Let's Improve: Custom Game Interface Categories

Let's Improve will be a series of forum posts created by Gifted in an attempt to take the efforts and mindset of the community beset with concern and drive it to find solutions. On-topic discussion will be required and discussion regarding the goal in sight are commendable. There are enough obstacles in our path, let's not create more for ourselves.

Understand this will be a moderated discussion that may involve deletion of posts and updated lists. Stay on subject with your suggestions and brainstorm. This is a thread with a purpose.

http://sclegacy.com/features/break.png

If you wish to skip the subject matter and go straight to the question, it will be put in post 2.

Subject Matter:

There is a large concern in the community over many of the facets of Battle.net. Specifically some people are worried with the user interface of the custom games section. It's obviously in a beta form but with the removal game names and the combination of games into a single line, the ability to filter what games you are or are not looking for is something they've confirmed.

At Blizzcon, Dustin Browder referenced that we'd be able to filter out unwanted games, in fact he said "If you wanted to, you could never see another DOTA ever again". He also referenced that if a game was offensive, you could report it to a GM and they'd be able to look at it and decide if it was offensive enough to remove. This shows intent to have the list managed in some form.

Going forward with the mentality that battle.net will incorporate filters as they described, we can assume that a goal for the system involves us to be able to make certain games appear or disappear per our wants. For this to work, every game will have to have two fields that we can sort, one is "generic" while the other is "game specific".

The "game specific" field I'm referencing is Mode. This would set parameters in the game on the list. This would mean that 4-5 DOTAs could show on the list, one for "Random Hero" another for "Choose Hero", etc. [EDIT: An alternate question is added to allow people more "room to breathe" on this subject. Be aware that in this suggestion/theory, the developer would be able to create additional modes with ease, they would merely have a way of unifying the most common modes to allow easy filtering.]

http://sclegacy.com/features/break.png

Today's Specifics:

The "generic" field that will be involved in today's discussion is Category. As of right now, it seems that the category can be written up any way the game author deems it. This will create very large problems when filtering is implemented correctly. The difference between tower defense, towerdefense, td, red's td and defense can be very difficult for the user to sort though and provides a very unfriendly manner to move through.

Let's move forward with the following suggestion. Let's imagine that categories out there can be set, with a final option to "suggest a new genre" for a game. If the list is comprehensive enough, every developer should be able to select a relevant item from a list unless it's "Other" and at that point suggest the name for a new genre. It would then show up as "Other (suggested name)" on the list.

This would allow them to have their game easily findable, while allowing user input/developer input to try and create a new genre. In this environment, we should consider what a proper "list" of categories/genres are.

http://sclegacy.com/features/break.png

Additional Notes:

If there is ever a point that someone feels that something should require a "sub-category" then realize that this is a mode. If a person says something that could be a "sub-category" I will list it as a mode potential, which may assist in a future discussion of this type.

Question: What Categories would work in Battle.net 2.0 Custom Game Selection Interface if the above suggestions are true?
Alternate Question: What Modes do you think will be common enough to put as a default suggestion for the developer of a custom map?

Current list:

• Tower Defense
• Shooter (First Person Shooter, Third Person Shooter)
• Racetrack
• Melee
• Base/Bunker Defense
• Quest/RPG
• Minigame Collection
• Card Games
• Capture the Flag
• Other (Specify Genre)
  
• Sheep Tag (Temporary Name)
• LOTR, WW sims, "Conquest" maps (Temporary Name)
• Risk Maps (Temp Name, possibly same as LOTR/Conquest section?)
• DOTA (Temporary name)

Sub-Category/Modes:

• Single-Player, Multiplayer Teams, Multiplayer FFA
• Random Hero Selection, Choose Hero Selection
• Competitive, Co-operative
• In Testing

Temp Section!!

• Third Person Shooter

Hidden Content:

You have double posted :o

But anyways this was a good read ^^

Hidden Content:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gifted

This is a thread with a purpose.

---

Hidden Content:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perfecttear

You have double posted :o

---

Hidden Content:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gifted

Question: What Categories would work in Battle.net 2.0 Custom Game Selection Interface if the above suggestions are true?
Alternate Question: What Modes do you think will be common enough to put as a default suggestion for the developer?

Current list:

• DOTA (Temporary name)
• Tower Defense
• First Person Shooter
• Third Person Shooter
• Racetrack
• Melee
• Base/Bunker Defense
• Quest/RPG
• Other (Specify Genre)

Sub-Category/Modes:

• Single-Player
• Multi-Player
• Random Selection
• Choose Hero
• In Testing

---

Co-op should be added to the subcategories. There needs to be distinction between multiplayer battles and multiplayer co-op missions.

Gifted: Added

I don't see the point having first person shooter ans third person shooter in 2 different category. Do you think this kind of game will be popular enough to justify this?

- Noted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gt2slurp

I don't see the point having first person shooter ans third person shooter in 2 different category. Do you think this kind of game will be popular enough to justify this?

---

That makes sense. Maybe "shooter" should be a main category that has "first person shooter" and "third person shooter" as sub-categories.

- Noted/Good Suggestion

In answer to both OP questions: I think Melee will definitely be common enough to warrant a suggestion of this type. I also like quest/rpg and tower defense for the UMS player.

Where is FFA? I suppose it could be considered part of melee, but I prefer to have a separate option. I've been gang beaten/backstabbed by supposed team players who were colluding for cheap wins in SC1 and/or were doing so on their own. I digress from the topic a bit, but if their isn't going to be a FFA, at least grant us the option of locking the teams.

Quote:

---

Orignally Posted by SonofCHaos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gt2slurp
I don't see the point having first person shooter ans third person shooter in 2 different category. Do you think this kind of game will be popular enough to justify this?

---

That makes sense. Maybe "shooter" should be a main category that has "first person shooter" and "third person shooter" as sub-categories.

---

I concur.

Lastly, a question: would quest/rpg cover UMS maps that run like standard single player campaign type maps? They would be quests in all technicality, but I just want to be clear.

- Noted, campaign could be different, putting it up above, we can examine it later.

I would like to have a custom meele and a meele as two different games. (where in meele there are no units changed at all it's like the laddermaps but you might have done yourself) Where the custom meele is a meele like map that you have edited units or made a wc3 / sc1 meele map.

Tower Defense - In there now
Tower Wars - Would be classified as Tower Defense
Maze TD - Would be classified as Tower Defense
Arena (is that third person shooter?) - Give examples of what arena games you can think of?
Battleship/Battletank - Would be classified as Base Defense
Tag Game (like the sheep tag or the island map on wc3) - Noted
Movie - Define Example
Minigame Collection - Noted
Maze Escape - Would be same as minigame


(just to name a few, I am just thinking about wc3 map styles here)

I think it will be better to have a few to many then to have a few to less at start, then the ones not needed can be filtered out. Or even better there can be the standard categories and then an "extended" showing all kind of map styles.

If I recall, LOTRish maps had a following in SC1. Diplomacy and WW sims were popular as well - the three of them could have their own category. Something to do with geography specific conflict, be it real world or fictional. 'Warfare' is the first thing that comes to mind, but it doesn't necessarily capture the style of game.

As this involves one side defending a central point, I guess it could be "base defense". Base defense would involve hero defenses afterall and in this case you were still defending central points. BUT... it could also be argued that base defense is based against CPU... I'll throw these up as a temp name and maybe we'll find other examples that match it well.

Hidden Content:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twilice

I think it will be better to have a few to many then to have a few to less at start, then the ones not needed can be filtered out. Or even better there can be the standard categories and then an "extended" showing all kind of map styles.

---

Yeah, that would be cool. So an example would be like this:

Category
--Sub-category
----Game mode

Start from few general game styles then branch out to more specific game types.

Also "risk" like maps can be popular.

-Noted

Hidden Content:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SonOfChaos

Yeah, that would be cool. So an example would be like this:

Category
--Sub-category
----Game mode

Start from few general game styles then branch out to more specific game types.

---

This is probably the most ideal setup I can think of. I also like the system as is without names, but it also has its disadvantages. A hybrid would be perfect. How I envisage it:

http://www.1y100k.com/sc2/map.jpg

Please ignore the look, but this is how it would work:

Category filter: You can pick very basic categories, eg defense, dota, melee
Sub-category: Based on the category chosen, eg tower, ??? (dont know dota), fastest/money
Filter strings: String is basically text, so search just by typing. If you like a host you can also search for them, although they would probably invite you

Then you see the map title, version, category, sub-category and mode
Below that if it's hosted by a player they can add a few basic details, eg NR 20 or good players only or whatever they fancy

Then the standard map preview, who made the map, the hosts name or if it's hosted by battle.net and a description.

This way people can still make games that they host, without a name but their own description which can act as a name also, or alternatively battle.net can list it the way that happens now (which is a good system too imo)

The search is fairly robust and I believe the system would work better if Blizzard setup the categories but also added more as they become required. With really general categories you would probably only have about 10 at most so you're not scrolling forever to find one, and then the sub-category would be where the fun is at but still fairly limited to probably no more than 15.

This for me would be the perfect hybrid system that lets you create your own map with it's unique settings, give info on what players can expect before joining, and you can still make it public/private and invite friends, or you can continue to use the current system which is really good for having a fast pick up game.

- While it is a good idea (and noted) it's not part of the request/needs of this thread. Don't think of this shooting you down, I'm trying to keep this project on task.

Hidden Content:

I think blizzard looks into this, it's really to me the "only" thing that currently needs a big rework. (not counting ladder limitation to 100 players per division and chat channels)

I don't know how it works when you join a game if you get randomly into the hosted players games or if you get to the latest created game of that map/mode.

The descriptions would be great, but there could be problems with multiple maps hosted. (here there should also be a way to filter between the hosted ones, example it could be stated that it is only for test or that someone is looking for 2v2 diamond partner in ladder but wants to check their "skill" first then it would be discourage by lower league players to join these and rather join the "training" maps)
I hope you understood what I wanted to say.....

Also it should be stated how many maps are hosted in the same category.

Hidden Content:

As much as you would like to speculate what would be "better", unfortunately for this task proceed with the mentality of "Category/Mode" and not suggest a different format.

I'll be compiling posts at this point into the main post.

Capture the Flag (and games like it)

- Noted

Hidden Content:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gifted

As much as you would like to speculate what would be "better", unfortunately for this task proceed with the mentality of "Category/Mode" and not suggest a different format. I'll be compiling posts at this point into the main post.

---

While following a linear train of thought can oftentimes be beneficial, in this scenario it's fundamentally flawed when the codependent feature could be bettered to offer greater accuracy, features and support to the outlined topic. IMO.

- You are under the assumption that this is merely a "conversational" thread, this is a thread with a goal as will all further threads of this nature. Work towards the goal within the parameters that are provided, even if you think they could be better.

Thanks for the inputs, done compiling posts for this morning! Keep it coming, got a few more days. Also in the main post there are a few with "temporary names" If you have suggestions of names that could work out, or sections that could be split/combined to be better, please feel free to say so.

I think what he means by "risk maps" is like the board game RISK. I suggest renaming that section "Board Games" so as to include lots of games like Chess, Monopoly, Sorry, Chutes and Ladders, Candyland, etc. You could possibly further expand it by calling it "Turn-Based Games". Sheep Tag could possibly fall under the Capture the Flag category, as they both seem to deal with obtaining a specific object/goal that resides in a specific location on the map. I'm not sure though. I am unfamiliar with anything named "sheep tag". As for LOTR, WW sim, conquest maps, I have no clue. It all depends on if it is turn-based or real-time.

Anyway, even if they don't fall under those categories, "turn-based" needs to be a category.

How about Role-play (not RPG)? There are alot of maps like these in brood war.

A Role-play is an "open" game where the players make their own story while already playing the game. There is an "interface" (located on the side usually) that allows the players to spawn any unit. Because players are in charge of creating the story, there are no "winners" or "losers". Role-play is different from the Quest/RPG because unlike Quest/RPG, there is no specific goal to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gifted

The "generic" field that will be involved in today's discussion is Category.

---

Sorry, I got confused when you called for a discussion when really you wanted to generate a list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00bonicPlague

I think what he means by "risk maps" is like the board game RISK. I suggest renaming that section "Board Games" so as to include lots of games like Chess, Monopoly, Sorry, Chutes and Ladders, Candyland, etc. You could possibly further expand it by calling it "Turn-Based Games". Sheep Tag could possibly fall under the Capture the Flag category, as they both seem to deal with obtaining a specific object/goal that resides in a specific location on the map. I'm not sure though. I am unfamiliar with anything named "sheep tag". As for LOTR, WW sim, conquest maps, I have no clue. It all depends on if it is turn-based or real-time.

Anyway, even if they don't fall under those categories, "turn-based" needs to be a category.

---

You need to play more wc3, even though it seems to be the case for sheep tag and specially risk. risk maps or not turn based afaik. (but they do need a better name then "risk" because the map is usually about controlling territories like risk and that you get income from them. Then you usually send units in real time, it wouldn't work turn based.....)
And sheep tag and tropical tag I don't think they can be called capture the flag really (maybe) but it's more like police and thieves. Some chase and some run, those who run are supposed to turtle as long as possible until they are strong enough to kill the über powered chasers. (usually those who get tagged also turn into "evil" minions to chase the others).

Also we need a footmen category (idk what they are supposed to be called...)
Also we need some name for "enfo kind of maps" for those who has played wc3 know what I mean, but idk what they should be called.

Those aren't exactly clear names though..... I'll see if I can came upp with something better and new.

Here's a suggestion I do not see yet that comes from castle sims: Siege. You could think of it as a form of inverted tower defense, with the option of having a COM tower or humans on both sides. If this is covered in TD, then i apologize for some redundancy. Also note this would overlap with other types such as Capture the flag or King of the Mountain. Actually KoM could be its own type where a player has to hold the center/flag for a set amount of time.

Hm, it's like that other fun map, castle siege. No I do not find that equall to a td or a tw (tower defence and tower wars)

Would those fit under "base defense" still? No matter what side you are? The mentality of it is the same. Thoughts?

I think it would be confusing, imo it's quite different from attacking a base and defending one. (it's saying getting tanks and bunkers with some turrets to "dig in" is the same as getting lots of reapers or medivac drops to harras)

I think Castle Siege maps are more like tower wars. I my oppinion it should be a different category. I don't know how blizzard wants with the categories but I say it's better to add one to many then one to few. And then filter out the unneeded if there is any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gifted

Would those fit under "base defense" still? No matter what side you are? The mentality of it is the same. Thoughts?

---

The mentalities overlap without question, and you could call siege a form of base/tower defense, but the primary goals of maintaining offense or defense differ. They fall in between a standard melee mindset and a straight tower defense. In a siege, the player that starts as a defender doesn't get the same freedoms in strategy, particularly in expansion and aggressiveness. The attacker/sieger starts with map control and can expand freely, thus promoting/allowing an overtly aggressive stance/mentality to the attacker/sieger. The defender is restricted to intense resource management. Twilice's comment has an excellent example in the first paragraph.

@Gifted and Twilice: Siege maps need not start both players with a "tower." It could, but this is not a requirement. Example: the Siege mode of the game Stronghold 2. If you choose to be the attacker/sieger, you start with a preordained attack force, with some automated reinforcements depending on how the level is programmed. You usually, in this example, do not get the ability to amass any resources to self reinforce. In those rare maps where this is allowed, you have free reign over all resources not within the castle walls or within bow/siege machine range.

In the same game, to illustrate the mentality differences, you can choose to be the defender. Here's the hitch: you can build buildings and forces to sustain your D, again pending creator choice on the matter. You are restricted to the starting space within your walls and what resources are enclosed therein. Those maps of this type that are based on real castles contain all the entry/exit features of said castle, adding a further limitation on grabbing extra reources.

A difficulty in porting this to SC2 would be defining/creating "walls" and limiting unit movement through them, specifically air and burrowed units.

In all honesty though, we could group siege with tower defense and offer it as a subcategory.

Edit: I kept saying Tower defense, but this holds for base defense also. Defense type games allow for defense only. Siege could be made more unique by allowing the offensive position only.

I see some of the good conversation regarding seige games then. Thanks for your thoughts. I don't have time to do cleanup right now, but when I will, I will address each post and also update the main post to give us a clear focus on where we stand with this project.

Madness

Maps that have had masses of units attacking eachother in SC1 have usually been considered 'madness' maps. I think it's fitting and should be included.

ok, I think this thread/task has been exhausted. What's interesting is that this turned out to help 2 different projects, not just one.

I will say this much, this information is going far. Thank you all and look forward to the next "Let's Improve" very soon.

(Normally I'd close it here, but I'm leaving it open in case anyone wants to make a final comment or two.)
(EDIT: Maul, directed at you, I'm sorry about the misunderstanding in the original post, you are correct, I was trying to build a list, not a discussion. You deserve an apology since the origin of the communication breakdown was my fault man. /apologyhammer)

I remember playing AoM as a kid and playing Final Fantasy on it. Would this be classified as a rpg?