@Hookah604: Go
Pretty much every map below page 2 has something fundamentally wrong with it. Either it doesn't work properly, or it isn't fun.
This isnt necessarily true. And only because a map is below page 2 doesnt mean it doesnt get played. Alot of the maps you constantely see open lobbies for with decent amout of players are below page 2, however, some maps are just not suited to be played in such a massive amout that it could ever get to a one of the higher pages.
some maps are just not suited to be played in such a massive amout that it could ever get to a one of the higher pages.
That's what I'd call a fundamental flaw.
I'm not saying that maps below page 2 are bad, I'm saying that there is something fundamental keeping them from rising up the arcade. Either they're so intensive that people burn out fast (Star Strikers, Smashcraft), lack replayability, have a high learning curve (synonymous with "bad UI") or just plain don't work properly.
I'm not saying that maps below page 2 are bad, I'm saying that there is something fundamental keeping them from rising up the arcade. Either they're so intensive that people burn out fast (Star Strikers, Smashcraft), lack replayability, have a high learning curve (synonymous with "bad UI") or just plain don't work properly.
These are what I mean by "fundamental".
I would call them fundamental design decisions. No replayability doesnt mean it is a flaw, maybe the map creator wanted to tell a story and after you played through them the playability basically experices. It could be the greatest map in the world, just has no replayability. High learning curve may turn people off, but maybe the game goes for a very complex gameplay style that just cant be learned quickly (and shouldnt). Or maybe a map is designed to be hyper intensive and not the passive timewasters alot of the higher page maps are. Doesnt mean that they are bad or fundamentally flawed, it just means they dont fit the criteria that helps maps rise to the top and the map makers were going for a different kind of approach and did not design they map around the idea of getting the most clicks per day (which, as I want to add, is a pretty pointless thing to do. Make the maps you want to make, dont make a map just because it has the potential to be popular).
Just means its a different type of map. You cant just throw some attributes at a map and then say they are fundamentally flawed just because they dont have them.
I still believe the top played lists should simply be removed (or it least not be default) alltogether, they cause nothing but frustration and a big snowball effect.
While other filters like top rated may also cause frustration, they at least dont cause snowball effects, since a top rated map can still be rated bad.
Same goes for the rating system: Most helpful seriously just gets abused, and once a couple of ratings are at the top they will stay forever. Most recent should be the default view, or most helpful should be entirely removed.
I'd also like to add that the way the popularity system works, as in calculating what's rank 1 what's rank 10 etc. can be painful. Maps that are slow, long and drawn out, i.e. easily last up to an hour or longer, but have replayability, These dominate the top tier listings.
Since it calculates duration * amount of players, you cannot make short quick maps or even medium duration.
I'd also like to add that the way the popularity system works, as in calculating what's rank 1 what's rank 10 etc. can be painful. Maps that are slow, long and drawn out, i.e. easily last up to an hour or longer, but have replayability, These dominate the top tier listings.
Since it calculates duration * amount of players, you cannot make short quick maps or even medium duration.
Desert Strike games last 12-18 Blizzard minutes (7-11 real minutes).
I don't think game length matters too much to be honest. I think variability between matches and level of intensity are what make a map do well on the popularity system.
It is interesting how WC3 had this "golden era" but now the bots have completely taken over and now it essentially has the same grievances that people complain about SC2 and then some. It pays to look at things as they are, not as they were in some dead past forever from now.
On the other hand "slow and steady wins it." Is SC2 the tortoise that beats the hare? People seem convinced that SC2's "peak" came and went. Maybe it is yet to come? Blizzard's support for the Arcade is already unprecedented (for them), and now there is a second game that uses the exact SC2 engine. SC2 is shaping up to be some kind of prodigal son for Blizzard.
At the very least, its upcoming spiritual successor, the next "RTS-and-all-in-one thing" is so far off that, for all practical purposes, SC2 and Arcade is irreplaceable, untouchable, nothing quite like it.
My only grievance with SC2 seems to have subsided, that is the terrible, terrible damage from patches... I used to criticize people for not "immortalizing" their work with single player compatibility... so much for that eh! But should be smooth sailing from here.
What? How would you take advantage of that? Are you frequently typing your passwords into sc2 while playing sc2 maps?
How about sending input from your computer to the server back to everyone's computer as an explanation for delays (just like every other game input)?
I'm not sure how this would be taken advantage of but I swear I read some where that this is why blizzard didn't want to do it. I'm not really clear on it myself.
On the other hand "slow and steady wins it." Is SC2 the tortoise that beats the hare? People seem convinced that SC2's "peak" came and went. Maybe it is yet to come?
What are the "bots" that people keep referring to from the WC3 days?
Because very few people can host WC3 maps, people made bots to host them. Unfortunately, the bots are so prevalent that they create an absolute ton of open games, meaning that you're very lucky if you find more than 4 people in a single lobby.
So I guess we should all take the bnet as it is and make very very simple remakes. (and you should all add achievements and unlockable things by progression)
I dont think the people who make maps enjoying doing that...
Btw, almost everyone could have hosted games on w3, it just needed some figuring out, which kinda sorted out retards from hosting to some degree. (and with bots everybody could hosted)
@Hookah604: Go
Unless you're implying that it's not possible to have a map that's easy to learn, fun to play, replayable and deep at the same time?
Show me one.
(edit: you get extra points if its not a remake)
edit2: btw I just wanted to point out that people usually dont make maps with the only aim to make it popular. People make games that they like and they want to play their games with others without waiting hours to get the lobby filled up.
Show me one.
(edit: you get extra points if its not a remake)
Sure.
All regular page 1, most regular page 2 maps, and a fine peppering of sub-page-2 maps.
I should note that I didn't say "polished" nor "professional" in my list of attributes. Those things are icing on the cake, they don't make a game good by themselves though.
Seems like you dont want to go into pointing on thing, so I will do it.:
Take the most popular map, Squadron Tower Defense. Once you learn the timings, tell me what is replayable, deep and fun in it? Even without knowing timings for builders its not really deep.
Mines and Magic did a good take on it and made it deep and replayable as you can no longer do all the same builds at each game in it...
Not to mention the 2nd most popular map, Lottery defense. Show me where is that deep?
@Hookah604: Go
I just don't agree. Good maps float to the top of the arcade without even having to advertise.
Pretty much every map below page 2 has something fundamentally wrong with it. Either it doesn't work properly, or it isn't fun.
Those maps wouldn't have faired any better on WC3, and I don't think being able to name lobbies would change much. I strongly prefer the SC2 system.
Go check out WC3. It's still there. The custom map system is painful to use, especially in groups.
This isnt necessarily true. And only because a map is below page 2 doesnt mean it doesnt get played. Alot of the maps you constantely see open lobbies for with decent amout of players are below page 2, however, some maps are just not suited to be played in such a massive amout that it could ever get to a one of the higher pages.
That's what I'd call a fundamental flaw.
I'm not saying that maps below page 2 are bad, I'm saying that there is something fundamental keeping them from rising up the arcade. Either they're so intensive that people burn out fast (Star Strikers, Smashcraft), lack replayability, have a high learning curve (synonymous with "bad UI") or just plain don't work properly.
These are what I mean by "fundamental".
I would call them fundamental design decisions. No replayability doesnt mean it is a flaw, maybe the map creator wanted to tell a story and after you played through them the playability basically experices. It could be the greatest map in the world, just has no replayability. High learning curve may turn people off, but maybe the game goes for a very complex gameplay style that just cant be learned quickly (and shouldnt). Or maybe a map is designed to be hyper intensive and not the passive timewasters alot of the higher page maps are. Doesnt mean that they are bad or fundamentally flawed, it just means they dont fit the criteria that helps maps rise to the top and the map makers were going for a different kind of approach and did not design they map around the idea of getting the most clicks per day (which, as I want to add, is a pretty pointless thing to do. Make the maps you want to make, dont make a map just because it has the potential to be popular).
Just means its a different type of map. You cant just throw some attributes at a map and then say they are fundamentally flawed just because they dont have them.
@Crainy: Go
If someone deliberately chose any of the points you raised, I would argue that they are developing for the wrong platform.
I'm not saying "x choices are bad", I'm saying "x choices aren't going to do well on the arcade".
Very good and constructive talk in here! :)
I still believe the top played lists should simply be removed (or it least not be default) alltogether, they cause nothing but frustration and a big snowball effect.
While other filters like top rated may also cause frustration, they at least dont cause snowball effects, since a top rated map can still be rated bad.
Same goes for the rating system: Most helpful seriously just gets abused, and once a couple of ratings are at the top they will stay forever. Most recent should be the default view, or most helpful should be entirely removed.
But "doing well on the arcade" is a very subjective thing. Not every mapper wants his maps to be the number 1 front page page 1 map.
I'd also like to add that the way the popularity system works, as in calculating what's rank 1 what's rank 10 etc. can be painful. Maps that are slow, long and drawn out, i.e. easily last up to an hour or longer, but have replayability, These dominate the top tier listings.
Since it calculates duration * amount of players, you cannot make short quick maps or even medium duration.
Marine Arena begs to disagree.
@Fullachain: Go
Desert Strike games last 12-18 Blizzard minutes (7-11 real minutes).
I don't think game length matters too much to be honest. I think variability between matches and level of intensity are what make a map do well on the popularity system.
It is interesting how WC3 had this "golden era" but now the bots have completely taken over and now it essentially has the same grievances that people complain about SC2 and then some. It pays to look at things as they are, not as they were in some dead past forever from now.
On the other hand "slow and steady wins it." Is SC2 the tortoise that beats the hare? People seem convinced that SC2's "peak" came and went. Maybe it is yet to come? Blizzard's support for the Arcade is already unprecedented (for them), and now there is a second game that uses the exact SC2 engine. SC2 is shaping up to be some kind of prodigal son for Blizzard.
At the very least, its upcoming spiritual successor, the next "RTS-and-all-in-one thing" is so far off that, for all practical purposes, SC2 and Arcade is irreplaceable, untouchable, nothing quite like it.
My only grievance with SC2 seems to have subsided, that is the terrible, terrible damage from patches... I used to criticize people for not "immortalizing" their work with single player compatibility... so much for that eh! But should be smooth sailing from here.
Hey,
What are the "bots" that people keep referring to from the WC3 days?
I'm not sure how this would be taken advantage of but I swear I read some where that this is why blizzard didn't want to do it. I'm not really clear on it myself.
This more or less summarizes my thoughts.
Because very few people can host WC3 maps, people made bots to host them. Unfortunately, the bots are so prevalent that they create an absolute ton of open games, meaning that you're very lucky if you find more than 4 people in a single lobby.
Look guys, I am returning to the Arcade as a developer soon, don't worry!
I will save us. :)
@TyaStarcraft: Go
So I guess we should all take the bnet as it is and make very very simple remakes. (and you should all add achievements and unlockable things by progression)
I dont think the people who make maps enjoying doing that...
Btw, almost everyone could have hosted games on w3, it just needed some figuring out, which kinda sorted out retards from hosting to some degree. (and with bots everybody could hosted)
@Hookah604: Go
I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
Unless you're implying that it's not possible to have a map that's easy to learn, fun to play, replayable and deep at the same time?
Show me one.
(edit: you get extra points if its not a remake)
edit2: btw I just wanted to point out that people usually dont make maps with the only aim to make it popular. People make games that they like and they want to play their games with others without waiting hours to get the lobby filled up.
Sure.
All regular page 1, most regular page 2 maps, and a fine peppering of sub-page-2 maps.
I should note that I didn't say "polished" nor "professional" in my list of attributes. Those things are icing on the cake, they don't make a game good by themselves though.
@TyaStarcraft: Go
Grats for not direct answering.
Seems like you dont want to go into pointing on thing, so I will do it.:
Take the most popular map, Squadron Tower Defense. Once you learn the timings, tell me what is replayable, deep and fun in it? Even without knowing timings for builders its not really deep.
Mines and Magic did a good take on it and made it deep and replayable as you can no longer do all the same builds at each game in it...
Not to mention the 2nd most popular map, Lottery defense. Show me where is that deep?