Staredit Network

As more and more of my maps become more liked by the public, i've realized there's this one VERY important factor that contributes to a map's popularity, one everyone seems to overlook.

A map gets popular because people replay them over and over again. That's what you want people to do with your maps. But for what purpose(s) would someone replay the map over and over again? Everyone is going to say fun. But fun isn't good enough; ANYthing can be played again and again just for fun. To get a map popular, what other reasons would someone remake your map for? What makes your map stand out from the rest? Would it be:

- To try new strategies?
- To compete against others?
- To be different roles?
- To do different stuff on the map?
- To awe or blow people away?

Those are just some possibilities in which some of you guys might want to consider when trying to make your map popular. If you notice, alot of non popular maps, as well as some bounds, that i played lack those things i mentioned so that's why sometimes it's hard to get them popular. When making a map, you should build your around one of those (or other) key "replayability" points. That's how i get my maps popular


What other things can contribute to "replayability?"

Gameplay needs to be simple but take skill, unlikes aerial combat . Also becareful of far out maps that are too different, maps where people can relate to are good such as basketball. Also a good versus game where people can compete is a good factor that makes maps popular. It should also be somewhat open ended not like an RPG that you beat once and its over. More like you can win but there are different ways that you can win and different strategies.

Overall I think strategy plays a key role. If people can really compete against eachother and use many different strategies then the game wont get boring and it would take skill.

Aerial combat was sorta simply made. But it's a game that takes skill... LOTS of skill.

If you look at the maps that are constantly being played like "team micro arena" and "Nexus Destroyers" you could figure it out.

Lets see. In team micro you have to use strategy and micro to beat the other team. There are always different ways of winning. Its never the same map twice.

Once you get good at it youll replay it even more because its "fun" and you can "awe or blow people away"

Exactly, it's competition. That's pretty much one of the primary reasons why "versus games" out there are popular.

I sorta tried your idea, in Tactical Paths, and it seemed to work pretty well.
- You compete agianst people, or you can form teams.
- You can choose arena battle / Capture The Flag / King of the hill / and a Territory game
- The map is made mostly with extended terrain
I'm going to set it up so that you have to win 3 games to beat the game.
(Except I didn't finish it so it just automatically replays forever)

Randomization does not contribute much to "replayability."

Trying new strategies would have to be COMPLETELY new strategies.

I would know because my map is pure randomness and strategy

aren't you boastful.






Indeed, there are many things that contribute to popularity of a map, replayability is definitely a key factor. but, many other factors play into the map.

The key secret to replaybility is in its simplistic and complex ideas.

What im trying to get at is:

A map is replayable if it contains both simplistic and complex play.

If we take a look at Team Micro Arena, a new micro player and an expert micro player can fully enjoy the game because it contains both simplistic and complex ideas.

Simplistic would be that you can go about the game using mainly brute force units and dealing as much damage as possible to win the game.

And complex would be that you could devise a strategy with a shuttle and reaver and use "drop, shoot, and load" strategies to win the game.

Both strategies are devastating and effective, and both strategies make the map "fun" and replayable.






though, its not only the games simple and complex ideas, but its also the complexity of the game itself.

If the game is easy to learn and understand, the more players that will be willing to pick up the game and play. Most players are unwilling to read paragraphs. If the player can quickly understand the rules, they would be more willing to play it. Frustration is what you must avoid.

A simplistic game would be something along the lines of a cliche defense and offensive game like zone control.

A complex game would be something along the lines of a income defense offensive game, (where you mine minerals to build units, that can upgrade into stronger units while the units you kill earn you money, and your units are "taxing" to keep standing resulting in upkeep).

The simplistic game is easy to pick up and play off the bat, but it may lack depth.
The complex game is hard to understand and much harder to play efficiently.

The idea here is that, you don't want to overwhelm your players... too many rules and guidelines results in confused players...




Overall... you must balance the complex with the simple.

Equilibrium of the two results in a massively replayable, sucessful, and popular map

Progressively getting harder makes it gives it a higher replayability factor. But it has to feel like you can win and such. Like Aeon Of Strife, people played that quite a bit if it weren't for the lag. Normandy was played a lot because it slowly got harder.

It's sort of like you can feel like you're about to win but as it gets harder people start to worry and when they lose, they feel "I was about to win!" so they play it again?

Just a thought.