To those of us here at SEN who still actively create and play custom campaigns in brood war, what kind of content are you looking for out of this year?

I personally am fond of classic build-and-destroy campaigns, but I recently played You Must Survive by Darkened Fantasies and it has a host of small tweaks and limitations that drastically change how you play the campaigns.

I'm also very interested in campaigns that present their narrative and story concisely. You don't see those too often, though. There are a lot of campaigns that have very long and drawn-out stories that I feel could have been told less clumsily; Flame Knives, Aeon of the Hawk, Vile Egression, The Fenix, and the list goes on.

In addition to my personal interest in the community's thoughts, I'll also be using this topic to gauge interest in certain kinds of stories and campaigns, as well as what members of SEN value in a project. Do you prefer a campaign to focus on its story? Its gameplay? Both? Do you like a hefty amount of mod changes? Do you like it to be difficult and challenging? I want to know what you guys think and what your preferences are.

Personally I prefer Terran or Protoss based campaigns and usually ones that are SC lore friendly. IE they exist at a time and place within the universe that doesn't involve existing characters or alter canon events. Further I prefer missions like the shipyard/BCS or power generator/turret missions from BW. something that isn't just gather some minerals, build some dudes, and kill the other dudes. Very boring. It's easy to spice up that basic formula with all kinds of interesting developments within the map. I usually prefer dialogue and events to happen within the map rather than the briefing, especially if it can be based on the way I chose to handle that particular mission.

I personally like more traditional campaigns. Sure, they may get repetitive, but they feel more "pure" in a sense. Also, when people try going overboard with creative missions, it usually ends up not being fun or creative. I can't tell you how many "escort the cargo" missions I've played in custom campaigns where you have to protect a reaver as it makes its way across a 192x192 map. You wouldn't find that in a traditional campaign, but that doesn't mean it's creative or fun. Obviously, having 10 straight "destroy all enemy bases" missions aren't fun at all, but you don't need to go crazy with all these random objectives and shit.

I also like the missions to be interactive in a sense. Like when a player brings a unit to an area, a unit might point out something, or two characters will hold a conversation throughout the mission. It makes it feel much more immersive and realistic, instead of just silently mining minerals and building units and completing the objective.

It would be awesome if someone could made a campaign based in "The dark templar saga" events or many of the interbellum between Broodwar and WoL, like some of the events of infested-desinfested and re-infested stukov or i don't know. Besides that if anyone know already about some campaigns about the thematic or by any chance knows where to download Insurrection campaign please tell me cuz i can't find those in available links in any site.

Why do you find those stories more compelling? I personally find the original story very lacking, and often try to rewrite or tweak the weaker lore in an effort to make it make sense. Sometimes, however, I'll try and tell stories that fit neatly within the confines of the main SC/BW campaigns, such as exploring the Confederate viewpoint of the Sons of Korhal insurrection and zerg/protoss invasions, or the Nerazim perspective during and after Aldaris' insurgency.


I definitely agree with this sentiment. While I'm a sucker for build-and-destroy, I still think it's important to have gameplay direction, and I've found that making your mission objectives based around certain targets (i.e. a plot of land, a beacon, a specific set of structures) is much more motivational for players when contrasted against things like 'destroy all enemy buildings'. Add in some modifiers for how resources are collected with some aggressive AI and you usually have a good formula.

For commando missions, I usually find scale to be a big issue. I like the feeling of having very limited forces, but only when it genuinely creates challenging gameplay, not when I have to abuse AI pathfinding in order to solo the map with a siege tank or something. I feel that the more you stray away from an "impossible scenarios" map design, the better off your map is.


Yeah, I like exploring the map and having some 'downtime' between enemy bases or outposts. Even if there are a couple of burrowed zerg along this otherwise-empty path, it still lets me soak in the environment and take a breather before I get back into the fray. Well-written dialogue can really augment these lulls in combat, whereas otherwise too much of it can be a distraction from the gameplay.



I think there's room to explore with other types of map design, but the traditional build-and-destroy map design (with some commando missions thrown in for variety) certainly evokes that all-important feeling of nostalgia.


Hmm, I have no idea what you're referring to...


Definitely agree here. I think there's a balance to be struck. I also personally think that most 10+ map campaigns overstay their welcome; it's harder to tell a good story succinctly than it is to tell an ok story over a long stretch of time, but a shorter story definitely has more impact if you pull it off correctly. That's not to say that 10+ map campaigns are unjustified, just that more often than not, the narratives (and the gameplay mechanics, for that matter) grow stale after the 9th or 10th map, on average.


I really like characterizing the locale, the conflict, and the characters themselves using this method. It's particularly effective when mixed with the 'downtime' I referenced in my reply to Excalibur, since you can structure your map to have those lulls in combat around important scenery or something (i.e. less pre-placed enemy units/structures in the area).



While I don't know of any campaigns that strictly follow those ideas in their narrative, you can download Insurrection from my (almost) complete StarCraft Fan Campaign Listing that I compiled some time ago to accompany Church's thread on Campaign Creations. I've recently updated it but some projects might be old and still others might be missing. On an unrelated note, I uploaded my copy of You Must Survive, since I have some updated missions that haven't been pushed to the thread I linked in the OP, but I believe DF might still have some more up-to-date files. If/when I acquire them, I'll update the folder in the listing.


Really glad to see this discussion. It's already been pretty helpful to me, and certainly very interesting.

The simple but not so pleasant answer is I find most lore created by other parties to be of subpar quality, containing more plotholes, strange lines of logic, and pointless objectives that seem irrelevant and contradictory based on the world they're designing. Its no easy task to create your own world. And even harder to populate it. When someone names a Protoss character Johnny 2Bladez, or introduces Renault The Honorable Zergling, these detract from my immersion and remind me that what I'm playing was created by a subpar story teller. I want the campaign to be compelling in its own right and succeed or fail on its own merits. And that's quite a task in and of itself. Instead of trying to do all that on your own, leaning on existing lore to help reinforce your story, give nods to future events in the main canon, these are things that can help make an otherwise bland experience much more immersive. I can feel like I'm exploring a familiar place in an entirely new way simply because I'm doing it from a Umojan or Kel-Morian perspective. And that's what gets me going. That's whats going to make me hit that download button and strap in for as many missions as there are to do.

Thank you so much for the link Pr0, and another kind of ideas besides post brood war interbellum or stukov's fate at kaloth hands and after that back to duran, could be the guild wars before SC1 (in where protoss and zerg have no place) or perhaps the first contact of protoss in chau sara (if anyone did it already) there are lot of lore stuff to use the only difficult would be de adaptation to scenarios but if i could help in something to make it real, count with me.

Since there's a theme in this thread of enjoying a good, concise story with varied maps that often still have the "destroy all enemies" core, I don't need to reiterate. (but I just did anyway )

What I love in games is when your actions have meaning. A couple of ways to achieve that:
- Have units that need finding/fighting through to, to join you, possibly from another race or technologically advanced.
- Optional goal to help any ally (e.g. build def, donate tech buildings, send units, kill attackers, etc.) which helps you now or in a later point in the game (different map).
- Generally add variety and potentially replay value by abusing the "load scenario x" trigger. Have many forks. * Have paths that lose you the campaign if you continually make bad decisions.
*) I don't see why you couldn't have 4 times (or more) the number of map files than you have missions. It's an underused resource, imo.
- Add hero units that can grow in a way, for example rpg like spells or better stats or abilities, that need unlocking - some mandatory, some through bonus objectives, or scouting the map.
- Weak points in enemy bases, like a power generator that disables cannons. (or preferably something less generic )

Make the enemy reactive to some degree:
- Have him specifically target expansions or weakly defended spots.
- Make him harass expansions or do multipronged attacks.
- When you build unit x unlock tech y for enemy.
- Make him launch counter drops when you attack.
- Have him hide a strike unit that runs in from behind when you besiege their base and tries to kill your key units

One big don't:
Avoid timers or timer-like mechanics (you have only 20 minutes to win or get nuked, you can only fight at night time, bring units to x before the gauge hits 0). You can sprinkle them in, or occasionally use that for a bonus objective, just to spice things up but USE SPARINGLY! It's a strategy game. Few people enjoy getting rushed strategizing.

Make maps winnable by multiple strategies. It gets boring when you always just mass the unit you just unlocked for eventual auto win (but keep that option!). Some ideas:
- Rushes should be able to do damage, but probably not win the games. Maybe unlock an expansion that otherwise gets mined out.
- Have sneaky routes sometimes
- Have vantage points to attack the base/eco from, only found by scouting. (underground tunnel?)
- Make it possible to starve the enemy of resources.

I think having a (single!) defense mission (hold for 30 Mins) isn't bad either for variety. Possibly add 2nd map part: "The cavalry has arrived, now go kill the enemy!"

As a closing note, it goes without saying, while I tried to offer a wide variety of suggestions, DON'T cram your maps with them just to have something in every map. Use them when it feels right in the context. As others said, it's easy to add TOO MUCH variety thanks to mapping enthusiasm.

I prefer a Terran Vs. Zerg campaign which takes place After Brood War. A serious story, campaign which familiar from Protoss campaign like the Stand, and Unrest. My Terran faction that I make was called SOF. I know there is not much starcraft custom campaign which never released from 2016. Although, I want to make an Build and Destroy, Maze Runner, Less Dialogue, Serious Event (not some unfunny jokes like the Xitson Saga), heroes side story or campaign front, organized campaign maps, organized enemy AI and friendly AI, Renegade Cerebrate, and the plots which isn't the take place before Starcraft 2. I like an ordinary campaign like Tales of Holycon, The Major, and Original or Broodwar Starcraft style.

I think it's important to recognise this as one of the most (if not the most) important takeaway from this discussion. We were all hooked onto StarCraft because of its stock campaign, so it makes sense that what we strive to create (and what we prefer to play) reflect that baseline.


Agreed, and all the suggestions you make in the list that follows what I've quoted are great. However...



I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I've shied away from this mechanic because of how clunky it is in StarCraft's UI. There are ways to work around this, though, as with modding you can utilize a makeshift data bank (similar to SC2/WC3 campaign data) via creating text files and assigning death counters (or switches, I guess) for each boolean condition.


Not sure I like this one at all, since that seems like a mechanic more befitting of a very in-depth RPG as opposed to an RTS. I can see the freedom of player choice being an enjoyable concept, but I think you can take it to far, to a place where it isn't a redeeming quality but a damning one.


This suggestion deserves special mention because of how revitalizing it can be to unlock a new ability in map 5 for a hero you've had since map 1. It can give them entirely new dimensions, and is easily possible if you tie the new ability to an upgrade/technology and disable it in each map until the map where it's unlocked. You can even have it be researchable - although the player will obviously see the icon and tooltip and know that there's a possibility of getting that upgrade, unless you separate it onto another unit entirely. As a bit of an aside, I feel that heroes are underused in campaigns and when they are used, they're either a clunkily-important mechanic (they're broken) or they're so dangerous to use that you stick them in your mineral line and hope they don't kill themselves (most cases).


Yes! If you want your campaign to be challenging, you have to manually design some elements of the AI through triggers, even if you write your own AI scripts. Please consider all the various tools the enemy power has at their disposal to harass the player, and see how many you can implement without the map becoming impossible or overloaded.


Yep, that's pretty much my stance on timers. Find a way to make timers organic, if you are going to use them. Thinking back to the original StarCraft: Gas by Church (then Jim_Raynor), there's a map where you have to warp in a fleet beacon as a victory condition. Until then, you're tasked with defending. The catch is that the fleet beacon has an enormous build time. Is it a timer? Of course. Does it feel infinitely better than a set of numbers gradually counting down to your doom (or victory)? Again, of course. At least to me, anyways.


Having multiple paths to victory is important in macro maps. I'd like multiple options for micro sections, too, but sometimes you have to keep those linear for the sake of gameplay clarity and sensible design.


This can be done by sapping the AI of its stock bonus resources that most campaign designers give it once all of its harvesters have been killed. Another, probably more clever way is to reduce the difficulty of the AI when its mining bases are destroyed, or to lower spawn rates/reduce harassment. The more variables you're using to increase AI difficulty, the more they can be manipulated against the AI if the player does something correct with their strategy!


Definitely try to make it more than just a stock defense mission, but yes, these are certainly acceptable if done well (and nostalgic in their own right - think back to the holdout around the xel'naga temple, or the defense mission in the third map of Rebel Yell. I think these maps could be way more interactive and enjoyable, but you can keep them in mind as a frame of reference.


Definitely agree. Thanks for contributing, Nude!



That's a mouthful. All of that in one campaign?

Or maybe I can make an like Resonance or Liberation or I can have my own ideas. Not some difficult Starcraft campaign like Reincarnation and Liberation.

----------

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 20 2023, 11:50 am by noobscrub.

Granted, with a pure mapping campaign it would be clunky to pull off as you either have to convince the player to always load an ingame savegame (e.g. right at the map start) or somehow be very clear which map they have to start with next, make them note it so they don't forget until the next weekend when they contiue. Awkward.
Probably best reserved for mods then. Still a shame because it add so many new options.


Yeah well, I expect people to be pretty polar about this one. Personally, I'd welcome it as a novelty twist and a consequent use of the "your actions matter" concept. Proper execution (like always) is important, but even a little more on this one.

How it could go, for example:
Make it clear that there's a choice that's really bad for your side. If he still chooses it, punish him some way (hero dead, ally not helping, etc.) then give him another choice where there's clearly a bad way to go about it. If he chooses wrong again, punish him again. If he chooses badly a third time make him face impossible odds and make clear that he needs better judgement if he wants to win this war.

Long story short, make it hard to lose entirely, but make it an option, and make that fact clear. In reality this will mean that people won't ever reach that ending naturally (unless they wann see what happens, in which case they probably commend you for following through), but they WILL feel better about their superior choice. Meaning you created a win-win situation, because - if properly done - the damning consequence you fear feels more like an easter egg.


Probably down to personal likes, but I like defense missions where you have a decent defense setup and short prep time to augment it as you see fit and then there's constant pressure and you'll have to constantly fix holes and rebild units. Also nice if you have expensive ways to increase income and upgrades and balance it so that they have to carefully consider in what area to spend their money. A random idea: Player can build a strike squad of units and secure another income location, that needs little to no defense or a new (defensive) unit type/new tech. But diverting the strike squad makes keeping defense intact hard / increases your losses, so it can't be done right away and the player has to read the proper timing.

I'd be deeply interested and love to play a 10 mission campaign themed around evacuation/overrun - getting your base invaded, constantly having to switch locations, a sense of stressful escape. Someone or an entire group would have to get really creative with each scenario's design so it isn't just Desperate Alliance 2.0 recycled 10 times. I'd love to play an entire series based on this common idea, regardless if it requires modding for maximum effect.

I prefer long, overly convoluted stories that actually make sense, so basically no Western game, and B&D with thinking opponents, challenge and zero gimmicks, so no RTS single-player. There will never be a campaign that meets my expectations as a player, so I'm not going to bother going deeper than that.

Custom content in a genre as mature as Starcraft's need to strike for the top or not bother striking at all.

How about this summer alongside the UMS SEN contest we have a sister campaign contest for remaking various maps from the Original campaign in celebration of the remaster? Original has the most scriptless, interesting maps with a lot of extra terrain and easy goals which give off that comfortable beginner's feel. They could easily be expanded upon (without turning a 64x64 map into 256x256. And without increasing the difficulty to pro level). Plus if we narrow down the selection then we get more opinions on how the maps should be remade.

I'm always interested in campaign contests. Anything to drive up interest in making SCBW campaigns is a good thing in my book. However, I don't know how many people would be interested in this particular concept, so maybe we should have an interest check closer to the release of SC:R.

I don't know that this is necessarily the case, since quality is all subjective and as your point about personal standards alludes to, everyone will have a different concept of 'the top' you claim we should all strike for. The scale of some campaigns simply necessitate less maps and therefore less length and complexity, which means they may only realistically be able to shoot for what you would probably call mediocrity. And on the other hand, nobody's going to make the best campaign ever made with their first attempt, so I think they should have more realistic expectations of themselves rather than assume that nothing is to gain from the experience if they cannot produce top-notch content.

Bumping this thread to ask the question: how many of us are actively working on campaign projects at the present moment? If you are, how's the project coming along? What difficulties are you facing? Do you have a ballpark completion/release date? How are you planning to release the campaign (staggered, with one or two maps released at a time as they are completed, or all at once)? Additionally, if you want to discuss the particulars (plot, gameplay, post screenshots, etc.) then feel free.

If you aren't working on a campaign, what's stopping you? Maybe we can convince some of the creative people here to start some projects.

I'm currently working on a six-mission zerg-centered campaign called 'Inconsummate'. It's not particularly ambitious, and mostly serves to augment the storytelling of the stock campaigns. It's set during the invasion of Aiur, and avoid being stale and cliche by being told through the perspective of the swarm, rather than just being another protoss vs. the universe story that we've seen quite a bit over the years. Half of the maps are currently completed (though 2 and 3 still need to be triggered and doodaded), the mod is mostly completed (just needs a bit of polish), and maps 4 through 6 have yet to be started. I'm hopeful that the campaign will be complete before the end of May.

I started making a campaign a few months back and made the first mission, which I thought was decently well made for something just thrown together. There's definitely room for improvement, but it was a decent starting point. However, I didn't actually come up with a storyline or anything, so I never made a second mission. Maybe I'll revisit it at some point.

Always make sure you flesh out your story before starting a campaign. Don't just make random maps and improvise the plot as you go along.

I find Google docs (or any word processor) work really well for planning projects. I use a Google sheet (excel sheet) to create a timeline of events (necessary for larger projects) and a regular document for mission planning and scriptwriting.

What would have to be done in order to make that first map a serviceable starting point for a larger campaign?