If you're experienced and know what you're doing, sure, you'll know how not to corrupt your map, but Crackhead began the topic because he's "just starting". PLUS, with patches you NEVER KNOW. Blizzard is not going to care about keeping third-party editors compatible when they release new patches.

It's always a good idea to learn the basic tools before you start using more advanced or diverse options. If you learn a programming language, you begin with more basic functions, learn how to use those well and combine them, and work your way up. If you learn a martial art, you begin with basic moves, learn how to use them well and combine them, then eventually learn more advanced moves. If you can't handle a basic move, you can't handle an advanced move. If you can learn to make a map without the flash of extended terrain and unused units, or without any other helps that SCMD2 has, then you'll be that much better than the mapper who CAN'T make an interesting map without all the extended flash. If you have a good handle on the basic tools first, you'll eventually be a much better mapper.

I'm not saying you can't start out using SCMD2, but I am saying that if you can't make a good, fun map without using SCMD2, it might be to your advantage to learn the basics. Unless, of course, the only maps you care to make are ones whose very core depends on having extended features.

As long as you have Starcraft, you have StarEdit. But SF and SCMD2 are third-party editors. Maybe one day you won't be able to get hold of them. This has happened with well-loved and well-used programs I've used in the past (not just for SC). That's why it can be useful (if you can) to get your map core down in StarEdit before making addons that may render it openable only in an editor that may eventually become lost in the ether. That way you'll be able to salvage a lot more from it if you need to. Especially with SC2 coming out, more and more people will be focusing on that...

Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't use SCMD2 for everything, especially if you have special map ideas that can only be done using extended editors. I have these ideas too, of course. But it can be a great idea to make it compatible with the basic, Blizzard-designed editor first. And Starcraft is a fun game. The fun comes largely from the gameplay. A map does not need extended features to be fun.

I never actually corrupted a map with scmd, but I am annoyed by its bugs.
Those string bugs and "something bad happened" bugs especially. But knowing that making 2 strings the same and then deleting one of them and knowing that you can delete or shrink the backup database got me rid of these completely.

So there's only compatibility issues. But luckily there's this crash list which gets me rid of this problem too.

So there's no problem left (in my experience) using ScmDraft 2.

Even for a complete noob it's not hard to use the editor. If you're at least familiar with StarEdit, that's all the knowledge you'll need, and those things done in StarEdit are the only thing's you'll need to use. Just because SCMD2 has features, doesn't mean you need to use them. And as I said before, almost all of the features won't get your map corrupted.

Also, about map sizes, when you create a map it specifically says under where you input the width and length Reading goes a long way to avoiding corruption and becoming familiar with the editor.

Some advice to a beginner, if you don't know what it does or what they are, don't use it, ie. sprites.


And as for patches. They won't affect the editor. Blizzard isn't going to change the chk or anything having to do with how a map intrinsically works. Staying away from SCMD2 just because of a patch is more ridiculous than fearing corruption. Blizzard isn't going to release a patch anytime soon, and it's certainly not going to affect map editors.

The basics can be learned in SCMD2. It's even a basic editor on it's own. It navigates pretty much like StarEdit, and the classic trigger editor is practically the same.

I solely use SCMD2, and I rarely use sprites. That's probably one of the least commonly used features that SCMD2 has that StarEdit has. As I pointed out before, there are many more little things that just make SCMD2 a more efficient and professional tool to work with. The example I used before is snapping grids to a unit. There's no reason to deny someone the option to place a unit on a grid and tell them to use StarEdit and say "Oh master placing units without a grid first" as if it took skill to place units to a grid. In fact, many of the features such as grids in SCMD2 should have been included in StarEdit to begin with, even if StarEdit is meant to just be a completely basic editor.

Another thing is terrain. Square terrain by itself isn't even an "advanced" thing. It's only "advanced" if you've been using StarEdit all of your life. By itself it's not even a hard concept to understand or master. There's no reason not to just throw it in and let a beginner work with it. Then comes extended terrain, which doesn't even require any skill to use, the only skill is in the blending, but it's the same way triggering works. You can do the basics with triggers as you can with square terrain.

Many of these things are no longer just "flashy" and extra, they're expected, commonplace, and help make mapping easier and efficient. The features in SCMD2 aren't just features that you see in the game, they're features that you wouldn't even know have been used. A map made in StarEdit and a map made in SCMD2 could look exactly the same, but the one made in SCMD2 could have taken much less time because of the more powerful editor. There's no point in completely a task in an archaic manner.

The idea to start out with basic tools is weak when all the editors are actually basic. StarEdit is just unnecessarily basic. SCMD2 isn't like going from VB to C where the GUI gets chucked out the window. You're still doing the same basic things and have the access to the same basic tools in SCMD2 as you do in StarEdit.

If you're away from your computer and don't have access to Starcraft you could still work on your map by downloading SCMD2. SCMD2 will always be just as accessible as StarEdit and it's more portable as well. There's no point in restricting your use of editor and severely downgrading just because of the fear that later on in the future the editor won't be available.

Regardless, your map will still open in StarEdit. If you placed anything illegal they will just be deleted and not show up. You can still avoid doing things like that anyway when you're working in SCMD2. Working on a map in SCMD2 doesn't make it incompatible all of a sudden and unopenable in StarEdit.

SC2 isn't going to automatically delete SCMD2. If you have the editor now, you will continue to have it.

All of your arguments are based on hypothetical situations that won't ever occur.


The map itself doesn't need extra features, but it can be produced with extra features. In doing so you have a more enjoyable time in the creation of the map. I probably wouldn't even bother making maps, other than something extremely simple, if SCMD2 wasn't available anymore. Once you know all the time saving and powerful things you can do in a better editor there's no reason to go back, and it's not right to deprive others of all of those things either.

The road to compatibility can be achieved solely by using SCMD2 as well, because SCMD2 can do everything StarEdit can do. If you never want to do anything more than what StarEdit allows, SCMD2 allows you to do that. It's no excuse to stick to StarEdit. Placing a unit to a grid doesn't make it incompatible. Many of the features have nothing to do with the map itself, it's completely just in the editor and its interface. The map doesn't care how you get the units on there or the terrain placed, but the user certainly should if it saves them time and allows them to be more precise.

Just because Blizzard made the editor doesn't make it any good. In fact, it's complete shit. It's only good for making the simplest of campaign maps where the objective is to just kill the enemy and nothing more. Maps where you just make terrain, place units, and add two triggers. It was made with that in mind along with being so simple that an idiot could use it. If you want to actually make real maps, the ones the majority of people enjoy, then you're going to need to use a better editor.

It may be hard to corrupt a map in Staredit, but that's only because it's basic beyond the use of any mapmaker who wants to make a decent and playable map and get any enjoyment out of making it. I can guarantee that you'll never get into a horrific accident or get some terrible virus if I lock you up in a bubble and keep you there, but no one would want to do that. Staredit is the same as that restricting bubble, it doesn't let you do anything.

Even so, you can still corrupt a map in Staredit. You can get that "too many nooks and crannies error".

Mapmakers make maps because the process itself is fun, or the end result of playing the map is fun. As for the process, it's not fun when you have to do waste a large amount of time doing tedious things because of a crappy editor, when SCMD2 can do it in a second. Many of the features of the editor allow you to do the basic things more easily and faster, therefore making the process of making maps more enjoyable. As for gameplay, a map does not need extended features to be fun, but using SCMD2 does not force you to use "extended" features that are visible in the map or it's gameplay.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Apr 29 2008, 6:52 am by devilesk.

I think this is the first time in my life I've ever agreed with devilesk so much. I think a lot of razor's arguments are because he doesn't realize just how much work was put into SCMDraft, since most third party programs would never be that polished.

There is a slight sentimental value in using staredit when a total beginner, just to know what it's like... but for almost all practical purposes, just use SCMDraft

SCM Draft is the way to go, I have now made 4 maps completely out of it and I have experienced no problems, the only time I ever got problems was when switching between editors, no matter which combinations I used. SCM Draft has all you need to make a proper map, and it has all the features of the others, just stick with it and you will do just fine.

I hear what you guys are saying so I wanted to question some of your knowledge if I can. Particularly when it comes to using sprites, blending terrain, or using strings. I don't have much knowledge of these things as much as I'd like, so do you mind filling me in? What are they, what are they used for, can they cause corruption, which maps can I see these active in and what practical use to you find for them often?

Generally when people talk about sprites, in relation to terrain, they mean the walkthroughable images that are often on top of doodads, they can be walked behind, giving it a more 3Dish look. Blending terrain means using individual tiles of terrain that blend together, in order to make terrain normally not possible. And strings are every bit of text you specify in your game. Titles, Descriptions, briefings, text messages, all are strings.

I see, apparently sprites are easily capable of causing corruption. Can you tell me a bit of info on how to avoid corruption using these and any bit of important details? I am considering using a decent amount of sprites in this map just to give it something flashy to look at. I can see that some sprites are easily capable of causing corruption, these I can avoid very easily. Originally I was planning to use things like Phase Disruptor(Dragoon) sprites and some other weapon sprites to indicate some secrets in the map. I wanted to know if sprites like these can cause corruption.

I understand what terrain tiles are and how to use them. I built a model of Kurast from D2 using hundreds of individual tiles to build it piece by piece. I think switching between some different editors may have corrupted this map at one point. But I'm not sure I understand terrain blending, could you give me some examples of this?

I have never used strings before so I have extremely limited knowledge of how to use this feature and what it's regularly used for.

Again, my main concern is that I want to implement some advanced features or at least get to know them without corrupting this map.

Sprites will not corrupt, they will generally cause your game to crash, but simply removing the sprite fixes it, you just have to try them out, doodad sprites will never crash though.

Here's some examples of blending, we have an entire forum devoted to it

Being able to edit strings is not really necessary, it's useful sometimes if you want to quickly change a single text message used throughout multiple triggers, but otherwise it's just a nice little side-feature. I'd avoid it when I first make maps.

As long as you stick to the basics, you probably won't get your map corrupted, remember, crashing and corruption is completely different, crashing can be fixed, corruption often cannot.

I have never really had glitches with scmdraft, except for one thing. Sometimes I can't change the terrain isometrically. But other than that, scmdraft is perfect, and is the way to go.

You can't do isometric after placing square terrain somewhere, it messes it up.

You mean isometric where the square terrain was or when you put square terrain down and then put isometric somewhere else? Anyway, sometimes I just opened my map, try to place isometric and it flips out and switches to the terrain it already is. For example, I have grass, and I try to put dirt but it automatically changes back to grass when I click to place it. It's not really a big issue; I just close and reopen scmdraft a coiuple times and it's all good.

EDIT: I never really thought about it before, but is that a firebat in your avatar?

No, you try to put isometric over the square terrain, your problem might come from resizing a map, which creates extra square terrain.

Oh, and yes, it is a Firebat

I see what you're saying and I agree with a lot of it, but my point is that most of the extra "flashy" things SCMDraft2 allows are not necessary for making the map fun. Often, they are very distracting.

And people EXPECT them now. A lot of people won't pay any attention to a map if it doesn't have square/extended terrain, extra sprites, or flashy text. I see people say that, explicitly, right here on SEN. It's as if no matter how good or fun your map is, you HAVE to throw in these extras just so it catches people's eye. So often, a map is good enough without those things, and adding them wastes time and effort that could be used making MORE maps.

Yeah, something can be said for polishing a map, making it look professional. But that should be for the purpose of showing people something you're proud of -- NOT to convince people they should give your map the time of day. And I think that all the polish and professionality most maps need can be done with StarEdit.

There are probably a lot of fun, innovative maps that have slipped through the cracks because they weren't flashy.

I've played so many maps that had amazing effects and looks and polished terrain and everything but were VERY boring. Or annoying. All that flash can get ANNOYING. Distracting. When they start out mapping, a lot of people go straight for all those cool effects instead of figuring out what will make a map fun. For some reason, so many people, even veteran mappers, think that flash MAKES a map good. I used to think that too. But playing a lot of really dull yet polished maps made me think differently. I've played so many maps that could have been made BETTER by using normal terrain, or less visual candy and clutter.

Now, DEFINITELY, a lot of that stuff can be used well. Especially extended terrain -- I think it lets you expand your map's scope and make it seem like a new world. Most of the other extra features have their place too. But these things shouldn't be REQUIRED for a good map, and they also don't magically transform a boring map into a fun map. They should be used for a purpose, not just thrown in because that's what "makes a good map".

As for the other reasons I stated, I'm willing to let them slide for the purpose of this argument, because they're probably mostly based on my own personal paranoia. I'm not saying you SHOULD use StarEdit instead of SCMDraft2. But I do think StarEdit is a good training tool for mappers. Or at least a test. If you can't produce something fun with StarEdit, maybe you have something to learn.

SCMD2 is popular and useful not just for it's features that make the map "flashy" but for it's features that allow for easier map creation. The example I used before was the grid feature. Another feature is the trigger editor. These features have nothing to do with making a map "flashly". As I've said before, the resulting map created in either StarEdit or SCMD2 would be the same; however, with SCMD2 you're able to get to the resulting map much more easily and accurately. From the perspective of the person playing the map they would have no idea what editor the map was made in. Many of these features are solely for helping the process of mapmaking.

So as for your last part about people wasting time on those "flashy" features, I'd say the reason they have time to waste is due to the fact that they don't have to spend a wasteful amount of time doing tedious things like placing units, creating terrain, and creating triggers. SCMD2 allows one to do those things much more easily and faster than StarEdit.

And the whole flashy argument is just a generalization to begin with. I haven't seen that happening at all. If a map is fun people will play it. It doesn't matter what makes the map fun. You're arguing that flashy things aren't necessary, but that still doesn't show how StarEdit is better than SCMD2. SCMD2 doesn't force you to do anything.

As a mapmaker I wouldn't settle with a tool that's merely adequate. I'd rather have something more powerful, flexible, and faster that would let me do more things than I could do with the inferior tool. There's no point in intentionally limiting what you're able to do, especially when it means doing the basic things in a more time consuming way.

The problem is not producing something fun in StarEdit, it's having fun while trying to produce something fun in StarEdit. Any map made in StarEdit could be made 100x faster in SCMD2, and that results in a much more enjoyable time creating the map.

If you think all the "flashy" stuff is unnecessary that's great, people probably are too focused on that. But that doesn't mean you should prefer StarEdit. Just use SCMD2 without using those features. As I've been trying to say, there are so many more features that aren't for the "flashy" effects, but for making the process of creating the map faster and more enjoyable.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on May 6 2008, 6:14 am by devilesk.

Quality, not quantity, is it that difficult to add a couple extra things to a map? Looks are often the first thing a player looks at, and not having them will often turn off a player, whether or not it is fun. We are making these in order to get people to play them, and it does not take that much extra effort in order to add the "flashy" things.

Especially if the flashy thing is just text color for example. It really doesn't distract or take away from doing other things. Whether it's in StarEdit or SCMD2, you're going to edit the unit names anyway. SCMD2 just lets you take a second to put in a color while you're at it.

It's like writing with a colored pencil rather than a pencil. You wouldn't do anything different if you were holding one or the other. The process is the same and it takes the same amount of time. The only difference is in the tool.

So if you're going to call text color an unecessary "flashy" on the basis that it's too distracting and time consuming, you might as well just tell people not to change unit names in the first place. I'm sure people spend too much time trying to think of custom names too.

It seems you're both missing my point. But I'm going to stop discussing this for now because it's not really going anywhere.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on May 6 2008, 9:00 pm by razorsnail.

I think they both agree that flashy things are not what is important in making a map, seeing your point; I think a lot of it might be failing to see why an editor that has the capacity to create a much wider variety of maps and maps with much smoother and more fun game-play should not be used just out of the possibility that someone would get the wrong mindset of what's important.

No, it's because you have no point.

You're just trying to justify an absurd viewpoint.