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

[Thundermuffin]

The spawns for offense is never “close” on any map when compared to the defense spawning right on top of them.

If a team gets wiped out, they still would get at least 1 chance to try to disarm. You don’t deserve 6 chances to disarm a bomb. The game and maps shouldn’t be designed with more than 1 or 2 defuses per plant in mind. If team A wipes team B, they deserve the ability to hold the room and make it hard for team B to disarm the plant.

The way it was for forever was if team A wipes team B, they have to set up and get buffed really quickly as team B will storm in and either take over the objective or get wiped. If they get wiped, they get yet another chance to complete it. If they wipe again, they’ll probably get one more chance to disarm. That isn’t how this style of game should be played. The game should punish you for sucking and not getting the defuse the first time.

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.

This kind of irked me. It’s as if you think you have to look at all of this stuff equally when you don’t. If you’re putting gameplay on the backburner, you are doing it wrong. Plain and simple.

There’s a reason why the most played maps in competitions aren’t always the stock maps; developers spend too much time making them pretty for the screenshots, yet when you play them they suck.

Of all developers, I would figure SD would get this. You have the guy who made de_dust, the most played FPS map ever. It gets ported to every game with pretty much the same textures (in other words: they aren’t 2011 AAA quality), yet they always get played. Isn’t that crazy? A map that isn’t insanely beautiful is loved because it’s pretty balanced. Same thing with Fishbus and cp_freight. The map doesn’t have the gimmick and aesthetics like koth_nucleus and its huge glowing thing, yet it’s balanced and pretty well liked by the community. It’s basic TF2. There are no fancy textures, no fancy models, and the only gimmick it has are the basic TF2 trains that are found in stock maps.

What made it so much different for BRINK that one can’t have a “pretty” map with “great” gameplay, but instead has to have a “beautiful” map with “okay” gameplay?

[wolfnemesis75]

[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;368730]I’m gonna stick my broken record back on here, Brinks linear map design is giving the illusion of small maps. Brink maps aren’t that small, it’s the forced linear objectives that make them appear small as you’re only ever at one section of the map for each objective. ET’s open objectives meant covering most of the map was encouraged and advantageous and required tactics and weighing of cost vs gain… wandering anywhere other than near the active objective in Brink is pointless and just puts your team at a disadvantage.

Wolfnemesis: bites Chris’ fist as well[/QUOTE]
Uh oh. Here comes the big guns now.
Runnawayyyyyyy!
Face the perils.
They’re too perilous.
Run awwwwwway!

[tokamak]

I really wish it was easy to fire up a quick standard W:ET match, then Wolfnemesis would understand what we’re talking about.

Brinks linear map design is giving the illusion of small maps.

Or the other way around, Brink has several small maps compiled together to give the illusion of a big map. But hey semantics.

This kind of irked me. It’s as if you think you have to look at all of this stuff equally when you don’t. If you’re putting gameplay on the backburner, you are doing it wrong. Plain and simple.

Indeed, it’s not as if you need to make a compromise somewhere in between the two. Now I don’t think it’s too much graphic design that killed the Brink maps. It seems obvious to me that SD went through great effort to make the maps as clear as possible, making it impossible for people to get lost in or have any doubt what they’re supposed to be doing.

[Hot-Wire]

[QUOTE=tokamak;368735]I really wish it was easy to fire up a quick standard W:ET match, then Wolfnemesis would understand what we’re talking about.

Or the other way around, Brink has several small maps compiled together to give the illusion of a big map. But hey semantics.

Indeed, it’s not as if you need to make a compromise somewhere in between the two. Now I don’t think it’s too much graphic design that killed the Brink maps. It seems obvious to me that SD went through great effort to make the maps as clear as possible, making it impossible for people to get lost in or have any doubt what they’re supposed to be doing.[/QUOTE]

Refuel is a pretty darn big map and the whole map is opened at the start. … it also happens to be one of the maps that is worth going off to another part of the map and not be pointless, since the supply command post is over by the hack site, while the first part of the game is almost on the other side of the map.

[Kurushi]

[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;368730]I’m gonna stick my broken record back on here, Brinks linear map design is giving the illusion of small maps. Brink maps aren’t that small, it’s the forced linear objectives that make them appear small as you’re only ever at one section of the map for each objective. ET’s open objectives meant covering most of the map was encouraged and advantageous and required tactics and weighing of cost vs gain… wandering anywhere other than near the active objective in Brink is pointless and just puts your team at a disadvantage.

Wolfnemesis: bites Chris’ fist as well[/QUOTE]

I agree with your comment on map size. I’m not sure the about rest. Take CC for example. On offence, by the time you get the bot to near the defence spawn it makes sense to head to the crane and flank from that side + take the hp cp.

I agree that objectives are very focussed in Brink but the options for flanking can be plentiful, depending on the situation

[wolfnemesis75]

[QUOTE=Kurushi;368785]I agree with your comment on map size. I’m not sure the about rest. Take CC for example. On offence, by the time you get the bot to near the defence spawn it makes sense to head to the crane and flank from that side + take the hp cp.

I agree that objectives are very focussed in Brink but the options for flanking can be plentiful, depending on the situation[/QUOTE]Exactly. This is what I do as well. There are tons of flanks in Brink. If you flank and catch the enemy on their rare or side, or drop down on them (love to do this) you can push forward more aggressively and break every choke point. CQC

[Xiphoid]

Changing the default mode to Stopwatch could help… Just a thought.

[Midnight]

[QUOTE=murka;368493]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.[/QUOTE]

Bingo.

This has ruined all games since UT2004 timeframe.

[sereNADE]

Chris, just put wolfnemesis on ignore. He never quite grasps or outright refuses to understand anything anyone else has to say. He is either 9 years old or a crude griefer.

[DarkangelUK]

[QUOTE=Kurushi;368785]I agree with your comment on map size. I’m not sure the about rest. Take CC for example. On offence, by the time you get the bot to near the defence spawn it makes sense to head to the crane and flank from that side + take the hp cp.

I agree that objectives are very focussed in Brink but the options for flanking can be plentiful, depending on the situation[/QUOTE]

If you’re managing to cover the crane and bot at the same time with no problems, then the team you’re playing against are crap. My point was about open objectives as opposed to linear objectives, flanking has nothing to do with the fact that maps have a set order that the objectives MUST be done in, meaning you are always primarily focused on one section of the map, regardless of flanking.

[Chris2]

Chris, just put wolfnemesis on ignore. He never quite grasps or outright refuses to understand anything anyone else has to say. He is either 9 years old or a crude griefer.

To honest, would be boring if everyone agreed with each other, we’re in a place of discussion after all.

This is a good argument, because it is about design. Which I like. Once you throw vehicles onto a map, you right there have different design parameters compared to a game like Brink that does not incorporate that into the mix. You have to run from spawn in Brink. The problem is if the defense in Brink is far from the objectives when they respawn, then the offense just has to wipe most of them out, then the defense cannot get back in time. Without vehicles as a component, you have to consider this element.

I never said they had to be far away, they just don’t need to be 5 metres away, there are some basic calculations you can do in regards to the time it takes for each side to reach an objective and the difference in spawn times that can indicate which team the map favors. I may try them out one time, public maps kind of tend to favor the defending team slightly but I suspect that Brink’s maps favor the defense way too much when you apply the numbers.

Brink is CQC. ET has sniping as a viable option if you are too far away to get back to defend in time. Brink does not. I could go on. Once you eliminate certain ways to counter the distance required and time to travel back from spawn, you realize that certain adjustments need be made.

ET is close quarters too, you should really check the game out on the stock maps. Whilst they do have some open outdoor areas this is no different from the open areas in Hangar and CC.

In the case of Brink, both spawns are close to the objective. And the objective if an escort, will pass close to the enemy spawn as the map size is constricted as the offense makes progress away from their own deployment area. Sure, you could send the enemy away to another spawn as soon as the escort portion closes in proximity to the enemy spawn, or it can be designed as it is currently. As the offense pushes forward gaining the advantage the defense has an opportunity to counter as the Offense swings ever closer to their deployment area. CQC. Like an inch at a time idea for the design of the maps.

For the majority of the time they are not though, the attack always seems to get a bum deal in regards to traveling times, the one that sticks in my mind the most is Resort last stage.

Why should the escort go near the enemy spawn in the first place? It seem illogical to me.

I use Container City as an example of this. Get the bot to the crane and fix the crane. Then the map and spawn constricts and the same scenario is replayed. On the opposite side of the map. CQC is what it comes down to as the core principle here, rather than large open spaces and vehicle travel as part of the formula.

You know ET:QW had some awesome indoor sections in every map right? Usually the last stage, they were almost maps in their own right except they weren’t they were part of a larger experience. ET:QW managed to get every aspect right, most of the time anyway. A map could start out in the open where you get some vehicle combat thrown in the mix then end up inside some facility were you are fighting toe to toe with the enemy.

ET’s maps are also pretty self contained throughout, in the images I posted earlier you are not playing in the whole of that area, they are almost like outdoor corridors to some extent. When I can be bothered I’ll annotate them to explain why these maps worked and such, perhaps then you may start to understand how ‘better’ they are for us.

[sereNADE]

good, i didn’t press ignore either =] he makes me spit stuff on and around my desk. usually black and hot.

[Exedore]

This kind of irked me. It’s as if you think you have to look at all of this stuff equally when you don’t. If you’re putting gameplay on the backburner, you are doing it wrong. Plain and simple.

I’m not for a second claiming we got the balance perfect, or even excellently. The bottom line is that not everybody agrees that gameplay is the most important thing, whereas I do agree with you. If it was ever that simple…

[Chris2]

Would someone like Ducks be permitted to shed some light on the design process behind Brink’s maps?

Be interesting to read, always nice to have insight into how the developers approach their work, remember they are a lot of modders to be found on these boards, myself included.

I think those who’ve been more vocal about Brink’s maps been flawed are all pretty much those who’ve played ET and ET:QW. I can’t speak for everyone else but having played those games I had quite high expectations for the maps in Brink. Perhaps we have this preconceived idea of what the maps should play like and unfortunately for us they don’t.

However someone such as wolf’ who’s never played an SD game before seems to find the maps and the game as a whole excellent. They have nothing to compare it with and thats where these conflicting opinions start arising from, the veterans know SD can do better but the new chaps are quite happy and don’t see the need for any changes to be made.

Meh, I’m rambling on again

[Exedore]

The key difference is something that I think has come up before on these forums… the difference of developing for PC only vs PC and consoles.

[Kurushi]

If you’re managing to cover the crane and bot at the same time with no problems, then the team you’re playing against are crap. My point was about open objectives as opposed to linear objectives, flanking has nothing to do with the fact that maps have a set order that the objectives MUST be done in, meaning you are always primarily focused on one section of the map, regardless of flanking.

That’s fair enough, I’m all for more side objectives. I think it’s an underused feature in Brink. Let’s hope future maps take advantage of this

As for crap teams defending CC, if they defend the crane they spread themselves thin on the bot. Flanking is definitely a good enough distraction. I find once you get around the first corner by the defence spawn it’s pretty much plain sailing

[Stormchild]

[…] The bottom line is that not everybody agrees that gameplay is the most important thing, whereas I do agree with you.[…]

Uh-oh Do I detect a possible grudge against some actors involved in the game development process ? Actors that would place the visuals above everything else despite some designer’s reluctance because of gameplay consequences ?

One thing is for sure, it is already difficult to balance a map for one designer when juggling with gameplay, match flow, spawn points, visual identity and beauty etc… If then other persons with different opinions come in, and have more decision power, but poor judgment on some aspects… well, didn’t we all suffer that at some point.

[Stormchild]

[QUOTE=Kurushi;368967]That’s fair enough, I’m all for more side objectives. I think it’s an underused feature in Brink. Let’s hope future maps take advantage of this

As for crap teams defending CC, if they defend the crane they spread themselves thin on the bot. Flanking is definitely a good enough distraction. I find once you get around the first corner by the defence spawn it’s pretty much plain sailing[/QUOTE]

the problem with too many side objectives is that Brink only allows 8 vs 8 match. Therefore, the team would be scattered whereas they are more intended to stick together (buff mechanics and so on), when a few should be flanking or making secondaries or taking CPs.

If it was 10 vs 10 or 12 vs 12, I would welcome more side objs, but the maps are probably balanced for 8 vs 8, as well as timers too. And the map balance influences weapon balance as well. It’s all connected in a way and it’s hard to tweak one side without breaking another, more or less…

[Kurushi]

[QUOTE=Stormchild;368970]the problem with too many side objectives is that Brink only allows 8 vs 8 match. Therefore, the team would be scattered whereas they are more intended to stick together (buff mechanics and so on), when a few should be flanking or making secondaries or taking CPs.

If it was 10 vs 10 or 12 vs 12, I would welcome more side objs, but the maps are probably balanced for 8 vs 8, as well as timers too. And the map balance influences weapon balance as well. It’s all connected in a way and it’s hard to tweak one side without breaking another, more or less… :([/QUOTE]

I’m not talking anything crazy, just more of the kind we have now. Side doors to hack or bomb for alternate routes.

One springs to mind I find never gets used is building the side stairs on CC. It seems quite tacked on unless against a really good team and you’re desperate for ideas

More side missions always welcome anyway

[wolfnemesis75]

[QUOTE=.Chris.;368910]To honest, would be boring if everyone agreed with each other, we’re in a place of discussion after all.
ET is close quarters too, you should really check the game out on the stock maps. Whilst they do have some open outdoor areas this is no different from the open areas in Hangar and CC.
For the majority of the time they are not though, the attack always seems to get a bum deal in regards to traveling times, the one that sticks in my mind the most is Resort last stage.
Why should the escort go near the enemy spawn in the first place? It seem illogical to me.
You know ET:QW had some awesome indoor sections in every map right? Usually the last stage, they were almost maps in their own right except they weren’t they were part of a larger experience. ET:QW managed to get every aspect right, most of the time anyway. A map could start out in the open where you get some vehicle combat thrown in the mix then end up inside some facility were you are fighting toe to toe with the enemy.
ET’s maps are also pretty self contained throughout, in the images I posted earlier you are not playing in the whole of that area, they are almost like outdoor corridors to some extent. When I can be bothered I’ll annotate them to explain why these maps worked and such, perhaps then you may start to understand how ‘better’ they are for us.[/QUOTE]Hi Chris. Glad you don’t ignore me. I am not that evil and about the same age as you’all.
I have played many other games. And compare Brink to other games I play. Have you played Gears of War ever? Brink has a similar feel in terms of chokepoints and how to approach them. But looking at Brink, I see some complaints about the defense spawning in close proximity to the objective. But not sure how this could be otherwise once the attacking team moves forward across a map. How would you do it differently? Keep in mind that eventually the escort has to move towards the enemy, thus, the map becomes weighted towards the defense. Setting spawn timers is one way. But that’s not part of the map design its after the map is designed you are weighting when players redeploy. Also, take away vehicles and long distance kill effectiveness, and a fixed map area, then the game is all CQC. Brink. Open spaces are a foot race to get to a spot on the map, even on Refuel. I bet ET:QW solves spawn issues with Satellite lasers, artillery, vehicles, super fast running speed, etc. In that game, even though there’s CQC you have ways to traverse the map quickly.