 |
|
 |

| |
Multiplayer Map Game Design Guidelines
by Timothy Ryan on 11/14/09 11:27:00 am
|
|
| |
|
Posted 11/14/09 11:27:00 am
|
| |
|
MP
Map Design Guidelines
Why guidelines and
not rules? Because if you’re going to break a rule, you
should do it well and for a good reason. Any given map may present
some unique flare that breaks a rule but acknowledges it and has good
reasons – exchanging one con for a pro. Symmetry, for example,
is important in map design to seem fair in team-based games, but
asymmetry may be appropriate for the look and feel of a particular
map.
-
The size of the
map should be inversely proportional to the amount of occlusion.
Experience has taught us that finding players is the number one
concern in any map. You can have a very wide and long map as long
as it’s wide open enough for players to see each other. You
can have a lot of occlusion (buildings, walls, etc.) if the map is
small and players can use their radar and audio clues to find each
other.
-
Symmetry in
distances, path choices, navigation difficulty and pick-ups are very
important for team-based games. This is hard to accomplish in
topographically asymmetrical maps. Designers should time each path
and assess the difficulty in navigation and acquisition of pick-ups
working from each side. They need not be the same exact challenge,
but they should take about the same amount of time and effort and
offer the same reward. A strategic advantage to one side should be
given to the other is some fashion.
-
The unique
selling point for the game should be featured prominently. This
is the core niche game mechanic that will not only set your game
apart but also set one level apart from another in how it’s
incorporated.
-
Account for
every navigation method and provide a reason to choose one method
over another. If a player can crawl, dig, climb or jump, then
some paths should only be accessible by using that method. Just be
careful that by doing so you’re not creating bigger problems
(i.e. like trying to support a vehicle in a map that’s too
small for it).
-
Provide
multiple paths and differentiate them with different risks and
rewards. Whether it’s as simple as some paths are faster,
while some have more cover or better pick-ups, the paths should
provide a real choice for the player. No one path should be the
best and hence ONLY choice (i.e. like one path that is the fastest,
has good cover, and good pick-ups).
-
High vantage
points should not also have ammo and wide line of fire. The
height advantage means cover and wider field of view. Players will
want to move to them as a position of power. Try to aim the field
of view by orienting the high point toward a smaller arc of the map,
so that it covers only one path. If you allow a player on a roof,
don’t leave sniper ammo up there for him to continuously
replenish his supply. (i.e. avoid sniper’s paradise perches)
-
For
base-oriented match types, limit the number of access paths to 3.
If there are too many ways to get into a base, then it’s too
porous and hard to defend. Generally, there’s a straight-up
path that’s the default path, a tricky path that’s not
so obvious or easy to get to, and a more protected but longer path.
-
Pick-ups
should be categorized into high-value and low-value pick-ups
and be placed accordingly. Part of learning a map is
learning where the health, grenade and weapon pick-ups are. But a
player shouldn’t be spending all his time looking for an
upgrade or more ammo. Place low-value pick-ups in easy reach and
higher-value pick-ups (the BFG’s) in areas that are a little
trickier to find or get to – rewarding exploration, experience
and the extra effort. Do not place any high-value pickups
right next to player spawn locations. Spread the best weapons and
upgrades about to encourage greater use of the map and to avoid
monopolizing situations and mid-map frag-fests.
-
Spawn points
should be many and in locations with visual landmarks. The
larger number of spawn points, the faster the players can find each
other and get back into the action. The spawning code looks within
a radius from a calculated center of action and tries to select
spawners in that radius. However, if there are not enough spawners,
players will spawn on top of each other or get pushed out of the
action. If it’s important to spread players out on the
initial spawn, then a designer can enable “middle spawners”
a few seconds into the match. The orientation and location of the
spawner should have a visible landmark so players can almost
immediately orient themselves.
-
Create a unique
sense of place for your map and areas within it. At its core, a
map should be a fairly unique location that offers some intriguing
opportunities for game play and a sense of place. Each area within
the map should also have some unique look & feel to help set it
apart. This is particularly hard to do with limited art assets and
symmetrical maps. However, a lot can be done with team colors,
lighting and texturing to differentiate. For example, one area
could be pristine while another area is in rubble; or one has a
visible landmark, like a water tower, while another has a huge pit.
Ideally the areas will be different enough so that strategies and
game play will vary, but it’s equally important for players to
understand where they are to orient themselves and coordinate with
other players.
|
| |
|
|
However, I think you listed mostly rules. Only 2, 4 and 10 to me are principles. They reflect ideas, purpose and goals of design elements. They are the the answer to othe question "Why did you put that there?" Anything else depends on the context; which game and what gametype. The others only answer what was done, not why it was done.
It's a DM level I made earlier in this year, if anybody has the game, feedback is appreciated. Thanks.
http://forums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?p=26675255#post26675255
http://gearsforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=589810
My personal belief is that this is very difficult to do and you are better off designing levels for specific uses and avoiding reuse for alternative game-play if possible.
5. Provide multiple paths and differentiate them with different risks and rewards."
Building more routes is more than building options, it's building possibilities and strategy. If you have solid and balanced mechanics from the gameplay point of view (ex.: there's no dominant gameplay strategy, such as:
a) weapon X always wins against weapon Y;
b) players in vehicles always win against on-foot players; or
c) two players always win against one player),
then one reason to choose one route against other is the surprise advantage (for games which allow such gameplay strategy).
"6. High vantage points should not also have ammo and wide line of fire."
Not only for heights. Again, the balance factor, every place and route in the map should account for balance in advantages and weaknesses. In the sniper position case, from where can the other player fight against that position? What does the player wins and loses by camping there, what are the incentives to stay and the incentives to leave? Are some things to think about. I like having two sniping places which often can duel against each other, a cover-vs-fov balance, one or two counter strategies, and a good "bait" asking the player out (which can also be the simple lack of ammunition).
My tips are:
Test your map very much, search for as many strategies as you can, write down every idea you had.
1. There will be things you'll find possible that shouldn't be. Make them not possible.
2. There will be interesting strategies that you had as ideas, but aren't possible. Make them possible.
3. There will be places and routes too powerful against others. Balance them, give them weaknesses and allow counter strategies.
4. Give players clues and incentive for good strategies, showing why your level stands out, this way you're giving better adversaries and better matches for everyone.
5. Spread the advantages around, so no part of your level will become a desert place. Give reason for your players to explore the level.
6. Test, tweak, test, tweak...
This leads to some really nasty battles in the middle and sets an immediate precedence since the choke-point owner can have the advantage, but it's an advantage that is hard to hold since it is equidistant to both home bases and seldom has abundant ammo nearby. This is also a good place to drop the game's power item, giving even more reason to try and own the center.
"Break any and all rules whenever it benefits the experience."
Some games really work better the way you said. Some games don't. And most will benefit from having different maps with diferent strategies. I know you know it, it's to complete the thought and the page. lol
@Andrew
That's true, no rule has been such since ever, they all came from things that benefit the experience very often. But not always, that's why testing and seeking where the best experience is so you can support it, is so important.
#) Paths should at times overlap, intersect or have views onto each other. This helps players intercept, ambush or otherwise converge on each other.
@Andrew Re: Breaking Rules - This seems to be a common concern among game designers. I'm not sure what that says about our personalities. LOL I will reiterate though that designs that break a rule best do it for a good reason, and that's why these are guidelines.
@Trevor Re: Map ReUse - I tend to make maps geared toward a specific match type, though inevitably my boss will want all maps to support all match types. It's not that hard to plan for this in the early stages. When there's a conflict, I have been known to alter the geometry slightly for a particular match type. The same principle applies when planning on how to handle variances in player population.