SC2Mapster

Hello sc2mapster how are you.

I'd like to ask you opinion about how long is too long for a map.

The reason I ask is because I am currently in middle of mapping the final map of HoD custom campaign.

When I test play it and I almost 3/4 through I realize it was nearly 2 hours long.

I certainly don't want anyone to feel the map take to long to complete.

So to sum up my question is this :

How long is acceptable for a map.

A. Under 30 minutes

B. 30 - 60 minutes

C. 60 - 90 minutes

D. Else [please write down what you prefer]

Thank you.

It depends on the map really. A would say for most maps, no more than 90 minutes. The player can start to lose interest if it gets too long. But then you have maps like Ussorus from Annihilation that take over 2 hours to complete but are a blast to play. You just have to ask yourself - would someone get bored playing this?

Really depends on the genre

For example, NOTD is about an hour long and can stretch longer.

@EDHRIANO: Go

No such thing as a map that's too long, only one that's too boring

That is the thing, fun / boring is subjective.

Many people think COD fun , while I think it is not.

My bae think LotR trilogy is boring and think Ghostbuster 2016 is a master piece, while I think ... yeah you get the idea...

Depends on the fun. For some maps 5 minutes is too long. Fun maps are shameless time killers.

Also depends on the amount of intellectual and click work. Hour long of chess is exhausting. SC2 battles are demanding too. Some 2 clicks per minute TD's could last longer without players need a break.

If your map is fun and easy to play, try to not exceed 1 hour much. The harder to play, the less time. If map's not fun - make another.

You might be interested in this extra credits episode:

Apart from that, I agree with the others:

Half an hour of only grinding would be a waste of time to me. 4 hours of dense exciting narrative might feel too short to me in the end. It really depends on the quality of the map.

@zuPloed: Go

Very insightful video.

@njordys: Go

Hmm, you have a point there. People certaintly don't want another mass effect 3 ending.

it is a campaign.. no such thing as "too long" to achieve the end credit.

is it repetitive? is it too much of this or too much of that.. that's a valid question, but as it has been said

"your goal should be to please people who like the kind of map YOU want to do"

"does it take two hours for you and 4 for someone discovering it" sounds more useful a question

"does it take 2 hours on the first try and then only 1 because the player knows what to do (once having played it already the time factor is negligeable?) ?

etc etc

i agree that your question could be useful, but more for "are any players going to want a replay (and it can't manage to save it all on account of the length of times it takes)".. or to avoid lag / desynch issues / bugs..

if a player doesn't like time consuming game, not sure campaigns are their cup of tea..

for players who like storytelling via game (a "campaign") .. then i would say the longer the better.

then again i am only me

i dont think it has anything to do with "fun". if the game is longer than 90 minutes ppl have to go afk, disconnect, run out of time, need to sleep, need to eat, etc. if it is single player forgetwhat i said, the fun is a thing (played anno 1602) for weeks on the same map.

For basic build & destroy map over 60 game time minutes is too much. And a mission should be played without save & load.

It depends on why it is long. If it's one big macro map where the conditions do not change and it's just a grindy push to slowly smash enemy bases, then 30-40 minutes of gameplay (not including cutscenes) should be good enough. If it takes longer, then odds are there is something that is making the map frustratingly annoying and prohibits timely progress. All Build/Destroy maps that I've played that go past 40 minutes start to feel like a chore.

Keep in mind that once the player gets over the initial hurdle of getting rid of one enemy base, the map becomes easier as there will theoretically be less production for the enemy to attack with. Unless some other mechanic is introduced, it's just a time consuming trek to the end. A lot of the original SC1 maps come to mind... think of Omega where once you put a dent in one of the three enemies, the map is basically over as it just gets easier and easier, yet will still take a bunch of time to clean the map up and win.

On the other hand, there are plenty of things to do that can vary up the standard Build/Destroy map so it's hard to put a time limit on it.

Well, I think that varies a LOT from person to person.

I for example, really enjoy long missions. One thing I love to do is play custom campaigns, and if you play an enjoyable campaign, you'd want it to last for as long as possible, right? That's one of the very few things I dislike about custom campaigns, they're awesome, but they just end way too quickly! That's at least part of the design philosophy I try to follow in my campaign.

I'd say it also really depends on what makes the mission long. Is there variety in the objectives or does the story evolve in a very interesting way? Cutscenes alone can take up a significant portion of the map if you have big plans for the story. Like, if you have a macro map where you need to destroy one big base located at the end of the map, you don't want it to drag on too long. Or, even if you have a micro mission where there isn't really anything new happening for the entirerty of the mpa. After 1 hour, I start to get bored with those kinds of maps. However, it also depends on the challenge of the map. With the right mechanics and the right difficulty, a long map might not be as bad, even if it may only be one objective.

On the other hand, if you have a long mission that is filled with interesting gameplay mechanics that keeps changing, then I'm all up for it. Those are the best kinds of maps imo, since you're constantly left with surprises and you have so much more to do in just one map. You never know when the mission ends! I could play for several hours given the map had fun, varying objectives.

You could also argue that, since it's the final mission you're making, I think a long mission, even if it may only be macro, is well-accepted, at least from someone like me who likes longer maps. You have to get the idea that this is the finale, the end of the entire journey, and a good way to do that, is to make it slightly longer, if you have a reason for it.

Quote from JayborinoPlays: Go

A lot of the original SC1 maps come to mind... think of Omega where once you put a dent in one of the three enemies, the map is basically over as it just gets easier and easier, yet will still take a bunch of time to clean the map up and win.

That freaking Tassadar installation map. It had so many infested terrans and storm targets that you had to wait for your energy to refill every 2-3 minutes. It would have been fine if they had increased his recovery out of combat...

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

Many gave valid point and reasoning.

I've decided to revise the final map some more, perhaps cut it down to an hour or so.

Again, thank you.