This isn't helpful; but it would be nice if blizzard had a way of deleting old, unfinished, unplayed maps from the arcade. They could send an email to the account owner, and said person can re-upload the content if they so desire.
The size cap is (I believe) in place so that blizzard does not have entirely too much shit on their servers, clogging it up. Out with the old, in with the new. They must have something somewhere that says, "Last time this map/mod was touched: 814 days ago"
A useless suggestion I am sure; but if someone at blizz reads this...
I did the same contacted Blizz to no avail I got the same "NO" pay for another account if you want more space.
As we are the ones that keep Blizz alive and the air for them to keep them breathing we should get more space.
We keep players coming back not everybody can be a ladder player or likes ladder maps. Custom and Arcade are the main source of players having reasons to stay and keep coming back time and time again. But Blizz dont see that. As I see it Blizz dosent give an inch for nothing much less if they cant make 400% of the little things but i say is time we get something as much as space means to us and little that seens for them to not care and neglect the mapsters of this comunity. It will take so little of them to do it but why will they waste there time with us. Thats my questions "just buy another account that you cant link to youre name". No choice at all...... We are left with......
Excludes collaborations =/ And if you could include other people as authors to get benefits, people would just lie =/
I'd actually really like a sort of like author's page, where you make a page for either a single author or a group (requires battle tags so names/ids can be localized per server?) in SC2 and it holds information about them and uploaded maps could link to the author(s) page instead of a single player's profile. So if chosen, someone added to the page would then share credit for making the map. butidksocomplicated
On topic, Dependencies people, dependencies. Put common code or data into a dependency, make it public (unlocked) so other people can link against it. Data in particular is tiny, make a dependency, use suffixes to sort stuff out. Reuse and learn for each other
Is there really that many collaborations now? And as long as you don't subtract space from the current base amount, it could only benefit.
I imagine there is now, because people have learned that A) Designing a good game is hard and B) Writing software is hard and that it is a VERY special and rare person who is good at both. For example I design absolutely nothing, I have my designer on my team for that, he designs, I code. We do bounce stuff off each other "Hey, consider this idea" "Hey is this technically possible?" etc. but for the most part, we stick to our specialties.
so... no one with a straight "this is how i did it" example :(
i'll have to ask blizz then... because i ain't buying both if i don't have to :'(
("funny" how posters always derail threads.. sad panda sigh)
it would really be sensible for blizz to have mapmakers be able to just buy extra space for their one account ... not only is that not outside "game/support parameters", but it is better for them as far as clogging and extra work goes
having so little "mapmaker" <3 from blizz is really disappointingly saddening
So, let's talk a bit about the sense behind the restrictions.
Memory restriction
We have 154mb of space available. However, files are not deleted from battle.net. Every version you have ever uploaded still exists (e.g. names never cleared, replays still working, old dependencies working, etc), but only the active, most recent versions count to your memory space. "Deleting" a map only hides it in battle.net and frees your slot and publishing memory space. (This creates the weird side-effect that you can "save" slots by deleting your published mod after adding a dependency into your maps or update the mod while using an older version of it in your map (dependencies link to a specific mod version or the newest one).)
This means that Blizzard has tons of memory space available and that the tiny bit of extra space required by some people does not matter at all. If you update your maps more often, it might cost more memory than giving you more space for maps to publish.
Btw, to decrease the amount of data people have to download when a map is updated, I would encourage the usage of mods that only contain the imported files.
Then those will only be downloaded once or only rarely and there isn't that much wasted space with updated versions containing the same files. This brings us to the next restriction: slots.
slots
We only have 20 slots available. For pretty much every project, you can assume that you will use at least 2 slots: map and mod, as you wouldn't want to force people to download your raw assets over and over again.
In theory, we should think about modularity and put generic systems into mods which would use up more slots. Also, we need private test versions published on battle.net to make sure it works fine on battle.net before publicly updating the map (e.g. testing latency effecting the UI / game, etc).
I don't think 20 slots are sufficient at all. I think melee-mapmaker in SC1 made all more than 20 maps. I don't know how they did not complain vocally about that issue, yet. Well, maybe they didn't and just left.
Also, why is there a slot restriction? Which sense does it make? I don't have an answer for that question and right now I can't imagine why this limitation should exist. I don't think it has any purpose now after the addition of extension mods. I imagine it existed to stop people from uploading 50+ modified ladder maps running their own small mod. I can't justify for that limit to exist with a low value at all. Maybe someone else knows why it could be useful to keep such a limitation (you might always have that limit, but we could just set it to very high amount like 255. depending on the data type used to store that information).
Solutions:
- Force people to buy the game + expansions again:
You milk money from the people that enrich your game. It's like paying to be able to work. I don't think that is an acceptable solution. I would just stop or start to delete stuff.
- Sell more account space:
Same as above, but better as the author's account is the same. But it costs Blizzard time and resources to add that into your store and make it work, including maybe figuring out some legal issues, etc. It's not worth it.
- Just raise the limitations:
Blizzard has enough memory to not care about the little bit of more space that is required, if the limitations are raised. There is only a little amount of authors that might even use more than 154mb space in the coming years. Thus it doesn't make sense to keep limiting the people that use their skills to enrich the game with unpayed work.
- Raise the limits for people with good stuff:
How do you define good stuff? Is it just the amount of time played or the amount of map starts? What if someone just creates smaller useful tools that aren't used by a lot of people (e.g. my "Ping Test" map measuring your latency)? What if someone only creates useful mods/libraries for other authors to use? How do you compare custom games with arcade? How do you compare extension mods with custom maps? ...etc...
I think it is very difficult to create a good governance for that and this I don't think there should be time spend for implementing an automatic governance for that. It's not worth it.
are you sure? because it very much feels like that
It means that they don't teach their support staff how to use the editor, etc. Their support staff barely knows that you can upload files, but they don't know anything about map name usage, etc. The support actually told me that they learned a lot about that just by reading what I wrote them when I asked them to clear the name of a map on US, so I could use it (since it is my map and I was remotely updating it via a friend starting before global play was added, but they were unable to clear it/delete the map... at least they fixed the visibility with some patch as deleted maps remained visible on the arcade throwing errors with an empty message when you tried to access the map's info page).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
hi,
i was wondering how the thing works...
do i have to buy "hots" or "wol and hots" to get a 2nd account to upload more maps on bnet...?
and how do i do it then.. i can't take the same id .. well of course i can (technically, code being different) but
what if i just want to just expand on my account..? :/
blizz 's sham of an "interest in the community (mapmakers not players's community) is appalling ..?
joke ps : i thought of naming the thread "i need more sluts" and then recanted :D
@houndofbaskerville: Go
buy new wol
I ran in to the same problem, send a mail to Blizz and they say "NO" get a new account if you need more maps spaces! So thats all dont ask.
so... new wol to upload wol maps and both to upload hots maps ..?
Since the arcade is free, can you upload using a free account? I've never actually tried.
@TyaStarcraft: Go
Pretty sure I've read that free accounts can use the editor, but not upload anything.
This isn't helpful; but it would be nice if blizzard had a way of deleting old, unfinished, unplayed maps from the arcade. They could send an email to the account owner, and said person can re-upload the content if they so desire.
The size cap is (I believe) in place so that blizzard does not have entirely too much shit on their servers, clogging it up. Out with the old, in with the new. They must have something somewhere that says, "Last time this map/mod was touched: 814 days ago"
A useless suggestion I am sure; but if someone at blizz reads this...
Skype: [email protected] Current Project: Custom Hero Arena! US: battlenet:://starcraft/map/1/263274 EU: battlenet:://starcraft/map/2/186418
.*uses his connections to potentially make Blizzard's conclave overthink the current publishing limitations*
@thelittlemaster: Go
I did the same contacted Blizz to no avail I got the same "NO" pay for another account if you want more space. As we are the ones that keep Blizz alive and the air for them to keep them breathing we should get more space. We keep players coming back not everybody can be a ladder player or likes ladder maps. Custom and Arcade are the main source of players having reasons to stay and keep coming back time and time again. But Blizz dont see that. As I see it Blizz dosent give an inch for nothing much less if they cant make 400% of the little things but i say is time we get something as much as space means to us and little that seens for them to not care and neglect the mapsters of this comunity. It will take so little of them to do it but why will they waste there time with us. Thats my questions "just buy another account that you cant link to youre name". No choice at all...... We are left with......
Marie T. Freeman If you're too busy to give your neighbor a helping hand, then you're just too darned busy. https://www.facebook.com/wargirlmaps.maps
Spread the love join DISCORD
https://discord.gg/Jtzt8Su
It's too bad there isn't some sort of system in place where anyone who meets a certain criteria could automatically have more space.
Criteria such as:
Have a map with X number of hours played
Have a map with X number of ratings (or more) with a 3.5 star rating or higher
etc.
@MaskedImposter: Go
Excludes collaborations =/ And if you could include other people as authors to get benefits, people would just lie =/
I'd actually really like a sort of like author's page, where you make a page for either a single author or a group (requires battle tags so names/ids can be localized per server?) in SC2 and it holds information about them and uploaded maps could link to the author(s) page instead of a single player's profile. So if chosen, someone added to the page would then share credit for making the map. butidksocomplicated
there is only one way to force blizz doing something, leave sc2, don' buy their games anymore
@FunkyUserName: Go
Little overkill.
On topic, Dependencies people, dependencies. Put common code or data into a dependency, make it public (unlocked) so other people can link against it. Data in particular is tiny, make a dependency, use suffixes to sort stuff out. Reuse and learn for each other
@Charysmatic: Go
Is there really that many collaborations now? And as long as you don't subtract space from the current base amount, it could only benefit.
I imagine there is now, because people have learned that A) Designing a good game is hard and B) Writing software is hard and that it is a VERY special and rare person who is good at both. For example I design absolutely nothing, I have my designer on my team for that, he designs, I code. We do bounce stuff off each other "Hey, consider this idea" "Hey is this technically possible?" etc. but for the most part, we stick to our specialties.
so... no one with a straight "this is how i did it" example :(
i'll have to ask blizz then... because i ain't buying both if i don't have to :'(
("funny" how posters always derail threads.. sad panda sigh)
it would really be sensible for blizz to have mapmakers be able to just buy extra space for their one account ... not only is that not outside "game/support parameters", but it is better for them as far as clogging and extra work goes
having so little "mapmaker" <3 from blizz is really disappointingly saddening
4 years should have been long enough to get used to it
4 years is enough to want to upload more than 15 20 maps..
so .. yeah .. no .mmm. your argument is invalid
whatever "we do not support galaxy" has always meant .. it certainly does not mean "f you mapmakers"
are you sure? because it pretty much feels like that
So, let's talk a bit about the sense behind the restrictions.
Memory restriction
We have 154mb of space available. However, files are not deleted from battle.net. Every version you have ever uploaded still exists (e.g. names never cleared, replays still working, old dependencies working, etc), but only the active, most recent versions count to your memory space. "Deleting" a map only hides it in battle.net and frees your slot and publishing memory space. (This creates the weird side-effect that you can "save" slots by deleting your published mod after adding a dependency into your maps or update the mod while using an older version of it in your map (dependencies link to a specific mod version or the newest one).)
This means that Blizzard has tons of memory space available and that the tiny bit of extra space required by some people does not matter at all. If you update your maps more often, it might cost more memory than giving you more space for maps to publish.
Btw, to decrease the amount of data people have to download when a map is updated, I would encourage the usage of mods that only contain the imported files.
Then those will only be downloaded once or only rarely and there isn't that much wasted space with updated versions containing the same files. This brings us to the next restriction: slots.
slots
We only have 20 slots available. For pretty much every project, you can assume that you will use at least 2 slots: map and mod, as you wouldn't want to force people to download your raw assets over and over again.
In theory, we should think about modularity and put generic systems into mods which would use up more slots. Also, we need private test versions published on battle.net to make sure it works fine on battle.net before publicly updating the map (e.g. testing latency effecting the UI / game, etc).
I don't think 20 slots are sufficient at all. I think melee-mapmaker in SC1 made all more than 20 maps. I don't know how they did not complain vocally about that issue, yet. Well, maybe they didn't and just left.
Also, why is there a slot restriction? Which sense does it make? I don't have an answer for that question and right now I can't imagine why this limitation should exist. I don't think it has any purpose now after the addition of extension mods. I imagine it existed to stop people from uploading 50+ modified ladder maps running their own small mod. I can't justify for that limit to exist with a low value at all. Maybe someone else knows why it could be useful to keep such a limitation (you might always have that limit, but we could just set it to very high amount like 255. depending on the data type used to store that information).
Solutions:
- Force people to buy the game + expansions again:
You milk money from the people that enrich your game. It's like paying to be able to work. I don't think that is an acceptable solution. I would just stop or start to delete stuff.
- Sell more account space:
Same as above, but better as the author's account is the same. But it costs Blizzard time and resources to add that into your store and make it work, including maybe figuring out some legal issues, etc. It's not worth it.
- Just raise the limitations:
Blizzard has enough memory to not care about the little bit of more space that is required, if the limitations are raised. There is only a little amount of authors that might even use more than 154mb space in the coming years. Thus it doesn't make sense to keep limiting the people that use their skills to enrich the game with unpayed work.
- Raise the limits for people with good stuff:
How do you define good stuff? Is it just the amount of time played or the amount of map starts? What if someone just creates smaller useful tools that aren't used by a lot of people (e.g. my "Ping Test" map measuring your latency)? What if someone only creates useful mods/libraries for other authors to use? How do you compare custom games with arcade? How do you compare extension mods with custom maps? ...etc...
I think it is very difficult to create a good governance for that and this I don't think there should be time spend for implementing an automatic governance for that. It's not worth it.
It means that they don't teach their support staff how to use the editor, etc. Their support staff barely knows that you can upload files, but they don't know anything about map name usage, etc. The support actually told me that they learned a lot about that just by reading what I wrote them when I asked them to clear the name of a map on US, so I could use it (since it is my map and I was remotely updating it via a friend starting before global play was added, but they were unable to clear it/delete the map... at least they fixed the visibility with some patch as deleted maps remained visible on the arcade throwing errors with an empty message when you tried to access the map's info page).