Talk about unfinished maps, map ideas, twists, innovations and remakes.
Stuff like adding a 90k health loadable upgradeable tank with interiors in a Special Forces map.

Discuss either through words or through posting a map example of your ideas for level design, gameplay, scene directing.
Zalirea, After_Earth, RV RPG, Lights Out are all unfinished rpgs. Nightmare RPG got a very nice remake.

Discussing good ideas/categories like Crash RPG, Special Forces, Bunker Survival, Cat N Mouse, Sims Insects.
Or just discussing decent ideas with generic or flawed executions: Volcano Run maps, The Thing maps, RP/DnD maps, The Sims maps, Zombie maps, Mars Survival, Starship Troopers.
And themes and ideas which never happened like a Harry Potter rpg or a good Aliens vs Predator map, Open RPG maps. For some reason we had plenty of LotR rpg maps, but no Harry Potter.

When I first came back to StarCraft in 1.18 I was going to re-create Crash RPG. I eventually began work on Crash bRPG (Bound RPG). It was more similar to Battle Bound than Crash RPG but you'd start the game by selecting a hero (Firebat, Zergling, Marine) and kill bosses/enemies while making your way through obstacles. But like most of my maps.. they get the concept created and they are never finished.

My thoughts on UMS have changed quite a bit over the years. Today I've noticed that people don't really care for quality content (thanks mobile phone games). The maps that get re-created are classics like Cannon Defense, Amazing Turret Defense, etc. Maps also need to be soloable (which can make coding more difficult).

I started work on "Border Defense" a week ago but probably won't finish it. It is based a year in the future when Donald Trump is impeached and the borders are being overran with illegal immigrants and drug cartels. As the name says, you basically defend your country from the bad people (controversial, I know that is the point).

Interestingly enough, I have started and almost finished reworking my old Krystal Elements RPG, which is pretty much a copy of Crash RPG. As a personal challenge, I managed to add *passive* abilities to all the 10 heroes. This ranges from a combo system, to burrow to spawn lurkers, to just getting zerglings spawn underneath you when you are a defiler.

Anyway, I have also noticed a considerable dip in interest of trying new things in the current community. I feel it is due to the lack of people, as well as most people no longer dedicated to the game and its craft, as there are so many other choices now. My decision to make all abilities passive reflects this, as I want to avoid people getting confused, even though a dropship system or a gateway/stargate system of active abilities would be much better.

I have also noticed that there are definite rotations of fads. Defenses will rotate between Sunken D, to Bunker D, to Cannon D. It seems that the people are joining maps and replaying them, but only for a short time.

If only there is a way to ween people away from Defense maps. They will always be a staple, but they are too dominant right now. There needs to be confidence in the community that obscure maps will be interesting and that it is worth their time to try them.

I think you hit the nail on the head. This is also why I haven't been trying to do anything to crazy in my maps. People just seem to want simple games that are replayable while also offering an option for single player. The WORST freaking thing in the world is when you're playing a game and someone leaks and you lose.

I think we need to start making "basic" RPGs that aren't to complicated or somehow merge genres together to make them more enjoyable. Mini Town Defense was a mix of RPG and Defense. a dRPG would be awesome. An actual open environment with a town to defend. The map I mentioned earlier the bRPG, an RPG with bound obstacles.

I think it would pull users who are comfortable with defenses into other genres and maybe pull them into a standard RPG game.

You should never sacrifice quality just so that your map will get played more. Who cares if pubs won't understand it? If you play with competent people, of which everyone from SEN is, your map can succeed. Don't remake stupid defense maps or make another Crash RPG clone for the millionth time; dare to do something different. Even if not many people play it, it'll still be appreciated around here.

I am not sacrificing quality, but complexity.

I also wanted to add that I don't really make maps for myself. I do it for others. I want other people to enjoy StarCraft and what the UMS community can bring to the table. If I just made maps that appeased the SEN community I wouldn't really be contributing to people enjoying the game.

If people aren't enjoying my games then I failed as a creator.

Sometimes those two go hand-in-hand. Crash RPG, Special Forces, and other "popular" maps are not fun, and that's because of their simplicity. There's absolutely no depth to those maps. All you do is walk around with a single unit and kill a million other units. The only reason those maps ever appear to have depth is because they take hours to finish, and that's only because they're so densely packed with spammed units that it takes forever to get through them. There's no real challenge, there's no real strategy -- it's just grind until you win.

Similarly, defense maps lack any sort of depth. People play them because they can sit back and put their focus on other things while the game basically plays itself. There are literally hundreds of these maps. While you may make a more polished version, if you're sticking to its original form, it still won't have any depth. It'll still be the same flat, uninteresting map that the other versions are.

If you really want to make a map like that, go ahead. I'm not in any position to try to stop you. But I think we can do much better than rehashing old maps that have worn out their welcome. You can make a map with simple mechanics, but still have it be complex. A map doesn't need to have a million EUDs and all these fancy trigger systems to be interesting.

You say you make maps for others to play, but think about this: if you remake a map like Crash RPG and people play it, it won't be because you made a really good version and people recognize that. It'll be because it's just a map that they remember from 10 years ago. It won't be anything special, and you probably won't feel like you achieved anything.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 19 2017, 12:38 am by Dem0n.

I don't know, dem0n, I disagree with that, to a certain extent.

Getting your map replayed is an achievement on its own. To me, it means you were able to design a game that was able to keep the interests of the lowest denominator, but also fun for yourself and others.

It's tough though... I totally agree with the other side too, as one should be making a map for themselves or for their friends. As mapmaking is a hobby, you're not mapping for mass appeal, you're mapping for yourself or close friends, i.e. a niche audience. Perhaps it's because SC1 UMS players are already very niche, and it just so happens that my interests are the same as theirs. But that doesn't mean your interests are the same.

I guess, in the end, it'd just be nice if more people tried different things. Maybe some new maps that help revitalize it, but I don't see that happening...

How is this even an argument where you have to decide who's right or wrong? Can't everyone have their own reasons to map and their own goals for their map? Like, how is it even your business to tell anyone why and how they should map?

Who said re-hashes wouldn't be able to introduce depth into these maps?

I'm assuming that you are addressing the "one should be making maps for..." comment. It's not an argument, it's a discussion of what people like and dislike, and how it is affecting UMS mapmakers. I didn't tell anyone how they should map, rather I am telling you what I map for, and what people who wants their maps to be popular in the current community should do.

In that sense, yes, I do have my opinions on what people can do, and what decisions and designs that people can incorporate into their map in order to make it more popular with the pubbies nowadays. I'm not making it my "business", but I am definitely speaking about my experience and opinions on this matter.

As I said, the flip side is that mapping doesn't have to be about that. It is probably for a small group of friends, but it can even be just for yourself. Who knows? It doesn't matter.

The original special forces map was hard. You weren't a super hero that could take on a billion units. I liked it. Tried recreating it once but I no longer have that either.

Here's a story which is relevant to this discussion. I've been playing Starcraft for more than 15 years (and actually started making maps before then, before I even had my own copy of SC, but that's another story), basically all of it playing UMS. Over the years, I've come into contact with a lot of different lesser-known maps, some bad, some good, some really good.

When I look at the maps in the last group, I can see several that actually score incredibly highly in terms of abstract gameplay virtues, things like depth, balance, drama, variety, and originality-- to the point where, on those grounds alone, they score higher (IMO) than the maps you'd see played, not just by pubbies, but by SEN or anyone else. Yet, these maps are unplayable today, have been unplayable for several years, and, in some cases, were always so. Why? Because they're caught in a Catch-22: in order to get good matches, there would have to be a community of players, but people aren't motivated to form a community, because, when they play, they don't have a good match (because there isn't a community). I've also found that, for many of these maps, the problem of having matches that will encourage new player to continue is actually made a lot worse by the depth of the game, because the depth means that the skill gap between creators/testers/frequent hosts and new players can grow and grow. I've seen cases of maps I was either working on or helping to test which, for one reason or another-- trigger systems, balancing needs, or some other complication-- had a long-ish development cycle, to the point where, by the time of initial release, the skill gap was already untenable.

Whatever you might think about "pubbie maps", at the end of the day, there's little joy to be had in making something that you love, and have worked your ass off on, only to see it never have a proper match. Auto-win versions of Special Forces aren't fun, sure, but at the end of the day, even they beat remaking your lobby over and over and having people leave, or just not join, and getting lots of abuse but never real games. All IMO of course.

Yes. And the other "should"s and "don't"s that were flying around and how you were making it look like there's 2 sides you need to weigh against each other to find the best one "I disagree [...] It's tough though... I totally agree with the other side too".

Good. Exactly.

EDIT:
The point is, yes there's (at least) 2 sides, and there's probably both pros and cons for both of them, and it's totally valid to discuss them. But wanted to remind everyone that any reason to map is equally valid.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 20 2017, 3:51 pm by NudeRaider.

I am not sure what my reply is but I'm going to reply.

You stated a lot of things demon I agree with. Most of these maps are just low-energy, low focus maps that can fill fast. I also have to praise you because you pointed out something that masks simplicity with so called depth: spam and grind.

I know I am going to get eye-rolls but somehow Temple Siege has survived and I have been growing the community. I have a Youtube channel for TS, and Channel with bot protection (OP TSC). When I came back, I was on iccup where there was virtually no UMS.

This leads me to my next point I guess: You need to create a community, and curate one, this takes work. If you think you are just gonna create a game lobby and hope for the best, it's not going to happen. You need people out there showcasing gameplay, show there is a dedicated community, and be visible. This is hard work, that Temple Siege youtube channel I made by itself is draining. However the pay off is I can make temple siege games and they will always be filled with players who know how to play, and even new players.

There is also a feedback loop, people see themselves on the channel videos, and I even tell people when I have replays of them up. I know this sounds simple and "duh Brofla" but in today's environment you need to grind hard to keep a community alive. The approach to community/maps needs to be approached in different ways, as it is a different time.

Bottom line: you can have your opinions about TS, but when there are 45+ videos of a game on youtube and a guy pushing out content and grinding to get others to play people are going to want to join. Even out of curiosity. To get people to play Starcraft UMS is already hard, to get someone to play a specific map is even harder. Point is for map to survive, and then thrive community buildings, and grinding is key.

Also what Foxwolf1 said was very insightful. That too is another problem.


90% of remakes will get lost in the shuffle, and ironically people will just play the original because of "brand recognition" and people going to what they want.

This needs to be said 100%. After playing KoTK RPG, why should I go back to playing another one of those shitty RPG maps? I don't underestimate nostalgia (cannon D, Sunk D, e.t.c) but those are so simple and not time consuming.

It set the Bar stupidly high. You need to shoot for the moon. To move beyond Demons point tho is if you are able to make full lobbies with friends or associates, it will spread and be played if you are able to maintain the community and grind.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 20 2017, 5:42 pm by Broflamingo.

I was hoping SEN could tell me how to improve the concept of Volcano Run maps. They're flawed.

I was working on a Volcano Run "HD remake" map a while ago, but never got that far. I had a terrain/sprite volcano (as opposed to Overmind, which is the "volcano" in most Volcano Run maps) with walkable null that the lava came out of. As far as improving gameplay, there's a lot that could be done. The standard snaky, flat, single long dirt path through cliffs is kinda boring; some non-linearity, places to hide where the lava won't flow, and more interesting locations (e.g., mine started on top of a mountain when the volcano erupts, etc.) could be introduced. There's at least one Volcano Run map where you come across a town called Mar Sara which has some buildings, two SCVs mining, and a full bunker. It's pretty bare bones, but also kind of fun to try to save it from the lava. That concept can be expanded upon: quests, AI for the town, etc. It feels like Volcano Run is a good concept with poor execution; see also Gladiator RPG.

I will say as a map creator I always enjoy seeing my map being played on Youtube. It is one thing for people to give written feedback but watching vids of them playing is another thing altogether. It's also a great tool for improving your map via watching how players play it.

What original Special Forces map? I played Panzer's special edition and all you did was sit at the healing area upgrading like mad and hoping no 1 hit kill guardian would pop on over you. The upgraded samir durans completely broke that map.