StarCraft® II

Custom Map Feedback

Posts: 41
I suport all of the ideas in this thread. I could spend long amounts of time spewing out ideas, but other people have already said it.
Posts: 4,098
Great thread so far; be nice guys!

I think the war3/sc1 system of custom maps needs to be in and needs to be default.

(Idea) Organize it by map name (no duplicates) and then let them be expandable to see lobby names. This way we don't have the 9/10 DOTA issue, but still get to see the latest hosted maps. Not sure if this would work; well either way I'd still prefer the old system at this point.

The most important thing really is that you can host whatever map you want and just play it.

The popularity system isn't bad, if it is secondary! I also love how if you update your map, all people will auto-get the new version when they host/join. THAT is awesome... don't lose that :D

GL.

Edit: As far as non-bnet feedback, it would be amazing to have a wizard tool for the data editor. 90% of the time we use the same fields when making a weapon or unit or actor or item... would be nice to have a wizard where it would take you step by step in making a new unit or item or w/e... providing fields to enter important data such as for a weapon: period, effect type (and subsequent effects/behaviors if someone chooses launch missile or set or apply behavior), icon, targets, actor, missile actor, and so on... just would give us a step by step way to do it and then 'Finish' and voila, a working weapon!

Well, I haven't FULLY thought out the wizard idea... but it's odd duplicating a weapon and then finding it doesn't shoot a missile and then you realize it didn't duplicate the missile actor... and items are so time consuming to make, going back between items, buttons, units, and so on.

Detecting players leaving the game/disconnecting is also important (Player leaves the game doesn't trigger by that at the moment).
Edited by Onetwo on 8/4/2010 1:39 PM PDT
Posts: 30
Again, popularity system.

The popularity system is only good if you are a player that meets the following requirements:

1. You play casually maybe once or twice a week.
2. Your tastes in maps are the same as most other people.
3. You are not a mapper.
4. You do not search through sites like sc2mapster to download and play their maps.

Anything else, and the old sc1/wc3 room host system is either as good or better than the current system. The popularity system was a step backwards.
Posts: 21
With regards to the 5 map/21 meg limit thing everything is talking about, I think a good solution to this would be that those people that require MORE space or more maps be able to APPLY for the extra allowance. The fact is that 99.99% of the Battle.net community is NEVER going to hit EITHER limit, so why give EVERYONE extra space when they won't need it? Allow those few people who WILL need it to have the option to acquire it without having to buy another Battle.net ID. Of course, those people would have to show the reason why they need it (like they've hit the limit, etc), but this would all be part of the application process.

The popularity system really needs to be looked at and the old WC3 system brought back and made the default. Keep the popularity system, but don't make it the default. This really hampers the creativity of new maps if no one ever plays anything besides the few everyone has already been playing.
Posts: 659
This first one is by far the most important issue for me:

Allow 16 player melee maps to be possible. Quite simply allow access to the 16th slot for melee purposes and add a 17th neutral only slot, which can't be used as a player. I've spent over a month developing a 16 player map and i hate to see it go to waste with that one empty slot. I don't see the problem with just allowing the use of the 16th player and adding a non-player neutral 17th player.

And now the rest:

Allow use of maps offline. I published my map and realized the only way to play it is through multiplayer. It is not available in the "play vs ai" section. You're saying that in a situation where the servers are down or my internet is gone, i can't play my own map with the ais? That seems unfair, after the amount of work i put into it.

Maps i download should be stored on my computer, not online. I can't find any of the maps i downloaded from bnet 2.0. I can understand if someone locks their map, but not everyone does that. I for one don't mind if my map is opened in the editor by someone else, or modified, as long as i have my original one, and as long as they credit me prior to any change. The worst part of all this is when i want to play versus the ai, i have to wait for the map list to be loaded. You should store the maps in the appropriate folder for sc2, as sc1 did with its maps. This was one of the worst changes made from the original game.

Publishing maps should be a "showcase" function. I think we should be allowed to host maps as it was done in sc1 and wc3. The publishing feature, however is a nice idea to show your level of map editing, if one is interested in doing so. The featured maps can be made available through a players profile, and anyone with access to the profile can look/download/play them.

Allow people to host game with a title, like in sc1. A game title allows the user to set a few ground rules for the game, but more importantly, to allows the same people who joined your previous game to rejoin the same game, without having to add them. Not everyone i enjoy playing with is my friend, and i shouldn't have to go through the trouble of adding them simply because i want to play a few games with them.

Search function should allow players to search for maps even by author name. It helps. Sometimes you remember the authors name better than the game title. Or perhaps you want to see what other maps a certain person published.

Improved filter system. I see melee maps in the customs listing, and i see some custom maps in the melee listing. Additionally, more filter selections would help. I would suggest such filters as Tower Defense, Survival, Arena, and so fourth.

Map rating system + comments. I would really like if i could get feedback on my published maps. Something like a rating system and even the ability to post comments on the map. I understand the type of comments some people would leave are deemed inappropriate, but perhaps you can give the publisher the option of deleting inappropriate comments, like on youtube.

Make the terratron a usable unit in the editor. We were left with the impression that the terratron could be used like any other unit in the editor, instead it's just a graphic animation that can't even be selected. This was very disappointing, and would like to see it changed.
Posts: 45
The only things I can think of that probably haven't already been mentioned are 2 actions I'd like to see:

Set unit's experience - Set's the specified unit's experience points to the given real value
Award experience to unit - Adds the real value to the unit's experience

Currently, in order to restore a unit's experience when I'm loading him from a bank, I have to go through a convoluted process where I make him automatically kill units who are worth 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. XP points in order to get him to where he should be.
Posts: 8
I think the general problems have been belabored plenty. I'd like to put forth some possible solutions.Namely: Options. I'd like to see a system with named games that works alongside a published map list, where after 60 seconds of waiting for a named game to fill (or give the host the option to public list at any time), it gets flagged with general maps, where someone joining that map gets put into the pre-existing lobby before a new lobby is made.

Game variants for a single map should get filed into a directory under that map in the list, where you expand the drop-down and get to pick the mode/version you like. User ratings would be handy as well. Huge maps will have fewer games per hour than small skirmish type maps, and the points system won't help with that much.

This sounds like a system I saw in some screenshot from Blizzcon a while back.

Gigabytes per user might be excessive, but the publishing limitations will be an issue before the game died.
Posts: 167
You don't have to scrap b.net 2.0, just a keyword / search feature is really all that is needed.
Posts: 654
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/248425983 - Map Maker Feedback

http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/248425890 - Any plans to add old and scrapped unit models(and soundsets) for map editor use.

With the 20mb per account total limit, and the 10mb per map(I think) limit, adding user created models will be problematic.

Warcraft 3 had a lot of unit models for use. Starcraft 2 has a lot less unfortunately so having a variety of unit models for use would be very nice.

Here are some of the units which were removed but I beg you guys to bring back for map editor use(models and soundsets): Valkyrie, Dark Archon, Tempest(yes, it's a Carrier but a fancy blue Carrier), Twilight Archon(it looks different than the Archon), Corsair, etc.

Also old structure models like Sunken Colonies and so would be nice too.

Having a lot of units for map editor use means map makers will have less to worry about the 10mb limit per map and 20mb limit account total because map makers will have a variety of unit models and soundsets to use.

So Blizzard, please consider bringing back old and scrapped units and soundsets for the map editor use, that would be really nice :).
Edited by Potato on 8/4/2010 2:19 PM PDT
Posts: 659
A few more:

No "Premium" maps...ever. This only sparks trouble. Lots of trouble! And we shouldn't have to pay for such features in an rts. Your are taking this game to a dark place that it should never go. No additional content to this game other than the expansions should have a price tag.


Bridges in the editor should be easier to use. What's up with that? Can't i just place a bridge like i could in wc3 and sc1? These complications only slow down map editing.

Water. I do understand how it works and I've used it, but it would be nice to be able to place it in other shapes other than squares. Circle and triangular would be useful options.

Cliffs. You could have more than 10 layers of cliffs in the wc3 map editor, but only 3 on sc2. Please allow us to add additional cliffed layers to our maps.


I haven't been this disappointed since Spore.

I feel ya, man. That and Black & White 2.
Posts: 197
1. Add in a way to name games in addition to the popularity system.

2. Allow us to search for maps by name like when hosting them.

3. a) Remove the 30 second wait time, since the host can't cancel the game if someone leaves anyway.
b) Allow the host to cancel the starting timer, and add in a "vote start" feature so the randomly picked host can't hold the lobby hostage.
c) Don't start the timer automatically, so any discussion that needs to happen can

4.) Shrink the UI elements in the game lobby so that all players can be seen without scrolling when there are multiple teams.

5.) Work this stuff out in the beta next time
Posts: 91
There is a lengthy thread on this, but I will summarize:

1. There needs to be an alternative way to search for maps online similar to the organization method in Warcraft 3. The one shown at Blizzcon was a nice upgrade of that system. Being able to name our games is extremely useful.

2. There needs to be a way to play maps offline as well as play maps we download from other websites without having to publish them. The 20MB, 5 map cap per user is also extremely limiting for map makers.

3. There needs to be a clear description of map posting rules so we know what is considered inappropriate. On that note, it appears that what is considered unacceptable seems to be more restricting than the T rating given to this game, especially considering some of the things said during the campaign.

4. I have taken the time to compile useful tutorials for new users, but getting the official Wiki started for map editing would be an excellent boost to user understanding of the editor.

5. Without chat rooms and clans, it is difficult to truly socialize on what is supposed to be the future of social online gaming (aka B.net 2.0). Having these features will encourage map makers to discuss their projects with players and promote multiplayer map hosting and...well...socializing.

More can be read on this at this thread: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/248425983

This!
Posts: 19
I would like to see a system where custom maps can have both the name of the map and a custom name, as well as the name of the person who has hosted. I think this would be a good method to insure that you do not join a game with the same AFK host twice, or join a game with a host who you have played with before and would like to avoid future interaction with them.
Posts: 4,098
A few more:

No "Premium" maps...ever. This only sparks trouble. Lots of trouble! And we shouldn't have to pay for such features in an rts. Your are taking this game to a dark place that it should never go. No additional content to this game other than the expansions should have a price tag.




I have to disagree with this. Allowing the most custom/best maps to charge means more talent will come to make maps and more artists will join. This in turn will give us way better custom maps which are super cheap compared to full-on games that you stop playing in a week.

Also, it's funny how people had an issue paying $60 for this game and now they have an issue MAKING MONEY off of it...

Free maps will only be so good... adding money to the pool will up the game quite a bit.
Posts: 214
Blizzard, if you're planning on adding some of these features for "Premium" accounts you're going down the wrong path. Many people like myself will buy the expansions if you fix these problems. Just sayin. Look at your million plus sales on day 1 for SC2, a lot of those were fans of SC1 at one point that remembered all the old good stuff you had in it.
Posts: 10
A few more:

No "Premium" maps...ever. This only sparks trouble. Lots of trouble! And we shouldn't have to pay for such features in an rts. Your are taking this game to a dark place that it should never go. No additional content to this game other than the expansions should have a price tag.




I have to disagree with this. Allowing the most custom/best maps to charge means more talent will come to make maps and more artists will join. This in turn will give us way better custom maps which are super cheap compared to full-on games that you stop playing in a week.

Also, it's funny how people had an issue paying $60 for this game and now they have an issue MAKING MONEY off of it...

Free maps will only be so good... adding money to the pool will up the game quite a bit.


according to the eula everything we make becomes property of blzzard. this means we most likely wont see any profit from it. whatsoever.
Posts: 2
I got starcraft 2 just for the custom maps, and so far its been pretty terrible. Get rid of the popularity system or we will be playing the same 10 maps forever.

Just make it like warcraft 3
Posts: 4,098
A few more:

No "Premium" maps...ever. This only sparks trouble. Lots of trouble! And we shouldn't have to pay for such features in an rts. Your are taking this game to a dark place that it should never go. No additional content to this game other than the expansions should have a price tag.




I have to disagree with this. Allowing the most custom/best maps to charge means more talent will come to make maps and more artists will join. This in turn will give us way better custom maps which are super cheap compared to full-on games that you stop playing in a week.

Also, it's funny how people had an issue paying $60 for this game and now they have an issue MAKING MONEY off of it...

Free maps will only be so good... adding money to the pool will up the game quite a bit.


according to the eula everything we make becomes property of blzzard. this means we most likely wont see any profit from it. whatsoever.


The marketplace is an e-store where you'd sell super-custom maps and blizzard takes a cut. If it works anything like Apple's store... it'll be pretty successful.
This topic has reached its post limit. You may no longer post or reply to posts for this topic.

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]