Luls.. humongous necro.

which reminds me that I still haven't finished this: http://www.staredit.net/topic/10262/

Unfortunately, I feel my style or writing has changed quite a bit from back then...
so It's going to be hard for me to edit and complete it.

anyway.. it was tl;dr for me.. i'll try to read it later.. cause this interests me.



Post has been edited 5 time(s), last time on Jan 22 2011, 1:42 am by UnholyUrine.

Payne update the thread please

My last edit dates of the November 4th, and the last replies are from November 4th as well. ;o

Lol payne... i made a post on how to improve arena maps and you didn't add it ...

MOOOOAAARRRRRR

Anywho some more suggestions

- A slightly harder then normal difficulty
- Difficulty settings
- Co-op and Verus modes
- Simple to play, impossible to master
- Grinding
- Open world (however a linear path but with multiple paths also work as most open worlds tend to be confusing (Rpg)
- Customizable Options
- Fun Factor
- Theme
- Well thought out implements
- Either limiting certain things to certain classes or having to make a decision to choose spears only over swords only
- Hidden little things you notice over time (e.g. easter eggs)
- In some way to make the player create a build order (e.g. getting max hp or buying certain things in certain orders)
- Smart AI, Sure this may not increase re-playability at first but a smart AI makes you feel challenged and does make you want to play more
- Again with the well thought out implements E.g. using flame trail over water makes it disappear and standing in freezing water freezes you to death after X amount of time, this can apply to all aspects of a game...

Here we go.

This is the most important facet of game design. If you play a map or a game for 5 minutes and already know 90% of the ins and outs of it, then chances are you are 90% more likely to play it again. And if it takes you a year to become 'professional' at the game/map then it is likely to hold your attention for, you guessed it, a year - maybe longer.

Disagree. It is more important to create a sense of progression and advancement throughout the course of a game/map - I feel 'grinding' is the worst way to do this. Unless of course the game/map is an electronic smack addiction like World of Warcraft - then it can get away with implementing such a lazy feature as 'kill 100,000 spiders and maybe get an Epic Elite Spider Sword'.

Interesting. I think the problem with the 'open-world' concept is that games try to have both linear, multiple, and open world concepts within their map and therefore fail to fall into the category of either one of them. Take these examples:

• Halo 1 - 100% linear, you go from Mission A to Mission Z in a nice orderly fashion and the storyline unfolds around you.
  
• Oblivion - 50/50, there is a main plot quest, but you are absolutely free to ignore this entirely for 90% of the game.
  
• Minecraft - 100% open world, there is no objective, there is no mission or goal. You just do whatever the hell you want! (note: I havn't played this and probably never will, it's not my cup of tea.
  
• World of Warcraft - 100% open world (perhaps a better example then Minecraft), you are free to do pretty much whatever you want within the scope of gaining levels, loot, skills, talents and reputation with factions.
  

In terms of increasing replayability of a custom map - you want to avoid linearity as much as possible. I use the term in the sense of my Halo example, in which every game is the same, the plot doesn't change, the units you encounter are largely the same, etc. Instead you want to go either 100% Open World, or make it Multiplicative. What I mean by these terms is, a) you want to let the players do whatever the hell they want or b) you want to give the player a hell of a lot of choice in what they can and cannot do.

Going for 100% open-world is more difficult since you need to ultimately create a lot more content.

Going for 100% multiplicative is easier in terms of implementation, but balancing and creating a storyline is a lot more difficult.


Just my two cents on a few of what Tempz suggested. I felt that (especially his 'open world') example could use some elaboration.

Mmk Elaboration >:O, but Cardinal i wanted it just to benefit the thread lol...

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 12 2011, 11:40 pm by Tempz.

In strategy games, I've found that the following things can improve replayability. First of all, randomization of initial conditions can do wonders. A WCIII map, broken alliances, consists of 36 strongholds, under the most common mode randomized for three per player. Each base is randomly placed in one of the 36 base positions. Every single base has distinct units - most have a viable tank, but some don't. Some tanks have a good armor type, some don't. Most have viable ranged unit, some don't. Some have various spellcasters. Etc. Thus, every game you get three bases, they rarely repeat, and they're usually in a different location. You usually don't get to use two simultaneously, unless you're lucky and they're close. I've played this map ~400 times in total (there's a bot always hosting it, and has been for over a year).

Apart from randomization of initial conditions, I believe a mapmaker should make a significant gap between new players and not. This creates its own randomization - as random players are assigned to set spots, their rates of expansion create the variety. If everyone plays pretty much the same because there's only one way to play, it gets old fast. Which also leads to allowing the players to do different things to get to the same result. Again, in BA, most bases have several viable strategies. It also ties into what faz said about not allowing anything to be categorically better than something else - a system of counters (cavalry counter infantry, infantry counter pikemen, pikemen counter cavalry, for instance) insures that you're using different units or different combinations most games. Additionally, giving the players the option to choose their targets or avenue of expansion increases replayability. I take no interest in most LOTR maps for this reason - you pick your spot, and you pretty much have to go in a certain direction to win. If you have options, it increases replayability.

While I completely agree with you, one could argue that some players might not want to search endlessly just to find their opponent because there are 35 spots where their base could've spawned.

Bnet games typically start when they're full, and each person gets 3 bases (so they can choose one or two of them as mains and leave the other two). So every single base you attack is occupied, and you get money to increase spawns for everyone single one you kill/capture.

In alot of rts's its common to add some sort of Rpg element to make it more fun...