@Malpheus: Go Im kinda thinking your dumb....
for even trying to contact blizzard for something that isn't even a third party program.
for investing "thousands" of dollars on something that would take me as little as a week to develop.
for bothering to make such a system that can easily be manipulated by players.
You'd have to figure out how to decrypt encrypted bank files on a large scale that can handle every map possible.
A lot of this would require some assistance from the respective maps authors. Maps banks can over-write each other as well even if they are not the same map since the banks don't have a unique name.
Unencrypted bank files are easily modified by players
For thinking blizzard cares
Your best bet is to just run with it. Your not breaking any terms of service for just cataloging data that is stored locally on players computers.
But in the end the stats on your website would be utterly useless for the most part. The more useful the stats are the more reason people have to send your site junk info. Its a downward spiral.
I'm way dumb dude. Only person who has to live with it is me. I put equal faith in blizzard. I didn't just invest thousands into a single thing, I invested thousands of dollars in new software, new templates, investing in a dedicated server, etc. If you would like receipts please email me at LOL.
1. There are alot of good reasons to ask for permission up front, not like it mattered.
2. My loss right? Let me whine a bit and move on.
3a. dun you worry about the low hanging fruit mongoloids could catch.
3b. cant rape the willing, maps would have to sign up, we aren't gonna chase em down.
What you really need is a very big polished project to back your platform. Gloop only succeeded because of Sotis, and Sotis is dying, a little more each day.
I suggest you have a talk to me on Skype.
i'm Malpheus on skype and the more the merrier. we currently have alot of projects interested, more interest the better, this is supposed to be for everyone, input is absolutely cherished.
Nope, another blizzard issue. the map has three mods that it depends on, eu wont allow me to publish them under the same name, changing the name breaks the map... hard to have a great map on bnet 2.0
We would have worked to completion already if we believed the map had a fair chance.
All good points, i agree. The drop bug is actually on blizzard per our understanding, we've spent scores of hours trying to fix it and haven't really moved past it since. It's a horribly ruining experience to have 12 willing people want to play with you on hundreds of occasions, only for them to drop before playing. If you wait in a lobby for more than two minutes it increases your chances to drop.. which sucks when putting together games on bnet 2.0. Fixing the drop bug would fix ALL of our problems. The rest are easy fixes. We go to fix the drop bug, in one place you look it says "you must preload units" in another it says "no don't preload units", and the third place tells us to throw salt over our left shoulder while in lobby. Just too hard to get people to truly try, so it's hard to convince the programmer to add new features.
I'm super close to stopping sc2 over this issue altogether, which is a fairly big deal because I host for bunker wars, broken alliances, 12 kingdoms, risk, randomtd, zoator, etc... There is a 10 page thread on bnet, there have been phone calls, etc.
I think he understood it completely. Just as an FYI, you can do the same with WC3. U simply paste your cd key into your bnet account, no facebook integration but i'm not even touching that social media trash...
I think it was one of many features he discussed, not his main point. Just guessing here.
The majority of people with WarCraft 3 playing experience prefer it over SC2 UI after all this time. It's preferred by the vast majority of the community at this point, the custom map community specifically. I actually got depressed thinking about how much better the system actually is. I can still find better custom maps there too... and people will play them with me!
Typing /f m was incredibly simplistic as opposed to finding the appropriate button to press. You didn't have to scroll was the point, you dind' thave to look, u just messaged. Bnet 2.o may not be regressive like others think, but it is not a step forward either. it's the base of a step forward, but the desired features are not there.
You cannot dispute that lack of an open lobby system, lack of clan support, and general interface hold SC2 back. You cannot say those things would NOT be nice.
Edit: I equate it to a fancy new program that does all kinds of kool stuff. It integrates your notes into facebook, it matches your preferences across multiple platforms, and is really slick looking. When you inform the developer you asked for a pen and paper to write your name on, they look confused. We put buttons, dialogs, and features that have little to no value to the blizzard gamer in the system and leave out the key features. Little fact, there were more clans than maps, there were more clans than map makers... why wasn't this feature put in second, third or fourth during beta!?!
Oh and Husky might not get it for some folks, but the 25k views and hundreds of agreements on day one mean there is a big issue.
After I have played a few more games, I must say 3 more things:
1. It's addictive as hell.
2. This mod is good for smart ppl, because here you need to use brains, mostly spatial imagination to create longer mazes and force creeps to pass them maximum times. It feels like playing chess a bit.
3. Once I had an income like 350+50-350. Where the hell this "-350" came from? It was like this 3 waves in a row. I lost because of this. Is it a bug or something intentional?
Yup, my favorite TD For a reason. It's nothing fancy, but the repeat value of gameplay is great.
We always encourage a challenge, we don't mind being mistaken, I want mappers to challenge the process, it creates a great discussion at times. We've rated maps horribly and had the mapper approach to discuss, we work through any misunderstandings and make sure the mapper feels the process is fair above all.
We do articles when the reviewers have something to say, otherwise if you note the definitions of the ratings you will see a pretty self explanatory statement about what the rating means. We hope to do a video for this one later on if time permits. Ultimately any review process will not be perfect, this is purely a good way of lining stuff up and taking a stab at it.
I don't believe fun factor should be lowered due to the existence of the WC3 version. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is exactly what it sounded like earlier.
Perhaps a fresh review with people who have never tried the WC3 version? By the way, did the hater dislike the map or does he just hate TDs?
It's my mistake, I had posed it in a way to where the "fun factor" appears to be confusing in the way it's rated. I used my own rationale to establish the rating based on this criteria:
5 - When you were done reviewing this game, you wanted to play it again the next morning, you went to sleep thinking about it.
4 - You bookmarked this game for personal use, you played it 2-3 times more during the week of your review.
3 - You will be playing this on your own time, you still have things to do, but you will be playing it.
2 - The map review seemed long, you don't think you'll be playing this anytime soon, maybe after you rest from it.
1 - This map flat out sucked and you wont be playing it no more.
My explanation of the rating was the influence my experience had on my ratings, and my assumption that the same influences existed in the other raters. Our fun factor is purely rated on the above statements however. The influence to my perception, affecting the rating was what I spoke to, apologies.
We can do it one of two ways, drop the lowest rater and replace or completely reboot. Also I would love to incorporate you response to whatever final rating we accomplish. It could be in a multitude of formats, even a fun one.
Regarding the lowest rater, he rated squad td well, but alot of ppl who don't normally like td's like that one, so it would be totally reasonable to request his replaced.
I am drinking coffee with the terrainer of formation td atm, (to be fair i'm married to her lol) so if you want a quick replacement rating to see what it would look like by dropping the lowest and replacing with a td fans, let me know.
I would encourage anyone interested in knowing the actual criteria to check it out in person. Also sorry I havent' responded earlier, lots goin on.
There are six measurable criteria based on a persons perception of the map they are rating, furthermore, there are a minimum of three people rating each map. Any rigid criteria outside of that system would not work for all maps, but I'm happy to say that the system thus far is working within what I expected it to. By far not perfect of course.
What confuses me, and I genuinely confuse easy folks, is why there wasn't an objection to the areas in which element td performed poorly. The map got 3/5, 4/5, 4/5 respectively for appearance, but got a 1/5, 3/5, 3/5 for fun factor.
To specifically address how it was rated for those too lazy to look for themselves, and or for those who like to guess about a process instead of just find out about it, we grade appearance based on the following criteria.
5- The game uses never before seen graphics, terrain, etc.
4 - The game uses very unique camera controls, uses wow models, etc.
3 - The game looks very good, pathing works, no eye sores.
2 - The game looks like someone spent about an hour on terrain, the equivalent to nexus wars terrain, but is still playable.
1 - The terrain looks and works horribly, pathing does not work, there are eye sores.
It works like this, you either totally qualify for a number or you do not. In essence, given the definition of appearance, I think we were spot on. This considering, one the terrain is not unique to custom maps, formation td has a similar layout and actually published slightly before elemental td, and the map has existed for some time on wc3 in the same ultimate configuration. I would encourage you to look at the squad td review as well, it rated lower in appearance because they were not responsible for the actual concept of the terrain layout, where you were karawasa. 3, 4, 4 is pretty damned good for appearance on a TD.
Needless to say, I did challenge a few aspects of the ratings provided, prior to publishing, but the replies to my challenges were acceptable. If you would like a fresh one, we'll do it with another three reviewers... remember the most important part of our process is we love to be challenged!
The fun factor is what killed me on this review, and I honestly expected a challenge on that category for sure. One reviewer hated the map pretty much and it still wasn't enough to keep it from being ranked well regardless.
Updated to include the Element TD Rating. The hard part to rate on this one was the fact it's really a sequel of the WC3 map in the truest form. Unlike a remake like Squad where someone did a legacy import of the terrain and built from there, emulating anothers work, this time we have the original maker remaking his own map on SC2... hard indeed.
It faired much better than the legion td clone, but I still felt like i was playing Element TD on WC3 ultimately.
Up Next Fleet Assault and Starship Troopers: Abandoned.
0
@jaxter184: Go
I use "Audacity".
1. It's free. 2. You can batch convert wav/mp3 to ogg. 3. Anyone can use it if I can.
0
I'm way dumb dude. Only person who has to live with it is me. I put equal faith in blizzard. I didn't just invest thousands into a single thing, I invested thousands of dollars in new software, new templates, investing in a dedicated server, etc. If you would like receipts please email me at LOL.
1. There are alot of good reasons to ask for permission up front, not like it mattered.
2. My loss right? Let me whine a bit and move on.
3a. dun you worry about the low hanging fruit mongoloids could catch.
3b. cant rape the willing, maps would have to sign up, we aren't gonna chase em down.
3c. they sure would be
4. yup.
i'm Malpheus on skype and the more the merrier. we currently have alot of projects interested, more interest the better, this is supposed to be for everyone, input is absolutely cherished.
@Taintedwisp: Go
@Taintedwisp: Go
0
At this point I don't care who knows. To me this is crap and I'd like a reality check if I'm just insane here.
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/3530213500
Hopefully I'm not insane, but I'd really like to know what else actually could have been done?
0
@sigmapl: Go
Nope, another blizzard issue. the map has three mods that it depends on, eu wont allow me to publish them under the same name, changing the name breaks the map... hard to have a great map on bnet 2.0
We would have worked to completion already if we believed the map had a fair chance.
0
@gamemore: Go
All good points, i agree. The drop bug is actually on blizzard per our understanding, we've spent scores of hours trying to fix it and haven't really moved past it since. It's a horribly ruining experience to have 12 willing people want to play with you on hundreds of occasions, only for them to drop before playing. If you wait in a lobby for more than two minutes it increases your chances to drop.. which sucks when putting together games on bnet 2.0. Fixing the drop bug would fix ALL of our problems. The rest are easy fixes. We go to fix the drop bug, in one place you look it says "you must preload units" in another it says "no don't preload units", and the third place tells us to throw salt over our left shoulder while in lobby. Just too hard to get people to truly try, so it's hard to convince the programmer to add new features.
I'm super close to stopping sc2 over this issue altogether, which is a fairly big deal because I host for bunker wars, broken alliances, 12 kingdoms, risk, randomtd, zoator, etc... There is a 10 page thread on bnet, there have been phone calls, etc.
0
@EternalWraith: Go
I think he understood it completely. Just as an FYI, you can do the same with WC3. U simply paste your cd key into your bnet account, no facebook integration but i'm not even touching that social media trash...
I think it was one of many features he discussed, not his main point. Just guessing here.
The majority of people with WarCraft 3 playing experience prefer it over SC2 UI after all this time. It's preferred by the vast majority of the community at this point, the custom map community specifically. I actually got depressed thinking about how much better the system actually is. I can still find better custom maps there too... and people will play them with me!
Typing /f m was incredibly simplistic as opposed to finding the appropriate button to press. You didn't have to scroll was the point, you dind' thave to look, u just messaged. Bnet 2.o may not be regressive like others think, but it is not a step forward either. it's the base of a step forward, but the desired features are not there.
You cannot dispute that lack of an open lobby system, lack of clan support, and general interface hold SC2 back. You cannot say those things would NOT be nice.
Edit: I equate it to a fancy new program that does all kinds of kool stuff. It integrates your notes into facebook, it matches your preferences across multiple platforms, and is really slick looking. When you inform the developer you asked for a pen and paper to write your name on, they look confused. We put buttons, dialogs, and features that have little to no value to the blizzard gamer in the system and leave out the key features. Little fact, there were more clans than maps, there were more clans than map makers... why wasn't this feature put in second, third or fourth during beta!?!
Oh and Husky might not get it for some folks, but the 25k views and hundreds of agreements on day one mean there is a big issue.
0
@Nebuli2: Go
great point we have that one our list actually
and my wife just switched her NA account over to EU so we can upload the map today over there
0
@DEFILERRULEZ: Go
look like we need an intelligrunt euro to upload it - map + 3 mods or got to get another copy on eu
yes they are- all 18 races and about 180 models. Now that the WC3 music soundtrack and building starting to go in gives it a real nice feel
0
Yup, my favorite TD For a reason. It's nothing fancy, but the repeat value of gameplay is great.
0
Testing starts in march for this process. Inquiries should go to sc2eagle.com.
0
@GlornII: Go
We always encourage a challenge, we don't mind being mistaken, I want mappers to challenge the process, it creates a great discussion at times. We've rated maps horribly and had the mapper approach to discuss, we work through any misunderstandings and make sure the mapper feels the process is fair above all.
We do articles when the reviewers have something to say, otherwise if you note the definitions of the ratings you will see a pretty self explanatory statement about what the rating means. We hope to do a video for this one later on if time permits. Ultimately any review process will not be perfect, this is purely a good way of lining stuff up and taking a stab at it.
0
It's my mistake, I had posed it in a way to where the "fun factor" appears to be confusing in the way it's rated. I used my own rationale to establish the rating based on this criteria:
5 - When you were done reviewing this game, you wanted to play it again the next morning, you went to sleep thinking about it.
4 - You bookmarked this game for personal use, you played it 2-3 times more during the week of your review.
3 - You will be playing this on your own time, you still have things to do, but you will be playing it.
2 - The map review seemed long, you don't think you'll be playing this anytime soon, maybe after you rest from it.
1 - This map flat out sucked and you wont be playing it no more.
My explanation of the rating was the influence my experience had on my ratings, and my assumption that the same influences existed in the other raters. Our fun factor is purely rated on the above statements however. The influence to my perception, affecting the rating was what I spoke to, apologies.
We can do it one of two ways, drop the lowest rater and replace or completely reboot. Also I would love to incorporate you response to whatever final rating we accomplish. It could be in a multitude of formats, even a fun one.
Regarding the lowest rater, he rated squad td well, but alot of ppl who don't normally like td's like that one, so it would be totally reasonable to request his replaced.
I am drinking coffee with the terrainer of formation td atm, (to be fair i'm married to her lol) so if you want a quick replacement rating to see what it would look like by dropping the lowest and replacing with a td fans, let me know.
0
@Karawasa: Go
I would encourage anyone interested in knowing the actual criteria to check it out in person. Also sorry I havent' responded earlier, lots goin on.
There are six measurable criteria based on a persons perception of the map they are rating, furthermore, there are a minimum of three people rating each map. Any rigid criteria outside of that system would not work for all maps, but I'm happy to say that the system thus far is working within what I expected it to. By far not perfect of course.
What confuses me, and I genuinely confuse easy folks, is why there wasn't an objection to the areas in which element td performed poorly. The map got 3/5, 4/5, 4/5 respectively for appearance, but got a 1/5, 3/5, 3/5 for fun factor.
To specifically address how it was rated for those too lazy to look for themselves, and or for those who like to guess about a process instead of just find out about it, we grade appearance based on the following criteria.
5- The game uses never before seen graphics, terrain, etc.
4 - The game uses very unique camera controls, uses wow models, etc.
3 - The game looks very good, pathing works, no eye sores.
2 - The game looks like someone spent about an hour on terrain, the equivalent to nexus wars terrain, but is still playable.
1 - The terrain looks and works horribly, pathing does not work, there are eye sores.
It works like this, you either totally qualify for a number or you do not. In essence, given the definition of appearance, I think we were spot on. This considering, one the terrain is not unique to custom maps, formation td has a similar layout and actually published slightly before elemental td, and the map has existed for some time on wc3 in the same ultimate configuration. I would encourage you to look at the squad td review as well, it rated lower in appearance because they were not responsible for the actual concept of the terrain layout, where you were karawasa. 3, 4, 4 is pretty damned good for appearance on a TD.
Needless to say, I did challenge a few aspects of the ratings provided, prior to publishing, but the replies to my challenges were acceptable. If you would like a fresh one, we'll do it with another three reviewers... remember the most important part of our process is we love to be challenged!
The fun factor is what killed me on this review, and I honestly expected a challenge on that category for sure. One reviewer hated the map pretty much and it still wasn't enough to keep it from being ranked well regardless.
0
@Malpheus: Go
Updated to include the Element TD Rating. The hard part to rate on this one was the fact it's really a sequel of the WC3 map in the truest form. Unlike a remake like Squad where someone did a legacy import of the terrain and built from there, emulating anothers work, this time we have the original maker remaking his own map on SC2... hard indeed.
It faired much better than the legion td clone, but I still felt like i was playing Element TD on WC3 ultimately.
Up Next Fleet Assault and Starship Troopers: Abandoned.
0
@MaNtEc0r: Go
Minimum of three. We're still doing it, holidays slowed us down a bit, I expect the Element TD review to be done this weekend.