A few Thoughts for ALL Mappers

[Mike_Nomad]

Please, and this is friendly, from the heart, advice after a full day of observation. For all mappers, please, give strong consideration to balance of play in each of your maps.

This is a GAME, not a history lesson. The competition among mappers is presumably to provide the best gameplay possible within a WW2 time frame with accuracy. I hope the competition is not to see who can come up with the best history lesson. I want to believe this is not the case.

I saw a coupla maps today blow out a full server TWICE after they were running for a short while because of anemic weapons and vehicle loadouts along with heavy bias toward either the Russians or Germans.

It is very sad to see that when you have 10 or more people per side and are able to accommodate them with vehicles and weapons map-wise, and then suddenly they're thrust into a map that's obviously pre-decided but "Historically Accurate". They quit and leave saying they'll be back when they can enjoy themselves.

Seeing them stand around waiting for a tank or a weapon is pitiful. Then they give up in disgust and split. This must be taken seriously, as it can effect the future of your maps and RO itself. If we get too carried away with the History Lessons we will eventually bore people to tears. The maps in question were gorgeous to view but definitely not Combined Arms and certainly, NOT balanced. Its a game fellas, remember... its a game meant to entertain, not teach or showcase anyone's historical knowledge and expertise.

Offering a "Combined Arms" map with a few token tanks per side is ok but it will not be a winner among admins who see server participation dwindle. Please mappers, give this due consideration. You may very well have the deciding factors of the future before you.

[sandorski]

Agree. Mappers should clearly name their Maps as either Realistic(I assume the use of "Realism" is such a naming convention) or Balanced(sure I've seen this used). They should also consider making 2 versions of their Map(s) one Realistic and one Balanced. That way all can enjoy their work.

[[TW]DrGuppy]

It's really not that hard to do both, and I think for a game like Red Orchestra mappers should strive for both. There are a ton of tools you have to work with to get a historically accurate map that has a 50% win percentage for both sides. Personally if a map is lacking too much in either department I won't play it.

To expand on the tools a little... let's say your map features a surrounded group of partisans against an armoured division of tanks. Sounds pretty unbalanced right? Not at all, IF you use some creative thinking. Perhaps the partisans only have rifles and small arms but give them a lot of reinforcements, have their spawn time shorter, give them good defensive positions, have the background the same colour as their uniform, make the map timer in their favour, etc. There's a lot of ways to achieve both historical accuracy and balance for ANY map idea. You might just have to get a little creative, that's all.

[Luther]

Realism, Balanced......

Any map can be unbalanced, it is just down to the players skill. Examples are Muddy Tigers, as Allies I find it easy since in Australia, team work is played out on every map. Just last night Allies couldn't cap the bridge for 2 matches, So I get a BOF going then they start making a push. What I am trying to say is are you going to hand feed people with 'balanced' maps when it's there skill that is at fault?

Seeing them stand around waiting for a tank or a weapon is pitiful. Then they give up in disgust and split.

Get a better connection!

Offering a "Combined Arms" map with a few token tanks per side is ok but it will not be a winner among admins who see server participation dwindle.

Can't get enough of these in Australia.

I can't see the problem in making historical accurate map with great gameplay. Look at Kuzernki were there is a tank for the Germans but Anti-tank guns to compensate.

[Mike_Nomad]

Luther, are we talking about the same things???

Realism, Balanced......

Any map can be unbalanced, it is just down to the players skill. Examples are Muddy Tigers, as Allies I find it easy since in Australia, team work is played out on every map. Just last night Allies couldn't cap the bridge for 2 matches, So I get a BOF going then they start making a push. What I am trying to say is are you going to hand feed people with 'balanced' maps when it's there skill that is at fault?

What Bridge??? Hello?? There are NO bridges in Muddy Tigers.

Seeing them stand around waiting for a tank or a weapon is pitiful. Then they give up in disgust and split.
Get a better connection!

Connection has nothing to do with waiting for a vehicle to spawn. They're waiting for someone to get killed so they can grab the vehicle.

Offering a "Combined Arms" map with a few token tanks per side is ok but it will not be a winner among admins who see server participation dwindle.
Can't get enough of these in Australia.

Neither can we! All we ask is that they be genuine Combined Arms maps not after thoughts.

I can't see the problem in making historical accurate map with great gameplay. Look at Kuzernki were there is a tank for the Germans but Anti-tank guns to compensate.

And that map is 10x smaller than those we are discussing. Apples and Oranges.

[[TW]DrGuppy]

Errr... just noticed this is in the Beta Map Releases forum. Why? It should be moved to Level Design please mods.

[Mike_Nomad]

Originally Posted by DrGuppy

Errr... just noticed this is in the Beta Map Releases forum. Why? It should be moved to Level Design please mods.

Good Idea!

[Slyk]

Mappers should be making the maps they want to make. How much community input they consider is their choice. I never agreed with multiple versions of the same map. If a guy wants to ****** his map to hell then that's his choice. There are obvious design concepts like if you have two tanks you probably shouldn't have more than 4 and no way more than 6 tanker roles etc. At the same time, you don't want enough transport vehicles that every soldier has their own. It is a balance of concept.

At the same time, players hold a certain responsibility to work as a team. One or two 'rambo' types on a team can ruin a game for all. Mappers can't account for all the a$$hats.

The other thing that just annoys the $hit out of me is all the crybaby bull over perfect 'balance'. What the heck is wrong with a challenge? I see no problem with maps that put one team or the other to the test. Sure, both teams need a chance to win, but why 50/50? Too many fat kids loosing baseball games and getting ice cream and pizza anyway, if you ask me.

Guppy made a good example above. Balance comes in many forms, it isn't always my Tiger for your IS. Mappers need to be aware of many factors, but I still believe they should make the maps/scenarios they want. If people don't like them, they certainly don't have to play them but it doesn't mean the mapper isn't proud of their accomplishment.

[Mike_Nomad]

Originally Posted by Slyk

If people don't like them, they certainly don't have to play them but it doesn't mean the mapper isn't proud of their accomplishment.

Very true.... Players do not have to play them and Admins are not obliged to put them in rotation.

As for pride, we all know that's a very personal thing. Like the adage goes, "one man's meat is another man's poison". So, as in real life, it all boils down to choices. If the right choices are made, the map will be a robust success. If not, its a ho-hum has been that's soon cast aside.

For the most part I agree with you Slyk.. My only contention is the map designs. For what is worth, notice how Muddy Tigers. Orel, BDJ and Berezina fill up a server in no time at all. That's not an accident. People enjoy those maps. The maps have what they want. Same with Danzig, Lazur and a number of other Infantry Only maps. Watch and see how Zhitomir becomes a big hit... it has excellent player appeal, balance, playability and eye candy.

Balance is extremely important. I don't believe in a 50/50 balance anymore than you do. However, I do believe in common sense and balance. A challenge is healthy and entertaining as long as its not taken to the ridiculous extreme. Just look back at the uproars over certain heavily biased maps in the recent past.

Player likes and dislikes must be taken into consideration to a reasonable degree. I remember a certain developer who said "we'll make it the way we want it to be...." oddly enough they did and it was a resounding flop! They called it POS2 - thats CoD2 to the uninitiated.

It sold nowhere near what UO and original CoD sold.. why? I think it was because it lacked developer consideration as to what the players/consumers/users/mappers/modders really wanted. Seems I remember you telling Collier that too, just like I and many others did.

[SchutzeSepp]

i think you made this thread because of my map firstly(pariserplatz), if on my map you have 16 good players vs 16 other good players you will see the allied team win every time. but the problem is that there always seem to be 30% more players on axis side (maybe because of the new uniforms??) and the more "tactically skilled" players will chose the axis side because it is a greater challenge.
the first version was balanced on paper, but the axis side was always more populated so they had no trouble keeping the russians back, untill they themselves ran out of reinforcements. and winning because the other team is out of reinforcements is not pleasant.
this new version IMHO is not balanced on paper, but on the terrain it is.
and the battle is really tough for both sides, if one of the teams wins it won't be because they had more tanks or better guns, but because they played better.

[Solo4114]

Mike, we've had our disagreements in the past, but on this point I'm 100% behind you. Balance is key, BUT it need not be "mirror image/2fort" style balance.

Slyk's Berezina is probably the best balanced attack/defense map I've played in RO. He GETS it. Balance can come from any number of sources, such as reinforcement counts, positioning, time on the clock, reinforcement RATES (IE: how fast X, Y, or Z respawns), arty availability, and so on.

That said, people will undoubtedly have different senses of what is or isn't "balanced", but I think mappers can probably figure out what qualifies as "balanced".

I'll also say this: bear in mind who your audience is. On public servers (the bulk of the RO playerbase), people are joining without knowing a lot of other folks on the server, and without any sense of trust, experience with each other, etc. They are more likely going to do their own thing a lot of the time. That doesn't mean that you throw the notion of "You need teamwork to win this map" out the window, but it does mean you have to relax WHAT is required of the teams.

Coordinated, timed attacks by the entire team? Not likely to happen on a pub server. Clan wars, absolutely, but not on a pub. Small unit (IE: max 6 players) coordination? Sure, that could happen and frequently does. Try to map with this in mind. Also, bear in mind that there's nothing wrong with releasing a "clan/competitive" version of a map alongside a "pub" version. Often only small things need changing to do this well.


As a separate note, "Historical Accuracy"...yarr, well, it be more of a guideline, ye see. Historical accuracy is great. Obviously we don't want a 1942 map with STG44s in it, right? But at the same time, "Historical Accuracy" should not mean "Foregone Conclusion" or "Only braindead [Russians/Germans] can lose this map." Don't stack the deck so that you're guaranteed a particular outcome. That's a map that'll fall out of rotation REAL quickly.

We can all go pick up a history book (or turn on the History Channel) if we want to. I don't know anyone who finds it a lot of fun to join a team that's guaranteed to lose. So, rather than ensuring that the outcome of a battle will be as it was in real life, give us a map where both sides, at the start, have an even chance to win (albeit not necessarily identical equipment, positioning, etc.).

Keep in mind also that you want to give people MULTIPLE ways to succeed on a lot of maps. If there is only ONE effective way for a team to win the map, try to provide them with the time/manpower to do it, with the expectation that the other team will know exactly what's needed to counter this and therefore may deserve to be at SOME kind of disadvantage.

For example, Tula Outskirts has the Germans crossing a ton of open ground, in dark uniforms against a white background, while the Russians are dug into bunkers, stationary, with white uniforms against a white background. The Russians CAN be beaten if the Germans take a side route that provides more cover and can flank the Russians, but if every German is doing this, guess where every Russian will be? That's right -- waiting for them on the flank.

So, in that case, one way to balance it would be to give the Germans plenty of time and reinforcements to do the job, while the Russians have to debate how hard they'll defend a specific position and how many lives they're willing to spend to do it (given limited reinforcements).

This, incidentally, is why Berezina works so well -- the Germans have a TERRIBLE disadvantage in positioning, and their tanks are weak against the bulk of the Russian armor. They also have a LOT of ground to cover. BUT, they have the advantage of time and reinforcements, and the tools they do have are enough to get the job done. The Russians need to make calculated decisions on how long to defend positions before falling back, and where they should fall back to -- do they defend the AT guns and West Bank, or fall back to the prepared defenses of the East Bank? Do they try to hold the first line? For how long? What about the farm? A token defense there, or put all your eggs in the 2nd Line basket?

That's balance, AND it's historically accurate enough to make the game feel real.

[Xendance]

"As a separate note, "Historical Accuracy"...yarr, well, it be more of a guideline, ye see. Historical accuracy is great. Obviously we don't want a 1942 map with STG44s in it, right? But at the same time, "Historical Accuracy" should not mean "Foregone Conclusion" or "Only braindead [Russians/Germans] can lose this map." Don't stack the deck so that you're guaranteed a particular outcome. That's a map that'll fall out of rotation REAL quickly."

But then if you wanted a wide variety of weapons you would always have to play a map where the axis are defending -_-

[Solo4114]

For small arms this is true. But not so for tanks (if people want to implement early war tanks, that is).

But, what's it matter if you can't play with all the toys when the actual gameplay and map are fun? And the flipside of that is, who cares if you have "cool toys" to use, if you're stuck using them on a crappy map? I mean, if I'm playing a map where there's tons of toys to choose from, but the map still ****s, well, I'm not gonna be playing it for very long. I can play with the toys all I want in practice mode.

[SchutzeSepp]

i agree with you that "historical accuracy is only a guideline" but it's not just the type of weapons or the tanks that make a map historically accurate. on my berlin1945 map i cant give the germans unlimited tanks, artillery or big reinforcements.

on some maps like tactical snowyforest you know that if you pick the german side you will have a harder time, and maybe it's because i am from a small country but i always chose the weaker side. because the satisfaction of winning is so much more intense when you are on the weak side.
when you play on maps where from the start you know there is a 50% chance of winning, there is no real challenge. and people go like "they won because they had 2 more players" or " we only lost because we had a teamkiller"

[U3BAPuHCKUU*_4yBAK]

I also advice all mappers:


please, make zones zolumes in maps, it help communication greatly.

(when you use We need help command, it should show WHERE actually you need help, not just <mapname> )

[Solo4114]

Originally Posted by SchutzeSepp

i agree with you that "historical accuracy is only a guideline" but it's not just the type of weapons or the tanks that make a map historically accurate. on my berlin1945 map i cant give the germans unlimited tanks, artillery or big reinforcements.

on some maps like tactical snowyforest you know that if you pick the german side you will have a harder time, and maybe it's because i am from a small country but i always chose the weaker side. because the satisfaction of winning is so much more intense when you are on the weak side.
when you play on maps where from the start you know there is a 50% chance of winning, there is no real challenge. and people go like "they won because they had 2 more players" or " we only lost because we had a teamkiller"

Well, to me, the alternative to a map where you've got an even chance of winning at the start is a map where it's a foregone conclusion who's going to win. Or at least where one side pretty much has to be morons to lose and/or the other side has to be a crack commando unit to win.

I actually think there's MORE challenge in a map that's 50/50 as to who'll win because you're actually fighting the other players instead of fighting the map, as it were. Think about it for a second.

Let's say I play a map where my team has no MGs, no sniper rifle, no semi-autos, and only rifles and SMGs. We've got no artillery support, and we have to cross 500m of wide-open field to attack a dug-in trench system, against a team that has a sniper, an MG, several semi-autos, and the usual rifles and SMGs as well. They also have artillery support. The reinforcements for both teams are equal (let's say approximately 200 respawns per side), and we've got 12 minutes to take the position. And we're running uphill in white uniforms against a dark grey background, while the enemy is barely visible.

Now, is it POSSIBLE for my team to win? Sure, if EVERYONE charges at once AND we have a squad leader who gives us smoke cover AND everyone on the other side is a lousy shot. But pretty much, it's a guaranteed victory for the defenders, barring some major catastrophe (IE: a TKer). But who really won here? Was it the defenders' skill that won the day, or was it simply the fact that they had all four aces and a fifth up their sleeve the second they selected the defending side? Did they really accomplish anything in winning? Should the attackers figure that the clock running out with +10% reinforcements on their side, and 40% reinforcements on the defending side is a "victory" of sorts, given the odds? Who really wants to deal with that kind of stuff?

Me, I'd much rather know that it was the skill (or lack thereof) of the team that won the day, not the ineherent imbalances in the map. I like the uncertainty of NOT knowing who'll win the second I load in, because that means my contribution to the team may make a real difference. If I'm the defenders on the hypothetical map, I probably haven't done a ton to help my team that they couldn't have done on their own. Likewise, if I'm on the attacking side, no matter how hard I'm fighting, I'm still getting beaten BY THE MAP, rather than the skill of the other team. In a game that gives its players a LOT more control over their weapons -- specifically to emphasize skill -- why bother playing a round where your skill matters a lot less because the deck was stacked against you from the get-go?


In the end, though, I suppose it doesn't matter. Mappers will do whatever they want, but admins won't run maps that people don't find fun. If a mapper wants to take the chance that his map will simply be discarded and never get played, well, that's their choice.

[spraduke]

Balance is and always will be the hardest factor for any map designer and it can make or break a map.

Despite on Tula having the objectives equal distance from either teams spawn there is an obvious defensive bias. I was always worried that it would be one sided yet I have seen the map go either way so many times its impossible to say if it truely is slanted in one teams favour or not.

I will get axis players moaning its impossible, get allied players moaning its impossible however whenever i choose the side claiming its possible suddenly its not so impossible .

One advantage "hard" maps have is it does force people to use teamwork. They may not enjoy it straight off but once they figure whats going on they appreciate winning all the more.

I certainly feel more accomplishment on berezina as axis if we win (not by reinforcements) because you know youve worked damn hard to do it.

[SchutzeSepp]

please don't think i want to make outbalanced maps, on my maps i make it so that it is the players themselves who balance the game.
on many (if not all) new maps, you oftenly see that when the defending team wins, it is because they played agressively. and attacked the attackers instead of defending. so the battles are always fought and won on the same small part of the map.
on my map, if the defenders play agressive, they will lose everytime because they don't have the resources to fight agressively for 25 minutes. if the enemy takes a objective, the defenders must not try to re-take it, as they will lose to many soldiers in the attempt. and the map is nearly always won or lost on the last objective. wich i once held for 6 minutes with the 3 last germans vs 16 russians wich kept respawning!
it is the players themselves who by their behaviour balance the game.
so if the russians play good they have a good chance, and if the germans play good also they have an equal chance

[Solo4114]

Well, I look at it from the perspective of someone who's part of running a public-oriented, non-clan server. Most of the time, pub players aren't going to naturally organize. A few will, maybe like a 5-man squad, but most will just do their own thing.

In a lot of cases, you can still get good teamwork going and people will do fine, but there's a problem with maps that require SPECIFIC actions in order to win. IE: "If we don't have a commander smoking this exact spot within the first 2 minutes, we'll lose." Stuff like that is bad map design.

While it's true that "people can learn" the right way to play, I'd rather that they learn MORE ways to play rather than "the right" way to play the map. There shouldn't be one single approach that's taken on a map, or else it'll just get boring.

For example, the conventional wisdom on Berezina as the Russians is to fall back to prepared positions and defend heavily at the 2nd line and east bank. There are, however, other techniques used by people. Sometimes infantry will stay on the west bank to harrass German troops trying to cross. Sometimes you defend one side of the cap zone more heavily than the other, etc.

Likewise, the Germans can approach taking the various positions in a lot of different ways. Do you use your arty all up front, or save some for the end? Do you attack right up the middle or try to flank positions and get some enfilading fire going? All those options mean that there is no single approach to victory.

On a map like Tula outskirts, that doesn't seem to be the case (although admittedly, I haven't played it a ton). Pretty much, the only way for the Germans to get past the first line is to sweep up the right hand side (for them) and take the bunkers from the sides. But running right up the middle? Sheer suicide. That, to me, is a bit much to ask from folks on pub servers, and it often simply ends up being a frustrating grind.

That's what I'm getting at, basically. A lot of attack/defense maps SEEM to favor the defenders, but if you dig past the surface you can often see problems that the defenders face -- IE: a lot time to defend, few reinforcements, limited respawns of certain equipment, and so on. So, for example, a map like Basovka SEEMS unbalanced for the defenders, but actually, a smart German unit can take the first position pretty quickly. Either by going up the center with smoke cover, flanking, or a combination thereof. On other maps, that isn't the case.

So basically, while balance is the trickiest thing to acheive, it can be done in a lot of ways, and positioning (as well as creating multiple avenues of attack) is one of the big ones.

[[TW]Ramm-Jaeger]

I'm completely with Mike on this one. Balance certainly is one of the hardest things to do when making a map for a multiplayer game and balance issues are a huge problem with many of the custom maps (and even a few of the official ones). A mapper can't just cop out and say thier map is "historical" or that "balance is up to the players". If they do that, they're only doing half the work necessary to make a great map. It's not just about poeple not liking a "challenge". Slaughtering the other team over 1 single area of the map for 45 minutes when you are defending is not fun. For it to be enjoyable to play defense on a map, you have to know that if you don't play well you will lose. On the flip side, you have to know that if you do play well that you could win. Any map where the winner is a forgone conclusion will end up being boring - you might as well read a book or watch a movie about the battle.

It all boils down to this - If you want poeple to play your map, it has to be fun for both sides to play. And for those mappers in the mapping competition, we rate balance VERY high in the judging. There were many maps that would have done better in the first phase if they were just balanced.