How complex of a map would you play?

The options mean as follows:

Confusingly Complex: Takes hours to get the hang of the map, but you probably will never figure out all the features and things in the map.

Very Complex: Learning curve of about an hour, many features in it.

Somewhat Complex: Learning curve of about an hour, but you can master every part of the game by then.

Not Complex: Learning Curve of 10-30 minutes, not many features.

Mind-Numbingly Simple: One of the amazing "Generic TD's" would qualify as one of these.

---

This is just out of curiousity on my part.. I want to see where this group of people would fall... It is related to my map, Norbo's War.

more complex = better map!

don't worry about maps being too complex, because i'm dying to see a map get popular on b.net that requires more thought than pokemaul.

I want a map that is somewhat complex but isnt going to require me to bust my *** off reading little tips and constant trial and error type things before getting the hang of things.

That's what I thought. Making things complex is all good and well, but if the player feels swamped with features or information, they will become quickly confused. The key to a good map is user friendliness. Keep instructions short and straight to the point while at the same time giving a good description of what is needed. Try and introduce new features at a steady pace, allowing the player to become comfortable with one thing before moving on to something else.

the key to it though, is having something that is complex to very complex, yet making it simple to be introduced to

the basics of the game should be covered within 10 - 20 minutes of play, and once u know that, u should be well equiped to play the map successfully (or at least not in fustration of what button X does, or how to do feature Y that is crutial to play)

but the basics should be elaborated on if you play the game more, giving u a wider variety of options the more u play (up to a limit of course)

-- anyways, thats what keeps me into a game... if its easy to get into, i'll probably want to play it again, but if there seems to be nothing new... i'll stop (tower defence maps usually fall into the 'nothing new' category)

depends... the best is very complex and easy to understand
at least thats what i try to do... most of my maps are between somewhat and very complex - but easy to get into.
and i wanna play the same^^

I agree. Complex to very Complex. As long as it's done right. A good map should be easy to learn, but hard to master.

-Method

Confusigley complex rules!!
The more complex, the better. I dojn't mind long hours to learn, if the result is awesome.

Go by the Keep It Simple Stupid, those people that say look at all the shitty maps out there we need a good complicated ones are idiots. Yes we need better maps, but the reason that they arent playing better maps is that they are mostly dumb and thus will play simple maps. A complex map would be great, but you need to have some way of having it learned quickly.

Now single player make it as complex as can, because that makes it more fun.

I think complex maps are ultimately more satisify than TD or other crap on bnet, but the problem is most good maps require testing and its' hard to test a map if it takes alot to learn how to play, most people on bnet will just give up and say, WTF what am I suppose to do, and the ingorance of the many destroys the possiblity of good maps for the few.

A good map is complex enough to have a lot of replayability , but simple enough to not scare players. How do you feel after this response?

Complexity and ease of use don't have to be related.

If it's single player then make it as complex as possible (and provide lots of help files if need be).

If it is multiplayer than the maximum play length should be two hours and the user should have a good idea how to play it by the end.

We made a complex TD that has both a long learning curve and indepth strategy. Hive's Revenge TD became popular in a large part because its complexity and dynamics increased the replayablily a lot. We spent four months making, revising and debuging it. We have heard it described many ways. Crap isnt one of them.

The general map style has little to do with its quality or depth. We agree that most TD's (and other map types as well) are poorly made mindless crap. However for you to imply that all TD's are like that is a bit short sighted and insulting to ppl who do make qualty maps of that type.

To answer the origonal question keep the base game functions simple and quick to learn. Make the strategy indepth and varied. If its too complicated to even get started ppl wont give it a chance. Simple to learn and hard to master is a good goal.

Dont assume ppl must be stupid because they dont play maps with complex game functions. We prob wouldnt spend the time to learn a map like that unless there was something elce that cought our intrest about it. We wouldnt want to spend hours just to find out weather a map is worth playing.

It appears the majority of this group could play through Norbo's War.. It falls under Confusingly Complex if you haven't guessed that already.

I added a very detailed 'quest help fileish thing' divided into different areas.. One dedicated to the ally system.. one to the trading system.. One very, very long one to the economy..

Very interesting.. Let's keep the votes coming!

(Oh, and hivemind, just to let you know, the "Generic TD" label I put up there doesn't apply to some of the higher-level TD's like yours if your wondering)

VERY COMPLEX!!