To everyone concern about map popularity: If you enjoy creating maps, then you shouldn't let others affect your interests. SC2 Mapping is a hobby, not a job. If you want to create a sc2 world full of things others wouldn't appreciate, go ahead; do what makes you happy. To Vexal, I hope you get to finish your Comp Sci degree, good luck.
As for your map, I enjoy playing it. It is really fun and hard for me. If your goal is to satisfy everyone then you shouldn't do what they ask such as add weapon to bunkers or something. If you want a map to work with your preferences then i think its unnecessary to give a reason of map change decisions based on history; changes based on experience and interest is better. Spiral D on Broodwar were auto shooting bunkers. They do not follow the romans; they are built with rines. Does that mean Spiral D is wrong? Lastly, kudos on the cheat codes statement, yup its lame.
The reason why people think bunkers can shoot is that in a 'typical' D game, anything that is buildable is intuitively thought to have an offensive strike against invaders. Playing Overun the 1st time and i thought the bunker i built was gonna do something. You said you need help finding ways to tell new players that bunkers are empty. One suggestion is to have a text display tied to some kind of alarm sound when a player builds their first bunker, center camera to that bunker. "Tip - put units in bunkers to fire"
This and many other statements of yours seems to stem from being frustrated by the accumulation of many fans complaining about random crap. Do not let it get to you. This is your map and unless people present you with constructive criticisms, don't change anything. It all really boils down to map preferences. For example, in my desert strike map, lots of ppl complained that resources were coming slow which made the game boring. Instead of telling everyone rational rebuttals like - "well, in a melee match, you start income slow and don't get 9999 minerals till later". I simply state this in the map loading screen - "Slow income for challenge endurance". See? Control it. "Added different armors for variety of defense tactics". Again, if anyone doesn't present to you a good feedback, just ignore.
I agree completely on your core point, however that alone does not absolve the popularity system of its failures.
The core difference between popularity in SC2 and the randomness of WC3 is that an unpopular map cannot be publically played. People who design niche maps go in doing so knowing that it will be only be popular amongst a niche audience. The popularity system ensures that one cannot play a "niche" map without an unreasonable wait time.
The core difference between popularity in SC2 and the randomness of WC3 is that an unpopular map cannot be publically played. People who design niche maps go in doing so knowing that it will be only be popular amongst a niche audience. The popularity system ensures that one cannot play a "niche" map without an unreasonable wait time.
sorry for warming up a thread as old as this, but I need a place to get my frustration off (the popularity of my map has been reduced to 5 for reasons i have to figure out yet. which means from a hosting time of 2 minutes it has been changed to -dead-).
I totally agree with this post. I did a lot of maps for war3 and it was much much better back then.
This and many other statements of yours seems to stem from being frustrated by the accumulation of many fans complaining about random crap. Do not let it get to you. This is your map and unless people present you with constructive criticisms, don't change anything. It all really boils down to map preferences. For example, in my desert strike map, lots of ppl complained that resources were coming slow which made the game boring. Instead of telling everyone rational rebuttals like - "well, in a melee match, you start income slow and don't get 9999 minerals till later". I simply state this in the map loading screen - "Slow income for challenge endurance". See? Control it. "Added different armors for variety of defense tactics". Again, if anyone doesn't present to you a good feedback, just ignore.
When lots of people complain about something, then it is probably not just random crap feedback. What you did does not illustrate the point you were trying to make with the example. Rather, it shows your incompetence in making games. You decided your personal preference was more important than that of those who actually play the game. You didn't control shit.
he isn't necessarily saying that the popularity system is absolved. i think the popularity system isn't the issue. the point is that people should remember what's most important when making maps, and that is, when people make maps they should focus on the maps, and not the bureaucracy outside the maps.
the popularity system, whether it's going to be fixed or not, has been accepted as bad by everyone, including Blizzard. While it presents a challenge for map makers to get their maps popular, it should not take away from the map making experience in itself. Most importantly, people who measure their success too much by the outcome that it leads to never really create the best stuff anyway; it even leads to burn out if the emphasis on it is too strong. This same approach should be taken even if the popularity system is totally revamped such that it pleases the greater population of map makers.
While the popularity system fails a large number of genres and unique games, if you make a map that is keyed to what the most common players want - you will rise up in popularity. I think a lot of people believe that it is impossible to crack the popularity system but whether lucky or not I was able to do it in about 5 days. I published colonial line wars on the na server 5 days ago and this morning I'm at 9500 popularity and will probably jump nexus wars to be the most played map. There are a lot of tricks you need to utilize on the way up, but it is certainly doable.
I've been one of the lucky map makers too, my map is popular, very popular. By watching at other maps I guess I've found some rules.
To make a map popular you need:
-fun (most difficult part, balance, simplicity, different tactics/units/towers are helping a lot)
- 6 players, the less the better but less player = less fun
- easy to learn, hard to master. if it takes longer then 30 seconds to understand what you have to do some people are leaving already reducing the fun for the remaining players. hard to master is the harder part. spaming one unit is easy to learn but not hard to master. spawning units must be easy but if there are a lot of units you're going to lose if you spawn the wrong units for a long time. you have to make good decisions/have good timings.
- estimated win time should be around 20 minutes. this is a length for a game in a break, after work or between two multiplayer games while your partner is away eating. it is the time one episode of a tv show takes.
-balance or challenge if its PvP then balance is one of the most important parts. winning with just one unit isn't funny. after a few hours everybody starts simply spamming this unit. challenge is important on PvE maps. Start easy and then slowly increase it to a level that is still possible if you're good. 10 rounds of free kills and then a sudden step killing you in one round is like running against a 3m wall, it isn't fun. only a very few people are managing it and the rest is just disappointed about the missing progress. a tower defense can be funny if you manage to survive one more wave of creep every time you start it. if the are small things to optimize like placement or buildorder.
edit: intuitive units: if you keep units with the standard look and name, keep their stats too. 1 marine should kill one zergling. 1 zealot should kill one marine. if a zealot has suddenly a +armored dmg and is able to kill an ultralisk the players are confused. nobody likes to read through the armor and weapon of every unit espacially if there are a lot of units. they are simply simply expecting hydras to light and able to attack air. use marauder(tower) if you want to add a slow and so on.
you can see a lot of maps rise to the first page like star and then fall like a stone, because they are small and fast but not funny. people don't want to play them a second or third time.
I don't understand the need for (personal?) attacks in this thread. I was merely sharing my insight on the matter, as were the other posters.
For clarification on my views toward design versus feedback:
I don't feel it's as much a personal preference on how a game is played. Instead, I'd look at it as attempting to control who is able to play the game. I don't have attachment to any particular element. I have a (very) small number of interesting (subjective) things which I consider to be cool (subjective). Interesting things are capable of changing how the game is played.
The goal for me is to give the player the opportunity to use only as many interesting things in one game as required to beat it. If a player can build both unit x, and unit y, but only needs x to beat a level, then I have failed.
There are so many games I've played where there is one best path. Look at the Diablo 2 skill trees. What is the point? Everyone just leveled Nova (until I think at one point it was nerfed?).
I control who is able to play the map by deciding how many interesting things I'd like to add. For each new element, the player must learn it. Else, the new element was pointless to add. I control how much a player must learn in order to win. Based on the genre of the map, how well a player uses a particular element of the game (in addition to knowing it) also can determine the player's success. For a Tower Defense, I tend to keep such variable small. Most people, though, do not realize how large of an effect microing towers has on kill count. I opted against requiring micro. But it's possible I will require it for some ultra insane mode.
I can count on one hand the number of things in my map I consider "interesting". I get suggestions from people all the time saying "why don't you add ___". Where ___ is an ability of some sort that makes the player stronger. It's not that I don't think ___ is awesome. It probably is. But for each ___ added, the entire game is changed. Think about how Blizzard changed it so you can only have two elixers at once in WoW.
"Make ___ (usually anti-air or anti-massive) cheaper". It is already possible for some players to correctly build these towers in time. I've made sure doing so is possible in at least two build-orders. If it is possible for players that know what they are doing, then making it easier for players who don't will just make the game boring for those that have played before.
Whenever I add just ONE unit, just a single unit. Or a single ability. I play the entire game through again. Because the ability to build just one thing changes the balance of everything. I believe that that is a fact that most people don't understand when it comes to design.
Making a game difficult while still having some shred of belief that it is still possible (by someone, somewhere) to beat is a challenge.
Some other comments:
I try to add as little as possible. There are infinite number of things that are awesome. Most people have likely thought up most awesome things in some form or another. Like bone said, players have to learn each thing you add. My map already has a high learning curve. Some of my real life friends, when I try showing it to them, mass bunkers. I honestly thought bunker-massers were the type of people I'd never know in real life. My friends always read tooltips. Clearly not the case.
It does help to be able to put a face on a complaint. Most complaints are from people you've never met, and can't place a personality on. So if you disagree with them, it's quite often the case you will find some reason to give their opinion little value.
If there are more awesome things you'd like to add than can be learned in one or two games, then you have to stagger their release. I did that. My first release had 26 levels, half of one race, and twice as many bugs. My final release has 1 and 3/4 races, 43 (out of 50) levels, and three times as many bugs.
For the record, if anyone is wondering what I personally consider "interesting" in my map (these are completely subjective, and I use the term interesting simply to signify the ideas which I aimed to build the rest of the map around):
- Hero towers, the ability to customize their stats, and to purchase / interchange weapons. I made sure to make the interface for doing so as simple as possible. No fancy inventory or stat menu. Just three buttons that appear on your hero when you have points to spend. A submenu for buying new weapons. A single button for equipping a weapon.
- Bunker towers. This may have been done before, but I don't recall seeing it in Warcraft 3. I like snipers. I like having a unit you can make badass. It's the same as having a hero, to me.
- Explosions. As many as possible.
- Stacking towers. Not new, but I don't recall seeing in War3. Same with uproot. (Uproot is a disaster; never again).
- A tower with the Carrier's Hangar ability with multiple units. Originally, my plan was to make the units in the Brood Warren ground units, so they'd have to run around your maze, thus placing a lot more strategy on where it was built. Unfortunately, hangar units apparently don't have enough AI cycles devoted to them, because they can't navigate a maze. Not sure why. Probably for the best.
- Levels with abilities. No one really seems to notice this, but the Queen level (4) has spawn larva. It lays eggs, which hatch into 2 larva, which grow into two more eggs, which hatch into 4 larva.. and so on. Originally there was a bug where this could go on forever until the map was covered in eggs and larva if the player did not have enough firepower to kill them faster than they could grow. I capped them at 1 minute before expiring. Most of my levels' abilities were the result of me looking at the editor and thinking, "I wonder if this is possible." For example, the viking level and their morphing into flying / walking modes. And the level 11 boss freezing towers with its attack while moving. The Mothership Vortex and the Medic heal was just to piss people off.
- I thought strategic use of creep was interesting, until Lurker Defense came out.
That's five, if you only count the ones that actually count. Only two of which were released in the first version.
The most important point of design -- Do not allow stubbornness or excitement to prevent you from scrapping an idea. I have seen too many incredibly well-polished maps that are just not fun. They all have some central idea they are built around. It looks like the maker was stubborn, or excited because of the idea's uniqueness. Frequently, complaints about the popularity system come from designers plagued by this problem. I honestly do not believe they would have been any better off without the popularity system. I tried to develop maps in War3, but no one liked them. I am able to go back now and look at them with an unbiased view, and I understand now that it was due to my stubbornness and excitement over something unique.
Think of something you like, and make it better. Don't think of a genre you like, and make a better version of the genre. Think of a single element of a genre, and make that single element better.
Do not, under any circumstance, attempt to invent a genre. Do not attempt to create a game outside a genre. If you do anyway, absolutely make sure you do not attempt to polish a game for a game outside a genre. Let it become popular before you waste your time with polish.
Do not, under any circumstance, attempt to invent a genre.Do not attempt to create a game outside a genre.If you do anyway, absolutely make sure you do not attempt to polish a game for a game outside a genre.Let it become popular before you waste your time with polish.
That's terrible advise. Are you serious or being sarcastic?
What's terrible about it. I honestly believe that if a person is at the stage where this type of advice is helpful, then this specific advice is helpful. If they've gotten design philosophy figured out, they wouldn't have any reason to listen to me.
Either way, I said it because I believe it is correct. If an idea for something completely new just pops into your head randomly, then it might work. But if you have to actively come up with something that is new, then it is forced, and only exists because it is new.
Do not, under any circumstance, attempt to invent a genre.Do not attempt to create a game outside a genre.If you do anyway, absolutely make sure you do not attempt to polish a game for a game outside a genre.Let it become popular before you waste your time with polish.
That's terrible advise. Are you serious or being sarcastic?
Maybe you should replace "attempt" with "force yourself". everybody new to map making just fails hard with a completely super new unique idea. A idea in your head, might sound good to yourself but it is not necessary well designed. You need a lot of experience and time to successfully create a new genre. To create fun.
even if you try to change something existing it's always a balance on a knife's edge. increasing of the damage of a single unit can totally destroy balance and fun because you don't need other units anymore.
I agree with your point about this advice being for people who aren't up to par. Both inventing a genre and advancing a current one are tasks not suitable for most people. It's better if they don't waste their time trying.
You seem to overestimate the importance of design theory. Strong intuition and intelligence will get you quite far. In fact, theory can actually hinder you if you rely on it too much.
I do have to disagree with your take on polish. Polish is part of the overall experience of the game. It should never be neglected. Waiting for your new genre map to become popular before polishing it is counterproductive. A polished version would have a much higher chance of getting popular.
I brought polish up because I was at one point asked to test a map someone made. It was incredibly well-polished. Not fun. I didn't know what to say, since everything about it was amazing other than the idea itself. It was awkward because I had no choice but to be honest about the idea itself. The person didn't agree with me. I've attempted to polish games that weren't fun to begin with.
Not polishing the map could have prevented the above situation.
As for design theory, I emphasize it because it is the way I think. I am not the type of person to have intuition in any form.
I really don't think there is a problem with inventing a new genre. I've seen some maps climb the popularity ladder fairly quickly and its mostly because they get enough testers to make the games played go up. Once a new map gets up high enough on the list many more people will check it out and if they lose fairly quickly because they didn't quite understand it they often rejoin causing games played to go up even faster. I think inventing a new genre is part of what map making is. There wouldn't be any tower defense maps if turret defense and cannon defense were never made in the early years of Starcraft. If the new genre is fun people will play it. I've seen many unplayable RPGs very high on the list just because people want to try new maps. Most RPG maps are by no means easy to start playing so I don't think you really need to make maps simple or keep in a genre. Just make good fun maps and get a bunch of testers.
I do have to disagree with your take on polish. Polish is part of the overall experience of the game. It should never be neglected. Waiting for your new genre map to become popular before polishing it is counterproductive. A polished version would have a much higher chance of getting popular.
Fun is 90% a factor of how polished a map is. People will play things that have almost zero gameplay value (Farmville, anyone?) if they're getting a reasonably polished experience, but the best idea in the world isn't going to work if its buggy, unbalanced or unfinished. When you're making a map for SC2 you're dealing largely with people who are going to pick your map out of a list knowing nothing about it and make a judgment in the first 10-30 seconds or so.
Don't know if it's been stated yet, but in your current version of Vexal Tower Defense (dated November 30th 2010) the Sunken race's builder has 2 buildings assigned to the same hotkey. The Lava Spewer and the button to the left of it (the one that can attack ground only) are both hotkeyed to A. Also when will the Arcane race be available to play? I really like the map. It's one of the best I've played in all my tower defense experience. The difficulty is what makes it fun! =)
Also, RileyStarcraft above me speaks the truth. People usually notice if a map is polished and well done before they start getting into the meat of the gameplay. If the game looks good they will want to play it more often. If it's really buggy, this will stand out and dissuade people from wanting to play again.
I like the difficulty, too. I died a little inside when I first heard people had beaten it. Arcane will be released mid-December.
I approach polish the way most car companies approach recalling items:
"Well, if I just leave it this way how many people will complain? Will it affect popularity enough to make it worth changing?"
I'm that lazy. People complain about the hotkeys all the time, but the keep playing. And then the say "dude, I've asked you 12 times to fix this.." which implies they saw the problem, then proceeded to play another 11 times.
I'm mostly kidding, somewhat. I'll polish it more, I promise. As soon as the semester is over I'll have more time to comb the map for problems.
I'm fairly new to this game but I found one disturbing trend that makes the map so popular....the abuse system. Meaning whoever gets into the game who is host can not only control the difficulty but also becomes a real jerk to most of the players.
I even ran into one player who said the reason why he likes that map is so he can yell at noobs and nobody can report him because the score screen also doesn't come up to report the players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To everyone concern about map popularity: If you enjoy creating maps, then you shouldn't let others affect your interests. SC2 Mapping is a hobby, not a job. If you want to create a sc2 world full of things others wouldn't appreciate, go ahead; do what makes you happy. To Vexal, I hope you get to finish your Comp Sci degree, good luck.
As for your map, I enjoy playing it. It is really fun and hard for me. If your goal is to satisfy everyone then you shouldn't do what they ask such as add weapon to bunkers or something. If you want a map to work with your preferences then i think its unnecessary to give a reason of map change decisions based on history; changes based on experience and interest is better. Spiral D on Broodwar were auto shooting bunkers. They do not follow the romans; they are built with rines. Does that mean Spiral D is wrong? Lastly, kudos on the cheat codes statement, yup its lame.
The reason why people think bunkers can shoot is that in a 'typical' D game, anything that is buildable is intuitively thought to have an offensive strike against invaders. Playing Overun the 1st time and i thought the bunker i built was gonna do something. You said you need help finding ways to tell new players that bunkers are empty. One suggestion is to have a text display tied to some kind of alarm sound when a player builds their first bunker, center camera to that bunker. "Tip - put units in bunkers to fire"
This and many other statements of yours seems to stem from being frustrated by the accumulation of many fans complaining about random crap. Do not let it get to you. This is your map and unless people present you with constructive criticisms, don't change anything. It all really boils down to map preferences. For example, in my desert strike map, lots of ppl complained that resources were coming slow which made the game boring. Instead of telling everyone rational rebuttals like - "well, in a melee match, you start income slow and don't get 9999 minerals till later". I simply state this in the map loading screen - "Slow income for challenge endurance". See? Control it. "Added different armors for variety of defense tactics". Again, if anyone doesn't present to you a good feedback, just ignore.
For the Swarm -QueenGambit
I agree completely on your core point, however that alone does not absolve the popularity system of its failures.
The core difference between popularity in SC2 and the randomness of WC3 is that an unpopular map cannot be publically played. People who design niche maps go in doing so knowing that it will be only be popular amongst a niche audience. The popularity system ensures that one cannot play a "niche" map without an unreasonable wait time.
sorry for warming up a thread as old as this, but I need a place to get my frustration off (the popularity of my map has been reduced to 5 for reasons i have to figure out yet. which means from a hosting time of 2 minutes it has been changed to -dead-).
I totally agree with this post. I did a lot of maps for war3 and it was much much better back then.
When lots of people complain about something, then it is probably not just random crap feedback. What you did does not illustrate the point you were trying to make with the example. Rather, it shows your incompetence in making games. You decided your personal preference was more important than that of those who actually play the game. You didn't control shit.
@halfthought: Go
he isn't necessarily saying that the popularity system is absolved. i think the popularity system isn't the issue. the point is that people should remember what's most important when making maps, and that is, when people make maps they should focus on the maps, and not the bureaucracy outside the maps. the popularity system, whether it's going to be fixed or not, has been accepted as bad by everyone, including Blizzard. While it presents a challenge for map makers to get their maps popular, it should not take away from the map making experience in itself. Most importantly, people who measure their success too much by the outcome that it leads to never really create the best stuff anyway; it even leads to burn out if the emphasis on it is too strong. This same approach should be taken even if the popularity system is totally revamped such that it pleases the greater population of map makers.
While the popularity system fails a large number of genres and unique games, if you make a map that is keyed to what the most common players want - you will rise up in popularity. I think a lot of people believe that it is impossible to crack the popularity system but whether lucky or not I was able to do it in about 5 days. I published colonial line wars on the na server 5 days ago and this morning I'm at 9500 popularity and will probably jump nexus wars to be the most played map. There are a lot of tricks you need to utilize on the way up, but it is certainly doable.
I've been one of the lucky map makers too, my map is popular, very popular. By watching at other maps I guess I've found some rules.
To make a map popular you need:
-fun (most difficult part, balance, simplicity, different tactics/units/towers are helping a lot)
- 6 players, the less the better but less player = less fun
- easy to learn, hard to master. if it takes longer then 30 seconds to understand what you have to do some people are leaving already reducing the fun for the remaining players. hard to master is the harder part. spaming one unit is easy to learn but not hard to master. spawning units must be easy but if there are a lot of units you're going to lose if you spawn the wrong units for a long time. you have to make good decisions/have good timings.
- estimated win time should be around 20 minutes. this is a length for a game in a break, after work or between two multiplayer games while your partner is away eating. it is the time one episode of a tv show takes.
-balance or challenge if its PvP then balance is one of the most important parts. winning with just one unit isn't funny. after a few hours everybody starts simply spamming this unit. challenge is important on PvE maps. Start easy and then slowly increase it to a level that is still possible if you're good. 10 rounds of free kills and then a sudden step killing you in one round is like running against a 3m wall, it isn't fun. only a very few people are managing it and the rest is just disappointed about the missing progress. a tower defense can be funny if you manage to survive one more wave of creep every time you start it. if the are small things to optimize like placement or buildorder.
edit: intuitive units: if you keep units with the standard look and name, keep their stats too. 1 marine should kill one zergling. 1 zealot should kill one marine. if a zealot has suddenly a +armored dmg and is able to kill an ultralisk the players are confused. nobody likes to read through the armor and weapon of every unit espacially if there are a lot of units. they are simply simply expecting hydras to light and able to attack air. use marauder(tower) if you want to add a slow and so on.
you can see a lot of maps rise to the first page like star and then fall like a stone, because they are small and fast but not funny. people don't want to play them a second or third time.
keep the fun in making maps :)
I don't understand the need for (personal?) attacks in this thread. I was merely sharing my insight on the matter, as were the other posters.
For clarification on my views toward design versus feedback:
I don't feel it's as much a personal preference on how a game is played. Instead, I'd look at it as attempting to control who is able to play the game. I don't have attachment to any particular element. I have a (very) small number of interesting (subjective) things which I consider to be cool (subjective). Interesting things are capable of changing how the game is played.
The goal for me is to give the player the opportunity to use only as many interesting things in one game as required to beat it. If a player can build both unit x, and unit y, but only needs x to beat a level, then I have failed.
There are so many games I've played where there is one best path. Look at the Diablo 2 skill trees. What is the point? Everyone just leveled Nova (until I think at one point it was nerfed?).
I control who is able to play the map by deciding how many interesting things I'd like to add. For each new element, the player must learn it. Else, the new element was pointless to add. I control how much a player must learn in order to win. Based on the genre of the map, how well a player uses a particular element of the game (in addition to knowing it) also can determine the player's success. For a Tower Defense, I tend to keep such variable small. Most people, though, do not realize how large of an effect microing towers has on kill count. I opted against requiring micro. But it's possible I will require it for some ultra insane mode.
I can count on one hand the number of things in my map I consider "interesting". I get suggestions from people all the time saying "why don't you add ___". Where ___ is an ability of some sort that makes the player stronger. It's not that I don't think ___ is awesome. It probably is. But for each ___ added, the entire game is changed. Think about how Blizzard changed it so you can only have two elixers at once in WoW.
"Make ___ (usually anti-air or anti-massive) cheaper". It is already possible for some players to correctly build these towers in time. I've made sure doing so is possible in at least two build-orders. If it is possible for players that know what they are doing, then making it easier for players who don't will just make the game boring for those that have played before.
Whenever I add just ONE unit, just a single unit. Or a single ability. I play the entire game through again. Because the ability to build just one thing changes the balance of everything. I believe that that is a fact that most people don't understand when it comes to design.
Making a game difficult while still having some shred of belief that it is still possible (by someone, somewhere) to beat is a challenge.
Some other comments:
I try to add as little as possible. There are infinite number of things that are awesome. Most people have likely thought up most awesome things in some form or another. Like bone said, players have to learn each thing you add. My map already has a high learning curve. Some of my real life friends, when I try showing it to them, mass bunkers. I honestly thought bunker-massers were the type of people I'd never know in real life. My friends always read tooltips. Clearly not the case.
It does help to be able to put a face on a complaint. Most complaints are from people you've never met, and can't place a personality on. So if you disagree with them, it's quite often the case you will find some reason to give their opinion little value.
If there are more awesome things you'd like to add than can be learned in one or two games, then you have to stagger their release. I did that. My first release had 26 levels, half of one race, and twice as many bugs. My final release has 1 and 3/4 races, 43 (out of 50) levels, and three times as many bugs.
For the record, if anyone is wondering what I personally consider "interesting" in my map (these are completely subjective, and I use the term interesting simply to signify the ideas which I aimed to build the rest of the map around):
- Hero towers, the ability to customize their stats, and to purchase / interchange weapons. I made sure to make the interface for doing so as simple as possible. No fancy inventory or stat menu. Just three buttons that appear on your hero when you have points to spend. A submenu for buying new weapons. A single button for equipping a weapon.
- Bunker towers. This may have been done before, but I don't recall seeing it in Warcraft 3. I like snipers. I like having a unit you can make badass. It's the same as having a hero, to me.
- Explosions. As many as possible.
- Stacking towers. Not new, but I don't recall seeing in War3. Same with uproot. (Uproot is a disaster; never again).
- A tower with the Carrier's Hangar ability with multiple units. Originally, my plan was to make the units in the Brood Warren ground units, so they'd have to run around your maze, thus placing a lot more strategy on where it was built. Unfortunately, hangar units apparently don't have enough AI cycles devoted to them, because they can't navigate a maze. Not sure why. Probably for the best.
- Levels with abilities. No one really seems to notice this, but the Queen level (4) has spawn larva. It lays eggs, which hatch into 2 larva, which grow into two more eggs, which hatch into 4 larva.. and so on. Originally there was a bug where this could go on forever until the map was covered in eggs and larva if the player did not have enough firepower to kill them faster than they could grow. I capped them at 1 minute before expiring. Most of my levels' abilities were the result of me looking at the editor and thinking, "I wonder if this is possible." For example, the viking level and their morphing into flying / walking modes. And the level 11 boss freezing towers with its attack while moving. The Mothership Vortex and the Medic heal was just to piss people off.
- I thought strategic use of creep was interesting, until Lurker Defense came out.
That's five, if you only count the ones that actually count. Only two of which were released in the first version.
The most important point of design -- Do not allow stubbornness or excitement to prevent you from scrapping an idea. I have seen too many incredibly well-polished maps that are just not fun. They all have some central idea they are built around. It looks like the maker was stubborn, or excited because of the idea's uniqueness. Frequently, complaints about the popularity system come from designers plagued by this problem. I honestly do not believe they would have been any better off without the popularity system. I tried to develop maps in War3, but no one liked them. I am able to go back now and look at them with an unbiased view, and I understand now that it was due to my stubbornness and excitement over something unique.
Think of something you like, and make it better. Don't think of a genre you like, and make a better version of the genre. Think of a single element of a genre, and make that single element better.
Do not, under any circumstance, attempt to invent a genre. Do not attempt to create a game outside a genre. If you do anyway, absolutely make sure you do not attempt to polish a game for a game outside a genre. Let it become popular before you waste your time with polish.
That's terrible advise. Are you serious or being sarcastic?
@KerenskyLI:
What's terrible about it. I honestly believe that if a person is at the stage where this type of advice is helpful, then this specific advice is helpful. If they've gotten design philosophy figured out, they wouldn't have any reason to listen to me.
Either way, I said it because I believe it is correct. If an idea for something completely new just pops into your head randomly, then it might work. But if you have to actively come up with something that is new, then it is forced, and only exists because it is new.
Maybe you should replace "attempt" with "force yourself". everybody new to map making just fails hard with a completely super new unique idea. A idea in your head, might sound good to yourself but it is not necessary well designed. You need a lot of experience and time to successfully create a new genre. To create fun.
even if you try to change something existing it's always a balance on a knife's edge. increasing of the damage of a single unit can totally destroy balance and fun because you don't need other units anymore.
@b0ne123: Go
Yeah, that's what I meant.
I agree with your point about this advice being for people who aren't up to par. Both inventing a genre and advancing a current one are tasks not suitable for most people. It's better if they don't waste their time trying.
You seem to overestimate the importance of design theory. Strong intuition and intelligence will get you quite far. In fact, theory can actually hinder you if you rely on it too much.
I do have to disagree with your take on polish. Polish is part of the overall experience of the game. It should never be neglected. Waiting for your new genre map to become popular before polishing it is counterproductive. A polished version would have a much higher chance of getting popular.
@Karawasa:
I brought polish up because I was at one point asked to test a map someone made. It was incredibly well-polished. Not fun. I didn't know what to say, since everything about it was amazing other than the idea itself. It was awkward because I had no choice but to be honest about the idea itself. The person didn't agree with me. I've attempted to polish games that weren't fun to begin with.
Not polishing the map could have prevented the above situation.
As for design theory, I emphasize it because it is the way I think. I am not the type of person to have intuition in any form.
I really don't think there is a problem with inventing a new genre. I've seen some maps climb the popularity ladder fairly quickly and its mostly because they get enough testers to make the games played go up. Once a new map gets up high enough on the list many more people will check it out and if they lose fairly quickly because they didn't quite understand it they often rejoin causing games played to go up even faster. I think inventing a new genre is part of what map making is. There wouldn't be any tower defense maps if turret defense and cannon defense were never made in the early years of Starcraft. If the new genre is fun people will play it. I've seen many unplayable RPGs very high on the list just because people want to try new maps. Most RPG maps are by no means easy to start playing so I don't think you really need to make maps simple or keep in a genre. Just make good fun maps and get a bunch of testers.
@Vexal: Go
lol, was it that command center clicker thing? Yeah, the idea was stupid all together.
Fun is 90% a factor of how polished a map is. People will play things that have almost zero gameplay value (Farmville, anyone?) if they're getting a reasonably polished experience, but the best idea in the world isn't going to work if its buggy, unbalanced or unfinished. When you're making a map for SC2 you're dealing largely with people who are going to pick your map out of a list knowing nothing about it and make a judgment in the first 10-30 seconds or so.
Good Evening,
Don't know if it's been stated yet, but in your current version of Vexal Tower Defense (dated November 30th 2010) the Sunken race's builder has 2 buildings assigned to the same hotkey. The Lava Spewer and the button to the left of it (the one that can attack ground only) are both hotkeyed to A. Also when will the Arcane race be available to play? I really like the map. It's one of the best I've played in all my tower defense experience. The difficulty is what makes it fun! =)
Also, RileyStarcraft above me speaks the truth. People usually notice if a map is polished and well done before they start getting into the meat of the gameplay. If the game looks good they will want to play it more often. If it's really buggy, this will stand out and dissuade people from wanting to play again.
Kudos again on making Vexal Tower Defense!
Dolomite
@Dolomite00: Go
Thanks. Sorry for the late response.
I like the difficulty, too. I died a little inside when I first heard people had beaten it. Arcane will be released mid-December.
I approach polish the way most car companies approach recalling items: "Well, if I just leave it this way how many people will complain? Will it affect popularity enough to make it worth changing?"
I'm that lazy. People complain about the hotkeys all the time, but the keep playing. And then the say "dude, I've asked you 12 times to fix this.." which implies they saw the problem, then proceeded to play another 11 times.
I'm mostly kidding, somewhat. I'll polish it more, I promise. As soon as the semester is over I'll have more time to comb the map for problems.
Thanks for the comments.
I'm fairly new to this game but I found one disturbing trend that makes the map so popular....the abuse system. Meaning whoever gets into the game who is host can not only control the difficulty but also becomes a real jerk to most of the players.
I even ran into one player who said the reason why he likes that map is so he can yell at noobs and nobody can report him because the score screen also doesn't come up to report the players.