What is it that makes a map "interesting"?

The Developer's Corner seems to be mostly about the aspects of the World Editor not covered elsewhere, but I don't really see where else this would go, so...

I'm wondering, what is it that makes, to you, a map (or game, for that matter) interesting and/or fun to play? Cool game mechanics? An engaging storyline? Anything?

Likewise, what do you find deters from the game experience?

Personally, I enjoy something that keeps me on my toes, something that's challenging, but possible to overcome. Something fast-paced, preferably with a good bit of strategic depth, something where I can work to predict and react to situations that arise. A game where I can strive to improve and best my foes.
A computer-controlled environment is limited, as it doesn't learn, therefore I prefer to play against other human players. There is no real satisfaction from defeating a computer at such a game.

I can also enjoy a game that has a deep and engaging storyline, even if it lacks many of the elements mentioned above is lacking.

I don't require too much visual stimulation, although good use of graphic elements can help build a mood. Likewise, too little can take the 'feel' of the game away. There's also overuse and just general bad use and outright abuse.

I'm asking mostly because I'm curious. It's not like I really have the motivation to make something. Oh well.

What do you people think?

I think Wc3 is not really fit for oldstyle adventure rpgs, so I'd choose gameplay. Challenging, but you get an idea how to beat it/try out different strategies. You have a basic range of possibilities but you are able to combine them dynamically. The player has to esteem values like targeting spells and evading enemies' attacks plus a decent amount of luck that boost the replayability factor. Up to a certain degree, the game goes random paths the player has adjust him/herself to. Fast-paced or with fluctuations. I am currently working on a one-team hero defense, so it's up against the computer. I will try to make it difficult, implement the mentioned luck factors the player has to react to and transform teamplay into a challenge.

The graphics and audio should fit an build an atmosphere but not hinder the gameplay and therefore well remarkable.

Every week, me and a friend watch the new Naruto episode and afterwards exchange theories, illogicalities and other stuff about the series. You can adopt this. It's an alive-keeping factor that a game is discussable.

- new players should not be overwhelmed by Features the map offers... (for example a TD should contain an uncomplicated beginner race, more complicated maps should have at least a "-tips" command which helps you to survive your first game)

- most important is that the map is be challenging, it should not be possible to just go afk for 5mins and still win.

- the map should contain points of customization to favor replayability, so you can choose among many races/heroes/items (but dont overdo it ! especially with items this is critical, you choose a race/hero only once in a game, but you will have to buy more than one item, and reading 50 item tooltips every time kinda sucks.... imo even DotA is a bad example regarding items... the first 10 games you will have a hard time because the sheer amount of recipes items etc... and when you decided to buy a specific recipe, you still have to find out which shop holds the required items etc...)

-low learning curve
-replayability
-Challenge

• I require maps with tactical depth, balance, thematic and aesthetic consistency.
• Where stories are applicable (whether for fore- or back-story), they must maintain verisimilitude and logical progression; the story must be good in its own right, gameplay aside.
• An early-to-mid game low learning curve is preferable so that one has time to learn to play a difficult late game.
• Replayability is key, and multiplayer is part of that key. Where gameplay is PvE, challenge must be carefully calibrated; PvP gameplay requires careful balance, as challenge here tends to be emergent.
• The most important and similarly most difficult to achieve feature is that of stimulating novelty. That well-executed thing that sets a map above the others of its kind.

Great disdain is reserved for maps that are highly susceptible to snowballing, poorly designed and balanced, not internally consistent, full of poor spelling and grammar, highly derivative of existing works (such as LotR, DotA clones), repetitive and narrow (ugh, Pudge Wars), over-complicated in a misguided effort to generate complexity, poorly scripted or coded inefficiently, infested with annoying in-game text messages, prone to spamming flashy visual effects, taken too seriously, use language inappropriate to the tone and theme (such as "Dude" or "Fuck you"; these make the developers seem juvenile), content to be mediocre, created by those stubbornly resistant to improvement, not fun or have good gameplay that is otherwise impaired by a glaring oversight or exploit.

Personally I like a map that is rather chaotic in stuation with unit running all over the place.
That doesnt mean I like footman style maps where there is too many units lol.

Generally its when a situation is barely in control by the player or you know the enmy forces are gonna spiral out of hand that i find it enjoyable.

Not just a low learning curve. Concepts should be easy to learn, but difficult to master.

Replayability is always a good thing, but this also requires content updates. You get bored of playing the same thing over and over again, and only DotA has the kind of support and fan group that allows it to be what it is now.

"Challenge" depends on the audience you are aiming for. The more people you want to play your map, the more conspicuous and ambiguous the content is going to have to be at the same time... It's really contradictory.

What's generally fun, as a player...
-Maps need to make sense to new players. Stumbling through the game, having no idea what's going on is no fun at all.
-Messing with the standard interface of WC3 can be annoying. It can be done well, but if overdone, it makes the game nearly unplayable, especially the first time. I'm referring here to maps that use items to give heroes abilities, restrict camera view to a single angle around a single character, require the player to aim individual shots, etc.
-In a multiplayer map, requiring teamwork from allied players is a huge plus, even if it's also competitive between them (i.e., TD). Discouraging players on the same team from being jerks to one another is always nice.
-A few custom mixes of abilities and custom abilities are always nice to make things a little different. It doesn't have to look fancy to be fun to play, though.
-Customizability is a good thing in, for instance, TDs and open RPGs, but it's best not to go overboard with it. It's better to restrict players a little bit and make it a bit less likely to accidentally produce combinations that don't work by accident.

I want to be shown something that I've never seen before. It's amazing what swapping a few special effects and re-fluffing some tooltips can do for your bog-standard AoS clone.

I guess, based on the one map I usually play now (Fate / Another), I can infer that I like hero arenas that heavily punish new players with one hit deaths. A steep learning curve both difficult to get used to at first and difficult to master (oh what fun it is to try 3-5 times to explain to someone how to shop for items).

Also, while teamwork might be interesting, it can also be frustrating depending on the pace and such of the map, so I have discovered. Relying on a team to react within a second or so to save you is frustrating at times. Or perhaps on the offensive, teammates missing a team play is also frustrating.

Considering the elements, not the results I have the following philosophy for making any map game fun to play:

• Easy to pick up, but hard to master - New players should be able to get right into the action and veterans should be able to find challenges. This is a basic design principle of every blizz game anyway.
  
• Lots of choices - People should feel in control of their game, not the other way around. Replayability is also serviced to a degree by that property.
  
• Good balance - Games are for fun, not frustration, so balancing and ensuring players don't feel helpless is essential.
  
• Support - If it does not work, people will not play, no matter how fun and engaging it is. Fixing game-breaking bugs, balancing, etc... A map that does not evolve dies.
  

Barring everything else - these will ensure people will play your map and will keep coming back.
There are of course other things, like:
Originality - Standing out helps people pick up the game faster and keeps em coming back
Story - Makes sure people get more involved and more likely to come back/tell their friends
Consistency and pacing - The name of the game is NOT map-maker vs player - no unnecessary punishing the player or bad surprises like throwing stuff randomly at the player and expecting him to cope. Chaos isn't all that fun really... :)

Non-linear conversations of significant depth and interest, well written. They're surprisingly easy, if somewhat arduous, to code in WC3.

But tbh, it varies genre to genre, and map to map. Coherent game design mainly, and, if relevant, a good well written story line.

These sorts of discussions do happen, generally between Anitarf and I in the irc channel. :P

STORY

Oh, please, don't. 90% of the time a story done for a multiplayer game goes terribly wrong. If it's a campaign, please do as you wish, because the parts you play are incorporated into the story... not the other way around, which butchers the story. You could make the best story ever for a hero, but once you start playing, you'll forget that you ever read the description and will focus on the action. When the story becomes an after thought, you're wasting peoples' precious time for things elsewhere.

In a lot of RPGs- no, in any game, you can probably guess what is made first: the story. Start there. Please.

I think about my own map and feel guilty for throwing the story out due to lack of space (but now that we have 8 MB map size limits, I'll probably add it in eventually). The first seven heroes in my map all came from the story. I'm not going to go into much detail, but the story starts as the celestial denizens of the universe run into conflict and create a "baby" named Asver. This planet becomes the center of the entire story and due to Galaxy (a seemingly existent, yet non-existent force that can kill gods) the gods that made Asver died and their essence of their god-like powers were left behind and given to their daughter. When the power of all of the gods gathered together, life on Asver was born. However, Galaxy was still around and began to corrupt the planet. In order to keep it from devouring the power of the gods, Asver has been gradually sucking up Galaxy and hiding it in her core. However, after millions of years waiting for life to reach a certain point (human people and such), Asver has been getting very sick due to all of the Galaxy she's swallowed. Strange creatures are being born and a lot of them are distortions of gods' creatures corrupted by Galaxy, making them hostile and giving them destructive powers (magic and sorts). Many humans are also "corrupted" by Galaxy, because humans also wield magic and things that can destroy (the power of Galaxy) rather than create (the power of the Gods).

The unique hero in my map (the Astrologist) takes it upon himself to alleviate Asver's pain, because strangely, he can hear it. Another reason why he feels a duty to do so is because unlike anyone else he has ever met, he has power over Galaxy and can actually get rid of it. The reason why normal people can't get rid of it is because Asver is still indiscriminately sucking up Galaxy as creatures die and are supposed to be "reborn", thus making her no more healthier than when Galaxy spurted up from her core and become a messed up creature. The Astrologist discovers that Galaxy travels "in space that isn't there", so it can literally teleport under dominance. In this way, he can send Galaxy back into the deep reaches of space where it belongs (little does he know, he is doing someone else a favor...). He also uses Galaxy to fight.

He is joined by a wayward tactician, two priests that are siblings (one combat, the other healer), a thief who is actually uses that profession as a cover up and is affiliated with an organization that is also doing what the Astrologist is doing, an aging wizard out of his prime, and a summoner- someone who can create and call pure life. All of them are heroes.

The map's story explains everything: why there are different elements in the universe, why there are fourteen different types of creatures in existence, etc. etc.

People will laugh at and tell their friends more about terrible stories than decent ones. If your story isn't being hack and slashed by players, you've probably done a good job. This one of the philosophies at my workplace: If no one complains, we're probably doing a good job because we know we're doing a bad job when people complain. Although, a lot of people shut their mouths because they feel complaining is wrong... something that needs to be fixed. Different topic, though.

I wholeheartedly agree. Only IF relevant.

I agree here. In multiplayer games, you have to play together and nobody wants to make the others wait by taking your time to read. Therefore, the main part should be intuitive and people should only get the most important information: near situation and what they have to do. Books and other side information emitters can exist for one's spare time, who is more interested in the map. But, there are also storytelling methods other than literary descriptions. Atmosphere, contrasts and logic contribute to understandability. And texts also do not have to be walls or contentual complete. Like in forums, you set paragraphs and slightly inspire the player to think about the rest.