SC2Mapster

Maps are sorted by popularity and this is the only sorting method. Therefore it takes more effort to play an unpopular map - you have to keep clicking and clicking, and past a certain point you can't even be sure there is anyone waiting to play a game. (Let alone creating a game and it ending up on page 257 because the map isn't popular)

New maps start at 0 popularity - all the way back. But once there are a few dozen (or hundred) pages in the list, nobody will click that much just to join your game. Meanwhile everyone joins the most popular maps because they're just a click away and you never have to wait for long. Result -> the popular maps get more popular, the new maps have no chance.

If you do want to play something different, you're faced with the issue that you can't tell which maps are actually active and which are not. Maybe on page 63 there's a map with 5/6 players in it. You don't know so you won't find it.

The lesson is that it matters more to release a map quickly than to release a good map...

I shelved my project when I realised this. At least in War3 all games are equal in the game list.

I agree, map sorting & searching must be improved so that every map maker can be equal.

Btw are you the real brotherlaz from medianXL ? if you are i thanks you for this awesome mod i've played for years hope to see you in mapmaking on starcraft II :)

<3 MedianXL

and ya get ur maps out quick(cough.. cough... myself cough) or pray they revamp the sort system.

:P There absolutely needs to be something else than popularity sort, but if the default is popularity sort, that's what 90% of the players will use. I fear many players will assume that most popular = highest quality, too. (Typical Median XL noob: 'what's the most popular and best build for class X?')

As long as popularity matters at all, this is a step backwards. More maps are unpopular than popular, so this will hurt most mapmakers. It will also make it harder to get your map started - 100% of all maps start out with 0 players.

But it does satisfy the sheeple kiddies who don't want to think about this and just want to play the most popular maps because it makes them feel like they made the right and socially accepted choice...

......

I feel like an idiot because I iterate over everything I do and therefore spend a lot of time making a good map, instead of just throwing something together and shoving it out the door...

The current system is far from perfect, however it's extremly difficult to make a good system. If you have suggestions on how to improve it, I'd be interested.

Yes: it's called War3.

There was nothing wrong with the (for all intents and purposes) random list of currently played maps. If they want to enforce publishing (so they can sell more publishing space, etc), then make it so you pick from a list of all existing maps when you create a game. But only show the actually active games to the players, and not sorted by anything.

Then why not have the master server distribute a list of active games as it did before?

I would say if the Warcraft III system was in place except all of the same maps (all versions, games, etc) were in one folder, and the folders were randomized, it may work. After a player picks Dota, for example, he/she then picks the version (newest->oldest or most popular) and then is put in a game. Also have the popularity sort, just make it a secondary choice. I'm still trying to think of a better way than popularity, but you are right, it is hard. The popularity sort may also work if it is both a secondary option and reset every day.

I think the custom game screen should have a splash page (or three) with a news feature that lists the most recent 15-20 maps published, maps released today/this week, maybe a section with top X most played maps released this week, things like that. Popularity system is fine if you want to go with something tried and true (thinking in terms of months after release), but it should be an opt-in list instead of default. Wiping the popularity list once a day would be a nice feature as well. I have absolutely no interest in named games though. The names were almost never useful (ZERGLOLKEKEKE, Billy r u here??, ASCII sequence with random map name and another ASCII sequence, and usually some lewd reference to goats), if I didn't know exactly what I was after, by the time I decided some map looked interesting enough to try, the game was full.

Quote:

Popularity system is fine if you want to go with something tried and true (thinking in terms of months after release), but it should be an opt-in list instead of default

It is much easier for the player: they no longer have to think about which maps are the 'best and most popular' (which is all people care about because they're bleating sheep); they just click a map name and instantly get into a game. However, it will stifle innovation because less popular maps will inevitably be played less, so they can never overtake the most popular maps. And the longer you wait to release your map, the further back it starts.

Also, once there are enough maps, any new map will be placed so far back in the list that it becomes completely impossible to find enough players to get a game going.

This is like a F1 race where pole position goes to the driver with the most wins. F1 being what it is, when you are a rookie and start all the way back, you cannot win. Therefore you can't move up the starting grid.

Which is why I said there should be two systems, one for recent releases that has an automated update very often (daily, preferably) that keeps pushing new maps to the top of the stack for consideration, and one for more long-term maps that shouldn't be the default window that pops up. That way, everyone who publishes gets their five minutes to make a first impression with a description and map preview that's guaranteed to be seen by many UMS players as they start to browse for a game. I also suggested a hit-list type thing for maps that catch on quickly, that should have a high turnover rate. For that matter, you could treat UMS maps like ladder rankings, scaling the popularity ratings over a much longer period of time and just "reset the ladder" every couple of weeks.

I'm trying to generate ideas here that have an oh-so-tiny chance of spreading elsewhere if the right people read them and happen to bring these issues up at a blizzard fansite chat or something. But when it comes down to it, I'm a nobody from nowhere that doesn't count. No one knows me. You have a name and a reputation, the potential to make yourself heard. So do many others here if they go about it properly. If the community is this passionate about it, then work with each other and with other communities to find a better solution, and tell someone who might actually be able to change it. If nothing happens, you have lost only the time you would otherwise have wasted complaining about it on forums. What's there to lose?

I think your idea is pretty good Ghrabthaar, it has been tried before with some success. I am speaking of Spore, which uses both recent, recent popular, and popular. It may work better for custom games, because maps are made for fun and not points (the biggest downfall of the Spore system, "free points" games). If you have not played Spore disregard this, but the system you are describing seems very similar, in my opinion.

My experience with spore is limited to watching youtube videos of critters... so I had no idea :)

Well i had an idea long ago about maps (when wc3 map community exploded and we've been flooded with maps :p ), because maps (or custom stuff) community are so large, tracking official or non-official map, revisions, popularity, and so on became such pain in the ass.

Here it is :

I had imagined an editor that will be connected permanently with blizzard server (publication or else) when you create or save a map, the map name would be checked online to see if it's free, then the map would be saved on your harddrive under your account name and recognized to be an original work from you and a special HASH would be generated and embedded inside the map (generated from your blizzard auth or something that uniquely identify yourself, your account, the map name) and the map would be crypted with it.

You will be able to publish and manage your publication from editor or special SC2 account webpage and anytime a map is edited the hash would be replaced by the hash of the person that had edited it and therefore not recognized official by blizzard server to be original.

This way you could :

Pros :

- Keep your original work from being stolen by protecting or not your map, because it would be possible to indicate that you want to open or not your map code and the person wanting to decrypt the map would need your account. The unique Hash in map could be used to do a lot of things aside from encrypt the map and protect your work (i'am sure i haven't thought of all usage :) )

- You could have favorites for maps or/and authors and track all their releases by theses criteria very easily since map would be tagged with unique HASH. Findind a map with custom search feature would be much better too.

- The map would be tagged official because it come from you and that way popularity could extend on all the map revision you've created therefore creating a much better map ladder.

- you'll be able to manage from your starcraft account or directly in the editor versioning of your map and decide to publish or not this map, and if a newest version is available forcing people to upgrade automatically or at least take the latest autorized version (in case you want to publish the 2 last map revision)

- Map names would be of course deleted from server when a map is declared abandonned or not updated for very long, not sure about how to manage this one :)

- I'm sure there is more pros :)

Cons :

- Could be heavy technically for Bnet reactivity.

- You would have less anonymity when creating map, but of course you could choose in the editor to not tag map at all and make them completly open and more anonymous :)

- System could be hacked but if the hash is strong enough and map well encrypted with it it would be near impossible (because of the online check)

- I don't see blizzard doin' it because it will make map making more difficult and less open, we know how much blizzard like easy stuff, but well maybe if it would cost 2/3$ per month to be able to pro publish map i dunno (free would be better that's for sure)

- Map could be hacked so people can extract resource from them with time (or maybe not) but well I've learned in my line of work that anything possible. But map would be safe online is think, this would be only an offline cons.

- Other cons i think but i can't find them all :)

Well there is a lot of technical issues to resolve but i don't think it's far from impossible, and regarding the HUGE community SC2 and others blizzard games have, it's not that silly to hope for a better pro-looking release system for maps or anything custom made by the same communities that make blizzard games that awesome and lively !

Feel free to comment :)

Quote from BrotherLaz: Go

Quote:

Popularity system is fine if you want to go with something tried and true (thinking in terms of months after release), but it should be an opt-in list instead of default

It is much easier for the player: they no longer have to think about which maps are the 'best and most popular' (which is all people care about because they're bleating sheep); they just click a map name and instantly get into a game. However, it will stifle innovation because less popular maps will inevitably be played less, so they can never overtake the most popular maps. And the longer you wait to release your map, the further back it starts.

Also, once there are enough maps, any new map will be placed so far back in the list that it becomes completely impossible to find enough players to get a game going.

This is like a F1 race where pole position goes to the driver with the most wins. F1 being what it is, when you are a rookie and start all the way back, you cannot win. Therefore you can't move up the starting grid.

I'm going to have to agree with just about everything you've said, except I think you might be blowing one thing out of proportion. People do tire of the same maps over and over [after a while], which is why golems disappeared in SC1 and was replaced with other map types/variants. However, I've got to say Blizzard really did it best with SC and WC3. I can't fathom why they changed it [well, I suppose I can] at all. Hell, you can't even RM anymore, which is ridiculous. Find a good group of players for Cat N Mice or Risk or Diplo<3 and want to RM with them right after and maybe get some other players in there as well? GL with that, not going to happen. Too, you can't even kick people from lobby. Its like Blizz wanted to kiddy it up. If someone gets stuck at pending and you have a full house waiting to go, but the person pending is lagging horribly or some other nonsense prepare to lose 3/4 of your lobby.

I hate the new system! /flips over a table in rage

Here's some screenshots of how spore does its map sort:

Website: http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/1421/sporesporepedia.jpg

In Game: http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4053/sporesporepedia2.jpg http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2285/sporesporepedia3.jpg

Spores "adventures" are 3rd person maps on a spherical world, played by a creature. More importantly, they are filtered by type (attack, defend, socialize, puzzle) and then sorted (default is newest, also alphabetical, popular, popular new, highest rated, Maxis created)

There are also short editable text boxes, screenshots, and tags the author can edit for each map, sporecasts to automatically download chosen authors maps. The search box that searches ALL helps too.

It may be in the best interest of Blizz to use some of these ideas.

That's my 2 cents.

Edit: Because Spore is a single player game, other sorts might include "games being hosted right now" or "games your friends play"

@BrotherLaz: Go

I'm pretty confident they'll add another search feature or two. Would be more or less pointless to even have a drop down menu if the only options are blizzard maps, popular and... I don't even remember the other 2. I went through the list the other day and played just about every map on it (including the ones way down on page 4 or 5) and I found that the best maps were the most played ones. I agree though this will be a problem when games no one has played will be so far down you can never ever find them. I'd like to see a 'popular author maplist' down the road 'new maps' and 'new popular maps.'