Generic discussion re: what makes a good/popular map

[Helper]

In the  Colonial Space Map Discussion > Custom Maps threads, there are several discussions and comments about individual maps. Rather than carry on extended discussions about each map, Grauniad suggested that we open a thread in this board.

I respectfully suggest that you guys take the "what makes a popular map" conversation to the Custom Map Discussion Board where other map makers may find and participate in the thread. It is a discussion that happens a number of times for each release of Creeper World.

One of the biggest turnoffs for me is no Totems/Aether to give you improvements. This concept is such an integral part of CW3 and - IMO - is a big negative in any but the shortest games.

[Asbestos]

IMHO, the ideal map has a perfect balance between difficulty, speed, and originality. It's impossible to make the perfect map because people have varying tastes, but it's possible to make a map that's close enough.

[ThirdParty]

One of the biggest turnoffs for me is no Totems/Aether to give you improvements. This concept is such an integral part of CW3 and - IMO - is a big negative in any but the shortest games.

How much aether do you like to see?  In most of my maps I've been giving the player about 300--enough to upgrade everything a little, or one thing a lot.  I gather that you'd like more than that, or are you just annoyed that I keep putting it in awkward locations?

[Flabort]

Typically, with a totem rather than resource packs, a player with a slow play style will get far more aether than a speed runner.
I recon that with a 12-15 minute completion of the particular map which sparked this conversation would have yielded ~300 aether on a single totem, as you've used; however, players like me with average 45-120 minute plays through the map would have gotten several times that, enough to fully upgrade multiple items.
I believe that some players would argue "if you can upgrade that high, I should be able to get the aether to upgrade that high"; therefore, if there is only a limited aether supply on the map, there should be limits on the forge; such as limiting each weapon upgrade to level 3 when putting 350 max on a map, or to lvl 2 when putting only 300 on the map.
This, however, would spark complaints about the forge limits; you just can't please everyone, though.

[Helper]

How much aether do you like to see?

Again - just one man's opinion, but I like to work with Totem(s) and gradually build up the source of Aether. Chasing Aether Packs can be fun - if there is enough to make a difference. 300 will sure make you think through your options, but the games with dozens of 10,000 Aether (and Energy & Ore) Packs are way extreme the other way.

[Grayzzur]

I like having the totems too. Sure, on a speed run you're not there long, but if you're playing a longer game, the extra Aether is nice -- and since you have to play longer to get that much of it, it's not going to ruin the short game. When a map maker limits the units and items on a map too much, I feel like I'm locked in to trying to puzzle out the Author's solution, instead of being able to find my own.

[Flabort]

Oh, yes, and while it seems that it did make a difference, one or two levels of firing range or rate doesn't LOOK like much of a distance.
Try, um, putting 2.5x the aether packs on your maps; 1x equally as hard as you have been (300 Aether trapped by digi, or whatever), 1.1x harder (330 aether somewhere difficult, maybe some behind the last emitter, or behind an optional objective), and 0.4x easier (120 aether; 60 in base, 60 optional but easy to reach). And if you want, you can then add an extra 0.5x that is SUPREMELY difficult to obtain (150 aether). Technically, that would be 750-900 aether, and the whole "you must choose what to spend it on" thing would be preserved, but draw less complaints.

[asmussen]

While I've enjoyed maps of both types, and don't think there's necessarily any thing *wrong* with leaving totems off a map, I think that the maps with totems probably will appeal to a wider range of potential players. The people going for low times will still be limitted in the amount of aether that they can accumulate in that time, while the players not looking for such a difficult challenge can still do a slow buildup. I guess it depends on whether or not you're dead set on making the map difficult to complete, or are willing to settle for just being difficult to get a good score.

[pawel345]

While I agree on the fact that some aether on the map is nice, and the source being totems and/or aether packs doesn't really matter as in the end that's up to mapmaker. Instead of limiting upgrades by aether one can limit them by upgrade limits and that's much worse in my opinion. Amount needed? I would say that something like ~500 - upgrading range,rate and 2 times each and having 200 aether left for energy/ore/move speed upgrades.


What's more important on a map is setting some goals for the player. And not too many enemies.

By goals I mean that for example if I manage to get to that part of the map there is a totem or an ore deposit. Or I get a nice building space that's otherwise hard to come by. Or something else. Anyway so that it seems worth defeating those emitters/spores.

By not too many enemies I mean that on some maps, there are around 15-20 enemies. And they are grouped in a way that if you destroy one of them by just using the PZ left you can destroy the others. But you anyway need to build around 10 nullifiers and spend 15+ min on that while facing no additional challenge. Changing some of them to slip emitters, or changing 2 emitters into 1 stronger makes maps feel less tedious.

Last thing that makes a map interesting is of course the uniqueness of gameplay. The easiest way to achieve that is obviously CRPL but that's not a necessary factor. Some maps without any can be great, and also one can simply take an already existing script and simply add it to the map. For example, just adding a corrupted unit somewhere can greatly influence the gameplay.
 

[J]

I mostly like short medium-hard maps, either with or without crpl. That said, I can also like medium-sized maps with a lot of crpl, but only if it's implemented very well.

About the aether thing: I mostly like totems on longer maps. This gives you extra aether at the cost of some time.

The hard thing about making maps is making the start challenging (for most people) while keeping the endgame (past the point from which you know you will win) easy and fast. Maps must remain interesting for me to keep me playing. Turncoat for example is a very nice map, but I got bored after advancing over the first ridge. To achieve the effect of a short endgame you can either make the map smaller, make the game more interesting so that players won't get past the point from which they know they'll win, or give the player a huge bonus once they got past that point.

[Annonymus]

I like totems more than aether packs.
What I hate on maps is when you have difficulties starting, if you are already surrounded by creeper or generally your base is under attack before the first 5-10 minutes, for me a perfect map would see an island surrounded by void with no emitters/digitalis on it and no spores or some PZ to place beams on, so I could build my base taking my time and without pressure, the mapmaker can still challenge me by not giving me enough space to build much of an energy production or otherwise making it difficult to advance without getting my base in danger, I think CRPL is great for this purpose.
I do like 3+ hours maps IF they are not always doing the same thing, but if there are slight differences that make me adjust my strategy, this map is a great example for what goes really near to my perfect map (except the spores in the beginning, they forced me to restart the map ~12 times, which is annoying): http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=14767.0
And I don't like maps with a thor because the thor basicly is doing always the same(grinding), advancing a bit, building some relays and some blasters to defend them, advance a bit more etc. AND because he requests less ammo than he consumes...
Lastly what I don't like in maps is if there are pre-placed collectors or bad-made terrain, being an OCD victim I always have to build a perfect network of collectors which is impossible with wrongly pre-placed collectors or bad made terrain, where you see the mapmaker made that in just 5 min. The only way I can accept pre-placed emitters is if they are like in the maps where you have a spaceship/fleet full of guns etc. and have to conquer an asteroid/planet/spaceship.

This is mostly a list of "not"s because I generally like most of the maps, if they don't have one of these "taboo" features.

Sorry if I am incomprehensible or made some mistakes with the english language, it's because I'm very tired right now.

[Helper]

Pet Peeve #462 - maps that are too large for no good reason.

In CW2, the MapMods started rejecting maps that were too large. A lot of people were submitting 80 row maps that should have been in the 20-30 row range.

Being forced to pause & scroll for no good reason is a serious distractor from the fun stuff.

[asmussen]

One of my pet peeves is when a map is rectangular, but is oriented so that the long direction is up and down, when widescreen monitors are long in the left to right direction. Means that when you zoom out far enough to see the whole map, you're wasting a ton of screen real estate.

[ThirdParty]

I want to chime in not just as a map-maker but also as a player.

In CS maps, I'm usually looking for "something different"--something that makes me stop and think a bit, rather than just applying the strategies I use on Tormented Space and DMD maps.

What I hate on maps is when you have difficulties starting, if you are already surrounded by creeper or generally your base is under attack before the first 5-10 minutes

I don't mind difficulty starting (for example, I loved J's Miniland series, even though it tended to take me 2-3 times to figure out how to survive their start-ups), but I do expect to be able to stabilize the situation reasonably quickly.  Getting killed and having to restart 5 minutes in is okay; getting killed and having to restart 45 minutes in is not.

Pet Peeve #462 - maps that are too large for no good reason.

Yeah, agreed.  I tend not to even try large maps, unless I can see in the preview that they won't be monotonous.

[Flabort]

Using other people's scripts in creative ways. I have an idea with 3P's ocean script that I might try in a map while I work on my Carcassone map.