Pages: 1

 

2009-07-24 07:51:06
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7109
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4 … t_zone.php

The Combat Zone is a reference to the area of gameplay within a level designated for battle. This is a broad term and doesn't necessarily imply explicit, physical boundaries... though in some cases it can. In either case, the LD creates areas of expected battle with various gameplay support; enemies, cover objects, destructibles, impassable points, flanking positions, etc. The layout and placement carries the expectation that the player will have to battle through the area -- in essence, the presentation of the core gameplay.
though the article seems to be focused on single player design, some of the points do apply to multiplayer design as well.

as one commenter points out, in multiplayer maps often times the combat zone is the entire map [or if it isn't, it bloody well should be]. this was a problem with many bf2 maps - there are many areas which are essentially 'dead zones' with little tactical value. part of this is a result of the sheer size of bf2 maps, but spawn placement and controlling player traffic have a lot to do with it as well.

# The Run and Gunner will likely shoot their way across the trench, taking cover only when necessary.
# The Ninja will likely climb up and jump across all the cover objects, making their way across the playfield.
# The Camper will likely look for a safe spot atop the catwalk to snipe the enemies from afar
the author advocates explicitly designing level elements to cater to each kind of player. i tend to think more in terms of tactical options - not only should there be ways to do all of the above, but there should be easy transitions between them. i don't want to be defined as a 'ninja' simply because i've moved onto the 'ninja part' of the map, i want to have all my options open.

what do you think are some of the critical elements in a good map?
2009-07-24 08:02:39
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6910|London, England
It all goes to hell once you throw in destructible maps. Just the way I like it
2009-07-24 08:33:19
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7109
destructible maps are a whole other bag.

just because your engine supports destructible maps, doesn't excuse you as the designer to make a good map.

as the architecture breaks down, it's even more important to plan ahead. there is never total destruction - you have to ensure that as the buildings crumble, what's left is still a good map.
2009-07-24 08:43:14
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6818|Global Command
Shouldn't this be in tech, or games?
2009-07-24 08:49:33
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7005
I have been modding bf2 for almost 4 years and i think that the reason maps like karkand are so popular because the the flags and fighting are close quarters and you are always in the action(and there are places to duck into)...

   And when i make maps it's hard to know what map will be more fun than another... Maps i thought should be a lot of fun aren't played as much.... and other maps i thought wouldn't be that fun end up being a blast... Choke points can make maps fun also...(like the bridge on karkand)
   Destructible environments don't do it for me.... It doesn't seem to add much other than blowing shit up... which can be fun i guess.
Love is the answer
2009-07-24 08:53:16
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6910|London, England
I didn't know Catbox was a mapper...


I've always thought that maps should just try to maintain a level of realism and be believable, and let the gameplay just revolve around that. Like how in the new Operation Flashpoint, they simply just recreated the whole Island to almost real life and just said "let people deal with it as they would"
2009-07-24 09:08:43
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7109

Mekstizzle wrote:

I've always thought that maps should just try to maintain a level of realism and be believable, and let the gameplay just revolve around that. Like how in the new Operation Flashpoint, they simply just recreated the whole Island to almost real life and just said "let people deal with it as they would"
i actually think that's kind of lazy. but then again i'm not a big fan of realism in games.

you are a game DESIGNER, so design something. hiding behind 'realism' and 'sandbox' doesn't excuse you from creating a framework for people to have a good time in your level.
2009-07-24 09:52:20
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7005

Mekstizzle wrote:

I didn't know Catbox was a mapper...


I've always thought that maps should just try to maintain a level of realism and be believable, and let the gameplay just revolve around that. Like how in the new Operation Flashpoint, they simply just recreated the whole Island to almost real life and just said "let people deal with it as they would"
I have a map almost done for a DST battle...  working on custom billboards and tweaks of map... hope to have it done before BF5 comes out,...lol
Love is the answer
2009-07-24 09:58:43
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6757
One thing though is that there needs to be a way for a sneaky player to be able to get behind the enemies and do damage in the back. The reason I hate Karkand so much is that it's impossible to flank on that maps when there are more than 32 people playing.

Also the other BF2 maps have multiple choke points and Kill-zones open at once, where as Karkand only has really one large kill zone at once. When you start to get very large populations it makes it impossible for a single soldier, or even a small group of soldiers, to accomplish anything and it ends up being a failmate with no side able to effectively push, and the linear nature of the map make it even harder to flank.
2009-07-24 09:59:46
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6938

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

I didn't know Catbox was a mapper...


I've always thought that maps should just try to maintain a level of realism and be believable, and let the gameplay just revolve around that. Like how in the new Operation Flashpoint, they simply just recreated the whole Island to almost real life and just said "let people deal with it as they would"
I have a map almost done for a DST battle...  working on custom billboards and tweaks of map... hope to have it done before BF5 comes out,...lol
Can you add a billboard saying "ghettoperson is an asshole" to the map? I will definitely play in this game then.
2009-07-24 10:08:09
13rin
Member
+977|6768

Mekstizzle wrote:

I didn't know Catbox was a mapper...


I've always thought that maps should just try to maintain a level of realism and be believable, and let the gameplay just revolve around that. Like how in the new Operation Flashpoint, they simply just recreated the whole Island to almost real life and just said "let people deal with it as they would"
He's even got a character cameo in the AIX mod.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2009-07-24 10:14:44
Scratch[USA]
Member
+105|6836

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

I didn't know Catbox was a mapper...


I've always thought that maps should just try to maintain a level of realism and be believable, and let the gameplay just revolve around that. Like how in the new Operation Flashpoint, they simply just recreated the whole Island to almost real life and just said "let people deal with it as they would"
He's even got a character cameo in the AIX mod.
Was going to point this out as well. 
Sometimes I like to stat pad on Catbox in AIX
2009-07-24 12:08:48
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7109

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

When you start to get very large populations it makes it impossible for a single soldier, or even a small group of soldiers, to accomplish anything and it ends up being a failmate with no side able to effectively push, and the linear nature of the map make it even harder to flank.
this is pretty much true whenever you start to get a large amount of players in a game, regardless of the map. especially in a game like bf2, where the majority of players are meant to be fodder for the lucky few in vehicles. this discussion about game scale is for another thread though.

by comparison, most CoD maps are circular [metaphorically] instead of linear, in the sense that almost every point in the map has at least 2 exits and is always open to being flanked. there are a lot of things i don't like about CoD, but they have consistently gotten this right in their maps throughout the series. deathmatch games in general [to which the original CoD belongs] tend to have circular maps. they fit the backdrop of an 'arena' better, and are much more suited to free-for-all type gameplay.

there are also alternatives to flanking as a means to reduce the effectiveness of camping a chokepoint. you can discourage it simply by placing resources away from the chokepoint - powerups, vehicles [which are basically powerups in disguise] and objectives. this way, a player can still enjoy a tactical advantage in a chokepoint, but he has to lure his opponents there first. and if he stays there too long he will be at a disadvantage overall.
2009-07-25 01:06:05
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7004|US

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

One thing though is that there needs to be a way for a sneaky player to be able to get behind the enemies and do damage in the back. The reason I hate Karkand so much is that it's impossible to flank on that maps when there are more than 32 people playing.
That is not neccessarily true, it just gets more difficult.  A two-man team can flank the city very effectively.

Honestly, I don't like the circular map design of a lot of CoD levels.  The "arena" feeling just doesn't work for me.  Give me some opportunity to improvise my routes.  Small unit tactics > run 'n gun

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-07-25 01:07:42)

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard