StarCraft® II

sc1 custom games better?

Posts: 69
I'm not sure if I like the arcade games as much as the ones in sc1 I like temple siege and TIA custom hero wars and a lot of the games in sc1 and it just seems sc2 is lacking something in it's arcade games im not sure if it's just less micro intensive or sc2 just hasn't been out long enough for mapmakers to get become really good at making these games or if I just don't like how it is.

What do you guys think do you think about this do you think the sc1 custom maps were better and or not and if so why?

here is a TIA match the only one on youtube I could find
it was hard to learn because you had to hotkey buildings and build units in a certain order to cast different spells and every unit had different spells you needed gas to do this and had a cap of 50 gas and temple siege has concepts between that and DOTA and a few added things and even maps that have mad it into sc2 like income wars doesn't seem as fun mayby it's just cause im used to sc1 and played it since im a kid but just wanna know other ppls opinions on this since I think it can make an interesting topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCtR3mXw1ow
Reply Quote
Posts: 69
bump
Edited by kiltedjedi on 12/9/2012 11:48 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 34
come try my map Snipers Promod US :)
Reply Quote
Posts: 351
I certainly do feel as if maps in SC1BW were more enjoyable. I believe it has to do with the sense of community and capabilities of the editor.

Sense of community: In SC1, when you joined a map, there was always the possibility that some you'd recently played with, whether it was a few minutes or days ago, would be in that lobby. The chat boxes were much larger so you felt that you were heard when you said something and didn't have to repeat it. In SC2 I often feel that I'm being ignored because anything I say goes into a tiny little box that, often times with 10+ people in the lobby, will be drowned out by what other people say. Also, people usually don't stay in the lobby when there waiting, they look at the Open Games list for other maps they might like. There was also the feeling that anyone you were playing with could be your next new friend. For some reason, it was just easier to ask someone to play another game with you in SC1 and make new friends. It was probably like that because you'd likely meet them again at some other point in another game and also because if you were mutual friends , you'd be able to see what they were playing and also KNEW they were mutual friends, rather than just assuming. In SC2, you really have no idea whether someone is in a lobby or in a game (not sure about this). But it just seemed a lot easier to make and keep active friends in SC1. It all adds up to just having felt close to everyone you met.

Capabilities of the editor: When playing SC2 games, I'm often expecting some custom UIs and crazy custom art when playing maps. If it doesn't have a custom UI in some way, I often feel as if the map isn't worth playing. It's totally not an accurate way to judge a map, but I do it unvoluntarily anyway. I also feel as if every map should have some unique capabilities I haven't seen before. I don't know if its just that there aren't any or that other mapmakers just lack imagination, but it was not like that in SC1. The SC1 editor basically forced mapmakers to be creative. Every innovative way for a SC1 map to be more in-depth was always impressive. Every inventory system was different, and every map worked in basic but incredibly unique ways, resulting in incredibly diverse maps. (Examples: Falling Tiles, Temple Seige 2, The Screen Mover, Halo: The Fall of Reach)

For Blizzard to restore some SC1 feelings: Make lobby chat boxes larger, make it so when someone says something in the lobby, make the "people in lobby" tab that appears when chilling in the lobby but not in the lobby flashes, make it so when you have a mutual friend you can see what game they're playing, make it so when someone adds you it tells you that (a simply notifcation like: "Cherry has added you as a friend!" that appears in the same way that player log on/off alerts work). I can't think of any way for them to make SC2 custom maps any more enjoyable, that's up to us I guess. Though, they could make joining games less of a hassle (like loading the map while in the lobby? Nothing discourages trying new maps out like waiting indefinately at a loading screen for a map you might not even like and probaby drop in once you join). They could make it so you can talk during loading screens! That would work.

Just some suggestions/analysis/thoughts from my experiences. :)
Edited by Cherry on 12/10/2012 3:17 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 46
Q: Why is WoL not as good as BW from a UMS perspective?

A: Three reasons.

First, we're always nostalgic for the good old days.

Second, somewhat like Cherry mentioned, the SC2 editor increases the complexity and therefore the time/effort costs of mapmaking. Have you tried looking at it?

Third, the system on Battle.net is poorly designed to create communities that play maps together. The two key problems are discovery and coordination - discovery is the process by which players discover new maps to try or communities in which to participate, and coordination is the process by which players all end up playing the same particular game/match together. These are two "problems" any online system with custom maps has to solve. (For gamemaker-produced content like official melee maps, discovery is less an issue than just coordination - hence no need for an open games list.) As Cherry mentioned, the open games list in prior Battle.net games worked well, and it's precisely because it solved both the coordination and discovery problems well. It allowed players to discover new communities and maps because they always looked at a list with essentially everything being played. That helps both to induct players into entirely new genres (say TD player gets sucked into an RPG just this once…) as well as allowing mapmakers to improve on past maps (Civ Sapphire player notices a Civ Emerald game made by somebody else; wonder if that's better…). The open games list also coordinates players because anything on the list already has to have somebody in the lobby waiting, and the dynamics evolved such that people would try to join an open game before looking to host themselves.

The current system solves each of these problems less effectively than an open games list. First, the system has default rules (previously mandatory rules) where players use a popularity system, and many of them will gravitate to the most popular maps in order to ensure they have a full lobby. EVEN IF eight players in a game of Nexus Wars would rather play something else, any one of them stands to lose his chance to play ANYTHING if he leaves the lobby to start something else. So, many players don't. (Not saying all don't; there are definitely people willing to wait or trying to start channels. But what matters is the aggregate.) Second, because this popularity system leads people to coordinate around particular maps, new maps have a much harder time being popularized. Remember, it's not a zero-sum game; Battle.net could accommodate people playing a lot of different things over time. Instead, the system encourages people to gravitate to a few things. That also hurts the ability of old genres to get shaken up by new versions by different makers. Even if EVERYBODY in a phantom lobby today wanted to try the newer, better version, any one of them leaving risks not getting to play ANY phantom because other people join phantom through a popularity list or a bookmark.

Not only does a popularity-based system (whether the old or the new "spotlight" system) not solve the coordination and discovery problems as well as an open games list, it affects the player base in a way that exacerbates the problem. Essentially, people from prior B.net games who participated in particular niche communities no longer have much incentive to keep playing. Sure, some might switch to melee or other custom maps, but what's important is the loss of some of those players in the aggregate. Further, mapmakers with little hope of somebody, somewhere playing their maps will be discouraged and stop trying. Sure, not all - but some. The loss of these players over time or their conformity to the "popular" maps means A) that everybody who keeps trying to play niche games has an even less likelihood of getting to do so and B) that it's much less likely any fix introduced now will rebuild old communities with any speed.

I don't mean to say that Blizzard has to use an open games list to solve coordination/discovery; maybe it can do something else that does. My main point is to show that the current system does not. Further, I want to make clear that having an open games list at all helps; it's just that behavioral patterns and long-term habits mean that as long as popularity is the default the old communities likely won't be rebuilt. I also want to make clear that even in an open games list popular games will get played more and people won't always get their lobby full; the issue is the delta or difference between systems, and I think it's big.
Reply Quote
Posts: 351
@euknemarchon

I don't think that the current system is that flawed. I think it has more to do with other issues.
Reply Quote
Posts: 535
12/10/2012 03:16 PMPosted by Cherry
The chat boxes were much larger so you felt that you were heard when you said something and didn't have to repeat it.

12/10/2012 03:16 PMPosted by Cherry
There was also the feeling that anyone you were playing with could be your next new friend


Simple yet important aspects that feel very lost in SC2. I do agree with Cherry's suggestions related to them.

The suggestions being : bigger chat boxes & obvious notification when added as friend & knowing which map/game your friend is currently in.

12/11/2012 11:30 AMPosted by euknemarchon
The two key problems are discovery and coordination - discovery is the process by which players discover new maps to try or communities in which to participate, and coordination is the process by which players all end up playing the same particular game/match together.


Being essentially a #1 problem which at least a few of us do suggest to strongly give a lot of weight on the open game list over the popularity to truly remedy this once and for all.

Heavily based on what worked in SC1 and WC3 and what didn't work in SC2.
Reply Quote
Posts: 14
Eh, this makes me nostalgic. I think euknemarchon is right. Thinking back, naming games was such a good thing to have. When I opened games list it was filled with peoples personalities, I would sometimes join a random game just for the cool header that host put up. I might even play the thing in sc2 if I saw something like "humans for dinner" instead of some dry "the thing v2" game label.
Joining a game with a familiar header was exciting because I knew it would probably have people from the last time. Game chains ("Thing#1","Thing#2"..."Thing#17") were fun, I felt involved in something that was going on. People, friends, joy..

The old one was a system made alive thanks to human interaction, this one is just a boring list filled with labels that don't inspire me to try anything new. Nothing changes, always the same, dull, isolated.

I guess this really is the future where machine rule over men. The price for complete control turned out to be quite high.

Would be cool if we were able to setup a list of "hot games", where if a game from the list is being hosted we would get a notification. An option to see in a lobby of which map your friend currently is would also be much appreciated.
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,098
Eh, this makes me nostalgic. I think euknemarchon is right. Thinking back, naming games was such a good thing to have. When I opened games list it was filled with peoples personalities, I would sometimes join a random game just for the cool header that host put up. I might even play the thing in sc2 if I saw something like "humans for dinner" instead of some dry "the thing v2" game label.
Joining a game with a familiar header was exciting because I knew it would probably have people from the last time. Game chains ("Thing#1","Thing#2"..."Thing#17") were fun, I felt involved in something that was going on. People, friends, joy..

The old one was a system made alive thanks to human interaction, this one is just a boring list filled with labels that don't inspire me to try anything new. Nothing changes, always the same, dull, isolated.

I guess this really is the future where machine rule over men. The price for complete control turned out to be quite high.

Would be cool if we were able to setup a list of "hot games", where if a game from the list is being hosted we would get a notification. An option to see in a lobby of which map your friend currently is would also be much appreciated.


It's amazing how much D3/SC2 made me realize I miss named games. Put aside DOTA spam in War3, or bot spam in D2, I really do miss the named game system and how fun/dynamic it was.

But yeah the people here are right that it's Bnet and a much much more complex editor that are the culprits. We can't blame "the game just came out, give it time" anymore, because at this time, we were in the golden era of War3 custom maps.

I think War3 just had the perfect blend of system and editor, that enabled noobs all the way to full-time programmers to make cool projects. Copying a unit or spell in War3 is much simpler (and there's more effects in that game). People also could integrate heroes very easily since it was a core part of the game.

Now, if you want to make a good map, you basically have to be a programmer it seems (or have that level of computer science ability), but this probably means you need art or design people to help you, so people form teams... but what do un-paid modding teams typically do? Break up or disappear lol.

I should also mention that other than going back to the named games list of War3, I don't know another solution. It's not an easy problem, and even Apple has trouble with it, as the App Store essentially has the same problem, perhaps even worse.
Edited by Onetwo on 12/13/2012 11:00 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 351
I used to be very against naming lobbies... I still kind of am...
I don't know. I'm starting to feel like it wouldn't be such a bad thing. I'd be more for a "note" option that allows the host to attach a note to the name which would be displayed like another attribute of the map like Mode/Genre. The HOTS Arcade menu will be large enough to accomodate it.

I just feel like naming lobbies would be abused and unprofessional. But I would like a method to preview the host and give back a personal feel to joining maps.
Reply Quote
Posts: 14
12/13/2012 10:59 AMPosted by Onetwo
I should also mention that other than going back to the named games list of War3, I don't know another solution. It's not an easy problem, and even Apple has trouble with it, as the App Store essentially has the same problem, perhaps even worse.


I’m wondering if that would work out.
This current setup is good for its automation, one click and you’re in game, automatically directed to existing lobby, or placed in a new one. Users don’t have to worry about anything.

If we brought back named lobbies, automation of whole process would be lost. We’d have multiple half – filled lobbies of same game, and the whole process of hosting would feel excessively redundant since we’re already picking a game from hosting list and then assigning it extra name. Even if leaving name blank (system would then name game after maps name), that’s still one extra phase between selecting game to play and joining a lobby. Such change would leave many just wondering “Why? Why the extra step, seems so needless”, nevermind the confusion that would come from game names not being map names and a dramatic increase in open games list size.

Right now, I just can’t figure out a way to integrate “spirit” of v1.0 into v2.0 without hindering user-friendliness that v2 has achieved.
What a malicious trap, v2 feels mechanically good, yet so lifeless compared to v1.
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,098
I used to be very against naming lobbies... I still kind of am...
I don't know. I'm starting to feel like it wouldn't be such a bad thing. I'd be more for a "note" option that allows the host to attach a note to the name which would be displayed like another attribute of the map like Mode/Genre. The HOTS Arcade menu will be large enough to accomodate it.

I just feel like naming lobbies would be abused and unprofessional. But I would like a method to preview the host and give back a personal feel to joining maps.


Yeah I feel like going back wouldn't be the best solution, but I don't think anyone is 100% happy with how popularity turned out etc...

12/13/2012 02:34 PMPosted by DuckyTheDuck
I should also mention that other than going back to the named games list of War3, I don't know another solution. It's not an easy problem, and even Apple has trouble with it, as the App Store essentially has the same problem, perhaps even worse.


I’m wondering if that would work out.
This current setup is good for its automation, one click and you’re in game, automatically directed to existing lobby, or placed in a new one. Users don’t have to worry about anything.

If we brought back named lobbies, automation of whole process would be lost. We’d have multiple half – filled lobbies of same game, and the whole process of hosting would feel excessively redundant since we’re already picking a game from hosting list and then assigning it extra name. Even if leaving name blank (system would then name game after maps name), that’s still one extra phase between selecting game to play and joining a lobby. Such change would leave many just wondering “Why? Why the extra step, seems so needless”, nevermind the confusion that would come from game names not being map names and a dramatic increase in open games list size.

Right now, I just can’t figure out a way to integrate “spirit” of v1.0 into v2.0 without hindering user-friendliness that v2 has achieved.
What a malicious trap, v2 feels mechanically good, yet so lifeless compared to v1.


The nice thing about named games is if I made an RPG map, the host can write "Onetwo's RPG lvl 20+ only". There's no other real way to allow that kind of dynamics without named games. But yes your last point about figuring out the spirit is really quite the conundrum ><
Reply Quote
Posts: 69
Here are the biggest problems from my perspective
1. Graphics
2. How the games work ( how you cast spells ) made the skillcap higher and the game funner
3. Popularity system

problems
1. The problem with the Graphics is the lag which limits what mapmakers can do and it's probably harder to program sc2 than sc1 do to graphics, and on top of this it limits triggers and fancy spells and just things like how many units can be on a map before it gets really laggy.

solution-Allow lower graphics I mean emulate the sc1 graphics and game to the smallest detail this would lower the graphics and all now I think mapmakers could conceivably emulate the game like so but it would probably cause a bunch of lag still enless blizzard was really cool and made something like a mappack for COD but instead of maps bring in the sc1 units, graphics and playstyle into sc2 for use in custom games whenever a mapmaker wanted to this I think would make less lag and show how cool blizzard is if they did this though im not sure if it's entirely possible.

2. The thing that made sc1 custom games so cool was how the game worked so how the spells worked you had to hotkey a building and make units
( some games combinations of units like building 2 marines and a firebat would make a totally differnt spell than 1 firebat than 2 marines and a ghost ) from them and a trigger would make your unit cast the spell and as said above the graphics also limit the spells that can be done.

Solution- well this can probably be done already by mapmakers and they jsut don't realize how cool it was to have skill instead of clicking q w e r t spells at the enemy though the thing that would be a harder fix is micro I just want to be able to take a vulture and micro it not have a hellion that has to sit there for 5 seconds and to shoot enough said.

3 the popularity system im sure it can be debated as to whether it is a good system or not but a lot of people will agree that it isn't the best system I saw some reasons it was put in not sure if true or not but it was because most the open games just were trash but I still think this would have solved itself and even if you disagree with me I know what we both can agree upon a solution that would resolve and couldn't be harmful in the least

solution-
Keep the popularity system but also create a channel or place were we can join open games. This way new games can be played and even if it becomes completly filled with trash you still have the popularity system and the list to play there and even if a dota wave went through theres still the games that are put in categorys that can be played from.

Though I believe all of these can be fixed

Graphics im pretty sure mapmakers can use there own art therefore ( theorycrafting ) they should be able to recreat the graphics from the maps and units in sc1
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,392
olution-
Keep the popularity system but also create a channel or place were we can join open games. This way new games can be played and even if it becomes completly filled with trash you still have the popularity system and the list to play there and even if a dota wave went through theres still the games that are put in categorys that can be played from.


uhhhh, do you play starcraft? There has been an open games list for nearly 5 months now haha.

They redid the entire custom games selection.

Popularity system is no longer needed
Reply Quote
Posts: 14
The nice thing about named games is if I made an RPG map, the host can write "Onetwo's RPG lvl 20+ only". There's no other real way to allow that kind of dynamics without named games. But yes your last point about figuring out the spirit is really quite the conundrum ><


And suddenly, I think that it actually might be possible.

Assuming open games list is now the default one. When you go to map info page, to the right of play/create button there is a scrollable list with names of currently open lobbies for map. By default list is highlighted on the top element which reads with gray letters as “default”. Under that element follows list of white names for others individually named lobbies.
If you simply click “play” button it’ll put you in a default lobby that uses maps name. You can however, before pressing "play" highlight other names from list, which will make you join those lobbies instead. Or you can type your own game name into “default” name to create unique lobby with your chosen name.

This way those who can’t be bothered or have no special interest will still enjoy benefits of automation, while players who want to experience uniqueness or some specifics of map, with a little effort can name lobby and wait for other players with similar interests. This provides more human driven interaction and an easier way to organize games.

You’d need to move existing UI elements a bit, and do some adjustments to open games UI to highlight same maps but I now believe it’s possible to have a more involved arcade experience, though such change would require more work. You’d need a flag to toggle off custom names and leave only default lobbies, like now (against information overload in case if there are hundreds of differently named lobbies for same map) and ability to hide lobbies made by specific users (against spammers/advertisers, a temporary measure until system bans/restrains them). Probably a bunch of other tweaks that will become apparent during implementation, but overall it’s not impossible to fuse the best of both b-nets. We should call the result “B-net Prime”, cause it sounds cool :D
Reply Quote
Posts: 46
I really like DuckyTheDuck's suggestion on how to integrate custom hobby names with some of the enhancements we've gained.

I also want to reiterate that the open games list itself needs to be reworked, in particular the categories. The trade-offs in having categories is that on the one hand people narrowing by category don't have to sift through as much information to find what they want (I will never play TD, so keep it in its own category!) while on the other hand people in lobbies and mapmakers want maximum exposure. The current categories list does not strike the proper balance because half the categories such as arena are often empty and it creates strong incentives for mapmakers to categorize as "Other." Categories in the open games list should either be dropped or the lines be redrawn to strike the proper balance.
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,098
Ooh yeah that is cool Ducky!
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,392
No they wont, They can add tags, so hosts can tag maps, problem is blizzard has removed the host public game button, with just "play game"

If they add TAGS, then a player can select a tag from the drop down, Examples.

1. Pros Only

2. Adults Only

3. Beginners Only

there is a list of about 12 that I would say would be perfect, though with just those 3 it would be fine haha.
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)

Reported!

[Close]