Now: One (usually) game is open for each map. You join a map, you get into the one current lobby.
Named Lobbies: There's like 5-50 lobbies open for a given map, and wait time increases proportionally. All so you can title your game "MARINE ARENA NO NOOBS".
Now: One (usually) game is open for each map. You join a map, you get into the one current lobby.
Named Lobbies: There's like 5-50 lobbies open for a given map, and wait time increases proportionally. All so you can title your game "MARINE ARENA NO NOOBS".
What happens if you want to play an obscure map that suffers from a dull or a bad name? You wait for 40 minutes wrestling blizzards autockick just to come to conclusion that nobody cares, so you give up.
While on the other side of open games list player scrolls through dozens of names that he either learned to ignore or that don't look appealing at all. Rescrolling through it a bunch of times, with nothing grabbing his attention he gives up.
Lobby naming is that icebreaker that sparks curiosity about either a map or a player behind the lobby name. It's the first step in starting dialog with those who search for it.
"Let's play this lame map" -> "I wonder how lame it can be"
"Very hard bound" -> "Oh I just can't wait to see people fail at this"
"Greed TD#55" -> "55 runs, :o. The continuity of it is enough to make one to want to jump in"
"Killing God" -> "okay o_o"
It's about inserting character and allowing players to play with themselves and attract each other with their own human wits and characteristics even before they launch the map.
But I suppose we did "fine" without the system for so long, might as well see sc2 proudly pass into grave without it. Not a big deal anymore.. >_>'
another problem is that people do not use the open games list at all. how do i know? take any popular map and use any game variant except the default one, no1 will ever join.
Lobby naming is that icebreaker that sparks curiosity about either a map or a player behind the lobby name. It's the first step in starting dialog with those who search for it.
Or kills it.
"Hey that map looks interesting!"
"Wait, no noobs? Ah well."
If sc2 modding were to pass into the grave, it wouldn't be due to named custom map lobbies.
i think the current system of server side hosting (which isnt bad) doesn't allow mass bots.
named lobbies are just one of several suggestions made to address a certain problem.
Alternatively, the person driven by curiosity creates own lobby labeled " XXYY Noobs!".
Current system isn't much better either, there definitely isn't a lack of high ranked 1 star reviews on maps due to poisonous/elitist communities flaming/banning/abusing new players. At least with "NO NOOBS" marker both noobs and elitists are given opportunity to avoid each other.
@Bonus content
Oh wow, white letters on black-ish background surrounded by gray are so much better than light blue letters on a dark blue background surrounded by gray-blue, 2.0 is just full of abuse :|
@bots
What exactly is the problem with bots? From what I know both both BW and Wc3 suffered from an issue where majority of users were unable to host maps, thus bots as a workaround for hosting problems.
Are you being concerned with advertizing bots? Surely those can be reported and dealt with.
Bots that push games on top of open lobby list and block them? Already possible and we're not seeing it.
Am I being blind to some deeper terrible issue concerning them?
But yes, lobby names is a topic that can go forever with both parties staying unchanged in their beliefs. Might as well drop the convo since it'll never move anywhere.
@bots
What exactly is the problem with bots? From what I know both both BW and Wc3 suffered from an issue where majority of users were unable to host maps, thus bots as a workaround for hosting problems.
The problem with (wc3) bots is that you end up with about 20 of the same game hosted at once, and so you end up waiting 20 times longer for your individual lobby to fill up.
Map Marketplace
Other way for easy donations to modders
Shared Arcade between WoL + HotS + LotV + Heroes
Editor changes beyond the scope of Heroes (i.e. some of these)
Bnet + Arcade changes (i.e. some of these)
WoL + HotS + LotV + Heroes = same engine one day(asked different, will WoL still get updates?)
The rest, I'd love to see an answer on. Especially if Heroes will share an arcade with LotV. That, I really want to know.
@bots
What exactly is the problem with bots? From what I know both both BW and Wc3 suffered from an issue where majority of users were unable to host maps, thus bots as a workaround for hosting problems.
Bots can spam games and since they are usually autohosted and can have back end infrastructure (Admin privs, Ban Lists, etc), they effectively control a map, by dominating the public lobbies and enforcing its rules upon them (auto kicking people, auto kick to make room for someone else at will, etc.) Normal users have 0 chance, because in Wc3 day, the bot sites had enough keys, and with SC2 being F2P, it would be worse, I could easily create 1000 bots to host lobbies and bury human lobbies way way way way down on the list (constant rehost lobbies to assure this). I've already seen this in action, some people have been vindicative of certain maps and employ bots to destroy them by controlling the public lobbies (join all games, afk ruin them or auto fucking up the lobby by screwing with teams).
i wish, we the sc2 modding community, could have answers to these questions:
Map Marketplace
Other way for easy donations to modders
Shared Arcade between WoL + HotS + LotV + Heroes
Editor changes beyond the scope of Heroes (i.e. some of these)
Bnet + Arcade changes (i.e. some of these)
WoL + HotS + LotV + Heroes = same engine one day(asked different, will WoL still get updates?)
A clear answer includes:
Yes / No we did / didn't consider this yet
Yes / No we have (no) plans to do so
We will / won't consider this
i know they wont answer these but i am still hoping the best.
as always i will update this post with more questions if there are any. please provide only questions regarding mapping/modding
As for the topic at hand. In general, business, especially game ones, say nothing because gamers take off hand comments as commandments written on stone table, with a signature from God. So unless Blizzard has committed to and has any of those things basically done and complete, they will not say one way or the other.
As for the viability of each things
1) Map Marketplace: Don't think this will happen, too much of a legal hassle when it comes to copyright and setting up a monetization scheme. IN theory could expand Storm to become more Steam esque.
2) Easy donation to modders. Again, legal consideration and infrastructure. Theoretically they could take the experience of setting up the D3 AH and reapply it here.
3) Shared Arcade between all games. SC2 ones will be shared in the sense that you will be able to play on all of them regardless of which client you have. Storm is fundamentally different enough that it will be unlikely. This is because the base storm libraries are written for storm, they have none of the SC2 stuff as standard. So you would be unable to use it as a standard dependency. Also, as of yet, we are unaware of the modifications made to storm to make latency appear negligible.
4) Editor changes beyond the scope of Storm. This is very vague. However, in general, the team who builds the engine has to prioritize the requests/requirements of the people building Storm content or Void content (Campaign, though my best understanding is that it is mostly done). So any requests we have is probably low on the list of things to be fixed/done.
5) B.net changes. Most likely, Blizzard has demonstrated the willingness/ability to rapidly change the interface in Storm, the UI out of game for Storm has been revamped at least 4 times over the last year. They may be iterating on new designs internally for void. The impression given by Blizzard is that the current Void beta is VERY early and purely for MP balance/experimentation, everything else has been basically left out.
6) See #3. It will depend on if Storm was fundamentally made different from SC2. Only way we will be able to know is when the Void editor is released and the Storm editor is released.
Probably will never happen due to the openness to scamming. Someone will rebrand the popular maps a thousand times on there even if the author wanted them to be completely free.
Quote:
2.Other way for easy donations to modders
They need donations? Most WC3 modders never used donations and those that did ended up being pretty much scams.
If the feature was implemented into SC2 you can be sure scammers will not wait a second before taking advantage of it. They will try and convince players that their version of your map is genuine and beg for donations (which you never see any).
Quote:
3.Shared Arcade between WoL + HotS + LotV + Heroes
Prety sure LotV is going to be SC2 3.0 and so already share the same arcade as WoL and HotS. The only difference is that LotV will be stand alone so not require you to purchase WoL and HotS to play the campaign and melee (unlike HotS which did require WoL).
Heroes of the storm will remain separate, at least in part due to the differences in assets. Heroes of the Storm is much lighter weight than StarCraft II coming in at about 4GB or less. StarCraft II will likely be 16 GB odd at the end of LotV due to all the assets. Although it makes sense that they could throw Heroes of the Storm assets into SC2 (especially via some form of cross reference support to prevent duplication of assets) it makes no sense to couple Heroes of the Storm to the entire SC2 asset set making it 4 times larger.
Quote:
4.Editor changes beyond the scope of Heroes (i.e. some of these)
They said that since LotV is done they will devote more resources to modding down the line, potentially with a few other Blizzard game projects.
Quote:
6.WoL + HotS + LotV + Heroes = same engine one day(asked different, will WoL still get updates?)
They are exactly the same engine. Once LotV is released StarCraft II 3.0 (WoL + HotS + LotV) will be running the same engine as Heroes of the Storm. This includes 64 bit support.
6.WoL + HotS + LotV + Heroes = same engine one day(asked different, will WoL still get updates?)
They are exactly the same engine. Once LotV is released StarCraft II 3.0 (WoL + HotS + LotV) will be running the same engine as Heroes of the Storm. This includes 64 bit support.
what makes you so sure about this one? RoC-Editor didnt get updated to TfT-Editor if i remember correctly. i assume that WoL + HotS stay 2.0
what makes you so sure about this one? RoC-Editor didnt get updated to TfT-Editor if i remember correctly. i assume that WoL + HotS stay 2.0
It's basically impossible that wol/hots won't upgrade with the Void. if you have saw the void beta client you will see it includes wol/hots melee mod, so void is impossible to have a independ client as some may assume.
I figure void's standalone = ‘sold as a standalone game’, and not it would be a standalone client like heroes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
i wish, we the sc2 modding community, could have answers to these questions:
WoL + HotS + LotV+ HeroesWoL + HotS + LotV + Heroes = same engine one day(asked different, will WoL still get updates?)A clear answer includes:
i know they wont answer these but i am still hoping the best.
as always i will update this post with more questions if there are any. please provide only questions regarding mapping/modding
Am I the only one against named lobbies?
Now: One (usually) game is open for each map. You join a map, you get into the one current lobby.
Named Lobbies: There's like 5-50 lobbies open for a given map, and wait time increases proportionally. All so you can title your game "MARINE ARENA NO NOOBS".
It just doesn't seem worth it.
Exactly. I dont see the benefit of named lobbies.
What happens if you want to play an obscure map that suffers from a dull or a bad name? You wait for 40 minutes wrestling blizzards autockick just to come to conclusion that nobody cares, so you give up.
While on the other side of open games list player scrolls through dozens of names that he either learned to ignore or that don't look appealing at all. Rescrolling through it a bunch of times, with nothing grabbing his attention he gives up.
Lobby naming is that icebreaker that sparks curiosity about either a map or a player behind the lobby name. It's the first step in starting dialog with those who search for it.
"Let's play this lame map" -> "I wonder how lame it can be"
"Very hard bound" -> "Oh I just can't wait to see people fail at this"
"Greed TD#55" -> "55 runs, :o. The continuity of it is enough to make one to want to jump in"
"Killing God" -> "okay o_o"
It's about inserting character and allowing players to play with themselves and attract each other with their own human wits and characteristics even before they launch the map.
But I suppose we did "fine" without the system for so long, might as well see sc2 proudly pass into grave without it. Not a big deal anymore.. >_>'
i love you duck
another problem is that people do not use the open games list at all. how do i know? take any popular map and use any game variant except the default one, no1 will ever join.
Or kills it.
"Hey that map looks interesting!"
"Wait, no noobs? Ah well."
If sc2 modding were to pass into the grave, it wouldn't be due to named custom map lobbies.
This is the real problem. The open games list should be default, and show how many players are in each list item's lobby.
Bonus content;
This is what the wc3 custom games list looks like.
the wc3 open games list consists of bots only as you can see at the #. before this massiv spam of bots it did exactly what duck pointed out.
as if "no noobs" would have ever stopped anyone from joining
damn, too bad i cant delete posts
Right which leads onto another question; how would you stop the bot infestation?
Improving the arcade is a discussion worth having. I just think that named lobbies are a rose-tinted topic.
i think the current system of server side hosting (which isnt bad) doesn't allow mass bots.
named lobbies are just one of several suggestions made to address a certain problem.
Alternatively, the person driven by curiosity creates own lobby labeled " XXYY Noobs!".
Current system isn't much better either, there definitely isn't a lack of high ranked 1 star reviews on maps due to poisonous/elitist communities flaming/banning/abusing new players. At least with "NO NOOBS" marker both noobs and elitists are given opportunity to avoid each other.
@Bonus content
Oh wow, white letters on black-ish background surrounded by gray are so much better than light blue letters on a dark blue background surrounded by gray-blue, 2.0 is just full of abuse :|
@bots
What exactly is the problem with bots? From what I know both both BW and Wc3 suffered from an issue where majority of users were unable to host maps, thus bots as a workaround for hosting problems.
Are you being concerned with advertizing bots? Surely those can be reported and dealt with.
Bots that push games on top of open lobby list and block them? Already possible and we're not seeing it.
Am I being blind to some deeper terrible issue concerning them?
But yes, lobby names is a topic that can go forever with both parties staying unchanged in their beliefs. Might as well drop the convo since it'll never move anywhere.
The problem with (wc3) bots is that you end up with about 20 of the same game hosted at once, and so you end up waiting 20 times longer for your individual lobby to fill up.
You're right.
The rest, I'd love to see an answer on. Especially if Heroes will share an arcade with LotV. That, I really want to know.
Bots can spam games and since they are usually autohosted and can have back end infrastructure (Admin privs, Ban Lists, etc), they effectively control a map, by dominating the public lobbies and enforcing its rules upon them (auto kicking people, auto kick to make room for someone else at will, etc.) Normal users have 0 chance, because in Wc3 day, the bot sites had enough keys, and with SC2 being F2P, it would be worse, I could easily create 1000 bots to host lobbies and bury human lobbies way way way way down on the list (constant rehost lobbies to assure this). I've already seen this in action, some people have been vindicative of certain maps and employ bots to destroy them by controlling the public lobbies (join all games, afk ruin them or auto fucking up the lobby by screwing with teams).
As for the topic at hand. In general, business, especially game ones, say nothing because gamers take off hand comments as commandments written on stone table, with a signature from God. So unless Blizzard has committed to and has any of those things basically done and complete, they will not say one way or the other.
As for the viability of each things
1) Map Marketplace: Don't think this will happen, too much of a legal hassle when it comes to copyright and setting up a monetization scheme. IN theory could expand Storm to become more Steam esque.
2) Easy donation to modders. Again, legal consideration and infrastructure. Theoretically they could take the experience of setting up the D3 AH and reapply it here.
3) Shared Arcade between all games. SC2 ones will be shared in the sense that you will be able to play on all of them regardless of which client you have. Storm is fundamentally different enough that it will be unlikely. This is because the base storm libraries are written for storm, they have none of the SC2 stuff as standard. So you would be unable to use it as a standard dependency. Also, as of yet, we are unaware of the modifications made to storm to make latency appear negligible.
4) Editor changes beyond the scope of Storm. This is very vague. However, in general, the team who builds the engine has to prioritize the requests/requirements of the people building Storm content or Void content (Campaign, though my best understanding is that it is mostly done). So any requests we have is probably low on the list of things to be fixed/done.
5) B.net changes. Most likely, Blizzard has demonstrated the willingness/ability to rapidly change the interface in Storm, the UI out of game for Storm has been revamped at least 4 times over the last year. They may be iterating on new designs internally for void. The impression given by Blizzard is that the current Void beta is VERY early and purely for MP balance/experimentation, everything else has been basically left out.
6) See #3. It will depend on if Storm was fundamentally made different from SC2. Only way we will be able to know is when the Void editor is released and the Storm editor is released.
Funky really really likes lists.
@FunkyUserName: Go
try ActorList, it works.
Probably will never happen due to the openness to scamming. Someone will rebrand the popular maps a thousand times on there even if the author wanted them to be completely free.
They need donations? Most WC3 modders never used donations and those that did ended up being pretty much scams.
If the feature was implemented into SC2 you can be sure scammers will not wait a second before taking advantage of it. They will try and convince players that their version of your map is genuine and beg for donations (which you never see any).
Prety sure LotV is going to be SC2 3.0 and so already share the same arcade as WoL and HotS. The only difference is that LotV will be stand alone so not require you to purchase WoL and HotS to play the campaign and melee (unlike HotS which did require WoL).
Heroes of the storm will remain separate, at least in part due to the differences in assets. Heroes of the Storm is much lighter weight than StarCraft II coming in at about 4GB or less. StarCraft II will likely be 16 GB odd at the end of LotV due to all the assets. Although it makes sense that they could throw Heroes of the Storm assets into SC2 (especially via some form of cross reference support to prevent duplication of assets) it makes no sense to couple Heroes of the Storm to the entire SC2 asset set making it 4 times larger.
They said that since LotV is done they will devote more resources to modding down the line, potentially with a few other Blizzard game projects.
They are exactly the same engine. Once LotV is released StarCraft II 3.0 (WoL + HotS + LotV) will be running the same engine as Heroes of the Storm. This includes 64 bit support.
what makes you so sure about this one? RoC-Editor didnt get updated to TfT-Editor if i remember correctly. i assume that WoL + HotS stay 2.0
It's basically impossible that wol/hots won't upgrade with the Void. if you have saw the void beta client you will see it includes wol/hots melee mod, so void is impossible to have a independ client as some may assume.
I figure void's standalone = ‘sold as a standalone game’, and not it would be a standalone client like heroes.