StarCraft® II

[Suggestions] Arcade needs these features!

Posts: 11
This thread is meant for the Starcraft 2 developers but feedback\responses would be appreciated.

The following two features would come in handy for arcade mods similar to Starcraft 2: Brood War (SC1 Remake) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=145316
1. Being able to choose from multiple maps on one mod.
2. League\ladders(bronze, silver, ect) and skill based matchmaking(as in original Starcraft 2 multiplayer).

Not sure why the first one isn't already in the game. Just wanted to give a little suggestion even if it may not be of importance. I would love to see those two features in the HoTS release atleast :).
Edited by Shadekill on 9/29/2012 5:52 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 598
I think it would be better if the arcade allows us to put multiple maps into one game icon. So that most "altered melee" mods would benefit from it(since they need multiple maps).

Another thing I think is really needed is allow the map maker to make comment for each reviews. I think the review system is a good way for the map makers to gain feedback from the players, but it doesn't allow the author to create review. If the author can reply the feedback from other players, like answer their questions, clear some misconceptions, make promise etc. would be a better way to improve the communication.
Edited by Renee on 9/30/2012 6:13 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 11
I agree to both of those statements^. A comment system would help with bug fixing and much much more! Does anyone else have more ideas?
Reply Quote
Posts: 65
I completely agree with the second statement. Mapmakers should be able to reply to reviews just not give them a star rating. That way the players know if the maker is actually listening to them or not and also it would help improve so many games. Please Blizzard! Add that Feature!
Reply Quote
Posts: 393
09/29/2012 08:39 PMPosted by Renee
Another thing I think is really needed is allow the map maker to make comment for each reviews. I think the review system is a good way for the map makers to gain feedback from the players, but it doesn't allow the author to create review. If the author can reply the feedback from other players, like answer their questions, clear some misconceptions, make promise etc. would be a better way to improve the communication.


I believe I brought this up when patch 1.5 was in BETA but it was quickly shot down because of concerns on abusing the system and the potential cause of flame wars through the review system.
Reply Quote
Posts: 11
"Mark as spam" button would fix the issue?
Reply Quote
Posts: 393
It wouldn't exactly prevent flame wars from happening, considering it takes awhile before such posts could be reviewed for spam. Also, this would also mean more work/monitoring for Blizzard staff...
Reply Quote
Developer
Posts: 99
So a few concerns about the comment-back system:

1: How will I (the reviewer) know that my comment has been replied to? What mechanism of delivery would be in place to allow me to get this information? Would it be emailed to my battle.net account? Would I get an in-game message? What if I'm offline - how would I get that message?

2: Would I want to receive this information, or would it be considered spam? If it's ok the first few times, then I get annoyed that I keep getting emails or messages about replies to my reviews, would this make it less likely that I'll want to leave reviews about the maps that I'm playing?

3: Would I be able to opt-in/out of this information? If so, when would this be done? Would it only be at review creation? Would it be at any time?

4: Would only the creator of the map be able to reply to any review or is it open season for anyone to reply to anyone else's reviews?

5: Say that everything is ok, I review a map, and the creator replies to my review, and now I'd like to thank the creator for taking the time to look at my review/feedback. Can the creator and I just continue replying to each other? Will there be a limit of the amount of replies from either side?

These are just some of the concerns that I have about this system that I'd like addressed prior to theoretically discussing this type of a system.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,720
This goes back to a suggestion I had which was to implement an in-game forum instead of or in addition to the review system.

There are a few benefits for Blizzard as well as the community.

1. The map maker can actually discuss issues and suggestions in an environment that people will actually use. I have found only a mere tiny fraction of any map's players will actually go to a 3rd party forum.

2. The map maker can make announcements about the map for things like tournaments and be a good place for people to sign up.

3. Would be a good place for players to arrange games. As I said before only a bare fraction of the player base for any map will go as far as a 3rd party forum.

4. If there is a worry about issues of spam or whatnot gives give the map maker and your GMs the ability to restrict or ban people from either a particular map's forum or in the GM's case any map's forum.

5. This would be conductive and in line with any map market Blizzard may want to implement in the future.

6. This gives Blizzard the ability to more closely monitor a map. Although there may be a 3rd party forum, sheer ease of access will make it such that the in-game forum is used more often.

7. In-game forums would help speed the recovery of social gaming in SC2 I think. The no. 1 problem is getting people talking to each other.

8. Allows Blizzard to be more aware of what the map community is trying to do as all as a great place to collect player feedback. Only a bare fraction will take the top to post on a web-based forum. In-game, due to ease of access, would be quicker for players to use.
Edited by FockeWulf on 10/2/2012 6:27 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 353
As a rather trivial but real life example I have a review on one of my maps that says "patch 1.5 broke xyz and this map is now unplayable" which is an acurate and helpful review. But no one is going to play the map with a review like that even after I fix the map.

Just as an idea...

  • a person can only post one review on a map
  • each review is effectively a thread where only the map creator and the reviewer can post but is viewable to all
  • neither the creator or review can make multiple posts in a row


eg person A reviews map created by person B.
B can add only one reply to the thread created by A.
A can then add to the conversation by replying back
etcetc

This combats spam, does not allow map creators to censor out unfavourable reviews, allows for 2 way communication without the need for third party stuff (FockeWulf was right, not many people are going to track down a map maker to talk to them)...

You are still going to have fights break out in the review section but that is true of ALL 2-way channels of communication. Have a report option available for offensive language.
Reply Quote
Posts: 21
Like Kildare, I too suggested for this system ages ago.
I would love to see this implemented.
The most recent of the posts that I made about this particular topic have already been covered in this thread, but I can't see the harm in me drawing your attention to this thread: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6307802626?page=2#30
I love the ideas so far from FockeWolfe and Turtles in the theoretical creation of this great idea...

Like the others have said, Blizzard please consider this!
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,066
I have some suggestions about reviews.

As it is right now, i think its okay, but it can definitely be improved.

I have watched a couple guys post reviews on my map, And have checked the match history of said guys.

turns out alot of the zero ratings come from guys that have literally played the map once for less than a minute and zero rate it immediately.

Ultimately i really dont care, as everymap has this problem in regards to reviews, ive seen some really bull!@#$ reviews posted that make no sense for lots of maps including mine . But i think for reviews to actually mean something, A minimum amount of games or time playing a map should be required first before a review can be given. Otherwise the review rating is pretty meaningless . A random person can literally play your map for one second and has the ability to write a written review about your map that could be totally wrong, of which you cant respond to...

An additional suggestion would be a tab for where any player can give Feedback on the map directly to the author, of which only the author of the map can read. So for example say i release a new version of my map, If there is a bug i missed, some guy can immediately send me private messages directly to the author . Ofcourse all these messages will be stored online (not via email), and there should be a tab that handles receiving and sending messages for map makers in regards to map feedback.

( this would eliminate the need for players that dont actually care about sending you emails or signing up on your stupid custom map site to give feedback ).

A quick easy map feedback tab directly to the author of a map is what im asking for.

TL: DR version

1) more requirements from players before they can review a map

2) Implement a messaging feedback tab directly and only to the author of a custom map that is handled on the battle-net client eliminating the need for 3rd party sources to receive this feedback.
Edited by Incinerate on 10/3/2012 8:18 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,720
10/03/2012 08:08 AMPosted by Incinerate
turns out alot of the zero ratings come from guys that have literally played the map once for less than a minute and zero rate it immediately.


Boy isn't that the truth.

Like Fate of the Empire. 92 Reviews as of yesterday.

Something like 90% of those reviews are 5s. The rest is 4's 1's and 2's. I think theres like 1 three.

But when I read the 5s most of them say "I love the concept and this is the best diplomacy map on bnet right now, I love the naval ships, but its imbalanced and needs work".

To which I would like to ask: "Whats imbalanced about it?"

I've even given an easy to contact email for them to use and so far no one has emailed me about suggestions. I even had a forum at one time but I think only 2-3 people out of something like the 50 I told them about it (at the time) actually used it and that was only for a few times (I haven't seen those people online or elsewhere in the last 4-5 months I might add).

Now I'm the kind of mapper that goes out and talks to the player base 1 on 1 or in a channel discussion.

I think its important for Blizzard to notice that pretty much all of our suggestions (that I've read, at least) are all aiming in the same general direction: Easier and more flexible in-game communication for map feedback and other things.

Now the reason why I would push for an all-out forum is that it allows for the greatest flexibility and with most of these suggestions I have read so far they all seem to be lacking some feature that could easily be requested or needed later that an out-right forum would cover. I know this is not the way business works but its better to do the job right the first time so you don't end up spending twice as much money in the end when you have to fix it.
Edited by FockeWulf on 10/3/2012 11:58 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 227
I want the ability for the host to be able to kick people.

I want the ability for the host to have to click start in custom games. Some custom games require coordination or understanding before you get in the game and automatically starting without having some control is absurd.

Allow voting to force start in the event host is afk.
Reply Quote
Posts: 353
you could create a trigger to boot people.

whenever someone types "boot <insertnamehere>" the trigger checks that the person who typed it is player 1 and then boots the person they named.

To me that seems perfectly reasonable but there are some who would consider the existance of such a trigger to be a heinous crime. The benefits would have to be weighed against the backlash it might cause amongst others.

As for autostarting the map I thought there was an option for that in the editor. I haven't gone searching for it so I have no idea. I also might just be imagining it.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,066
I want the ability for the host to be able to kick people.

I want the ability for the host to have to click start in custom games. Some custom games require coordination or understanding before you get in the game and automatically starting without having some control is absurd.

Allow voting to force start in the event host is afk.


This is a post without any thought put into it.
Reply Quote
Posts: 904
10/03/2012 12:13 PMPosted by Machschau
I want the ability for the host to be able to kick people.


Would make sense if players actually hosted games and if players could join different lobbies at will instead of being forced by the system into the oldest instance of a game with open slots. Giving one player in a game the ability to kick people in the lobby (or heck, even in-game) is just way too subject to abuse right now.[/quote]

10/03/2012 12:13 PMPosted by Machschau
I want the ability for the host to have to click start in custom games. Some custom games require coordination or understanding before you get in the game and automatically starting without having some control is absurd.


AFK hosts say hello.

10/03/2012 12:13 PMPosted by Machschau
Allow voting to force start in the event host is afk.


OK, what if there were troll hosts performing some action once every minute to reset the AFK clock? Games would not get started.

This was an issue pre-1.5, and it's resolved now.

10/03/2012 12:31 PMPosted by turtles
To me that seems perfectly reasonable but there are some who would consider the existance of such a trigger to be a heinous crime. The benefits would have to be weighed against the backlash it might cause amongst others.


A votekick feature isn't that bad, but remember that Battle.net 2 does not handle games in the same monolithic manner that classic Battle.net used to. Giving player 1 the power to kick made some sense in SC1 and WC3 because players could actually host a game and put themselves into the player 1 slot to police the game however they saw fit, and it was possible to have multiple lobbies for the same map so if a host was being an !@#... you'd just join a different lobby.

This is no longer the case with SC2.
Reply Quote
Posts: 300
A feature like this'll just open the flood gates for arguments. You're essentially asking for the power to second-guess someone's opinion of your map. Unless you're going to address an issue in the review, what's the point of telling someone you have no plans to do so?

If someone missed some crucial information and says the map sucks, your reply ought to be found in the patch notes, where it, say, details the new, more readily obvious location of this information.

If the review is just crap, it's even less worthy of attention.

I'd rather have a full-blown discussion board feature than this addition. Maybe if they introduce Facebook-style groups...
Reply Quote
Posts: 528
Other than my main complaints covered on other threads, I would say being able to select one of the potential games instead of only the oldest.

It will help to alleviate the AFK host issue of taking a map as a hostage (preferably in addition of a system where the AFK host lose its host status to an active lobby player).
Reply Quote

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]