Hi. I produce Custom Content. I am greatly concerned about the direction Blizzard is taking and if they do not turn back they will massively harm the communities I have taken part in and helped grow over the decade of my production life.
DotA, Legacy of the Confederation, Wanderers of Sorceria, Armageddon Onslaught. These are all projects generalized by custom content. Python, luna, Heartbreak Ridge, these are custom content as well!
Although it has been mentioned several times already in posts I'd like to, again, bring to light the view of an individual who is a major modder (not a mapper, exactly) and custom content producer as well as get all of the facts into one major place.
- There is NO local hosting on battle.net 2.0 and probably won't ever be. - You can only have 5 maps or "mods" (which aren't even mods) on Battle.net, anything else you've got cannot and will never be multiplayer unless you sacrifice an existing project. - You have a 20mb global limit across everything and a 10mb limit individually. - The editor censors whatever Battle.net censors and refuses uploads. "Suicide", "God", and "Blow" are amongst the words that - even if only contained in editor-related strings - will prevent you from ever playing your map online. Starcraft 1 was rated M on release and Sc2 will be rated T on release. Blizzard was not liable for any obscene content on custom projects until they introduced this system. Hot Coffee, anyone?
Now, hold up. Before I begin tearing this apart I'd like to establish some basic concepts for you.
First of all, what entails a "big" project and why am I so concerned?
"DotA" is not a big project. At least not in the content sense - it's had a long development life, is advanced, and has a lot of fancy new data and triggering systems. But its graphics are, for the most part, kitbashes, and its custom sounds are largely stolen from Unreal Tournament, of which there is only a handful. Despite this, DotA is already 6.8 megabytes in size!
Only in campaigns like those I produced privately would custom asset content breathe freely in.
In warcraft a unit has one texture (usually). You can call multiple textures if you want to, like for particles, and you can get by. People skirt around this size limit by producing extremely ugly, low-poly low-resolution garbage that looks TERRIBLE. You can't do what RCX does and use custom textures for all of your new shit. But wc3 only has ONE texture per unit that is mandatory - diffuse, and they are often very low resolution. You CAN go higher res (I used WoW graphics in LoL) but most people are too petrified of it.
In a new engine, let's say Sc2, you've got more textures to worry about. Oh, and they're DDS, so they've also got mipmap data as well.
Diffuse Specular Emissive (Lightmap) Normal
They often have other maps, too. For example, the Carrier has a second set of custom maps for its short death animation. Their resolution is also much higher - easily going up to 1024x1024. This is STANDARD and has been for many years.
In order to make any significant project you would have to abandon custom graphics as a whole or reduce your custom graphics to such a low point in quality that there is no point in even having them. In wc3 I consider WoW graphics the minimum level of quality of custom content I want to be adding into the game - I want the game to look BETTER, not WORSE.
Additionally, voice acting. Any "big" project will have fully voice acted dialogue and unit responses, but these will never make it onto battle.net. Blizzard's "mod" system is not a real mod system as it's still dependent on maps and it is STILL restricted by the 10mb limit, making it utterly pointless. What about custom music? Even as low-quality mp3s, which grate the ears and destroy your project's sense of immersion, still take up significant space when your quota is so tiny.
I used to compose music. If I ever wanted to try to run two sound cards at once, I could potentially compose music once more. But I would never be able to put this music in a multiplayer project.
You and I both know that custom sounds can take a lot space, especially if you want full-blown dialogue. Better luck in another game bro, half of 10mb is easily going into map data BEFORE any custom content.
In Wc3 I had a map that was 120mb. I used an external exe to hold all that data, and individuals had to download it separately (it was a private project so this was fine). This will no doubt be necessary in sc2, but no way would I ever make a multiplayer project in this game.
Sc2's maps will be considerably larger than wc3. The terrain mesh is extremely large, and the trigger data is also larger. The void that you will be able to fill with custom content will allow very little, and from what I've read...
Also I tried something : Made a 32x8 map, just changed a race thingy or two, saved. On drive, it takes 23 KB then publish it privately ... 500 KB.
The maps also integrate patch data.
But, whatever, right? I can still probably use external exes or, as long as Bluzzard doesn't enforce CRC checks, I can even replace the patch mpqs and externally load my assets, leaving the map small. This problem can be worked around.
But the lack of local hosting is absolutely dumbfounding. Who the hell comes up with this shit? I have yet to play or hear of an RTS that doesn't allow you to host your maps. The fact you are REQUIRED to publish your maps, and thus REQUIRED to adhere to the 5 map limit and censorship, will no doubt massacre all those hoping to remake sc1 maps or get into melee mapping at all. And if you delete a map, it's gone, as is the name. In fact, on release you can just publish and delete maps to reserve a plethora of general names, cockblocking everyone else! No doubt many people will be fighting to do just that just so they can keep their project's name. If Blizzard allows users to have non-unique names why not maps, too?
Furthermore, why can't you name games? What the hell, mang? Where's the DoTA -sp -em names, or will the host have to TELL everyone what the settings are when they join? The logistics of this are truly brain damaging.
A lot of people are bitching about Battle.net after patch 13 but this is a bitch about battle.net as a whole. Everything from the lack of LAN to the lack of local hosting clearly paints a picture of Blizzard's desire for complete and total control, control with greasy, gnarly hands soaked in the blood of those who wanted to make content for this game but ran face-first into the spiked walls that is Blizzard's restrictions. The entire point of custom content is to break past restrictions, to exceed and push into new things! Only now are people realizing they've been getting screwed all along, but people like me have been bitching from the very start and nothing has been done besides make the ui slightly more shiny. Oh come off it, Blizzard.
I don't care about "Casuals". That term isn't even used properly. Casuals are a stereotype Blizzard has employed so they can ignore the fanbase as a whole and strike up deals with Facebook. Everyone blames this on the "Casual" player but in reality we are all casual players unless we are those slanty-eyed heroes in booths throughout the OSL or WCG.
I am a Casual Player. I spend every waking moment of every day contributing to an overall overarching gameplan of modmaking and custom content, or working on my novel. I have been producing custom projects for 10 years. I am still a casual player because I am doing this for my own enjoyment and nothing more. The second you turn away from that and start thinking about your wallet instead of yourself you aren't casual anymore and you have lost sight about what this entire devotion is for.
The fact is, is that Blizzard is not "catering to the casual player because they want to make money". The fact is, is that they are unwilling to provide basic, fundamental features to us because they want control. Total control. I am sure that by release these restrictions will alleviate to a degree but I doubt local hosting, game names, some things CRITICAL to the growth and progression of custom content will ever make it in.
Blizzard has handed you a powerful editor that has the most disorganized and haphazard layout possible, and is riddled in so many restrictions and strings that the majority of projects will never make it to the mainstream regardless. The censorship ordeal is one of the most mind-numbing things I have seen come out of this trainwreck and, believe me, I'm privy to a lot more information that you may think. I know they are still working on the editor and I know there are two different teams at play here, and the battle.net team is in dire need of being fired all-in and rebuilt from the ground up. As much as I hate Browder, he is not responsible for this.
I am concerned. I am deeply, deeply concerned. I am concerned because I have been waiting for this game since it was announced, and now I have seen before my own eyes the failure that it has become. From a modder's standpoint this is a worst-case scenario, exceeded only by ZuxxeZ, the creator of E2160, restricting the editor to who it deems right. With sc2 we have the editor but scarcely the means to express our projects.
I have done, and said, all I can do. I have had my words brought into the very dev team of the editor themselves, and that I believe was responsible of the addition of tabs in the data editor's ui in patch 13. This is a step forward. One of many we must take to bring this game to the glory that is Starcraft 1. But this here, this is a whole different ball field of stupidity.
I have no good things to say about Battle.net 2.0. The interface and the functionality are insults to me. I have used a lot of awful services, from Gamespy, to GPG.net, to Westwood Online, to EA's services, to Windows Live! For Games. But you know what? I'd take any of those over this. They did not go out of their way to screw me in the ass with a piledriver. They did not do their damndest to censor my maps for the doe-eyed eight year olds who might see "Captain, they're blowing up our generators!" as some kind of reference to cheap blondes in ghettos.
I'll close this with one final quote. A quote from a WoW dev, actually.
One the first things I was told when I got into this business* was that game designers have to learn, if you'll excuse the expression, to be able to kill their babies. We thought the old design was starting to hold us, and you, back.
There is no greater time than the present to make right your wrongs. To say to yourself, "Yeah, I fucked up", suck it in and move forward. Dragging along this dead weight hurts us all for every step forward when what Blizzard needs to do is change. The refusal to change and accept that they've done something wrong will hurt us all more than you can possibly imagine if the game goes into release with limitations like these.
as a melee map maker i am unable to publish enough maps for a self made map pool. The only thing i can think of is buying 4-5 copies of each game and expansion just to publish a significant map pool and have maps in testing rotation.
Iskatumesk, you posts are always so informative. I'm glad you are taking the time to explain to us something that people rarely go over. Most people just talk about balance issues.
On May 24 2010 09:50 verrater wrote: man, is there anything that will be actually good in sc2?
Probably sc2 itself... I mean, it's a good game, whether you feel it'll live up to bw or not.
Total third party control over the product you purchased is unacceptable to me though. After the fail at the bay area sc lan I canceled my pre-order for this reason. It's bad for everyone, except blizzard.
I don't care about "Casuals". That term isn't even used properly. Casuals are a stereotype Blizzard has employed so they can ignore the fanbase as a whole and strike up deals with Facebook. Everyone blames this on the "Casual" player but in reality we are all casual players unless we are those slanty-eyed heroes in booths throughout the OSL or WCG.
Took the time to read, and I completely agree. BNet 2.0 just isn't impressive - it seems as if they took 2 graphics designers and told them to create the BNet user interface ~.~
- There is NO local hosting on battle.net 2.0 and probably won't ever be. - You can only have 5 maps or "mods" (which aren't even mods) on Battle.net, anything else you've got cannot and will never be multiplayer unless you sacrifice an existing project. - You have a 20mb global limit across everything and a 10mb limit individually. - The editor censors whatever Battle.net censors and refuses uploads. "Suicide", "God", and "Blow" are amongst the words that - even if only contained in editor-related strings - will prevent you from ever playing your map online. Starcraft 1 was rated M on release and Sc2 will be rated T on release. Blizzard was not liable for any obscene content on custom projects until they introduced this system. Hot Coffee, anyone?
Yeah the censorship sucks, but are the file caps final or just a temporary thing for Beta?
Also would distributing a 120 MB map on BNET even be feasible?
- There is NO local hosting on battle.net 2.0 and probably won't ever be. - You can only have 5 maps or "mods" (which aren't even mods) on Battle.net, anything else you've got cannot and will never be multiplayer unless you sacrifice an existing project. - You have a 20mb global limit across everything and a 10mb limit individually. - The editor censors whatever Battle.net censors and refuses uploads. "Suicide", "God", and "Blow" are amongst the words that - even if only contained in editor-related strings - will prevent you from ever playing your map online. Starcraft 1 was rated M on release and Sc2 will be rated T on release. Blizzard was not liable for any obscene content on custom projects until they introduced this system. Hot Coffee, anyone?
Yeah the censorship sucks, but are the file caps final or just a temporary thing for Beta?
Also would distributing a 120 MB map on BNET even be feasible?
I distributed the 120mb exe through AIM to my players. On battle.net? Feasible to broadband users, but Blizzard wouldn't like the bandwidth usage.
I expect the file caps will rise a bit by release (especially with a lot of negative feedback), but for them to exist at all is absurd without local hosting being an option.
On May 24 2010 10:00 synapse wrote: Took the time to read, and I completely agree. BNet 2.0 just isn't impressive - it seems as if they took 2 graphics designers and told them to create the BNet user interface ~.~
Isn't impressive? BNET 2.0 is one of the worst things that's happened to RTS games. Unless everything we're seeing right now is going to be completely revamped upon release, it's a clear win for Corporate America(tm) and a clear loss for gamers.
Honestly, outside the ranking system and auto-matching based on rank, which isn't even that good (ICCUP showed how to do it right, already), what has BNET 2.0 added that is actually meaningful and useful? All I see are more and more attempts to control the community and the players, while distracting them with such "Microsoft 2.0" concepts like achievements and Facebook integration.
I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something and it's all part of a grand plan that has yet to be unveiled, and which will make believers out of us all. But at this point I'm starting to doubt it.
On May 24 2010 10:00 Stripe wrote: Also would distributing a 120 MB map on BNET even be feasible?
Given the fact that most people by now have broadband internet, I don't see why it wouldn't be. Also if we're looking at the 10-year picture, connection speeds will only grow faster so I don't see a reason to limit the file sizes. If we get to a point where a map is too large for people to want to download, there's no real issue anyway since people won't be playing it.
There's no way that the 20MB limit will be in place in retail (unless someone can produce some confirmation from Blizzard). Just like the 5-win achievements and the limit on friend adding methods, it's a temporary thing. Definitely something they'll be upgrading during June
I distributed the 120mb exe through AIM to my players. On battle.net? Feasible to broadband users, but Blizzard wouldn't like the bandwidth usage.
I expect the file caps will rise a bit by release (especially with a lot of negative feedback), but for them to exist at all is absurd without local hosting being an option.
I remember downloading locally hosted maps in SC and WC3 that's only several MB. The download could be really slow especially if there were other people downloading at the same time. I dread to think how long it would take to get a full house trying to distribute a 120 MB map.
Downloading it from Blizzard servers solves this, but as you mentioned the bandwidth is pretty high.
I really hope they give map makers like yourself enough storage and more than 5 maps so that we can all once again enjoy the plethora of custom games that come out of a blizzard RTS. I am really excited about the custom maps people are putting together already. Hopefully they address the problems you mentioned.
On May 24 2010 09:34 IskatuMesk wrote: There is no greater time than the present to make right your wrongs. To say to yourself, "Yeah, I fucked up", suck it in and move forward. Dragging along this dead weight hurts us all for every step forward when what Blizzard needs to do is change. The refusal to change and accept that they've done something wrong will hurt us all more than you can possibly imagine if the game goes into release with limitations like these.
That's what I find amazing over anything else. I have never seen Blizzard so reluctant to change something as they've been with Starcraft 2. With this game, it seems like Blizzard doesn't want to change ANYTHING despite numerous statements to the contrary. It's almost comical to listen to Dustin Browder say "we're willing to remove and add units if necessary" when anyone with a brain knows that the SC2 team would rather eat their first-born child than remove a unit. It's also very bad too, as the game has numerous flaws that Blizzard refuses to change for any reason. The gameplay is fun, but needs more depth. The sound/voice sucks, the map editor needs a better UI, Bnet 0.5 is ABYSMAL for reasons already stated multiple times. It's just so flawed right now.
And what makes it worse is that I'm positive that it wouldn't take more than a few months to fix if Blizzard was actually WILLING to make the call to do it. Better voices and sounds could be made in a week. Gameplay wouldn't take long to fix as the "Project Micro" thread showed that it's actually very easy to implement SC1-style micro. The only problem is revamping Bnet, but I would honestly take WC3's Bnet with the way things are now. It's certainly better than the "WE MUST CONTROL EVERYTHING" disaster we have right now.
Why shouldnt it? 120 MB isnt that much anymore, but a warning about mapsize before you download it should probably be in place.
Hopefully the right person at Blizzard reads this post because whats the point in having the options of the map editor/creator if you cant publish your stuff?
It's almost comical to listen to Dustin Browder say "we're willing to remove and add units if necessary" when anyone with a brain knows that the SC2 team would rather eat their first-born child than remove a unit.
I could see them limiting the map size because they are the ones hosting and blizz needs to keep traffic down but this is totally rediculous, they really need to go back to a plain and simple bnet without all this facebook crap and then let their users host maps and name games which worked almost perfectly with starcraft 1 and wc3 ( the only thing they could improve was a search function and autorefreshing)
Edit: also they should add some type of system where after your maps get played a certain amount of times ( or another goal is met ) you can then store more+ larger maps
On May 24 2010 10:09 theqat wrote: There's no way that the 20MB limit will be in place in retail (unless someone can produce some confirmation from Blizzard). Just like the 5-win achievements and the limit on friend adding methods, it's a temporary thing. Definitely something they'll be upgrading during June
Of this I do not doubt... but we do not know what the real limits will be. Frankly, any limit on the number of maps is absurd when you cannot locally host them.
I do not think 120mb limit would be reasonable for now unless it was for maps hosted on the market (p2p transfer has always been slow on blizzard's services), but something like 30-40mb a map max would be nice for most small projects. Most Starcraft 1 mods without voice acting or custom music still exceed 20mb.
It's almost comical to listen to Dustin Browder say "we're willing to remove and add units if necessary" when anyone with a brain knows that the SC2 team would rather eat their first-born child than remove a unit.
Lurkers, Firebat, Soul Hunter, Cobra, etc.
They were willing when the game is still in alpha. They certainly aren't willing to do it now that the game is in beta depsite their statements that they would.
All these threads are nice to read but the sad thing is Blizzard won't listen to the important things, and even when community members were invited to play and test out sc2, I don't remember one single person who criticized blizzard. The overwhelming response just seemed to be don't worry its blizzard sc2 is in good hands.
Excellent post. You really shed some light on issues I'm sure most people (myself being one of them) had no idea existed. Custom maps added endless hours of replayability to BW and WC3, and I've really been looking forward to seeing what people could do with the new editor. It's a real shame to hear about such big hurdles the ones making the custom content will have to deal with.
For what its worth, I'd like to confirm this bit:
I know there are two different teams at play here, and the battle.net team is in dire need of being fired all-in and rebuilt from the ground up.
Blizzard made a serious blunder with the staffing of the battle.net 2.0 team, and an even more serious one by not scrapping the work they'd done and starting over before it was too late.
I agree with you that the limitations are a poor decision. I think it's possible (and I hope this is true) that local map hosting is just another thing that is cut right now so that they can force testing of something else, because the architecture for hosting sc2map files seems to be there or very close to there. I hope we can get an official statement from Blizzard on this soon.
You get more space when you become a PREMIUM Map because obviously being premium means you have more content and need more space for this. Free maps will probably always be siz limited to ENCOURAGE you to make it PREMIUM for profit.
At least they aren't making you Submit your free map, wait for someone at blizzard to APPROVE your map for online play ? "To protect" Children etc/Moral Police.
Blizzard largely died to me when Vivendi merged with Activision. (Quality has plummeted In WoW, The beta so far..)
I am a Casual Player. I spend every waking moment of every day contributing to an overall overarching gameplan of modmaking and custom content, or working on my novel. I have been producing custom projects for 10 years.
... You are not a casual player. If "every waking moment of every day" revolves around gaming, you are not casual in any way with regard to your gaming habit.
There is a lot of room between "casual" and "professional". In terms of gaming, that room is generally called "hardcore".
As for the substance of your rant, about the only thing I agree with you on is the censorship issue. That, and maybe game naming (though I think the issue can be alleviated in other ways without being abuseable).
Blizzard owns the servers. Which means that they are the ones responsible for creating the space for storing your maps to be used in multiplayer. Do you honestly expect Blizzard to offer unlimited, or even Google-level, storage space for your maps? Be reasonable here. We're talking about potentially millions of players. Even with just 5 million players, that's 95TB of storage. Storage that has to be networked, backed up, and so forth. And you expect this to be higher?
For free? Remember: Battle.Net is a free service. Maybe they should allow you to pay a bi-monthly fee for more space.
Furthermore, if you were allowed to just point to a random map on your harddisk and let other people join your game, God only knows what you would be able to do with that. One hopes that SC2 is a reasonably protected environment, but imagine if you could hack someone's machine through a clever use of the scripting system. Making Battle.Net a vector for hacking someone's machine isn't a good idea, even if they can ban you should they find out about it.
Lastly, you've forgotten about the marketplace support. If you make a total conversion, Blizzard will allow you to sell it. At which point, since it's making Blizzard money, I'm sure you won't have to deal with it taking up too much memory and so forth.
Blizzard does not want SC2 relegated to a cloistered group of the HardCore. They want casuals, not people like you, real-life casual players to be playing this game in 5-10 years, like they have with WoW. Having an environment that they can control is a fundamental part of that. Why do you think things like the iPhone and iPad work? Because they're closed environments, steadfastly and rigorously controlled by Apple.
They were willing when the game is still in alpha. They certainly aren't willing to do it now that the game is in beta depsite their statements that they would.
They never said that they would add and remove units at the first sign of any issue. They said that, if the situation warranted it, they would do so. Thus far, in their estimation, the current situation does not warrant it.
I agree. Casual gamers are exactly like hardcore gamers. This new use of casual that companies throw around actually means non-gamer. Its ok if they finish everything first and then add on features to attract new people to games, but blizzard doesnt seem to be doing that. Most casual gamers would completely disagree with the things blizzard is doing.
Also, their decision of their architecture of bnet and lack of local hosting doesnt really seem to have a basis in the casual gamer argument anyhow. I dont think anyone can say what blizard is thinking with alot of their bnet 2 ideas, since basically everone on the planet thinks they are the worst ideas in the history of mankind. If the company wasn't blizzard and the game wasn't starcraft 2, the game would sell probably nonexistant number of copies and the entire company probably would collapse if they had Blizzard's Battle.net 2 team.
However, one good thing is that we don't have to feel bad about using third party patches to do stuff bnet2 doesnt let us do, since Blizzard obviously knows that everyone hates their system (and if they don't then they are way too ignorant) and refuses to change it, so by logic that means they want us to use third party systems.
Open Rebellion or something like it would not work in SC2. File would be too big. Distributing an exe is great, but there's that whole business of no LAN and everything needing to be on b.net.
Perhaps more dear to SC players is the (slim) possibility of Project Resurrection bringing their models to SC2. This would also be too big and not workable as things are now. The file size limits (whatever they end up being) are really unfortunate
Furthermore, if you were allowed to just point to a random map on your harddisk and let other people join your game, God only knows what you would be able to do with that. One hopes that SC2 is a reasonably protected environment, but imagine if you could hack someone's machine through a clever use of the scripting system. Making Battle.Net a vector for hacking someone's machine isn't a good idea, even if they can ban you should they find out about it.
People were scared of this in wc3 and WoW but such is not possible. If you become too scared of what "might" happen and begin boarding yourself up in constant fear of the unknown you will harm those who can use these features and capabilities for good... which is 99.9% of the fanbase.
Blizzard owns the servers. Which means that they are the ones responsible for creating the space for storing your maps to be used in multiplayer. Do you honestly expect Blizzard to offer unlimited, or even Google-level, storage space for your maps? Be reasonable here. We're talking about potentially millions of players. Even with just 5 million players, that's 95TB of storage. Storage that has to be networked, backed up, and so forth. And you expect this to be higher?
I do not expect it to be unlimited, but higher. If Blizzard's intent is to totally remove local map hosting they must be prepared to facilitate a massive amount of custom content, because that is the implication of such a colossal feature being removed - the heart of every battle.net to date!
Blizzard does not want SC2 relegated to a cloistered group of the HardCore. They want casuals, not people like you, real-life casual players to be playing this game in 5-10 years, like they have with WoW.
Your view of "casual" players has been skewed by the abuse of the term that never existed pre-WoW. People only started branding players as casual players when the concept of raiding and late-night grinding daily entered American mainstream. Just as the concept of "hardcore" is likewise skewed.
Unfortunately, their system hurts "casual" players in your classification much more than "Hardcore" players. Without chat channels, local hosting, and a clean interface, those users without much general gaming experience will feel naked and alone, perhaps even intimidated.
Why do you think things like the iPhone and iPad work?
Because people have too much money to spend and nothing better to spend it on? I don't even own a phone and never have/never will. Sorry, I don't know very much about this particular subject. I'll take your word for it.
... You are not a casual player. If "every waking moment of every day" revolves around gaming, you are not casual in any way with regard to your gaming habit.
There is a lot of room between "casual" and "professional". In terms of gaming, that room is generally called "hardcore".
As for the substance of your rant, about the only thing I agree with you on is the censorship issue. That, and maybe game naming (though I think the issue can be alleviated in other ways without being abuseable).
Blizzard owns the servers. Which means that they are the ones responsible for creating the space for storing your maps to be used in multiplayer. Do you honestly expect Blizzard to offer unlimited, or even Google-level, storage space for your maps? Be reasonable here. We're talking about potentially millions of players. Even with just 5 million players, that's 95TB of storage. Storage that has to be networked, backed up, and so forth. And you expect this to be higher?
For free? Remember: Battle.Net is a free service. Maybe they should allow you to pay a bi-monthly fee for more space.
Furthermore, if you were allowed to just point to a random map on your harddisk and let other people join your game, God only knows what you would be able to do with that. One hopes that SC2 is a reasonably protected environment, but imagine if you could hack someone's machine through a clever use of the scripting system. Making Battle.Net a vector for hacking someone's machine isn't a good idea, even if they can ban you should they find out about it.
Lastly, you've forgotten about the marketplace support. If you make a total conversion, Blizzard will allow you to sell it. At which point, since it's making Blizzard money, I'm sure you won't have to deal with it taking up too much memory and so forth.
Blizzard does not want SC2 relegated to a cloistered group of the HardCore. They want casuals, not people like you, real-life casual players to be playing this game in 5-10 years, like they have with WoW. Having an environment that they can control is a fundamental part of that. Why do you think things like the iPhone and iPad work? Because they're closed environments, steadfastly and rigorously controlled by Apple.
I think you're really missing the boat on this one, pal. These are all Blizzard induced problems. SC1 and WC3 had a different method which suffered from none of these issues. So now, by making sure Blizzard controls everything they've also limited it in the same breath.
Map size? Didn't have to download from blizzard so it was a moot point. Worried about hacks from downloading a map? I don't recall an issue ever arising from past games. Your apple argument makes me laugh, since that's the exact PROBLEM most people have with their software and why non-apple fanboys are so enthusiastic about non-apple solutions and their monopolistic policies.
I think the best thing to do would be for players to fix the problems themselves by making third party servers. Theres no reason to rely on an incompetant battle.net 2 team to fix them.
A way around this problem would be to have "popularity credits" where you earn the right to have more storage based on the popularity and frequency of play on your map. If you own 5% of the custom game market/played maps pool over a week for example, as in 1 in 20 custom maps games hosted are made by you, then you should be entitled to more space.
i think this is an important issue that should really be discussed. this is even more important then balance, because it effects the longevity of the game and the size of the community.
the reason for the success of all of blizzard current RTS's are not due to solely to their balance. They are in fact largely due to the creativity and success of the map/mod community, who have kept these games alive.
WC3 would have fallen out of the scope of many rts fans if it weren't for the amazing custom maps and mods that many people have made. I for one, bought the game just so i could play those maps, along with many of my friends. They were "games" in games. The same goes for sc1.
I used to think of blizzard as an amazing, "for the gamer" company, who put out all these great titles, and who actually cared about the people playing their games. This was very true with diablo, starcraft broodwar, and warcraft 3. In my experiences, they maintained the freedom of the people who played it, and allowed players to do what ever they wanted. There were little restrictions on the communities that developed alongside their games. For this, these communities thrived. And so did blizzard.
World of Warcraft also saw this. With the expansion, and all of the patches, improvements, expansions, and work that went into it, it showed the people who played it, that blizzard actually was apart of their game experience. They weren't just the creators. But there was a direct relation made between blizzard and the gamer. As i played wow, i made many friends. For a lot of the people who played it, Warcraft 3, starcraft, and diablo were games that were played with guild mates, and friends they met through wow. It was a passtime. While servers were down, or there werent any raids going on, i would always hop on with my friends and play some wc3 custom games.
Hell, even throughout college, me and my friends downloaded custom tower defenses, and played them, together. We actually had this thing we call "STD's". or, "shitty tower defenses". we would go on a mapping site for wc3, and download every tower defense we could find and play it. There were a lot of crappy ones, but there were also a lot of good ones. (GemTD and YouTD were ones we found to be particularly amazing).
After reading your post, i don't see this happening at all with starcraft. I dont see myself playing the game, and its custom games, for fun. I thought originally that you would be able to host maps from a local game client to play with friends. So you could find a few that you liked, a few diamonds in the rough, and play them, like i did with warcraft 3. But the likely hood of that now, is very far from realization. You can only find maps based on popularity. There is literally no way for a new map to get up there in popularity because there is no way to actually sift through the mountain of maps out there. There will be some popular maps, and that's it. If a map doesn't make its stay within its first few days, its out completely. How can this benefit anyone?
Also, placing such restrictions on the map making community is really harsh, and only hurts the quality of maps that will be seen in sc2. Ever take a look at the AC130 gunner video?
I doubt that map will fit under the 10mb limit (even 20mb) when its done, and it will never get published. Also, the stargate rpg map. Imagine how much fun that would be if the entirety of SG-1 lore were to go in to it. It wouldn't fit in 20mb. Blizzard, Your also limiting the amount of passion people will have for this game (for modders). because, why should some one spend the time to make a 50mb map, or the effort to actually make something like that.
Your basically saying, to each map or modder. "Here ya go, you have room for 5 ideas, which can only be about the length of a 7 minuet mp3."
imagine if you were to go up to Shakespeare and tell him to tell you everything about one of his major works, in 7 minuets. Thats impossible and unreasonable.
So where did blizzard go wrong? I don't think this restriction could be imposed by a company who has had a a very loyal fan base as blizzard. (Blizzcon anyone?) I don't think 10 years ago, we would have seen any restrictions on a product like this, by blizzard. Or by any self-respecting game company who actually cared about their community.
I hope blizzard takes some sort of steps to "improve their product". Not by adding useless features that 90% of us don't want or intend to use (facebook anyone?). But by actually letting us add content into the game.
(1) BNet2.0 is new, Blizzard is taking baby steps with new features. Blizzard recognizes that community involvement is important to the game's popularity, but has enough work on their plate just finishing the game for its release so it isn't a priority - give it time.
(2) Blizzard likes $ and respects their IP. Blizzard doesn't want to give modders too much freedom to use their engine for radically different purposes too soon. Look at how DoTA has put Warcraft out of the spotlight. I think this is the other big reason why LAN is out, piracy being primary. And it makes sense considering the game hasn't even been released yet - give it time.
I'm not sure I understand your complaints on custom models, textures, and sound... is it just a size limit issue or are they disallowed completely? What is the exact restriction on each of these?
I think a lot of this thread is over reaction. We have absolutely no idea what the final cap is going to be.
SC1 and WC3 had a different method which suffered from none of these issues. So now, by making sure Blizzard controls everything they've also limited it in the same breath.
Map size? Didn't have to download from blizzard so it was a moot point.
Try distributing a 50 MB map to 10 other people when hosting a UMS map and you'll quickly realize why BNET hosting is necessary in SC2.
Can't read anything about SC2 without getting depressed about Blizzard. It's obvious the old teams are gone and that the new corporate overlords have taken over. What a pile of shit.
On May 24 2010 10:54 mmp wrote: I see two things going on here:
(1) BNet2.0 is new, Blizzard is taking baby steps with new features. Blizzard recognizes that community involvement is important to the game's popularity, but has enough work on their plate just finishing the game for its release so it isn't a priority - give it time.
(2) Blizzard likes $ and respects their IP. Blizzard doesn't want to give modders too much freedom to use their engine for radically different purposes too soon. Look at how DoTA has put Warcraft out of the spotlight. I think this is the other big reason why LAN is out, piracy being primary. And it makes sense considering the game hasn't even been released yet - give it time.
I'm not sure I understand your complaints on custom models, textures, and sound... is it just a size limit issue or are they disallowed completely?
Hi, completely understandable.
I am pointing out the differences in models and textures from wc3 to sc2 to make a statement on why the size value of maps and large projects are going to be significantly different. Sc2 assets are going to be significantly larger and thus will require more space to hold.
1 - This is plausible and likely. However, I feel that they should have held redundant features like Facebook and put in core features first, like chat rooms, online replays, local hosting, and things like that, and THEN, post-release, add-in whatever gimmicks they have on their plate.
2 - Piracy has never significantly impacted sales on games except for really crappy games that wouldn't have sold well regardless, this is a really lame reason to exclude LAN. As you said, though, Blizzard likes their $$ even if it means pissing off their legitimate buyers. I don't believe that their intention is to limit modders that greatly, though - they are introducing micro transactions in the form of Premium Maps, it's better for them to facilitate more maps and mods and give them as much power as possible, right? That maximizes the potential to take advantage of their popularity, and thus gives more money. This will yield more cash than limiting the game on-release and driving away custom content providers.
I think a lot of this thread is over reaction.
I like over reaction. It has a good ring to it.
I also said I don't know what the final cap will be, and I acknowledge this. But this doesn't change the fact that any cap on the AMOUNT of maps limited is silly (I expect there to always be a size limit). This can be avoided entirely by re-inventing the wheel and allowing local hosting.
Also, for the record, that 120mb exe I was talking about - I got that through to my players in about 20 minutes. I had a full house usually, so that's 10 players, and most were using bad connections. There are ways to speed the process up if you want to get into it, including torrent-like transfers that allow each user to send extra parts to each other during the transfer, maximizing upload speeds and bandwidth usage. But I don't think this would ever happen due to router issues, and due to laziness. Plus, I think the max size they'd ever allow for a map would be 20mb.
People were scared of this in wc3 and WoW but such is not possible. If you become too scared of what "might" happen and begin boarding yourself up in constant fear of the unknown you will harm those who can use these features and capabilities for good... which is 99.9% of the fanbase.
But 99.9% of the fanbase is just that; the fan base. The vast majority of players who will be buying SC2 are not the "fanbase". They are not hardcore players.
Your view of "casual" players has been skewed by the abuse of the term that never existed pre-WoW. People only started branding players as casual players when the concept of raiding and late-night grinding daily entered American mainstream. Just as the concept of "hardcore" is likewise skewed.
The egocentric view of the dedicated PC gamer. Everything was just fine before WoW.
In truth, the casual vs. hardcore divide has long existed, particularly in the console gaming world. My view of "casual" players has been what it was before WoW even existed. They are people who do not think of gaming in terms that we do: as a significant part of their life. Gaming is something they do maybe 3 hours a week at best.
Casuals is who yearly updates of Madden and other sports games sell to. And Blizzard wants in on the casual market with SC2.
Your apple argument makes me laugh, since that's the exact PROBLEM most people have with their software and why non-apple fanboys are so enthusiastic about non-apple solutions and their monopolistic policies.
I'm pretty far from an Apple fanboi (I'd sooner break my fingers than buy an iPad after my experience with the iPod Touch), but I do understand what they're doing. And I understand why they're successful.
See, "most people" don't have a problem with their software. We do, but Apple doesn't give 2 shits about what a bunch of geeks on a forum do. They're interested in the mainstream.
All the mainstream wants is something that works. If they're exposed to how it works in any way, they are repelled. They don't care how e-mail works; they just want to press the button on the device marked "e-mail" and see their e-mail. They don't care how documents work; they just want to press the button to view or edit documents and then do so.
They don't care about the 20MB limit on the number of maps they can expose. They see the limit, and accept it for what it is: the system saying you can't do that. Maybe they'll care to ask why, but even that's not a question they care about.
No, all they care about is whether they can play the maps that they want to play. All they care about is playing with their own circle of real-life friends; they don't meet people on a forum and decide to play with them. They don't have many, or any, real-life friends on different server groups that they would want to play with.
They care about Facebook integration. Hell, for a lot of them, Facebook is the Internet. That matters to them far more than being able to name matches, or have chat channels (which they will rarely if ever use) or whatever. They don't think of people they meet in a random game as "people"; if they ladder, they think of the opponent as an advanced computer and nothing more.
blizzard needs to start listening to its customers its sad really how capitalistic there organization has become - ive waited for this game for 3 years now always checking news sites and keeping up to date.
This is very informative, I've never thought about this issue before. Bnet2.0 definitely feels more 'locked up' and automated than previous interfaces - really isolates the player. About the only thing I really like about it is the party system for 2v2.
On May 24 2010 11:03 NicolBolas wrote:Casuals is who yearly updates of Madden and other sports games sell to. And Blizzard wants in on the casual market with SC2.
Casual gamers will be attracted to games like Wii Sports, not an RTS game like SC2. And it's quite obvious that a 'casual' game won't be around so long, and the next game someone makes will replace it. It won't be still massively popular after 20 years like BW. Not to mention that non-'casuals' are a significant portion of the community, probably yielding more sales than casuals(for games like this).
I am a Casual Player. I spend every waking moment of every day contributing to an overall overarching gameplan of modmaking and custom content, or working on my novel. I have been producing custom projects for 10 years.
... You are not a casual player. If "every waking moment of every day" revolves around gaming, you are not casual in any way with regard to your gaming habit.
There is a lot of room between "casual" and "professional". In terms of gaming, that room is generally called "hardcore".
As for the substance of your rant, about the only thing I agree with you on is the censorship issue. That, and maybe game naming (though I think the issue can be alleviated in other ways without being abuseable).
Blizzard owns the servers. Which means that they are the ones responsible for creating the space for storing your maps to be used in multiplayer. Do you honestly expect Blizzard to offer unlimited, or even Google-level, storage space for your maps? Be reasonable here. We're talking about potentially millions of players. Even with just 5 million players, that's 95TB of storage. Storage that has to be networked, backed up, and so forth. And you expect this to be higher?
For free? Remember: Battle.Net is a free service. Maybe they should allow you to pay a bi-monthly fee for more space.
Furthermore, if you were allowed to just point to a random map on your harddisk and let other people join your game, God only knows what you would be able to do with that. One hopes that SC2 is a reasonably protected environment, but imagine if you could hack someone's machine through a clever use of the scripting system. Making Battle.Net a vector for hacking someone's machine isn't a good idea, even if they can ban you should they find out about it.
Lastly, you've forgotten about the marketplace support. If you make a total conversion, Blizzard will allow you to sell it. At which point, since it's making Blizzard money, I'm sure you won't have to deal with it taking up too much memory and so forth.
Blizzard does not want SC2 relegated to a cloistered group of the HardCore. They want casuals, not people like you, real-life casual players to be playing this game in 5-10 years, like they have with WoW. Having an environment that they can control is a fundamental part of that.
Why do you think things like the iPhone and iPad work? Because they're closed environments, steadfastly and rigorously controlled by Apple.
They were willing when the game is still in alpha. They certainly aren't willing to do it now that the game is in beta depsite their statements that they would.
They never said that they would add and remove units at the first sign of any issue. They said that, if the situation warranted it, they would do so. Thus far, in their estimation, the current situation does not warrant it.
But 99.9% of the fanbase is just that; the fan base. The vast majority of players who will be buying SC2 are not the "fanbase". They are not hardcore players.
I'd love to hear your logic behind this (really, not being sarcastic here). If someone buys a game they are contributing to the profit of the game. If they play the game and enjoy it they are a fan, are they not? Thus, changes to the game overall impacts their experience. If I reduce the Roach supply cost from 2 to 1, this is a change the "casual" player will experience just as the "hardcore" player will experience as they are both playing the game and thus are part of the consumerbase aka fanbase.
The egocentric view of the dedicated PC gamer. Everything was just fine before WoW.
In truth, the casual vs. hardcore divide has long existed, particularly in the console gaming world. My view of "casual" players has been what it was before WoW even existed. They are people who do not think of gaming in terms that we do: as a significant part of their life. Gaming is something they do maybe 3 hours a week at best.
Casuals is who yearly updates of Madden and other sports games sell to. And Blizzard wants in on the casual market with SC2.
For the record I've been playing WoW for quite some time.
I understand what people see Casual gamers as. The guy who signs on once every week to do a instance and then vanishes. The guy who isn't willing to sit in a raid 2 hours and upgrade his gear.
But they are still experiencing a part of the game, they are still playing it. Why are they playing it? Because they find enjoyment. It is not their dedication, but they must be playing because they find entertainment out of it.
While it is true that I am as close to hardcore as you can get without going into the industry, I, too, am doing the exact same thing those casuals are doing - I'm playing and modding to enjoy the game. The only difference between us is the amount of time spent.
The assumption that by adding Facebook Blizzard is "catering to casuals" comes off as offensive to me because 90% of the people I know who are "casual" players do not give a flying fuck about Facebook or any of this bullshit and are just as eager to see the things corrected as I am that I have posted in the OP. That's because they don't play in tournaments, they don't watch Flash vs Jaedong, they just want to play a bunch of custom maps one night every week and call it a day in 2-3 hours.
All of the causal players I know enjoy what it is I do, and some have even contributed. But they're still casual because this is not what they do. They work all day and come back at night to run a Python script and contribute a little piece to my puzzle.
Through my logic, all of these people including myself and those of you who regular iccup are all casual players because you are all here for the same purpose - to find enjoyment.
2. without definite or serious intention; careless or offhand; passing: a casual remark.
Once you enter professional gaming you are no longer casual - that is hardcore, because you aren't just doing it for fun anymore. You're doing it for money.
I have no intentions of ever selling anything I make or investing money into anything I make outside of upgrading computer hardware. Though I have considered it many times, in my eyes that would splinter me from what I have been doing all this time - working to please myself. The moment it becomes a job and not entertainment is the moment this is no longer a casual venture.
I understand wholly your stance but I do not agree that this is the way to view these decisions and nor do I think that companies nor players should be using these terms to brand and stereotype players.
very well said, and i agree with all the points you've made, Battle net 2.0 is in every single way,inferior to the platform used for warcraft 3 and previous titles.
SC1 and WC3 had a different method which suffered from none of these issues. So now, by making sure Blizzard controls everything they've also limited it in the same breath.
Map size? Didn't have to download from blizzard so it was a moot point.
Try distributing a 50 MB map to 10 other people when hosting a UMS map and you'll quickly realize why BNET hosting is necessary in SC2.
With the clear distinction being at the moment the map sizes are nowhere near 50mb. I'm not saying the old way was perfect. But as opposed to limiting the size and bandwidth being the issue. For a lot of people they'd go to custom sites that designed them and people would have the newest version hosted on filefront or something. That worked perfectly fine for me as far as I was concerned.
And Bolas, I understand your point, but if Blizzard as a company and their big picture is money (as it should be) but miss the mark on making a game we can enjoy, that's acceptable to US? They wont care, but we will. The fans will ultimately suffer, even if their stockholders don't.
Some people might not realize they can't use flash on their iPad, but I sure as shit bet some people realize they suddenly can't use sites they use to. Same thing will happen in SC2 if map making is taken care of poorly. Some people might not now how or why the maps aren't as good as they can/should be; but they'll still be able to tell it's not as fun.
I distributed the 120mb exe through AIM to my players. On battle.net? Feasible to broadband users, but Blizzard wouldn't like the bandwidth usage.
I expect the file caps will rise a bit by release (especially with a lot of negative feedback), but for them to exist at all is absurd without local hosting being an option.
I remember downloading locally hosted maps in SC and WC3 that's only several MB. The download could be really slow especially if there were other people downloading at the same time. I dread to think how long it would take to get a full house trying to distribute a 120 MB map.
Downloading it from Blizzard servers solves this, but as you mentioned the bandwidth is pretty high.
I believe he said he distributed this particular 120mb map off battle.net through AIM??
... any way
I read the complete post. and it is very very true. spot on!. My first thoughts on bnet.2.0 was that i liked it cos it was new and shiny... but its slowly turning into a pile of shit. My main problem is no game names.. im mean.. that just sucks ... i dont play no rush games.. but to no be able to specify these kidns of things in the game name is so bad.
On May 24 2010 10:33 NicolBolas wrote: For free? Remember: Battle.Net is a free service.
I'm pretty sure they intend battle.net to be extremely profitable. It's not just a matchmaking and social service, it's a store. They want to monetize absolutely every aspect of sc2, but they can't do that without control from the center.
Unfortunately all these activities are 1000 times better the way they were...
On May 24 2010 11:22 ayababa wrote: I believe he said he distributed this particular 120mb map off battle.net through AIM??
The developer edition of the map was 120mb, but the b.net limit at the time was 4mb. I stripped all of the custom assets out of the map and placed them in a self-executing mpq file, which was what I sent to my friends over AIM. I then hosted the stripped-down version of the map, which was still over 1mb, on battle.net The map called for files that were present in the memory thanks to the external executable.
All these mistakes with bnet 2.0 are making me sick to my stomach.... on the bright side, they may be able to fix some after release. IskatuMesk - have you posted this on the blizzard forums yet? I recommend you do so, but make it a little more polite (they are more inclined to listen if you sugar coat it a bit).
I have made several posts on b.net as have several people in our community. I've also talked to a QA guy and had a developer forward some of my info to the editor team.
The information is out there and within their grasp. It is up to them whether or not they choose to use it.
i HIGHLYYYYYYYYYYYYY doubt you've taken the time to realise that:
IF the map sizes were too large, it woudl take people LITERALLY an hour to download a SINGLE MAP with custom stuff, hence there are MODS where you can have alot more CUSTOM CONTENT.
You're FAILING to realise that the reason they're doing this now, and in WC3 is to reduce load times.......
On May 24 2010 11:40 BigDates wrote: i HIGHLYYYYYYYYYYYYY doubt you've taken the time to realise that:
IF the map sizes were too large, it woudl take people LITERALLY an hour to download a SINGLE MAP with custom stuff, hence there are MODS where you can have alot more CUSTOM CONTENT.
You're FAILING to realise that the reason they're doing this now, and in WC3 is to reduce load times.......
Ughhh...yeah you don't know who the OP is, trust me he knows all there is to know about custom content.
@everyone else: the terms "Casual" and "Hardcore" are complete horseshit. Perhaps the oldest members of this community, or gaming in general, will remember a time when gaming was mostly on old computers, and the "Casual" games invaded via Atari and the NES. The "Casual" players, whose playing consisted of inserting quarters into local arcade Pac-Man, Asteroids and Donkey Kong machines were now playing these games at home, while the true "Hardcore" players had their (at the time) fancy computers.
Now, we have the "Hardcore" consoles Xbox360 and PS3, and the "Casual" Wii.
Someone who plays Tetris on their phone for an hour every day of their life is, in my book, a real Hardcore gamer.
On May 24 2010 11:40 BigDates wrote: i HIGHLYYYYYYYYYYYYY doubt you've taken the time to realise that:
IF the map sizes were too large, it woudl take people LITERALLY an hour to download a SINGLE MAP with custom stuff, hence there are MODS where you can have alot more CUSTOM CONTENT.
You're FAILING to realise that the reason they're doing this now, and in WC3 is to reduce load times.......
So it's to protect us from our own stupidity? Who takes hours to download 100mb? If you do, you probably lag, so don't try and play SC2 with me anyways. Load times are something you should be prepared for. It's not like random melee maps are going to be large and messing up competitions because of load times. And further, this has more to do with limitations Blizzard is setting up because of their own setup; not something that "just is".
On May 24 2010 11:40 BigDates wrote: i HIGHLYYYYYYYYYYYYY doubt you've taken the time to realise that:
IF the map sizes were too large, it woudl take people LITERALLY an hour to download a SINGLE MAP with custom stuff, hence there are MODS where you can have alot more CUSTOM CONTENT.
You're FAILING to realise that the reason they're doing this now, and in WC3 is to reduce load times.......
I agree with everything here, I also think the current method of finding maps is extremely underwhelming. Having to look on teamliquid or mapster to find cool new maps to play is a far cry from just loading up the custom games list and hopping on whatever's cool and being hosted. I'd love to see a system where we can see popular map makers and search their creations, what's hot, what's new, what I've downloaded, what my friends love, etc etc.
I tried to make a thread like this on the battle.net feedback forum and it got deleted so I guess I'll show my support here. Another point I brought up was the problem of searching- if you search for the map Water Wheel you can find it with "Water" but not "Wheel". That's ridiculous to me.
Also, due to the word filter we can't play "Garden of God" we have to play... "The Garden" edit: and another thing!! you can't have the same name of maps on both US and EU- I tried to publish my 3 sc1 remakes on europe and had to use different names because I was just told they weren't available with no more feedback from the editor.
Battle.net was always a free service. That is not an excuse for stripping us of normal features battle.net 1.0 gave us, for free, 11 years ago.
If battle.net 2.0 remains the same after the month downtime I will not be purchasing SC2. Even if I don't want to play the ladder anymore, the custom games implementation is such a half assed clusterfuck and UMS maps were what had me coming back to SC1 after ladder became stale for me. Maybe I will purchase it if some other 3rd party private option aside from battle.net 2.0 is available.
I'd rather play a free to play competitive game like LoL than pay for a downgrade online experience like battle.net 2.0. Shame too, because SC2 is a great game.
Plus, I think it is a huge problem that things are starting to be compared to Apple. If that is anymore reason to abandon ship then I don't know what is. Do you seriously think a lot of these young casual target markets (the reason for changing SC2's rating to T from SC1's M) even understand build order concepts?
Excellent post. I currently have the beta but without quality user made content I'm not sure if purchasing the game is worth it. After reading this perhaps I'll wait to buy the game and see if they fix this major problem.
Wow I had no idea about a lot of these absolutely ridiculous limitations.
The size limit is absurd.
The censoring is absurd. Especially when you see some of the words on the list... things like "white," "master," etc are apparently naughty. So I guess if you want to have a map called "Tower Master" or something you can't.
Honestly I hate all the bullshit Blizzard is doing with this and I can't help but wonder if it's activision fucking them up
Op you're so awesome. Thanks a lot for your articles about the disaster that is bnet 2.0 and the galaxy editor. I really hope that blizzard fixes all this shit.
I... ugh... I had hoped the posts I read were not true but all hope has faded it seems. First a C&C guy and now a Microsoft guy... with two of the most important positions in the game.
Heaven have mercy upon us.
Unfortunately no one I know in Blizzard really has the kind of power to make a difference, and what I know of the situation is sketchy and rumors at best. I have heard though that none of this is a result of Activision.
Its strange, because I initially thought that the map publishing feature was going to be for maps that people wanted to make money off of, and custom maps could just be created like they used to be on bnet 1.0. I now know this is not the case and I am quite baffled at.... well everything.
I sincerely hope that they revert to bnet 1.0 for the initial SC2 release and spend the next year or however long leading up to the expansion working on bnet 2.0 to make it truly polished. Chat channels, solid map publishing abilities (none of this 10MB limit, 5 slots, 20MB total space garbage), working friends lists and various other things that absolutely NEED to be in place to make the game a success. I dont know if they realize it or not, but SC2's success greatly depends on battle.nets ability to give us everything we need and expect.
I'm glad you're addressing many large problems with Bnet's progression in a clear and detailed manner, iskatumesk. When I heard there was a limit to the number of maps one could create, I was worried but I assumed that most people don't create more than 5 real quality maps. (To a map creator I see how this is a severe problem though, and for that I'm sorry it turned out this way) But limiting the size of the map really gets to me. I got really excited when I first heard about Battle.net 2.0, but over time it's been uncovered as an incredibly destructive creation. Destructive to player creativity.
I believe that Blizzard has gone over the top with control in regards to Starcraft II. I could understand them wanting a hand in every league or tournament, as much as I hated the notion of no LAN play. But they keep taking more and more from their customers that now gamers can't even design maps that fulfill their artistic desires. And players can't even break apart adventure style maps or whatever into Part 1, Part 2, etc because they're limited to 5 maps. It makes sense that games hosted by Blizzard need a size limit, but honestly I'd prefer the SC1 download-this-map-from-another-player method over Battle.net 2.0's method.
This is plain wrong. Custom game design has kept SC1 and WC3 (disregarding melee play) alive. If WC3 had to rely solely on Blizzard's maps, I guarantee players would get sick of Worm War real fast. Our creativity is stifled, and without LAN we can't even play our projects with friends. All because Blizzard wants to be the controller of every move we make.
With respect to gaming, nothing hurts me more than a GREAT game company losing focus. This is a perfect example, of a company putting control over creativity. You're killing yourself Blizzard, and you're killing us too.
Blizzard doesn't accept criticism about their gaming directions! All we can do is pray they don't mess up so bad we never see a flash vs jaedong in sc2. . .looks grim though.
Well, this sucks. I never really took a liking to the original WC3 game when I bought it, however, it was the custom maps that kept me at the game for way longer than I would have paid attention to it. I'm still hoping (perhaps foolishly), that maybe, just maybe, on release the map publishing system might be fixed. Still, if it isn't, I sincerely doubt any amount of petitioning is gonna change things. Calling for a boycott isn't likely to work either, since people aren't likely to forgo the game just for the sake of custom maps. It's like finding the car of your dreams, but in a color you absolutely hate. Petitioning the manufacturer probably won't help, and you don't want to NOT have the car just because of the color. Solution : Find somewhere or someone to re-paint the car. Probably the best thing to do now is try to find some kind of workaround to the problem. I'm not intimately familiar with the inner workings of battle.net 2.0, or the map editing system, but I'm hoping that this thread could yield some viable workarounds. Just my opinion.
I do understand that it is a LIMITATION. And unfortunately, while limiting people can spawn innovation, sometimes it does also stamp out great ideas.
But, the way that Blizzard is going about distributing maps makes the old way of doing it unthinkable. You can download uploaded maps ANYTIME YOU WISH.
This means that in order for you to locally host, you would literally have to turn your computer into a server, or people wouldn't be able to get your map if they didn't already have it. Blizzard provides a way to download maps at will, including custom maps (it was how I was getting a bunch of maps without joining before the custom problems starting going up).
This makes things very convenient. It's the benefit, you can download maps without having to connect to a host. This means the potential for more consistent download speeds without putting stress on the user networks.
However, it also has it's drawbacks, as has been noted in OP. Hopefully Blizzard will wise up and increase server/bandwidth capacity to facilitate larger/longer downloads. That's about the only fix without having to refactor their map distribution system.
It still baffles me that companies today DO NOT cater to ALL USERS. It was a main point made in my Software Engineering class, and a very valid one. If you want your software to be used by many users, you need to give them what they desire.
And really, casual/hardcore does not fit in this discussion. I would better say that these custom map problems are suited for more advanced users, versus less advanced users. However, if anyone wants my look on the casual/hardcore idea, it's not so much about time spent but rather about one's mindset and dedication to gaming. Someone can spend hours on a game and do nothing other than waste time, and someone else can better their skills at a game and analyze it in the same amount of time.
On May 24 2010 12:32 RageOverdose wrote: But, the way that Blizzard is going about distributing maps makes the old way of doing it unthinkable.
When I first heard of the system I assumed it was an optional system to use in tandem with existing local hosting. This is how the system would best function, giving you the benefits of both worlds and the choice of either distribution method.
However, it also has it's drawbacks, as has been noted in OP. Hopefully Blizzard will wise up and increase server/bandwidth capacity to facilitate larger/longer downloads. That's about the only fix without having to refactor their map distribution system.
It is not that I desire the marketplace to vanish entirely, for it has many uses and could be quite viable. But at the same time, for Blizzard to possibly hope to facilitate wc3-level content they must be prepared to pay a hefty bandwidth bill. An unnecessary bill if they simply stuck to what worked and stopped trying to re-invent the internet.
Local hosting must return for this to turn out good. Not just for us developers, but for all users.
It still baffles me that companies today DO NOT cater to ALL USERS. It was a main point made in my Software Engineering class, and a very valid one. If you want your software to be used by many users, you need to give them what they desire.
Blizzard's logo is so powerful that more than half of sc2's sales will be based on word of mouth alone. If EA was making sc2 and it turned out exactly like it looks like right now, make no mistake - it would flop as hard as RA3 and C&C3 did.
Blizzard's logo is so powerful that more than half of sc2's sales will be based on word of mouth alone. If EA was making sc2 and it turned out exactly like it looks like right now, make no mistake - it would flop as hard as RA3 and C&C3 did.
Thing is, I don't believe it will end up just as it is now.
They've already overhauled the interface twice, and have added significant changes. I mean, we don't know what is going to happen. They may even delay the game. Maybe things will be changed as the game sits in consumers' hands as well, but I think that the beta will start to see some huge changes from here on out. In fact, I expected this kind of instability, because Blizzard needs this kind of strain so they don't make a product that will just break at release. If they're being too lax, well that sucks, but I'm sure they have software engineers staring, tweaking, and writing for a full day's work time. A beta is DEFINED as software tested by users in THE FIELD. Alphas are user tested in the development offices. I had an argument with someone over the issues people had with the Halo Reach beta, and he couldn't even realize that calling a beta a failure made no sense, because if a beta points out the flaws of your system, then that is a successful beta.
What is bad is just when the developers decide not to properly fix the problems. But we can't assess that until closer to release time.
However, do not mistake me for being perfectly optimistic here; I'm actually very worried too. But I also know that a lot can happen in June too.
But that may be digressing from the Custom Content problem too. That may not be flawed systems really, the system may be fine, just the idea doesn't quite make sense. I agree local and Blizzard options are probably best, assuming they could even fit local into their architecture, which I have no real reason to believe why it couldn't.
Saw the title of the post and went, "hmh, interesting". Saw the topic poster and went, "definite read- yay ethos!". Finished reading the OP and wanted to QFT but decided that might be a tad overboard to quote such a massive (yet incredibly well-crafted) OP.
But yeah, I completely agree, and what frustrates me most is that imo, many of the basic concepts behind Bnet 2.0 and map publishing and etc are actually big advancements from WC3 and other games/networks. However, as you've pointed out, the implementation is so terrible in so many ways, that I rather fear it may scare others and even Blizzard away from attempting such improvements entirely. And for this, I appreciate your post and concerns yet more for you targeted the specific issues quite well.
As well, if you really did have any role in the new layout of the Data Editor, I lavish all praise possible upon you. The new Data Editor layout may not cover for other complete and total crap like the cliff level limits and all that you've pointed out... but it is the single biggest improvement from WC3's editor to SC2's editor so far (yes, I am aware of the numerous other "improvements").
I really hope they loosen up the choker on the editor, this is just too bad, i really like the beta editor, i cant wait for the official release and see all that is in there.. but if they turn around and shut the door right in my face with this publishing crap we gonna have to find ourselves some private servers and nice little cracked apps so we can enjoy our 90$ game as we should.
Blizzard's logo is so powerful that more than half of sc2's sales will be based on word of mouth alone. If EA was making sc2 and it turned out exactly like it looks like right now, make no mistake - it would flop as hard as RA3 and C&C3 did.
Thing is, I don't believe it will end up just as it is now.
I have no doubt that there will be change, for this is beta and there are yet two expansions to be had. But we know not what change, for all we know their next big plan is Twitter merging and nothing that really helps us. Who knows how far they will delay chat rooms and online replays.
It takes a lot of complaining to really get things in motion, and it takes awareness. Luckily, I'm really good at complaining.
While many of the posts in this thread are nicely worded, a bunch of them are just big overreactions which are fueled by overreactions of other people.
And as for small size limitations are there because its beta, they just want to test the system out.
Lack of local hosting is a shame of course, but maybe it will get implemented at some point? Did anyone from blizzard made a statement on this?
And as for prioritizing things like facebook integration over chatrooms the answer i think is simple: They limit features that would obviously be popular and implement the ones that they suspect wouldn't be as popular, that way they can "force" the beta testers to test them out properly, it is beta after all.
I'm often over optimistic about these things but guys, come on, its blizzard... It's not going to be as bad as most of you think a month or two after the game is released.
Anyways... entertaining topic, i literally lol'd or facepalm'd (and both at the same time) at some points made in this thread.
It would be nice if they had both the original local hosting system and the publishing system in place. Local hosting allows you to manage your collection of large and absurd custom maps and distribute them to players in your games (which you should be able to name and password, of course), but the publishing system is convenient since it allows players who have no custom maps to quickly obtain the most popular ones and host them immediately without having to go download map packs. The system could be improved by permanently publishing the most-placed custom maps, including those which exceed limits. The worst case scenario is that the map patcher we were using to play custom maps before Patch 13 will come back to stay.
As for the ESRB and filters, I don't see why they're taking this approach. They could easily get a T rating with a "Experience may change online" tag under it like every other online game does.
On May 24 2010 13:14 Skvid wrote: While many of the posts in this thread are nicely worded, a bunch of them are just big overreactions which are fueled by overreactions of other people.
I like over reaction. It's a word that rolls well off the tongue and makes me smile.
And as for small size limitations are there because its beta, they just want to test the system out.
This is more than likely, my concern is that arbitrary limits, especially on the number of maps and the censorship, will remain on release.
Lack of local hosting is a shame of course, but maybe it will get implemented at some point? Did anyone from blizzard made a statement on this?
I have heard no indication of Blizzard even considering it, or even knowing that it's a feature we desire. I am trying to change this... but I have no hope.
And as for prioritizing things like facebook integration over chatrooms the answer i think is simple: They limit features that would obviously be popular and implement the ones that they suspect wouldn't be as popular, that way they can "force" the beta testers to test them out properly, it is beta after all.
One could presume this is true as well, but without a real statement on the matter we are left to guesswork with our own devices.
However.
The decision to remove chat rooms and online replays from a beta test concerns me furthermore. It is possible that they are confident enough in their design that they can implement the system without any big problems, but I doubt they were expecting the massive netcode issues in patch 13 otherwise they wouldn't have released it as-is and rendered the game largely unplayable. Development is about problem solving, everything needs to be tested. It seems unlikely to me that they would forego adding these features simply on the desire to test facebook functionality instead, for chat rooms and replays are far more fundamental and core-based elements. Facebook seems like something that should be tacked on post-release, just like many companies make a big post-release patch to tack on extra stuff.
No, I cannot guess what is going through their minds with these decisions. The more I think about it and the more I hear about it the more concerned I become. I am accustomed to companies making blunders but this seems far too extreme for it to be planned out.
I'm often over optimistic about these things but guys, come on, its blizzard... It's not going to be as bad as most of you think a month or two after the game is released.
To me, Blizzard is just an average company. Their major talent is long gone. What drives them now is money and the lust for more money. No, that is not fully true - the Cataclysm team is producing a lot of nice stuff and I look forward to Diablo 3 as well, but those are what little I know of them. No LAN in Diablo 3 will insta-fuck modders because unlike sc2, d2's data is pure server-side and so will be d3's. This is fatal to diablo modders, of which there are many even today.
I do not allow myself to have hope for the business mind works in ways I cannot predict nor control. I hope for the best but I must always make plans for when it all comes crashing down. Thus, if it all works out, I'll be pleasantly surprised and can do what it is I desire. If not, I lose nothing.
Just wow, I thought before Bnet would be saved by custom games, but the limits placed on you guys seems to beyond insane. I don't even think it's possible for blizzard to fix this before launch or even 2 years after anymore.
On May 24 2010 13:31 OneWhoIsMany wrote: Just wow, I thought before Bnet would be saved by custom games, but the limits placed on you guys seems to beyond insane. I don't even think it's possible for blizzard to fix this before launch or even 2 years after anymore.
The only things that kept Starcraft alivein my opinion is custom games and Starcraft as an esport in korea. Without lan and this limitation, I find it hard to believe that sc2 will stay alive for long in its current state.
The fact you have to download maps off blizzards servers is the problem with map size.
There is no reason they couldn't incorporate a system like war3 that let you download off people inside the game and I don't really understand why they don't.
I don't mean get rid of map publishing or uploading to blizzard servers, but when you join a custom game on a map you don't have, instead of all having to all download it from blizzard servers split the load with people who already have the map if bandwidth is an issue.
About storage... let's assume there are 1million maps created for sc2 and the average 10MB each... that's only 10TB of data storage, which in this day and age is nothing. Hell I have 6TB of storage on my home PC (yeah yeah, server storage is different but it's still nothing.)
Blizzard's theorycrafting on what works and what doesn't pretty much failed here as we can see in Bnet 2.0. Without proper execution, it will still be fail.
It's been several months and I don't know why Blizzard has not addressed some MAJOR issues with Bnet. They should also re-use existing interfaces/systems if it has been working and keeping games like SC and WC3 alive to this very day.
glad someone took the time to explain in laymans terms the work that goes into modding/making custom content, always been fascinated by it (even the bad work) because someone has taken their own time into producing something for everybodys benefit, pretty sorry to see that this wont be the case on sc2 (aside from the UMS we have now) on such a huge scale as wc3
screwing over modders and map makers is a direct attack on the "casual" gamer who would be drawn in by the facebook/achievement stuff. They may come to play sc2, but they stay because of the swarm of minigames available.
I hope blizzard reads everything you write, IskatuMesk.
I really respect the OP and I think he has valid concerns.. I just wonder, perhaps some of these limitations are because it's beta?
I mean look at this.. it's pretty incredible IMO
Maybe they're planning to do it completely differently come release.. They can't get approved for a certain rating beforehand or something? I mean surely they must have a list of priorities and stuff like disabling censorship for user created maps must be pretty low..
Well said sir. Only thing I can really add to this is: I think you should post this on the battle.net forums. I feel like the Blizzard devs spend so much time reading and maintaining those forums, that I'm not sure how much time they would spend looking in other parts of the internet for criticism. Sure TL is big, but battle.net forums are big too. Also, the opinions and wants of the people who go on that site, are probably (on average) less insightful than the opinions/wants of the people on this site. So by not posting this argument there, you are both not making it known to blizzard devs, but you're also allowing them to think that the opinions of the Battle.net forums are the opinions of all sc fans.
nice OP dude. this is quality shit but unfortunately it has no momentum or gravity with which to affect anything. Blizzard will profit, shareholders will applaud their decisions. that is all that matters.
This seems like an incredibly bad system. I can only hope that something will change in release and I think it will. The reason why is that Blizzard has been talking alot about the way they would allow people to sell good map projects through Battle.net 2.0 And a 10 mb project will never be worth paying for at all imo.
EDIT: I just had to make another comment. This is too retarded to be true. I just seriously cannot believe that this will be the way described in the OP. Blizzard arent stupid enough to do this.
On May 24 2010 13:59 BladeRunner wrote: I really respect the OP and I think he has valid concerns.. I just wonder, perhaps some of these limitations are because it's beta?
Maybe they're planning to do it completely differently come release.. They can't get approved for a certain rating beforehand or something? I mean surely they must have a list of priorities and stuff like disabling censorship for user created maps must be pretty low..
It is an awesome video and I had to laugh at the obvious reference with "Would you like to know more?", BUT dont you think it does NOT make sense to test something you are not planning to release? The current state of Battlenet 2.0 is sooooo buggy that it doesnt really seem to work for many players AND its handling is cumbersome to say the least. Not having chat channels and such basics, which people have complained about for months *should* be a no-brainer to integrate, but they are doing "important" stuff first, like adding Facebook integration or requiring everyone to get yet another fake e-mail (or more if You are Day[9]) to have your privacy respected. I can grudgingly live with requiring my e-mail to log in, but requiring such things for contacting me in Battlenet is a joke. Someone has been smoking weed and watched the Matrix AND thought that would be a good idea for our future.
OP! You're a hero. A very insightful and well-composed writeup. If you do stick around (if Blizz doesn't drive us all away first..), I will be watching you :D
[QUOTE]On May 24 2010 14:30 Grend wrote: This seems like an incredibly bad system. I can only hope that something will change in release and I think it will. The reason why is that Blizzard has been talking alot about the way they would allow people to sell good map projects through Battle.net 2.0 And a 10 mb project will never be worth paying for at all imo.
EDIT: I just had to make another comment. This is too retarded to be true. I just seriously cannot believe that this will be the way described in the OP. Blizzard arent stupid enough to do this.[/QUOTE]
Two words in reply to your EDIT: FaceBook.Integration.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, does it seem reasonable to suspect that with such a restriction on the number of maps available to upload and host, that the quality of these maps will invariably be very high? With no room to host the 4 millionth version of a tower defense spinoff, it seems like Blizzard are encouraging every player who uses Battle.Net to have a crack at the editor and see what they can come up with, rather than relying on a select few mapmakers to provide the bulk of entertainment.
Concordantly, those mapmakers who do excel above and beyond the masses will be encouraged to refine and perfect the maps they have uploaded rather than building big mess of different ones. The size issue could be Blizzard's way of encouraging smaller 'demo' style maps that showcase various features of the SC engine, with the possibility of granting the most popular demos increased space and bandwidth with which to host the 'full' version of the map.
absolutely agree with OP but i think that this kind of posts should go also to battle.net feedback forum "Tell us what you think" to see if they get deleted... lolololol
On May 24 2010 15:29 Bael wrote: Playing devil's advocate for a moment, does it seem reasonable to suspect that with such a restriction on the number of maps available to upload and host, that the quality of these maps will invariably be very high? With no room to host the 4 millionth version of a tower defense spinoff, it seems like Blizzard are encouraging every player who uses Battle.Net to have a crack at the editor and see what they can come up with, rather than relying on a select few mapmakers to provide the bulk of entertainment.
And that's why they made the map editor so ridiculous and have no tech support. I'm sorry, they did make it for the big modder to make epic custom games, and now they cannot post them. Something is wrong with this idea but I cannot seem to pinpoint what it is.
On May 24 2010 09:34 IskatuMesk wrote: - The editor censors whatever Battle.net censors and refuses uploads. "Suicide", "God", and "Blow" are amongst the words that - even if only contained in editor-related strings - will prevent you from ever playing your map online.
I don't even have the words to express how risible this is. As people have noted, their own game is more provocative than the standard they have with the worthless censor. Why stretch it to maps? Are we going to have to pay extra money to have access to mature rated custom map content? Is this really SC2 or are they putting us on?
On May 24 2010 09:50 redmarine wrote: They prevent maps from being published that contain censored words.
Somehow Blizzard decided that Africa was one of them. What the heck?
Is Black and White still contained? I remember i couldnt write White-Ra because it got censored
Why would they censor black, white, Africa, etc... This makes no sense by Blizzard. O_O I mean I would understand if they censor bad/swear words, but these are basic common words.
On May 24 2010 10:00 synapse wrote: Took the time to read, and I completely agree. BNet 2.0 just isn't impressive - it seems as if they took 2 graphics designers and told them to create the BNet user interface ~.~
Isn't impressive? BNET 2.0 is one of the worst things that's happened to RTS games. Unless everything we're seeing right now is going to be completely revamped upon release, it's a clear win for Corporate America(tm) and a clear loss for gamers.
Honestly, outside the ranking system and auto-matching based on rank, which isn't even that good (ICCUP showed how to do it right, already), what has BNET 2.0 added that is actually meaningful and useful? All I see are more and more attempts to control the community and the players, while distracting them with such "Microsoft 2.0" concepts like achievements and Facebook integration.
I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something and it's all part of a grand plan that has yet to be unveiled, and which will make believers out of us all. But at this point I'm starting to doubt it.
ICCUP is actually a terrible ladder, because people constantly smurf it, and it drives tons of new players away.
I mean the ranking is good but there isn't any true matchmaking.
On May 24 2010 15:29 Bael wrote: Playing devil's advocate for a moment, does it seem reasonable to suspect that with such a restriction on the number of maps available to upload and host, that the quality of these maps will invariably be very high? With no room to host the 4 millionth version of a tower defense spinoff, it seems like Blizzard are encouraging every player who uses Battle.Net to have a crack at the editor and see what they can come up with, rather than relying on a select few mapmakers to provide the bulk of entertainment.
Concordantly, those mapmakers who do excel above and beyond the masses will be encouraged to refine and perfect the maps they have uploaded rather than building big mess of different ones. The size issue could be Blizzard's way of encouraging smaller 'demo' style maps that showcase various features of the SC engine, with the possibility of granting the most popular demos increased space and bandwidth with which to host the 'full' version of the map.
Just a thought from a different perspective.
That is one way of looking at it but consider this -
The majority of the high-end modders I know personally have already expressed distaste to the editor and battle.net and many of them are not even buying the game now.
This turns away modders and inhibits growth. Those who stay may produce higher quality content over time but ultimately the net loss is far greater because the pool is smaller. Consider diablo 2, for example. This is an exceptionally difficult game to mod, and because of that, while there are many true modders (in comparison to wc3), production lives have been long and only a few of the mods (such as Median) have reached that sweet spot of playability. Because the community remains minute and tight knit there is not much opportunity for a new guy (like me!) to break in. Even though there is lots of resources and such to learn, and a lot of power at your disposal, the learning curve is immense and harrowing for the frail of mind.
Additionally, speaking from the perspective of a melee mapper, the 5 map limit is fatal to expanding my map pool for FFA games.
I believe your view would fit best if the marketplace was a feature optional in addition to local hosting. That way, the marketplace CAN be restricted and thus encourage users to post only their best content, while you can locally host everything else to your heart's content.
so no tower defense/maul custom games? no bunker D or LOTR games? Do I even want to buy this game??
for sc1 and war3 I've logged as many if not more hours playing the customs games as laddering. Usually the phase goes play single campaign (love the stories), ladder (until i realize i suck ) then custom, rinse and repeat.
On May 24 2010 16:38 stork4ever wrote: so no tower defense/maul custom games? no bunker D or LOTR games? Do I even want to buy this game??
for sc1 and war3 I've logged as many if not more hours playing the customs games as laddering. Usually the phase goes play single campaign (love the stories), ladder (until i realize i suck ) then custom, rinse and repeat.
No there definitely will be, just there are more restrictions on the custom games than there should be.
On May 24 2010 16:38 stork4ever wrote: so no tower defense/maul custom games? no bunker D or LOTR games? Do I even want to buy this game??
for sc1 and war3 I've logged as many if not more hours playing the customs games as laddering. Usually the phase goes play single campaign (love the stories), ladder (until i realize i suck ) then custom, rinse and repeat.
Probably no LOTR, the word Lord is offensive to the peasants. Maul is also pretty offensive.
It's almost comical to listen to Dustin Browder say "we're willing to remove and add units if necessary" when anyone with a brain knows that the SC2 team would rather eat their first-born child than remove a unit.
Lurkers, Firebat, Soul Hunter, Cobra, etc.
They were willing when the game is still in alpha. They certainly aren't willing to do it now that the game is in beta depsite their statements that they would.
Which units in beta do you think currently warrant removal?
To be honest, the community always errs on the side of overreaction. In the first months of the beta, the widespread opinion was that Marauders drove a very monotonous game dynamic for Terran play, and that they should be removed. Now, at high levels Marauders are relegated to the role Blizzard probably intended for them: as a support unit. Only bad players and those not in tune with high-level play actually consider it to be a problematic unit (it's massable at low-level play by virtue of the fact that its power doesn't scale a lot with micro, but it also means that better-scaling units outshine it in the hands of better players).
On May 24 2010 11:40 BigDates wrote: i HIGHLYYYYYYYYYYYYY doubt you've taken the time to realise that:
IF the map sizes were too large, it woudl take people LITERALLY an hour to download a SINGLE MAP with custom stuff, hence there are MODS where you can have alot more CUSTOM CONTENT.
You're FAILING to realise that the reason they're doing this now, and in WC3 is to reduce load times.......
So it's to protect us from our own stupidity? Who takes hours to download 100mb? If you do, you probably lag, so don't try and play SC2 with me anyways. Load times are something you should be prepared for. It's not like random melee maps are going to be large and messing up competitions because of load times. And further, this has more to do with limitations Blizzard is setting up because of their own setup; not something that "just is".
It takes hours to download 100mb with the blizzard updater z.z
I must admit I haven't yet read the entire article you have gracefully given us, and I promise to finish it momentarily. But bandwidth can be increased pretty easily, if the map creation community brings this frustration to light I'm sure it will be changed. Good night Liquid Nation.
I find it sad that I agree with this stuff... because it's so close to release.
Everything I say here is with the current state of the editor/game... it is likely to change as it did with patch 13 (and especially with phase 2 of beta...).
With all these issues, let's not forget that this game IS fun and IS pretty darn good... and as an experienced map-maker, I am enjoying sc2 editing (aside from a difficult time in the data editor, but with time everything is learnable).
And battle.net 2.0 probably had a lot of internal changes that we don't see that they spent years on... probably a much nicer internal working than original Bnet that will allow for a lot more later on. This is just me guessing though. I do share the same feeling as you thought about it. I think it's time to simplify and streamline. I feel overwhelmed a bit when I login. Kind of the same when I make a new unit in the data editor...
What I like: - triggers - terrain painting + doodads etc... cosmetic stuff - thought that if you publish your map and its popular it'll be on the top of the list - ability to easily change a unit's weapon through triggers, and dialogs are awesome compared to war 3 - players can join custom games in groups now; no longer do we have to wait and hope our friend joins the same game and gets a spot
What I think needs work: - Actors. You duplicate Probe and his actor. But wait, ingame he has no attack "zap" or sound... you "forgot" his actors for attack and attack beam etc... this is kind of tough because you have to fix this for every unit you make. - Duplication (related to above). Doesn't make a functioning duplicate unit unless you tweak a few final things. - Say I'm working on a map, want to quickly test publicly. In war3 this was simple. You host, people joined because it was on the top of the list... you played it. Now we have to publish (not a big deal), then go create a game with it... sounds good and easy. BUT wait, your map is at the bottom of the list... someone would have to click "Show More" 10 times to see it. I really hope they find a way to make it sort by VERY newest (not just new & popular, but truly newest). How can people test their maps if no one joins... - Updated versions of your map don't "take over" old versions on the map list on Bnet. So while you can only see one version of your published map on your create game etc... people will be blindly playing your old version. New version sits at bottom of popular list. - Related to this ^, new version and old version both have the same name in the list (version not shown until clicked)... so people might be drawn to more popular one and thus ignore the updates. - Custom Game lobby requires scrolling, and chat box is so tiny. I'm predicting both of these will be changed though.
Anyways, I don't want to completely bash Blizzard cause there is many great things at work... but there's good points being made here; Bnet 2.0 being the biggest target.
On May 24 2010 13:14 Skvid wrote: While many of the posts in this thread are nicely worded, a bunch of them are just big overreactions which are fueled by overreactions of other people.
I like over reaction. It's a word that rolls well off the tongue and makes me smile.
With the sad state of Battlenet 2.0 there can be no overreaction. A "sufficient reaction" would be firing the people responsible for the ideas.
Wizards of the Coast had something pretty similar happening to them for their "new D&D". They were advertising computer aides which allows you to design your own dungeons online and play them with your friends. A year and a half after the release of the newest edition this system doesnt work yet, because they got scammed by a company of programmers who didnt do anything except produce some flashy videos.
I fear it will be the same result for Starcraft 2 and the customers, except that the reason behind the failure is bad decisions by the design staff and incapable (or not having enough?) programmers for the job. The game release got pushed back due to the Battlenet 2.0 problems already, so they should know where the problems lie. Sadly I think their idea of "integrating all" is set into stone and cant be changed for a smaller version which actually works.
On May 24 2010 13:14 Skvid wrote: While many of the posts in this thread are nicely worded, a bunch of them are just big overreactions which are fueled by overreactions of other people.
I like over reaction. It's a word that rolls well off the tongue and makes me smile.
With the sad state of Battlenet 2.0 there can be no overreaction. A "sufficient reaction" would be firing the people responsible for the ideas.
Wizards of the Coast had something pretty similar happening to them for their "new D&D". They were advertising computer aides which allows you to design your own dungeons online and play them with your friends. A year and a half after the release of the newest edition this system doesnt work yet, because they got scammed by a company of programmers who didnt do anything except produce some flashy videos.
Well, wotc is just incompetent as a tech company. They have literally never produced a decent online product more advanced than a webpage. Blizzard doesn't have that excuse.
On May 24 2010 10:33 NicolBolas wrote: ........ Blizzard owns the servers. Which means that they are the ones responsible for creating the space for storing your maps to be used in multiplayer. Do you honestly expect Blizzard to offer unlimited, or even Google-level, storage space for your maps? Be reasonable here. We're talking about potentially millions of players. Even with just 5 million players, that's 95TB of storage. Storage that has to be networked, backed up, and so forth. And you expect this to be higher?
For free? Remember: Battle.Net is a free service. Maybe they should allow you to pay a bi-monthly fee for more space.
Furthermore, if you were allowed to just point to a random map on your harddisk and let other people join your game, God only knows what you would be able to do with that. One hopes that SC2 is a reasonably protected environment, but imagine if you could hack someone's machine through a clever use of the scripting system. Making Battle.Net a vector for hacking someone's machine isn't a good idea, even if they can ban you should they find out about it. .....
Are you serious? You realize you've been able to host your own maps in WC2, SC1, WC3..... and there have never been a serious security problem, ever?
Are you a shill for Blizzard or something? You defend everything SC2 - all the time.
For the LAN support thing why don't they just allow you to sign out of battle net (different to logging out) where battle-net gives you a key that allows the game on that pc to be played off-line for a limit of a week or 5 days or something, and until that computer signs back into battle-net, giving back the key, you cannot log into your account on another pc? is that an un-feasible solution to LAN piracy?
On May 24 2010 10:33 NicolBolas wrote: ........ Blizzard owns the servers. Which means that they are the ones responsible for creating the space for storing your maps to be used in multiplayer. Do you honestly expect Blizzard to offer unlimited, or even Google-level, storage space for your maps? Be reasonable here. We're talking about potentially millions of players. Even with just 5 million players, that's 95TB of storage. Storage that has to be networked, backed up, and so forth. And you expect this to be higher?
For free? Remember: Battle.Net is a free service. Maybe they should allow you to pay a bi-monthly fee for more space.
Furthermore, if you were allowed to just point to a random map on your harddisk and let other people join your game, God only knows what you would be able to do with that. One hopes that SC2 is a reasonably protected environment, but imagine if you could hack someone's machine through a clever use of the scripting system. Making Battle.Net a vector for hacking someone's machine isn't a good idea, even if they can ban you should they find out about it. .....
Are you serious? You realize you've been able to host your own maps in WC2, SC1, WC3..... and there have never been a serious security problem, ever?
Are you a shill for Blizzard or something? You defend everything SC2 - all the time.
I have been hacked in a WC3 custom map before(uther party to be exact). it basically did some weird lockout thing that disabled my mouse and prevented me from leaving the game(or alt tabbing). fortunately i had another computer nearby and myself and the 3 others trapped figured out how to reverse it, but it still took us about 45 minutes to do so. with a more advanced scripting system one can only imagine what you could do in a map.
That aside, I do agree with the points the OP made, and i'm worried about getting into the map making scene with a friend of mine.
On May 24 2010 10:33 NicolBolas wrote: ........ Blizzard owns the servers. Which means that they are the ones responsible for creating the space for storing your maps to be used in multiplayer. Do you honestly expect Blizzard to offer unlimited, or even Google-level, storage space for your maps? Be reasonable here. We're talking about potentially millions of players. Even with just 5 million players, that's 95TB of storage. Storage that has to be networked, backed up, and so forth. And you expect this to be higher?
For free? Remember: Battle.Net is a free service. Maybe they should allow you to pay a bi-monthly fee for more space.
Furthermore, if you were allowed to just point to a random map on your harddisk and let other people join your game, God only knows what you would be able to do with that. One hopes that SC2 is a reasonably protected environment, but imagine if you could hack someone's machine through a clever use of the scripting system. Making Battle.Net a vector for hacking someone's machine isn't a good idea, even if they can ban you should they find out about it. .....
Are you serious? You realize you've been able to host your own maps in WC2, SC1, WC3..... and there have never been a serious security problem, ever?
Are you a shill for Blizzard or something? You defend everything SC2 - all the time.
I have been hacked in a WC3 custom map before(uther party to be exact). it basically did some weird lockout thing that disabled my mouse and prevented me from leaving the game(or alt tabbing). fortunately i had another computer nearby and myself and the 3 others trapped figured out how to reverse it, but it still took us about 45 minutes to do so. with a more advanced scripting system one can only imagine what you could do in a map.
That aside, I do agree with the points the OP made, and i'm worried about getting into the map making scene with a friend of mine.
That's lagging the hell out of the game. Sc2 has an execution limit on triggers.
How about you just enjoy the game how they made it while it's still in beta and stop whining about you wanting to do whatever YOU want. If you don't like it pass on the beta key to someone who can appreciate the game and doesn't want to rape every content that it brings.
If it comes, it comes. It's beta and the focus is on Starcraft not a starcraft engine with you doing whatever you want..
On May 24 2010 17:52 Alabasta wrote: How about you just enjoy the game how they made it while it's still in beta and stop whining about you wanting to do whatever YOU want. If you don't like it pass on the beta key to someone who can appreciate the game and doesn't want to rape every content that it brings.
If it comes, it comes. It's beta and the focus is on Starcraft not a starcraft engine with you doing whatever you want..
if thats the case, why even give out the editor to testers in the first place?
On May 24 2010 17:52 Alabasta wrote: How about you just enjoy the game how they made it while it's still in beta and stop whining about you wanting to do whatever YOU want. If you don't like it pass on the beta key to someone who can appreciate the game and doesn't want to rape every content that it brings.
If it comes, it comes. It's beta and the focus is on Starcraft not a starcraft engine with you doing whatever you want..
Yeah i guess when blizzard released the editor and game beta they didn't want any feedback, they just wanted everyone to shut up and play whatever blizzard presented them, thats why we have had a 3 month massive beta, for people to not say anything and be happy with it.
Totally agreed on the op. It is just plain stupid to take away what they had given us for years and totally destroy the whole modding community.
Just to add on, if the game was meant to be for casuals, then it would just be ridiculous to not have chat channels and custom maps. Casuals usually get tired after playing for a while and would start to hang out in chat channels and talk with other people. Also, when i got bored of playing the game itself (warcraft,starcraft) i would naturally go for custom games just to relax amd chill out. It seems as though blizzard is trying to shoot themselves in the leg - the current no chat channel system seems as though they are trying to promote more people to keep playing, yet they want to use such an highly competitive environment to reach out to the CASUALS
On May 24 2010 17:52 Alabasta wrote: How about you just enjoy the game how they made it while it's still in beta and stop whining about you wanting to do whatever YOU want.
You must be one of those guys who doesn't read his own posts before he posts them. I'm sorry friend, nothing I can do for you.
Where do you get the idea that Blizzard should support custom-game makers more than they do now? They've already given out an incredibly powerful tool, a platform for releases and (in perspective) an ability to sell custom maps and scenarios. Is this not enough for you?
Blizzard are the only ones who do this kind of stuff, be it MMOs or RTS.
I think Blizzard just got too big these past few years. We may never see a true masterpiece like BW/D2 ever again.
Honestly who cares about facebook, achievements, and many other useless features. We want chatrooms, lan, custom maps(both melee and ums), and really just a game that takes a step forward instead of a step back.
So it turns out the only part of patch 13 that seemed decent is actually crap. Great.
20MB is a joke. 1GB would be ok I guess, but it could be higher. You should be able to push the engine to its limits, or at least that was the plan at some point. There's no way you can do that with a 20MB limit. And hell yes, SC2 is meant to stay from 2010 to 2020 or something like that. 1GB is nothing, even with millions of users (plus most users won't publish at all). 5 maps total is just plain ridiculous.
The censoring has always been horrible. It's getting worse it seems. But at this point it doesn't really matter how bad it is exactly. It's too bad.
well, you sure know how to throw me into worry. i hope changes are made.
the size issue, though, i think, should stay the same for "normal" users. most map makers are not top caliber and i don't want to be downloading 200 megs of content every time i want to try a new map. my hard drive cannot handle that.
edit: on second thought, if the maps that i did download were that good, i guess it'd be alright.
On May 24 2010 18:41 danl9rm wrote: well, you sure know how to throw me into worry. i hope changes are made.
the size issue, though, i think, should stay the same for "normal" users. most map makers are not top caliber and i don't want to be downloading 200 megs of content every time i want to try a new map. my hard drive cannot handle that.
It's your choice to download the maps, and they are really easy to get rid of as well. But honestly, these days you can get 2TB hard drives at around $100, storage is so cheap!
There should be no limitations since "normal" users will never be able to get a lot of people to download and play their crappy maps anyways.
Many good posts in here, especially the opening post. I really hope Blizzard sees it and reconsiders the way they're going.
My thoughts are: It seems to me that what Blizzard is trying to implement here, is primarily not a good match making system, not a great editor, not an awesome game, but the age og micro transactions and getting even more money off your customers. I think the line of thinking is something like: "It's only obvious that people who use our IP the most, pay us a little more than everyone else". So they define the lowest threshhold in which the game seems like a one time investment. This is for the players that buy the game, play it for a couple of months and never get dedicated to it. It is also for the reviewers. In this package goes the one time investment and the awesome, completely free, map making and online play, as well as the single player game. This is undoubtedly game of the year, if not the decade.
However, after the initial reviews and sales, the game isn't generating any money anymore, so that's where we need micro transactions. Introducing custom decals and whatnot is a great way to rip off the ladder players, of course, everyone would like their own decals to show when they're playing, so that they can feel special. But there's got to be a way to rip off people who spend their time in the editor as well. After all, they're using Blizz's product without paying anything extra for it. So the answer is to limit the number of free maps to 5. After that, you can probably buy more map slots and in that way, they've gotten the users to pay for using the editor.
And yeah, I'm just speculating here, but it's pretty clear to me, that's the way it's going. Oh, and map of the month? Yeah, that'll cost you. Because that would be their way to collect additional money from the people who like single player. They'll probably back it up by saying that it's the same quality as premium maps, and as such, it would be unfair towards the map makers and destructive to the map market to release it for free.
Also, there's one post I'd like to comment:
On May 24 2010 15:29 Bael wrote: Playing devil's advocate for a moment, does it seem reasonable to suspect that with such a restriction on the number of maps available to upload and host, that the quality of these maps will invariably be very high? With no room to host the 4 millionth version of a tower defense spinoff, it seems like Blizzard are encouraging every player who uses Battle.Net to have a crack at the editor and see what they can come up with, rather than relying on a select few mapmakers to provide the bulk of entertainment.
Concordantly, those mapmakers who do excel above and beyond the masses will be encouraged to refine and perfect the maps they have uploaded rather than building big mess of different ones. The size issue could be Blizzard's way of encouraging smaller 'demo' style maps that showcase various features of the SC engine, with the possibility of granting the most popular demos increased space and bandwidth with which to host the 'full' version of the map.
Just a thought from a different perspective.
You're probably right, but is that really what they/we want? There's a great joy in itself making your own map. Or perhaps you like to make maps just to play with your friends and don't really care about popularity. There's been a tradeoff here. Take away some of the fun in order to gain something on the average quality of your market place. So is the SC2 editor about being creative and having fun, or is it about producing the highest quality products for free, for Blizzard to sell? That's my perspective.
TL;DR: I think they'll introduce additional map slots for money, just to get some more money off those who spend their time in the editor. Also, they want to use map makers as a resource for money rather than having the editor be a tool for fun.
On May 24 2010 18:34 Go0g3n wrote: Where do you get the idea that Blizzard should support custom-game makers more than they do now? They've already given out an incredibly powerful tool, a platform for releases and (in perspective) an ability to sell custom maps and scenarios. Is this not enough for you?
Blizzard are the only ones who do this kind of stuff, be it MMOs or RTS.
The current system supports custom game makers LESS than SC/WC3.
On May 24 2010 18:34 Go0g3n wrote: Where do you get the idea that Blizzard should support custom-game makers more than they do now? They've already given out an incredibly powerful tool, a platform for releases and (in perspective) an ability to sell custom maps and scenarios. Is this not enough for you?
Blizzard touts the editor as a primary feature. To this end, they should make it the best it can be, no?
The editor is powerful, but the interface is sloppy and irritating. On top of that, the only way to play your maps with your friends is to adhere to Battle.net's ridiculous limitations.
The ability to sell things is not for us, friend. It's for them. They take a portion of the profit. It's a way of introducing micro transactions into the game and giving them yet more money. Think of it as akin to character transfers on WoW, or DLC for console games. This way it's just more enticing to the mappers. I personally would never sell anything I created.
What I want is for Blizzard to put some effort into their game. I want them to start settling for something more than half-assed, thoughtless garbage. Companies who are series about this kind of thing release massive SDK's like Epic did, companies who are serious about this kind of thing communicate to their userbase and better themselves and their product, like GPG and Valve and Bioware.
Every man wants the game to be balanced. I want the game to be fun to mod and without arbitrary bullshit getting in my way. Is that too much to ask? Then I shall move on.
This is not accounting for the fact that the current system is a complete and total downfall from what Starcraft 1, much less wc3, established already.
It's like what George Lucas did to the new Starwars movies. I feel betrayed as a fan of Starcraft.
Don't get me wrong, the game itself is very good. But the medium that it is being delivered on is extremely terrible. It has made me not want to play the game.
Custom content is fail. What happened to local hosting? There is NO community on B.net, it is LIFELESS. What happened to channels? Can someone explain to me how to add a friend? Could you also tell me where I rank on the global ladder? R.I.P LAN! And finally, goodbye to clan support, you will be dearly missed.
/signed loyal fan since 1998 (future loyal attitudes towards Blizzard are unknown at this point.)
I distributed the 120mb exe through AIM to my players. On battle.net? Feasible to broadband users, but Blizzard wouldn't like the bandwidth usage.
I expect the file caps will rise a bit by release (especially with a lot of negative feedback), but for them to exist at all is absurd without local hosting being an option.
I remember downloading locally hosted maps in SC and WC3 that's only several MB. The download could be really slow especially if there were other people downloading at the same time. I dread to think how long it would take to get a full house trying to distribute a 120 MB map.
Downloading it from Blizzard servers solves this, but as you mentioned the bandwidth is pretty high.
Every popular map was uploaded somewhere though, so i dont think that would be an issue...
Is the 20MB limit for custom content just for Starcraft or for all games? Diablo III and any other games which Blizzard decides to publish are going to be BNet 2.0 too and if the limit is reached by one game you are screwed for custom content on the others. A "blind man with a cane" could see the problems with that.
On May 24 2010 19:43 Rabiator wrote: Just another thought to add:
Is the 20MB limit just for Starcraft or for all games? Diablo III and any other games which Blizzard decides to publish are going to be BNet 2.0 too and if the limit is reached by one game you are screwed for custom content on the others. A "blind man with a cane" could see the problems with that.
You won't be able to mod Diablo 3 from an official standpoint. It will be like Diablo 2 (underground, so to speak, and it's dependent on playing over LAN. Which D3 does not have. Which may be fatal to any concept of modding this game).
We don't know enough about Blizzard's new service to really make any kind of a guess about future possibilities like that.
This can be easy solved. Even if they leave the DL limit of the maps on BNET2.0 @ 20 megs. Host the maps on other servers? Like a star craft 2 map site?
We have to remember this is Beta, and like all blizzard betas, they are doing most things in baby steps. Baby steps are easier to reverse if shit hits the fan. I'm sure we will see the same support as WC3 and BW for custom content, if not more.
On May 24 2010 20:02 Skinny G wrote: This can be easy solved. Even if they leave the DL limit of the maps on BNET2.0 @ 20 megs. Host the maps on other servers? Like a star craft 2 map site?
You would still not be able to play them in multiplayer because they must be published in order for you to play. There is no local hosting.
Additionally I tried this in wc3 and it still did not work.
On May 24 2010 18:34 Go0g3n wrote: Where do you get the idea that Blizzard should support custom-game makers more than they do now? They've already given out an incredibly powerful tool, a platform for releases and (in perspective) an ability to sell custom maps and scenarios. Is this not enough for you?
Blizzard are the only ones who do this kind of stuff, be it MMOs or RTS.
The current system supports custom game makers LESS than SC/WC3.
Depends how you look at it. The new editor, when it comes to functionality, is in a different league comparing to previous ones. Map size is probably a big issue, you can guess how much traffic and drag the whole thing could've generated, having allowed unlimited or large map size/storage for potentially millions of mapmakers.
Of all the current Blizzard projects StarCraft 2 probably isn't on top of Blizzard (or Activision) accountant's "wish" list, as Diablo III and especially some new MMO can bring a lot more cash, so concessions have probably been made.
As for the "obscene" language filter, this is a non-issue, especially for people who are 16/older and can come up with names not including the ~50 disallowed words.
Couldnt they do this censorship stuff with parental control? Like the parents of the youngsters can setup his B.net account so that he cant play maps with censored words, or dunno, maybe he would have it censored or smthing. I mean it wouldnt matter, cause it wont affect 1% of the gamers anyway, but maybe it would satisfy the authorities who decide the rating of the game??
Ah whatever... Right now, im seriously considering not to buy this game afterall... at least not until its starting price goes down
Wow, whoever made the decisions for sc2 online multiplayer must be retarded Oo Not only for the chats, but also those limits on content, maximum amount of projects and lan will certainly limit the amount of fun the game will be.
On May 24 2010 20:19 Kuzmorgo wrote: Couldnt they do this censorship stuff with parental control? Like the parents of the youngsters
Question - why are Youngsters playing a T-rated game? Why would Blizzard try to cater to an audience that shouldn't be existing in the first place, thus implying that the ESRB ratings are just a gimmick and should not be taken seriously? I mean, that's true and all, but why should we suffer for such a retarded cause?
As for the "obscene" language filter, this is a non-issue,
You vastly underestimate the level of general censored content that is enforced right now. You CANNOT upload a map with any of these words in them or in the data files within them.
you can guess how much traffic and drag the whole thing could've generated, having allowed unlimited or large map size/storage for potentially millions of mapmakers.
As I have now said repeatedly, if you had been reading the whole thread that is, I do not ever expect the total filesize to be unlimited - only the number of maps.
Which would be a non-issue if local hosting was possible.
On May 24 2010 20:19 Kuzmorgo wrote: Couldnt they do this censorship stuff with parental control? Like the parents of the youngsters can setup his B.net account so that he cant play maps with censored words, or dunno, maybe he would have it censored or smthing. I mean it wouldnt matter, cause it wont affect 1% of the gamers anyway, but maybe it would satisfy the authorities who decide the rating of the game??
Ah whatever... Right now, im seriously considering not to buy this game afterall... at least not until its starting price goes down
Do you really think that kids should play computer games this much and that they should dictate how the game works? Personally I think kids should learn to ... - do math without a calculator first, - walk before they try to fly a Jet Fighter, - read the book before the movie comes out and most importantly - develop "social competence" before getting dates over the Internet. *1 All these things are negated by the addiction of computer games coupled with the inability of interested children to say no to them.
In the novel DUNE the young hero Paul Atreides gets tested if he is a "human" or an "animal" ... if he can control his emotions or if they control him. Most of our children havent learned to control their emotions yet, so they will fall for every temptation which is presented to them. Thus I would really like for Starcraft 2 to get a "mature" rating and get rid of the ridiculous censorship. Of course Blizzard wont do it, because they are greedy adults who dont care if they are ruining peoples lives by presenting them with an addiction in a young age.
*1 I dont know how it is in your countries, but there are A LOT of commercials on TV for dating agencies for anything from marriage to one-night-stands ... Personally I find this really questionable, because we seem to become unable (or are too lazy) to do it ourselves in real life.
On May 24 2010 20:40 iCCup.Nove wrote: But...it's beta...
Indeed! And what's a beta for, bro? It's for feedback! It's for people to whine and complain because this is (supposedly) a period where we can incite change, yes?
In the novel DUNE the young hero Paul Atreides gets tested if he is a "human" or an "animal" ... if he can control his emotions or if they control him. Most of our children havent learned to control their emotions yet, so they will fall for every temptation which is presented to them. Thus I would really like for Starcraft 2 to get a "mature" rating and get rid of the ridiculous censorship. Of course Blizzard wont do it, because they are greedy adults who dont care if they are ruining peoples lives by presenting them with an addiction in a young age.
maybe they think they will get more sales if it's rated T instead of M , like those GTA games that sold horribly
blizzard is now part of activision , they are not the same company they were 10 years ago.One day a new company will rise up and create the ultimate successor to brood war in the RTS genre , SC2 is looking more and more like a joke every passing week.
On May 24 2010 20:19 Kuzmorgo wrote: Couldnt they do this censorship stuff with parental control? Like the parents of the youngsters can setup his B.net account so that he cant play maps with censored words, or dunno, maybe he would have it censored or smthing. I mean it wouldnt matter, cause it wont affect 1% of the gamers anyway, but maybe it would satisfy the authorities who decide the rating of the game??
Ah whatever... Right now, im seriously considering not to buy this game afterall... at least not until its starting price goes down
Maybe they could just get the stick surgically removed from their ass, and not censor words like "god", "blow", "backdoor" etc.
Seriously, the only explanation I can come up with is that said stick is constricting the blood supply to the brain of whomever is making all these calls.
Hmmm, reading this OP really makes me think that Blizzard is planning on selling advanced modder accounts, which will allow for bigger uploads and less restrictions. Shitty.
I'm just surprised that Blizzard isn't using some kind of bittorrent-like thing to distribute maps. I suspected that that's how it would work, at least for large maps. It would allow Blizzard to control all maps and have them be downloaded from an online interface without anybody going out of his way to give it to somebody, yet not use up server space on large files.
Instead, Blizz cocked it up with some hairbrained idea...
Many good posts in here, especially the opening post. I really hope Blizzard sees it and reconsiders the way they're going.
My thoughts are: It seems to me that what Blizzard is trying to implement here, is primarily not a good match making system, not a great editor, not an awesome game, but the age og micro transactions and getting even more money off your customers. I think the line of thinking is something like: "It's only obvious that people who use our IP the most, pay us a little more than everyone else". So they define the lowest threshhold in which the game seems like a one time investment. This is for the players that buy the game, play it for a couple of months and never get dedicated to it. It is also for the reviewers. In this package goes the one time investment and the awesome, completely free, map making and online play, as well as the single player game. This is undoubtedly game of the year, if not the decade.
However, after the initial reviews and sales, the game isn't generating any money anymore, so that's where we need micro transactions. Introducing custom decals and whatnot is a great way to rip off the ladder players, of course, everyone would like their own decals to show when they're playing, so that they can feel special. But there's got to be a way to rip off people who spend their time in the editor as well. After all, they're using Blizz's product without paying anything extra for it. So the answer is to limit the number of free maps to 5. After that, you can probably buy more map slots and in that way, they've gotten the users to pay for using the editor.
And yeah, I'm just speculating here, but it's pretty clear to me, that's the way it's going. Oh, and map of the month? Yeah, that'll cost you. Because that would be their way to collect additional money from the people who like single player. They'll probably back it up by saying that it's the same quality as premium maps, and as such, it would be unfair towards the map makers and destructive to the map market to release it for free.
Also, there's one post I'd like to comment:
On May 24 2010 15:29 Bael wrote: Playing devil's advocate for a moment, does it seem reasonable to suspect that with such a restriction on the number of maps available to upload and host, that the quality of these maps will invariably be very high? With no room to host the 4 millionth version of a tower defense spinoff, it seems like Blizzard are encouraging every player who uses Battle.Net to have a crack at the editor and see what they can come up with, rather than relying on a select few mapmakers to provide the bulk of entertainment.
Concordantly, those mapmakers who do excel above and beyond the masses will be encouraged to refine and perfect the maps they have uploaded rather than building big mess of different ones. The size issue could be Blizzard's way of encouraging smaller 'demo' style maps that showcase various features of the SC engine, with the possibility of granting the most popular demos increased space and bandwidth with which to host the 'full' version of the map.
Just a thought from a different perspective.
You're probably right, but is that really what they/we want? There's a great joy in itself making your own map. Or perhaps you like to make maps just to play with your friends and don't really care about popularity. There's been a tradeoff here. Take away some of the fun in order to gain something on the average quality of your market place. So is the SC2 editor about being creative and having fun, or is it about producing the highest quality products for free, for Blizzard to sell? That's my perspective.
TL;DR: I think they'll introduce additional map slots for money, just to get some more money off those who spend their time in the editor. Also, they want to use map makers as a resource for money rather than having the editor be a tool for fun.
oh shit.... i just caught a glimpse of a very scary future
I never realized how much the Teen rating would screw over things... especially online, you need to have the "not responsible" disclaimer and just let it flow
On May 24 2010 21:25 Wolfpox wrote: I never realized how much the Teen rating would screw over things... especially online, you need to have the "not responsible" disclaimer and just let it flow
The problem with this is that they've removed all capabilities to play offline so they can have total control over the players experience... Thus they cant get away with that i don't think.
On May 24 2010 21:25 Wolfpox wrote: I never realized how much the Teen rating would screw over things... especially online, you need to have the "not responsible" disclaimer and just let it flow
The problem with this is that they've removed all capabilities to play offline so they can have total control over the players experience... Thus they cant get away with that i don't think.
You will be able to play single player stuff offline.
It is getting more and more apparent that Blizzard has evolved from a broad-minded game company lead by gaming-enthusiasts and programmers producing quality games, into a corporate monster governed by senior executives with degrees in economics thinking money, money and money. When people like Greg Canessa are put as lead designers, something is very wrong at blizzard.
Even their policy on privacy and censorship has gotten to the point I feel very skeptic about accepting the EULA.
I'm thinking more and more to just stick to playing scbw and only play SC2 if i can get my hands on a cracked version where I don't have to sign an EULA that actually would be illegal in my country.
On May 24 2010 20:19 Kuzmorgo wrote: Couldnt they do this censorship stuff with parental control? Like the parents of the youngsters can setup his B.net account so that he cant play maps with censored words, or dunno, maybe he would have it censored or smthing. I mean it wouldnt matter, cause it wont affect 1% of the gamers anyway, but maybe it would satisfy the authorities who decide the rating of the game??
Ah whatever... Right now, im seriously considering not to buy this game afterall... at least not until its starting price goes down
Do you really think that kids should play computer games this much and that they should dictate how the game works? Personally I think kids should learn to ... - do math without a calculator first, - walk before they try to fly a Jet Fighter, - read the book before the movie comes out and most importantly - develop "social competence" before getting dates over the Internet. *1 All these things are negated by the addiction of computer games coupled with the inability of interested children to say no to them.
In the novel DUNE the young hero Paul Atreides gets tested if he is a "human" or an "animal" ... if he can control his emotions or if they control him. Most of our children havent learned to control their emotions yet, so they will fall for every temptation which is presented to them. Thus I would really like for Starcraft 2 to get a "mature" rating and get rid of the ridiculous censorship. Of course Blizzard wont do it, because they are greedy adults who dont care if they are ruining peoples lives by presenting them with an addiction in a young age.
*1 I dont know how it is in your countries, but there are A LOT of commercials on TV for dating agencies for anything from marriage to one-night-stands ... Personally I find this really questionable, because we seem to become unable (or are too lazy) to do it ourselves in real life.
Well i dont think this is the right forum to argue if the "system" is OK or not. I dont think we can expect Blizzard to care about children... Of course you can be mad at them for it, but I really believe the better solution is to take care of your children better (dont take it personnaly i just mean it generally).. You cant really expect to change how the world is (unfortunately), but for example when i was a kid i always had to ask permission to play on our computer (it had a password set from BIOS ). Anyway, what i was saying is that considering that you cannot honestly expect Blizzard to make changes that would change the games rating in a bad way for them, they should look for solutions that would satisfy everyone (And most important of all, satisfy me (and by that i mean us)!! )...
On May 24 2010 20:40 iCCup.Nove wrote: But...it's beta...
Indeed! And what's a beta for, bro? It's for feedback! It's for people to whine and complain because this is (supposedly) a period where we can incite change, yes?
I wouldn't go as far as firing the developer team for Battle.net, but they definitely better insight or better goals. It's good to remember that battle.net and SC2 are not the same team - I tend to mash both together and despite how great Starcraft 2 is, battle.net sours the deal.
Hello, I have some concerns about the Galaxy language after examining data from the StarCraft II beta. First off, this list only contains issues which are not easily fixable with a preprocessor or a higher level language, some of it are just guesses which may or may not be wrong.
Dynamically allocated records There is an error which implies that this isn't supported. This is quite an important issue since if this isn't supported it renders garbage collection, records and pointers pretty much useless.
You can't reference a record before it's defined You fixed the chicken and egg problem with functions, please do the same for records.
Garbage collection I don't know if and how garbage collection will work in Galaxy, but I'm confident you will screw it up anyway.
Function pointers There doesn't seem to be any sign of function pointers. However TriggerCreate references to functions be strings, which is bad news, if Galaxy supports function pointers or not. If Galaxy doesn't support them (I'd slap the idiot who suggested that), I'll pray that there will be a way to execute triggers directly in the same and a new thread.
Fixed point arithmetics Fixed point arithmetics, while good in certain scenarios can cause problems with doing more complex calculations. There doesn't seem to be alternative float type you can use to avoid the problems.
If you want to read more about my findings with Galaxy, I suggest you visit this thread: http://www.wc3c.net/showthread.php?t=109011 (Viewing requires registration for some reason)
I have some additional concerns after studying the language and API further.
Associative arrays This is a very important structure, which allows you to attach, e.g., a structure to a unit. In JASS2, the "return bug" was utilized to get an integer from a native type which was used as an index into an array, or previously as an string to a gamecache entry. This allowed you to construct an associative array. When the return bug was fixed, new natives was introduced (thank god Vexorian managed to convince you!) to replace that specific use of the return bug.
Galaxy has a more advanced type system with structures and pointers, which basically means it has a infinite number of types. Creating natives to return a index for a subset of these types would be a bad solution. You could however: - allow every scalar value to be typecasted to an integer. We could use the integer as an index to a fixed size hashtable. This may however perform bad in a poor VM (which is probably the kind Galaxy will get). - add a new type to the language which syntax similar to an array, e.g. int[string] map, which would be a mapping from integers to strings. You could use it in code like map["hello"] = 3.
These two solutions are rather unclean and mess up the language. A much better solution would be to implement boxing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing_(computer_science)). This would add a new native type which you could call 'object' or 'box'. A box would contain a value of the type of this value. The type should be reduced to a simple integer ID at compile time to allow quick comparison of types. You could then for example box an object by doing this: object b = 5; This could be represented by by an opcode 'box', e.g., box(5, int) -> b, where int would be an integer representation of the type. Unboxing could be done like this: int i = b; This could be represented by by an opcode 'unbox', e.g. unbox(b, int) -> i. If you tried the following: unit u = b; This would result in unbox(b, unit) -> u. The unbox opcode would compare the type stored in the box b (int) to the argument in the unbox (unit), if they don't match (like now) it should raise a runtime error.
Now you could simply add a type and some natives to implement a map, here is an example for such natives: native map MapCreate(); native void MapClear(map m); // Removes all the key/value pairs in the map. native bool MapCompare(map a, map b); // Returns true if all the key/value pairs of map 'a' is equal to all the key/value pairs of map 'b'. native void MapMerge(map m, map other); // Overwrites the key/value pairs in 'm' with those in 'other'. native void MapSet(map m, object key, object value); native object MapGet(map m, object key); // This should raise a runtime error if the key doesn't exist. native bool MapHasKey(map m, object key); native void MapFindValue(map m, object value, object *result); // Sets variable 'result' to the key if a key with the value 'value' was found. Sets the variable 'result' to null if no keys with the value 'value' was found. native bool MapDeleteKey(map m, object key); // Returns true if the key was found and thus deleted. native void MapDestroy(map m);
API Design Native functions should not use function pointers unless absolutely required. In the case that it's required (events/timers), you should be able to pass along a boxed type to reduce the need for associative arrays.
The native functions that work on groups should not use function pointers. Here is some examples of possible ways to loop over a group: unit *u = UnitGroupFirst(group); while(u) { RemoveUnit(*u); u = UnitGroupNext(group, u); }
object u = UnitGroupFirst(group); while(u) { RemoveUnit((unit)u); u = UnitGroupNext(u); }
int i; int count = UnitGroupCount(group); while(i < count) { RemoveUnit(UnitGroupUnit(group, i); i += 1; }
You seem to have gone with the last approach, which is basically a dynamic array of units. So why not implement a dynamic array instead, and get rid of those group types? Here is an example of natives to represent a dynamic array: native array ArrayCreate(); native bool ArrayCompare(array a, array b); // Returns true if all the elements of array 'a' is equal to all the elements of array 'b'. native array ArrayConcat(array a, array b); // Adds the elements of array 'b' to the end of array 'a'. native array ArrayRange(array a, int start, int stop); // Returns the elements from start to stop as a new array. native int ArraySize(array a); native void ArrayResize(array a, int size); native object ArrayGet(array a, int index); native void ArraySet(array a, int index, object value); native void ArrayInsert(array a, int index, object value); native int ArrayPush(array a, object value); // Adds the object to the end of the array. Returns the number of elements in the array after the addition. native object ArrayPop(array a); // Removes and returns the object at the end of the array. native bool ArrayFind(array a, object value); // Returns true if the object was found. native void ArrayDelete(array a, int index); native bool ArrayRemove(array a, object value); // Returns true if the object was found and removed. native void ArrayDestroy(array a);
Now if dynamic arrays are added, you could extend the map natives with a few convenient functions: native array MapKeys(map m); // Returns an array of all the keys. native array MapValues(map m); // Returns an array of all the values.
Not all the natives I've listed here for arrays or maps would be required, but having the most common usage patterns as natives will help speed up and clean up the code.
The difference between string and text types Strings in JASS2 was fairly limited. They were string table based (a leaking one at that!). There wasn't many operations to perform on them and they were slow. This begs the question, why are there two string types in Galaxy? It seems like the text type is used when text is needed to be displayed on screen, this suggests that text types are internally optimized to be displayed on screen somehow and are possibly still string table based. Let's hope that neither the string or text leaks memory or are too slow.
Pointers Currently null pointers does not raise a runtime error when dereferenced. This is obviously quite bad and should be fixed. It's also weird that you can't take a pointer of a constant, maybe you should use a read-only data section if you want these to stay constant?
Function pointers Apparently (*(&function))(); is a valid syntax, but it generates a runtime error and I can't find out the syntax for that type. Either you aren't done taking out the functionality of a C parser/compiler, or it's still work in progress. I'm hoping it's the latter one.
Dynamically allocated records Records (or structs if you like) could be allocated with the new operator. So you could do: structure *a = new structure;
Deletion of dynamic records could be done with: delete a;
This would require a runtime check to make sure you aren't trying to delete anything on the heap or stack. Extra points are given if you can allocate arrays and native types the same way.
Opcode limit/execution limit Ever heard of threading? This limit should be put as high as possible or simply removed.
Performance Galaxy has the potential to be just as fast as C. However that is not a realistic goal since C programs tend to be very well optimized using relativity slow state of the art compilers. You can't compile Galaxy code and store it in a map (not the whole process anyway). It would not be safe nor portable to store x86 code there. You either need to store the bytecode there (which reduces loading times, but it's more work) or compile the code when the map is loaded. Either way the best way to give Galaxy decent performance would be to write (or reuse) a JIT compiler. Even a trivial JIT for x86 lacking stuff like register allocation would provide a substantial performance increase over a bytecode based VM and is relativity simple to write. However if you want to port StarCraft II to other architectures (PPC, x86-64 springs to mind), or you want to combine it with a decent garbage collector you will be better off using a library. I do hope that it at least performs better than the JASS2 VM did.
I've been testing and benchmarking the runtime further and I have some more input.
Strings are still interned, but they don't seem to leak and they don't have the terrible performance of JASS2 (although I wouldn't call them fast).
Opcode limit/execution limit The opcode limit seems to be around 20 times of JASS2's one, but that still only allows computation for around 200 ms. The opcode limit mostly limits what can be done while loading the map or in other appropriate situations, you don't want to play a map that constantly freezes for 200 ms, but then again I'd much rather have the map freeze for a while rather than ruining the game. If a map wanted to intentionally freeze StarCraft II, some computations and a Wait call effectively achieves that.
Type-safety Pointers to stack variables of executed functions is persists after the function returns (more return bugs, yay!). This means you can change the value of new stack variable should they reside the in same location. You can even replace the return address to implement some goto like behavior. However, Blizzard seems to have added a lot of runtime checks to reduce the possibilities for arbitrary code execution, but they don't actually fix the issue.
The simplest and fastest solution to this problem is to implement a tracing garbage collector and allocate local variables which gets referenced on the heap, but I doubt that will happen.
Another solution would be to tag every value on the heap and the stack. This is similar to the boxing type except all values are tagged and all pointer dereferences are checked to make sure they get or set a value of the right type. You could either use two separate heaps and stacks or store pairs of a type and a value in a single heap and stack. Using separate heaps and stacks may be more secure, but it's likely slower due to cache effects and you need to calculate the offsets of the pointers into each area. With a single heap and stack, pointers can be absolute and a simple addition is enough to find the position of the other type or value. This might seem like a lot of overhead, but it will likely perform better than Blizzard's naive checks and actually solve the issue.
Function pointers/closures Closures are extremely handy when doing event-driven programming, which is what Galaxy will be used for, so this is a must-have feature. Closures should have the same syntax as function pointers and be interchangeable with them. Closures should be able to nested and they should be garbage collected. With a tracing garbage collector implementing closures is trivial, without one, you'll need to implement reference counting to keep track off the local variables which are stored on the heap. Hopefully, Blizzard has already written this to track handles, so they could probably reuse that. If closures were implemented, natives taking function pointer arguments wouldn't need an extra parameter for passing values.
Here is some suggested syntax for closures: int calc(int value) {
return 4 / value;
}
void run() {
int i = 2;
int(int) func;
func = int(int value) { return value + i; }; // Assign a closure to the function pointer.
func = calc; // You should be able to assign regular functions too.
print(IntToString(closure(2))); // Should print 2.
Also i read somewhere (cant find the thread now) there there is some sort of limit on stacks or something that basically rapes the editors future usefulness, really annoying i cant find the thread explaining it now but hey maybe IskatuMesk knows what im talking about.
I'm not a programmer but I understand some of the things he's talking about. Bad performance means a pretty big hit to maps who had intentions to use systems similar to the physics engines built in wc3, and one guy on CC was trying to make a system to control projectiles but couldn't get the triggers to update that fast.
Some games like NWN1 had updates to their scripting languages well past release, let's hope Blizzard does the same.
/edit
Oh wow... those graphs are really depressing... :\
On May 24 2010 21:25 Wolfpox wrote: I never realized how much the Teen rating would screw over things... especially online, you need to have the "not responsible" disclaimer and just let it flow
The problem with this is that they've removed all capabilities to play offline so they can have total control over the players experience... Thus they cant get away with that i don't think.
You will be able to play single player stuff offline.
campaign offline (and with no achievements), not single player custom games afaik.
What a disappointment really. I think there are many salient points posted by the users here, and after reading through all of that, I'm not sure whether I still want to buy SC2 anymore. I mean, this is coming from a fan of Blizzard who has played though most of the games that the company has produced, starting from Blackthorne, and enjoyed them.
One of the main selling points of Blizzard was that it produced games that fans asked for. Take Diablo II for example, it's no less than an action-adventure RPG that set many unpredecented standards that other companies have tried to emulate but failed. The equipment generator perhaps still generates the largest amount of weapons any game has seen. Starcraft revolutionized the competitive RTS gaming scene. WC3's WorldEdit was an improvement to SC's StarEdit that ensured that people kept playing the game till this day. Look at Garena and we can tell that there are still hundreds of thousands of people still playing WC3 every day.
And to top it all off, the beautiful support that Blizzard provided for its games ensured that their games are still going strong long after the shelf life of what ordinary games would last. These I think were the hallmarks of Blizzard that made whatever new game they produced so successful (WoW, and SC2 to come).
This is why it's so baffling to me why Blizzard is taking the wrong approach now though this new iteration of Battle.net that has obviously proven to be inferior in almost all senses to its older counterpart. The old Battle.net has been successful for the past 11 years, so if it ain't broken, why fix it? I thought the general rule for sequels (Bnet 2.0 is a "sequel" to the old one, SC2 is a sequel to SC, GalaxyEdit is a sequel to WorldEdit and StarEdit) was never to remove tried and tested functions (LAN Support, playability across regions, Local Hosting) because history shows that doing so is akin to developers shooting themselves in the foot.
I genuinely hope that whoever is up there in Blizzard can realise that it has become a premier gaming brand. Hell, if they charge double or even triple the price for an SC2 that has all the features we wanted, and provided a support team that actually listens to the fans (the very ones that made them famous in the first place), I'd still buy it without any hestitation, knowing that I will enjoy the game for another 8-10 years down the road (as I have with Starcraft, Diablo II and Warcraft III).
Battle.net 2.0 needs a complete overhaul, I don't even mind if the game is further delayed, as long as the end product is a polished piece of work like the old games are.
On May 24 2010 21:25 Wolfpox wrote: I never realized how much the Teen rating would screw over things... especially online, you need to have the "not responsible" disclaimer and just let it flow
The problem with this is that they've removed all capabilities to play offline so they can have total control over the players experience... Thus they cant get away with that i don't think.
You will be able to play single player stuff offline.
campaign offline (and with no achievements), not single player custom games afaik.
... Really?
Wow.
Well, I mean, I'm on cable... but still. That's just silly.
On May 24 2010 22:13 divinesage wrote: I genuinely hope that whoever is up there in Blizzard can realise that it has become a premier gaming brand. Hell, if they charge double or even triple the price for an SC2 that has all the features we wanted, and provided a support team that actually listens to the fans (the very ones that made them famous in the first place), I'd still buy it without any hestitation, knowing that I will enjoy the game for another 8-10 years down the road (as I have with Starcraft, Diablo II and Warcraft III).
They ARE charging triple the price of a regular game. There are going to be 2 expansions.
On May 24 2010 22:25 spinesheath wrote: They ARE charging triple the price of a regular game. There are going to be 2 expansions.
You've got a point there, but what I was trying to drive through is that most people wouldn't have minded if the game was more expensive as long as the quality is delivered, which in the case of SC2, it currently falls short by a long stretch thanks to our shiny new Battle.net.
Make you, or mommy and daddy pay money in order to get more room, bandwidth, hosting storage, whatever. Blizzard is all about money and control.
Regardless, /sign, all your points are valid, for the most part, but unfortunately, this wont be heard nor will anything be done about it =/, despite me and a couple thousand other wishing otherwise.
On May 24 2010 22:38 Rickilicious wrote: Isn't it obvious what they're going to do?
Make you, or mommy and daddy pay money in order to get more room, bandwidth, hosting storage, whatever. Blizzard is all about money and control.
Regardless, /sign, all your points are valid, for the most part, but unfortunately, this wont be heard nor will anything be done about it =/, despite me and a couple thousand other wishing otherwise.
I think the worst part about this is that this affects everyone, whether you know it yet or not. WIthout a doubt, one of the driving forces behind the longevity of WC3 and Starcraft was custom content. Stifling the distribution of custom content hurts the entire player-base, but I'm sure that a large portion of it doesn't even know it yet (which is why I think it's important that articles like this one get written).
Only a few thousand people care, but honestly, this is something that the entire player base SHOULD care about it.
On May 24 2010 22:55 Chriamon wrote: Could they possibly remove the limit on maps size and distribute them p2p like they do with their other files?
That's basically what local hosting is.
Ideally, they could create some sort of torrent-style distribution method that would speed up the process and not just depend on the host to distribute map files once it gets going.
On May 24 2010 22:25 spinesheath wrote: They ARE charging triple the price of a regular game. There are going to be 2 expansions.
You've got a point there, but what I was trying to drive through is that most people wouldn't have minded if the game was more expensive as long as the quality is delivered, which in the case of SC2, it currently falls short by a long stretch thanks to our shiny new Battle.net.
The problem is, that it doesnt matter how bad the game will be, people will buy it. Its fine that fans are complaining and raging about it, but as long as they buy the game, and both expansions, Blizzard is just laughing and celebrating how much money they made... We are discussing right now how bad this game will be, but honestly, how many of us will not buy it because of this?? Most certainly not as many as new customers Blizzard won with the shiny graphics... They lose 1000 fans (i guess), and win 1.000.000 new buyers...
Its just sad, cause up until SC2 i hoped that Blizzard is still caring about making good games, and not just a lot of money (like EA's 1 game/week (or something) strategy...). I mean fans were ok with years of delay, cause they knew that whatever this corporation does its worth waiting for. Is it really worth giving up that image???
# Storage Requirements - Battle.net has the following limits for published files per user: up to five individual maps or mods (represented as "slots" in the dialog), with no more than 20 MB total size, and no more than 10 MB used for any single map or mod.
If there are any additional requirements for publishing the map or mod, they will be listed on the left. Once everything has been configured, you can accept the dialog, and your file will be uploaded to Battle.net. Upload progress can be seen in the File Transfers window which will automatically be shown. When the upload is complete, you can get online in the game and play your map!
Honestly guys... this is beta they probably made the storage size limit smaller than it really is. The current beta server barely supports 10k people at once. I mean barely. I can't imagine they are using full mass storage they have right now. Beta players have not even paid for the game, do you think they will let you store 100MB per player right now? Common sense guys. However I do agree, the map should be sharable like sc1 or wc3. I rather have people easier time hacking through my maps than getting stuck with storage limit.
On May 24 2010 23:10 ooni wrote: Honestly guys... this is beta they probably made the storage size limit smaller than it really is. The current beta server barely supports 10k people at once. I mean barely. I can't imagine they are using full mass storage they have right now. Beta players have not even paid for the game, do you think they will let you store 100MB per player right now? Common sense guys. However I do agree, the map should be sharable like sc1 or wc3. I rather have people easier time hacking through my maps than getting stuck with storage limit.
They either have the storage ready by now or they will likely run into problems by release. So, since the beta is there to test stuff out, they should DEFINITELY raise the upload limitations above the planned limits on release to test the system. Sure we haven't paid for the beta. Blizzard hasn't paid us for the countless hours of testing and the infinite variations of hardware configurations. This is very valuable information. To gather all that information without us beta testers, Blizzard would have had to spend millions of Dollars. I'd say Blizzard owes us a great game for all the effort put into this, not the other way around.
Any kind of censorship in ANY form is bad. It's happening more and more over the internet, all because of corporate douches that are finding it easier to enforce censorship and not worry about 'offending' some one, than actually allowing freedom of speech and expression. So what if someone get's offended, as Richard Dawkins once said:' I get offended by people wearing baseball caps sideways, should we prohibit such dressing code by law now?'
Man holy shit blizzard can't tell their anus from their mouth it seems.
/agreed and though I'm sure the mods are getting annoyed, keep these threads coming, we need to make sure blizzard knows how we feel. This is a travesty.
While I agree and support all the points IskatuMesk has made, wouldn't it be more correct to name this thread "Battle.net 2.0 will harm custom content"? This seems more like a problem with Battle.net itself rather then the game.
On May 24 2010 22:47 Djzapz wrote: This issue reminds me of the MW2 PC version... A big slap in the face of modders. Very nice.
Agreed. I dunno, I'm just getting increasingly pessimistic on anything coming to fruition. Chat rooms, LAN, decent latency online...I mean we are less than 2 months from release now. It was funny back in Feb/March, but it's the end of May now.
I have to agree with you somewhat... though I just don't want another WC3 custom game where ALL THE GAMES ARE DOTA. It seems like turret defence and all the good games belong as good custom games. I just hope they dont destroy sc2 with crappy DoTa which isn't bad of course (contradicting i know) but too much of something is just too much. We need to have a good balanced custom game section.
P.S I read about half of ur post, so forgive me if i didn't read it in detail.
On May 24 2010 23:04 Kuzmorgo wrote: The problem is, that it doesnt matter how bad the game will be, people will buy it. Its fine that fans are complaining and raging about it, but as long as they buy the game, and both expansions, Blizzard is just laughing and celebrating how much money they made... We are discussing right now how bad this game will be, but honestly, how many of us will not buy it because of this?? Most certainly not as many as new customers Blizzard won with the shiny graphics... They lose 1000 fans (i guess), and win 1.000.000 new buyers...
Its just sad, cause up until SC2 i hoped that Blizzard is still caring about making good games, and not just a lot of money (like EA's 1 game/week (or something) strategy...). I mean fans were ok with years of delay, cause they knew that whatever this corporation does its worth waiting for. Is it really worth giving up that image???
This actually is the thing that I don't understand. If Blizzard did so much over the past 15 years to build up its image, and with it all the sales, why destroy it overnight by creating new marketing strategies? As I have said earlier, they could charge more to keep their profit margins and yet we will still be more satisfied to pay more to get what we want. Right now they're just doing the opposite and destroying their image and fanbase. What a sad thing.
Actually even if Blizzard brings back local hosting, I wouldn't exactly want this new "download from Blizzard servers" system for popular maps to be around. I feel that it destroys newly created maps as they won't have a way to publicise themselves while the established ones just get more popular.
Look at DotA, it's a balanced game with lots of mechanics going into it and alot of support from the developers. But what it has done is that it has stifled other custom games from surfacing. Before DotA Allstars became successful, the variety of games in Bnet was way larger than after it became established. Perhaps it's partly due to the ageing of the game that people slowly stop playing, but surely DotA played a big part in killing many promising custom games around at that time.
I wouldn't want to see a repeat of this in SC2 where it's just the same few established custom games floating around. Makes the entire modding/mapping scene very bland.
On May 24 2010 23:41 qazqwezxc wrote: I have to agree with you somewhat... though I just don't want another WC3 custom game where ALL THE GAMES ARE DOTA. It seems like turret defence and all the good games belong as good custom games. I just hope they dont destroy sc2 with crappy DoTa which isn't bad of course (contradicting i know) but too much of something is just too much. We need to have a good balanced custom game section.
P.S I read about half of ur post, so forgive me if i didn't read it in detail.
Making the user able to select the type of map you wanna play (and for example letting the mapmaker choose what type of map he made), like TD or RPG etc could solve that. Or being able to search for the map name.
On May 24 2010 23:33 Tom Phoenix wrote: While I agree and support all the points IskatuMesk has made, wouldn't it be more correct to name this thread "Battle.net 2.0 will harm custom content"? This seems more like a problem with Battle.net itself rather then the game.
Well, B.net 2.0 is a critical part of sc2, but yes that would be more accurate.
I was eagerly waiting for the release of custom maps in SC2, it looked like a plataform all these little quirky games could be published and, in some cases, sold. And, of course, the big projects like DotA that can spawn a genre in itself.
But after reading this, my expectations are next to dim. Some developers will probably work under these conditions and publish some great custom content but they'll have to battle Blizzard's system every step of the way.
I would not be surprised if these are the beta specs. I highly doubt they limit the map size to that small. I also would be surprised if they add in some sort of "test mode" for developers. Does the current editor even have all of the games units / structures / textures / ect ?
I think it's healthy to bring this to attention, but let's not jump to conclusions so fast.
On May 25 2010 00:19 spaztaz wrote: I would not be surprised if these are the beta specs. I highly doubt they limit the map size to that small. I also would be surprised if they add in some sort of "test mode" for developers. Does the current editor even have all of the games units / structures / textures / ect ?
I think it's healthy to bring this to attention, but let's not jump to conclusions so fast.
If they hold back because it's still beta then they should rethink their testing methods. Stress the system while you can still afford it. Or they should realize that the game will be released soon - there's not enough time to do small scale tests and slowly increase the limits.
well written and thought out post good sir. it comes as no suprise that blizzard wants to have full control and make as much money as possible. i just dont see the point in buying the game right now =/ and i mean this is coming from someone who played the original so much i had purchased a battle chest just to get new cds because the old ones wore out.(and for those sweet strategy guides!jk)
bnet 2.0 is the biggest pile of shit ever and the facebook thing is just a kick in the teeth. i hope people read all of this
Blizzard said they will be releasing custom maps that you can buy on Battlenet that could not be duplicated in the editor. The reason they restrict designers is they dont want competition. Blizzard will probably make their own version of DOTA and sell it on Battlenet.
If they hold back because it's still beta then they should rethink their testing methods. Stress the system while you can still afford it.
I don't believe Blizzard is interested in stressing the whole system during the beta. If they were, they would have made the beta open for anyone to participate. Instead, they seem to prefer small-scale testing, and perhaps this is what they are doing with map-uploading as well.
On May 25 2010 00:06 bull0563 wrote: it's too complicated too have average users rage on this. But should we?
Yes, yes you should as it limits great games, atleast in presentation.
As after you publish a map say it's 2mb when you start it reach about 10mb after you publish
along with they have this database but how are we suppose to navigate it?
And limiting the number of maps to map creators is retarted as good map creators tend to make alot of maps becuase they are good at it
And locking versions although map makers hate it when you jack their work it helps the game becuase eventually the best version is found which is not always the original.
Along with names the limit on names will make people name their maps retarted shit.
On May 25 2010 00:36 YJ_ wrote: Blizzard said they will be releasing custom maps that you can buy on Battlenet that could not be duplicated in the editor. The reason they restrict designers is they dont want competition. Blizzard will probably make their own version of DOTA and sell it on Battlenet.
Where did you read this, b/c this is beyond infuriating if true
On May 25 2010 00:36 YJ_ wrote: Blizzard said they will be releasing custom maps that you can buy on Battlenet that could not be duplicated in the editor. The reason they restrict designers is they dont want competition. Blizzard will probably make their own version of DOTA and sell it on Battlenet.
If you're going to make bold claims that will get people worked up, you should probably provide a source. People have been banned for simply making this sort of stuff up before, simply because of the effect it has on people.
Blizzard said they will be releasing custom maps that you can buy on Battlenet that could not be duplicated in the editor. The reason they restrict designers is they dont want competition. Blizzard will probably make their own version of DOTA and sell it on Battlenet.
The restrictions are purposely implemented to restrict the users and give Blizzard an edge. This philosophy is a red line throughout Starcraft 2 and Battle.net 2.0. The users are cattle that we'll keep busy with achievements and eye candy, and unable to communicate with eachother with the lack of chat channels and clan support. Then we'll move in and hi-jack all the LAN-events, charge people money for custom maps made by some unfortunate user, and sell their private information to google.
Welcome to a new generation of consumerism, goyim..
While I agree that the map limitations are bad, I really don't think they're the problem. The amount of storage space assigned to a user is just a number; one number can be easily changed. If you have to pay for it, whatever, that's a separate issue.
The problem, and one I'm glad to see has been identified several times in this thread is that the custom game creation system (no game names/passwords, bad searching, difficult to find new maps without being explicitly aware of them, no ability to preserve more than one version of a map), game joining system (not really a lobby system, just a group of maps that, when joined, may or may not put you in the same version as your friend, also gives no indication of popular maps or different modes available: think -ar vs -ap in dota) are fundamentally a step backwards from the systems in place in BW 12 years ago.
More worrisome than the fact that they're bad is that they're not easy to change. If an entirely new system is developed, tested, approved and implemented before release I'll gladly eat my words and never doubt Blizzard again... but is that a realistic expectation?
Blizzard said they will be releasing custom maps that you can buy on Battlenet that could not be duplicated in the editor. The reason they restrict designers is they dont want competition. Blizzard will probably make their own version of DOTA and sell it on Battlenet.
The restrictions are purposely implemented to restrict the users and give Blizzard an edge. This philosophy is a red line throughout Starcraft 2 and Battle.net 2.0. The users are cattle that we'll keep busy with achievements and eye candy, and unable to communicate with eachother with the lack of chat channels and clan support. Then we'll move in and hi-jack all the LAN-events, charge people money for custom maps made by some unfortunate user, and sell their private information to google.
Welcome to a new generation of consumerism, goyim..
Well Facebook, Second Life, BNet 2.0 are all alpha versions of the Matrix from different angles ... big brother is watching (and controlling) you.
On May 25 2010 00:40 beamer159 wrote: I don't believe Blizzard is interested in stressing the whole system during the beta. If they were, they would have made the beta open for anyone to participate. Instead, they seem to prefer small-scale testing, and perhaps this is what they are doing with map-uploading as well.
Wasn't there speculation that "phase 2" of the beta would be an open beta/stress test?
Count me in the "these restrictions seem like they're probably just for the beta" camp. The only other reason I can think of for them would be the idea that Blizzard wants to in some way "restrict competition", and if that's the case I wouldn't think they would have released (and publicized) such a hugely powerful map editor.
On May 25 2010 00:36 YJ_ wrote: Blizzard said they will be releasing custom maps that you can buy on Battlenet that could not be duplicated in the editor. The reason they restrict designers is they dont want competition. Blizzard will probably make their own version of DOTA and sell it on Battlenet.
Where did you read this, b/c this is beyond infuriating if true
It's coming straight from his ass. A common occurrence on this forum nowadays unfortunately.
i just wanna add the reason for this is probably not blizzard being evil but a change in the market 12 years ago you would not have expected to make money beyond the actual game sales 12 years ago you actually would have made the most money making a game for gamers those things have changed
IskatuMesk you speak with the truth but until someone gives Blizz a good slap in the face and realize the BIG mistake they are making something awfull is going to happen. Imagine if the next CS or the next DotA comes from SCII. They want power over their product but they are doing it wrong.
Even with the changing market Blizzard is putting monetary gain through selling your maps ahead of usability, I can't even express how horrible of a move it is to remove local hosting if Battle.net publishing is going to have limits.
Theres 360 maps in my WC3 folder totalling 414mb, how much fun do you think I would be having if those maps just starting dissapearing 1 by 1 because the original creator needed more slots for other projects, its not even an option to re-upload maps myself especially if they are locked.
It even comes down to map versions, a game breaking bug/imbalance gets introduced and you don't even have the option of playing an older one.
I heard it in an interview from a blizzard designer on youtube, I think it was from Blizzcon or something. Limiting the editor is speculation, but if you guys think that blizz aint going to be trying to sell content on BN2.0 your naive.
Oh yeah dont you think its funny that there is a screen that tells you when your account expires? I wonder what the plan is in future for that.
Blizz has made two hyper-successful RTSs- SC and War3. They have also made a successful RPG, D2. Now, on SC2, they are going back and making THE EXACT OPPOSITE choices on every decision...
Hello, I have some concerns about the Galaxy language after examining data from the StarCraft II beta. First off, this list only contains issues which are not easily fixable with a preprocessor or a higher level language, some of it are just guesses which may or may not be wrong.
Dynamically allocated records There is an error which implies that this isn't supported. This is quite an important issue since if this isn't supported it renders garbage collection, records and pointers pretty much useless.
You can't reference a record before it's defined You fixed the chicken and egg problem with functions, please do the same for records.
Garbage collection I don't know if and how garbage collection will work in Galaxy, but I'm confident you will screw it up anyway.
Function pointers There doesn't seem to be any sign of function pointers. However TriggerCreate references to functions be strings, which is bad news, if Galaxy supports function pointers or not. If Galaxy doesn't support them (I'd slap the idiot who suggested that), I'll pray that there will be a way to execute triggers directly in the same and a new thread.
Fixed point arithmetics Fixed point arithmetics, while good in certain scenarios can cause problems with doing more complex calculations. There doesn't seem to be alternative float type you can use to avoid the problems.
If you want to read more about my findings with Galaxy, I suggest you visit this thread: http://www.wc3c.net/showthread.php?t=109011 (Viewing requires registration for some reason)
I have some additional concerns after studying the language and API further.
Associative arrays This is a very important structure, which allows you to attach, e.g., a structure to a unit. In JASS2, the "return bug" was utilized to get an integer from a native type which was used as an index into an array, or previously as an string to a gamecache entry. This allowed you to construct an associative array. When the return bug was fixed, new natives was introduced (thank god Vexorian managed to convince you!) to replace that specific use of the return bug.
Galaxy has a more advanced type system with structures and pointers, which basically means it has a infinite number of types. Creating natives to return a index for a subset of these types would be a bad solution. You could however: - allow every scalar value to be typecasted to an integer. We could use the integer as an index to a fixed size hashtable. This may however perform bad in a poor VM (which is probably the kind Galaxy will get). - add a new type to the language which syntax similar to an array, e.g. int[string] map, which would be a mapping from integers to strings. You could use it in code like map["hello"] = 3.
These two solutions are rather unclean and mess up the language. A much better solution would be to implement boxing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing_(computer_science)). This would add a new native type which you could call 'object' or 'box'. A box would contain a value of the type of this value. The type should be reduced to a simple integer ID at compile time to allow quick comparison of types. You could then for example box an object by doing this: object b = 5; This could be represented by by an opcode 'box', e.g., box(5, int) -> b, where int would be an integer representation of the type. Unboxing could be done like this: int i = b; This could be represented by by an opcode 'unbox', e.g. unbox(b, int) -> i. If you tried the following: unit u = b; This would result in unbox(b, unit) -> u. The unbox opcode would compare the type stored in the box b (int) to the argument in the unbox (unit), if they don't match (like now) it should raise a runtime error.
Now you could simply add a type and some natives to implement a map, here is an example for such natives: native map MapCreate(); native void MapClear(map m); // Removes all the key/value pairs in the map. native bool MapCompare(map a, map b); // Returns true if all the key/value pairs of map 'a' is equal to all the key/value pairs of map 'b'. native void MapMerge(map m, map other); // Overwrites the key/value pairs in 'm' with those in 'other'. native void MapSet(map m, object key, object value); native object MapGet(map m, object key); // This should raise a runtime error if the key doesn't exist. native bool MapHasKey(map m, object key); native void MapFindValue(map m, object value, object *result); // Sets variable 'result' to the key if a key with the value 'value' was found. Sets the variable 'result' to null if no keys with the value 'value' was found. native bool MapDeleteKey(map m, object key); // Returns true if the key was found and thus deleted. native void MapDestroy(map m);
API Design Native functions should not use function pointers unless absolutely required. In the case that it's required (events/timers), you should be able to pass along a boxed type to reduce the need for associative arrays.
The native functions that work on groups should not use function pointers. Here is some examples of possible ways to loop over a group: unit *u = UnitGroupFirst(group); while(u) { RemoveUnit(*u); u = UnitGroupNext(group, u); }
object u = UnitGroupFirst(group); while(u) { RemoveUnit((unit)u); u = UnitGroupNext(u); }
int i; int count = UnitGroupCount(group); while(i < count) { RemoveUnit(UnitGroupUnit(group, i); i += 1; }
You seem to have gone with the last approach, which is basically a dynamic array of units. So why not implement a dynamic array instead, and get rid of those group types? Here is an example of natives to represent a dynamic array: native array ArrayCreate(); native bool ArrayCompare(array a, array b); // Returns true if all the elements of array 'a' is equal to all the elements of array 'b'. native array ArrayConcat(array a, array b); // Adds the elements of array 'b' to the end of array 'a'. native array ArrayRange(array a, int start, int stop); // Returns the elements from start to stop as a new array. native int ArraySize(array a); native void ArrayResize(array a, int size); native object ArrayGet(array a, int index); native void ArraySet(array a, int index, object value); native void ArrayInsert(array a, int index, object value); native int ArrayPush(array a, object value); // Adds the object to the end of the array. Returns the number of elements in the array after the addition. native object ArrayPop(array a); // Removes and returns the object at the end of the array. native bool ArrayFind(array a, object value); // Returns true if the object was found. native void ArrayDelete(array a, int index); native bool ArrayRemove(array a, object value); // Returns true if the object was found and removed. native void ArrayDestroy(array a);
Now if dynamic arrays are added, you could extend the map natives with a few convenient functions: native array MapKeys(map m); // Returns an array of all the keys. native array MapValues(map m); // Returns an array of all the values.
Not all the natives I've listed here for arrays or maps would be required, but having the most common usage patterns as natives will help speed up and clean up the code.
The difference between string and text types Strings in JASS2 was fairly limited. They were string table based (a leaking one at that!). There wasn't many operations to perform on them and they were slow. This begs the question, why are there two string types in Galaxy? It seems like the text type is used when text is needed to be displayed on screen, this suggests that text types are internally optimized to be displayed on screen somehow and are possibly still string table based. Let's hope that neither the string or text leaks memory or are too slow.
Pointers Currently null pointers does not raise a runtime error when dereferenced. This is obviously quite bad and should be fixed. It's also weird that you can't take a pointer of a constant, maybe you should use a read-only data section if you want these to stay constant?
Function pointers Apparently (*(&function))(); is a valid syntax, but it generates a runtime error and I can't find out the syntax for that type. Either you aren't done taking out the functionality of a C parser/compiler, or it's still work in progress. I'm hoping it's the latter one.
Dynamically allocated records Records (or structs if you like) could be allocated with the new operator. So you could do: structure *a = new structure;
Deletion of dynamic records could be done with: delete a;
This would require a runtime check to make sure you aren't trying to delete anything on the heap or stack. Extra points are given if you can allocate arrays and native types the same way.
Opcode limit/execution limit Ever heard of threading? This limit should be put as high as possible or simply removed.
Performance Galaxy has the potential to be just as fast as C. However that is not a realistic goal since C programs tend to be very well optimized using relativity slow state of the art compilers. You can't compile Galaxy code and store it in a map (not the whole process anyway). It would not be safe nor portable to store x86 code there. You either need to store the bytecode there (which reduces loading times, but it's more work) or compile the code when the map is loaded. Either way the best way to give Galaxy decent performance would be to write (or reuse) a JIT compiler. Even a trivial JIT for x86 lacking stuff like register allocation would provide a substantial performance increase over a bytecode based VM and is relativity simple to write. However if you want to port StarCraft II to other architectures (PPC, x86-64 springs to mind), or you want to combine it with a decent garbage collector you will be better off using a library. I do hope that it at least performs better than the JASS2 VM did.
I've been testing and benchmarking the runtime further and I have some more input.
Strings are still interned, but they don't seem to leak and they don't have the terrible performance of JASS2 (although I wouldn't call them fast).
Opcode limit/execution limit The opcode limit seems to be around 20 times of JASS2's one, but that still only allows computation for around 200 ms. The opcode limit mostly limits what can be done while loading the map or in other appropriate situations, you don't want to play a map that constantly freezes for 200 ms, but then again I'd much rather have the map freeze for a while rather than ruining the game. If a map wanted to intentionally freeze StarCraft II, some computations and a Wait call effectively achieves that.
Type-safety Pointers to stack variables of executed functions is persists after the function returns (more return bugs, yay!). This means you can change the value of new stack variable should they reside the in same location. You can even replace the return address to implement some goto like behavior. However, Blizzard seems to have added a lot of runtime checks to reduce the possibilities for arbitrary code execution, but they don't actually fix the issue.
The simplest and fastest solution to this problem is to implement a tracing garbage collector and allocate local variables which gets referenced on the heap, but I doubt that will happen.
Another solution would be to tag every value on the heap and the stack. This is similar to the boxing type except all values are tagged and all pointer dereferences are checked to make sure they get or set a value of the right type. You could either use two separate heaps and stacks or store pairs of a type and a value in a single heap and stack. Using separate heaps and stacks may be more secure, but it's likely slower due to cache effects and you need to calculate the offsets of the pointers into each area. With a single heap and stack, pointers can be absolute and a simple addition is enough to find the position of the other type or value. This might seem like a lot of overhead, but it will likely perform better than Blizzard's naive checks and actually solve the issue.
Function pointers/closures Closures are extremely handy when doing event-driven programming, which is what Galaxy will be used for, so this is a must-have feature. Closures should have the same syntax as function pointers and be interchangeable with them. Closures should be able to nested and they should be garbage collected. With a tracing garbage collector implementing closures is trivial, without one, you'll need to implement reference counting to keep track off the local variables which are stored on the heap. Hopefully, Blizzard has already written this to track handles, so they could probably reuse that. If closures were implemented, natives taking function pointer arguments wouldn't need an extra parameter for passing values.
Here is some suggested syntax for closures: int calc(int value) {
return 4 / value;
}
void run() {
int i = 2;
int(int) func;
func = int(int value) { return value + i; }; // Assign a closure to the function pointer.
func = calc; // You should be able to assign regular functions too.
print(IntToString(closure(2))); // Should print 2.
Also i read somewhere (cant find the thread now) there there is some sort of limit on stacks or something that basically rapes the editors future usefulness, really annoying i cant find the thread explaining it now but hey maybe IskatuMesk knows what im talking about.
Oh god. I just went to the link and read the whole thing, and the big change Blizzard made to Galaxy in Patch 9 is both hilarious, and mindbogglingly silly.
My points about - dynamically allocated records, - you can't reference a record before it's defined, - garbage collection, - pointers, - type-safety have elegantly been resolved in patch 9 by the removal of pointers altogether.
I know Blizzard wants to monetize battle.net, but why would they ever add something like increased prices for special mapmaking functionality? Mapmakers are contentcreators, and they do it for nearly free, just the cost of the servers and whatnot, you'd have a better argument to say that Blizzard should offer them money.
As an avid map maker who has created mods and maps for both SC2 and War3, I'm disappointed in the current state of map publishing.
However, I still haven't seen an official source outlying the reasons/motivations behind them; people just seem to be making assumptions that Blizzard is trying to go 1984 on us.
On May 24 2010 21:45 tYsopz wrote:I'm thinking more and more to just stick to playing scbw and only play SC2 if i can get my hands on a cracked version where I don't have to sign an EULA that actually would be illegal in my country.
I don't know about other countries, but I can speak for Norway (where I see we're both from) :
Any product sold in Norway has to follow the Norwegian law. Period. If you bought your copy of SC2 at Platekompaniet, CDON.no, Elkjøp or whatever, you can laugh out loud in mocking laughter as you press the "I agree" button in the EULA, knowing that your pretended agreement is worth nothing to Blizzard. If Norwegian law states one thing and the EULA another, then the Norwegian law is what counts.
Every now and then there are articles in the newspapers about how companies cheat you. It's mostly Elkjøp and Expert trying to sell you extra insurance for something that they're already obligated to provide (3 year warranty and so on) and lately also how Apple lies to you when they say that your 1 year warranty is up, when according to law, they have to provide for 3 or 5 years (can't remember right now). And they are aware of the laws they neglect. If you say that you know of the laws too, they'll comply immediately without argument. In all cases, the only reason why it works, is because people don't know their rights.
I know that EU has led many lawsuits against various computer companies infringing on user rights, but I don't know exactly to what extent users are protected from "unfair" EULAs. I would encourage everyone to check up on their rights. Perhaps you may still legally buy and play SC2 without being binded by the EULA! (In some countries, perhaps you may even legally hack LAN into it, although I won't say for sure).
Remember, though, having the law on your side is one thing. Getting it enforced is another. If push comes to shove, you might have to go through the courts to win your argument. If that's not something you're willing to do, then you should really reconsider before you hand over your rights to Blizzard (or anyone else (like Facebook!) for that matter).
Hello, I have some concerns about the Galaxy language after examining data from the StarCraft II beta. First off, this list only contains issues which are not easily fixable with a preprocessor or a higher level language, some of it are just guesses which may or may not be wrong.
Dynamically allocated records There is an error which implies that this isn't supported. This is quite an important issue since if this isn't supported it renders garbage collection, records and pointers pretty much useless.
You can't reference a record before it's defined You fixed the chicken and egg problem with functions, please do the same for records.
Garbage collection I don't know if and how garbage collection will work in Galaxy, but I'm confident you will screw it up anyway.
Function pointers There doesn't seem to be any sign of function pointers. However TriggerCreate references to functions be strings, which is bad news, if Galaxy supports function pointers or not. If Galaxy doesn't support them (I'd slap the idiot who suggested that), I'll pray that there will be a way to execute triggers directly in the same and a new thread.
Fixed point arithmetics Fixed point arithmetics, while good in certain scenarios can cause problems with doing more complex calculations. There doesn't seem to be alternative float type you can use to avoid the problems.
If you want to read more about my findings with Galaxy, I suggest you visit this thread: http://www.wc3c.net/showthread.php?t=109011 (Viewing requires registration for some reason)
I have some additional concerns after studying the language and API further.
Associative arrays This is a very important structure, which allows you to attach, e.g., a structure to a unit. In JASS2, the "return bug" was utilized to get an integer from a native type which was used as an index into an array, or previously as an string to a gamecache entry. This allowed you to construct an associative array. When the return bug was fixed, new natives was introduced (thank god Vexorian managed to convince you!) to replace that specific use of the return bug.
Galaxy has a more advanced type system with structures and pointers, which basically means it has a infinite number of types. Creating natives to return a index for a subset of these types would be a bad solution. You could however: - allow every scalar value to be typecasted to an integer. We could use the integer as an index to a fixed size hashtable. This may however perform bad in a poor VM (which is probably the kind Galaxy will get). - add a new type to the language which syntax similar to an array, e.g. int[string] map, which would be a mapping from integers to strings. You could use it in code like map["hello"] = 3.
These two solutions are rather unclean and mess up the language. A much better solution would be to implement boxing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing_(computer_science)). This would add a new native type which you could call 'object' or 'box'. A box would contain a value of the type of this value. The type should be reduced to a simple integer ID at compile time to allow quick comparison of types. You could then for example box an object by doing this: object b = 5; This could be represented by by an opcode 'box', e.g., box(5, int) -> b, where int would be an integer representation of the type. Unboxing could be done like this: int i = b; This could be represented by by an opcode 'unbox', e.g. unbox(b, int) -> i. If you tried the following: unit u = b; This would result in unbox(b, unit) -> u. The unbox opcode would compare the type stored in the box b (int) to the argument in the unbox (unit), if they don't match (like now) it should raise a runtime error.
Now you could simply add a type and some natives to implement a map, here is an example for such natives: native map MapCreate(); native void MapClear(map m); // Removes all the key/value pairs in the map. native bool MapCompare(map a, map b); // Returns true if all the key/value pairs of map 'a' is equal to all the key/value pairs of map 'b'. native void MapMerge(map m, map other); // Overwrites the key/value pairs in 'm' with those in 'other'. native void MapSet(map m, object key, object value); native object MapGet(map m, object key); // This should raise a runtime error if the key doesn't exist. native bool MapHasKey(map m, object key); native void MapFindValue(map m, object value, object *result); // Sets variable 'result' to the key if a key with the value 'value' was found. Sets the variable 'result' to null if no keys with the value 'value' was found. native bool MapDeleteKey(map m, object key); // Returns true if the key was found and thus deleted. native void MapDestroy(map m);
API Design Native functions should not use function pointers unless absolutely required. In the case that it's required (events/timers), you should be able to pass along a boxed type to reduce the need for associative arrays.
The native functions that work on groups should not use function pointers. Here is some examples of possible ways to loop over a group: unit *u = UnitGroupFirst(group); while(u) { RemoveUnit(*u); u = UnitGroupNext(group, u); }
object u = UnitGroupFirst(group); while(u) { RemoveUnit((unit)u); u = UnitGroupNext(u); }
int i; int count = UnitGroupCount(group); while(i < count) { RemoveUnit(UnitGroupUnit(group, i); i += 1; }
You seem to have gone with the last approach, which is basically a dynamic array of units. So why not implement a dynamic array instead, and get rid of those group types? Here is an example of natives to represent a dynamic array: native array ArrayCreate(); native bool ArrayCompare(array a, array b); // Returns true if all the elements of array 'a' is equal to all the elements of array 'b'. native array ArrayConcat(array a, array b); // Adds the elements of array 'b' to the end of array 'a'. native array ArrayRange(array a, int start, int stop); // Returns the elements from start to stop as a new array. native int ArraySize(array a); native void ArrayResize(array a, int size); native object ArrayGet(array a, int index); native void ArraySet(array a, int index, object value); native void ArrayInsert(array a, int index, object value); native int ArrayPush(array a, object value); // Adds the object to the end of the array. Returns the number of elements in the array after the addition. native object ArrayPop(array a); // Removes and returns the object at the end of the array. native bool ArrayFind(array a, object value); // Returns true if the object was found. native void ArrayDelete(array a, int index); native bool ArrayRemove(array a, object value); // Returns true if the object was found and removed. native void ArrayDestroy(array a);
Now if dynamic arrays are added, you could extend the map natives with a few convenient functions: native array MapKeys(map m); // Returns an array of all the keys. native array MapValues(map m); // Returns an array of all the values.
Not all the natives I've listed here for arrays or maps would be required, but having the most common usage patterns as natives will help speed up and clean up the code.
The difference between string and text types Strings in JASS2 was fairly limited. They were string table based (a leaking one at that!). There wasn't many operations to perform on them and they were slow. This begs the question, why are there two string types in Galaxy? It seems like the text type is used when text is needed to be displayed on screen, this suggests that text types are internally optimized to be displayed on screen somehow and are possibly still string table based. Let's hope that neither the string or text leaks memory or are too slow.
Pointers Currently null pointers does not raise a runtime error when dereferenced. This is obviously quite bad and should be fixed. It's also weird that you can't take a pointer of a constant, maybe you should use a read-only data section if you want these to stay constant?
Function pointers Apparently (*(&function))(); is a valid syntax, but it generates a runtime error and I can't find out the syntax for that type. Either you aren't done taking out the functionality of a C parser/compiler, or it's still work in progress. I'm hoping it's the latter one.
Dynamically allocated records Records (or structs if you like) could be allocated with the new operator. So you could do: structure *a = new structure;
Deletion of dynamic records could be done with: delete a;
This would require a runtime check to make sure you aren't trying to delete anything on the heap or stack. Extra points are given if you can allocate arrays and native types the same way.
Opcode limit/execution limit Ever heard of threading? This limit should be put as high as possible or simply removed.
Performance Galaxy has the potential to be just as fast as C. However that is not a realistic goal since C programs tend to be very well optimized using relativity slow state of the art compilers. You can't compile Galaxy code and store it in a map (not the whole process anyway). It would not be safe nor portable to store x86 code there. You either need to store the bytecode there (which reduces loading times, but it's more work) or compile the code when the map is loaded. Either way the best way to give Galaxy decent performance would be to write (or reuse) a JIT compiler. Even a trivial JIT for x86 lacking stuff like register allocation would provide a substantial performance increase over a bytecode based VM and is relativity simple to write. However if you want to port StarCraft II to other architectures (PPC, x86-64 springs to mind), or you want to combine it with a decent garbage collector you will be better off using a library. I do hope that it at least performs better than the JASS2 VM did.
I've been testing and benchmarking the runtime further and I have some more input.
Strings are still interned, but they don't seem to leak and they don't have the terrible performance of JASS2 (although I wouldn't call them fast).
Opcode limit/execution limit The opcode limit seems to be around 20 times of JASS2's one, but that still only allows computation for around 200 ms. The opcode limit mostly limits what can be done while loading the map or in other appropriate situations, you don't want to play a map that constantly freezes for 200 ms, but then again I'd much rather have the map freeze for a while rather than ruining the game. If a map wanted to intentionally freeze StarCraft II, some computations and a Wait call effectively achieves that.
Type-safety Pointers to stack variables of executed functions is persists after the function returns (more return bugs, yay!). This means you can change the value of new stack variable should they reside the in same location. You can even replace the return address to implement some goto like behavior. However, Blizzard seems to have added a lot of runtime checks to reduce the possibilities for arbitrary code execution, but they don't actually fix the issue.
The simplest and fastest solution to this problem is to implement a tracing garbage collector and allocate local variables which gets referenced on the heap, but I doubt that will happen.
Another solution would be to tag every value on the heap and the stack. This is similar to the boxing type except all values are tagged and all pointer dereferences are checked to make sure they get or set a value of the right type. You could either use two separate heaps and stacks or store pairs of a type and a value in a single heap and stack. Using separate heaps and stacks may be more secure, but it's likely slower due to cache effects and you need to calculate the offsets of the pointers into each area. With a single heap and stack, pointers can be absolute and a simple addition is enough to find the position of the other type or value. This might seem like a lot of overhead, but it will likely perform better than Blizzard's naive checks and actually solve the issue.
Function pointers/closures Closures are extremely handy when doing event-driven programming, which is what Galaxy will be used for, so this is a must-have feature. Closures should have the same syntax as function pointers and be interchangeable with them. Closures should be able to nested and they should be garbage collected. With a tracing garbage collector implementing closures is trivial, without one, you'll need to implement reference counting to keep track off the local variables which are stored on the heap. Hopefully, Blizzard has already written this to track handles, so they could probably reuse that. If closures were implemented, natives taking function pointer arguments wouldn't need an extra parameter for passing values.
Here is some suggested syntax for closures: int calc(int value) {
return 4 / value;
}
void run() {
int i = 2;
int(int) func;
func = int(int value) { return value + i; }; // Assign a closure to the function pointer.
func = calc; // You should be able to assign regular functions too.
print(IntToString(closure(2))); // Should print 2.
Also i read somewhere (cant find the thread now) there there is some sort of limit on stacks or something that basically rapes the editors future usefulness, really annoying i cant find the thread explaining it now but hey maybe IskatuMesk knows what im talking about.
Oh god. I just went to the link and read the whole thing, and the big change Blizzard made to Galaxy in Patch 9 is both hilarious, and mindbogglingly silly.
My points about - dynamically allocated records, - you can't reference a record before it's defined, - garbage collection, - pointers, - type-safety have elegantly been resolved in patch 9 by the removal of pointers altogether.
I found the limit on stacks crap i was trying to talk about:
As you might know, galaxy code and data is restricted to 2^21 byte (2 megabytes). We found out that this limit includes globals, locals (aka. the stack), and compiled galaxy bytecode all together. This is very serious! It means that if you have 1.5 megabyte code in your map (which may happen for bigger projects), you can only have 500 kB globals and stack.
To get you a clue about how much this is: In Warcraft 3, each array was 8192 entries, 4 byte each, so 32 kilobytes per array. This means, 60 arrays would already hit the 2mb limit (and you had no more space for stack and code!). If you have used vJASS and structs and consider that EVERY struct member variable was compiled to an array, you would notice that 60 struct members (accumulated from all structs) can happen fast.
Okay, galaxy offers us arrays where we can determine the size, so at least we don't need a 8192'er array for stuff where we actually only need 10 entries. However, since blizzard does not allow dynamic struct allocation at the moment, we need again arrays of structs to mimic dynamic allocation. Since we don't know how much instances of an array will be in our map, we have to choose higher values for our arrays again.
There were many WC3 maps that needed a lot more than 2 mb script memory (not concerning leaks). There will also be SC2 maps that will surely hit that limit.
The 2^21 byte limit is an inherent problem of the galaxy virtual machine (the subprogram that runs your galaxycode while sc2 is running), since it seems that its "load from address" operation is capped to a 21 byte pointer. So Blizzard will have to change the architecture of this program drastically to bypass this limit. So this is no easy fix and thus Blizzard will think twice before doing it. But it is a necessary fix!
So I think I speak for the whole modding community when I say: "Please Blizzard fix this, even if it might be some work!"
Hello, I have some concerns about the Galaxy language after examining data from the StarCraft II beta. First off, this list only contains issues which are not easily fixable with a preprocessor or a higher level language, some of it are just guesses which may or may not be wrong.
Dynamically allocated records There is an error which implies that this isn't supported. This is quite an important issue since if this isn't supported it renders garbage collection, records and pointers pretty much useless.
You can't reference a record before it's defined You fixed the chicken and egg problem with functions, please do the same for records.
Garbage collection I don't know if and how garbage collection will work in Galaxy, but I'm confident you will screw it up anyway.
Function pointers There doesn't seem to be any sign of function pointers. However TriggerCreate references to functions be strings, which is bad news, if Galaxy supports function pointers or not. If Galaxy doesn't support them (I'd slap the idiot who suggested that), I'll pray that there will be a way to execute triggers directly in the same and a new thread.
Fixed point arithmetics Fixed point arithmetics, while good in certain scenarios can cause problems with doing more complex calculations. There doesn't seem to be alternative float type you can use to avoid the problems.
If you want to read more about my findings with Galaxy, I suggest you visit this thread: http://www.wc3c.net/showthread.php?t=109011 (Viewing requires registration for some reason)
I have some additional concerns after studying the language and API further.
Associative arrays This is a very important structure, which allows you to attach, e.g., a structure to a unit. In JASS2, the "return bug" was utilized to get an integer from a native type which was used as an index into an array, or previously as an string to a gamecache entry. This allowed you to construct an associative array. When the return bug was fixed, new natives was introduced (thank god Vexorian managed to convince you!) to replace that specific use of the return bug.
Galaxy has a more advanced type system with structures and pointers, which basically means it has a infinite number of types. Creating natives to return a index for a subset of these types would be a bad solution. You could however: - allow every scalar value to be typecasted to an integer. We could use the integer as an index to a fixed size hashtable. This may however perform bad in a poor VM (which is probably the kind Galaxy will get). - add a new type to the language which syntax similar to an array, e.g. int[string] map, which would be a mapping from integers to strings. You could use it in code like map["hello"] = 3.
These two solutions are rather unclean and mess up the language. A much better solution would be to implement boxing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing_(computer_science)). This would add a new native type which you could call 'object' or 'box'. A box would contain a value of the type of this value. The type should be reduced to a simple integer ID at compile time to allow quick comparison of types. You could then for example box an object by doing this: object b = 5; This could be represented by by an opcode 'box', e.g., box(5, int) -> b, where int would be an integer representation of the type. Unboxing could be done like this: int i = b; This could be represented by by an opcode 'unbox', e.g. unbox(b, int) -> i. If you tried the following: unit u = b; This would result in unbox(b, unit) -> u. The unbox opcode would compare the type stored in the box b (int) to the argument in the unbox (unit), if they don't match (like now) it should raise a runtime error.
Now you could simply add a type and some natives to implement a map, here is an example for such natives: native map MapCreate(); native void MapClear(map m); // Removes all the key/value pairs in the map. native bool MapCompare(map a, map b); // Returns true if all the key/value pairs of map 'a' is equal to all the key/value pairs of map 'b'. native void MapMerge(map m, map other); // Overwrites the key/value pairs in 'm' with those in 'other'. native void MapSet(map m, object key, object value); native object MapGet(map m, object key); // This should raise a runtime error if the key doesn't exist. native bool MapHasKey(map m, object key); native void MapFindValue(map m, object value, object *result); // Sets variable 'result' to the key if a key with the value 'value' was found. Sets the variable 'result' to null if no keys with the value 'value' was found. native bool MapDeleteKey(map m, object key); // Returns true if the key was found and thus deleted. native void MapDestroy(map m);
API Design Native functions should not use function pointers unless absolutely required. In the case that it's required (events/timers), you should be able to pass along a boxed type to reduce the need for associative arrays.
The native functions that work on groups should not use function pointers. Here is some examples of possible ways to loop over a group: unit *u = UnitGroupFirst(group); while(u) { RemoveUnit(*u); u = UnitGroupNext(group, u); }
object u = UnitGroupFirst(group); while(u) { RemoveUnit((unit)u); u = UnitGroupNext(u); }
int i; int count = UnitGroupCount(group); while(i < count) { RemoveUnit(UnitGroupUnit(group, i); i += 1; }
You seem to have gone with the last approach, which is basically a dynamic array of units. So why not implement a dynamic array instead, and get rid of those group types? Here is an example of natives to represent a dynamic array: native array ArrayCreate(); native bool ArrayCompare(array a, array b); // Returns true if all the elements of array 'a' is equal to all the elements of array 'b'. native array ArrayConcat(array a, array b); // Adds the elements of array 'b' to the end of array 'a'. native array ArrayRange(array a, int start, int stop); // Returns the elements from start to stop as a new array. native int ArraySize(array a); native void ArrayResize(array a, int size); native object ArrayGet(array a, int index); native void ArraySet(array a, int index, object value); native void ArrayInsert(array a, int index, object value); native int ArrayPush(array a, object value); // Adds the object to the end of the array. Returns the number of elements in the array after the addition. native object ArrayPop(array a); // Removes and returns the object at the end of the array. native bool ArrayFind(array a, object value); // Returns true if the object was found. native void ArrayDelete(array a, int index); native bool ArrayRemove(array a, object value); // Returns true if the object was found and removed. native void ArrayDestroy(array a);
Now if dynamic arrays are added, you could extend the map natives with a few convenient functions: native array MapKeys(map m); // Returns an array of all the keys. native array MapValues(map m); // Returns an array of all the values.
Not all the natives I've listed here for arrays or maps would be required, but having the most common usage patterns as natives will help speed up and clean up the code.
The difference between string and text types Strings in JASS2 was fairly limited. They were string table based (a leaking one at that!). There wasn't many operations to perform on them and they were slow. This begs the question, why are there two string types in Galaxy? It seems like the text type is used when text is needed to be displayed on screen, this suggests that text types are internally optimized to be displayed on screen somehow and are possibly still string table based. Let's hope that neither the string or text leaks memory or are too slow.
Pointers Currently null pointers does not raise a runtime error when dereferenced. This is obviously quite bad and should be fixed. It's also weird that you can't take a pointer of a constant, maybe you should use a read-only data section if you want these to stay constant?
Function pointers Apparently (*(&function))(); is a valid syntax, but it generates a runtime error and I can't find out the syntax for that type. Either you aren't done taking out the functionality of a C parser/compiler, or it's still work in progress. I'm hoping it's the latter one.
Dynamically allocated records Records (or structs if you like) could be allocated with the new operator. So you could do: structure *a = new structure;
Deletion of dynamic records could be done with: delete a;
This would require a runtime check to make sure you aren't trying to delete anything on the heap or stack. Extra points are given if you can allocate arrays and native types the same way.
Opcode limit/execution limit Ever heard of threading? This limit should be put as high as possible or simply removed.
Performance Galaxy has the potential to be just as fast as C. However that is not a realistic goal since C programs tend to be very well optimized using relativity slow state of the art compilers. You can't compile Galaxy code and store it in a map (not the whole process anyway). It would not be safe nor portable to store x86 code there. You either need to store the bytecode there (which reduces loading times, but it's more work) or compile the code when the map is loaded. Either way the best way to give Galaxy decent performance would be to write (or reuse) a JIT compiler. Even a trivial JIT for x86 lacking stuff like register allocation would provide a substantial performance increase over a bytecode based VM and is relativity simple to write. However if you want to port StarCraft II to other architectures (PPC, x86-64 springs to mind), or you want to combine it with a decent garbage collector you will be better off using a library. I do hope that it at least performs better than the JASS2 VM did.
I've been testing and benchmarking the runtime further and I have some more input.
Strings are still interned, but they don't seem to leak and they don't have the terrible performance of JASS2 (although I wouldn't call them fast).
Opcode limit/execution limit The opcode limit seems to be around 20 times of JASS2's one, but that still only allows computation for around 200 ms. The opcode limit mostly limits what can be done while loading the map or in other appropriate situations, you don't want to play a map that constantly freezes for 200 ms, but then again I'd much rather have the map freeze for a while rather than ruining the game. If a map wanted to intentionally freeze StarCraft II, some computations and a Wait call effectively achieves that.
Type-safety Pointers to stack variables of executed functions is persists after the function returns (more return bugs, yay!). This means you can change the value of new stack variable should they reside the in same location. You can even replace the return address to implement some goto like behavior. However, Blizzard seems to have added a lot of runtime checks to reduce the possibilities for arbitrary code execution, but they don't actually fix the issue.
The simplest and fastest solution to this problem is to implement a tracing garbage collector and allocate local variables which gets referenced on the heap, but I doubt that will happen.
Another solution would be to tag every value on the heap and the stack. This is similar to the boxing type except all values are tagged and all pointer dereferences are checked to make sure they get or set a value of the right type. You could either use two separate heaps and stacks or store pairs of a type and a value in a single heap and stack. Using separate heaps and stacks may be more secure, but it's likely slower due to cache effects and you need to calculate the offsets of the pointers into each area. With a single heap and stack, pointers can be absolute and a simple addition is enough to find the position of the other type or value. This might seem like a lot of overhead, but it will likely perform better than Blizzard's naive checks and actually solve the issue.
Function pointers/closures Closures are extremely handy when doing event-driven programming, which is what Galaxy will be used for, so this is a must-have feature. Closures should have the same syntax as function pointers and be interchangeable with them. Closures should be able to nested and they should be garbage collected. With a tracing garbage collector implementing closures is trivial, without one, you'll need to implement reference counting to keep track off the local variables which are stored on the heap. Hopefully, Blizzard has already written this to track handles, so they could probably reuse that. If closures were implemented, natives taking function pointer arguments wouldn't need an extra parameter for passing values.
Here is some suggested syntax for closures: int calc(int value) {
return 4 / value;
}
void run() {
int i = 2;
int(int) func;
func = int(int value) { return value + i; }; // Assign a closure to the function pointer.
func = calc; // You should be able to assign regular functions too.
print(IntToString(closure(2))); // Should print 2.
Also i read somewhere (cant find the thread now) there there is some sort of limit on stacks or something that basically rapes the editors future usefulness, really annoying i cant find the thread explaining it now but hey maybe IskatuMesk knows what im talking about.
Oh god. I just went to the link and read the whole thing, and the big change Blizzard made to Galaxy in Patch 9 is both hilarious, and mindbogglingly silly.
My points about - dynamically allocated records, - you can't reference a record before it's defined, - garbage collection, - pointers, - type-safety have elegantly been resolved in patch 9 by the removal of pointers altogether.
I found the limit on stacks crap i was trying to talk about:
As you might know, galaxy code and data is restricted to 2^21 byte (2 megabytes). We found out that this limit includes globals, locals (aka. the stack), and compiled galaxy bytecode all together. This is very serious! It means that if you have 1.5 megabyte code in your map (which may happen for bigger projects), you can only have 500 kB globals and stack.
To get you a clue about how much this is: In Warcraft 3, each array was 8192 entries, 4 byte each, so 32 kilobytes per array. This means, 60 arrays would already hit the 2mb limit (and you had no more space for stack and code!). If you have used vJASS and structs and consider that EVERY struct member variable was compiled to an array, you would notice that 60 struct members (accumulated from all structs) can happen fast.
Okay, galaxy offers us arrays where we can determine the size, so at least we don't need a 8192'er array for stuff where we actually only need 10 entries. However, since blizzard does not allow dynamic struct allocation at the moment, we need again arrays of structs to mimic dynamic allocation. Since we don't know how much instances of an array will be in our map, we have to choose higher values for our arrays again.
There were many WC3 maps that needed a lot more than 2 mb script memory (not concerning leaks). There will also be SC2 maps that will surely hit that limit.
The 2^21 byte limit is an inherent problem of the galaxy virtual machine (the subprogram that runs your galaxycode while sc2 is running), since it seems that its "load from address" operation is capped to a 21 byte pointer. So Blizzard will have to change the architecture of this program drastically to bypass this limit. So this is no easy fix and thus Blizzard will think twice before doing it. But it is a necessary fix!
So I think I speak for the whole modding community when I say: "Please Blizzard fix this, even if it might be some work!"
Ugh... I wish I didn't know as much as I did about this, it makes me very depressed. None of my projects had plans for huge trigger/code systems but you can never predict what you'll need. I knew about the 2mb limit though. It made me facepalm.
Let's also keep in mind guys that sc2 maps will be bigger than wc3 out of simple fact that the terrain mesh (yes, it's a 3d model) is FAR higher in poly in wc3 and that is without any cliffs or whatever at all.
On May 25 2010 04:22 Hunter_Killers wrote: Even with the changing market Blizzard is putting monetary gain through selling your maps ahead of usability, I can't even express how horrible of a move it is to remove local hosting if Battle.net publishing is going to have limits.
Theres 360 maps in my WC3 folder totalling 414mb, how much fun do you think I would be having if those maps just starting dissapearing 1 by 1 because the original creator needed more slots for other projects, its not even an option to re-upload maps myself especially if they are locked.
It even comes down to map versions, a game breaking bug/imbalance gets introduced and you don't even have the option of playing an older one.
I didn't even think of this. The map situation is even worse than I thought. This is bad. How could they think this is a good idea?
Well shit. If someone like you is having all these issues (including your blurb in your other thread) there isn't much hope for budding modders in this game at all.
On May 25 2010 07:01 iMAniaC wrote: I know that EU has led many lawsuits against various computer companies infringing on user rights, but I don't know exactly to what extent users are protected from "unfair" EULAs. I would encourage everyone to check up on their rights. Perhaps you may still legally buy and play SC2 without being binded by the EULA! (In some countries, perhaps you may even legally hack LAN into it, although I won't say for sure).
Remember, though, having the law on your side is one thing. Getting it enforced is another. If push comes to shove, you might have to go through the courts to win your argument. If that's not something you're willing to do, then you should really reconsider before you hand over your rights to Blizzard (or anyone else (like Facebook!) for that matter).
Well that is exactly my hope ... that someone will take it to the courts about the whole Facebook and "required e-mail" junk. The EU fined Microsoft a Million dollars a day until they fix their monopolistic software and although that is small change to them it wouldnt be to Blizzard. All this "not doing what the customers want" makes me think that Blizzard is deluding themselves into thinking that we work for them instead of the other way round. EVERY company has to work for the good of the community or it is just a bunch of evil and greedy people who should be treated as such.
On May 25 2010 07:01 iMAniaC wrote: I know that EU has led many lawsuits against various computer companies infringing on user rights, but I don't know exactly to what extent users are protected from "unfair" EULAs. I would encourage everyone to check up on their rights. Perhaps you may still legally buy and play SC2 without being binded by the EULA! (In some countries, perhaps you may even legally hack LAN into it, although I won't say for sure).
Remember, though, having the law on your side is one thing. Getting it enforced is another. If push comes to shove, you might have to go through the courts to win your argument. If that's not something you're willing to do, then you should really reconsider before you hand over your rights to Blizzard (or anyone else (like Facebook!) for that matter).
Well that is exactly my hope ... that someone will take it to the courts about the whole Facebook and "required e-mail" junk. The EU fined Microsoft a Million dollars a day until they fix their monopolistic software and although that is small change to them it wouldnt be to Blizzard. All this "not doing what the customers want" makes me think that Blizzard is deluding themselves into thinking that we work for them instead of the other way round. EVERY company has to work for the good of the community or it is just a bunch of evil and greedy people who should be treated as such.
I like your insight in this post, but you're delusional in thinking Blizzard are just messing up on accident. They could have implemented LAN, chat support, clan support, custom games, and removed the facebook integration if they wanted. This is all about making money for them, the entire development of Starcraft 2 stinks of a deliberate money scheme.
Their outset was to make money, not to grow as a company. Warcraft 2 and Starcraft did that for them, and established Michael Morhaime as a big fish. Now they want to cash in, and we're all being taken for a ride. If you don't boycott this product and show Blizzard that they have to keep satisfying their customers, the video game industry will go the direction of EA. You've been warned.
On May 25 2010 07:01 iMAniaC wrote: I know that EU has led many lawsuits against various computer companies infringing on user rights, but I don't know exactly to what extent users are protected from "unfair" EULAs. I would encourage everyone to check up on their rights. Perhaps you may still legally buy and play SC2 without being binded by the EULA! (In some countries, perhaps you may even legally hack LAN into it, although I won't say for sure).
Remember, though, having the law on your side is one thing. Getting it enforced is another. If push comes to shove, you might have to go through the courts to win your argument. If that's not something you're willing to do, then you should really reconsider before you hand over your rights to Blizzard (or anyone else (like Facebook!) for that matter).
Well that is exactly my hope ... that someone will take it to the courts about the whole Facebook and "required e-mail" junk. The EU fined Microsoft a Million dollars a day until they fix their monopolistic software and although that is small change to them it wouldnt be to Blizzard. All this "not doing what the customers want" makes me think that Blizzard is deluding themselves into thinking that we work for them instead of the other way round. EVERY company has to work for the good of the community or it is just a bunch of evil and greedy people who should be treated as such.
I like your insight in this post, but you're delusional in thinking Blizzard are just messing up on accident. They could have implemented LAN, chat support, clan support, custom games, and removed the facebook integration if they wanted. This is all about making money for them, the entire development of Starcraft 2 stinks of a deliberate money scheme.
Their outset was to make money, not to grow as a company. Warcraft 2 and Starcraft did that for them, and established Michael Morhaime as a big fish. Now they want to cash in, and we're all being taken for a ride. If you don't boycott this product and show Blizzard that they have to keep satisfying their customers, the video game industry will go the direction of EA. You've been warned.
Companies are all about making money. That's what they do. Even companies in Norway (the last Soviet state).
I was going to play SC2 UMS, but BW ladder once SC2 releases, but not now, after reading this thread. :\ Oh, and what hugely popular BlizzardActivision game doesn't allow any custom content? Modern Warfare 2. Call me crazy, but Activision really sound like they're imposing upon Blizzard now.
On May 25 2010 18:51 Garrl wrote: I was going to play SC2 UMS, but BW ladder once SC2 releases, but not now, after reading this thread. :\ Oh, and what hugely popular BlizzardActivision game doesn't allow any custom content? Modern Warfare 2. Call me crazy, but Activision really sound like they're imposing upon Blizzard now.
SC 2 has better mod/map support than any previous Blizzard title. Take what you read on these forums with a grain of salt. There have been a lot sky is falling posts lately.
On May 25 2010 18:51 Garrl wrote: I was going to play SC2 UMS, but BW ladder once SC2 releases, but not now, after reading this thread. :\ Oh, and what hugely popular BlizzardActivision game doesn't allow any custom content? Modern Warfare 2. Call me crazy, but Activision really sound like they're imposing upon Blizzard now.
SC 2 has better mod/map support than any previous Blizzard title. Take what you read on these forums with a grain of salt. There have been a lot sky is falling posts lately.
The problem being, IskatuMesk is a longtime hardcore modder for BW, along with many other games. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=123080 If anyone knows the direction custom content should be going, it'd be him.
On May 25 2010 18:51 Garrl wrote: I was going to play SC2 UMS, but BW ladder once SC2 releases, but not now, after reading this thread. :\ Oh, and what hugely popular BlizzardActivision game doesn't allow any custom content? Modern Warfare 2. Call me crazy, but Activision really sound like they're imposing upon Blizzard now.
SC 2 has better mod/map support than any previous Blizzard title. Take what you read on these forums with a grain of salt. There have been a lot sky is falling posts lately.
By removing local hosting of maps (assuming this is their final solution, and not just a temporary beta state), they have effectively negated any advancements they made in other areas... negated, and more.
On May 25 2010 18:51 Garrl wrote: I was going to play SC2 UMS, but BW ladder once SC2 releases, but not now, after reading this thread. :\ Oh, and what hugely popular BlizzardActivision game doesn't allow any custom content? Modern Warfare 2. Call me crazy, but Activision really sound like they're imposing upon Blizzard now.
SC 2 has better mod/map support than any previous Blizzard title. Take what you read on these forums with a grain of salt. There have been a lot sky is falling posts lately.
By removing local hosting of maps (assuming this is their final solution, and not just a temporary beta state), they have effectively negated any advancements they made in other areas... negated, and more.
Especially considering the fact that they haven't added much to the editor that WC3 modders have been wanting for years, primarily by the 2mb script limit - Blizzard knew that the mod projects were going to get larger for SC2 with more code (not to say that there wasn't much coding in very large WC3 projects, just the editor was shown falsly to be more versatile, and as such people started planning for huge projects), and the now complete lack of pointers meaning it's impossible for the editor to create dynamic arrays and thus contributing to the 2mb data limit even more...
On May 25 2010 18:51 Garrl wrote: I was going to play SC2 UMS, but BW ladder once SC2 releases, but not now, after reading this thread. :\ Oh, and what hugely popular BlizzardActivision game doesn't allow any custom content? Modern Warfare 2. Call me crazy, but Activision really sound like they're imposing upon Blizzard now.
SC 2 has better mod/map support than any previous Blizzard title. Take what you read on these forums with a grain of salt. There have been a lot sky is falling posts lately.
By removing local hosting of maps (assuming this is their final solution, and not just a temporary beta state), they have effectively negated any advancements they made in other areas... negated, and more.
That's your very subjective opinion though. I think for the vast majority local hosting of maps won't effect them. The benefits of the map publishing system outweighs the disadvantages for most users.
You can still host private custom map games for you and your friends just fine, and if you want to play with pubbies, then, sure, you need to publish the map. But that's more preferable than having it like Warcraft 3 where you couldn't find any other map other than DotA.
On May 25 2010 18:51 Garrl wrote: I was going to play SC2 UMS, but BW ladder once SC2 releases, but not now, after reading this thread. :\ Oh, and what hugely popular BlizzardActivision game doesn't allow any custom content? Modern Warfare 2. Call me crazy, but Activision really sound like they're imposing upon Blizzard now.
SC 2 has better mod/map support than any previous Blizzard title. Take what you read on these forums with a grain of salt. There have been a lot sky is falling posts lately.
By removing local hosting of maps (assuming this is their final solution, and not just a temporary beta state), they have effectively negated any advancements they made in other areas... negated, and more.
That's your very subjective opinion though. I think for the vast majority local hosting of maps won't effect them. The benefits of the map publishing system outweighs the disadvantages for most users.
You can still host private custom map games for you and your friends just fine, and if you want to play with pubbies, then, sure, you need to publish the map. But that's more preferable than having it like Warcraft 3 where you couldn't find any other map other than DotA.
I was of the impression that for any map to be playable on B.net, it has to be published. Am I mistaken?
Had to edit my post as I overlooked some previous posts. Still my point is that the more restrictions Blizzard uts in the GE and on Bnet, the worse for us all
I think a major point in this is blizzard pushing for a T rating on sc2, thus needs to censor everything and although this could (and I presume will) be addressed by a "this rating may change during online play" they are just so scared of the thousands upon thousands of tweens they hope to recruit from WoW being harmed and thus need to screen everything like a facist state's newspaper.
The more I read about the road SC2 is taking toward online play the more I worry that nothing will be fixed in 2 months time and the beta was a gigantic waste of effort as they have changed very little in regards to the major issues.
Has there been any announcement similar to this on the English Bnet forums? The translation is pretty awful but it looks like they intend to turn off the custom map hosting for the time being as it seems to be contributing to the server stability issues.
On May 25 2010 18:51 Garrl wrote: I was going to play SC2 UMS, but BW ladder once SC2 releases, but not now, after reading this thread. :\ Oh, and what hugely popular BlizzardActivision game doesn't allow any custom content? Modern Warfare 2. Call me crazy, but Activision really sound like they're imposing upon Blizzard now.
SC 2 has better mod/map support than any previous Blizzard title. Take what you read on these forums with a grain of salt. There have been a lot sky is falling posts lately.
By removing local hosting of maps (assuming this is their final solution, and not just a temporary beta state), they have effectively negated any advancements they made in other areas... negated, and more.
That's your very subjective opinion though. I think for the vast majority local hosting of maps won't effect them. The benefits of the map publishing system outweighs the disadvantages for most users.
You can still host private custom map games for you and your friends just fine, and if you want to play with pubbies, then, sure, you need to publish the map. But that's more preferable than having it like Warcraft 3 where you couldn't find any other map other than DotA.
I was of the impression that for any map to be playable on B.net, it has to be published. Am I mistaken?
No you are quite correct. He is the one who is very mistaken.
On May 25 2010 19:48 Bane_ wrote: Has there been any announcement similar to this on the English Bnet forums? The translation is pretty awful but it looks like they intend to turn off the custom map hosting for the time being as it seems to be contributing to the server stability issues.
Yes. They posted about it on the US forums a few days ago that they had to disable map publish temporarily due to server instability. These recent issues weren't connected to their implementation of UDP that some of us speculated about.
On May 25 2010 19:51 Tinithor wrote: No you are quite correct. He is the one who is very mistaken.
Well, if so they have changed that quite recently because that was the plan before. Keep in mind that they just started to test map publishing (and they had to disable it shortly there after). I'm sure we will see quite a few changes to the whole system when the beta is back for phase 2.
On May 25 2010 18:51 Garrl wrote: I was going to play SC2 UMS, but BW ladder once SC2 releases, but not now, after reading this thread. :\ Oh, and what hugely popular BlizzardActivision game doesn't allow any custom content? Modern Warfare 2. Call me crazy, but Activision really sound like they're imposing upon Blizzard now.
SC 2 has better mod/map support than any previous Blizzard title. Take what you read on these forums with a grain of salt. There have been a lot sky is falling posts lately.
By removing local hosting of maps (assuming this is their final solution, and not just a temporary beta state), they have effectively negated any advancements they made in other areas... negated, and more.
That's your very subjective opinion though. I think for the vast majority local hosting of maps won't effect them. The benefits of the map publishing system outweighs the disadvantages for most users.
You can still host private custom map games for you and your friends just fine, and if you want to play with pubbies, then, sure, you need to publish the map. But that's more preferable than having it like Warcraft 3 where you couldn't find any other map other than DotA.
I was of the impression that for any map to be playable on B.net, it has to be published. Am I mistaken?
No you are quite correct. He is the one who is very mistaken.
Which is kinda funny considering his post about idiots talking out of their ass just above that.
Thanks to the OP for a very informative post. I don't know much about custom content besides thinking the community always does an excellent job with providing players with fun content.
I am sure a post like this will be read by blizzard. I just hope blizzard will listen and make some changes for the community.
On May 25 2010 18:51 Garrl wrote: I was going to play SC2 UMS, but BW ladder once SC2 releases, but not now, after reading this thread. :\ Oh, and what hugely popular BlizzardActivision game doesn't allow any custom content? Modern Warfare 2. Call me crazy, but Activision really sound like they're imposing upon Blizzard now.
SC 2 has better mod/map support than any previous Blizzard title. Take what you read on these forums with a grain of salt. There have been a lot sky is falling posts lately.
By removing local hosting of maps (assuming this is their final solution, and not just a temporary beta state), they have effectively negated any advancements they made in other areas... negated, and more.
That's your very subjective opinion though. I think for the vast majority local hosting of maps won't effect them. The benefits of the map publishing system outweighs the disadvantages for most users.
You can still host private custom map games for you and your friends just fine, and if you want to play with pubbies, then, sure, you need to publish the map. But that's more preferable than having it like Warcraft 3 where you couldn't find any other map other than DotA.
I was of the impression that for any map to be playable on B.net, it has to be published. Am I mistaken?
No you are quite correct. He is the one who is very mistaken.
Which is kinda funny considering his post about idiots talking out of their ass just above that.
So, I just tried to create a game called TankDef 2.0 and I could create it just fine without making it public.
How was my statement "You can still host private custom map games for you and your friends just fine" untrue?
Sure, as a map maker you need to publish your map before using it but you can publish it as private if you want, and no one but yourself can host the map.
No, you can't host it locally, but then again you can't play the game locally either except the campaign.
For 90% of the people playing and BUYING SC1 and WC3, the competitive laddering was not the thing that kept them coming back for years after the game's release. Having an awesome userbase that created a seemingly endless stream of new content was the thing that kept them coming back.
Among my friends we literally saw WC3 as the best game ever, just because when there was a LAN party, there were at least a dozen new high quality maps to play. Hell, we rebought WC3 and TFT just for DotA alone.
Come to think of it, isn't it ironic how the marine in the SC2 trailer says "Hell, it's about time!" when really it should be "%&/%, it's about time!". Way to go, Blizz...
On May 25 2010 20:16 Eury wrote: Sure, as a map maker you need to publish your map before using it but you can publish it as private if you want, and no one but yourself can host the map.
No, you can't host it locally, but then again you can't play the game locally either except the campaign.
Do privately published maps still count toward the 5 map limit?
On May 25 2010 18:51 Garrl wrote: I was going to play SC2 UMS, but BW ladder once SC2 releases, but not now, after reading this thread. :\ Oh, and what hugely popular BlizzardActivision game doesn't allow any custom content? Modern Warfare 2. Call me crazy, but Activision really sound like they're imposing upon Blizzard now.
SC 2 has better mod/map support than any previous Blizzard title. Take what you read on these forums with a grain of salt. There have been a lot sky is falling posts lately.
By removing local hosting of maps (assuming this is their final solution, and not just a temporary beta state), they have effectively negated any advancements they made in other areas... negated, and more.
That's your very subjective opinion though. I think for the vast majority local hosting of maps won't effect them. The benefits of the map publishing system outweighs the disadvantages for most users.
You can still host private custom map games for you and your friends just fine, and if you want to play with pubbies, then, sure, you need to publish the map. But that's more preferable than having it like Warcraft 3 where you couldn't find any other map other than DotA.
I was of the impression that for any map to be playable on B.net, it has to be published. Am I mistaken?
No you are quite correct. He is the one who is very mistaken.
Which is kinda funny considering his post about idiots talking out of their ass just above that.
So, I just tried to create a game called TankDef 2.0 and I could create it just fine without making it public.
How was my statement "You can still host private custom map games for you and your friends just fine" untrue?
Sure, as a map maker you need to publish your map before using it but you can publish it as private if you want, and no one but yourself can host the map.
No, you can't host it locally, but then again you can't play the game locally either except the campaign.
That map still needs to conform to all the standards outlined in the OP right? So in that case what's the difference?
On May 25 2010 20:16 Eury wrote: Sure, as a map maker you need to publish your map before using it but you can publish it as private if you want, and no one but yourself can host the map.
No, you can't host it locally, but then again you can't play the game locally either except the campaign.
Do privately published maps still count toward the 5 map limit?
Good question. Sadly with map publishing down there is no way to test it, but maybe someone knows that answer?
Anyway, I don't think anyone is happy about the current map/mod restrictions. I'm sure Blizzard has some premium service in mind with way less restrictions when it comes to size and amount of files, but the default service is way too restricted.
Hopefully this is due to it being the beta and they will increase it come release. A 10 map restriction with a 100mb cap is more reasonable for the average user, then they can charge a few bucks for people wanting more.
The question should be, "did he try inviting anyone on his friend list into the game", if he has any at all because then his statement would only be a half-truth.
Note: I cannot host or invite friends to any custom made games at the moment. -_-
On May 25 2010 20:42 StarStruck wrote: The question should be, "did he try inviting anyone on his friend list into the game", if he has any at all because then his statement would only be a half-truth.
Note: I cannot host or invite friends to any custom made games at the moment. -_-
Would be a lot easier if you quoted the post you are responding to.
Your issues might be related to the fact that Blizzard had to disable the map publishing system due to malfunction.
On May 25 2010 18:51 Garrl wrote: I was going to play SC2 UMS, but BW ladder once SC2 releases, but not now, after reading this thread. :\ Oh, and what hugely popular BlizzardActivision game doesn't allow any custom content? Modern Warfare 2. Call me crazy, but Activision really sound like they're imposing upon Blizzard now.
SC 2 has better mod/map support than any previous Blizzard title. Take what you read on these forums with a grain of salt. There have been a lot sky is falling posts lately.
By removing local hosting of maps (assuming this is their final solution, and not just a temporary beta state), they have effectively negated any advancements they made in other areas... negated, and more.
That's your very subjective opinion though. I think for the vast majority local hosting of maps won't effect them. The benefits of the map publishing system outweighs the disadvantages for most users.
Those people who aren't affected by these limitations won't notice those improvements in mod support blizzard made over wc3 editor. Your attempt to refute Jinro's argument makes no sense. And what is this vast majority you keep talking about in every topic. Who are those people? Do you keep them in basement and constantly poll them on their opinion on SC2? What makes you think that your opinion - that happens to constantly contradict opinion of respected community members and of majority of tl.net users - represent the opinion of sc2 player base?
Actually Blizzards can be considered as monopoly, so they can do whatever they want. It is problem of game industry as the whole, it lacks good games (I can barely name few descent RTS for past 3-4 years). I'm sure, even if they add pop-up banners on bnet the sales of SCII still will be high. We haven't choice as well as any leverage to push blizzards. Just cross your fingers that they wasn't totally WoWed away.
I thought it was pretty obvious who I was responding to.
...
...
You.
And in reply to your last statement. No, I logged on right when the patch went up. I haven't been able to host or join my friends since the release of patch and tried a few times for the last few days. Therefore this is before they addressed the issue.
Not to mention, the constant freezing ingame. I haven't been able to play finish one game as of yet.
The fact is, is that Blizzard is not "catering to the casual player because they want to make money". The fact is, is that they are unwilling to provide basic, fundamental features to us because they want control. Total control.
I really couldn't have said this any better. Kudos on a great post.
- Maps are sorted by popularity, with (currently) no way to sort them otherwise. There may never be. Or popularity sort may be the default way. This means your fledgeling new map will be on page 371 of the map list and will simply have nobody joining. And because nobody joins, it will never get more popular. IN WAR3: maps were equal on the game screen. Just wait a while and people will join.
- The much hyped keyboard controls are unusable online due to some sort of built in lag far beyond the 150ms default lag. It takes about a second for your unit to respond. That Starcraft Ghost map at Blizzcon? The top down shooter? Both maps are completely impossible in the actual game, only if you test them locally in the editor. (Bonus fact: they said there would be mouse control, but no - you can't lock the camera to a unit or even move it under mouse control so it's useless) IN WAR3: keyboard controls were clunky, but not in this way. Not in this way.
- Region locking for published maps! If you have an Euro account, you can only publish maps in Europe. To publish them elsewhere, you need to ...buy more accounts. Gee, I wonder why this would be.
Either they have nobody working there who cares about custom maps or they just want to create a walled garden so they can control everything and probably monetise the hell out of it at some point.
I'm sure Blizzard has some premium service in mind with way less restrictions when it comes to size and amount of files, but the default service is way too restricted.
Oh... oh... you may be right. That may the hell be it. The whole point is so they can sell expanded space, playability be damned (it ruined keyboard controls).
Good post, IskatuMesk. I've been waiting for a big post from you for quite some time, and I'm glad I wasn't disappointed. I agree with everything here.
It's silly seeing wciii have easier better working custom map playing system than 2010 game. Sure it's still beta but you would think they would improve something old instead of make it this pile of shit.
Jesus Christ and the Ladderday Saints. That's a whole lotta shit right there. Especially regionally locked maps.
Back in wc3 we played a map called "Map Tong Hop", which was a Chinese map I think. It was hilarious. But that would be published on the Asian server, no? We did get it from a forum, but most maps like this would be extremely hard if not impossible for us to obtain with this new, ridiculous system.
this is very true, blizzard needs to understand the consumers are in control, not them. I am reconsidering buying starcraft, just because of the the direction blizzard is taking with removing the most fundamental and basic features, for their own filthy rich pockets. I did not expect to see the 'WoW' Greedy Blizzard in SC, but apparently once they tasted that cash it spread to the SC developers as well. Disappointed is an understatement, and the once great Blizzard which cared about actual game quality and consumers is now just another greedy filth company after tasting success from WoW.
On May 24 2010 10:00 synapse wrote: Took the time to read, and I completely agree. BNet 2.0 just isn't impressive - it seems as if they took 2 graphics designers and told them to create the BNet user interface ~.~
Isn't impressive? BNET 2.0 is one of the worst things that's happened to RTS games. Unless everything we're seeing right now is going to be completely revamped upon release, it's a clear win for Corporate America(tm) and a clear loss for gamers.
Honestly, outside the ranking system and auto-matching based on rank, which isn't even that good (ICCUP showed how to do it right, already), what has BNET 2.0 added that is actually meaningful and useful? All I see are more and more attempts to control the community and the players, while distracting them with such "Microsoft 2.0" concepts like achievements and Facebook integration.
I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something and it's all part of a grand plan that has yet to be unveiled, and which will make believers out of us all. But at this point I'm starting to doubt it.
/signed both of these posts(OP and this quote by Azarkon), 999million times.
The mesk must be honored for his great wisdom bestowed upon him!
I totally agree. Although I do not mod maps any longer, I used to do it as a hobby in WC3. The first thing I thought when I clicked on the "custom game" button in the SC2 Beta was "Oh, they must be using this silly layout in order to make it easier to find games to play for the beta while the map pool is still restricted." I simply did not see how custom maps would even be at all practical while this system was in use.
I don't care about "Casuals". That term isn't even used properly. Casuals are a stereotype Blizzard has employed so they can ignore the fanbase as a whole and strike up deals with Facebook. Everyone blames this on the "Casual" player but in reality we are all casual players unless we are those slanty-eyed heroes in booths throughout the OSL or WCG.
I am a Casual Player. I spend every waking moment of every day contributing to an overall overarching gameplan of modmaking and custom content, or working on my novel. I have been producing custom projects for 10 years. I am still a casual player because I am doing this for my own enjoyment and nothing more. The second you turn away from that and start thinking about your wallet instead of yourself you aren't casual anymore and you have lost sight about what this entire devotion is for.
The fact is, is that Blizzard is not "catering to the casual player because they want to make money". The fact is, is that they are unwilling to provide basic, fundamental features to us because they want control. Total control. I am sure that by release these restrictions will alleviate to a degree but I doubt local hosting, game names, some things CRITICAL to the growth and progression of custom content will ever make it in.
I want your babies.
This was to me a fantastic read IskatuMesk. The decisions Blizzard was making for Sc2 concerning custom maps, Ladder Divisions, and Battle.net confused me, but the word I was looking for was control.
So I was over at my friend's dorm today, and he was installing WoW. While updating to the latest patch or w/e, I caught a glimpse of the patch notes.
It was mentioned that they implemented some fancy new method of finding a raid or something, and basically people from different Realms (servers) could play together in the same dungeon. I was taken aback, why the fuck do they not implement this in SC2?
The dungeon finder on WoW is still region limited and just to the servers in your battlegroup (server cluster), there just needs to be a gateway selection at login in SC2 and maps to be mirrored to other regions if they want to do it this way.
If I could just guess at why they aren't allowing local hosting, here are a couple thoughts:
- We all know that Blizzard plans to add in features that allow users to publish maps+mods for money(eventually). It'll be similar to the Apple App Store, where Blizzard takes a percentage of the profits. I bet they'll want you to purchase some sort of developer account/license, and with that, you'll get the ability to host much bigger maps+mods(and more of them), as well as the ability to charge for your content. Overall, I see this as a really cool, positive thing.
- Because the content is eventually going to be paid, it means they have to worry about PIRACY of maps and mods. This is why they don't want local hosting. They don't want you to be able to download a $2.99 map and then re-host it locally to other users.
I can see where they're going with this, and I like some of it, but everything just feels really... console-y instead of pc-y, which is a huge shame. They've got time to fix it though, eventually, so let's just see where this goes. Right now the 5 map 25mb limit is just plain RIDICULOUS though.
On May 31 2010 02:44 ElectricGrandpa wrote: If I could just guess at why they aren't allowing local hosting, here are a couple thoughts:
- We all know that Blizzard plans to add in features that allow users to publish maps+mods for money(eventually). It'll be similar to the Apple App Store, where Blizzard takes a percentage of the profits. I bet they'll want you to purchase some sort of developer account/license, and with that, you'll get the ability to host much bigger maps+mods(and more of them), as well as the ability to charge for your content. Overall, I see this as a really cool, positive thing.
- Because the content is eventually going to be paid, it means they have to worry about PIRACY of maps and mods. This is why they don't want local hosting. They don't want you to be able to download a $2.99 map and then re-host it locally to other users.
I can see where they're going with this, and I like some of it, but everything just feels really... console-y instead of pc-y, which is a huge shame. They've got time to fix it though, eventually, so let's just see where this goes. Right now the 5 map 25mb limit is just plain RIDICULOUS though.
How is this a good thing? Blizzard is going to have their boots on the throats of devs... we've already seen they're willing to make ludicrous decisions like blocking a map with the word god IN THE CODE.
Also, what on earth makes you think a closed development environment is necessary to sell the maps? A) Android has no protection against piracy whatsoever and their app market is thriving. B) Blizzard is going to have to police the system for pirate maps just as much as they would with an open environment. There's nothing stopping you from changing the title and publishing a pay map as your own except blizz manually taking it down.
Are you really gonna pay $2.99 for a map if you can just as easily go get it from someone else? Of course not. Piracy on both the Apple app store and the Android store is deterred by the fact that it's a lot more work to do, but it still happens. By doing what they're doing, Blizzard is gonna be able to cut map piracy down to almost 0%.
That being said, I think Blizzard is going overboard with the censorship of certain words in maps, I'll give you that, but I do think they have a right to control the content somewhat, or at least make sure there isn't content that's grossly offensive in maps+mods.
Are you really gonna pay $2.99 for a map if you can just as easily go get it from someone else? Of course not. Piracy on both the Apple app store and the Android store is deterred by the fact that it's a lot more work to do, but it still happens. By doing what they're doing, Blizzard is gonna be able to cut map piracy down to almost 0%.
That being said, I think Blizzard is going overboard with the censorship of certain words in maps, I'll give you that, but I do think they have a right to control the content somewhat, or at least make sure there isn't content that's grossly offensive in maps+mods.
They have arbitrarily made names of countless countries and words that are common-language words in other languages censored. Taiwan is censored, Africa is censored, geil, the german/dutch word for horny is censored, but horny is not, lmao is not censored but the word ass is, and many many more weird/strange censoring. You can easily turn off the mature language filter, but I'd really love to see why they figured to censor the random words they have selected.
I want to say its because of all the legality issues of making a game right now since Gaming is becoming more popular than movies so it needs more specific control. Like MW2 + 9 year olds and GTA being blamed for violence and Piracy. I think thats one of the many causes for censorship but honestly, WTF! Its distasteful stupid and exaggerated at the lengths they're going to apply this kind of control especially with the size restrictions and why they are even placed there in the first place. Theres little to no justification for most of the crap they've punched out on SC2. It already feels like a Burning Crusade expansion or a Microsoft takeover but I feel like Microsoft would've done better. Its not like Blizzard NEEDS the money this badly since they've already have a perfect cash cow producing revenue like a Zerg 4 base.
Are you really gonna pay $2.99 for a map if you can just as easily go get it from someone else? Of course not. Piracy on both the Apple app store and the Android store is deterred by the fact that it's a lot more work to do, but it still happens. By doing what they're doing, Blizzard is gonna be able to cut map piracy down to almost 0%.
That being said, I think Blizzard is going overboard with the censorship of certain words in maps, I'll give you that, but I do think they have a right to control the content somewhat, or at least make sure there isn't content that's grossly offensive in maps+mods.
But ultimately, the android model is a lot better... open platforms have been shown to be hugely beneficial in the past, even if closed ones have success in the short term. I'm sure you've seen how companies inevitably abuse complete power over devs. Map DRM is just not worth it.
The maps are all locally stored (C:\ProgramData\Blizzard Entertainment\Battle.net\Cache on Vista) so not having local hosting of the maps is pretty pointless as it stands right now.
If they so much as make Premium maps show up in that folder or anywhere else locally then all it goings to take is 1 person to buy it for everyone to play it.
We don't know what kind of protection Premium maps will have but their current protection scheme is worthless if you can make the connection that .s2ma files are .SC2Map files, locked maps can be opened without restriction in the editor.
The only difference between a locked map and an unlocked map is the lack of the GUI data for the triggers with the galaxy script itself untouched along with everything else.
Not to mention that any protection they do use will eventually be cracked if there's enough demand for it (and/or if someone just has a bit of free time). From there, the map can likely be modified ever so slightly and either uploaded as a free, published map (forcing Blizzard to police that excessively or to try and implement some automated method of detecting these maps which would likely require name/unit recognition and which would have a high probability of false-positives and screwing-over regular mappers), or played on a cracked server or local crack or whatever.
I mean, if we're going to use the whole "app store" analogy (not the greatest of analogies) for this, consider that there is plenty of piracy on the iPhone courtesy of the fact that jailbroken iPhones completely subvert the system and remove the tight integration and total control that Apple relies upon. Granted, you could argue that it's the difference between console and PC piracy, but then this is a PC game so while Bnet may try to exert Apple-like control...
And again, this all ignores that when you give the developer more control, you're generally going to get a better product which, well we could have Blizzard eat their own words there about the best way to combat piracy being to simply offer people what they want But if Blizzard actually meant that I'd be able to play with my friend from Norway on Bnet and I could partake in a LAN party where the game is unplayable for 8 hours because Battle.net is down.
On May 27 2010 03:02 Xanrae wrote: - Region locking for published maps! If you have an Euro account, you can only publish maps in Europe. To publish them elsewhere, you need to ...buy more accounts. Gee, I wonder why this would be.
To be fair, that's really not a big deal. Just ask a friend with a European account to publish the map on the Euro server, for instance.
But ideally, there shouldn't be region-locking for players at all.
For most of the beta I've been playing nothing but custom games and the current system is so bad. Throughout the few months of beta you will pretty much only see around 20-30 games on the list. Every single day its the same games on top of the list, you never get to see any different games.
What needs to happen is for a better search. For example: - Search by popularity - Search by ratings - Serach by categories (eg. tower defence, sports, shooters...) - Search by date uploaded (eg. anytime, this week, today...)
Right now Battle.net 2.0 is soooo underwhelming, in fact it's crap.
Are you really gonna pay $2.99 for a map if you can just as easily go get it from someone else? Of course not. Piracy on both the Apple app store and the Android store is deterred by the fact that it's a lot more work to do, but it still happens. By doing what they're doing, Blizzard is gonna be able to cut map piracy down to almost 0%.
That being said, I think Blizzard is going overboard with the censorship of certain words in maps, I'll give you that, but I do think they have a right to control the content somewhat, or at least make sure there isn't content that's grossly offensive in maps+mods.
The big question here is: Should mapmaking be turned into "just another business"? IMO the answer is NO. People have made maps and mods for free all the time just for the fun of it and its only recently that businessmen have barged in and closed doors to this possibility. Sure there are tons of "variations" of certain maps where only minor tweaks are applied by someone, but shouldnt that be solved easily by being able to have "read and use only" capability on a map in the editor unless you know a password to avoid such a flood of different versions? Sure this can be cracked, but those people wont be deterred by anything Blizzard cooks up either and they are a minority.
In any case THIS IS A GAME whose primary purpose should be to make our lives happier and not to make money for anyone.
In any way comparing making custom maps and mods with apps is quite ridiculous IMO.
On July 11 2010 00:18 David Dark wrote: Well, if blizzard does everything to make your life miserable as a modder why don't you just show them your middle finger and mod some other game? o0
Maybe because Starcraft 2 is a game we all love and there is not exactly a replacement available? Its not like your bread or cheese or meat, where you can get something similar from a different brand easily if one of them pissed you off. Starcraft is Starcraft and there isnt anything remotely like it.
God, well said OP. These restrictions are ludicrous. Starcraft: Brood War, and Warcraft 3 both spawned multitudes of great custom games and related content thanks to the editors and the mapping/modding communities. Now, Starcraft 2 having even greater potential for custom content, it pains me to see these ridiculous restrictions.
Although they have done many things right, it shocks me to see activisionblizzard create so many wrong things with this release. I cant help but think we would be in a better world if it wasn't for that fateful merger.
So as long as you save your maps, whats wrong with only being able to share 5 at a time? You can always change your mind or bring one back later,,right? Lame, sure. But it's not like it's one and done,is it?
I'm no modder or mapmaker but i absolutely loved the work people did in BW and the easy to use and understand interface we were given play these maps. like i remember playing a ton of Helms Deep Annatar and often somebody would lag out cuz it takes a lot of players and then somebody could just say "re" and you could easily find the same game with the same people simply because of it's name. well now that isn't possible unless you have those people as friends and join stupid parties like it's WoW. even though half what you wrote didn't make sense to me cuz im very ignorant to how modding and mapmaking works i really agree with you about all the failures that are in this Battle.net 2.0. honestly I don't see why they felt they needed to change anything except adding a good ladder system. i would have been completely and 100% happy and satisfied if bnet 2.0 was EXACTLY like the original except with obviously updated graphics and menu look and all the goofy lil awards and achievements for the people who care about that type of thing. I just can't get it through my head how somebody could fail this miserably at making an online multiplayer service. all it seems to work for is for people who literally have no friends or talk to nobody on battle.net and just ladder 2 or 3 games a day and say sup to their facebook buddies. this service is downright god awful and i just wish that somehow magically it would just change back into the regular battle.net. It actually makes me so angry to even talk or read about it that i feel like storming in blizzard's front door and smackin the lot of them. i really wish people got right into a riot about it at blizzcon when they presented it. i feel like that was our only chance to actually voice our opinions.
NOTE: to everyone that is going to the next blizzcon plz for the rest of us. start bitching at them about the new battle.net until they can't take it anymore PLZ!
On July 10 2010 20:54 Highways wrote: I think this needs a bump.
For most of the beta I've been playing nothing but custom games and the current system is so bad. Throughout the few months of beta you will pretty much only see around 20-30 games on the list. Every single day its the same games on top of the list, you never get to see any different games.
What needs to happen is for a better search. For example: - Search by popularity - Search by ratings - Serach by categories (eg. tower defence, sports, shooters...) - Search by date uploaded (eg. anytime, this week, today...)
Right now Battle.net 2.0 is soooo underwhelming, in fact it's crap.
How about currently occupied lobbies? I thought that's what the "new only" checkbox did, but 95% of the time I chose a custom game past the first 2 pages, there was no one in the lobby. Meanwhile, people on page 5 and 6 sit and sit and sit in the lobby for their awesome new map and no one will EVER join without it somehow being publicized outside of the game list.
It doesn't make any sense. You can have a dozen people all wanting to play a new custom game, and all will randomly choose some new one on page 23, but they'll all end up just sitting in a dozen different empty lobbies because there are 30 maps with "1 game in the last hour." I'm hoping they fix the "new only" or have SOME way of at least having the option of giving the list priority based on what games ACTUALLY EXIST.
I tried to get some practice 2v2 games with my partner, and the only map that was even remotely being played was Lost Temple, which isn't even a ladder map for 2v2. Blizzard needs to return the old method of hosting.
I wholeheartedly agree with the OP. Despite how urgent this issue is and how Blizzard seems more and more like a money making machine, its sad to say I expected this.
Hosting has to be improved and I have seen many custom UMS maps. I think Blizzard is the one overreacting. I feel that it is weighing the experiences of a few thousand to a few million if it feels that it needs to control content to protect against hacking.
Hacking? I rather have one or two games of weird hacking, rather than miss out on the next DoTA or that wonderful AC130 game on page 3. And IF YOU ARE ACTUALLY DILIGENT LIKE YOU SHOULD BE ON THE FORUMS (leading to that very appalling move- real names on forums) hacking is not a problem.
Its also strange that despite what this issue could possible mean for EVERYONE, people seem more concerned about balance rather than care about a thread created a month ago and a very well respected community member clearly explained his frustration with Bnet and custom content, hence why this issue is still not in the proper limelight. I don't care about how protoss break the game as long as I can play the best DoTA and the best UMS the map and mod community has to offer. This HAS TO BE ADDRESSED!
The only reason Blizzard came up with this sorry excuse for a custom game system is so they can better shove their "premium maps" down our throat and get some microtransactions going. It's gimped, we know it, they know it, they don't care because it will encourage people to buy the premium maps they handpick while most custom content never really gets a chance to take off.
But I'm pretty sure most people agree that Battle.net 2.0 is more or less a POS in terms of raw functionality. It screams money grab from just about every angle. And to make things clear, I'd be perfectly fine with them wanting to make more money if they weren't completely wrecking functionality in the process.
"2007-2010+: In the meantime Blizzard introduces more and more “pay-for” features to World of Warcraft, like the “Name Change” for 10$, “Character Re-Customization” for 15$, the “Character Transfer” for 25$, “Faction Change” for 30$, Blizzard Mobile is getting made for phone sounds and pictures: http://mobile.blizzard.com/ , a mount for 25$, several pets, additional protection with the Blizzard Authenticator, so you’ll be safer against hackers for 6.50$ instead of for free or the latest, an Internet interface for the World of Warcraft AH called the “Remote Auction House” as a “Subscription-based service” for cash (2.99$/month)."
So which BW and WC3 map makers are going to want pay $$$ for hosting space?
"2007-2010+: In the meantime Blizzard introduces more and more “pay-for” features to World of Warcraft, like the “Name Change” for 10$, “Character Re-Customization” for 15$, the “Character Transfer” for 25$, “Faction Change” for 30$, Blizzard Mobile is getting made for phone sounds and pictures: http://mobile.blizzard.com/ , a mount for 25$, several pets, additional protection with the Blizzard Authenticator, so you’ll be safer against hackers for 6.50$ instead of for free or the latest, an Internet interface for the World of Warcraft AH called the “Remote Auction House” as a “Subscription-based service” for cash (2.99$/month)."
So which BW and WC3 map makers are going to want pay $$$ for hosting space?
plz think again. If your on the whole BLIZZARD IS EVUL bandwagon, the scenario is the end user pays money to blizzard for maps mapmakers distribute for free.
Making mapmakers pay and users play for free is downright retarded business logic.
"2007-2010+: In the meantime Blizzard introduces more and more “pay-for” features to World of Warcraft, like the “Name Change” for 10$, “Character Re-Customization” for 15$, the “Character Transfer” for 25$, “Faction Change” for 30$, Blizzard Mobile is getting made for phone sounds and pictures: http://mobile.blizzard.com/ , a mount for 25$, several pets, additional protection with the Blizzard Authenticator, so you’ll be safer against hackers for 6.50$ instead of for free or the latest, an Internet interface for the World of Warcraft AH called the “Remote Auction House” as a “Subscription-based service” for cash (2.99$/month)."
So which BW and WC3 map makers are going to want pay $$$ for hosting space?
plz think again. If your on the whole BLIZZARD IS EVUL bandwagon, the scenario is the end user pays money to blizzard for maps mapmakers distribute for free.
Making mapmakers pay and users play for free is downright retarded business logic.
And this is exactly why the community is halted in terms of Custom Games, because people are in "standard" business logic.
"2007-2010+: In the meantime Blizzard introduces more and more “pay-for” features to World of Warcraft, like the “Name Change” for 10$, “Character Re-Customization” for 15$, the “Character Transfer” for 25$, “Faction Change” for 30$, Blizzard Mobile is getting made for phone sounds and pictures: http://mobile.blizzard.com/ , a mount for 25$, several pets, additional protection with the Blizzard Authenticator, so you’ll be safer against hackers for 6.50$ instead of for free or the latest, an Internet interface for the World of Warcraft AH called the “Remote Auction House” as a “Subscription-based service” for cash (2.99$/month)."
So which BW and WC3 map makers are going to want pay $$$ for hosting space?
plz think again. If your on the whole BLIZZARD IS EVUL bandwagon, the scenario is the end user pays money to blizzard for maps mapmakers distribute for free.
Making mapmakers pay and users play for free is downright retarded business logic.
Yes it is retarded business logic, but if you look at the direction blizzard is taking by limiting the number of maps you can create to 5, it is quite easy to come to this conclusion.
Shame on Blizzard for allowing users to sell their content on Battle.net and make a profit for exciting maps! We need to go back to the old ways where everyone plays DotA and the creators recieve nothing for their hard work. /end sarcasm.
On July 28 2010 15:19 Darkren wrote: I think ur raging way too hard the game isn't even realesed all those things take time to make im sure blizzard will make them happen.
Umm.... the game is released and the limits are unchanged.