I think I speak for many mappers when I say that there are plenty of maps that are just... really unimpressive, even if they are well-designed for their genre. But see, that's the problem: average game designers only know how to make yet another cookie cutter game in a genre. Good game designers are these who take it a step further; they do something that most people wouldn't have thought of. It doesn't necessarily have to define a new genre, it just has to think beyond the boundary of what has already been done.
By your own admission, VTD would go down as just another TD. You even admit you lack the ability to generate unique ideas. That eliminates you right there. No offense, but you seem like an example of a technical guy trying to compete in the realm of the creative.
I completely agree that the standard by which people judge has gone down. There is also a sad lack of creativity (and activity). But, I don't agree with you on the top page issue. The maps up there are, for the most part, the best in class. Does that mean they hold a candle to WC3? No. Unless you can come up with examples of superior maps (of the same genre) swamped down in the popularity system, then I think it is fair to say that the top page actually does represent the best SC2 has to offer (for those genres) fairly accurately.
Just wanted to remind everybody that this topic is about a graph supposedly covering different maps and the popularity.
It's not about if the author or a poster in here has made a map that sucks or owns. This turned into a:
"Because I don't feel like your maps are a part of that graph, but you made them and you made that graph, you don't have any right to talk about the quality of other maps."
and then
"You don't like my maps? Well what have you made that's so special?"
and then just turned into an argument that has nothing at all to do with the OP along with partly on-topic paragraphs.
I am not hating on either one of you, nor going to point fingers and say "that person is right, stop whining", I'm just kindly asking you to please stay on topic and take personal quarrels to PMs, or is that too much to ask?
(I know that your posts have parts that relates to the thread, but I'm asking you to make your posts -only- about the thread)
If you don't want me defending myself in this thread publicly, then delete the opinion posts about me not relative to this thread. Else I will reply.
Karawasa's reply is offensive (and incorrect), and I never said anything negative about a specific map made by anyone, or the skill of anyone specific. Not even my own. If you wish for me continue to do so, you should honor this request.
I shall state my opinions on your maps. I think nexas word wars and debates fucking blows and its position in the popularity system accurately shows this because its not like this is some "unknown" map.Its been out there, its got exposure , PPL know about it and they dont care, you even try to cheat it a bit and borrow the name of a Very successfull map when u released nexas word wars. What do you have to say about that rodrigues?If you concentrated on making a game deeper than a type fest (aka glorifed flash game), you might have something to show at the top.
The thing I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't have to defend yourself, and neither should anyone else, if everyone stayed on-topic like they're supposed to, there wouldn't be an argument needing to be defended.
And if something is defended, the argue:er doesn't have to take it even more off-topic and can move over to PMs instead.
It's a complicated thing since it usually plays out:
1) Argument/Flame
2) Defend
1) Clarify if the defendant misunderstood that can lead to other arguments or make other arguments
2) More defending and sometimes counter-attacks.
(I'm not saying that this is how it went down here, because I'm sure you will prove me wrong. But if instead of finding more stuff to add to the off-topicness, you could either just drop it or take it to PMs instead, so that the meaning of the thread doesn't disappear and the fight gets taken out on the OP.)
I hope you understand what I'm trying say, I have nothing against you, Vexal.
And since this is leading to another argument that's off-topic, I'm hoping that we won't have to spin this off even further and we can leave it at Vexal was defending himself and Karawasa was just trying to clarify any misunderstandings in his posts. And if you want to paint each other as badguys, do so in PMs.
People should also be aware that if you feel offended by another member, you can just PM a moderator and it will be looked into and warnings can be given where warnings are due.
The only one who insulted maps here was you. I don't even know what map you made! And for your information, Nexus Word Wars did only get out of the 1st page because it was banned. I bet it would be on 1st page since today.
edit: If you want to insult any of my maps, go ahead and insult Platform Defense. Platform Defense is a below-average map who kept on top 5 for more than a month.
Well ill like to state for the record im sorry and i should not have gone off insulting your maps. I just snaped cause im pretty tired of every map just getting blindly labled as average or crappy or whatever haters like to say about the maps at the top .
When i read the popularity chart from the first post, i see 3 gauges ( AWEFUL,AVERAGE,AWESOME) , Now if you kept something like this to yourself, obviously i wouldnt have to reply cause thats your personal opionion , but here you are injecting this filth onto this site and the battlenet site with this Rating bar.
Im calling you out here, You said in the first post you made for this thread stating that you have gathered data on the first page maps and this graph represents your conclusion . Yet when i insult your maps you answer back with a critical piece of information that makes your CASE sound even more stupid. You say you havent even played my map ( zealot frenzy) which has been at the top for many months on USA, and as of recently 1 month ago its at the top of EUROPE thanks to voliatle popularity bug getting it noticed over there. So how could you make a graph about the First page maps when not even having played them all? Thats the first b.s im calling you out on. This graph is a Snap judgement in an attempt to be-little maps . Dont be upset that you got me started on insulting your maps, you had it coming . Go ahead and bash mine, i dont care. Thats what you doing in the graph regardless, And when asked what maps? you dont want to answer, Typical....
Anyone claiming the WC3 map system was good loses all argumentative integrity.
Even the old popularity system displayed at least 10 maps, as opposed to WC3's 1, sometimes 2 displayed maps.
Most of the "quality" maps also lack refinement and content, while the "awful page 1 maps" tend to lack finesse but make up for it with (generally) refined gameplay and content.
Star Battle is a perfect example. Any competent mapper could make this in a few hours at most. However, it's content has been crafted quite extensively by the community and as such, even though the map itself is very basic, it is also very enjoyable.
It's fast/funny to read, inaccurate and whimsical.. therefore can be misinterpreted... and hurtful.
I have played eu top pop maps... purchasing sc2 several times seemed acceptable to me for a while (for crossrealms tasting), but is no more.
Off topic:
Rodrigo Alves has been "publicly" hurt by blizz on several occasions, some warranted probably, but only his passion/frustration for the work has lead him to be whimsically aggressive towards all maps on the front page... I think taking his (or h34dl4g's) graph out of their context is uselessly sad.
On topic:
I'm somewhat surprised that the players are not more generally directed as the principal faulty party in the pop system "debacle". I say debacle only in the mapmaker point of view... (this has been said previously, thank whoever did so).
The players are looking for quick play, quick in mastering the mechanics or just quick (repeat play is a "convenient" way to get numbers high enough to retain one's map at any given level, barring further publicizing one's map or bump shiting...(typo warranted)).
And this is what blizz wants... their releasing of galaxy seems compulsory in our day and age... but if they can help it, they will not relinquish the "favor of the week pick". The no lan and server dwld cap have set the bar, no?
So maps that require several hours of play are doomed.. no, I don't think so, however, it will not be through this pop system that "some" will arise (indeed many will remain unknown and missed by "potentially grateful" players). Only communities forming around this or that map will make them "exist"...(having your own site comes to mind for one).
Just to finish the mortar of this wall of text, I'll say it's seems obvious that the term "most popular", anyone should agree, is a pure marketing technique that brilliantly answers lower player aspirations/expectations' and discourages the "theft" of their precious editor by loosing it to "people who do have originality" with it and would steal their precious "player pool"...
In point of fact the pop system is more or less precisely what will satisfy the players that blizz are currently interested in. The talented mapmakers who do exert originality or other are to wait for the bulk of players to leave sc2 for other games... in order to use blizz services and stop being hindered by them, by re becoming "interesting customer potential".
Just wanted to remind everybody that this topic is about a graph supposedly covering different maps and the popularity.
It's not about if the author or a poster in here has made a map that sucks or owns. This turned into a:
...
I am not hating on either one of you, nor going to point fingers and say "that person is right, stop whining", I'm just kindly asking you to please stay on topic and take personal quarrels to PMs, or is that too much to ask?
That's a very diplomatic post and it sounds nice, but I believe it misses the point (judging by paraphrase). Thus, it is too much to ask (though the conversation with Vexal is finished anyway). The reason? Our back and forth (aside from the personal details) was very relevant to the topic at hand.
I strongly believe that to be in a position to judge the design of any game credibly, you have to have good design under your own belt already. This is because design is not a superficial aspect, such as say polish or fun. Everyone is qualified to judge superficial aspects, but few are qualified to judge deeper ones. Since one of the axis on the graph in OP is quality...
If you don't want me defending myself in this thread publicly, then delete the opinion posts about me not relative to this thread. Else I will reply.
Karawasa's reply is offensive (and incorrect), and I never said anything negative about a specific map made by anyone, or the skill of anyone specific. Not even my own. If you wish for me continue to do so, you should honor this request.
Please point out to me what in particular was offensive (through PM) and I can edit it out. Incorrect is subjective so we will leave that as is. By the way, those points were relative to this thread because your first post was "everyone and every map fucking sucks."
Well, I don't know if I can really produce a good example of a superior tug of war map to these being played on the first page. I'm working on a tug of war map that attempts to be different and less passive than these tug of war maps out there (customized units, more fast-paced, players are actually involved in the fighting on the field by casting spells and such; not so much sitting around and watching standard units clash). But it's not released yet, nor can I really judge it against these other maps because it is my own work, after all (I would be really arrogant to do so).
I can point you to a few really good hero defenses that are much more entertaining than Gladiator Arena (on the US server). Bluefrex Hero D, Raynor's Hero D, Hero Siege, and so on forth. I thought Gladiator Arena was bland after the first try, and even after the second and third tries, it was still bland. It didn't really have any interesting twist on the hero defense gameplay, nor did it even have very interesting abilities. The only thing I really mildly admired about the map was the character selection screen. That looked kind of nice, I must admit.
My problem with the popularity system isn't so much that the top maps are the best of their classes (because not all of them are, in my opinion). My problem is that the popularity system encourages these bad habits of people flocking to a select few maps because they're at the top and because they can't join a game further down the list without waiting forever for others. The popularity system is dulling the community's taste for maps because they find that they have to settle for these at the top...
I bought SC2 for the custom games, presuming that since Blizzard has always had blooming success with that in their previous RTS titles, this one wouldn't be an exception. I was disappointed to see that I had been proven wrong. This is really enough to make me consider not buying any of the expansions to SC2 until they get rid of this crappy system.
Sorry, Eiv, but I really have to disagree with you there on your claim that anybody defending the SC/WC3 system loses all argumentative integrity. WC3's system only became overrun by DotA way late in its life, but for the bulk of its life, the system worked almost flawlessly. People were playing what they wanted to play and when they wanted to, not when the system made it convenient for them to. Heck, even when the system was flooded with DotA games, you could still host something else and get people joining in seconds. There's a reason why many mapmakers rejoiced with the volatile system; it was very reminiscent of WC3's system in which mapmakers could EASILY pick up a bunch of people to play their new map and spread it if they liked it.
The WC3 system allowed popular and unpopular (perhaps new) maps to both be shown first thing when you clicked the join game button, and let's not forget about being able to see more games as the list updated itself over time. Map visibility was good, even with the DotA plague. But you know what? We don't HAVE to settle for the old WC3 system. Rather, we could have just asked for an improved version of the WC3 system... with say, collapsible/expandable game lobbies for the maps currently being hosted.
When SC2 was released, I envisioned a system much like WC3's, but perhaps more streamlined. I envisioned a system in which it wasn't so damned difficult to get your map out there and play more obscure maps. I remember the days when I could host Soulchess and get people to join in a matter of seconds, even though the map was very unpopular (let's say that map was in the popularity system... an analogy would be that it would be somewhere past the 8th page).
It's really ironic that you make an unwarranted claim like that (about argumentative integrity) while I've provided you with a pretty solid rebuttal. It was also really dishonest to say that WC3 only showed 1 or 2 maps at a time. The system showed so much more than that, and it only showed games that were currently being hosted, not games that are completely empty. Plus, before the DotA takeover, the list was very full of variety. There was always something for everybody.
Oh don't get me wrong, we are on the same side. I just want to make sure we attack it properly.
It does tend to get the best of class of the most popular genres at the top. This isn't a bad thing inherently. So avoid arguing as such.
The real problem is that this system is one that fits a game, not a side game. In other words, if SC2 was just custom games then it would be acceptable. In reality, custom games are treated as breaks between matches for the majority of players. Therefore, most players don't give enough time to the system (scroll past top page) and popularity just perpetuates itself.
If Blizzard would just add more categories and a search bar, that would help fickle players explore deeper. But, I will continue to miss WC3 regardless.
At first I thought like "This Vexal guy might actually have a point".
But after checking his workspace with one map being a boring wave/spawn dickshaped map and the second ressembling a vagina (woot another TD rofl) I realized that the guy was just trolling.
10/10 srs
ps: loled@graphs
pps: Rodrigo man, what crazy map have you been working on lately ?
===========================
Quote from grenegg:
Vexel's TD is on eof the best TDs
Tha said, I don't care for thoose.
===========================
Well you know, SC TDs, bounds and *marine arenas* were fun when we were 12 and had gameboys and N64 but with today's technology/standards they just don't cut it.
Why would I play SOTIS when I can go play LoL/HoW?
Why would I play any "3v3 arena" when I can play bloodline champions?
Why would I play any generic boring map(TD, waves, etc) when I can open steam store and buy an indie game for under 5 bucks? That's excluding the fact that there are plenty of those on the apple store.
etc etc I'm sure you get my point here
The only reason why those map are somewhat popular is because you can play those gameplay in a starcraft environment. It's like... why would I play a laggy FPS like Vector when you can go play a full blown FPS like battlefield:BC2? The only reason would be because of the starcraft environment.
(Ever since Malu released his first vid, during beta, a SC FPS/TPS is honestly the only thing I'm looking foward from this game - and blizzard isn't doing shit with ASWD movements)
The same reasons also applies to modders. Plus, it's not very encouraging to develop something that's gonna take you hundreds, thousands of hours when there's something better on the market and it will probably ended not even being played - see: shitty popularity system.
When we played SC/WC3 maps, it was fun because there was a "community" behind it. Now you log in SC2 and it's amazingly boring. Those "chat channels" simply don't cut it. The profile page allows little to 0 customization. There are no clans support. The list goes on and on.
I think I speak for many mappers when I say that there are plenty of maps that are just... really unimpressive, even if they are well-designed for their genre. But see, that's the problem: average game designers only know how to make yet another cookie cutter game in a genre. Good game designers are these who take it a step further; they do something that most people wouldn't have thought of. It doesn't necessarily have to define a new genre, it just has to think beyond the boundary of what has already been done. Why would I play Nexus Wars edition B if it's just pretty much the same thing as edition A? These maps need to differentiate themselves further than just stats and terrain (and don't even get me started on the stupidity of using standard units in tug of war maps - I'm looking at you, Nexus Wars and Desert Strike).
That said, I'm pretty much in agreement with Rodrigo about his measure of quality maps despite him having never said a word to define it. You know why nothing is being said about the measure he's using? Because so many people would be offended. It seems Vexal was one of them, judging by his harsh reaction to this thread (no worries, Vexal, I'm not going to bash your map here). It's something that's not easy to say, but it needs to be said. At this point, I'm just willing to say that the popularity system in its current form is a great system for telling me which maps will suck; if it's at the top, it probably sucks (exceptions allowed, of course!). I've played Nexus Wars and I think it's nowhere even close to meeting the standard set by Castle Fight back in WC3 (again... using standard units and races that were clearly not designed for the tug of war genre). Desert Strike is a bit better, but it's still not a game I want to be forced to play for even more than a week. I've never really been particular to Frenzy maps (gameplay is boring to me, technical finesse is lacking), so don't even get me started on Marine Arena and Zealot Frenzy. The maps I DO want to play (and I'm pretty sure there are plenty of others that would also like to play these), I cannot play because of the popularity system.
I've been mapmaking for a very long time. I've made maps for Warcraft 2, Starcraft, Warcraft 3, and have a few in progress for Starcraft 2. I have seen the quality of maps evolve from one game to the next along with the editor. That is, until SC2. I feel as if the community is taking big steps backward from what we were seeing in WC3, despite having an editor that looks and feels a lot like the WC3 editor, despite having many WC3 mapmakers trying to make the leap to SC2. Why, then, do I feel like we're missing so much of the creativity we saw in WC3, even from its youngest years? It's like nobody wants to take a risk and make a map that they don't know for sure would be popular. Everybody just wants to make a map that can appeal to these looking for massively dumbed down games because these are the most popular.
So I've got your back here, Rodrigo. I know exactly what you're talking about and I agree 100% with what you're saying and your graph.
What the hell... are you a clone of me? Similar name, similar thoughts.
I was restraining from posting in another thread about shitty vs quality maps but this post was just amazingly in tune with my sentiments. I mean I used to play custom maps A LOT in warcraft 3; things just blew my mind like dark deeds, the first save/load ORPGs, that 3rd person RPG by FM-Bilouxi/osiris who also made that night of the dead map... zoators, line tower wars etc... My map folder is like hundreds of files! But, these maps came out quite later than War3, infact in the Frozen Throne...
But in SC2, since beta I haven't really played many maps. Aside from helping people test, I've played very few maps since then. Maybe I just don't have as much time anymore or maybe they really are worse. I've actually lost motivation to play custom maps. Oh, another TUG or frenzy map featured? Probably worse than pre-frozen throne maps? Cool, I think i'll just go make some tutorials and move along lol.
My belief is that these are the reasons:
1. I never personally prefered TUG/Frenzy. Tower Defense was awesome in war3 but perhaps overdone by now. Yet, because of the simplicity to make TUG/Frenzy that use standard sc2 units, we have a lot of these. People who play melee probably like these maps I guess?
2. Even tower defenses take FOREVER to make under the new editor. While we get amazing new ways to make spells, it comes at a price of taking an hour to make a few things. Vexal can attest to this as his map started with very few towers in beta and still it was like the only TD. I think right now no one is done.
3. Popularity indeed can be blamed at this point. Bugged popularity for that week or 2 proved it.
4. Some mappers skipped war3, coming directly from sc1 where maps were just not at the same level because the editor was much less expansive.
5. RPG elements are 10x harder to do and not as intuitively designed from a player perspective. Try opening your inventory to down a health pot in SC2, versus how easy it was in War3. Yet, RPG elements are what made so many maps fun :D
However, with these things in mind, I have hope for the future when more high quality stuff gets done and can sit on the popularity list. Hell, even my own work such as my RPG has been in progress since July (on and off). The biggest problem right now is the divide amongst map makers and themselves and between map makers and the battle.net team. When the bugged popularity came out, there was actually some nice moments between us all :D
I'm totally with you on this. I myself is debating whether to continue mapping or move on to other development platform that has better future.
I created a TD (and released beta version) back in November 2010. Some people think is unique in its own way. I got some of good feedback... really good feedback... and I can show you. it's not just "i played it, it's good" but really detailed feedback coming from someone as if he/she got addicted to the game. But boooo!! some people love it. but most players in battle.net GOT CONFUSED by the gameplay... and when they got confused, THEY FUCKIN LEAVE!! They don't even try to learn or read the tooltips... Sometimes I hop in the game to see what people say and only 1 out of 8 players actually wanted to learn and got the grip. The rest just got confused and LEAVE!!
That really bugged me. I don't think it's the popularity that's bugged. This BS has to do with the players/user base. I befriended tons of 12-15yrs old random players during the span of the game... No wonder they don't appreciate unique approach to a genre. They're fucken' twelve!
Plus I did my math. at peak in NA, we might see 1.5M players on battle.net. but when I did average of hours, number of players per game, on custom map. My math tells me that only 1/3 of that players actually play custom game. 2/3 still fully engaged with Melee.
SotiS: 16000 hours/day. each game lasts 30mins+ so 16000*2/24 = 1333 games per day * 8 players = 10667 players.
AND THATS ALREADY OVERCOUNTING. SotiS could last 1 hour. and not to mention SAME ADDICTED PLAYERS COMING BACK. so that 10667 players are not unique.
Now lets say there are:
- 10 popular maps with roughly same statistics as SotiS (Star Battle, Marine Arena, etc etc.): 10 * 10667 = 200,000ish.
- 20 semi-popular maps with half of SotiS, Star Battle stats: 20 * 5000 = 100,000 ish
- and 50 still barely made it on custom game list: 50 * 2000 = 100,000 ish
- and 100 others almost dead: 100* 1000 = 100,000 ish
TOTAL: 200K+100K+100K+100k = 500K players playing custom game roughly... give or take..., and that;s NOT UNIQUE players. could be same addicted joe coming back for same maps. Oh and not to mention THE BOOSTING, PUMPING happening lolz...
You're developing on a platform with 500k NON-UNIQUE users. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT??!?!?! And those players are usually Bronze who gave up melee-ing! And you expect them to play games that are unique and out of the box??
Popularity blows. I spent a few weeks working on my latest map and published it on EU and US. I got a few games running on US but on EU I got 5 people to join, then one dropped and that was after an hour. The guy who dropped ended the game. -.- I gave up and went back to US. Lol
Your only hope to escape the popularity war is to get frontpaged on Mapster, artificially boost your played time, have an incredibly large group of existing fans (Cortex, my first creation), or something like that.
I played a lot more maps when the volatile popularity was going. Now its just the same shit on first page...cant play anything else!
Well I released my map, lets see how it does. I wouldnt expect it to be succesful with average bnet users, so...im probly doomed. I guess it wouldnt be a big deal to just give up on sc2. Maybe come back to play some blizzard dota when its released...but currently bnet has so little to offer to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I didn't imply bad, just average. Here is why;
By your own admission, VTD would go down as just another TD. You even admit you lack the ability to generate unique ideas. That eliminates you right there. No offense, but you seem like an example of a technical guy trying to compete in the realm of the creative.
@OneSoga: Go
I completely agree that the standard by which people judge has gone down. There is also a sad lack of creativity (and activity). But, I don't agree with you on the top page issue. The maps up there are, for the most part, the best in class. Does that mean they hold a candle to WC3? No. Unless you can come up with examples of superior maps (of the same genre) swamped down in the popularity system, then I think it is fair to say that the top page actually does represent the best SC2 has to offer (for those genres) fairly accurately.
@OneSoga: Go
I agree with you. I've also been making maps since a long time, and I'm glad you understood my graph.
Just wanted to remind everybody that this topic is about a graph supposedly covering different maps and the popularity.
It's not about if the author or a poster in here has made a map that sucks or owns. This turned into a:
"Because I don't feel like your maps are a part of that graph, but you made them and you made that graph, you don't have any right to talk about the quality of other maps."
and then
"You don't like my maps? Well what have you made that's so special?"
and then just turned into an argument that has nothing at all to do with the OP along with partly on-topic paragraphs.
I am not hating on either one of you, nor going to point fingers and say "that person is right, stop whining", I'm just kindly asking you to please stay on topic and take personal quarrels to PMs, or is that too much to ask?
(I know that your posts have parts that relates to the thread, but I'm asking you to make your posts -only- about the thread)
If you don't want me defending myself in this thread publicly, then delete the opinion posts about me not relative to this thread. Else I will reply.
Karawasa's reply is offensive (and incorrect), and I never said anything negative about a specific map made by anyone, or the skill of anyone specific. Not even my own. If you wish for me continue to do so, you should honor this request.
@Vexal: Go
You should know that I'm not only speaking to you, Vexal.
The thing I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't have to defend yourself, and neither should anyone else, if everyone stayed on-topic like they're supposed to, there wouldn't be an argument needing to be defended.
And if something is defended, the argue:er doesn't have to take it even more off-topic and can move over to PMs instead.
It's a complicated thing since it usually plays out:
1) Argument/Flame
2) Defend
1) Clarify if the defendant misunderstood that can lead to other arguments or make other arguments
2) More defending and sometimes counter-attacks.
(I'm not saying that this is how it went down here, because I'm sure you will prove me wrong. But if instead of finding more stuff to add to the off-topicness, you could either just drop it or take it to PMs instead, so that the meaning of the thread doesn't disappear and the fight gets taken out on the OP.)
I hope you understand what I'm trying say, I have nothing against you, Vexal.
And since this is leading to another argument that's off-topic, I'm hoping that we won't have to spin this off even further and we can leave it at Vexal was defending himself and Karawasa was just trying to clarify any misunderstandings in his posts. And if you want to paint each other as badguys, do so in PMs.
People should also be aware that if you feel offended by another member, you can just PM a moderator and it will be looked into and warnings can be given where warnings are due.
Well ill like to state for the record im sorry and i should not have gone off insulting your maps. I just snaped cause im pretty tired of every map just getting blindly labled as average or crappy or whatever haters like to say about the maps at the top .
When i read the popularity chart from the first post, i see 3 gauges ( AWEFUL,AVERAGE,AWESOME) , Now if you kept something like this to yourself, obviously i wouldnt have to reply cause thats your personal opionion , but here you are injecting this filth onto this site and the battlenet site with this Rating bar.
Im calling you out here, You said in the first post you made for this thread stating that you have gathered data on the first page maps and this graph represents your conclusion . Yet when i insult your maps you answer back with a critical piece of information that makes your CASE sound even more stupid. You say you havent even played my map ( zealot frenzy) which has been at the top for many months on USA, and as of recently 1 month ago its at the top of EUROPE thanks to voliatle popularity bug getting it noticed over there. So how could you make a graph about the First page maps when not even having played them all? Thats the first b.s im calling you out on. This graph is a Snap judgement in an attempt to be-little maps . Dont be upset that you got me started on insulting your maps, you had it coming . Go ahead and bash mine, i dont care. Thats what you doing in the graph regardless, And when asked what maps? you dont want to answer, Typical....
Anyone claiming the WC3 map system was good loses all argumentative integrity.
Even the old popularity system displayed at least 10 maps, as opposed to WC3's 1, sometimes 2 displayed maps.
Most of the "quality" maps also lack refinement and content, while the "awful page 1 maps" tend to lack finesse but make up for it with (generally) refined gameplay and content.
Star Battle is a perfect example. Any competent mapper could make this in a few hours at most. However, it's content has been crafted quite extensively by the community and as such, even though the map itself is very basic, it is also very enjoyable.
about op:
It's fast/funny to read, inaccurate and whimsical.. therefore can be misinterpreted... and hurtful.
I have played eu top pop maps... purchasing sc2 several times seemed acceptable to me for a while (for crossrealms tasting), but is no more.
Off topic:
Rodrigo Alves has been "publicly" hurt by blizz on several occasions, some warranted probably, but only his passion/frustration for the work has lead him to be whimsically aggressive towards all maps on the front page... I think taking his (or h34dl4g's) graph out of their context is uselessly sad.
On topic:
I'm somewhat surprised that the players are not more generally directed as the principal faulty party in the pop system "debacle". I say debacle only in the mapmaker point of view... (this has been said previously, thank whoever did so).
The players are looking for quick play, quick in mastering the mechanics or just quick (repeat play is a "convenient" way to get numbers high enough to retain one's map at any given level, barring further publicizing one's map or bump shiting...(typo warranted)).
And this is what blizz wants... their releasing of galaxy seems compulsory in our day and age... but if they can help it, they will not relinquish the "favor of the week pick". The no lan and server dwld cap have set the bar, no?
So maps that require several hours of play are doomed.. no, I don't think so, however, it will not be through this pop system that "some" will arise (indeed many will remain unknown and missed by "potentially grateful" players). Only communities forming around this or that map will make them "exist"...(having your own site comes to mind for one).
Just to finish the mortar of this wall of text, I'll say it's seems obvious that the term "most popular", anyone should agree, is a pure marketing technique that brilliantly answers lower player aspirations/expectations' and discourages the "theft" of their precious editor by loosing it to "people who do have originality" with it and would steal their precious "player pool"...
In point of fact the pop system is more or less precisely what will satisfy the players that blizz are currently interested in. The talented mapmakers who do exert originality or other are to wait for the bulk of players to leave sc2 for other games... in order to use blizz services and stop being hindered by them, by re becoming "interesting customer potential".
That's a very diplomatic post and it sounds nice, but I believe it misses the point (judging by paraphrase). Thus, it is too much to ask (though the conversation with Vexal is finished anyway). The reason? Our back and forth (aside from the personal details) was very relevant to the topic at hand.
I strongly believe that to be in a position to judge the design of any game credibly, you have to have good design under your own belt already. This is because design is not a superficial aspect, such as say polish or fun. Everyone is qualified to judge superficial aspects, but few are qualified to judge deeper ones. Since one of the axis on the graph in OP is quality...
Please point out to me what in particular was offensive (through PM) and I can edit it out. Incorrect is subjective so we will leave that as is. By the way, those points were relative to this thread because your first post was "everyone and every map fucking sucks."
@Karawasa: Go
Well, I don't know if I can really produce a good example of a superior tug of war map to these being played on the first page. I'm working on a tug of war map that attempts to be different and less passive than these tug of war maps out there (customized units, more fast-paced, players are actually involved in the fighting on the field by casting spells and such; not so much sitting around and watching standard units clash). But it's not released yet, nor can I really judge it against these other maps because it is my own work, after all (I would be really arrogant to do so).
I can point you to a few really good hero defenses that are much more entertaining than Gladiator Arena (on the US server). Bluefrex Hero D, Raynor's Hero D, Hero Siege, and so on forth. I thought Gladiator Arena was bland after the first try, and even after the second and third tries, it was still bland. It didn't really have any interesting twist on the hero defense gameplay, nor did it even have very interesting abilities. The only thing I really mildly admired about the map was the character selection screen. That looked kind of nice, I must admit.
My problem with the popularity system isn't so much that the top maps are the best of their classes (because not all of them are, in my opinion). My problem is that the popularity system encourages these bad habits of people flocking to a select few maps because they're at the top and because they can't join a game further down the list without waiting forever for others. The popularity system is dulling the community's taste for maps because they find that they have to settle for these at the top...
I bought SC2 for the custom games, presuming that since Blizzard has always had blooming success with that in their previous RTS titles, this one wouldn't be an exception. I was disappointed to see that I had been proven wrong. This is really enough to make me consider not buying any of the expansions to SC2 until they get rid of this crappy system.
@Eiviyn: Go
Sorry, Eiv, but I really have to disagree with you there on your claim that anybody defending the SC/WC3 system loses all argumentative integrity. WC3's system only became overrun by DotA way late in its life, but for the bulk of its life, the system worked almost flawlessly. People were playing what they wanted to play and when they wanted to, not when the system made it convenient for them to. Heck, even when the system was flooded with DotA games, you could still host something else and get people joining in seconds. There's a reason why many mapmakers rejoiced with the volatile system; it was very reminiscent of WC3's system in which mapmakers could EASILY pick up a bunch of people to play their new map and spread it if they liked it.
The WC3 system allowed popular and unpopular (perhaps new) maps to both be shown first thing when you clicked the join game button, and let's not forget about being able to see more games as the list updated itself over time. Map visibility was good, even with the DotA plague. But you know what? We don't HAVE to settle for the old WC3 system. Rather, we could have just asked for an improved version of the WC3 system... with say, collapsible/expandable game lobbies for the maps currently being hosted.
When SC2 was released, I envisioned a system much like WC3's, but perhaps more streamlined. I envisioned a system in which it wasn't so damned difficult to get your map out there and play more obscure maps. I remember the days when I could host Soulchess and get people to join in a matter of seconds, even though the map was very unpopular (let's say that map was in the popularity system... an analogy would be that it would be somewhere past the 8th page).
It's really ironic that you make an unwarranted claim like that (about argumentative integrity) while I've provided you with a pretty solid rebuttal. It was also really dishonest to say that WC3 only showed 1 or 2 maps at a time. The system showed so much more than that, and it only showed games that were currently being hosted, not games that are completely empty. Plus, before the DotA takeover, the list was very full of variety. There was always something for everybody.
Blizzard, how low you've fallen.
@OneSoga: Go
Oh don't get me wrong, we are on the same side. I just want to make sure we attack it properly.
It does tend to get the best of class of the most popular genres at the top. This isn't a bad thing inherently. So avoid arguing as such.
The real problem is that this system is one that fits a game, not a side game. In other words, if SC2 was just custom games then it would be acceptable. In reality, custom games are treated as breaks between matches for the majority of players. Therefore, most players don't give enough time to the system (scroll past top page) and popularity just perpetuates itself.
If Blizzard would just add more categories and a search bar, that would help fickle players explore deeper. But, I will continue to miss WC3 regardless.
@Koronis: Go
Vexel's TD is on eof the best TDs
Tha said, I don't care for thoose.
@Koronis: Go
hhhmmmmmm..... So why are you here then? Seems like there is no reason to play or Mod starcraft.
Shoooo!!!!! Shoooo!!!!
What the hell... are you a clone of me? Similar name, similar thoughts.
I was restraining from posting in another thread about shitty vs quality maps but this post was just amazingly in tune with my sentiments. I mean I used to play custom maps A LOT in warcraft 3; things just blew my mind like dark deeds, the first save/load ORPGs, that 3rd person RPG by FM-Bilouxi/osiris who also made that night of the dead map... zoators, line tower wars etc... My map folder is like hundreds of files! But, these maps came out quite later than War3, infact in the Frozen Throne...
But in SC2, since beta I haven't really played many maps. Aside from helping people test, I've played very few maps since then. Maybe I just don't have as much time anymore or maybe they really are worse. I've actually lost motivation to play custom maps. Oh, another TUG or frenzy map featured? Probably worse than pre-frozen throne maps? Cool, I think i'll just go make some tutorials and move along lol.
My belief is that these are the reasons:
1. I never personally prefered TUG/Frenzy. Tower Defense was awesome in war3 but perhaps overdone by now. Yet, because of the simplicity to make TUG/Frenzy that use standard sc2 units, we have a lot of these. People who play melee probably like these maps I guess?
2. Even tower defenses take FOREVER to make under the new editor. While we get amazing new ways to make spells, it comes at a price of taking an hour to make a few things. Vexal can attest to this as his map started with very few towers in beta and still it was like the only TD. I think right now no one is done.
3. Popularity indeed can be blamed at this point. Bugged popularity for that week or 2 proved it.
4. Some mappers skipped war3, coming directly from sc1 where maps were just not at the same level because the editor was much less expansive.
5. RPG elements are 10x harder to do and not as intuitively designed from a player perspective. Try opening your inventory to down a health pot in SC2, versus how easy it was in War3. Yet, RPG elements are what made so many maps fun :D
However, with these things in mind, I have hope for the future when more high quality stuff gets done and can sit on the popularity list. Hell, even my own work such as my RPG has been in progress since July (on and off). The biggest problem right now is the divide amongst map makers and themselves and between map makers and the battle.net team. When the bugged popularity came out, there was actually some nice moments between us all :D
@Koronis: Go
The dick shape map was hilarious! I wanted to see if it would get banned, that they'd let me plead ignorance. I chickened out and never released it.
@Koronis: Go
It is dick shaped indeed.
I'm totally with you on this. I myself is debating whether to continue mapping or move on to other development platform that has better future.
I created a TD (and released beta version) back in November 2010. Some people think is unique in its own way. I got some of good feedback... really good feedback... and I can show you. it's not just "i played it, it's good" but really detailed feedback coming from someone as if he/she got addicted to the game. But boooo!! some people love it. but most players in battle.net GOT CONFUSED by the gameplay... and when they got confused, THEY FUCKIN LEAVE!! They don't even try to learn or read the tooltips... Sometimes I hop in the game to see what people say and only 1 out of 8 players actually wanted to learn and got the grip. The rest just got confused and LEAVE!!
That really bugged me. I don't think it's the popularity that's bugged. This BS has to do with the players/user base. I befriended tons of 12-15yrs old random players during the span of the game... No wonder they don't appreciate unique approach to a genre. They're fucken' twelve!
Plus I did my math. at peak in NA, we might see 1.5M players on battle.net. but when I did average of hours, number of players per game, on custom map. My math tells me that only 1/3 of that players actually play custom game. 2/3 still fully engaged with Melee. SotiS: 16000 hours/day. each game lasts 30mins+ so 16000*2/24 = 1333 games per day * 8 players = 10667 players. AND THATS ALREADY OVERCOUNTING. SotiS could last 1 hour. and not to mention SAME ADDICTED PLAYERS COMING BACK. so that 10667 players are not unique. Now lets say there are:
- 10 popular maps with roughly same statistics as SotiS (Star Battle, Marine Arena, etc etc.): 10 * 10667 = 200,000ish.
- 20 semi-popular maps with half of SotiS, Star Battle stats: 20 * 5000 = 100,000 ish
- and 50 still barely made it on custom game list: 50 * 2000 = 100,000 ish
- and 100 others almost dead: 100* 1000 = 100,000 ish
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+TOTAL: 200K+100K+100K+100k = 500K players playing custom game roughly... give or take..., and that;s NOT UNIQUE players. could be same addicted joe coming back for same maps. Oh and not to mention THE BOOSTING, PUMPING happening lolz...
You're developing on a platform with 500k NON-UNIQUE users. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT??!?!?! And those players are usually Bronze who gave up melee-ing! And you expect them to play games that are unique and out of the box??
You see now why I;m giving up on this?!
Popularity blows. I spent a few weeks working on my latest map and published it on EU and US. I got a few games running on US but on EU I got 5 people to join, then one dropped and that was after an hour. The guy who dropped ended the game. -.- I gave up and went back to US. Lol
Your only hope to escape the popularity war is to get frontpaged on Mapster, artificially boost your played time, have an incredibly large group of existing fans (Cortex, my first creation), or something like that.
I played a lot more maps when the volatile popularity was going. Now its just the same shit on first page...cant play anything else!
Well I released my map, lets see how it does. I wouldnt expect it to be succesful with average bnet users, so...im probly doomed. I guess it wouldnt be a big deal to just give up on sc2. Maybe come back to play some blizzard dota when its released...but currently bnet has so little to offer to me.