I gathered data from user-made custom maps on Battle.net 2.0 and organized them based on their quality and popularity. Guess what? The graph was the bell's curve!
===========================================
edit: h34dl4g's graph:
This is just pure bias. So you're saying that Desert Strike, Star Battle, SotIS and Marine Arena are average quality maps?
The reason why they prioritized maps is because they are currently 'important' to the sc2 community. It's not mainly because no one is going to bother digging down the pages, but because they are, well, not as fun compare to the others. There are some good examples of maps that started from 0 popularity, such as Star Battle and City of Tempest.
currently this hide'n'seek map is the top map on europe. It raised from page 3 to top in one day, don't ask me how...
Well, it's kind of fun, still some bugs and imbalances, but has potential. Pretty much based on the map from wc3, something like island defense (or what was its name?)
I don't like playing SOTIS, same atmosphere like in dota... as a noob you are being welcomed like a gay in vatican town...
anyways, did someone else notice that only one map on the first page changes when you press "Show new only" :D
Well i hate the new popularity system, i loved the wc3 one.
Pros of the new one: Your map is always Online playable
Cons:New maps got 0 chance to get popular
Maps without teams cannot be joined with groups
You cannot get a full game on page 3 maps (SUCKS)
Does anyone want to start a projekt if your map cannot get popular? NO
I'd be interested to see you outline the quality of all the maps on the first 3 pages. State their flaws.
Then, post what you believe are "quality" maps from lower in the listing.
As far as I can see, most maps, even the unpopular ones suck. Every map I play makes it more clear that the makers suck at game design. 99% of the projects hosted on the front page of Mapster suck. They're all just tech-demos. So do the projects in the workspace forum. And team recruitment. They're awful.
Almost everyone that tries to make a map is a complete dumbass and they suck at it. And they use the popularity system as a means of lying to themselves. They allow the problems with the popularity system to convince themselves that they really are good at what they do, and they're merely held back by some other system.
Rodrigo, either do an analysis of every map you generalize, or shut the fuck up.
This but less harsh, I wouldn't call almost everyone who makes a map a "complete dumb-ass" but someone who doesn't have experience making maps/ designing them.
The top maps are up there because they are the most fun to play, if people got sick of playing it they would stop and look for another one or just stop playing all together.
EDIT: but i think a pretty important point being made is that it is harder for starting maps to gain popularity
I'd be interested to see you outline the quality of all the maps on the first 3 pages. State their flaws.
Then, post what you believe are "quality" maps from lower in the listing.
As far as I can see, most maps, even the unpopular ones suck. Every map I play makes it more clear that the makers suck at game design. 99% of the projects hosted on the front page of Mapster suck. They're all just tech-demos. So do the projects in the workspace forum. And team recruitment. They're awful.
Almost everyone that tries to make a map is a complete dumbass and they suck at it. And they use the popularity system as a means of lying to themselves. They allow the problems with the popularity system to convince themselves that they really are good at what they do, and they're merely held back by some other system.
Rodrigo, either do an analysis of every map you generalize, or shut the fuck up.
Win.
It's more fun if you play sotis with friends. Pubs are going to be pubs. =\
Marine Arena, for example. I'm not going to explain why I say so. It would be more useful for struggling map developers to analyze this map themselves.
SoTIS is different. Its design is clockwork and logical, but it is there because an AoS will be there. Analyze it for those reasons.
Star Battle. Analyze its graphics and scale. Take note of the fact that you can only die once.
Looking at these three maps should help any designer. The problems I see in most maps stem from a mindset that content is there to fill the need for content. I'm not going to say anything about the quality of my TD (it's hard to be objective of ones own map), but I will say that when I added a unit or tower, I did so only after experiencing a game where the lack of said unit or tower negatively affected the gameplay. I had an overall theme governing what I could use as additions, as well as a vision for how I feel all games in general should play as (not just custom maps).
Almost everyone that tries to make a map is a complete dumbass and they suck at it. And they use the popularity system as a means of lying to themselves.
oh yes i love this sentence, but its just the truth
ask a newbmapper what he thinks about marine arena (i don´t have anything aggainst this map):
he will say awesome map.
But whats so special about it, its not realy hard to rebuild the map, it got nothing special. And all good(awesome) mappers will stay at the 10th side with their awesome maps.
Well i hate the new popularity system, i loved the wc3 one.
Pros of the new one: Your map is always Online playable
Cons:New maps got 0 chance to get popular
Maps without teams cannot be joined with groups
You cannot get a full game on page 3 maps (SUCKS)
Does anyone want to start a projekt if your map cannot get popular? NO
WC3 .... didnt have a popularity system..... the maps were listed in the order they were hosted in. And then Bnet would refresh the list periodically...... that and players could name the game differently.....
I for one perfer the current SC2 system
If you ever did make a WC3 map .... you will realize it was much harder to get your WC3 map recognized then it is on SC2. I mean yeah it was easier to fill a game for testing.... but its not like anybody would ever host your map again.....
I honestly believe Marine Arena is an example of its genre done well. You say it's not that hard to rebuild that map, but you're wrong. There's a reason that Marine Arena is currently the map representing its genre, and not its countless clones.
You may not have respect for "golems genre" maps in general, but that is irrelevant when looking at the map itself.
As well, your argument pertaining to the technical aspects of its creation is irrelevant.
If technical design is important to you, there are ways you can implement technically advanced "stuff".
Take, for example, my TD. It does not stray far from the genre (or even stray at all). As well, I am a CS major and the most fulfilling aspect of design is the technical aspect.
However, whenever I implemented a technically advanced element, I did so as a means to create a simple element. A good example would be the Mage tower for the new Arcane race. Look at its lightning spell. It still is "just damage". But creating it was highly technical.
right,...
It looks like an erection!
I just made a graph of the study I did about the popularity system.
I gathered lots of data in different forums to create this graph.
I also marked the range of maps you cant play to the graph of Rodrigo.
The blue field will show which maps you can't play since no one is joining
@RodrigoAlves: Go
This is just pure bias. So you're saying that Desert Strike, Star Battle, SotIS and Marine Arena are average quality maps?
The reason why they prioritized maps is because they are currently 'important' to the sc2 community. It's not mainly because no one is going to bother digging down the pages, but because they are, well, not as fun compare to the others. There are some good examples of maps that started from 0 popularity, such as Star Battle and City of Tempest.
.... show me a map that you gave top quality too....
I heard from a reputable source that 87.533333% of statistics are made up.
currently this hide'n'seek map is the top map on europe. It raised from page 3 to top in one day, don't ask me how...
Well, it's kind of fun, still some bugs and imbalances, but has potential. Pretty much based on the map from wc3, something like island defense (or what was its name?)
I don't like playing SOTIS, same atmosphere like in dota... as a noob you are being welcomed like a gay in vatican town...
anyways, did someone else notice that only one map on the first page changes when you press "Show new only" :D
Well i hate the new popularity system, i loved the wc3 one.
Pros of the new one: Your map is always Online playable
Cons:New maps got 0 chance to get popular
Maps without teams cannot be joined with groups
You cannot get a full game on page 3 maps (SUCKS)
Does anyone want to start a projekt if your map cannot get popular? NO
I'd be interested to see you outline the quality of all the maps on the first 3 pages. State their flaws.
Then, post what you believe are "quality" maps from lower in the listing.
As far as I can see, most maps, even the unpopular ones suck. Every map I play makes it more clear that the makers suck at game design. 99% of the projects hosted on the front page of Mapster suck. They're all just tech-demos. So do the projects in the workspace forum. And team recruitment. They're awful.
Almost everyone that tries to make a map is a complete dumbass and they suck at it. And they use the popularity system as a means of lying to themselves. They allow the problems with the popularity system to convince themselves that they really are good at what they do, and they're merely held back by some other system.
Rodrigo, either do an analysis of every map you generalize, or shut the fuck up.
@Vexal: Go
Sotis is cool but i dont like dota same goes for city of tempest
all other maps kinda get me bored cause there not really much competition and skill on them
anyway i like to play The Card Game and smashcraft is also cool
@Vexal: Go
This but less harsh, I wouldn't call almost everyone who makes a map a "complete dumb-ass" but someone who doesn't have experience making maps/ designing them.
The top maps are up there because they are the most fun to play, if people got sick of playing it they would stop and look for another one or just stop playing all together.
EDIT: but i think a pretty important point being made is that it is harder for starting maps to gain popularity
Win.
It's more fun if you play sotis with friends. Pubs are going to be pubs. =\
There are, admittedly, a few well-designed maps.
Marine Arena, for example. I'm not going to explain why I say so. It would be more useful for struggling map developers to analyze this map themselves.
SoTIS is different. Its design is clockwork and logical, but it is there because an AoS will be there. Analyze it for those reasons.
Star Battle. Analyze its graphics and scale. Take note of the fact that you can only die once.
Looking at these three maps should help any designer. The problems I see in most maps stem from a mindset that content is there to fill the need for content. I'm not going to say anything about the quality of my TD (it's hard to be objective of ones own map), but I will say that when I added a unit or tower, I did so only after experiencing a game where the lack of said unit or tower negatively affected the gameplay. I had an overall theme governing what I could use as additions, as well as a vision for how I feel all games in general should play as (not just custom maps).
oh yes i love this sentence, but its just the truth
ask a newbmapper what he thinks about marine arena (i don´t have anything aggainst this map):
he will say awesome map.
But whats so special about it, its not realy hard to rebuild the map, it got nothing special. And all good(awesome) mappers will stay at the 10th side with their awesome maps.
WC3 .... didnt have a popularity system..... the maps were listed in the order they were hosted in. And then Bnet would refresh the list periodically...... that and players could name the game differently.....
I for one perfer the current SC2 system
If you ever did make a WC3 map .... you will realize it was much harder to get your WC3 map recognized then it is on SC2. I mean yeah it was easier to fill a game for testing.... but its not like anybody would ever host your map again.....
If you think otherwise, well you cant fix stupid.
@xSteamGearx: Go
I honestly believe Marine Arena is an example of its genre done well. You say it's not that hard to rebuild that map, but you're wrong. There's a reason that Marine Arena is currently the map representing its genre, and not its countless clones.
You may not have respect for "golems genre" maps in general, but that is irrelevant when looking at the map itself.
As well, your argument pertaining to the technical aspects of its creation is irrelevant.
If technical design is important to you, there are ways you can implement technically advanced "stuff".
Take, for example, my TD. It does not stray far from the genre (or even stray at all). As well, I am a CS major and the most fulfilling aspect of design is the technical aspect.
However, whenever I implemented a technically advanced element, I did so as a means to create a simple element. A good example would be the Mage tower for the new Arcane race. Look at its lightning spell. It still is "just damage". But creating it was highly technical.
Actually, look at all the towers in my TD.
@Vexal: Go
Or my td.... not a shining example of good TD's but its has (radomly generated pathing) which I havent seen on any other TD yet
It also has over 900 levels using "set catalog field value" to increase each levels difficulties.
I like the small bump on the 2nd graph with 'bugged popularity'!
@SouLCarveRR: Go
I still haven't tried yours. Mainly because I can't see the layout in the preview image. It just bugs me.