Here's an idea to fix it, make it optional. I can publish my maps on their servers, and abide by their rules, and play their stupid lobby/popularity system. Or I can use the WC3 method, manually host my game and name it whatever I want, and use peer to peer hosting.
I shouldn't be forced to use their system, and abide by their rules.
The WC3 and SC method had everything in the hands of the players. THEY decided what was popular by hosting it and playing it alot, ala DOTA. But because it was in the hands of the players, it could change. Any random asshole could host a map, and people would join. Because at any given time the list of maps being hosted was relatively small. You'd refresh, new maps would be hosted, you'd scroll through until you found one that appealed to you, and join it. It was simple, and it worked.
SC2's popularity system tries to take that, and automate it. No longer are players deciding what's popular, they're being told what's popular and they can either play those maps, or not play at all. Back on WC3 and SC, if you didn't wanna play a popular map, you didn't have to. There were plenty of other maps to play, which were being hosted and had people, or you could host a map yourself. That doesn't work in this system, you can neither join other maps nor host your own because you know no-ones in them, and you know no-one will join because they think it's empty.
The popularity system is made for people who don't wanna think about what they're gonna play. It's for people who just wanna go on bnet, play a game of nexus wars, and log off. And that's fine, I wouldn't have a problem with the popularity system if it didn't replace the old system. The old system worked for over TEN FUCKING YEARS without a single goddamned complaint. And they come in and force us to use this shitty system designed for toddlers. All they had to do was make it optional, that's it.
I mean christ's sake, if I wanna host my map and put a pass on it so I can test, I should be able to. If I wanna host some obscure map that's fun and get players readily, I should be able to. If I wanna host "Break the condom" (anyone who remembers that map, gets a cookie) then I should be able to. EVERYBODY knows the old way is better, except Blizzard, they downgraded custom content and ruined it, making it unplayable. If you don't wanna play a tug game, you're SOL since those dominate the front page, and nobody bothers to go deeper down.
TL;DR only solution is to get rid of the popularity system in some form, either by making it optional and keeping the old way alongside it, or getting rid of it out-right. You'll never make the popularity system work as well as the old way did.
So basically the changes I've mentioned above, would allow the system to work very similar to the old Wc3 system, but still retain a popularity system.
All your "fixes" do is make the popularity system a cluttered mess with needless features. Being able to sort by name/author/whatever is stupid and useless, I don't give a shit what the map's name is, I give a shit if people are playing it. Categories are also useless clutter, I shouldn't have to thumb through a dozen categories as well as pages to find a map.
I mean you're trying to turn it into something you'd see on Netflix, that's not gonna work here. I go on bnet to play games, not look up fancy maps. The word "fix" implies making it work, and be better then it is. About the only suggestions you made that actually fall under that category would be graying out games with nobody in them, and allowing us to search by the ammount of players in the games.
But even with those additions, the system will still be VASTLY inferior to the old way. You said in the other thread that you could make changes to fix this system, so it's as good as the old. Well you can, if you change it so it -IS- the old system. No matter what you do this system will not work as good as the old system did, cluttering it up with useless tabs and sorting functions wont change that. Ever heard the term KISS? Keep It Simple, Stupid. WC3 and SC was simple, you clicked custom game and were presented a list of hosted games, and you just refreshed til you found one.
Why can't you accept that this system is beyond redemption? Honestly the way you cling to it is like you're the guy who made it. It's a worthless system that will -NEVER- work. It will -NEVER- be better then the old way. If you wanna keep it, fine, but the ONLY way to fix it, and still keep it, is to make it optional and add in the old system alongside it. Nothing you do will ever make this system a suitable replacement for the old, and until you manage to come up with an idea that disproves this, I'll just continue to post that you're wrong, and are a naive fanboy who refuses to accept that this system will not work.
Colt556, you forget that there are also other players out there. Take me for example, I don't want to have dozen of Dotas like I had in WC3. I played dota a few times, and all I experienced was an incredible hostility towards newbies ... I rather liked joining maps that seemed new to me!
But yeah, the old system wasn't perfect, but by far better than the current system is. Though I fear that they will not do drastical changes to their system like suggested by many people. Maybe they want to control what is on the first side (featured maps, premium maps, marketplace maps,..) to make sure they benefit. And maybe this loss of control is also the reason they don't want player hosting games .. see what happened to dota ;)
Quote from Colt556: GoI shouldn't be forced to use their system, and abide by their rules.
They make the game, they make the rules. :/
They probably removed custom names because of their fear of (d)evil words such as "Jesus"... .
But what really needs to come after my opinion is a method to search for a map when joining, not only when hosting! A basic category filter would be really helpfull too (like HeroDefense, RPG, TD, whatever)! The current filters are useless if they even work. @KratsAU: Also your suggested rating system would be a nice thing (which will most likely never come). I dream of people having the possibility to write one or two sentences after the game finishes as a feedback too... this would increase feedback, suggestions, balance approaches, motivation for the creator, ... drastically. I mean: Did you switch to desktop, opened your browser and wrote an email to a map creator after finishing a map? ;)
Quote from Rushhour: GoColt556, you forget that there are also other players out there. Take me for example, I don't want to have dozen of Dotas like I had in WC3. I played dota a few times, and all I experienced was an incredible hostility towards newbies ... I rather liked joining maps that seemed new to me!
But yeah, the old system wasn't perfect, but by far better than the current system is. Though I fear that they will not do drastical changes to their system like suggested by many people. Maybe they want to control what is on the first side (featured maps, premium maps, marketplace maps,..) to make sure they benefit. And maybe this loss of control is also the reason they don't want player hosting games .. see what happened to dota ;)
Quote: I shouldn't be forced to use their system, and abide by their rules. They make the game, they make the rules :(
They probably removed custom names because of their fear of (d)evil words such as "Jesus"... .
But what really needs to come after my opinion is a method to search for a map when joining, not only when hosting! A basic category filter would be really helpfull too (like HeroDefense, RPG, TD, whatever)! The current filters are useless if they even work. @KratsAU: Also your suggested rating system would be a nice thing (which will most likely never come). I dream of people having the possibility to write one or two sentences after the game finishes as a feedback too... this would increase feedback, suggestions, balance approaches, motivation for the creator, ... drastically. I mean: Did you switch to desktop, opened your browser and wrote an email to a map creator after finishing a map? ;)
Oh I hear you, I always say that DOTA killed WC3, before DOTA came along you had such an insane variety. That's why I think the best thing to do is have both systems, the popularity system and the old system. The popularity system would be GREAT for maps like DOTA, maybe allow people to rename them to specify what kinda modes, but that's it. However for normal gaming, as you said I like to play new maps and I can't do that with the popularity system, so the old system is the way to go. Having both really would be the best way for them to go, but big companies never admit they screwed up, so we'll likely never see them bring back the old system.
Showing only created games when joining is really the only solution. Then again they may be sorted by popularity or creation time or name or players in it etc.
A list with all games(the current system) on the other hand, is still a very good solution when one does want to create a game.
In the end, the only mistake i see is not the popularity system but the game listing every existing map when one wants to join a game.
Quote from Colt556: GoBeing able to sort by name/author/whatever is stupid and useless, I don't give a shit what the map's name is
Well that's dumb, I certainly care what the name of the game I'm about to play is, I don't want to just play any random game. Most games server list allow you to sort by name.
Quote from Colt556: GoI give a shit if people are playing it.
Which is exactly why I included showing the number of people playing/hosting the game, and the option to hide games that no one is playing. Guess what, another thing the server list in most games do.
Quote from Colt556: GoCategories are also useless clutter.
Nonsense, categories are awesome. If you have every used categories before, you would know that there is normally an "All" category as well. Again, plenty of game server lists out there that use categories and filters, and people use them.
Quote from Colt556: GoBut even with those additions, the system will still be VASTLY inferior to the old way.
In your opinion, I disagree.
Quote from Colt556: GoKeep It Simple, Stupid.
There is absolutely nothing complex about the above system, infact it's a pretty common server list setup. Christ even BFBC2's game list has categories and other common stuff.
Quote from Colt556: GoHonestly the way you cling to it is like you're the guy who made it. It's a worthless system that will -NEVER- work. It will -NEVER- be better then the old way.<</quote>>
Your opinion, I disagree.
<<quote 209956>>Nothing you do will ever make this system a suitable replacement for the old, and until you manage to come up with an idea that disproves this, I'll just continue to post that you're wrong, and are a naive fanboy who refuses to accept that this system will not work.
You haven't actually posted any valid scenarios in which the old Wc3 system is superior to the new system. I can think of 1 or 2, but you haven't actually mentioned them.
So far all I have seen is a bunch of whining with no substance, and you being stuck on the notion that there is only one way to make a server list. Here you are claiming that I'm a fanboy clinging to something, when you are the one that can't let the Wc3 system go.
If you are holding your breath for a custom game list where people host a game and give it a name, then you are going to pass out. I would be extremely surprised if this ever happened. Learn to work within the limits.
Quote from Xolsom: GoIn the end, the only mistake i see is not the popularity system but the game listing every existing map when one wants to join a game.
Yeah this is actually one of the biggest problems with the current system. If you were able to see how many people were currently playing games, and toggle hide games that didn't have players it would be much better.
It's actually a very common feature in game server lists. There are normally filters to hide games with no players, hide games that are full and so on.
Quote from Colt556: GoI always say that DOTA killed WC3, before DOTA came along you had such an insane variety.
DotA is the sole reason why Warcraft is still as popular as it is.
It killed map variety, but you can't say that it killed Wc3 because there's tens of thousands of people playing it.
Quote from Colt556: GoThe old system worked for over TEN FUCKING YEARS without a single goddamned complaint.
1) The old system's map list was 50% DotA, 20% Battleships and 30% rest. Bad.
2) People are massively using bots to boost the number of times their map appears in the game list.
3) People are using the list to advertise scam websites and stuff.
4) You'd frequently get "Game has already started" and "Game is full" messages becaues the list didn't update.
5) Since everything was hosted locally you'd have the same map with different names, which always had to be redownloaded.
There you got five things that always bugged me and that can be done better.
Be able to rate maps and make the default sorting (popularity*rating), that way semi-popular awesome maps would be above the very popular simple maps, plus allow good new maps to rise faster since 1 game + 10 rating (if the rating is out of 10) will get it up faster than if you make a new crappy map which deserves a rating of 2-3. Of course, since all the top maps will have ratings, you could say maps wouldnt rise faster if theyre good - but then, they'd be on the top of the list of the current 1game/hour maps and easier to find if youre just scrolling through the list for *anything* to play solo/premade party except tugs and TDs
Then search filters like tug, TD, AoS, Hero(defense/war/siege) and others would help me a lot. Im getting tired of having the top 3 pages filled with almost only 2 game types i dont want to play. If i disabled the Tug and TD search filters, i'd be left with about only SotIS, Catalyst, 2-3 RPGs, and footy maps (which i forgot about and would disable as well) on the front page, and i'd be happy cause i would know what i can play. Plus, that would help make other map types popular. I really want to play some nice RPGs with my friend, or anything else for that matter, but the top 3 pages have nothing good cause its all full of tug and TDs and other stuff at least one person doesnt want to play.
Also, giving feedback through bnet is a must have... I dont think it's that hard to make and would definitely help out a lot.
And another thing that might make stuff better, is that the default sorting of maps is just a random list of all maps. Every 15 minutes or so, they move the first map to the bottom of the list, so that the list keeps changing slowly. That way all maps will get to see the light of day at a certain point, get a few games played, and rise up on the popularity at least temporarily (and with the feedback function, makers would get feedback.)
Also, the "Show More" button pisses me off... its so hard to scroll down the list just because every time i move the mouse wheel, i hit the bottom and have to click a button again... I would like an increase in the size of pages since right now it takes way too long to scroll down the list and probably discourages people from doing so...
In the beginning, the universe was created.
This was regarded as a bad move and made a lot of people angry.
email: mighty.maity@gmail.com , Twitter: @TheAlmaity
Some nice suggestions there TheAlmaity, I'm going to mock up screenshot with some ideas see what I can include.
I suspect the Show More button is for performance reasons. When you have 500,000 players requesting a server list it can slow things down quite a bit - so there are considerations that need to be made. I agree that it is annoying though.
I wouldn't mind the popularity system if it were a side feature of the old system.
I'm not an expert on dedicated servers and whatnot, and I can only imagine this is probably asking a lot, but is it unfeasible to have players creating our games on their servers, as with the old system? Would that create too many variables in terms of security, spam, duplicates, etc? (evidently they've found a reason not to do it)
You know now you think about it, this is the same thing Activision did with COD:MW2 for all platforms. They removed the lobby system for a more streamlined dedicated server list... you just choose the type of game you want to play and the system chooses the server for you.
Maybe all this anger is misdirected. After all, the same thing has happened to Infinity Ward, and they caught a lot of flak for this. Especially on PC where a lobby system is expected for games like that...
I had an idea, but most people on Battle.net rejected it. :/ It was a content rating system to help avoid getting maps banned left and right. Here: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/900900116
That's my suggestion. I hope it helps. :)
-Aegis Runestone-
Rising of the New Agent (SC1 Campaign) Blog
Planned SC2 Campaigns: Sequel to "Rising of the New Agent" using the Galaxy Editor
Quote from KratsAU: GoSome nice suggestions there TheAlmaity, I'm going to mock up screenshot with some ideas see what I can include.
I suspect the Show More button is for performance reasons. When you have 500,000 players requesting a server list it can slow things down quite a bit - so there are considerations that need to be made. I agree that it is annoying though.
Would it be so hard to automatically request the next games when you hit the bottom? I guess not.
Pasting from other thread.
1) Cannot download and host a map without republishing. This is fucking huge. I understand that not wanting 1,000,000 versions of the same map, but there was no intelligent design to support this idea. Fixing this would be pretty simple, RSS feeds into a battle.net map directory. If you are familiar with how you can *like* something in facebook from basically anywhere on the web, same idea. You visit sc2mapster.com's map browser that has discussion/feedback on map, links to youtube previews, and link's to battle.net's RSS based map directory. From there, instead of downloading, you can click an "add to favorites" button. When you log into SC2 and create a custom map, you'll find that map under a "my favorites" section next to "my published". Itt this combines the best of both worlds.
2) As far as popularity is concerned, it should be just one of many sortable columns, but first it needs to have it logical flaws fixed. What should popularity mean? If 1 player plays the fuck out of a map all day long, is it a popular map? No. I would consider popular to mean that a lot of unique battle.net account id's play that map within the last 24 hours, not caring how many times the map creator's buddies have boosted it all day.
3) Secondly I'd like to filter by many other things including lobby not empty, lobby not full, average wait time in game lobby. Functional category filters. A search field. Popularity should only be nothing more than another sortable column, not the gate keeper to custom maps.
4) Chat channels and the ability to create a closed lobby, giving the opportunity to prepare a lobby before opening to the public. Options to setting up a lobby should include reserving slots for invitations. etc etc, bnet COULD be great.
One more thing.
I realize that games are anonymous now. I want a way to have a game be targetable and joinable by link from a channel.
So imagine being in Sc2Mapsters channel, and you're talking about *hosting* a map, well when you say create game YOU DO NOT MEAN JOIN ONE THATS ALREADY OPEN. Maybe call it "Create Lobby".
While you are creating a lobby, it is NOT PUBLIC YET! Give us some time to set up the lobby ffs! New slot types for lobby games need to include "reserved for invites", "reserved for invites or channel", and "public". The lobby would give you a link to the lobby, and you could throw that in a channel, and an optional password for wishing to join from channel.
Flagging a slot as public does not immediately insert those slots into the public/anonymous games lobby. There would be a button that says "go public" for that, so you could prepare and chat it up with your brosefs before going public.
Channels could fix so much for us that I still have hope. If channels are done correctly. Could solve a lot of our problems.
My suggestion would simply be, keep the pop list for creating games, but for joining just shows games that are currently waiting to be played, in other words if there is more than 0 players in the lobby for it.
Planetside mod Updated as of 03/03/11
Planetside mod vids Updated as of 03/03/11
Looking for team members
KratsAU AuthorI would like for the SC2Mapster community put our heads together and come up with a list of suggestions to provide blizzard on improving the popularity system. For all we know they might be working on improving the system anyway, but without them telling us about it we can't know for sure.
So, my suggestion is that we use this thread to constructively discuss ways to improve the custom map/popularity system, we then post it on the official forums and all put an effort in to make the thread popular and get their attention, and keep bumping the thread so that it remains at the top of the Custom Map forum for each region.
Before you all say just change it to the old system, there is a good chance that blizzard want to keep the popularity system in, so personally I think it would be best to come up with ideas that would help make the existing system work, you might be surprised and come to the conclusion that it is possible to have a good system without it.
These are my current suggestions:
One other thing, I'm sure many people would like to be able to host a game, give it a custom name etc, but I really don't think that is ever going to happen (just another thing for them to have to police). Having said that, if the game mode system works, it generally covers the purpose of those custom names.
See how this goes, please keep it constructive. If we can enough people agreeing on some sort of system I will post on the official forums and see how we go.
Please try and be reasonable, and work with Blizzard as opposed to against them. Accept that certain things just aren't going to happen, and try and come up with ways to improve the existing system that would be feasible for Blizzard. You never know, sometimes the most obvious ideas get missed.
UPDATED WITH IMAGES:
Initial Join Screen
Game Details Screen
When you optionally expand a game to show individual hosted games
When you tick show favourites only
SC2 Name is Stark, author of Battle for Sky Fortress
Battle for Sky Fortress Website and Forums