It's a really thin line, to be honest. I'm not a fan of full blown anarchy but when man starts playing god is when things often go awry. I think I still reckon that the best form of 'punishment' would be a system of legalized karma, where the criminal's actions are repeated and instilled upon him. A quite literal eye for an eye, life for a life, broken window for a broken window, really.
None of them came first. By the process of descent with modification the modern zerg units evolved from primitive versions of themselves, going back to monocellular organisms which likely reproduced via cell division.
How do you all not realize that Rodrigo is a troll both on the official forums and this website. He's only concerned with one thing: his own popularity, and contributes literally nothing else anywhere.
That's probably just a rounding error. Blizzard uses fixed point representation for reals apparently, with 19 bits for the integral value and either 6 or 13 bits for the fractional component so the decimal precision is really low. You can see this in action in the data editor when you enter in a fractional value and it gets rounded off.
The next version will add a scoring system and persistent high score tracking. I'll probably lower the interest rate a bit (maybe module by difficulty level or by current wave) but basically, it's intended that you have essentially unlimited mana by the end of the game but I think people might be reaching that point a ltitle too soon. (Basically, mana is intended to be a secondary resource which prevents you from building high-level towers too early in the game, essences are the primary limiting resource.) The scoring system will take into account how much mana you have and how many lives you have at the end of each round, which will provide more of an incentive to use the interest system to maximize mana. Hopefully that will add a bit of depth to the mana/interest system.
No it isn't. People don't goto map forums to look for maps anymore because you can't download them and host them. You need visibility to become popular. Well, in battle.net 2.0 you need to be popular to have visibility. Self fulfilling prophecy.
Bullshit. My map is reasonably popular and that's exactly what I did to get it so. No artificial boosting, just making something good and getting it reviewed and played by commentators.
Second, and thats a much bigger wish, it would be cool if all towers i am able to upgrade this round would be highlighted. It sucked to click through all towers searching for upgrades.
This is an excellent idea and I'll see what I can do to get it in the next version.
In addition it wouldn't hurt mappers to go the extra mile and accommodate for single-player. Most of the maps at the bottom of the list are unplayable for this reason, and only lazy designers blame the popularity system when it's entirely within their power to give that once-in-a-blue-moon adventurous player something to work with. Even if that something is a bunch of brain-dead bots it shows you care that much more. Who knows, he may decide to play it again...
Possibly the best advice ever for people struggling with the popularity system. Letting people try your map in single player is critical, as it lets them decide if the map is worth getting their friends together to play. And a lot of people simply prefer playing against an AI to other human beings, so by accommodating them you're opening up your map to a wider audience.
You could try just making something really good that people want to play and doing some simply publicity work like asking reviewers/commentators to play your map. That's significantly more effective than boosting in the long run anyway.
Don't use pure galaxy script but there's a trigger action called Debug Message which is useful for troubleshooting, so you could probably look up and find out what the native is.
Yeah I agree they should probably have put a battle.net guy on the panel or even had a battle.net panel of its own, I'm just saying you can't be too hard on level designers for not answering questions about battle.net.
Kind of surprised they didn't announce the contest winners during the panel but to be honest the entire contest was run horribly. Supposedly the winners would be playable at BlizzCon but it seems like that didn't happen either. Seems like they just didn't really devote any resources to running the contest which is disappointing for those of us who put a lot of work into our entries.
That's because the people in the panel literally have nothing to do with how battle.net deals with custom maps. It was a panel with nothing but level designers; why would you expect them to be able to answer questions about battle.net? You might as well have asked the art or lore panels.
They should have had a battle.net panel with designers and engineers who work specifically on battle.net features, but I think they avoided that because they figured it would get pretty nasty.
0
It's actually a part of the building death model.
0
If I rape you, you get to rape me?
0
None of them came first. By the process of descent with modification the modern zerg units evolved from primitive versions of themselves, going back to monocellular organisms which likely reproduced via cell division.
Seriously don't they teach science anymore?
0
Uh then how would you even know if you killed the right guy...
also, I guess you've never heard of the Nuremburg tribunal or any of the hundreds of Nazi war crimes trials.
0
How do you all not realize that Rodrigo is a troll both on the official forums and this website. He's only concerned with one thing: his own popularity, and contributes literally nothing else anywhere.
0
That's probably just a rounding error. Blizzard uses fixed point representation for reals apparently, with 19 bits for the integral value and either 6 or 13 bits for the fractional component so the decimal precision is really low. You can see this in action in the data editor when you enter in a fractional value and it gets rounded off.
0
The next version will add a scoring system and persistent high score tracking. I'll probably lower the interest rate a bit (maybe module by difficulty level or by current wave) but basically, it's intended that you have essentially unlimited mana by the end of the game but I think people might be reaching that point a ltitle too soon. (Basically, mana is intended to be a secondary resource which prevents you from building high-level towers too early in the game, essences are the primary limiting resource.) The scoring system will take into account how much mana you have and how many lives you have at the end of each round, which will provide more of an incentive to use the interest system to maximize mana. Hopefully that will add a bit of depth to the mana/interest system.
0
Bullshit. My map is reasonably popular and that's exactly what I did to get it so. No artificial boosting, just making something good and getting it reviewed and played by commentators.
0
This is an excellent idea and I'll see what I can do to get it in the next version.
0
Possibly the best advice ever for people struggling with the popularity system. Letting people try your map in single player is critical, as it lets them decide if the map is worth getting their friends together to play. And a lot of people simply prefer playing against an AI to other human beings, so by accommodating them you're opening up your map to a wider audience.
0
You could try just making something really good that people want to play and doing some simply publicity work like asking reviewers/commentators to play your map. That's significantly more effective than boosting in the long run anyway.
0
Don't use pure galaxy script but there's a trigger action called Debug Message which is useful for troubleshooting, so you could probably look up and find out what the native is.
0
Delete and recreate your game variants.
0
Yeah I agree they should probably have put a battle.net guy on the panel or even had a battle.net panel of its own, I'm just saying you can't be too hard on level designers for not answering questions about battle.net.
Kind of surprised they didn't announce the contest winners during the panel but to be honest the entire contest was run horribly. Supposedly the winners would be playable at BlizzCon but it seems like that didn't happen either. Seems like they just didn't really devote any resources to running the contest which is disappointing for those of us who put a lot of work into our entries.
0
That's because the people in the panel literally have nothing to do with how battle.net deals with custom maps. It was a panel with nothing but level designers; why would you expect them to be able to answer questions about battle.net? You might as well have asked the art or lore panels.
They should have had a battle.net panel with designers and engineers who work specifically on battle.net features, but I think they avoided that because they figured it would get pretty nasty.