These things I'm suggesting is expected to be like 10x greater in size in triggers and anything else, bigger than the mods and maps you can currently get in SC2!
I'm thinking actual huge game sizes, not minigames and the likes that I see way too common.
Mappers needs to think bigger, badder, and have a larger motivation to create something huge.
The Map Arcade will be quite important for this, because you want your map to stand out from the bunch, but you also need to solidify your 'ratings' as a mapper first before attempting to sell them, and even then, you don't really want to make every single map afterwards a 'premium' paid map.
You can use these 'boundary' cut outs to separate game areas, and its used common when making map selection...
What if you can use that in a huge game instead? Offering optimized rendering size (so your big ass game doesn't lag everyone who has less than decent pc) and special triggers to spawn the units into the map when needed.
This is smart development, and isn't easy, it is hardcore and very nasty for the average mapper. It involves you planning ahead to every single region and spawns for structures, players, and such, and developing a system that handles the spawning so the game doesn't end up using too many resources, and when boundary changes, the rendering will be cut so resources still aren't used when you don't even see them!
I'm saying, quit being a mapper, and actually develop games! Don't look at a SC2 mapper as your 'greatest achievement' look further and try to actually be a real game developer.
That is what Blizzard wants out of it's community, actual developments of actual games thanks to maps starting them off to a good start.
My friend is developing a isometric mmo using C#, and he originally got into mapping games before getting into programming. It's quite important to never stop at one skills just because you are a mapper and not a real developer, because that same skill is quite handy in other roles too.
I'm not a great programmer, I can't draw very well, or solve or come up with awesome logics, but I do like to be creative in what I do and mix and match my ideas to make new ones. In SC2's case I can't terrain well because of the level of details needed and the skills to use the editor properly (or the PC that don't lag and crash and make you hate it), but I did use the SC1 trigger editor and such to start off years back. The complexity seems a bit out of reach for me but that doesn't mean I can't do anything. I seem to be a awesome analyst for games and can easily figure out the pros and cons, the balance and the imba, and the likes... Basically I'm better at playing and testing games than actually making em.
Tower Wars is very different to play as a Tower Defence.
It's like a FFA on a melee map compared with 1vs AI. If you win one time a Tower Defence or 1vs AI you can win the same way all the time. In FFA or Tower Wars a strategy might work sometimes, sometimes not. It's so much more a challenge!
That's why i feel voting Tower Defence wouldnt be correct. :)
PS: Do you know that Towerwars 1.x map?
I don't remember why, but don't like those Maul maps much :/
ii would really love a sc2 version of battleships crossfire from warcraft3... i loved it there but to play it at the moment is...almost impossible..
i think it would be a great challeng to do this...
I was planning to do it after WW2 Diplo, however until it is proven that the popularity system is actually fixed (ie gone) I'm not gonna bother putting the time to make some 1000+ actor entries to do the job right.