I've been noticing many people complaining about the new popularity system. Both in these forums, and on Sc2mapster.com. Apparently, I'm one of the "lucky" few to have released a map under the right circumstances for it to become popular.
I'm making this post for two reasons.
For one, I'd like to give some input on the popularity system from the point of view of one who's been "successful" with it. Two, I'd like to say some things about my map. I will separate the topics, so if one disinterests you, skip it. I feel it is better to combine these two topics into a single post.
--
Everyone has been saying that getting a popular map is nothing more than luck; publishing before anyone else does. I would like to hope this is not true. I've put a lot of work into my map, as well as into figuring out how the new editor works. I did start working during the beta, which some people may say to be an advantage, however, I got into the beta by pre-ordering from Gamestop -- something anyone could have done, given that it was five dollars.
One thing that I've noticed is that the majority of people complaining do so because they've spent many, many hours coming up with an intricate level featuring as many unique, deep game-play elements as they can think of. I applaud for that. However, I believe these people fail to understand their target audience. In warcraft 3, I attempted to release some maps, but they were never popular. Or even good. I've come to the conclusion this is because I focused too much on the technical aspects than whether it is fun. I'm currently working on my computer science degree. Programming is my strong point. Programming has nothing to do with game design. Nothing at all. As far as I know, programmers for video games have nothing to do with the design process. They are the "monkeys". That's okay, though. At least we're not engineers. Engineers are the monkey's monkeys. Even that's okay. At least you engineers aren't sys admins.
With that said, I probably have just as many gripes with the system as anyone else. The foremost being the inability to host public tests. Almost all of my testing has been done in solo mode. It was not until recently that the map became popular enough for me to just join a game and ask if anyone's interested in helping me test, and people seemed honored to do so. During beta, I got maybe one or two public tests done. This was done by me going into other games of other maps, and asking if anyone wanted to help test a new Tower Defense. I felt like a jerk doing so. What other choice did I have?
Blizzard's statement on this has been that if a map is worthy of popularity, it will have a strong following on community websites. This might be true for some people; one thing I've noticed, however, is that the maps with the strongest following appear to be those which have achieved unique or technical milestones -- not those which would be popular on Battle.net.
Sc2mapster.com is a very good website. It has a great, helpful community. If you ever make a post asking a question about how to implement something in the editor, it will usually be answered almost instantly. Even if you have a particularly in-depth, technically-complicated inquiry, there will always be people interested enough in the topic that they will do their own research in order to answer you.
However, even with its outstanding community, it's simply not possible for them to give notice to every up-and-coming project that might be out there. Yes, anyone can upload their map projects, but when you do, they're put into a long database containing every uploaded map, sorted only by how recently they were updated. If you're looking for a particular type of game to try out, even though you can filter by category, there is simply too much content to easily sift through and try. Not all of it is good, and there are no ranking systems set up. Users may comment on projects, but you have to make an account with the site in order to do so. Making an account may sound trivial, but I know a lot of people hate doing so. It would be impractical for them to feature all new projects on their front page because then it would become as cluttered as their map database.
I'm not criticizing Mapster. They are an excellent site, and I frequently make posts there asking questions. Their shortcomings are only due to the fact that supporting and giving notice to every single project is simply too difficult given the volume of created content.
I therefore conclude that relying on communities is not the answer. One more thing about that -- not everyone is as socially oriented. Not everyone is as inclined to seek project support directly. It's easier if you can host games with the title "new map need testers" because doing so does not involve any social connection with others. Social connection is not everyone's strong point. It's certainly not mine.
Blizzard said they added this system in order to clear up the spam of DotA. This goal has failed. Currently, if a game is released with multiple game modes, each mode shows up as a separate map, with its own popularity bar. The top few pages consist of many duplicate entries. Even worse, I can't even change the default mode for my own map because it will just create a new version at the bottom and no one will see it. I desperately need to configure the lobby settings. There should be absolutely one instance of a map, with the ability to use a drop down menu to select which mode to join.
I try to play a few public games of my map on occasion. To see what people think. This often results in embarrassment. Especially when I first released the map. The initial inability to organize tests resulted in bugs popping up in team mode that I had no knowledge of. The inability to leave feedback for the creator makes this worse. There were a few versions where the game was absolutely unplayable due to bugs. It makes me wonder how the map initially became popular in the first place.
The inability to control when a game starts or to kick players is infuriating. There are players that like to join games and intentionally log out as soon as the timer starts just to piss off everyone. You have no fix for this. They can stay in the lobby and the game will auto start when it fills. And repeat.
I believe a good number of currently popular maps are stolen. The names of the authors are different than that of the maps in beta. It is of course possible they simply changed their name, but given that their accounts on Mapster were identical to their beta account names, this is unlikely. One that comes to mind is Red Circle TD. Standard Tower Defense has also been re-published by a few different people. This bothers me.
I always appreciate player feedback. Please, feel free to leave suggestions, impressions, complaints, and gripes in this thread. I read every single one of them, and I always reply. I make no promise I will implement your suggestion.
There are some things I will absolutely not change. For one, I will not give the Bunker its own attack. It's a Bunker. In all of the history of the Bunker, dating back to when the ancient Romans dug holes in the ground and poured gravel for protection with their bows and arrows, Bunkers never had their own weapons. They're Bunkers. They don't have weapons. They provide protection for those that do.
I will not make the game easier. I was brought up in a family that played video games. If I used the cheat codes in Doom 1 or 2, I got grounded. My dad kept track of these things. I've played the other TD's out there, and to me they are too easy. I'd like to believe my maps reflect my views on how games should be, as well as my personality. This should be evident by the fact that the Queen mobs lay eggs which hatch into larva which morph into more eggs which hatch into more larva (originally there was an issue where you couldn't kill the larva / eggs faster than they multiplied, resulting eventually in the entire map covered with eggs and larva. I've since added a timer which expires all eggs and larva).
I will not take out the different armor types. This prevents people from massing the same tower. From what I've seen, people love building Lasers. While Lasers, especially on sharks, are bitchin', it's not a tactic that works.
I will not add minigames between rounds. It's a chore to me to feel obligated to squeeze out every last bit of Minerals.
I cannot for the life of me figure out how to present to new players the fact that Bunkers can only attack if you put units in them. I've done everything I can think to do. I put a descriptive tooltip, I put a message that pops up. I don't understand why people do not get it. People also do not seem to understand how Heroes work. If anyone has any suggestions on how to improve the accessibility of my gameplay elements, please do let me know.
I'm aware the currently released version is low on content. I feel bad that the map has made it to the first page despite this. It does not deserve so. I am working on adding new versions as quickly as I can. The game has been out of two days. Using the data editor takes forever (for me, at least). I am obsessive about every single detail, but in order to satisfy my obsessive compulsions, I have to learn more about the editor. I am also taking 13 hours of summer class at UT Austin.
The next version should be released publicly tonight or tomorrow. I am currently testing it privately, and if anyone would like to aid in these private tests, I would greatly appreciate it. People seem to be excited for the "privilege" to help with testing, but it really is the other way around. Given my lack of social outgoing, it is a privilege to me to have others willing to help me test and give feedback. If an idea I have for a unit or race or gameplay element turns out to be unfun, I have no problem scrapping it (except for the aforementioned). I need feedback to determine whether it's fun.
The next version will have 40 levels, as well as a second race. The first race still lacks towers and units -- don't worry, it will have more towers to compensate for the fact that there are more levels. The new race is set up to play completely differently. It is set up around mazing and stacking. I am taking advantage of the added capabilities of the Galaxy editor to make towers with features that were nearly impossible in Warcraft 3.
Some of you also may have noticed that the current Hero has an inventory. The next version will have items.
The next version will have a sell button. As an added bonus, the sell button will even return your money. In this version, the sell version merely explodes your tower without refunding it. This is because I like explosions. And I come from a rich family. I don't need the money.
There will be a ready button to speed up the time between rounds. Like the new sell button, it will also have the added bonus of working correctly.
You're getting a lot here. You're getting buttons. You're getting buttons that work. That just work. You don't need to configure them. They work automatically. It's also a phone. It's a button, it works, and it's a phone. All in one. It's really four products. You're getting a lot here.
In case anyone was wondering, the way I was able to have units use abilities without screwing up their pathing was by ordering them to do something before their existing orders. This is a cool trick that you couldn't really do in Warcraft 3 (as far as I know). Most of you probably already know this, but in case you don't.
That's all I have to say so far about my map. Like I said before, I always appreciate feedback, complaints, suggestions, and testers.
One thing that I've noticed is that the majority of people complaining do so because they've spent many, many hours coming up with an intricate level featuring as many unique, deep game-play elements as they can think of. I applaud for that. However, I believe these people fail to understand their target audience.
In warcraft 3, I attempted to release some maps, but they were never popular. Or even good. I've come to the conclusion this is because I focused too much on the technical aspects than whether it is fun. I'm currently working on my computer science degree. Programming is my strong point. Programming has nothing to do with game design. Nothing at all. As far as I know, programmers for video games have nothing to do with the design process. They are the "monkeys". That's okay, though. At least we're not engineers. Engineers are the monkey's monkeys. Even that's okay. At least you engineers aren't sys admins.
I bolded the most important part of that giant block of text. You are absolutely correct. This is why my current project is focused on being playable for dummies, with lots of cool effects and custom models, but very simple and not radically altered game play.
I cannot for the life of me figure out how to present to new players the fact that Bunkers can only attack if you put units in them. I've done everything I can think to do. I put a descriptive tooltip, I put a message that pops up. I don't understand why people do not get it. People also do not seem to understand how Heroes work. If anyone has any suggestions on how to improve the accessibility of my gameplay elements, please do let me know.
At the start of the map, create a VERY short 10-20 second cinematic demonstration. Have units running their path. Have worker place bunker. Have units walk into bunker and start firing. Quick and simple video demonstration. At least that's what I'm doing myself because I had the exact same problem in my custom. I dunno why, but people HATE the idea of bunkers....?
I tried your map the other day. Not sure if you're interested in feedback, but the major problem I had is that you have 5 different kinds of enemies but the towers to attack certain kinds of enemies are MUCH MUCH more expensive than others, and money is EXTREMELY low at the beginning. Meaning for the first few rounds you don't get enough money to build a tower unless it's the cheapest one, but if you spam those the second the first massive round comes along all of them get through unscathed.
So basically every time I've tried you map everyone dies at the first massive round because there's no alternative to the super cheap ones that you can build in reasonable quantities at the beginning of the map.
This probably isn't an issue if you know exactly what's coming but given that its a coop map you can't really rely on your teammates to know everything, so when the most intuitive response (build turrets, because it's a TD so you should build towers and they're the only ones you can afford) results in failure, you are not going to get very far. Also, because the income is very low there's not a lot of gameplay going on. TDs are light on gameplay anyway but when you literally get enough money to build MAYBE one tower per round (more like zero if you want to build anything but turrets) the map is, frankly, pretty boring.
I played it three times and all three times it was game over on the first massive round.
I'm one of the lucky ones too... except Infection is a bit technical in that it forces the player to use a new system of combat over the normal 'attack-move'. I step in on a lot of games and the usual response is "this map is gay" until they learn to play and realize the design/strategy is there to back it up...then it's "this map is Fing awesome"... it's just that initial learning that seems to turn people off. I tried to cram info on the loading screen... but no one reads it!
So what I'm getting at is that I totally agree! My map could probably fair a lot better (it's falling to page 2 now) if I had done an intro cinematic and whatnot. A skippable cine would be good... Replayability is important too...
And yes I don't like popularity as well even with a page 1 map. I don't think it's a good indication of well-done maps. I have yet to play a page 1 map more than once, outside of my own map for testing (I'm bored of my own as well). The quality of maps is SEVERELY lower than frozen throne, but much higher than release sc-1 and release war3. Red Circle TD is definitely not the best TD for sc2 imo.
Oh yeah Vexal! I love that you made a team tower defense... awesome! I did pick the team with the building that can't shoot and stupidly I built like 15 of them (lol)... hero tower saved me but it was kind of hard to recover.
Anyway, here's my feedback. I don't like a hero tower. In a team tower defense I want a straight-up tower D. Think like Zoator's in war3. However, take everything I say with a grain of salt. I'm not really a fan of mixing hero and tower games. Some people like it though. When you think back to Skibi's or Zoators, you never had to really learn, as building anything right off the bat worked well... easy to learn difficult to master etc...
To make another example, there was a line-tower-wars type game in the sc2 beta called double jack tower wars (i think) and it was basically just line tower wars with completely custom races. I found the game too complex and hindered by this "customization". One race had to build power towers along it's tower line to keep them "powered". Just got in the way of a fun game of line tower wars. Like you say Vexal, technical vs design is important. I think a lot of games are bogged down by technicality including my own even.
The other issue I have with your TD is that it's way way way too slow. I know Tower D's are supposed to be slower than most games, but most of the time was spent waiting... and then the waves didn't move fast enough (or actually, I think your map is too big). I think tightening it a bit would be nice :D
Anyway, keep up the great work with Vexals tower D... I want to see where it goes!
By the way OneTwo I tried your map as well, please for the love of god change it so you don't have to press a key at the loading screen, with 14 (or however many it is) players the odds of some asshat afking for 5 minutes approach 100%.
This pretty much goes for every map out there; if you want to make it so the game won't start til everyone is ready add a title screen within the map. That way the people in the map can at least chat with each other and see who is afk, etc. Just sitting at a loading screen for 15 minutes you dont know if your client has crashed or what's going on and you have to alt+f4 out if you want to quit.
The reason for the loading screen key press dates back to a bug in the beta where the map would cause a desync without the key press. I have no idea whether it's still a problem.
However, even with its outstanding community, it's simply not possible for them to give notice to every up-and-coming project that might be out there.Yes, anyone can upload their map projects, but when you do, they're put into a long database containing every uploaded map, sorted only by how recently they were updated.If you're looking for a particular type of game to try out, even though you can filter by category, there is simply too much content to easily sift through and try.Not all of it is good, and there are no ranking systems set up.Users may comment on projects, but you have to make an account with the site in order to do so.Making an account may sound trivial, but I know a lot of people hate doing so.It would be impractical for them to feature all new projects on their front page because then it would become as cluttered as their map database.
ahem*, we do have filters so you can view maps in whatever category you choose, :P.
Good post, except for the fact you talk about popularity as if it reflected what people are playing.
In fact, it does not.
A common turret defense map lasts an average of 10 minutes. That's because the map is meant to be way longer, but most of the games you fuck up something and lose (more often, your teammates do) and you start over trying to perform better. Quick games then, with say 4 free slots per lobby:
1000 players online enjoying this kind of TD = 1500 games/hour
Now think of a map supporting up to 14 players, with hosts starting lobbies when they reach 8+ (average). This complex map has a fixed 20 minutes duration, and most of the players will stay for the whole 20 minutes duration (no point in starting over) before joining another game.
Do the math and you'll find that 1000 players online playing that will generate 375 games/hour.
This is what happened to me during beta phase 1 in EU. When I spamboosted WGX up to page 1 (good times) a crapload of people used to rush in, I think I haven't joined a single game starting with less than 13 players during the last three days. Then I played for an hour, not boosting it anymore, and it dropped dramatically to page 2 due to the very nature of these games. In page 2 less and less people ended up clicking it, generating even lower numbers, then it slipped to page 3 (where games take too long to start) and page 4 (lol what's page four) in the next hour. Dead for the day.
Seriously, we can talk about game design and all, but that's what's really pissing mapmakers off.
I'm not implying Page 1 maps are dumb ofc (I enjoy most of them myself) but make a quick, retardedly unbalanced SP/2-players map and the place is yours for a week. Yes i did THAT too, someone from EU may remember "The Message". They need to change this before we are flooded by those.
I've played this map a number of times and had only a few issues with it. I'll just make a list, in no real order.
Suggestions:
- I know you said you think it's hard, but I feel like it's a little too easy. After you've played it a few times and know how things work, there's real no challenge. One time I played I was on the middle of the interior left side. The person below me DCed just before the match, so they never spawned and the person above me DCed about 5 minutes in and someone on the right side DCed. Even with three people gone we had no problem getting to the low 20's. I played a match a few hours ago, three new players who had no idea what they were doing, one of them never even upgraded his Hero Unit and the other was building bunkers, but we still got to Level 26 with not much problem. Though maybe if it went to 40 it would be much more difficult.
- I think it would be nice if all the money amounts had an extra zero at the end. You can only transfer minerals by 50s. So when someone needs 10 minerals to make a tower, you have to send 50 and hope they send you back the rest. So if I have like 30 mineral and want to buy a Concussion, which is 45, someone would have to send me 50. 50 is a lot when you are playing with such tight cash flow. If the Concussion was 450 and I had 300, it would be much easier for someone to send 150.
- If you are in a party you will spawn in the same spot 90% of the time. Parties are kept together for teams I think. I was in a party with three people each time I played. We would always be in the bottom three slots of the lobby. 17 out of 20 games I've been in the same spot. Random spawn spots would be cool. Not sure if that's possible.
- I don't know if this sounds reasonable, but maybe people in the back could get money to make up for everyone in the front killing stuff? Once one of the two people in the lane in front of you get a Strider, you aren't going to be seeing many units, which means a really low cash flow. But as with difficulty, higher levels might make it harder and more stuff will leak.
- The only way to get people to realize bunkers don't shoot is to put big red text on the loading menu or something. 1/4th of the games I played people built bunkers. A lot of people are helpful though and well say before a match that bunkers can't shoot on their own. If I see someone build a bunker I immediately say something like, "Bunkers can't shoot on their own.".
Bugs:
- Sometimes units will get stuck on their path. I've only seen this on one spot of the map, the top right corner. You have to attack them to get them moving again.
- I don't know if some of the unit stuff was on purpose or buggy or what, but there's ships that spin in circles, little white 1/2 balls. In my person opinion, which means nothing I know ( :D ) It would be nicer to have less units with more HP so they all don't look like big snakes.
I'm not trying to say, "omg, look at my leet skills of winning with less players", I'm just saying the game isn't very difficult even with a few people disconnected. People might complain about it being too hard or them having no money, but after playing it a number of times, you figure it out.
Also, if you watch these you can see that Ahro, Ebil, and my self (VooDooPC) were always in the same spots because we were partied together.
Good post, except for the fact you talk about popularity as if it reflected what people are playing.
In fact, it does not.
A common turret defense map lasts an average of 10 minutes. That's because the map is meant to be way longer, but most of the games you fuck up something and lose (more often, your teammates do) and you start over trying to perform better. Quick games then, with say 4 free slots per lobby:
1000 players online enjoying this kind of TD = 1500 games/hour
Now think of a map supporting up to 14 players, with hosts starting lobbies when they reach 8+ (average). This complex map has a fixed 20 minutes duration, and most of the players will stay for the whole 20 minutes duration (no point in starting over) before joining another game.
Do the math and you'll find that 1000 players online playing that will generate 375 games/hour.
This is what happened to me during beta phase 1 in EU. When I spamboosted WGX up to page 1 (good times) a crapload of people used to rush in, I think I haven't joined a single game starting with less than 13 players during the last three days. Then I played for an hour, not boosting it anymore, and it dropped dramatically to page 2 due to the very nature of these games. In page 2 less and less people ended up clicking it, generating even lower numbers, then it slipped to page 3 (where games take too long to start) and page 4 (lol what's page four) in the next hour. Dead for the day.
Seriously, we can talk about game design and all, but that's what's really pissing mapmakers off.
I'm not implying Page 1 maps are dumb ofc (I enjoy most of them myself) but make a quick, retardedly unbalanced SP/2-players map and the place is yours for a week. Yes i did THAT too, someone from EU may remember "The Message". They need to change this before we are flooded by those.
That would be a very good point if they hadn't changed how the popularity ranking works already. I believe now you get one "point" for each person who plays your map for a minimum of ten minutes, with a cap of one point per person per hour. As such a map that takes 20 minutes versus one that takes an hour does not get 3x as much popularity.
Anyway I've been saying this since mid-beta but the basic problem with the popularity system is that it should sort by change in popularity. A map that increases by 1000% in popularity should be above a map with 1000x more players which is stagnating or declining in popularity. After all if a map is already popular then people don't need a system to find it, it's up and coming maps that the system needs to promote.
I'm not totally sure what system we're under right now, but it is working better than beta. My 12 player, 25+ min per-game Infection map stayed on page 1 for several days; more than in beta. However, it should be noted that most of the page 1 maps are maps with fewer player slots. Wonder if that's still affecting it.
That would be a very good point if they hadn't changed how the popularity ranking works already. I believe now you get one "point" for each person who plays your map for a minimum of ten minutes, with a cap of one point per person per hour. As such a map that takes 20 minutes versus one that takes an hour does not get 3x as much popularity.
Anyway I've been saying this since mid-beta but the basic problem with the popularity system is that it should sort by change in popularity. A map that increases by 1000% in popularity should be above a map with 1000x more players which is stagnating or declining in popularity. After all if a map is already popular then people don't need a system to find it, it's up and coming maps that the system needs to promote.
Nope, they haven't changed it since beta phase 2.
A 10-players game still grants +1, and you can bump your map with a "cooldown" of 5 minutes.
The "games in last hour" label is wrong, it's actually "games during last 24h".
You can try it yourselves, it's easy to verify :)
I really really like your map..I have played it a lot...
Few little things tho I dont like;
-Boss #1 is very hard...I think its too hard...
-The Apocalypser kinda sucks for 1300 minerals...
-Level 34 is so fucken hard..I die there everytime...even with a good group of guys..how do you get by it? (The Sabers)
-The sunken buildings are good mid game then they have nothing..
I don't read the load screens OneTwoSC because my computer loads the maps so fast most of the time that I can't read a wall of texts in that time so I just don't try out of habit now
You guys are being silly. It's not luck that wins it, no, it's the name of their map. Noobs who don't even give a flying donkey turd as to what the minimap looks like and just the name of the map. Any way, the popularity system will get a lot better later down the road, because there is a filter that lets you see new maps only. Atm all the maps are new, so why would any one bother to use it? Eventually more maps from the bottom will get spiked up. Though, I would agree that blizzard should add a like button.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've been noticing many people complaining about the new popularity system. Both in these forums, and on Sc2mapster.com. Apparently, I'm one of the "lucky" few to have released a map under the right circumstances for it to become popular.
I'm making this post for two reasons.
For one, I'd like to give some input on the popularity system from the point of view of one who's been "successful" with it. Two, I'd like to say some things about my map. I will separate the topics, so if one disinterests you, skip it. I feel it is better to combine these two topics into a single post.
--
Everyone has been saying that getting a popular map is nothing more than luck; publishing before anyone else does. I would like to hope this is not true. I've put a lot of work into my map, as well as into figuring out how the new editor works. I did start working during the beta, which some people may say to be an advantage, however, I got into the beta by pre-ordering from Gamestop -- something anyone could have done, given that it was five dollars.
One thing that I've noticed is that the majority of people complaining do so because they've spent many, many hours coming up with an intricate level featuring as many unique, deep game-play elements as they can think of. I applaud for that. However, I believe these people fail to understand their target audience. In warcraft 3, I attempted to release some maps, but they were never popular. Or even good. I've come to the conclusion this is because I focused too much on the technical aspects than whether it is fun. I'm currently working on my computer science degree. Programming is my strong point. Programming has nothing to do with game design. Nothing at all. As far as I know, programmers for video games have nothing to do with the design process. They are the "monkeys". That's okay, though. At least we're not engineers. Engineers are the monkey's monkeys. Even that's okay. At least you engineers aren't sys admins.
With that said, I probably have just as many gripes with the system as anyone else. The foremost being the inability to host public tests. Almost all of my testing has been done in solo mode. It was not until recently that the map became popular enough for me to just join a game and ask if anyone's interested in helping me test, and people seemed honored to do so. During beta, I got maybe one or two public tests done. This was done by me going into other games of other maps, and asking if anyone wanted to help test a new Tower Defense. I felt like a jerk doing so. What other choice did I have?
Blizzard's statement on this has been that if a map is worthy of popularity, it will have a strong following on community websites. This might be true for some people; one thing I've noticed, however, is that the maps with the strongest following appear to be those which have achieved unique or technical milestones -- not those which would be popular on Battle.net.
Sc2mapster.com is a very good website. It has a great, helpful community. If you ever make a post asking a question about how to implement something in the editor, it will usually be answered almost instantly. Even if you have a particularly in-depth, technically-complicated inquiry, there will always be people interested enough in the topic that they will do their own research in order to answer you.
However, even with its outstanding community, it's simply not possible for them to give notice to every up-and-coming project that might be out there. Yes, anyone can upload their map projects, but when you do, they're put into a long database containing every uploaded map, sorted only by how recently they were updated. If you're looking for a particular type of game to try out, even though you can filter by category, there is simply too much content to easily sift through and try. Not all of it is good, and there are no ranking systems set up. Users may comment on projects, but you have to make an account with the site in order to do so. Making an account may sound trivial, but I know a lot of people hate doing so. It would be impractical for them to feature all new projects on their front page because then it would become as cluttered as their map database.
I'm not criticizing Mapster. They are an excellent site, and I frequently make posts there asking questions. Their shortcomings are only due to the fact that supporting and giving notice to every single project is simply too difficult given the volume of created content.
I therefore conclude that relying on communities is not the answer. One more thing about that -- not everyone is as socially oriented. Not everyone is as inclined to seek project support directly. It's easier if you can host games with the title "new map need testers" because doing so does not involve any social connection with others. Social connection is not everyone's strong point. It's certainly not mine.
Blizzard said they added this system in order to clear up the spam of DotA. This goal has failed. Currently, if a game is released with multiple game modes, each mode shows up as a separate map, with its own popularity bar. The top few pages consist of many duplicate entries. Even worse, I can't even change the default mode for my own map because it will just create a new version at the bottom and no one will see it. I desperately need to configure the lobby settings. There should be absolutely one instance of a map, with the ability to use a drop down menu to select which mode to join.
I try to play a few public games of my map on occasion. To see what people think. This often results in embarrassment. Especially when I first released the map. The initial inability to organize tests resulted in bugs popping up in team mode that I had no knowledge of. The inability to leave feedback for the creator makes this worse. There were a few versions where the game was absolutely unplayable due to bugs. It makes me wonder how the map initially became popular in the first place.
The inability to control when a game starts or to kick players is infuriating. There are players that like to join games and intentionally log out as soon as the timer starts just to piss off everyone. You have no fix for this. They can stay in the lobby and the game will auto start when it fills. And repeat.
I believe a good number of currently popular maps are stolen. The names of the authors are different than that of the maps in beta. It is of course possible they simply changed their name, but given that their accounts on Mapster were identical to their beta account names, this is unlikely. One that comes to mind is Red Circle TD. Standard Tower Defense has also been re-published by a few different people. This bothers me.
That is all I have to say about Battle.net 2.0.
========================================================
About my map, Vexal Tower Defense.
I always appreciate player feedback. Please, feel free to leave suggestions, impressions, complaints, and gripes in this thread. I read every single one of them, and I always reply. I make no promise I will implement your suggestion.
There are some things I will absolutely not change. For one, I will not give the Bunker its own attack. It's a Bunker. In all of the history of the Bunker, dating back to when the ancient Romans dug holes in the ground and poured gravel for protection with their bows and arrows, Bunkers never had their own weapons. They're Bunkers. They don't have weapons. They provide protection for those that do.
I will not make the game easier. I was brought up in a family that played video games. If I used the cheat codes in Doom 1 or 2, I got grounded. My dad kept track of these things. I've played the other TD's out there, and to me they are too easy. I'd like to believe my maps reflect my views on how games should be, as well as my personality. This should be evident by the fact that the Queen mobs lay eggs which hatch into larva which morph into more eggs which hatch into more larva (originally there was an issue where you couldn't kill the larva / eggs faster than they multiplied, resulting eventually in the entire map covered with eggs and larva. I've since added a timer which expires all eggs and larva).
I will not take out the different armor types. This prevents people from massing the same tower. From what I've seen, people love building Lasers. While Lasers, especially on sharks, are bitchin', it's not a tactic that works.
I will not add minigames between rounds. It's a chore to me to feel obligated to squeeze out every last bit of Minerals.
I cannot for the life of me figure out how to present to new players the fact that Bunkers can only attack if you put units in them. I've done everything I can think to do. I put a descriptive tooltip, I put a message that pops up. I don't understand why people do not get it. People also do not seem to understand how Heroes work. If anyone has any suggestions on how to improve the accessibility of my gameplay elements, please do let me know.
I'm aware the currently released version is low on content. I feel bad that the map has made it to the first page despite this. It does not deserve so. I am working on adding new versions as quickly as I can. The game has been out of two days. Using the data editor takes forever (for me, at least). I am obsessive about every single detail, but in order to satisfy my obsessive compulsions, I have to learn more about the editor. I am also taking 13 hours of summer class at UT Austin.
The next version should be released publicly tonight or tomorrow. I am currently testing it privately, and if anyone would like to aid in these private tests, I would greatly appreciate it. People seem to be excited for the "privilege" to help with testing, but it really is the other way around. Given my lack of social outgoing, it is a privilege to me to have others willing to help me test and give feedback. If an idea I have for a unit or race or gameplay element turns out to be unfun, I have no problem scrapping it (except for the aforementioned). I need feedback to determine whether it's fun.
The next version will have 40 levels, as well as a second race. The first race still lacks towers and units -- don't worry, it will have more towers to compensate for the fact that there are more levels. The new race is set up to play completely differently. It is set up around mazing and stacking. I am taking advantage of the added capabilities of the Galaxy editor to make towers with features that were nearly impossible in Warcraft 3.
Some of you also may have noticed that the current Hero has an inventory. The next version will have items.
The next version will have a sell button. As an added bonus, the sell button will even return your money. In this version, the sell version merely explodes your tower without refunding it. This is because I like explosions. And I come from a rich family. I don't need the money.
There will be a ready button to speed up the time between rounds. Like the new sell button, it will also have the added bonus of working correctly.
You're getting a lot here. You're getting buttons. You're getting buttons that work. That just work. You don't need to configure them. They work automatically. It's also a phone. It's a button, it works, and it's a phone. All in one. It's really four products. You're getting a lot here.
In case anyone was wondering, the way I was able to have units use abilities without screwing up their pathing was by ordering them to do something before their existing orders. This is a cool trick that you couldn't really do in Warcraft 3 (as far as I know). Most of you probably already know this, but in case you don't.
That's all I have to say so far about my map. Like I said before, I always appreciate feedback, complaints, suggestions, and testers.
-- Vexal 525
One thing that I've noticed is that the majority of people complaining do so because they've spent many, many hours coming up with an intricate level featuring as many unique, deep game-play elements as they can think of. I applaud for that. However, I believe these people fail to understand their target audience. In warcraft 3, I attempted to release some maps, but they were never popular. Or even good. I've come to the conclusion this is because I focused too much on the technical aspects than whether it is fun. I'm currently working on my computer science degree. Programming is my strong point. Programming has nothing to do with game design. Nothing at all. As far as I know, programmers for video games have nothing to do with the design process. They are the "monkeys". That's okay, though. At least we're not engineers. Engineers are the monkey's monkeys. Even that's okay. At least you engineers aren't sys admins.
I bolded the most important part of that giant block of text. You are absolutely correct. This is why my current project is focused on being playable for dummies, with lots of cool effects and custom models, but very simple and not radically altered game play.
Also, you said:
I cannot for the life of me figure out how to present to new players the fact that Bunkers can only attack if you put units in them. I've done everything I can think to do. I put a descriptive tooltip, I put a message that pops up. I don't understand why people do not get it. People also do not seem to understand how Heroes work. If anyone has any suggestions on how to improve the accessibility of my gameplay elements, please do let me know.
At the start of the map, create a VERY short 10-20 second cinematic demonstration. Have units running their path. Have worker place bunker. Have units walk into bunker and start firing. Quick and simple video demonstration. At least that's what I'm doing myself because I had the exact same problem in my custom. I dunno why, but people HATE the idea of bunkers....?
@KerenskyLI:
I tried that in Warcraft 3. Then people complain about the cinematic. People complain about the 30 second countdown timer.
30 second countdown while there's nothing to do is stupid.
10 second at the beginning of the map demonstrating how to play isn't so bad.
I tried your map the other day. Not sure if you're interested in feedback, but the major problem I had is that you have 5 different kinds of enemies but the towers to attack certain kinds of enemies are MUCH MUCH more expensive than others, and money is EXTREMELY low at the beginning. Meaning for the first few rounds you don't get enough money to build a tower unless it's the cheapest one, but if you spam those the second the first massive round comes along all of them get through unscathed.
So basically every time I've tried you map everyone dies at the first massive round because there's no alternative to the super cheap ones that you can build in reasonable quantities at the beginning of the map.
This probably isn't an issue if you know exactly what's coming but given that its a coop map you can't really rely on your teammates to know everything, so when the most intuitive response (build turrets, because it's a TD so you should build towers and they're the only ones you can afford) results in failure, you are not going to get very far. Also, because the income is very low there's not a lot of gameplay going on. TDs are light on gameplay anyway but when you literally get enough money to build MAYBE one tower per round (more like zero if you want to build anything but turrets) the map is, frankly, pretty boring.
I played it three times and all three times it was game over on the first massive round.
I'm one of the lucky ones too... except Infection is a bit technical in that it forces the player to use a new system of combat over the normal 'attack-move'. I step in on a lot of games and the usual response is "this map is gay" until they learn to play and realize the design/strategy is there to back it up...then it's "this map is Fing awesome"... it's just that initial learning that seems to turn people off. I tried to cram info on the loading screen... but no one reads it!
So what I'm getting at is that I totally agree! My map could probably fair a lot better (it's falling to page 2 now) if I had done an intro cinematic and whatnot. A skippable cine would be good... Replayability is important too...
And yes I don't like popularity as well even with a page 1 map. I don't think it's a good indication of well-done maps. I have yet to play a page 1 map more than once, outside of my own map for testing (I'm bored of my own as well). The quality of maps is SEVERELY lower than frozen throne, but much higher than release sc-1 and release war3. Red Circle TD is definitely not the best TD for sc2 imo.
Oh yeah Vexal! I love that you made a team tower defense... awesome! I did pick the team with the building that can't shoot and stupidly I built like 15 of them (lol)... hero tower saved me but it was kind of hard to recover.
Anyway, here's my feedback. I don't like a hero tower. In a team tower defense I want a straight-up tower D. Think like Zoator's in war3. However, take everything I say with a grain of salt. I'm not really a fan of mixing hero and tower games. Some people like it though. When you think back to Skibi's or Zoators, you never had to really learn, as building anything right off the bat worked well... easy to learn difficult to master etc...
To make another example, there was a line-tower-wars type game in the sc2 beta called double jack tower wars (i think) and it was basically just line tower wars with completely custom races. I found the game too complex and hindered by this "customization". One race had to build power towers along it's tower line to keep them "powered". Just got in the way of a fun game of line tower wars. Like you say Vexal, technical vs design is important. I think a lot of games are bogged down by technicality including my own even.
The other issue I have with your TD is that it's way way way too slow. I know Tower D's are supposed to be slower than most games, but most of the time was spent waiting... and then the waves didn't move fast enough (or actually, I think your map is too big). I think tightening it a bit would be nice :D
Anyway, keep up the great work with Vexals tower D... I want to see where it goes!
By the way OneTwo I tried your map as well, please for the love of god change it so you don't have to press a key at the loading screen, with 14 (or however many it is) players the odds of some asshat afking for 5 minutes approach 100%.
This pretty much goes for every map out there; if you want to make it so the game won't start til everyone is ready add a title screen within the map. That way the people in the map can at least chat with each other and see who is afk, etc. Just sitting at a loading screen for 15 minutes you dont know if your client has crashed or what's going on and you have to alt+f4 out if you want to quit.
@RileyStarcraft:
The reason for the loading screen key press dates back to a bug in the beta where the map would cause a desync without the key press. I have no idea whether it's still a problem.
@RileyStarcraft: Go
Oh yeah I was worried about that lag-key bug...
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorsGood post, except for the fact you talk about popularity as if it reflected what people are playing.
In fact, it does not.
A common turret defense map lasts an average of 10 minutes. That's because the map is meant to be way longer, but most of the games you fuck up something and lose (more often, your teammates do) and you start over trying to perform better. Quick games then, with say 4 free slots per lobby:
1000 players online enjoying this kind of TD = 1500 games/hour
Now think of a map supporting up to 14 players, with hosts starting lobbies when they reach 8+ (average). This complex map has a fixed 20 minutes duration, and most of the players will stay for the whole 20 minutes duration (no point in starting over) before joining another game.
Do the math and you'll find that 1000 players online playing that will generate 375 games/hour.
This is what happened to me during beta phase 1 in EU. When I spamboosted WGX up to page 1 (good times) a crapload of people used to rush in, I think I haven't joined a single game starting with less than 13 players during the last three days. Then I played for an hour, not boosting it anymore, and it dropped dramatically to page 2 due to the very nature of these games. In page 2 less and less people ended up clicking it, generating even lower numbers, then it slipped to page 3 (where games take too long to start) and page 4 (lol what's page four) in the next hour. Dead for the day.
Seriously, we can talk about game design and all, but that's what's really pissing mapmakers off.
I'm not implying Page 1 maps are dumb ofc (I enjoy most of them myself) but make a quick, retardedly unbalanced SP/2-players map and the place is yours for a week. Yes i did THAT too, someone from EU may remember "The Message". They need to change this before we are flooded by those.
You know how to contact me.
I've played this map a number of times and had only a few issues with it. I'll just make a list, in no real order.
Suggestions:
- I know you said you think it's hard, but I feel like it's a little too easy. After you've played it a few times and know how things work, there's real no challenge. One time I played I was on the middle of the interior left side. The person below me DCed just before the match, so they never spawned and the person above me DCed about 5 minutes in and someone on the right side DCed. Even with three people gone we had no problem getting to the low 20's. I played a match a few hours ago, three new players who had no idea what they were doing, one of them never even upgraded his Hero Unit and the other was building bunkers, but we still got to Level 26 with not much problem. Though maybe if it went to 40 it would be much more difficult.
- I think it would be nice if all the money amounts had an extra zero at the end. You can only transfer minerals by 50s. So when someone needs 10 minerals to make a tower, you have to send 50 and hope they send you back the rest. So if I have like 30 mineral and want to buy a Concussion, which is 45, someone would have to send me 50. 50 is a lot when you are playing with such tight cash flow. If the Concussion was 450 and I had 300, it would be much easier for someone to send 150.
- If you are in a party you will spawn in the same spot 90% of the time. Parties are kept together for teams I think. I was in a party with three people each time I played. We would always be in the bottom three slots of the lobby. 17 out of 20 games I've been in the same spot. Random spawn spots would be cool. Not sure if that's possible.
- I don't know if this sounds reasonable, but maybe people in the back could get money to make up for everyone in the front killing stuff? Once one of the two people in the lane in front of you get a Strider, you aren't going to be seeing many units, which means a really low cash flow. But as with difficulty, higher levels might make it harder and more stuff will leak.
- The only way to get people to realize bunkers don't shoot is to put big red text on the loading menu or something. 1/4th of the games I played people built bunkers. A lot of people are helpful though and well say before a match that bunkers can't shoot on their own. If I see someone build a bunker I immediately say something like, "Bunkers can't shoot on their own.".
Bugs:
- Sometimes units will get stuck on their path. I've only seen this on one spot of the map, the top right corner. You have to attack them to get them moving again.
- I don't know if some of the unit stuff was on purpose or buggy or what, but there's ships that spin in circles, little white 1/2 balls. In my person opinion, which means nothing I know ( :D ) It would be nicer to have less units with more HP so they all don't look like big snakes.
Here's some replays: Guy building bunkers, classic. New players and 1 or 2 disconnects. Made it to the end. http://www.voodoo-pc.net/files/vexal_tower_defense_2.sc2replay
This one had a few disconnects too, made it to the last wave. After the guy in front of me (green) makes Striders, I really have nothing to kill for the rest of the game. http://www.voodoo-pc.net/files/vexal_tower_defense_16.sc2replay
This one has the bugged units in the upper right at about 25 minutes in. Had to make a siege tank to knock them out of it. http://www.voodoo-pc.net/files/vexal_tower_defense_17.sc2replay
Another one with a few players disconnecting and having not much trouble winning. http://www.voodoo-pc.net/files/vexal_tower_defense_18.sc2replay
I'm not trying to say, "omg, look at my leet skills of winning with less players", I'm just saying the game isn't very difficult even with a few people disconnected. People might complain about it being too hard or them having no money, but after playing it a number of times, you figure it out.
Also, if you watch these you can see that Ahro, Ebil, and my self (VooDooPC) were always in the same spots because we were partied together.
That would be a very good point if they hadn't changed how the popularity ranking works already. I believe now you get one "point" for each person who plays your map for a minimum of ten minutes, with a cap of one point per person per hour. As such a map that takes 20 minutes versus one that takes an hour does not get 3x as much popularity.
Anyway I've been saying this since mid-beta but the basic problem with the popularity system is that it should sort by change in popularity. A map that increases by 1000% in popularity should be above a map with 1000x more players which is stagnating or declining in popularity. After all if a map is already popular then people don't need a system to find it, it's up and coming maps that the system needs to promote.
@RileyStarcraft: Go
I'm not totally sure what system we're under right now, but it is working better than beta. My 12 player, 25+ min per-game Infection map stayed on page 1 for several days; more than in beta. However, it should be noted that most of the page 1 maps are maps with fewer player slots. Wonder if that's still affecting it.
Nope, they haven't changed it since beta phase 2.
A 10-players game still grants +1, and you can bump your map with a "cooldown" of 5 minutes.
The "games in last hour" label is wrong, it's actually "games during last 24h".
You can try it yourselves, it's easy to verify :)
Hey,
I really really like your map..I have played it a lot...
Few little things tho I dont like;
-Boss #1 is very hard...I think its too hard... -The Apocalypser kinda sucks for 1300 minerals... -Level 34 is so fucken hard..I die there everytime...even with a good group of guys..how do you get by it? (The Sabers) -The sunken buildings are good mid game then they have nothing..
Thats about it..but your maps awesome..congrats
@OneTwoSC: Go
I don't read the load screens OneTwoSC because my computer loads the maps so fast most of the time that I can't read a wall of texts in that time so I just don't try out of habit now
You guys are being silly. It's not luck that wins it, no, it's the name of their map. Noobs who don't even give a flying donkey turd as to what the minimap looks like and just the name of the map. Any way, the popularity system will get a lot better later down the road, because there is a filter that lets you see new maps only. Atm all the maps are new, so why would any one bother to use it? Eventually more maps from the bottom will get spiked up. Though, I would agree that blizzard should add a like button.