I have never made a successful map in SC2, I've never published anything, but it's never really my intention to, I play around in it for my own amusement. However, I do still use a specific approach that is a hybrid of two methods, and they're typically the same method I use in my approach to my real life job, software development.
In my job, when someones says to me they need a piece of software, a library, or a function that does "A:, I sit down in the IDE and start writing little snippets of code, testing different approaches, seeing what is efficient, what is not. Then an idea will spark, I'll do a bit more testing/experimenting, then I'll present my ideas to the reast of the team. Assuming they are cohesive (and they always are, I'm very good at what I do) then we write a desing document and plan the actual development itself.
However, playing in the Starcraft editor isn't a job, it's not something I have to do, as I said I play around in it for my own amusement. So I'll always start with a basic terrain, nothing too detailed, just a gerneral layout... paths, non-walkable areas, forests, lakes/rivers, etc... Then I start dropping placeholder (stock) units, and write some triggers for playability... tesing the overall flow of the map, and adjust as needed. Ususally as I playtest the stock stuff, I'll get ideas for abiulities or units, and then I start visiting the data editor, and jump back and forth between that and triggers.
When I get those mostly nailed down, then I junp back into terrain tweaking detailing...
I never actually write or draw anything on paper, I play around for inspiration, then jump into it... but at some point, while I haven't physically written anythin gdown, I do keep a check list of things to do in my head, and I usually follow it pretty closely.
That's why it has nothing whatsoever to do with my main point. I was merely speculating that the reason this thread has become so heated is that you state your views on the topic in an incredibly arrogant and obnoxious way.
i admittedly havent made anything or created anything that i would consider workable but ive played around with idea's ive had and generally my thought process is as follows
what is happening in the map >> my idea is made
where is my idea happening >> make the terrain
(nearly all my maps involve a "hero" unit)whats my hero like >> make the hero in the data editor
what is my hero going to do >> basic triggers
then it repeats until i go overboard and drown in ideas
also someone else mentioned earlier that younger people had motivation but lacked experience whereas older people lacked motivation but had experience which i completely agree with
All of my maps are widely popular. Complexity is irrelevant.
You've not made any complex maps, so why are you talking about complexity?
Pong is popular, but it's not complex. WoW is popular, and insanely complex. You talk as if the two are intertwined. They're not.
I agree with you that mapping is simple if you make simple maps, but that's just stating the obvious. A map like DotA doesn't fit into this denomination though, and more complicated maps need more complicated plans which is what this thread is about.
@Vexal: Go
That's why it has nothing whatsoever to do with my main point. I was merely speculating that the reason this thread has become so heated is that you state your views on the topic in an incredibly arrogant and obnoxious way.
You're argueing a point you can't win again, Vexal. The Free Dictionary has 17 definitions of 'simple' and none of them apply. The only thing 'simple' about DOTA is the concept 'kill your enemy', but that concept is similar for about 90% of all serious games ever created. Are you going to argue that all those games are equally popular?
Unless of course you want to argue that every DotA or TD map is simple in a sense that everyone can join them and be good at them. In which case you're wrong again.
I was being sarcastic when I said "Google it". He said "define it" in the sense that I should state the meaning I give "simple" in this context. I responded "Google it" as a literal, sarcastic response.
DotA is simple because it's not a full game. It's analogous to WoW battlegrounds. A tiny facet of a larger game.
I've said this before, and I'll say this again. Given the limitations of Battle.net, there's nothing complex you can do with the editor. SC2 maps are limited to minigames.
So that would mean you're calling the official campaign "not complex" and "a minigame" too? Regardless of whether you were being 'sarcastic' or not, 'complex' and 'simple' are relative terms, so the whole argument is a moot point (though I guess it already was as I'm not exactly sure *why* you are argueing that custom maps are always 'simple').
Hello everyone! Recently I decided to start sc2 mapmaking by making a TD. I've decided on my map, gamestyle etc. Currently I've my player bases, spawn system, paths... But I don't know where to go next. I'm planning on many stuff but technically I've no idea how to, or if even they are possible. Stuff that I know that is possible.. I'm not sure where to start! Is this a common feeling?
Not creating the thread to get an idea on what I exactly should do next (although feel free to suggest), but talk about how you approach your design and how it evolved over time.
Personally I like working on paper alot, I've currently written lots of stuff. I just don't have the technicality to make them happen:) But I guess persistance is a good solution for that.
Like some others here, my process is usually:
1. Miracle moment of inspiration followed by spewing of ideas into notepad.
2. If complex, make basic working of controls, otherwise start the terrain.
3. Very little data and some working triggers.
4. Build iteratively with working versions as I go.
I used to be really bad with persistence when I was younger, most maps remained unfinished. As I'm older now, I find I can actually stay on projects and finish them. Some of my most popular works were stuff that I was instantly inspired to make and then implemented very quickly. I haven't had a long-term popular project, but I've had 4 maps on page 1 at some point in the last year. Most of those maps were maps I was really eager to work on. Sometimes in the middle of other projects I would find myself working on new stuff just because I needed a change and was more motivated...
The thing is, those ^ maps got in the way of working on my bigger project... my RPG. Although this in turn made me realize that the RPG was not clearly defined and would not turn out as well simply because I didn't know where I was going with it. I should mention, though, that technical problems have not been my problem really; the editor is so powerful you can always find a solution to anything... aside from bnet lag.
So, to sum up, the most important part of map design to me is that moment of inspiration that clearly defines the project you want to make. If you have the skills to do the mapping part, and just put time in here and there, the rest will fall through :D I work solo as well, so that may affect my system of map design.
when i said define simple i meant what part of it is simple? the concept i suppose is simple "defend your base while destroying the others" but thats about all that is, trying to make one isn't easy (ok for people here maybe it is but still not everyone is you guys) whereas 1 + 1 = 2, IS simple by pretty much every standard.
im not trying to be confrotational but ye which parts of making a DotA is simple?
Like TDs, where there are simple(or basic) ones in design and character, Strategy maps (or the Build-Defend-Attack) also have high quality ones.
If you've played a lot of these types of maps in SC:BW, there you'll find some insight into this subject. I can't speak for TDs since I haven't tried designing one, nor have found interest in doing so. But I can say for strategy maps that it also has interesting elements to bring about, especially that SC2 Editor now gives more control over many more things.
Scripted events for example can be controlled without problems now, unlike in WC3, were some bugs in controlling the AI through triggers is a nightmare. This however require some programming skills.
So far, TD can be looked at as though it were a Strategy map without the Build and resource management (not that TDs don't have resource management) aspect. Automated (or limited) force control, with a focus on commando units. This if we are talking about Tower-defense in a sense like that of Dota. If talking about original Tower defense maps, then there's the Build and Manage Resource, but none of the army management, open field control, etc.
In any case, each map type has their own grounds to cover and explore in regards to development and design. Both can be simplistic and thoughtless, or can be complex, dynamic, and interesting. These things depend on how much the map maker decides to invest on making the maps.
I have never made a successful map in SC2, I've never published anything, but it's never really my intention to, I play around in it for my own amusement. However, I do still use a specific approach that is a hybrid of two methods, and they're typically the same method I use in my approach to my real life job, software development.
In my job, when someones says to me they need a piece of software, a library, or a function that does "A:, I sit down in the IDE and start writing little snippets of code, testing different approaches, seeing what is efficient, what is not. Then an idea will spark, I'll do a bit more testing/experimenting, then I'll present my ideas to the reast of the team. Assuming they are cohesive (and they always are, I'm very good at what I do) then we write a desing document and plan the actual development itself.
However, playing in the Starcraft editor isn't a job, it's not something I have to do, as I said I play around in it for my own amusement. So I'll always start with a basic terrain, nothing too detailed, just a gerneral layout... paths, non-walkable areas, forests, lakes/rivers, etc... Then I start dropping placeholder (stock) units, and write some triggers for playability... tesing the overall flow of the map, and adjust as needed. Ususally as I playtest the stock stuff, I'll get ideas for abiulities or units, and then I start visiting the data editor, and jump back and forth between that and triggers.
When I get those mostly nailed down, then I junp back into terrain tweaking detailing...
I never actually write or draw anything on paper, I play around for inspiration, then jump into it... but at some point, while I haven't physically written anythin gdown, I do keep a check list of things to do in my head, and I usually follow it pretty closely.
That's why it has nothing whatsoever to do with my main point. I was merely speculating that the reason this thread has become so heated is that you state your views on the topic in an incredibly arrogant and obnoxious way.
@Catalisk: Go
Well, uh, that's, uh, your opinion, man.
still curious about what you might know about oil paintings...or philo..
just joking ;)
i admittedly havent made anything or created anything that i would consider workable but ive played around with idea's ive had and generally my thought process is as follows
what is happening in the map >> my idea is made where is my idea happening >> make the terrain (nearly all my maps involve a "hero" unit)whats my hero like >> make the hero in the data editor what is my hero going to do >> basic triggers
then it repeats until i go overboard and drown in ideas
also someone else mentioned earlier that younger people had motivation but lacked experience whereas older people lacked motivation but had experience which i completely agree with
You've not made any complex maps, so why are you talking about complexity?
Pong is popular, but it's not complex. WoW is popular, and insanely complex. You talk as if the two are intertwined. They're not.
I agree with you that mapping is simple if you make simple maps, but that's just stating the obvious. A map like DotA doesn't fit into this denomination though, and more complicated maps need more complicated plans which is what this thread is about.
@Eiviyn: Go
DotA is simple.
@Vexal: Go
define "simple" please?
Incorrect. It is not simple.
I`d take the effort to point out to you why in a lengthy analysis,.. but its just not worth my time.
Its quickly becoming my opinion too. I do suggest you "tone down" or else, Well, You know what will happen.
Google it.
@EternalWraith: Go
DotA is a minigame. Just like a TD.
You're argueing a point you can't win again, Vexal. The Free Dictionary has 17 definitions of 'simple' and none of them apply. The only thing 'simple' about DOTA is the concept 'kill your enemy', but that concept is similar for about 90% of all serious games ever created. Are you going to argue that all those games are equally popular?
Unless of course you want to argue that every DotA or TD map is simple in a sense that everyone can join them and be good at them. In which case you're wrong again.
I think he means it's simple in that it's a haven for simpletons.
@Mozared: Go
I was being sarcastic when I said "Google it". He said "define it" in the sense that I should state the meaning I give "simple" in this context. I responded "Google it" as a literal, sarcastic response.
DotA is simple because it's not a full game. It's analogous to WoW battlegrounds. A tiny facet of a larger game.
I've said this before, and I'll say this again. Given the limitations of Battle.net, there's nothing complex you can do with the editor. SC2 maps are limited to minigames.
@Vexal: Go
So that would mean you're calling the official campaign "not complex" and "a minigame" too? Regardless of whether you were being 'sarcastic' or not, 'complex' and 'simple' are relative terms, so the whole argument is a moot point (though I guess it already was as I'm not exactly sure *why* you are argueing that custom maps are always 'simple').
@Mozared: Go
I forgot why I was arguing it. I usually just take the side that absolutely no one agrees with.
Like some others here, my process is usually:
1. Miracle moment of inspiration followed by spewing of ideas into notepad.
2. If complex, make basic working of controls, otherwise start the terrain.
3. Very little data and some working triggers.
4. Build iteratively with working versions as I go.
I used to be really bad with persistence when I was younger, most maps remained unfinished. As I'm older now, I find I can actually stay on projects and finish them. Some of my most popular works were stuff that I was instantly inspired to make and then implemented very quickly. I haven't had a long-term popular project, but I've had 4 maps on page 1 at some point in the last year. Most of those maps were maps I was really eager to work on. Sometimes in the middle of other projects I would find myself working on new stuff just because I needed a change and was more motivated...
The thing is, those ^ maps got in the way of working on my bigger project... my RPG. Although this in turn made me realize that the RPG was not clearly defined and would not turn out as well simply because I didn't know where I was going with it. I should mention, though, that technical problems have not been my problem really; the editor is so powerful you can always find a solution to anything... aside from bnet lag.
So, to sum up, the most important part of map design to me is that moment of inspiration that clearly defines the project you want to make. If you have the skills to do the mapping part, and just put time in here and there, the rest will fall through :D I work solo as well, so that may affect my system of map design.
when i said define simple i meant what part of it is simple? the concept i suppose is simple "defend your base while destroying the others" but thats about all that is, trying to make one isn't easy (ok for people here maybe it is but still not everyone is you guys) whereas 1 + 1 = 2, IS simple by pretty much every standard.
im not trying to be confrotational but ye which parts of making a DotA is simple?
p.s you might want to look up rule 13
@deathkad: Go
I already explained that "Google it" was sarcasm.
Like TDs, where there are simple(or basic) ones in design and character, Strategy maps (or the Build-Defend-Attack) also have high quality ones.
If you've played a lot of these types of maps in SC:BW, there you'll find some insight into this subject. I can't speak for TDs since I haven't tried designing one, nor have found interest in doing so. But I can say for strategy maps that it also has interesting elements to bring about, especially that SC2 Editor now gives more control over many more things.
Scripted events for example can be controlled without problems now, unlike in WC3, were some bugs in controlling the AI through triggers is a nightmare. This however require some programming skills.
So far, TD can be looked at as though it were a Strategy map without the Build and resource management (not that TDs don't have resource management) aspect. Automated (or limited) force control, with a focus on commando units. This if we are talking about Tower-defense in a sense like that of Dota. If talking about original Tower defense maps, then there's the Build and Manage Resource, but none of the army management, open field control, etc.
In any case, each map type has their own grounds to cover and explore in regards to development and design. Both can be simplistic and thoughtless, or can be complex, dynamic, and interesting. These things depend on how much the map maker decides to invest on making the maps.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.