Currently, money can be made via donations and semi purchased content (for example, -Mafia-) and that doesn't seem to motivate people very much.
Anyway, what would successful paid content look like? Not sure there's any situation I think would be worth the hassle. It's a nice thought from Blizzard, but it would be so much more applicable and realistic to just add in game donating, like as a tab under Reviews. And if they really want us to be able to sell content, add a function that'll return how many dollars a player has donated.
Selecting a few key developers/only having new games contain paid content/having professionals make games on an engine that's too complicated for new people and too limited for professionals... It's just seems so impractical.
If someone were to use non commonly recognized assets (abandonware) they didn't have the rights to, and a person pointed it out to Blizzard, would that be enough for Blizzard to investigate/disqualify the map, or would Blizzard require action/notice from the company/person that created the assets?
I'm just wondering if it's possible that we're going to see people trying to get each other disqualified.
" ... you own all rights to all Entry Materials submitted by you ... "
Question, does owning the rights to something mean that you're like the exclusive owner person of it? Like, is simply asking for permission to use something not enough, you have to actually like, ask the person to transfer the rights to the assets to you? Or does owning the rights to something just mean that you're allowed to use it, like multiple people can "own" the rights to it, just by asking if they can use it?
I had a compatible version of an old WoW and an old version of WMV that worked together on my old computer but I didn't save the versions.
Does anybody know of/use compatible versions of them and could provide the download links? I'd rather not install 100 gb + of WoWs trying to find one that works with a WMV that can export m3.
Otherwise, if someone wants to export for me the "woodendummy.m2" (in m3, ofc) that would be great.
I'd imagine as long as least one recurring theme in the game is strictly fantasy, it'd be acceptable.
The conventional option is to use the War3 assets and so that the art is already going that fantasy direction, and the recurring themes in the game will likely follow naturally.
As long as the maker gets creative and makes a large part of the game 'fantastical' it'll be okay, regardless of whatever strict (they're not being strict) parameters they give us. For example, I'd imagine calling tribal Protoss group some random name like Woogles and giving them magical powers (something like fire/frost power) would be entirely acceptable. On the other hand, I'd imagine using War3 assets alone wouldn't be acceptable (i.e. a massing game that uses War3 models). It probably has to have that fantasy context as well.
It seems like people just want the definition to be as vague as possible so that they can submit whatever current/past projects they're working on.
I don't think hacking is that big of a problem. Using the signature (with which I have encountered a few errors before) functionality prevents 90% of people from hacking, and encryption would stop 99% of people (obvious guesstimation). For those who can't make their own encryption, there are several libraries.
The easiest and most common way to hack banks is to simply copy someone else's (I've seen this on D3scene for Arcade map banks like here.) and that's preventable by simply including the handle ID.
Somebody bypassing all that, in addition to the banks being stored with the server, should just be flattering to the maker.
Anyway, I think the biggest plus to having server-side banks would be that the same information can be accessed from multiple computers. Most players don't know that banks are local, and expect to be able to access the same banks from any computer. It would also probably solve that awkward resetting bank issue.
tl;dr: who cares about hacking, safe information is what really matters.
I don't know if it made it on the audio, but one of the things they mentioned at Blizzcon was that they were unsure of the reasons we asked for certain features (as to implement those features correctly, addressing the reasons said features were being requested).
Mostly this was directed at server-side banks. I take their openness towards server banks to mean server-side banks are possible and reasonable to implement.
They wanted to be sure that the way server banks were implemented addressed our desires for server-side banks. (For example, if it were to prevent hacking, server-side banks can still be hacked(*?))
Perhaps we could use this thread, or a new one, to outline what we'd like to see in server-side banks?
"I'm curious though, what is it that prevents this particular fire-model from being looped in the same way as other types of fire-models?"
That's just how it was made. There's no setting in the editor that determines if a model is looped or not. (the model itself determines that)
"Is there a risk that it causes lag? The fire model lasts ca 2-3 seconds, and I estimate that it can be between 25-100 buffs on the battlefield at the same time in a game. (Depending on how players play of course)"
As long as the actors are being deleted, the only cause of lag is going to be from simply having that many models out. (if that was your question)
I wonder what they mean by theme for Rock the Cabinet, like a general concept (replayability, accessibility, etc.) or a genre (puzzles, rpg, etc.)? I hope not genre.
0
Currently, money can be made via donations and semi purchased content (for example, -Mafia-) and that doesn't seem to motivate people very much.
Anyway, what would successful paid content look like? Not sure there's any situation I think would be worth the hassle. It's a nice thought from Blizzard, but it would be so much more applicable and realistic to just add in game donating, like as a tab under Reviews. And if they really want us to be able to sell content, add a function that'll return how many dollars a player has donated.
Selecting a few key developers/only having new games contain paid content/having professionals make games on an engine that's too complicated for new people and too limited for professionals... It's just seems so impractical.
0
If someone were to use non commonly recognized assets (abandonware) they didn't have the rights to, and a person pointed it out to Blizzard, would that be enough for Blizzard to investigate/disqualify the map, or would Blizzard require action/notice from the company/person that created the assets?
I'm just wondering if it's possible that we're going to see people trying to get each other disqualified.
0
@johnfloyd: Go
Dialog - Hooks up an existing Panel in the standard UI called "UIContainer/ConsoleUIContainer/CommandPanel"
Dialog - Move (Last created dialog item) to (-5000, -5000) relative to Bottom Right of dialog for (All players)
@GlornII: Go
hehehehehehehehehehehehe
0
" ... you own all rights to all Entry Materials submitted by you ... "
Question, does owning the rights to something mean that you're like the exclusive owner person of it? Like, is simply asking for permission to use something not enough, you have to actually like, ask the person to transfer the rights to the assets to you? Or does owning the rights to something just mean that you're allowed to use it, like multiple people can "own" the rights to it, just by asking if they can use it?
0
I had a compatible version of an old WoW and an old version of WMV that worked together on my old computer but I didn't save the versions.
Does anybody know of/use compatible versions of them and could provide the download links? I'd rather not install 100 gb + of WoWs trying to find one that works with a WMV that can export m3.
Otherwise, if someone wants to export for me the "woodendummy.m2" (in m3, ofc) that would be great.
Thankssss.
0
So Blizzard might start doing those map night things again, yeah?
0
@Trieva: Go
I'd imagine as long as least one recurring theme in the game is strictly fantasy, it'd be acceptable.
The conventional option is to use the War3 assets and so that the art is already going that fantasy direction, and the recurring themes in the game will likely follow naturally.
As long as the maker gets creative and makes a large part of the game 'fantastical' it'll be okay, regardless of whatever strict (they're not being strict) parameters they give us. For example, I'd imagine calling tribal Protoss group some random name like Woogles and giving them magical powers (something like fire/frost power) would be entirely acceptable. On the other hand, I'd imagine using War3 assets alone wouldn't be acceptable (i.e. a massing game that uses War3 models). It probably has to have that fantasy context as well.
It seems like people just want the definition to be as vague as possible so that they can submit whatever current/past projects they're working on.
0
@penguinwars: Go
(and get rid of player 15).
0
@penguinwars: Go
Make player 0 a player then o.O
(and get rid of player 15).
"... not waste array space. "
Oh, the inhumanity!
0
@finiteturtles: Go
I don't think hacking is that big of a problem. Using the signature (with which I have encountered a few errors before) functionality prevents 90% of people from hacking, and encryption would stop 99% of people (obvious guesstimation). For those who can't make their own encryption, there are several libraries.
The easiest and most common way to hack banks is to simply copy someone else's (I've seen this on D3scene for Arcade map banks like here.) and that's preventable by simply including the handle ID.
Somebody bypassing all that, in addition to the banks being stored with the server, should just be flattering to the maker.
Anyway, I think the biggest plus to having server-side banks would be that the same information can be accessed from multiple computers. Most players don't know that banks are local, and expect to be able to access the same banks from any computer. It would also probably solve that awkward resetting bank issue.
tl;dr: who cares about hacking, safe information is what really matters.
0
While we're being constructive...
I don't know if it made it on the audio, but one of the things they mentioned at Blizzcon was that they were unsure of the reasons we asked for certain features (as to implement those features correctly, addressing the reasons said features were being requested).
Mostly this was directed at server-side banks. I take their openness towards server banks to mean server-side banks are possible and reasonable to implement.
They wanted to be sure that the way server banks were implemented addressed our desires for server-side banks. (For example, if it were to prevent hacking, server-side banks can still be hacked(*?))
Perhaps we could use this thread, or a new one, to outline what we'd like to see in server-side banks?
0
@Kabelkorven: Go
"I'm curious though, what is it that prevents this particular fire-model from being looped in the same way as other types of fire-models?"
That's just how it was made. There's no setting in the editor that determines if a model is looped or not. (the model itself determines that)
"Is there a risk that it causes lag? The fire model lasts ca 2-3 seconds, and I estimate that it can be between 25-100 buffs on the battlefield at the same time in a game. (Depending on how players play of course)"
As long as the actors are being deleted, the only cause of lag is going to be from simply having that many models out. (if that was your question)
0
@akluffy: Go
It's possible.
Graphs would be easiest to make as scatter plots, though.
0
I wonder what they mean by theme for Rock the Cabinet, like a general concept (replayability, accessibility, etc.) or a genre (puzzles, rpg, etc.)? I hope not genre.
0
@Traysent: Go
I'll be going as well (Cherry on SC2/co-dev of Ultimate Boss Battles).