500x500 would b impossible

Better fidelity Strip maps!
Joking aside, if we have other limits lifted it would become totally feasible to create a huge epic rpg, maybe even in collaborative effort.

with 500x500 we could get detailed world maps for diplomacy and other war games.

https://twitter.com/StarCraft/status/846877747460792320

I hope the portraits look less goofy.

let me crush your hopes (ignore the hydralisk)

I don't think those are final. They're paintings, concept art. They can't be animated like that.