Definition of a good map

[Viceman]

Ok free speech about things that make Red Orchestra (or generally in games) maps good. Is it the big open areas, maybe maze kind of layout in city environment or what is it?

1. Personally I like maps with few paths to next goal, I dont like cities where you can go in every single house.

2. I also like maps which has height differences.

Ok, you take the next points or start argue with mine

[Spaehling]

Originally Posted by Viceman

Ok free speech about things that make Red Orchestra (or generally in games) maps good. Is it the big open areas, maybe maze kind of layout in city environment or what is it?

1. Personally I like maps with few paths to next goal, I dont like cities where you can go in every single house.

2. I also like maps which has height differences.

Ok, you take the next points or start argue with mine

i work on it Houses

[danh]

I think a great map is one where the levels were carefully designed to express feelings a soldier would feel if he were fighting on that battlefield.

Height difference such as terrain deformation gives some more areas to hide and move around such as real soldier would.

A few paths I think it depends on the city and how large it is. A large city you would want to close off some houses because then it would be really hard to balance if you had to work on each house. A smaller city, if you started to close off houses then it wouldn't feel like a real battlefield.

You can probably see what I've said reflected in my maps.

[Viceman]

Originally Posted by Spaehling

i work on it Houses

I can see pretty clear route there.. and I am talking about that bridge hopefully you block some of the houses so you cant get in? It would guide the players more as a team through roads, instead lurking in buildings.

edit:
Danh, we are having a LAN-party in the end of next month. We are more than happy to play your maps

And one more thing about definition of good map. I rely more to good brushwork than open terrain with obstacles. And thats what you will se in my map. If I ever finish it.

[gyps]

My idea of a good map is where either side can get the upper hand and win

I like maps where the early capture points fall easier and it gets tougher as you progress onward into the map

I like the idea of funneling players into firefight area's but also giving them other routes around the sides there by making the defends work to hold an area rather than just dig in and spam nades as attackers come to them.

I'd rather have a longer map timelimit and one round and someone actaully win

re: cities v open tbh i love both dh had some fantastic maps : FOY, Stourmont, Hill 400, Carten Causeway, Juno beach Noville, Raids to name but a few

Carten Causeway was proof that a totally linear map could work and be fun and more important be popular

[LATTEH]

A good level is where it leads the player to the battlefield and will have an appropriate amount of time from spawn to the battle area so both players (or teams) will meet at the Area. But there is a lot that will make a good level.

If you want to go more in depth of what im talking about you should read Bens small bible to Level design.

[PsychoPigeon]

I like attention to detail. The majority of my time is taken up by decorating dug-outs, roads, forests, towns and giving them character, making it look like they've been in use for a long period of time. I don't like any of my terrain to look untouched by nature or man, but it's a lot of work and you have to think about frame rate.

I try and project what the player will see as they play, what direction they will go in, what will they think when they see an obstacle, will they use it as cover? Will they ignore it? I don't want useless things I want it all to play a part in the experience.