Map Development TheoryCraft - planning map evolution?

A new version of DotA is out, and it has a cool new hero!

Already, half of the people reading this are probably wondering something along these lines: "what's up with Anitarf, bringing DotA up like that? That's just bad karma. Knowth he no shame?". The other half are not even reading it anymore. To those who are still with me, fear not, I have not succumbed to "the DotA craze", although in such a one sided environment, I feel inclined to defend the poor map just for the fun of it.

This isn't about DotA, though. It's about general map development, and specificaly, about post-release development and the pre-release planning of it.


Maps evolve, that's a fact. We strive to release complete works, maps that work well as a whole, that don't feel like they are missing something. We envision a set of features, implement it, and release the final product that is a warcraft map. However, that just isn't the end. Maps evolve. If nothing else, bugs and balance issues need to be adressed once more players playing the map identify them. Often, there's something else as well, like a player base wanting new content, or the map author getting new ideas. Map projects that manage to get to that milestone version 1.0 and become actual maps, will almost never stop there. Some will go far beyond 1.0, ending up with much more content than their initial version... or not ending at all.

So, if you make a map, you are most likely going to continiue working on it after the release. The release is not the last step in making a map, it is a sort of a new beginning. It is the point at which the map is finaly there for you to play, and that's where all the fun begins. Because of this, the thought occured to me that post-release map development should be planned before the release.

The idea is simple. Mapmakers should anticipate their map's need to further develop after the release. When making the map, they should think about what more does the map's design allow them to add that they don't mean to add - yet. They should think about what features to leave out; because they might be too confusing for new players, or because the authors themselves aren't sure yet if they want them in or not. They shouldn't limit their maneuvering space too much by finalising the map's design, filling all the item shops and stuff like that. I will give some examples.


In my first map, Era of War, I devised a hero system where all players started out with a basic hero and then specialised him as they leveled up. The specialisations followed a system: the starting hero could advance to any of the 4 basic classes, and from each of those to one of the two advanced classes that were unique for each basic class, one of them was a command class that had an aura and a troop-control-affecting skill, and the other was a regular hero. The first expansion I made for the system was easy: I added a fifth basic class, the warmage, which was previously an advanced class. This way, I made room for more caster heroes, because before, there was only one basic hero class that was a caster, while the other three were an archer/rogue/warrior. Now two of the five basic heroes were casters, and I could easily find ideas for three more caster heroes to fill up the advanced slot that opened up.

The second expansion to the map was already a lot harder. I decided to add dual classes to the system, and here I hit a problem. To make a new hero for each two-basic-hero combination would mean I would have to add 10 new heroes! The nice hero-system design I did was working against me: I could no longer expand the map because any small additions would fall outside the system and break the order, and I didn't have the ideas to make a huge addition. I managed to overcome this by linking the basic classes into a circle, and only make a dual class for two neighbouring basic classes. This way, I only had to add 5 new heroes. This worked out well, but the map is now ultimately sealed and no more heroes can ever be added to it.

So, the hero morphing system was a nice design element, it gave the game a certain structure, but it was also very rigid. The only way I could upgrade it with new heroes at all was with some luck, and planning ahead a bit. This is the main challenge here: how to make a map that makes sense as it is, but can also make sense after you add new things to it. Another great example of this is Warcraft 3 itself. For example, the alliance is a mix of humans, dwarves and elves; however, in Reign of Chaos, there are much fewer elves in the mix, they don't even get their own hero, even though one would expect that with three heroes per faction, each race would get one. I think this clearly indicates that Blizzard were already thinking ahead, about the expansion, and how it's going to be more focused on the elves. Just listen to the RoC's dragonhawk's soundset for the final proof. :)


As another example (and the last one, since the post is getting long), let me give a map I'm currently developing (although I haven't touched it in months, been too busy with other things). The map is about half done and I'm already thinking about a sequel (which is similar to thinking about future versions of the map). The reason why I'm not upgrading the current map's design, but leaving stuff for a sequel, is that the map features enough custom gameplay elements as it is. It's a lot of work to make them, and a lot for the players to learn how to play them. Making the sequel as the first map would be just too much. If players have to learn whole new tactics, it would be a lot easier for them to do that defending a small fort than being confused and disorientated by an epic sized citadel terrain.

I know that if I ever want to make the big map, I have to make a small one first, as an introduction; and the small one has it's charms too, it's small, short and simple. It's not just a neccesary step towards the big one, it's a fun map in it's own right, and it's what my initial idea was about, I got the ideas for the bigger sequel later.


So, in closing, I think planning ahead is a very good idea. Not just planning, but postponing things already planned. A map has a lot better chances to start well if it isn't too cluttered with features that would scare away new players in the very beginning, and to continiue well if new content is added to it after the release. Maps that don't evolve eventually become boring, sooner or later. By planning ahead and leaving your options open (they should also be open to you adding nothing, the map shouldn't feel unfinished), you can make a succesful map.

i have learned from expieriences that you should save stuff later on for 3 reasons

1) might be overwhelming to newbs
2) adds more options later game incase it gets boring
3) if the game becomes popular more will download from a site than from another player which allows you to add mroe imports

You are certainly right about War3 having a lot of "room" for expanding. That's the benefit of having, as you say, side that consists of 3 factions such as the human being not just humans, but also dwarves and elves. The nightelf aren't just elves, but also bears and chimeras and whatnot.

So I guess anyone should be able to easily look at their map and know how easy it is to expand by thinking about the above. If you have an AoS where ONLY humans fight ONLY orcs, there would be a lot less freedom and room to add new units compared to for example "sentinel" vs "scourge", which is a very vague and wide. At least that is one good reason to make up "alliances" instead of just pitching one race against another.


What I personally find a lot more vital to the future expansion of a map is the basic trigger/jass design. I guess it may be because I am a programmer, but when I make maps I always make extendible systems. I won't make a pathing system that is rigidly custom-made for getting the units in my map exactly where they must go, i make a system that could get units in any map to go wherever needed. Of course, this kind of development can also be a problem, since there are times where I work days, weeks or months just getting basic systems done, and by the time it's finished, I may be bored of the entire map idea.

But at least, extensibility is a great ideal. I actually haven't added a single gameplay element to my current map for the last month or so, because I have been working 100% on making a flexible system that will not hinder future development.

Note: This comment is pretty random and tends to meander: read at your own risk.

Agreed, Anitarf. The capacity for a map to be 'organically' upgraded is crucial in many ways in ensuring the enduring popularity of a map.

To expand upon your classic example, DOTA: the majority of the maps replayability stems from its continuous development - every hero added adds hundreds of permutations to the standard formula and thus helps to keep the experience new and interesting.

My major criticism of DOTA at this stage however, is the creators reluctance to remove content and the maps resulting redundency.

This is a factor i think that has resulted in the general 'nooby' (i'm refering of course to some of the beliefs of this community) feel of DOTA: It seems to a new, or returning, player that the creator has "thrown everything in" resulting in a rather unsatifying experience.

A possible 'solution' to this problem however would be the 'retiring' of older/less popular heroes - a move that would probably result in fan uproar.

Thus a map creator is left in difficult situation when upgrading his map: where to draw the line between addign and consolidating content.

The obvious example of a map where consolidation reigned is ToB. Rather then constantly adding new content the creators felt it better to constantly tweak and upgrade the existing heroes, resulting in a map that generally feels more 'polished' than DOTA. I think i would also be correct in saying that the map making community generally has a more positive attitude to ToB than DOTA, due to the aforementioned production quality (over quantity).

On the flipside however, ToB's popularity as a map has suffered following the end of its development cycle. Now although a number of outstanding bugs/balance issues certainly contributed to this, i feel justified in saying that the lack of new content also affected its long term popularity.

However if the gaming community on the whole is examined we see a particularly interesting example in the form of StarCraft - a game that has remained almost unchanaged since Brood War yet remains outstandingly popular since it's release in 1998.

Now many StarCraft fan-bois will quote its 'perfect balance' as the main reason for this enduring popularity. This neglects of course the fact that SC has several outstanding balance issues (Protoss scout, Late game Zerg Air Etc). If we accept the fact that StarCraft is not balanced 'perfectly' we come to a conundrum, if DOTA's popularity is based on its frequency of updates, why is SC, a butt-fugly game with very few updates, so enduring?

Final product...? I've yet to ever finish a map. I've brought some to late beta, in a fully playable and 99% working condition, but never finished one.

Anyway, yes, maps should always be extendable. Systems should always be made in such a way that they can easily be extended; as little 'hard coding' as possible.

I also agree with not having too much special content. It just confuses people.


Could be because it is such a classic game. I play quite a few old, unpatched games a lot (well, did, untill they one by one stopped working).

That, I think, is a seperate phenomenon; most players are hungry for content, but some focus entirely on the gameplay aspect. When they find a good game they like they stick with it, trying to perfect their skill against other opponents/the game itself. I suppose we could call this "hardcore" gaming. It's not just video games, chess has been played for centuries with little to no changes.

Besides, Starcraft is not the best example. The game is a classic, a legend, it's such an exceptional game that even Blizzard don't dare make a direct sequel. I wouldn't know about the balance issues, except the protoss scout really must be just about the only unit I haven't ever seen in a starcraft video. Anyway, you can't make a good generalisation based on it, as well as a very few other games, for example Quake 2 which continiues to be played even today when Quake 4 is out.

Damn, I feel like playing some Starcraft again...

But, back on topic, while some classics can be played seemingly forever, I think it's safe to say you can't achieve such a cult status with a war3 map (allright, some people still play the original DotA on RoC). And even if you could, it can't be done in an instant, Starcraft too saw an expansion and many balance patches before it became the legend it is today.

The question i'm asking is... why?

We all know that SC is a classic, the game that triumphed over the debatably superior Total Annihilation (TA was certainly technically leaps and bounds ahead).

So what qualitity did SC have that made it so popular?

It had, for severe want of a better phrase, the 'X-factor'. That something that made it special. If I knew what it was and how to achieve it, I'd be earning £100K a year working for a company like Blizzard.

Instead, its a hit and miss affair that is often very difficult to put your finger on.

Come on, i'm sure we can name something tangible that explains the enduring popularity!

The design is pure genius? Simple, with few redundant units, requireing great micro and macro, allowing for a lot of innovative tactics, with superb balance despite the very asymetric warfare. Great visual and functional design of each of the three races. It may very well be the best action strategy game ever made.

But please, we are getting off topic here.

Perhaps being a bit bold but anyways, In my Opion>

To put it simply:
I think the key mistake some map developers make, is constantly adding *new *stuff instead of improving and updating *old stuff*

Look at dota, Icefrog releases a new version perhaps each month adding 1 hero?
Overall does that improve the dota map in anyway apart from 1 player will beable to play a new hero per game.
Obviously also being able to play vs this hero.

I never understood why Icefrog doesnt put every hero on the drawing board and update/improve every1 slightly.
I mean each hero has 3 abilities, 1 ultimate.
What if he added a 5th ability to every single hero?
Or an innate ability each hero starts of with.

He could also go back and clean up the duplicate spells, like too many heroes have critical strike for example. He could give them a unique spell.

I think that why half the players hate the map and half love it (out of players who generally enjoy playing dota type maps).

So as long as the initial design is strong enough we shouldn't need to constantly add new content? Will the truely great ideas be better left alone?

Does that not provoke the idea that DOTA's new heroes are simply a sticking-plaster over critical gameplay flaws? Or should SC have been updated to add new content?

While Anitarf is happy to discuss methods of ensuring modular upgardes, i'm trying to provoke a discussion into whether a need for updates to keep the game "fresh" can be viewed as a weakness in the maps initial design.

The arguement being that a 'strategic' map, should offer enough strategic permuations to make major content updates uneeded - an excess.

(The above idea of course does not apply to maps like Open RPG's that require new content to be enjoyable._

To use Chess as an example: should the fact that Chess has no room for 'content updates' be viewed as a design weakness, or a strength?

A valid point. I think I made some comments in this direction myself already. For example, the hero choice system in my AoS, I admitted it was rigid and difficult to upgrade, but at the same time, it was a nice pice of design, and I wouldn't exchange it for amore conventional hero choice mechanic that would allow me to add more heroes later.

I also said "By planning ahead and leaving your options open (they should also be open to you adding nothing, the map shouldn't feel unfinished), you can make a succesful map." If the map is perfect, then why add stuff to it that can break it? However, my point is, few people can make a perfect map right offf the bat, or at all. But by allowing for your map to evolve, you are given a chance after the release to improve it further. It may not be perfect when you release it, and it probably never will be, but it can get closer to that if you can add to it.

As I said, even Starcraft saw an expansion and balance patches. I'm sure that all those hundreds of years ago, chess required some tweaking too. The point I try to make is, you can't guess exactly how a game will play until it's played. So, while the released map should seem completed, it should be ready to accept more content that could fill any gaps in gameplay that are found.

So, I view the ability to add content to a map as a design strength. Obviously, if a map reaches a point where it looses this ability, but at the same time has great gameplay, I won't think it's a bad map, because even if it had the ability to upgrade, you wouldn't need to upgrade it anymore.

And then there's another view, the DotA-ish approach. You can accept that your map can't be perfect enough for people to keep playing it forever (which is a rather realistic estimate), so you willingly decide not to include everything you plan to into the first release so you have some content left by the side to include into the map later, to keep the players playing.

Chess has changed several times, I believe, over the centuries. Only example I can think of was (not 100% on this, long time ago) the addition of the ability to take a pawn in either of the two spaces it moves, should it decide to do so, on its first move of the game.

However, when they FIRST made chess...how many different things do you think they tried? All those different combinations of positions, moves, pieces, etc.

Development phase? We're talking regular content updates.