Arrgh TiKels (keke wut a gay name) ye starcraft one list be plagued with a dem0n fouler, the Temple Siege has lain waste to the join list.

Untrue, the system works a lot better than you think... if you filter by new games, it takes only 20 plays per hour to get on the first page, and 5 plays to get on the second. If you play the game with your friends only a COUPLE of times you have a high chance of skyrocketing to the top, if it's a good map, that is.
Proof of concept: impossible probe, a game released by payne is on the first page of "Show New Games Only".

TiKels you noobcake, games like long single player RPG's will never have a chance because they take so long to do per player!

Sir, maps that have too many players never get high enough because it divides the number of plays substantially because it takes more people to start a game. Eegad what a terrible system.

The current system isn't complete useless. It just needs a search and other sorting aspects.

One on one issue tackling:

Here's a relevant post:
Though the numbers fluctuate, they still remain within a reasonable area.

Alright but someone may be saying something like
You would think for a moment this may be true, but maps that can be played with one player get boosted up more easily.
Example: A map named "Unit Test Map" recently got on the first page of the GENERAL list, (not NEW GAMES) simply because it had one player, even though it was a piece of crap.

This is a bit of a stretch, but maps that have high player counts, PvP maps, are replayed much more than long single player rpgs. For example, compare labrynthos to Random Micro Arena. You play one of them ONCE or TWICE, and the other you would play 50+ times. The only matter is getting your game out there, which isn't hard (as explained above).

And who uses the "Show new games only" sorting option? Who of that group uses it more than the "Popularity" sorting option?

Err... care to explain the logic behind your claim that Unit Test Map is on the first page because it's single-player? How does that follow at all? As far as I know, people use Unit Test Map because it's useful for them as a--no one will see this coming--unit testing ground, so they can figure out counters or try to find the new "muta stacking" (i.e. exploits for use in micro).

If anything, this helps to disprove your previous point about single-player maps quickly becoming popular because they're single-player. It's true that multiplayer maps get more plays, but it doesn't really help your case, because the amount of plays your map gets grows based on how many plays your map gets, so you have to start with something to get anywhere.

tl dr;
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9744/bnet2sugg.png

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The way Battle.net 2.0 sorts the Custom Map is the source of a lot of frustrations. The disadvantages has been named numerous of times, so I consider listing them once again in here would just help losing the attention of the readers.

Let me directly get to the core of the situation: the improvements.
Here's an image I drew quickly that I will use as reference all through this post:
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9744/bnet2sugg.png

Note: I left anything that wasn't to be changed blank.

So, as you can see, there's a lot of new features.
Here's a list:
- # HOSTED - Designate the numbers of Lobbies that are created and hasn't started yet.
- MODE - (Removed). Mode is now useless (and was already, if you want my opinion) since people can choose to declare whenever Mode they want in the "CUSTOM NAME". Players of StarCraft 1 always managed to tell if they wanted "NO RUSH" or that kind of things from inside the Game Name.
- RATING (#) - Once a game ends, ask the players to rate the map. Of course, let them decide if they want rate it now or later (in other word, add a "Don't vote now" button). The orange number in parenthesis represents the number of unique players who has voted. Players would be able to change their vote at any time they'd want from inside the Game List simply by pressing on the star that represents their new rating. This last point is for three things: 1) Do not unfortunate people with the rating system more than once per map, else it'd get annoying, 2) People can change their mind, 3) People who did not rate from inside the game can do it from there.
- Plus/Minus - When pressed, shows the information related to every single lobby created at the moment.
- PLAYERS - Indicates the number of players actually in the lobby listed. Color could be optional, though it helps the player to quickly interpret information.
- CUSTOM NAME - To differentiate every lobby created.
- HOST - For general purpose... Optional.
- Sorting - Allows people to sort by "Popularity", "Rating" and "Time created".


I'd also like to use this thread to give a few more recommendations:
- The ability to do "Quick Remakes". When a game ends, some players would love to ensure they quickly get a rematch, with the same players. Adding a button "Ask for rematch" along with the "Score Screen" and "Return to game" would achieve such a thing. The first player to press the button would automatically become the Host of a new game of the same map. Other players, if they haven't left yet, would receive an alert message saying one of the players is remaking the game. They could thus click on the same button to follow this player and ensure themselves a Quick Remake!
- The ability to see the Achievements we can earn from a Campaign Mission -before- starting it. It would've saved me a lot of time to actually know that if I had done 'x', I'd have gotten an additional achievement without much effort.
- When you'll implement the chat rooms, take in consideration some people dislike those. A simple way to make them happy would be to require players to click a "Join chat" button in order to show the chat rooms.
- Please set the default Lobby Delay to 7 seconds. Waiting 30 seconds because some mapmakers do not know about this "Game Variants variable" is really annoying and a lot of people are complaining about it.
- As it is right now, a map appears to be created by the person that published it, which isn't always the case. I suggest displaying the name that is entered in the "Author" field from "Map Info..." (entered from within the Editor)? It'd make much more sense and would permit to mention all the authors of the map (there can effectively be more than 1). Of course, if no value is entered in this field, go on and display the publisher's name.
- Give the players of a Party that aren't the Leader the option to "Suggest" a game to the Leader.
- Do an auto-save when someone clicks the "Quit campaign" button. As it is right now, if you've finished a mission and spend your credits before leaving, your recent actions (credits spent, research done, etc.) aren't saved and you must do them again.


To help Blizzard's Staff, I'll keep this post updated.

Here are some great additional suggestions made by other members to improve this template even more:
- Possibly implement a rating "out of 10" instead of 5 to increase the precision.
- Clicking on the Map Name's instead of the "+" will automatically make you join the "oldest" lobby.

I guess that's about it.
I hope this actually gets a minimum of attention as I have put a lot of effort into producing this post. Please, Blizzard, have the decency of replying with your opinion over every single suggestion I've done.
Again, to everyone: please post if you agree with my statements, it'll keep the thread at the top of the list and increase the chances a member of the Blizzard Entertainment's Staff reads it.

payne - Blizzard stopped people being able to make custom game names, and added in all the auto-filtering crap to stop people from being able to spam/cuss in the join game list. As your solution lets this happen all over again, Blizzard won't go for it.

What's wrong with spam/cuss in the join game list? It's a little con compared to all the pros that my system brings. ;o

(A quote from their feedback forum)

"Say that blizzard is a restaurant, Starcraft 2 is the food they serve and battlenet 2.0 is the waiter that brings you the food.

Now the food is hands down awesome, it's the best thing you've ever ate, in fact it's so good your mouth orgasms when your tongue touches that culinary delight.

How ever the waiter is a dick.

He doesn't allow you to talk to any one else at the table, but you can whisper to some one close to you as long as no one else hears what you're saying (no chat channels).
When you see some friends of yours at the next table he doesn't allow you to get up and go to them unless you order the exact same thing you've ordered at your table once you reach their table (no xrealm)
If you want salt on your food you have to pay extra, if you want pepper you have to pay extra, if you want to use the napkin, you have to pay extra, if you want a tooth pick, you have to pay extra, if you want to go to the bathroom you have to pay extra (map marketplace).
While you order the waiter places a microphone under your table in order to gather personal information about you, information that he will use to make statistics and sell to other restauranats.
Sharing food between you and your loved one is completly forbidden since there have been case where people would eat for free by doing this (no lan)
The plates, knives, forks and the dinner table are filled with adds.
At the end of the lunch you can't see the whole bill, just the first 2 items you've baught and how much the overall price is, but not the price for the individual items (no world wide ranking)

Now would you WANT to go again to the same restaurant? Even if the food is good?

Would you really be surprised if some one would say "let's not go here anymore until they fire that waiter?"

Anyway, it still lacks support for some host generated input like the player's wish for a special game mode. Players simply get into a random game instead of a game which they can specify (e.g. dota with random heroes instead of chosen ones).