Map designs. Please o please could a dev explain the reasoning

(Azev2000) #1

Ok if you wanted to stopspawn camping as you stated in prelaunch vids. Why would you create maps with choke points on every route within seconds of the spawn. Why would you create a map that has about 10 sniping locations overlooking 2 spawn exits. The list goes on. Yes the art is amazing and that part of the team deserves a pat on the back.

I really can not find any reasoning behind this type of design. Yes the usual guys on this forum will chime in stating its amazing, but the retention of player population proves otherwise.

(.Chris.) #2

Yeah, I was quite hyped up pre-release about the map designs, was expecting something quite nice given all the talk about SMART and such. Was some interesting stuff been said from the likes of Ducks in regards to their approach with the level design, it all sounded very promising. So I was somewhat bewildered when I started to play the maps for the first time.

As you said they do look quite nice but that seems about it. I know during Brink’s development they brought in a lot of new staff which I would assume extended to level designers but I would have thought that the existing members and senior staff having had two team based objective games behind them would have picked up on the glaring mistakes made throughout Brinks levels.

I’m not sure if this could be down to the overall attempt at making the game as accessible as possible which in doing so has back fired as trying to simplify the approach in maps from their past games they have ended up creating some fairly cramp linear levels with the inevitable harsh choke points that come about as a result.

I think there might be something in that you know. Perhaps this type is level design only appeals to a certain type of player (consolers) whilst the rest of us who’ve experienced SD’s past work are no longer the target audience?

(murka) #3

I assume most of the level design mistakes were not found due to everyone playtesting with a controller as gameplay on a console(pc with controller) masks many balance issues and introduces a wildly different gameplay.
The primary mistake with this game was something they pointed out to be good, namely having pc and console versions created equal when in fact the two are completely different and require seperate approach to design, coding and balancing.

(Exedore) #4

I think such a direct correlation between level design and player retention is possibly a fallacy, or at least a gross oversimplification of a complex system of interdependent factors.

(wolfnemesis75) #5

CC is the map that is the definition of what you say. But is still one of my favorite maps. Many of the maps are designed with the setting of the story in mind in terms of Aesthetics and then is tweaked to be a multiplayer map. Do you know what I mean? Like they’re designed as if they’d been designed by Ark builders, not for multiplayer. Now we fight in the map amid the conflict. Garbage bins are gonna be in the way, just as in real life, the bio lab is gonna be a certain look and design to fit within the context of the Ark. To me, that’s cool. I am not a fan of symmetrical maps, especially since minor cosmetic differences on a mirrored map end up causing the map not to be truly symmetrical. For example, one side has a Truck, other side has a Car, but its faster to get past the Car than the truck even though the layout is mirrored. Labs to me has multiple exits out of spawn. Container City is the one map where its an uphill sled out of spawn. It is mostly a rite of passage for noobs and uncoordinated teams.

(.Chris.) #6

That’s hardly a positive…

It’s one thing to have a convincing looking map, its another to have that at the expensive of gameplay.

Who’s saying they need to be symmetrical? They’ve been making maps for this style of game for years now, none of which were symmetrical and most of them played a darn sight better than any Brink map.

(wolfnemesis75) #7

[QUOTE=.Chris.;368516]That’s hardly a positive…

It’s one thing to have a convincing looking map, its another to have that at the expensive of gameplay.

Who’s saying they need to be symmetrical? They’ve been making maps for this style of game for years now, none of which were symmetrical and most of them played a darn sight better than any Brink map.[/QUOTE]

Come on. Azev is talking about Container City. He posted this after getting spawn trapped is my guess. He’s being very specific about one particular map but lumping all the maps in. If you get trapped on the other maps, you are bad, or your team is bad. And good teams don’t get trapped in spawn on CC. That’s the honest truth. :slight_smile:

(SebaSOFT) #8

I find astonishing resemblance of the first spawn in CCity to the first spawn in Seawall Battery, but unlike this map, you can’t change tactics and flank the far left entrance (allies side). No doubt is an “invasion” type of map.

(Exedore) #9

This is the thing that so many people have trouble with grasping when it comes to professional level design. The discipline is a balance between design, art and technical aspects, and they simply can never be looked at in isolation.

A friend of mine did this talk at GDC this past year:
http://www.slideshare.net/Reverend_Ed/gdc-2011-unscaping-the-goat-level-design-in-a-day
It might be of interest.

(wolfnemesis75) #10

[QUOTE=Exedore;368530]This is the thing that so many people have trouble with grasping when it comes to professional level design. The discipline is a balance between design, art and technical aspects, and they simply can never be looked at in isolation.

A friend of mine did this talk at GDC this past year:
http://www.slideshare.net/Reverend_Ed/gdc-2011-unscaping-the-goat-level-design-in-a-day
It might be of interest.[/QUOTE]

This is what I was trying to say, but I don’t have your knack for brevity. Sometimes I feel that some want a more open map without obstacles, flat slick clean walls devoid of any character, and perfect symmetry so they feel like no side has advantage. Boring. Sounds like chess, but even then, someone has to go first, and there’s an advantage to going second. Too early in the morning here, brain hurts. Need more coffee. :o

(Loffy) #11

…when it comes to professional level design. The discipline is a balance between design, art and technical aspects, and…

Fps is king though, isn’t it.

(Exedore) #12

Some will say this, no doubt… that’s the technical side speaking, and a bit of design (input/output purity). I’m a proponent of balance between the 3.

(SinDonor) #13

I have NEVER been trapped on CC if I am on an organized team. We can rush and cover the solider planting on the gate before the other team gets there. Then, it’s easy to keep them away from the charge as their only two ways into that area are the hole in the gate and the balcony. I hide either in the far left corner under the stairs or on top of the ledge. As long as some teammates cover the balcony, any enemies brave enough to slide through the gate get mowed down/naded/Molotov/etc.

CC was designed to be a tough map to attack. It’s the Res’ home base. I agree that being spawn camped at CC does suck, as it still happens to me occasionally if I enter a game that’s already half over and some newbs on Sec allowed the other team to camp them before I entered. But oh well.

My one suggestion to fix that first campsite is to give the Sec a balcony to shoot from that they can access from their spawn. Perhaps make it a 2nd story container with some holes to shoot out of or something. Then, if the Attackers do try to spawn camp, the Sec has a spot they can go to and try to clear out a few of the campers.

(sanDIOkan) #14

closed at spawn in cc?
Take 2/3 soldiers (so you sure 1 plants) and use the flashes to make enemies blind.
OR with spies you can use the sticky bombs and other kind of special bombs on balcony
OR with a heavy body u can use grenade launcher over the blacony to prevent the spawnrape.
OR the whole team on first rush can throw nades to prevent the enemies’s rush

there are many ways … but nowadays games where u have to shoot and think, aren’t for all. that’s why devs thought to make smart.

btw the map can be fixed making the gate a bit far from spawn, right behind the first corner, for example.
Or make a second exit where there is the little balcony on the right side

(wolfnemesis75) #15

[QUOTE=SinDonor;368554]I have NEVER been trapped on CC if I am on an organized team. We can rush and cover the solider planting on the gate before the other team gets there. Then, it’s easy to keep them away from the charge as their only two ways into that area are the hole in the gate and the balcony. I hide either in the far left corner under the stairs or on top of the ledge. As long as some teammates cover the balcony, any enemies brave enough to slide through the gate get mowed down/naded/Molotov/etc.

CC was designed to be a tough map to attack. It’s the Res’ home base. I agree that being spawn camped at CC does suck, as it still happens to me occasionally if I enter a game that’s already half over and some newbs on Sec allowed the other team to camp them before I entered. But oh well.

My one suggestion to fix that first campsite is to give the Sec a balcony to shoot from that they can access from their spawn. Perhaps make it a 2nd story container with some holes to shoot out of or something. Then, if the Attackers do try to spawn camp, the Sec has a spot they can go to and try to clear out a few of the campers.[/QUOTE]Which is what makes the map so much fun because you know the consequences of not getting the job done at the HE charge. It adds weight, meaning, aggression, focus, and a rewarding challenge. We beasted through that map every time last night. Early in the night, a team that was pretty good stopped us a couple times when we tried to plant, but we reorganized pushed them back, and planted. Then smashed through the rest of the map. :smiley:

(TruGamer97) #16

this is what I was telling one of my friends on xbox he was complaining that founders tower is impossible for security to beat and I try to tell him it wasn’t but the kid wouldn’t listen I think he spends more time complaining about the game then actually trying to play it

(.Chris.) #17

[QUOTE=Exedore;368530]This is the thing that so many people have trouble with grasping when it comes to professional level design. The discipline is a balance between design, art and technical aspects, and they simply can never be looked at in isolation.

A friend of mine did this talk at GDC this past year:
http://www.slideshare.net/Reverend_Ed/gdc-2011-unscaping-the-goat-level-design-in-a-day
It might be of interest.[/QUOTE]

That’s what I was alluding to, on the face of it, it would appear some maps haven’t quite got that balance right.

Compared with ET:QW the maps feel a lot more alive, it’s nice they managed to find ways to get stuff they tried in ET:QW working well such as moving platforms and interactive objects, they’ve pushed the technical side of that balance you mention.

Likewise with the art, Brink looks pretty darn nice. You can’t fault much in terms of aesthetics, the maps are nicely detailed, a step in the right direction, ET:QW’s maps were great but lacked that extra level of detail in some parts which has been rectified in Brink.

However the actual design of the maps are lacking in my opinion. I’m not even talking about spawn rape, that, just like in past games, is down to team imbalances 90% of the time. It’s stuff such as having defense spawns been placed unnecessarily close to objectives and having escort-able objective routes swinging by the defense’s spawn. How could such things ever have been considered a wise decision and I can’t foresee any situation where they had to be like this due to art or technical reasons.

I’ll watch that link when get home.

(wolfnemesis75) #18

[QUOTE=.Chris.;368575]That’s what I was alluding to, on the face of it, it would appear some maps haven’t quite got that balance right.

Compared with ET:QW the maps feel a lot more alive, it’s nice they managed to find ways to get stuff they tried in ET:QW working well such as moving platforms and interactive objects, they’ve pushed the technical side of that balance you mention.

Likewise with the art, Brink looks pretty darn nice. You can’t fault much in terms of aesthetics, the maps are nicely detailed, a step in the right direction, ET:QW’s maps were great but lacked that extra level of detail in some parts which has been rectified in Brink.

However the actual design of the maps are lacking in my opinion. I’m not even talking about spawn rape, that, just like in past games, is down to team imbalances 90% of the time. It’s stuff such as having defense spawns been placed unnecessarily close to objectives and having escort-able objective routes swinging by the defense’s spawn. How could such things ever have been considered a wise decision and I can’t foresee any situation where they had to be like this due to art or technical reasons.

I’ll watch that link when get home.[/QUOTE]
ET:QW. Different game. Open maps. Brink is more CQC. And revolves around a very different environment that has unique properties, construction, aesthetic, and context. Not apples to apples comparison. ET:QW is probably battles on open environments in fields near roads, surrounded by canyons. Brink is an immense floating city and just entirely different. Two different worlds if you sit down and design it from that perspective. And thus plays out as different set of challenges. :slight_smile:

(sachewan) #19

I’d like to plug my thread here, as I feel its relevant to this discussion. I think the maps’ choke points are kind of a necessary evil for an objective based game such as Brink. Rtcw had them, W:ET had them, and now Brink does. If the maps are too open, holding down an objective will become near impossible and the teamwork to coordinate pushes from different points will be lessened.

I think there are easier ways to make the maps play better without sacrificing the choke points which basically define the style of gameplay in these types of games. I go into them further in my thread but I want to point out in particular this idea:

I think something like this will nullify the full hold problem that we see on maps like CCity and Reactor, while still keeping the gameplay in line with the original teamwork / objective based formula.

The key words here are ‘on an organized team’. Face it, in most situations you will never have a team so organized on a public server to overcome the imbalance of maps like Reactor and CCity. That’s the whole point of these map complaints. The maps are balanced for ideal fantasy situations where you have organized teams and people calling out plays and strats, communicating effectively and covering eachother for the objectives, but the reality is almost always the opposite. These maps should be balanced for the reality of public server play and not the fantasy of what you envision it to be. The player count dwindling speaks for itself.

I actually think a lot of the maps would work okay in a competition setting as far as balance goes because of the amount of routes to the objective and the fact that the defense can’t cover them all effectively. The problem is balancing them for a public, non-organized game setting which is 99.9999% of all matches played. The ‘stuck in first spawn’ for security situation on CCity should never happen.

(wolfnemesis75) #20

[QUOTE=sachewan;368583]I’d like to plug my thread here, as I feel its relevant to this discussion. I think the maps’ choke points are kind of a necessary evil for an objective based game such as Brink. Rtcw had them, W:ET had them, and now Brink does. If the maps are too open, holding down an objective will become near impossible and the teamwork to coordinate pushes from different points will be lessened.

I think there are easier ways to make the maps play better without sacrificing the choke points which basically define the style of gameplay in these types of games. I go into them further in my thread but I want to point out in particular this idea:

I think something like this will nullify the full hold problem that we see on maps like CCity and Reactor, while still keeping the gameplay in line with the original teamwork / objective based formula.

The key words here are ‘on an organized team’. Face it, in most situations you will never have a team so organized on a public server to overcome the imbalance of maps like Reactor and CCity. That’s the whole point of these map complaints. The maps are balanced for ideal fantasy situations where you have organized teams and people calling out plays and strats, communicating effectively and covering eachother for the objectives, but the reality is almost always the opposite. These maps should be balanced for the reality of public server play and not the fantasy of what you envision it to be. The player count dwindling speaks for itself.

I actually think a lot of the maps would work okay in a competition setting as far as balance goes because of the amount of routes to the objective and the fact that the defense can’t cover them all effectively. The problem is balancing them for a public, non-organized game setting which is 99.9999% of all matches played. The ‘stuck in first spawn’ for security situation on CCity should never happen.[/QUOTE]The team aspect of the game warrants the creation of groups familiar with playing together. It is the nature of team. The game seeks to help out individuals by creating objective wheels, and ways to work support each other without knowing the players on your team. But the simple fact is that its supplemental. Nothing can replace an organized team that know each other in the coding of the game. The nature of the beast here. The game ultimately is gonna come down to how organized your team is. Best to make friends here. :slight_smile: