FPS Map Design
Page 1 of 1 • Share
FPS Map Design
by Heatguts August 22nd 2016, 1:56 am
I'm not really sure what got me thinking about this but I'm thinking about it now so here goes. I'm kind of curious about everyone's thoughts on designing multiplayer maps in FPS games. I'll give you guys my take on the general design, but I've got a few questions to get everyone thinking, which will be in bold and be colored for if you don't have time or want to read my beautiful wall of text but still want to participate in discussion. I'd also like to say in advance - there's really no perfect way to design a map for an FPS game. Besides game specific nuances, there's probably ways to make the stupidest of ideas into interesting, balanced maps. I'm sure this first post will come out in an essay-like format, but this isn't me telling you how to make maps, I'm just putting what I understand and think out there so that I can get a better understanding through other people's feedback, and maybe other people will gain a better understanding back.
I'm going to talk about a lot of different FPS games here, and all of my examples will have pretty different ideas, but let's lay some basics first. We'll start with lanes - let's define a lane as a route or path players are directed to or forced to take to get from one side of the map to the other. Next - choke points. A choke is a part of a lane, usually narrow, that players are forced through due to it being the only or most viable path to the other side of a map within a lane. Lastly - Power position. A power position would be game dependent, but generally a position that gives a combat advantage to the players within it engaging players outside of it. One example of a power position that generally applies to all FPS titles is height. One reason for this would be that players with height advantage can control any engagements - if you can't easily get onto my ledge, then I can move closer to the edge if you try to run away, while if I don't feel confident I can back up and immediately get out of harm's way (assuming no wall right behind me). In games with weapons with splash damage height gives the user easier control over exactly where projectiles land, which is very important in games like TF2.
Let's discuss some things about these concepts. Firstly, power positions generally become common areas to encounter enemies in. This is a real no-brainer, as even if it is out of the way if it gives you a combat advantage people are going to go there. Next, choke points make sections of the map harder to attack and easier to defend. This is true by definition. This proves their utility to players in asymmetrical gamemodes where one team has to defend an area - as an attacking team's greater number of players/smaller respawn time is balanced out by the defender's land advantage. A question for the thoughtful, then - why put a choke point in a symmetrical gamemode like regular team deathmatch? The amount of lanes and the amount of ways to get from one lane to another affects the flow of players, while overall map size probably has more effect on the encounter rate for enemy players. I'll explain this one with an example - compare the encounter rate for enemy players in Valhalla for the encounter rate for enemy players in The Narrows. (Honestly I think they're about the same if we're talking BTB for Valhalla and Team Slayer for Narrows, but if you played Team Slayer 4v4 on Valhalla you'd see a large decrease in the encounter rate.) Both are three lane style maps, but while Valhalla is significantly longer and featues a wider center lane, The Narrows forces everyone in the center lane to see each other, while the "side" lane is really a skip over to the other side. (For those who wonder, I consider the part below the bridge a third lane.)
Let's talk some more about the three lane variant. A lot of iconic maps follow this layout - Nuketown from CoD, Dust2 from CS, Blood Gulch (you can argue this one, so I'll omit from referring to it so you can't discredit what I have to say because I didn't pick an explicitly three lane map.) One question is, why is the three lane variant so popular and effective?
Let's compare Nuketown and Dust2. My first proposed use for the concept of laning was to distribute player flow at optimal capacity so that engagements with the ideal number of players are the most likely kind to happen, but CoD functions with lots more players per team than CS. Of course, in CS, your T side is probably all taking one or two routes, and the initial battle only happens once, while Nuketown has to deal with respawning. My point here is that player flow works differently in both games, but the same laning seems to win out. Nuketown was made to fit with more players than Dust2, while Nuketown has easier movement between all three lanes in the middle while Dust2 only lets you swap lanes at the ends of the map and one specific spot in the middle, and Nuketown is smaller and more compact. Obviously bomb defusal in CS is much different from CoD's team deathmatch, but there are ways to play the other's signature gamemode in both games and the TTK (assuming you can land your shots) is similar in both games (freaking instantaneous). If you ignore the skill gap, emphasis on teamwork and tactics, and differences in acquiring weapons (buying vs picking before match) CoD and CS are very similar. Perhaps someone who has played more demolition or whatever it's called on Nuketown than I have, or who has played a Nuketown port in CS, can shed some light on how the smaller variant compares to Dust2 in that respect. How do Dust2 and Nuketown compare once all the differences between games are ironed out?
Another thing we should address on the concept of three lanes - open lanes. Do you consider maps like Valhalla and Blood Gulch to be three lane maps? I'd say that they are, because the sluggish movement speed in CE makes going from the cliffs to the caves or vice versa too slow to be viable, while Valhalla's center lane doesn't provide enough cover to survive a vehicle encounter of equal skill (meaning if the user can throw nades good enough to flip the hog the driver is good enough to avoid them) if the user doesn't have an anti-vehicle weapon (although this goes for Blood Gulch too). Reasons against might include the fact that the lanes aren't physically defined, rather, they are suggestions that control players through superior protection rather than physical barriers.
I was going to go a lot further into this but I'm pretty tired so I'll leave this here for now. Let me know if I missed coloring any questions, I added in the color after I realized the bold isn't very noticeable. Let's here what you guys have to say. Maybe once we get through these questions we can have some more discussion about other elements of map design.
I'm going to talk about a lot of different FPS games here, and all of my examples will have pretty different ideas, but let's lay some basics first. We'll start with lanes - let's define a lane as a route or path players are directed to or forced to take to get from one side of the map to the other. Next - choke points. A choke is a part of a lane, usually narrow, that players are forced through due to it being the only or most viable path to the other side of a map within a lane. Lastly - Power position. A power position would be game dependent, but generally a position that gives a combat advantage to the players within it engaging players outside of it. One example of a power position that generally applies to all FPS titles is height. One reason for this would be that players with height advantage can control any engagements - if you can't easily get onto my ledge, then I can move closer to the edge if you try to run away, while if I don't feel confident I can back up and immediately get out of harm's way (assuming no wall right behind me). In games with weapons with splash damage height gives the user easier control over exactly where projectiles land, which is very important in games like TF2.
Let's discuss some things about these concepts. Firstly, power positions generally become common areas to encounter enemies in. This is a real no-brainer, as even if it is out of the way if it gives you a combat advantage people are going to go there. Next, choke points make sections of the map harder to attack and easier to defend. This is true by definition. This proves their utility to players in asymmetrical gamemodes where one team has to defend an area - as an attacking team's greater number of players/smaller respawn time is balanced out by the defender's land advantage. A question for the thoughtful, then - why put a choke point in a symmetrical gamemode like regular team deathmatch? The amount of lanes and the amount of ways to get from one lane to another affects the flow of players, while overall map size probably has more effect on the encounter rate for enemy players. I'll explain this one with an example - compare the encounter rate for enemy players in Valhalla for the encounter rate for enemy players in The Narrows. (Honestly I think they're about the same if we're talking BTB for Valhalla and Team Slayer for Narrows, but if you played Team Slayer 4v4 on Valhalla you'd see a large decrease in the encounter rate.) Both are three lane style maps, but while Valhalla is significantly longer and featues a wider center lane, The Narrows forces everyone in the center lane to see each other, while the "side" lane is really a skip over to the other side. (For those who wonder, I consider the part below the bridge a third lane.)
Let's talk some more about the three lane variant. A lot of iconic maps follow this layout - Nuketown from CoD, Dust2 from CS, Blood Gulch (you can argue this one, so I'll omit from referring to it so you can't discredit what I have to say because I didn't pick an explicitly three lane map.) One question is, why is the three lane variant so popular and effective?
Let's compare Nuketown and Dust2. My first proposed use for the concept of laning was to distribute player flow at optimal capacity so that engagements with the ideal number of players are the most likely kind to happen, but CoD functions with lots more players per team than CS. Of course, in CS, your T side is probably all taking one or two routes, and the initial battle only happens once, while Nuketown has to deal with respawning. My point here is that player flow works differently in both games, but the same laning seems to win out. Nuketown was made to fit with more players than Dust2, while Nuketown has easier movement between all three lanes in the middle while Dust2 only lets you swap lanes at the ends of the map and one specific spot in the middle, and Nuketown is smaller and more compact. Obviously bomb defusal in CS is much different from CoD's team deathmatch, but there are ways to play the other's signature gamemode in both games and the TTK (assuming you can land your shots) is similar in both games (freaking instantaneous). If you ignore the skill gap, emphasis on teamwork and tactics, and differences in acquiring weapons (buying vs picking before match) CoD and CS are very similar. Perhaps someone who has played more demolition or whatever it's called on Nuketown than I have, or who has played a Nuketown port in CS, can shed some light on how the smaller variant compares to Dust2 in that respect. How do Dust2 and Nuketown compare once all the differences between games are ironed out?
Another thing we should address on the concept of three lanes - open lanes. Do you consider maps like Valhalla and Blood Gulch to be three lane maps? I'd say that they are, because the sluggish movement speed in CE makes going from the cliffs to the caves or vice versa too slow to be viable, while Valhalla's center lane doesn't provide enough cover to survive a vehicle encounter of equal skill (meaning if the user can throw nades good enough to flip the hog the driver is good enough to avoid them) if the user doesn't have an anti-vehicle weapon (although this goes for Blood Gulch too). Reasons against might include the fact that the lanes aren't physically defined, rather, they are suggestions that control players through superior protection rather than physical barriers.
I was going to go a lot further into this but I'm pretty tired so I'll leave this here for now. Let me know if I missed coloring any questions, I added in the color after I realized the bold isn't very noticeable. Let's here what you guys have to say. Maybe once we get through these questions we can have some more discussion about other elements of map design.
Heatguts
Re: FPS Map Design
by R93_Sniper August 22nd 2016, 5:59 pm
Quite a long winded post but I think I can appreciate these kinds. I'll start off myself by talking about my general philosophy when designing a map
- If its meant to be a symmetrical gamemode map, it should generally be symmetrical
- If its meant to be an asymmetrical gamemode map, it should generally be asymmetrical
- If a map is asymmetrical, balance each side so no one side has too distinct an advantage
- For symmetrical maps, the centermost point of the map should be the most exposed with a viable option for a(n effective) power item
- Maps with tight quarters should not have explosive or long range weapons (unless there's open zones)
- Keep sightlines in check as well as cover. Nobody likes to get blindsided when turning a corner
- For vehicle based maps, ensure you give groundplay precedence, so you don't incidentally ruin a map by adding vehicles
- Give support to as many playstyles as you possibly can.
- If you run into stalemates consistently at any point, add extra lanes.
- Test as much as possible, adapt accordingly
As for your questions, I don't think I can put a response to all of them, but I can definitely respond to the choke point logic. Generally speaking, you place choke points on symmetrical gamemode maps to solve an issue about flow. When you have too many people flooding a certain area for whatever reason, you narrow out that section so it becomes slightly less viable and more treacherous to do so. A good example would be the rocket spawn on Halo 3's "The Pit" map, where its a good choke point met with an apt reward. The Energy Sword spawn has its own advantage of placing a melee weapon in tight quarters, surrounded by a two pronged choke point. It's not an issue of lanes, its more about how to control the flow and movement of a map while preventing people from moving too freely.
- If its meant to be a symmetrical gamemode map, it should generally be symmetrical
- If its meant to be an asymmetrical gamemode map, it should generally be asymmetrical
- If a map is asymmetrical, balance each side so no one side has too distinct an advantage
- For symmetrical maps, the centermost point of the map should be the most exposed with a viable option for a(n effective) power item
- Maps with tight quarters should not have explosive or long range weapons (unless there's open zones)
- Keep sightlines in check as well as cover. Nobody likes to get blindsided when turning a corner
- For vehicle based maps, ensure you give groundplay precedence, so you don't incidentally ruin a map by adding vehicles
- Give support to as many playstyles as you possibly can.
- If you run into stalemates consistently at any point, add extra lanes.
- Test as much as possible, adapt accordingly
As for your questions, I don't think I can put a response to all of them, but I can definitely respond to the choke point logic. Generally speaking, you place choke points on symmetrical gamemode maps to solve an issue about flow. When you have too many people flooding a certain area for whatever reason, you narrow out that section so it becomes slightly less viable and more treacherous to do so. A good example would be the rocket spawn on Halo 3's "The Pit" map, where its a good choke point met with an apt reward. The Energy Sword spawn has its own advantage of placing a melee weapon in tight quarters, surrounded by a two pronged choke point. It's not an issue of lanes, its more about how to control the flow and movement of a map while preventing people from moving too freely.
R93_Sniper- Administrator
Re: FPS Map Design
by Heatguts August 22nd 2016, 10:13 pm
Those seem to be pretty solid ground rules. That's also a pretty reasonable answer. Really these questions are supposed to be open ended, there are definitely multiple right answers.
Heatguts
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum