Level Design Unoffical Mapping FAQ (w/ Map Scale!)

[FlashPanHunter]

QFT the things said about big capzones. They represent territory that must be fought over, and nothing is more artificial than being forced to capture tiny, strategically unimportant, dangerous, uncovered spot. Rather, you should be sharing the capzone with the enemy, with the only way you're going capture is by pushing the enemy back.

 

[Hyperion2010]

Would that mean that the cap would go exponentially slower the more enemies there were in the area? That would really help make capzones more realistic (forcing teams to actually attack to take the zone not just sit there and "brute force" their way to a cap which can get annoyingly unrealisitc ATM).

 

[UncleDrax]

Would that mean that the cap would go exponentially slower the more enemies there were in the area? That would really help make capzones more realistic (forcing teams to actually attack to take the zone not just sit there and "brute force" their way to a cap which can get annoyingly unrealisitc ATM).

IIRC; The way it worked in the mod is simply the that if the enemy has more guys then you do in a cap zone, there is no progress on the bar.
But, if it's something where they have 15 guys, and you have 16 guys in the zone, I imagine the bar would move, but move slowly. In reality, you'll never have that high a count in a zone of any size, and also some of the guys will be getting killed.

I can agree with the large cap zone idea.. the maps I released for the mod followed that idea for the most part.

 

[Witzig]

But, if it's something where they have 15 guys, and you have 16 guys in the zone, I imagine the bar would move, but move slowly. In reality, you'll never have that high a count in a zone of any size, and also some of the guys will be getting killed.

Yes, but you come close to it on StalingradKessel (one of my favourite Nontank Maps actually).

 

[WickedPenguin]

Yes, please stay away from creating useless objectives.

What I ask myself when I'm mapping: Would I send my soldiers to die for this objective?

Examples:
* High ground: Hill, tower, or commanding structure
* Advancement objectives: Bridges, major highway
* Organizational importance: Command center, command bunker, trench lines
* Enemy weapon emplacements: AT guns, Flak guns, artillery

In other words, things that help your own unit's cause or make things easier for other "imaginary" units. For example, if you capture a flak battery, it will allow your bombers to attack. Or if you cap the AT gun, your armor will be able to advance.

 

[SasQuatch]

My advices as normal player:
- If possible: No moving spawns. If the distances are getting too long, put some transports there. Moving spawns bring a whole shitload of problems concerning spawncamp, confusion and map balance.

I disagree whole heartedly

Do use moving spawns. Use them wisely.

Moving spawns are an excellent addition to the incentive to gain or keep objectives. They also provide a real feeling of progress in a battle.
Aside from that they really really make it possible to keep the pase of your map high. I've seen maps in the past that have a really really slow pase, up to the point where you wonder if anyone is still playing actually.
Also, moving spawns can minimize the back in action time for both sides.

However, Masasa does have a point: Use them wisely, and design proper spawns.
Prevent spawncamping, secure balance. Problems are there to be solved however Masasa, not avoided if possible. A good level designer will be able to use foreward spawns in his map's favor. I consider not using foreward spawn in a map design flaw usually, or a missed opportunity at best, unless the battle is head on straight simple.

Providing transport instead isn't a good idea as basic gameplay feature. You'll need to add loads and loads of them, because your map flow is in danger of people running off by themselves with a HT for instance, leaving many players waiting in their spawn or running enormous distances to the battle.

 

[DingBat]

Besides objective placement, spawn area selection and configuration is probably THE most important factor influencing gameplay on a level. If your spawns are messed up, the level isn't likely to be a success.

At least, that's my experience. And I've made some pretty impressive mistakes with spawns.

 

[Witzig]

So a question from a Mapping Noob (i might want to dabble in it), all i need to create a Map using the Wealth of Static Meshes from the RO Designers, is the RO SDK ?

I just want to be sure

 

[SasQuatch]

So a question from a Mapping Noob (i might want to dabble in it), all i need to create a Map using the Wealth of Static Meshes from the RO Designers, is the RO SDK ?

I just want to be sure

Yep.

 

[masasa]

I agree with you SasQuatch. There are maps that do the foward spawning right(RedGodOfWar, Aksay, Krasny) and maps that open the door for exploiting by using foward spawns(Mga, RedSquare). I'm surprised how well the foward spawning works in Kaukasus even though it opens so many chances for spawn camp.

But usually the maps that have only one spawn are more popular(Koitos, Berlin, Jucha...).

I would hope that there would be maps where the distances are greater. I was thinking a solution to the problem with the transports. Ideal situation would be that the spawn timer would be long(so many people would spawn at the same time) and that everytime people would spawn the unmanned halftracks around the map would be destroyed and spawned again with the new reinforcement wave. I don't know if this is possible. And I'm not sure if these kind of maps would be popular, at least they would be something different.

 

[REZ]

Hi

This is the Level Design FAQ page I know, but I would like to throw in some suggestions from a players point of view for the map/level designers out there. (didnt want to start a whole new thread for this.)

In my opinion, the maps with interactive environments and dual cap styles are always the best. Kessel is a good example of interactive environments with the destroyable walls and doors. Maps like Kharkov(sp?) with the road blocks n such, are great fun. Then, you have maps like Karlovka which are great with the dual cap styles, for example having to blow the road blocks and then cap the bridge and farm in a traditional way. If you could combine these features in a creative, outside of the box way, we might have ourselves a really interesting battleground.

I could think of a scenario where there is a power relay/transformer in a town that isnt an objective, but it's destroyable. If you destroy it (which is your choice to do so or not) it has an affect on the map, like maybe, cutting out the lights in a factory/repair shop that is an objective, therefore making it harder to see the enemy enter, and making it harder for the attacker to see the defender. (or even just kill the lights along a street, allowing easier movement). Or something to that effect.

On a combined arms map, you could make say, 3-4 routes through a villiage (like Ruekzug) and have one of the buildings walls destroyable so that the debris falls out into the street, blocking off that route from tanks (though not an objective). Little things like that for you to interact with the environment, that then have an effect on the playing field, making it easier/harder for the defending/attacking team. Of course, keep the gameplay/flow simple enough, but with complex interactive environments, and mixed cap styles. Straight up traditional capping is good if the flow of the map is right, ala Koitos, but that can get really boring in a hurry.

Also..... static usable mortars added to the mix would bring even another dimension to the fun


masasa, the way you described the unmanned vehicles respawning with the players might not work, because if I jump out of my Half-Track for a few seconds with the intention of jumping back in.... turn around and *POOF* my ride is gone. You see what I mean.... but I do like your idea of larger more open maps. Arad and, believe it or not, Perekop are a couple of my faves, they just need more transportation for the footsies. (part of that is more responsible use of people movers by the players. Just one guy moving out in a truck isnt exactly using the truck to its full potential. I'm guilty of this.)

 

[masasa]

Yeah, you are right about the transports REZ. Seeing vehicles disappearing isn't that fun anyway. I don't know, I just would like to see big maps, transports or not. In WW2Online it is no big deal to move to your objective great distances(1 km is considered a very short distance), but I guess that RO just isn't that kind of game. People want constant action. When in RO you decide to flank around the street corner to get to your objective, in WW2Online you flank through the forest.

About your idea of interactive maps. The ideas really sound cool. But of course mappers should watch out that they don't try to put too many things to one map.

 

[UncleDrax]

Hi

This is the Level Design FAQ page I know, but I would like to throw in some suggestions from a players point of view for the map/level designers out there. (didnt want to start a whole new thread for this.)

Heh.. it's turning into a sorta Mapper Discussion thread.. I'll probably do something about it if it gets to off topic or there is alot of 'ideas for maps' types things.. but until then I'm not worried about it. ;]

 

[[TW]DrGuppy]

Here's a few tips I try to follow to when making maps, although I haven't been doing this for that long.

- When testing your map try to exploit and cheat, there's always someone who will so it's better to catch the problem yourself.

- Try not to have events happen the same way each time. If you make this really cool dogfight sequence where at the end one plane crashes into a building and explodes every single time you cap a certain objective it will get old very quickly. Instead make it have a 50% chance of happening when you cap the objective and/or make the plane miss the building or not explode. When your event does happen people will appreciate it much more because it isn't expected and overdone.

- Like Penguin mentioned before; make objectives make sense. Fighting over a pile of rubble in the middle of a field shouldn't be an objective because it's not worth fighting for. To make the objective even more convincing have certain events happen after an objective is capped. For example once you satchel the 88's have a few high flying bombers fly over. This does absolutely nothing to change the gameplay but is an easy way to add a little realism and purpose to the objective.

- Always try new things and practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, etc.!

 

[REZ]

Yeah, I have alot more ideas floating around in my head, but I'd rather play than design . I just hope designers of future levels take those sort of things into account, because traditional capping alone can get stale.

With STJs Iron Annie, we saw a very creative way of spawning (big up to STJ). If I remember correctly, people loved that. If we can continue to come up with creative and different ways of spawning and capping, it will keep the game fresh that much longer. Atmosphere, its all about the atmosphere. (well, and gameplay/flow too )

(I should mention Grosbill in here too, because in Kolberg he had those tunnels and that spire that would fall... those things are really cool to see in the middle of battle... keep up the creative thinking!!

)

 

[UncleDrax]

- Always try new things and practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, etc.!

I have to agree with the 'try new things'.. worst thing that can happen by you experiementing is to crash your editor.. most the time you will definately learn something, and you can usually pull that new knowledge to good use creating a new level feature of special effect.

What I do when I'm playing with an idea or building a new structure/feature/whatever is to create an entirely seperate level for it.. do the construction/whatever there.. get it working how I want, THEN import it into the real level.. I do this for a few reasons: Build times are alot shorter if you don't have the rest of your level do build as well, you don't have the interference of all the extra lines of your level as well, and if somethign goes horribly wrong, it's isolated.

Re: Practice. Definately agree.. To the newcomers, don't expect the first BSP cubes you subtract to lay down to be a block-buster custom map..

One other thing I like to do (and it's actually a pet peeve of mine to not do)... the Editor has Grouping features that lets you selectively turn on/off areas of your level you assign to a group.
This is an excellent way to keep your work space clean, and enable you to quickly find that particular staticmesh/whatever you are working on now.

 

[Antigen]

If you make destroyable objects such as bridges and walls, do you have to make an animation for it as well(when it is being destroyed)?

 

[DingBat]

If you make destroyable objects such as bridges and walls, do you have to make an animation for it as well(when it is being destroyed)?

You need 3 things for a destroyable object:

1. The mesh, in it's original form.
2. The mesh, in it's damaged/destroyed form.
3. Some sort of emitter effect.

Now, 2 and 3 are optional.

If you want your mesh to be completely destroyed (say, like a gas can), there's no need for a damaged mesh.

If the mesh is to be damaged by something that already has a significant "effect" attached to it, such as a satchel charge, then there's no need for any additional effect.

So, depending on what you do, you can get away with just the original mesh.

I've got a tutorial all ready to go on all of this for the SDK.

 

[DingBat]

One other thing I like to do (and it's actually a pet peeve of mine to not do)... the Editor has Grouping features that lets you selectively turn on/off areas of your level you assign to a group.
This is an excellent way to keep your work space clean, and enable you to quickly find that particular staticmesh/whatever you are working on now.

Word.

There's NOTHING I hate more than opening a map and seeing a view cluttered by volumes, spawn volumes, no-artillery volumes, objective volumes, anti-portals, etc, etc. Put the things into groups so I can clear the view and concentrate on what I'm doing.

 

[SasQuatch]

Word.

There's NOTHING I hate more than opening a map and seeing a view cluttered by volumes, spawn volumes, no-artillery volumes, objective volumes, anti-portals, etc, etc. Put the things into groups so I can clear the view and concentrate on what I'm doing.

I think it looks sexeh