So what you're saying is I want to be at least 3 standard deviations to the right of the mean, but as soon as that happens, nobody plays my map? :(
BUT PEOPLE PLAY MY MAP.
Ok... There is the Awful, the Average, the Awesome. But I think there is one more category: the Complex. The reason is because I've played some pretty well designed maps that have really steep learning curve. i.e. Sorceress TD, Formation Defense.
Those two are polished, the tutorial is there, all tootips are complete. Formation Defense even created numerous achievement. The gameplay and design I think is pretty good once you understand how to play. However, it is not easy to pick up and complex, too many units, and many players just leave within a few mins. A lot of users are not willing to learn. Sorceress TD might also be due to too much crash that people not willing to play...
Reinventing the wheel could be tough. You can say that games that are too complex are badly designed too.. I agree. But it's not entirely true... Sometimes the users are to blame. I know that consumer is king... but SC2 users are totally different than WC3 users. WC3 players are willing to try and explore new unique maps. That's the reason so many genre such as TD, AOS evolution DotA, Hero Defense, Open RPG were born. In SC2 too many players are 14 years old players. No kidding I have befriended many random people I played with and the age range are 12-15 mostly... And many are not willing to try dig deeper into games. They want something that's easy to pick up.
And that's what really happened. Reason Starcraft 2 can only sell that 3M in 1st month is because SC2 is Strategy game requires tons of decision making and thought. Look at Civilization IV. Great great game but horrid sales. Because too complex. the pace is not as fast. But great great game if you are willing to go deep. Compare that to Call of Duty. Also great great game but super easy to pick up no need to think too much. No brainer and boooomm! the fastest selling game ever.
If you are 10"+ then you are not average. If you are 5" - 6" then you are lolz. I think if you want to make popular map, you have to put yourseft in average joe's shoes. After all, our customer is the average joe. you can't give em something that overwhelms their ability to play...
Don't come to my thread asking me to shut the fuck up. I don't need to do an analysis of what "awesome" means because my graph works in any way. Just assume that "awesome" are the maps that you like more than the "average" ones.
well since rodrigo doesnt want to define what makes a map awesome and he is directly insulting maps at the top (indirectly) , of which i think hes refering to my map for e.g
I shall state my opinions on your maps. I think nexas word wars and debates fucking blows and its position in the popularity system accurately shows this because its not like this is some "unknown" map. Its been out there, its got exposure , PPL know about it and they dont care, you even try to cheat it a bit and borrow the name of a Very successfull map when u released nexas word wars. What do you have to say about that rodrigues? If you concentrated on making a game deeper than a type fest (aka glorifed flash game), you might have something to show at the top.
Dont get me wrong, ive stated avidly that i find the popularity system sucks, But dont come here insulting maps and expect everybody to be cool with it . Some will return the favor. Stick with saying the pop system needs overhall , Not this new argument of bullshit when its clearly at the discretion of the individual player on which maps are awesome.
I liked Nexus Word Wars. It was a unique concept that SC2 hadn't seen yet, and people liked it. It had it's problems like Rodrigo's obsession on using a dictionary, but still, it was a good map. It got to the top because it was simple, and amusing.
As for Debates, I didn't like it so much.
But regardless, Rodrigo isn't coming off as flaming, which both Jinxxx123 and Vexal are. Knock it off, guys.
well since rodrigo doesnt want to define what makes a map awesome and he is directly insulting maps at the top (indirectly) , of which i think hes refering to my map for e.g
I shall state my opinions on your maps. I think nexas word wars and debates fucking blows and its position in the popularity system accurately shows this because its not like this is some "unknown" map.Its been out there, its got exposure , PPL know about it and they dont care, you even try to cheat it a bit and borrow the name of a Very successfull map when u released nexas word wars. What do you have to say about that rodrigues?If you concentrated on making a game deeper than a type fest (aka glorifed flash game), you might have something to show at the top.
Dont get me wrong, ive stated avidly that i find the popularity system sucks, But dont come here insulting maps and expect everybody to be cool with it . Some will return the favor. Stick with saying the pop system needs overhall , Not this new argument of bullshit when its clearly at the discretion of the individual player on which maps are awesome.
Please watch yourself, he did not name a single map, HE HAS A RIGHT to say if he thinks a map is good or not, you went out and directly started trashing his maps because you dont agree with him, that is wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Random Information
Tutorials - Map Development - Galaxy wiki
|Issues? PM me|
I'm not flaming. I'm being honest. I gave my honest reaction to his post. Saying anything else would be a lie. If you'd rather me say nothing, then feel free to ban me. Then you'll have one less person to answer data and trigger questions (which I do quite often).
I also gave honest feedback in my subsequent post. It seems to have gone largely unnoticed. It's a shame, because my advice could really help a lot of people if they listened.
well since rodrigo doesnt want to define what makes a map awesome and he
is directly insulting maps at the top (indirectly) , of which i think
hes refering to my map for e.g
I shall state my opinions on your maps. I think nexas word wars and
debates fucking blows and its position in the popularity system
accurately shows this because its not like this is some "unknown" map.
Its been out there, its got exposure , PPL know about it and they dont
care, you even try to cheat it a bit and borrow the name of a Very
successfull map when u released nexas word wars. What do you have to say
about that rodrigues? If you concentrated on making a game deeper than a
type fest (aka glorifed flash game), you might have something to show at
the top.
Dont get me wrong, ive stated avidly that i find the popularity system
sucks, But dont come here insulting maps and expect everybody to be cool
with it . Some will return the favor. Stick with saying the pop system
needs overhall , Not this new argument of bullshit when its clearly at
the discretion of the individual player on which maps are awesome.
The only one who insulted maps here was you. I don't even know what map you made! And for your information, Nexus Word Wars did only get out of the 1st page because it was banned. I bet it would be on 1st page since today.
edit: If you want to insult any of my maps, go ahead and insult Platform Defense. Platform Defense is a below-average map who kept on top 5 for more than a month.
Don't come to my thread asking me to shut the fuck up. I don't need to do an analysis of what "awesome" means because my graph works in any way. Just assume that "awesome" are the maps that you like more than the "average" ones.
To understand what awesome means, we must factor in three things. Opinions, Design, and Gameplay make a map awesome. How hard did the user work on the map, or did he fail to terrain it at all? I will look at my 2(5, actually) favorite maps from the perspective of these three elements.
Debates: First on my list is Debates.
Summary: Debates is entirely in the hands of the players, and it is either extremely enticing, or not enticing in any way. The map has many features, and Rod actively maintains, adding to the social feel. The game is a social experiment, a strange crown does it deserve on battle net, for it is unique in many ways.
Opinions: Debates is an extreme game, either you like it, you don't like it, or you've never tried it. Not wanting to try new things is dangerous in the system, people find something, stick to it, and never try the new things. It makes communities tighter knit. Even in Debates, the community is tight. Moreso than other games. This community is the only reason it is played, and its eccentricities garner it little attention from the world above.
Design: Debates is a debating screen, and its whole design concept is that players run the show. Its interesting because its a map, and people looking for something new go there, because its a place to have a controlled debate and have fun, without having to join a chatroom. Its also a great place to make new friends/enemies/slaves/whatever, Debates is fun, because it is, that's all there is to it.
Gameplay: The gameplay of debates also revolves around players, and i've noticed a lot of rodrigo's good maps involve typing, be it fast paced in destroying critters, or typing complex ideas within a span of time. Gameplay of Debates does what it intends to do. Debates would be great with server-side banks, and efficient type-box dialog technology, but even blizzard's engine hasn't held Debates back. In fact, the thing holding debates back the most is the custom list.
There are pro mappers as there are pro-gamers, and there are noob mappers as there are noob gamers. Some pro mappers have less than show than noob mappers because their works are grandiose and amazing, but take time. Noob maps take less than a week, but are not hard to understand. I, for one, like maps that are hard to understand, i like working at a community map, becoming good, and becoming with the community. This is demonstrated by one such map.
Lotr series: Made by Kalreborn and Diablito, both lotr fans, lotr maps are the best and only diplo series on battle net. They are the exception to the rule of popularity. Maps on the top of the second page are said to fill slower than it, and it is on the bottom of the third. the map has developed a community of diplo-likers like me, and I am well known as a good player within the community.
Opinions: The only thing stopping people from liking lotr is the models. But I, never being one for aesthetics, take the creativity as an amazing thing, in fact, the models don't bother me as much as they would anyone else. In part, this is because lotr is a master creative engine. I didn't think fantasy could be done in SC, but when I finally tried lotr, I found that it was pretty amazing. The people who don't like it are those who care too much about aesthetics to give it a chance. It's an alluring game, one of the few on the ladder for a guy who hates tugs and tds.
Design: Lotr is well designed mechanically, but held back aesthetically. In a way, its amazing how well it works mechanically, overcoming and redistributing its aesthetic fail, which is not its own fault. Lotr has a flourishing community and this is proved by its third page map, wotr, being filled like no other third page map. In addition, the 3 other maps, trop, pre-lotr, and eriador, are hosted regularly in the channel.
Gameplay: The gameplay is great, and the foundation is solid, being a living fossil, the inspiration of Azeroth Wars if anyone knows what that is. Any diplo map takes inspiration from sc1 lotr, and as this is true, the game is clunky, but very fun. Unlike the tedious and difficult grocery store war, it is actually rather fun for a port. Even so, the game seems to never move from its spot on the bottom of the third page,yet fills up twice as fast as any map above it.
I have showed you my 2 favorite maps, why I like them. This may or may not answer rod's graph, which is not bullshit, just factors in three interchangeable factors. I hope this answers some questions.
2nd- how do you determine quality and put that into a graph? But I agree that we are limited in what we can play. Ever heard the saying "rich people get richer".. Well popular maps get more popular. Non-popular maps just dont get famous. JUST ADD A SEARCH BAR BLIZZARD
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Feel free to Send me a PM if you have any questions/concerns!
As far as I can see, most maps, even the unpopular ones suck. Every map I play makes it more clear that the makers suck at game design. 99% of the projects hosted on the front page of Mapster suck. They're all just tech-demos. So do the projects in the workspace forum. And team recruitment. They're awful.
Almost everyone that tries to make a map is a complete dumbass and they suck at it. And they use the popularity system as a means of lying to themselves. They allow the problems with the popularity system to convince themselves that they really are good at what they do, and they're merely held back by some other system.
Yes, this is true for the most part. But, I am a little uncomfortable hearing it from you. To be completely honest, there is nothing special about VTD. If you compared it by WC3 standards, it'd go down as one of the more boring TDs. There are also some polish issues (like things being named copy) that are unexpected given your personality. I only bring this up because you come across a bit high and mighty yet I've seen nothing to back it up.
As for the topic, I don't agree with that graph. There is some truth to it, in that some maps are simply not known well but would be top page if they had exposure. But, the top page maps are for the most part best in class. Star Battle proved the popularity system is workable. In fact, that's why I came back after quitting modding.
I made a point to not mention my TD. I'm not comparing my map to his, or anyone's. I would have made the same comment whether I made a map or not.
EDIT: Also, the maps I cited as examples I did not make.
I really, really wish people would listen to me. I am fed up with this entire community. All the forums (official and here), as well as everyone I meet on Battle.net itself. If they're not going to listen to me, then I wish they would at least leave me alone.
That was the motivation for my outburst toward him. Seeing a post like his was the absolute last straw and I snapped. It had nothing to do with anything I have made. Most people have never heard of it, especially because it's only on the NA servers.
Addressing your comments about my map itself: My goal was never to make a revolutionary TD. I just wanted to make a map that followed the genre word-for-word. I don't have any truly unique ideas, nor do I know how to come up with them. The only changes I wanted to make to the genre were to see what types of towers and levels I could add that were either impossible, or very difficult in Warcraft 3. It was an experiment, that is all.
As for the polish issues, I can blatantly say this I just don't feel like fixing it. I couldn't care less. I just don't even feel like opening the data editor and changing "siege tank copy" to anything. I just don't care. At all.
Also, I thought it was kind of funny to leave it like that.
I can honestly say that the only reason people play it at all is because TD's have their own category. The map was somewhat popular when I first released it, but only because I released it the day SC2 came out and it was one of the only maps to choose from. After a few weeks, no one played it.
When Blizzard added the TD category, people started playing it again because the list of TD maps was only one page until very, very recently. People continue to play it because I recently started updating it and putting a lot of work into it.
The only thing I can really say about this is that there should be more categories. It makes a huge difference. I don't understand why they haven't added one for RPG's, Strategy, and possibly one for maps needing testing. It's as if when they started adding categories, they just stopped caring the same way I didn't feel like renaming the siege tank copy.
I think you misunderstood me. I was not trying to berate you. If you had made no map at all, then I would have come down harder. Anyone can criticize the superficial aspects of a map. But, it takes a mapper to see deeper. You were lamenting about poor game design, but that's not a superficial aspect. For one to be credible in this particular regard, one has to have work to back it up. See where I am going now?
I think I speak for many mappers when I say that there are plenty of maps that are just... really unimpressive, even if they are well-designed for their genre. But see, that's the problem: average game designers only know how to make yet another cookie cutter game in a genre. Good game designers are these who take it a step further; they do something that most people wouldn't have thought of. It doesn't necessarily have to define a new genre, it just has to think beyond the boundary of what has already been done. Why would I play Nexus Wars edition B if it's just pretty much the same thing as edition A? These maps need to differentiate themselves further than just stats and terrain (and don't even get me started on the stupidity of using standard units in tug of war maps - I'm looking at you, Nexus Wars and Desert Strike).
That said, I'm pretty much in agreement with Rodrigo about his measure of quality maps despite him having never said a word to define it. You know why nothing is being said about the measure he's using? Because so many people would be offended. It seems Vexal was one of them, judging by his harsh reaction to this thread (no worries, Vexal, I'm not going to bash your map here). It's something that's not easy to say, but it needs to be said. At this point, I'm just willing to say that the popularity system in its current form is a great system for telling me which maps will suck; if it's at the top, it probably sucks (exceptions allowed, of course!). I've played Nexus Wars and I think it's nowhere even close to meeting the standard set by Castle Fight back in WC3 (again... using standard units and races that were clearly not designed for the tug of war genre). Desert Strike is a bit better, but it's still not a game I want to be forced to play for even more than a week. I've never really been particular to Frenzy maps (gameplay is boring to me, technical finesse is lacking), so don't even get me started on Marine Arena and Zealot Frenzy. The maps I DO want to play (and I'm pretty sure there are plenty of others that would also like to play these), I cannot play because of the popularity system.
I've been mapmaking for a very long time. I've made maps for Warcraft 2, Starcraft, Warcraft 3, and have a few in progress for Starcraft 2. I have seen the quality of maps evolve from one game to the next along with the editor. That is, until SC2. I feel as if the community is taking big steps backward from what we were seeing in WC3, despite having an editor that looks and feels a lot like the WC3 editor, despite having many WC3 mapmakers trying to make the leap to SC2. Why, then, do I feel like we're missing so much of the creativity we saw in WC3, even from its youngest years? It's like nobody wants to take a risk and make a map that they don't know for sure would be popular. Everybody just wants to make a map that can appeal to these looking for massively dumbed down games because these are the most popular.
So I've got your back here, Rodrigo. I know exactly what you're talking about and I agree 100% with what you're saying and your graph.
@Vexal: Go
ah... well it isnt much...... there is no lay out it randoms the path for the td... so there is no terrain.
So what you're saying is I want to be at least 3 standard deviations to the right of the mean, but as soon as that happens, nobody plays my map? :(
BUT PEOPLE PLAY MY MAP.
Does that mean I'm average? :(
Ok... There is the Awful, the Average, the Awesome. But I think there is one more category: the Complex. The reason is because I've played some pretty well designed maps that have really steep learning curve. i.e. Sorceress TD, Formation Defense.
Those two are polished, the tutorial is there, all tootips are complete. Formation Defense even created numerous achievement. The gameplay and design I think is pretty good once you understand how to play. However, it is not easy to pick up and complex, too many units, and many players just leave within a few mins. A lot of users are not willing to learn. Sorceress TD might also be due to too much crash that people not willing to play...
Reinventing the wheel could be tough. You can say that games that are too complex are badly designed too.. I agree. But it's not entirely true... Sometimes the users are to blame. I know that consumer is king... but SC2 users are totally different than WC3 users. WC3 players are willing to try and explore new unique maps. That's the reason so many genre such as TD, AOS evolution DotA, Hero Defense, Open RPG were born. In SC2 too many players are 14 years old players. No kidding I have befriended many random people I played with and the age range are 12-15 mostly... And many are not willing to try dig deeper into games. They want something that's easy to pick up.
And that's what really happened. Reason Starcraft 2 can only sell that 3M in 1st month is because SC2 is Strategy game requires tons of decision making and thought. Look at Civilization IV. Great great game but horrid sales. Because too complex. the pace is not as fast. But great great game if you are willing to go deep. Compare that to Call of Duty. Also great great game but super easy to pick up no need to think too much. No brainer and boooomm! the fastest selling game ever.
@MotiveMe: Go
If you are 10"+ then you are not average. If you are 5" - 6" then you are lolz. I think if you want to make popular map, you have to put yourseft in average joe's shoes. After all, our customer is the average joe. you can't give em something that overwhelms their ability to play...
@Vexal: Go
Don't come to my thread asking me to shut the fuck up. I don't need to do an analysis of what "awesome" means because my graph works in any way. Just assume that "awesome" are the maps that you like more than the "average" ones.
@h34dl4g: Go
Your graph was awesome. I Lol'd :)
@RodrigoAlves: Go
From now on, I'm going to tell you to shut the fuck up in every thread you post.
@Vexal: Go
doho
Um, That wouldn`t be very mature of you. Neither would such actions be tolerated.
well since rodrigo doesnt want to define what makes a map awesome and he is directly insulting maps at the top (indirectly) , of which i think hes refering to my map for e.g
I shall state my opinions on your maps. I think nexas word wars and debates fucking blows and its position in the popularity system accurately shows this because its not like this is some "unknown" map. Its been out there, its got exposure , PPL know about it and they dont care, you even try to cheat it a bit and borrow the name of a Very successfull map when u released nexas word wars. What do you have to say about that rodrigues? If you concentrated on making a game deeper than a type fest (aka glorifed flash game), you might have something to show at the top.
Dont get me wrong, ive stated avidly that i find the popularity system sucks, But dont come here insulting maps and expect everybody to be cool with it . Some will return the favor. Stick with saying the pop system needs overhall , Not this new argument of bullshit when its clearly at the discretion of the individual player on which maps are awesome.
@Jinxxx123: Go
I liked Nexus Word Wars. It was a unique concept that SC2 hadn't seen yet, and people liked it. It had it's problems like Rodrigo's obsession on using a dictionary, but still, it was a good map. It got to the top because it was simple, and amusing.
As for Debates, I didn't like it so much.
But regardless, Rodrigo isn't coming off as flaming, which both Jinxxx123 and Vexal are. Knock it off, guys.
Please watch yourself, he did not name a single map, HE HAS A RIGHT to say if he thinks a map is good or not, you went out and directly started trashing his maps because you dont agree with him, that is wrong.
@MotiveMe: Go
I'm not flaming. I'm being honest. I gave my honest reaction to his post. Saying anything else would be a lie. If you'd rather me say nothing, then feel free to ban me. Then you'll have one less person to answer data and trigger questions (which I do quite often).
I also gave honest feedback in my subsequent post. It seems to have gone largely unnoticed. It's a shame, because my advice could really help a lot of people if they listened.
The only one who insulted maps here was you. I don't even know what map you made! And for your information, Nexus Word Wars did only get out of the 1st page because it was banned. I bet it would be on 1st page since today.
edit: If you want to insult any of my maps, go ahead and insult Platform Defense. Platform Defense is a below-average map who kept on top 5 for more than a month.
To understand what awesome means, we must factor in three things. Opinions, Design, and Gameplay make a map awesome. How hard did the user work on the map, or did he fail to terrain it at all? I will look at my 2(5, actually) favorite maps from the perspective of these three elements.
Debates: First on my list is Debates. Summary: Debates is entirely in the hands of the players, and it is either extremely enticing, or not enticing in any way. The map has many features, and Rod actively maintains, adding to the social feel. The game is a social experiment, a strange crown does it deserve on battle net, for it is unique in many ways.
Opinions: Debates is an extreme game, either you like it, you don't like it, or you've never tried it. Not wanting to try new things is dangerous in the system, people find something, stick to it, and never try the new things. It makes communities tighter knit. Even in Debates, the community is tight. Moreso than other games. This community is the only reason it is played, and its eccentricities garner it little attention from the world above.
Design: Debates is a debating screen, and its whole design concept is that players run the show. Its interesting because its a map, and people looking for something new go there, because its a place to have a controlled debate and have fun, without having to join a chatroom. Its also a great place to make new friends/enemies/slaves/whatever, Debates is fun, because it is, that's all there is to it.
Gameplay: The gameplay of debates also revolves around players, and i've noticed a lot of rodrigo's good maps involve typing, be it fast paced in destroying critters, or typing complex ideas within a span of time. Gameplay of Debates does what it intends to do. Debates would be great with server-side banks, and efficient type-box dialog technology, but even blizzard's engine hasn't held Debates back. In fact, the thing holding debates back the most is the custom list.
There are pro mappers as there are pro-gamers, and there are noob mappers as there are noob gamers. Some pro mappers have less than show than noob mappers because their works are grandiose and amazing, but take time. Noob maps take less than a week, but are not hard to understand. I, for one, like maps that are hard to understand, i like working at a community map, becoming good, and becoming with the community. This is demonstrated by one such map.
Lotr series: Made by Kalreborn and Diablito, both lotr fans, lotr maps are the best and only diplo series on battle net. They are the exception to the rule of popularity. Maps on the top of the second page are said to fill slower than it, and it is on the bottom of the third. the map has developed a community of diplo-likers like me, and I am well known as a good player within the community.
Opinions: The only thing stopping people from liking lotr is the models. But I, never being one for aesthetics, take the creativity as an amazing thing, in fact, the models don't bother me as much as they would anyone else. In part, this is because lotr is a master creative engine. I didn't think fantasy could be done in SC, but when I finally tried lotr, I found that it was pretty amazing. The people who don't like it are those who care too much about aesthetics to give it a chance. It's an alluring game, one of the few on the ladder for a guy who hates tugs and tds.
Design: Lotr is well designed mechanically, but held back aesthetically. In a way, its amazing how well it works mechanically, overcoming and redistributing its aesthetic fail, which is not its own fault. Lotr has a flourishing community and this is proved by its third page map, wotr, being filled like no other third page map. In addition, the 3 other maps, trop, pre-lotr, and eriador, are hosted regularly in the channel.
Gameplay: The gameplay is great, and the foundation is solid, being a living fossil, the inspiration of Azeroth Wars if anyone knows what that is. Any diplo map takes inspiration from sc1 lotr, and as this is true, the game is clunky, but very fun. Unlike the tedious and difficult grocery store war, it is actually rather fun for a port. Even so, the game seems to never move from its spot on the bottom of the third page,yet fills up twice as fast as any map above it.
I have showed you my 2 favorite maps, why I like them. This may or may not answer rod's graph, which is not bullshit, just factors in three interchangeable factors. I hope this answers some questions.
1st- second I saw the title I knew it was rodrigo
2nd- how do you determine quality and put that into a graph? But I agree that we are limited in what we can play. Ever heard the saying "rich people get richer".. Well popular maps get more popular. Non-popular maps just dont get famous. JUST ADD A SEARCH BAR BLIZZARD
Yes, this is true for the most part. But, I am a little uncomfortable hearing it from you. To be completely honest, there is nothing special about VTD. If you compared it by WC3 standards, it'd go down as one of the more boring TDs. There are also some polish issues (like things being named copy) that are unexpected given your personality. I only bring this up because you come across a bit high and mighty yet I've seen nothing to back it up.
As for the topic, I don't agree with that graph. There is some truth to it, in that some maps are simply not known well but would be top page if they had exposure. But, the top page maps are for the most part best in class. Star Battle proved the popularity system is workable. In fact, that's why I came back after quitting modding.
@Karawasa: Go
I made a point to not mention my TD. I'm not comparing my map to his, or anyone's. I would have made the same comment whether I made a map or not.
EDIT: Also, the maps I cited as examples I did not make.
I really, really wish people would listen to me. I am fed up with this entire community. All the forums (official and here), as well as everyone I meet on Battle.net itself. If they're not going to listen to me, then I wish they would at least leave me alone.
That was the motivation for my outburst toward him. Seeing a post like his was the absolute last straw and I snapped. It had nothing to do with anything I have made. Most people have never heard of it, especially because it's only on the NA servers.
Addressing your comments about my map itself: My goal was never to make a revolutionary TD. I just wanted to make a map that followed the genre word-for-word. I don't have any truly unique ideas, nor do I know how to come up with them. The only changes I wanted to make to the genre were to see what types of towers and levels I could add that were either impossible, or very difficult in Warcraft 3. It was an experiment, that is all.
As for the polish issues, I can blatantly say this I just don't feel like fixing it. I couldn't care less. I just don't even feel like opening the data editor and changing "siege tank copy" to anything. I just don't care. At all. Also, I thought it was kind of funny to leave it like that.
I can honestly say that the only reason people play it at all is because TD's have their own category. The map was somewhat popular when I first released it, but only because I released it the day SC2 came out and it was one of the only maps to choose from. After a few weeks, no one played it.
When Blizzard added the TD category, people started playing it again because the list of TD maps was only one page until very, very recently. People continue to play it because I recently started updating it and putting a lot of work into it.
The only thing I can really say about this is that there should be more categories. It makes a huge difference. I don't understand why they haven't added one for RPG's, Strategy, and possibly one for maps needing testing. It's as if when they started adding categories, they just stopped caring the same way I didn't feel like renaming the siege tank copy.
@Vexal: Go
I think you misunderstood me. I was not trying to berate you. If you had made no map at all, then I would have come down harder. Anyone can criticize the superficial aspects of a map. But, it takes a mapper to see deeper. You were lamenting about poor game design, but that's not a superficial aspect. For one to be credible in this particular regard, one has to have work to back it up. See where I am going now?
@Karawasa: Go
You're implying I'm a poor designer? I humbly disagree.
I think I speak for many mappers when I say that there are plenty of maps that are just... really unimpressive, even if they are well-designed for their genre. But see, that's the problem: average game designers only know how to make yet another cookie cutter game in a genre. Good game designers are these who take it a step further; they do something that most people wouldn't have thought of. It doesn't necessarily have to define a new genre, it just has to think beyond the boundary of what has already been done. Why would I play Nexus Wars edition B if it's just pretty much the same thing as edition A? These maps need to differentiate themselves further than just stats and terrain (and don't even get me started on the stupidity of using standard units in tug of war maps - I'm looking at you, Nexus Wars and Desert Strike).
That said, I'm pretty much in agreement with Rodrigo about his measure of quality maps despite him having never said a word to define it. You know why nothing is being said about the measure he's using? Because so many people would be offended. It seems Vexal was one of them, judging by his harsh reaction to this thread (no worries, Vexal, I'm not going to bash your map here). It's something that's not easy to say, but it needs to be said. At this point, I'm just willing to say that the popularity system in its current form is a great system for telling me which maps will suck; if it's at the top, it probably sucks (exceptions allowed, of course!). I've played Nexus Wars and I think it's nowhere even close to meeting the standard set by Castle Fight back in WC3 (again... using standard units and races that were clearly not designed for the tug of war genre). Desert Strike is a bit better, but it's still not a game I want to be forced to play for even more than a week. I've never really been particular to Frenzy maps (gameplay is boring to me, technical finesse is lacking), so don't even get me started on Marine Arena and Zealot Frenzy. The maps I DO want to play (and I'm pretty sure there are plenty of others that would also like to play these), I cannot play because of the popularity system.
I've been mapmaking for a very long time. I've made maps for Warcraft 2, Starcraft, Warcraft 3, and have a few in progress for Starcraft 2. I have seen the quality of maps evolve from one game to the next along with the editor. That is, until SC2. I feel as if the community is taking big steps backward from what we were seeing in WC3, despite having an editor that looks and feels a lot like the WC3 editor, despite having many WC3 mapmakers trying to make the leap to SC2. Why, then, do I feel like we're missing so much of the creativity we saw in WC3, even from its youngest years? It's like nobody wants to take a risk and make a map that they don't know for sure would be popular. Everybody just wants to make a map that can appeal to these looking for massively dumbed down games because these are the most popular.
So I've got your back here, Rodrigo. I know exactly what you're talking about and I agree 100% with what you're saying and your graph.