DirtyBomb Map Design

(Kendle) #1

Loving the game-play trailer, looks really promising, but rather than drop this in another thread and it gets lost I think this is a topic that warrants discussion on it’s own.

IMHO the one major thing Brink got wrong was map design. The maps were too easy to defend, and on pubs with limited team-play some of the them ended up being one team spawn camping the other. The extreme example was Container City where often the attacking team failed to get out of 1st spawn and the rest of the map went un-played as a result. But all the maps were pretty bad, and with no facility for the community to create their own (the main thing that saved ET) Brink was doomed from the start.

Please don’t make that mistake this time.

A long time ago this thread :-

http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/7378-ET-competition-maps-guidelines

was created to discuss map design in ET. It was specifically aimed at competition maps, but IMHO competition maps make good pub maps as well anyway, whereas good pub only maps rarely make good competition maps.

In particular I ask you to pay special attention to the “spawn rule” :-

If the time taken for Defenders to get to the objective from spawn PLUS the difference in spawn cycle is LESS than the time taken for Attackers to get to the objective from their spawn, then it’s a DEFENSIVE map. If it’s MORE then it’s OFFENSIVE.

i.e. If a player from each team both die near the objective, which one is more likely to get back there first?

Here’s a couple of examples to clarify:-

Radar - Axis spawn is 10 seconds slower than Allied. However, it takes almost 10 seconds to get to East Radar from Axis spawn and only about 15 from the command post. Difference in travel time (5s) is less than difference in spawn cycle (10s) - Offensive map.

FuelDump - Axis spawn again 10 seconds slower than Allied but it takes Axis about 10 seconds to get to the FuelDepot whereas it takes Allies about 30. Difference in travel time (20s) is greater than difference in spawn cycle (10s) - Defensive map.

Remember, Competition requires Offensive maps, which is why Radar is played in Clan Wars and FuelDump isn’t.

Unless you intend to provide an SDK to allow custom maps to be made from day one, I implore you to consider this very carefully. The game might not absolutely NEED competition maps from day one, but it would be an enormous benefit, and I don’t think just for whatever competitive scene develops for this game. Attack friendly maps are good for everyone IMO, they move the objective on, give the teams a sense of achievement and ensure all of a map gets played. I really really hope you give this some serious thought during game development.

(NeoRussia) #2

Custom maps would make DB HUMONGOUS if they implement a proper system. It HAS to be done.

(Mao.) #3

Of course we just need custom map .

(Dysfunkshion) #4

Remakes of old competitive maps please. I do agree with the OP though, we need maps were aggressiveness is rewarded, both for Defense and Offense.

(KlausMorgenholz) #5

As soon as I saw the concrete barrier under a bridge in the gameplay trailer I thought “ZOMFG, NEW GOLDRUSH!!!1111ONEONELEVEN”. Map remakes in the new theme would help transfer some of the player base from older games into the new one.

(DarkKnightDK) #6

Map Editor is great but IMHO, it needs to be available for Ranked Matches for everyone to join…

(Dysfunkshion) #7

At this point I’m prettyy sure, that London Bridge is a remake of the old Goldrush map. Not only are the objectives similar, the map lay out looks awfully familiar.

Let me explain:

  • First barrier, room on the left, upstairs, there’s an entrance from below. The building right of the barrier has stairs, which seem to lead to said room. Just past the first barrier is a catwalk, similar to Goldrush.

  • After the first barrier, the EV even turns left. There’s another catwalk looking over a long straight street. Enemies entering the street come from stairs in the back (so basically, they removed the stairs near the catwalk, and put them where the tank turned and damaged the building in W:ET). In the video we then see a shot from below. The pushed back stairs can be seen and there’s an enemy on what looks like the street from before. (This means you can shoot from the street, down into a courtyard.)

  • This is confirmed in the next shot, where they plant the C4 at the second barrier: We see the long street, and we can run under it.

  • Next shot (the sniper again) is a look over the “courtyard” from the upper street. The vehicle comes near a wall and destroys it. This makes the environment more open and makes the map look more like Goldrush again. Enemies seem to come from the left and front, but it seems as if there’s also an entrance from the right.

  • Next shot inside: There’s a corridor right of the room where we have to fetch 2 objectives. (Again, this is the corridor that runs next to the bank in goldrush) you can even enter the room by going left.

  • When they rush out, the vehicle goes left, (the same direction as the the truck). There’s a 3rd barrier. There’s a small entrance on the right, near the barrier.

  • After the barrier, the vehicle goes slightly left into another more open area.

I can’t really determine what happens next, but up to this point this map is definitely Goldrush.
Also note that at the end of the video, the vehicle escapes to the left, with enemies defending from the right.

(Fooooo) #8

Oh, yes yes yes.

I would absolutely love to have a few maps that are remakes of the old classics. Beach , Radar, fueldump, goldrush , the one with the railgun (that was one of my fav maps that one) and a couple of the player made ones used in comps…that I forget the names of atm unfortunatly…

They wouldn’t have to be part of say the normal “campaign” , there could be a few campaigns just like in et. 1 has DB maps, 1 has remakes of the old ET maps etc etc…

Ahhh they joys of wishful thinking…

(Kendle) #9

Goldrush is a perfect example of what I’m talking about.

The original Goldrush, the one made by SD and delivered with ET, was considered not suitable for competition, mainly because the route taken by the Tank meant it fell foul of “the spawn rule” once it was down the hill and over the bridge.

Goldrush however returned to competition once the community had made a “_te” version (Tournament Edition), whereby the Tank stopped on the bridge and blew the bank doors from there.

The community made Goldrush playable, not SD, and they did it because they could.

So either there needs to be an SDK released with the game to allow the community to balance the maps, or SD need to make sure the maps are balanced on release.

(Ruben0s) #10

I would love to see an SDK or map developing tools, but if they make six maps like radar I can live without it, but that’s probably too much to ask :slight_smile:

(iwound) #11

i think a level editor is a must and agree it would make the game grow significantly if custom maps added to the pool.

(montheponies) #12

agree with the OP, however i cant see there being a SDK released for a F2P game - given that would most likely break whatever funding model the game is designed around. A map editor is possible - it would be good if this custom content was handled properly though - ie. ‘approved’ maps being made available through the game’s updates.

(Raide) #13

Rekoil (http://rekoil.com/) will allow for custom maps, so it is doable. Don’t know if it would work for Dirty Bomb, though.

(BrightIs) #14

Because we don’t know the game scenario its hard to give suggestions for objectives but I hope they have one similar to radar, whereby you have to run for the objective and no vehicles are present.

(prophett) #15

I really hope they give us a lot if server side options for competitive/private matches, including offensive and defensive spawn intervals :confused:

(DarkangelUK) #16

You know SD can’t do actual remakes due to the maps themselves belonging to id/bethesda, right?

(montheponies) #17

Isnt it Activision for RTCW? if it was ID i’d be fairly sure it would open sourced by now…and the world would be a much better place :slight_smile:

(Fendah) #18

Good point Kendle.

I have read your thread, you have linked. Got to say that i agree almost entirely with what you suggested. Still writing my thoughts about map layouts and objectives.
For that i will take look on W:ET as i come from the competive ET-scene.

Two things all competively-played maps share:

  • objective is closer to the defender respawnpoint than to attacker respawnpoint
  • defender got a longer respanwcycle (e.g. 30sec) than attacker (e.g. 20/25sec)

These two facts work together hand-in-hand. Because having the objective right in the middle of both respawns will lead to very fast times, implying the respawncycles are 30/20. The reason is self-explaining as the attackers are spawning more often, got more chances than the defenders.

The objectives:
As i see it right now, most players in the ET-scene prefere to have an run as an final objective. They are mostly more entertaining for spectaters and shoutcasters than escorting a truck/tank. I agree partly. In the recent past the were very close games on supply depot and sw_goldrush_te in the NationsCup.
But, as a mapper there is great pro for escorting a vehicle. When having a rather small map or a non-multistage map (goldrush style) you can stretch out the time to complete the map as it takes time drive it to end. It creates a second, third, fourth, …, chance for the defending team to recover from being spawnkilled. Some like it, some not.

Points to choke and room to breathe:
Where you set the chokepoints is very important too. In my opinion the smallest chokepoint should be at the shortest way to attack and definetely much closer to the objective than to the respawns of the attacking. The other entrances should be larger/bigger depending on the distance to the spawn.
If you got three entries to a courtyard and an obj. to repair inside, for example. It makes sense to set those chokepoints at three diffrent directions, north, east, west. Having all at one side makes it easy to defend. Having a map with big rooms/courtyards/halls with an primary obj. to finish the stage or the whole map three entries are minimum.
I also think tactical chokepoints should only divide big rooms/hallways from another. Nothing is more annoying than being traped in tight and long hallway without options to escape but the generator to blow up is right in front of you.

(TacTicToe) #19

Alot of these “spawn time” issues could be eliminated by simply doing things like they did in BC2 for example. Create a fireteam, and spawn on your fireteam mates. They would need to have more slots added to the game for this to work well, but it is do-able. Then in a Goldrush type map, even when a tank is past the bridge, the enemy spawn times would not matter. As long as a fireteam mate was close by, you spawn on them, and voila. You can spawn on your squad in Homefront, same engine, so easily do-able.

@raide

Rekoil is dead in the water, despite what the dev’s claim. I do not forsee that game ever making it out as a release. Custom maps are very much do-able. Even Killing Floor uses the same engine, and has tons of maps and mutators. That is not an issue. SD would simply have to include, or leave in the ability to do remote file downloads for custom content. You would need to have the maps on a redirect server. However, it is easy enough to remove that ability entirely as well, as was done in Homefront. The developers completely screwed the pooch with Homefront. They refused to listen to me or others on how to do the custom content. As a result, that company is out of business now, despite having sold over 14 million copies of Homefront at $50 a pop.

I also do not forsee SD releasing any SDK for Dirty Bomb. They won’t admit it now, because they wont want to turn off the readers of these forums. Eventually, they will have to admit there is not going to be an SDK. If SD are looking to follow a F2P model, in hopes of generating any kind of income, beyond what they are receiving in the way of donations currently, then they can not afford to give out an SDK. Why would anyone want to do micro transactions from SD, for maps, weapons, or skins, when it is too easy to download these things for free, from those that can create them in their spare time? If SD want to follow the F2P model, or the P2W model, then they will have to control these resources, meaning there will be no SDK released.

These are simply my predictions, and nothing more.

(DB Genome editor) #20

It’s a reasonable concern that allowing for modding of the game would go against the F2P model. yet somehow Valve managed to do it with TF2. Custom maps are not only possible but encouraged, with the best ones being folded into the official set for free (essential to avoid splitting the community) and a donation system also exist for those who want to give back to the authors. Similarly the Steam Workshop if full of cosmetic items you can download as client-side replacements, but Valve regularly promote the best to official status which means that everybody gets to see that cool hat or cosmetic items you got :cool:

That’s why some people will always pay for official stuff vs client-side mods: the swag factor…:wink:

And the beauty of Valve’s approach is that the community does most of the work (the last major update was actually 100% community-made), but everybody is happy since the micro-transactions’ profits are shared between the authors and Valve.