I'm partial to many different kinds of pizza, although I heavily prefer pizza with some sort of tasty meat on it. I also prefer pizzas with lots and lots of sauce on it, so deep dish pizza suits that pretty well.
Well, I don't know if I can really produce a good example of a superior tug of war map to these being played on the first page. I'm working on a tug of war map that attempts to be different and less passive than these tug of war maps out there (customized units, more fast-paced, players are actually involved in the fighting on the field by casting spells and such; not so much sitting around and watching standard units clash). But it's not released yet, nor can I really judge it against these other maps because it is my own work, after all (I would be really arrogant to do so).
I can point you to a few really good hero defenses that are much more entertaining than Gladiator Arena (on the US server). Bluefrex Hero D, Raynor's Hero D, Hero Siege, and so on forth. I thought Gladiator Arena was bland after the first try, and even after the second and third tries, it was still bland. It didn't really have any interesting twist on the hero defense gameplay, nor did it even have very interesting abilities. The only thing I really mildly admired about the map was the character selection screen. That looked kind of nice, I must admit.
My problem with the popularity system isn't so much that the top maps are the best of their classes (because not all of them are, in my opinion). My problem is that the popularity system encourages these bad habits of people flocking to a select few maps because they're at the top and because they can't join a game further down the list without waiting forever for others. The popularity system is dulling the community's taste for maps because they find that they have to settle for these at the top...
I bought SC2 for the custom games, presuming that since Blizzard has always had blooming success with that in their previous RTS titles, this one wouldn't be an exception. I was disappointed to see that I had been proven wrong. This is really enough to make me consider not buying any of the expansions to SC2 until they get rid of this crappy system.
Sorry, Eiv, but I really have to disagree with you there on your claim that anybody defending the SC/WC3 system loses all argumentative integrity. WC3's system only became overrun by DotA way late in its life, but for the bulk of its life, the system worked almost flawlessly. People were playing what they wanted to play and when they wanted to, not when the system made it convenient for them to. Heck, even when the system was flooded with DotA games, you could still host something else and get people joining in seconds. There's a reason why many mapmakers rejoiced with the volatile system; it was very reminiscent of WC3's system in which mapmakers could EASILY pick up a bunch of people to play their new map and spread it if they liked it.
The WC3 system allowed popular and unpopular (perhaps new) maps to both be shown first thing when you clicked the join game button, and let's not forget about being able to see more games as the list updated itself over time. Map visibility was good, even with the DotA plague. But you know what? We don't HAVE to settle for the old WC3 system. Rather, we could have just asked for an improved version of the WC3 system... with say, collapsible/expandable game lobbies for the maps currently being hosted.
When SC2 was released, I envisioned a system much like WC3's, but perhaps more streamlined. I envisioned a system in which it wasn't so damned difficult to get your map out there and play more obscure maps. I remember the days when I could host Soulchess and get people to join in a matter of seconds, even though the map was very unpopular (let's say that map was in the popularity system... an analogy would be that it would be somewhere past the 8th page).
It's really ironic that you make an unwarranted claim like that (about argumentative integrity) while I've provided you with a pretty solid rebuttal. It was also really dishonest to say that WC3 only showed 1 or 2 maps at a time. The system showed so much more than that, and it only showed games that were currently being hosted, not games that are completely empty. Plus, before the DotA takeover, the list was very full of variety. There was always something for everybody.
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.
This does sound really promising. But does there really need to be an un-obfuscation method? Why not just make it an one-way hash? I can just keep 2 copies of my map - the unobfuscated version and the obfuscated version. The latter would be published, but not the former. I'd use the former for editing and then I'd save it into the obfuscated version's filename and then obfuscate it and publish it.
I realize everyone is upset about the Popularity System, the map upload limits, etc. But don't you think we should be grateful for what we have. Some games don't even have modding support, and if they do its not this advanced. We can make our own unique games with unique gameplay all in the Galaxy Editor.
And yet all that's worth nothing until they fix the custom game list!
This ONEEE fix and so many people would shut up.
Although keyboard events need a much lower delay... it makes zero sense why mouse events use the default built-in latency, but keyboard events use a much longer latency.
Ah, so that's what that's for. Yeah, I'll just try to place that at the bottom right. But I'm going to run a really quick test to see if command card hotkeys still work if I move the command card off-screen (assuming that's possible).
EDIT: HAHAHA! Success! Great way to get around that limitation with hiding the game UI.
0
Animation Set Time Scale works when you're playing a specific animation with a given name using the Animation Play actor event.
You want "Set Time Scale Global" - don't worry, that's strictly animation-only. That makes the actor animate at that time scale for all animations.
0
Autocasts, IIRC, don't work on a regular move order. They only work when the unit is idle, holding position, attack-moving, or patrolling.
In what kinds of situations is it supposed to autocast?
0
I'm partial to many different kinds of pizza, although I heavily prefer pizza with some sort of tasty meat on it. I also prefer pizzas with lots and lots of sauce on it, so deep dish pizza suits that pretty well.
0
I was just messing around, but thanks. :D
0
Where's my dog?! Roddy, my boy, I thought we had something going in that other thread with your graph. I'M HURT! >:(
0
@Karawasa: Go
Well, I don't know if I can really produce a good example of a superior tug of war map to these being played on the first page. I'm working on a tug of war map that attempts to be different and less passive than these tug of war maps out there (customized units, more fast-paced, players are actually involved in the fighting on the field by casting spells and such; not so much sitting around and watching standard units clash). But it's not released yet, nor can I really judge it against these other maps because it is my own work, after all (I would be really arrogant to do so).
I can point you to a few really good hero defenses that are much more entertaining than Gladiator Arena (on the US server). Bluefrex Hero D, Raynor's Hero D, Hero Siege, and so on forth. I thought Gladiator Arena was bland after the first try, and even after the second and third tries, it was still bland. It didn't really have any interesting twist on the hero defense gameplay, nor did it even have very interesting abilities. The only thing I really mildly admired about the map was the character selection screen. That looked kind of nice, I must admit.
My problem with the popularity system isn't so much that the top maps are the best of their classes (because not all of them are, in my opinion). My problem is that the popularity system encourages these bad habits of people flocking to a select few maps because they're at the top and because they can't join a game further down the list without waiting forever for others. The popularity system is dulling the community's taste for maps because they find that they have to settle for these at the top...
I bought SC2 for the custom games, presuming that since Blizzard has always had blooming success with that in their previous RTS titles, this one wouldn't be an exception. I was disappointed to see that I had been proven wrong. This is really enough to make me consider not buying any of the expansions to SC2 until they get rid of this crappy system.
@Eiviyn: Go
Sorry, Eiv, but I really have to disagree with you there on your claim that anybody defending the SC/WC3 system loses all argumentative integrity. WC3's system only became overrun by DotA way late in its life, but for the bulk of its life, the system worked almost flawlessly. People were playing what they wanted to play and when they wanted to, not when the system made it convenient for them to. Heck, even when the system was flooded with DotA games, you could still host something else and get people joining in seconds. There's a reason why many mapmakers rejoiced with the volatile system; it was very reminiscent of WC3's system in which mapmakers could EASILY pick up a bunch of people to play their new map and spread it if they liked it.
The WC3 system allowed popular and unpopular (perhaps new) maps to both be shown first thing when you clicked the join game button, and let's not forget about being able to see more games as the list updated itself over time. Map visibility was good, even with the DotA plague. But you know what? We don't HAVE to settle for the old WC3 system. Rather, we could have just asked for an improved version of the WC3 system... with say, collapsible/expandable game lobbies for the maps currently being hosted.
When SC2 was released, I envisioned a system much like WC3's, but perhaps more streamlined. I envisioned a system in which it wasn't so damned difficult to get your map out there and play more obscure maps. I remember the days when I could host Soulchess and get people to join in a matter of seconds, even though the map was very unpopular (let's say that map was in the popularity system... an analogy would be that it would be somewhere past the 8th page).
It's really ironic that you make an unwarranted claim like that (about argumentative integrity) while I've provided you with a pretty solid rebuttal. It was also really dishonest to say that WC3 only showed 1 or 2 maps at a time. The system showed so much more than that, and it only showed games that were currently being hosted, not games that are completely empty. Plus, before the DotA takeover, the list was very full of variety. There was always something for everybody.
Blizzard, how low you've fallen.
0
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.
0
This does sound really promising. But does there really need to be an un-obfuscation method? Why not just make it an one-way hash? I can just keep 2 copies of my map - the unobfuscated version and the obfuscated version. The latter would be published, but not the former. I'd use the former for editing and then I'd save it into the obfuscated version's filename and then obfuscate it and publish it.
0
@BorgDragon: Go
Why don't you just have one persistent effect chain into a new persistent effect to continue the offsets?
0
And yet all that's worth nothing until they fix the custom game list!
This ONEEE fix and so many people would shut up.
Although keyboard events need a much lower delay... it makes zero sense why mouse events use the default built-in latency, but keyboard events use a much longer latency.
0
@Hookah604: Go
Ah, so that's what that's for. Yeah, I'll just try to place that at the bottom right. But I'm going to run a really quick test to see if command card hotkeys still work if I move the command card off-screen (assuming that's possible).
EDIT: HAHAHA! Success! Great way to get around that limitation with hiding the game UI.
0
How do you hide the black box immediately above the command card?
0
Make actor filters work. I'd like actors that are only visible to certain players.
0
I can confirm that the crash occurs independently of where you place the validator.
0
Validators not being able to compare two fields with each other.
Like for example, you can't compare the Caster's HP with the Target's HP.