I made a graph showing how popularity works on Battle.net. That might help map makers to make their maps playable. :)
See the graph attached.
Thanks.
Edit: I updated the graph to make it more symmetric and accurate.
As a proof of this graph, my map Platform Defense was an 8-players game stucked at page 200. The game was changed to a 4-players game, and the map became the second most played map on Battle.net in less than 24 hours. The popularity did much more than just doubled.
Edit 2: I know popularity has a limit and the graph won't grow forever. I'm just making it simple.
Hmm, But nexus wars is an 8 player 20 minutes+(on average) map. Yet its contradictory to the graph?
Nexus Wars was smaller before, and most of its matches are about 10 minutes long. Once the map gets popular, you can increase the map's size. It's not impossible for an 8 players 20 min map be popular, it's just harder.
It has some merits to it, but mapmakers should and always place gameplay as a factor above all else. Because if you can create a gameplay that is simple to understand, competitive, balanced, and fun, then the popularity will boost no matter how huge your map is. However, normally it is easier to achive this in a medium size map like 8-10 players where the average game time is about 15-20 mins short.
True. It was in Beta. So its one of those favs among players. I do remember when games would be 1hr+, even to about 3 hours though. Earliest versions of the game lol. No joke.
But yeah, Hopefully people will take your graph into consideration atleast until blizz revamps the popularity system.
It has some merits to it, but mapmakers should and always place gameplay as a factor above all else. Because if you can create a gameplay that is simple to understand, competitive, balanced, and fun, then the popularity will boost no matter how huge your map is. However, normally it is easier to achive this in a medium size map like 8-10 players where the average game time is about 15-20 mins short.
I agree that gameplay is more important than popularity. However, what's the point of making an awesome 1 hour rpg if no one will ever play it?
However you didn't describe whether that rpg has awesome gameplay or not. If its a normal grinding type, players get bored easily! Quest-based rpgs where you can save your progress of the quests you're currently doing with your character were popular in Wc3. So far I've only seen people make linear and dull rpgs...
This is unfortunately the case for the time being. I would recommend that mediocre maps follow the insight provided by this graph. However, I believe that the highest quality projects need not pay any attention to this. They should focus on doing what they do best, rather than gaming the system.
Rodigo had shed some light on how popularity works. I agree this brings insight on how the the popularity works but I disagree with the statement at the end implying that we are encouraged to attempt to create maps to BE popular.
I think as map enthusiasts, priority should be as follows: Personal interest > Gameplay > Popularity. If you want to create a 'well crafted, meticulously designed epic adventures' that last for hours then make it. Don't let the idea of popularity get to you. If you want to create a Rick roll map, as long as you get personal enjoyment, then make it. You're map enthusiasts, not popular seekers.
Back to bnet popularity, yah that graph seems accurate depiction comparing length of game vs popularity. Thanks Rodigo
@RodrigoAlves: Go
I think as map enthusiasts, priority should be as follows: Personal interest > Gameplay > Popularity. If you want to create a 'well crafted, meticulously designed epic adventures' that last for hours then make it. Don't let the idea of popularity get to you. If you want to create a Rick roll map, as long as you get personal enjoyment, then make it. You're map enthusiasts, not popular seekers.
My personal enjoyment is to see people thinking about something I made, and that requires popularity. :P
Umm... If "popularity" is supposed to be the number of games played over (x) period of time, then a 30 min game is naturally going to have 1/6 the "popularity" of a 5 min game... because 6 times the number of games need to be played to occupy the same quantity of time... (of course there's loby time)
I'm not sure what this graph is supposed to represent, nor the point it's making... You say that the more players in a game and the longer the game takes the fewer times per x (time) the game is played... but as I pointed out that's a falatious point. I am missunderstanding this. Please clarify.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I made a graph showing how popularity works on Battle.net. That might help map makers to make their maps playable. :)
See the graph attached. Thanks.
Edit: I updated the graph to make it more symmetric and accurate.
As a proof of this graph, my map Platform Defense was an 8-players game stucked at page 200. The game was changed to a 4-players game, and the map became the second most played map on Battle.net in less than 24 hours. The popularity did much more than just doubled.
Edit 2: I know popularity has a limit and the graph won't grow forever. I'm just making it simple.
@RodrigoAlves: Go
Hmm, But nexus wars is an 8 player 20 minutes+(on average) map. Yet its contradictory to the graph?
Nexus Wars was smaller before, and most of its matches are about 10 minutes long. Once the map gets popular, you can increase the map's size. It's not impossible for an 8 players 20 min map be popular, it's just harder.
@RodrigoAlves: Go
It has some merits to it, but mapmakers should and always place gameplay as a factor above all else. Because if you can create a gameplay that is simple to understand, competitive, balanced, and fun, then the popularity will boost no matter how huge your map is. However, normally it is easier to achive this in a medium size map like 8-10 players where the average game time is about 15-20 mins short.
@RodrigoAlves: Go
True. It was in Beta. So its one of those favs among players. I do remember when games would be 1hr+, even to about 3 hours though. Earliest versions of the game lol. No joke. But yeah, Hopefully people will take your graph into consideration atleast until blizz revamps the popularity system.
It's good that we have a graph on this now.
I agree that gameplay is more important than popularity. However, what's the point of making an awesome 1 hour rpg if no one will ever play it?
@RodrigoAlves: Go
However you didn't describe whether that rpg has awesome gameplay or not. If its a normal grinding type, players get bored easily! Quest-based rpgs where you can save your progress of the quests you're currently doing with your character were popular in Wc3. So far I've only seen people make linear and dull rpgs...
I did also mention "competitive"...
This is unfortunately the case for the time being. I would recommend that mediocre maps follow the insight provided by this graph. However, I believe that the highest quality projects need not pay any attention to this. They should focus on doing what they do best, rather than gaming the system.
Why isn't popularity based on per minute played per player?
Because whoever designed BNET 2.0 had their head up their ass.
This is the guy who did it:
And this is the final result of Battle.net:
So basiclly, crappy minigame maps that only last 5 minutes are more popular than well crafted, meticulously designed epic adventures.
@RodrigoAlves: Go
Rodigo had shed some light on how popularity works. I agree this brings insight on how the the popularity works but I disagree with the statement at the end implying that we are encouraged to attempt to create maps to BE popular.
I think as map enthusiasts, priority should be as follows: Personal interest > Gameplay > Popularity. If you want to create a 'well crafted, meticulously designed epic adventures' that last for hours then make it. Don't let the idea of popularity get to you. If you want to create a Rick roll map, as long as you get personal enjoyment, then make it. You're map enthusiasts, not popular seekers.
Back to bnet popularity, yah that graph seems accurate depiction comparing length of game vs popularity. Thanks Rodigo
My personal enjoyment is to see people thinking about something I made, and that requires popularity. :P
There is nothing wrong with wanting your creation to be played.
they really should change it from games/hour to minutes played/hours
a one player 2 hour maps would be es high as a 6 player 20 minute map
This graph is really working. Platform Defense will get more popular than Nexus Wars TODAY! :)
That's not possible with 99% of maps being Nexus Wars.
@RodrigoAlves: Go
Umm... If "popularity" is supposed to be the number of games played over (x) period of time, then a 30 min game is naturally going to have 1/6 the "popularity" of a 5 min game... because 6 times the number of games need to be played to occupy the same quantity of time... (of course there's loby time)
I'm not sure what this graph is supposed to represent, nor the point it's making... You say that the more players in a game and the longer the game takes the fewer times per x (time) the game is played... but as I pointed out that's a falatious point. I am missunderstanding this. Please clarify.