• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Linearity in RO maps?

Lonyo

Grizzled Veteran
Nov 21, 2005
379
26
lonyo.co.uk
It seems to be that some RO maps are getting more linear.
I am going to use some examples, both from current and previous generation maps, and also compare remakes where I see it as applicable.


*Rostov in early 3 (or late 2, not sure) - All objectives could be capped in pretty much any order.
*Remade Rostov - Linear objectives, take one, open up the next, take that, open the last. A lot more linear than the first version.

*Ponyri in beta 2 - You could IIRC take any objective, and things were a lot more open. You spawned at the side of all the objectives, so you could go one way to the station, or the other to the trenches. There were 2 options, and the map overall was a lot wider (more flanking of the station).
*Ponyri from beta 3 and Basovka in RO:O - 3 objectives, linear progression through them, less flanking IMO (no super wide flank path down by the river)

*Berlin - 3 initial things you can cap, north, south and reich. There were multiple ways to attack, left, right, and 3 routes down the middle, and a variety of orders to cap the objectives.
*Konigsplatz - linear progress through the map, one after the other again pretty much. Map plays the same each time through IMO. One problem is that K-Platz is based on real life, while the mod map was more made up, which of course affects the layout, but surely the objectives could be more imaginatively done even within a realistic scope?

*Krasnyi - beta 3 you could cap anything, sneak round the back etc (not that realistic IMO)
*Retail - more linear than in the mod again, with a slight forced order.

Basovka and Kessel remain unchanged I think, though they have an almost identical objective layout which is also fairly linear IMO, though not as bad as some, as the ability to recap and 2 "forks" gives more variation.

I can't recall what the new Hedgehog is like in terms of objective routes, but the old one you could cap any of the 3 objectives at any time IIRC.

Jucha was good for variation, as it had a few different routes to objectives, and variation in cap orders. Racowice, while it has a lot of different areas to cap, still seems to play very linearly, because the peripheral objectives often seem to be ignored, so it's a focused attempt down the centre of the map in a linear progression through 3 objectives. I guess the best comparison would be Red God of War from the mod, which had a fair amount of variety in 3 initial spots to cap, which also forced play wide, and people actually went to the flanks, which they don't seem to do so much in Racowice.



My OPINION, and this is ONLY an opinion, is that many maps have become more linear, which is disappointing. Odessa is one of the few new maps which seems quite fun to play with lots of different routes and possibilities, and a slight variation in caps as there is no strict order.
Maybe it is just me though, but things certainly feel a lot more linear than the mod. Berlin even for the 200th time could still feel fresh, while Konigsplatz for the 10th time seems like the same old same old already.

(I have omitted most tank maps because I never took to them in the mod, and I have mostly avoided them in RO:O, so I couldn't give an even vaguely good attempt at saying how, in my opinion, they are)
 
You are right, maps, and gamplay became a bit more linear (also helped by the fact that you cant do sneak-caps anymore on "open maps", due to the flashing map icon... I really liked old kauk and berlin, where you had to send in people to check if anything was capped.).

But I think it also has improved the gameplay a bit, because the openness caused the already thin 16 man line to stretch out much farther, and thus making firefights mostly a one-on-one, or two-on-two thing. With the linearity, you have more intense fights, which are, even though the little tactician in me screams in agony, more fun than walking around the map all by yourself.
 
Upvote 0
[-project.rattus-] said:
But I think it also has improved the gameplay a bit, because the openness caused the already thin 16 man line to stretch out much farther, and thus making firefights mostly a one-on-one, or two-on-two thing. With the linearity, you have more intense fights, which are, even though the little tactician in me screams in agony, more fun than walking around the map all by yourself.

Except IMO Berlin and Jucha were prefect maps, because there was always someone around to shoot, and you had to tread carefully, and dare I say Koitos too (much hated and loved as it was) was good because there were firefights and there was non-linearity quite a lot (you could go anywhere and cap anything).
Tight maps with a nice spread of objectives were nice, now they seem to be larger more open and linear maps, which doesn't seem to always have as much atmosphere.
 
Upvote 0
I'm hoping I can play around with "objectiveless" gameplay once I get my hands on the mapping tools. That should solve some of the linear nature of the game.

My prime culprit for this linear type of gameplay is Konigs, which is fun, but only if you want a break from tactics. Maps like Rakowice present many more possabilities for fun and diverse gameplay.
 
Upvote 0
From a level design perspective, giving a map a linear flow promotes teamplay and firefights, and also helps the objectives seem relevent to the gameplay. Nothing is more artifical than the final battle on Berlin being fought at the north apartments because the Russians rushed or were sneaky. There is of course room for variance, and Konigsplatz is probably on the more linear side of the equation. Jucha is a good example of giving a map a little more variation, while still keeping the gameplay tight. Kessel too for that matter, that map is always interesting. Koitos goes too far as it is basically team death match with four tiny illogical objectives which serve no purpose other than to give you ten points as your are hiding prone in a corner. The fundamental problem is player limits, you get 64 players, and there is a lot more room for spreading players out with less linear maps.
 
Upvote 0
I just feel that the best maps of the mod were lost :X.

Berlin, sure it was overplayed and not historically accurate, and one of the ugliest maps of the entire mod. But it was played and loved alot, pure because of its gameplay. Its overplayed because of a reason.
I hope we'll see the maps gameplay elements copied over to another map maybe in another city. It just was the best map together with koitos for the mod.
The new berlin although it looks nice, and is based on history. Is just pure linearity it focusses the players toghether and push maps are a totally new gamestyle that some like. But why completely kill one of the best maps in terms of playability :\.

Warsaw and Spartakovka, both hated for their "nadespam", were still highly played. Warsaw especially it got the "nadespam", the long respawn times. Still it was played alot on our server. And especially in clanwars the long respawntimes and the spawnlayouts + the open square and windows surrounding it. made it that you needed rifleman to shoot the other teams rifleman first before people could really cross the square to the cap zones. Which made it a map where riflers and smgs needed to play together. And if a team attacked too fast and got everybody killed they would loose because of the longer respawn times. It was a map that required planning.

http://www.rostats.net/stats/index.php?stats=maps

here you can see the most played maps (although some maps like warsaw don't count up and just show as millions of different maps).

Most maps feel more lineair indeed :\, sure they are great in their own kind of way. But showing if an objective is being capped and giving people 1 objective to cap at a time, doesn't make the game more challenging.

I just hope that the devs will atleast take out the gameplay elementals of the golden mod maps. Warsaw Berlin Jucha Spartakovka Rostov are maps i'd personally like to see again, maybe not in thesame cities or whatever but atleast the gameplay elements were proven. Why not use basic designs that are proven to offer great gameplay? =\
 
Upvote 0
FlashPanHunter said:
FNothing is more artifical than the final battle on Berlin being fought at the north apartments because the Russians rushed or were sneaky. .

What we were talking about wasn't from the realism perspective but the gameplay perspective. Since every cap holds thesame value for players it can indeed end up that way. I mean its weird aswell that you just can't capture the assembly hall straight away in kessel. Forcing the allies to go to the warehouse meatgrinder. I guess it was enabled in the first betas of that map, but changed for gameplay purposes.

And its exactly those gameplay purposes we're pointing out to. I mean i don't think anyone wants to see the old berlin back in thesame state, we just want the gameplay possibilities back.

Koitos although indeed might seem as a pure deathmatch map based on close quarters fighting (yet i never touched an smg on it, because it was perfect for rifling). Has lots of methods and ways to objective and is highly balanced. We'll probably eventually see it back, but as much as a pure deathmatch map it might have been, its more tactical than the new koningsplatz map. We're not talking about the pure realism factor (nobody would like to be in some city being bombed by a few hours before the infantry start invading) We're talking about the gameplay factors of the maps.

Of all maps that were played alot koitos probably was the most balanced aswell. Although the objectives were kind of mirrored. THe map didn't feel that way. The same with warsaw.

This just my personal opinion though.
 
Upvote 0
I could not disagree with the OP any more.

Linear maps are the prime reason this game has truly gotten better.

Linear maps promote teamplay and tactics. Konigsplatz allows for all kinds of different tactical excersizes.

The old maps sucked. Simply sucked.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I really feel that they offered nothing but a huge area to have small one on one engagements, and not really much more. Sure, some of those small isolated battles can be intense and fun, but those old maps just looked, felt, and played as an empty battlefield. It made the game more like a crappy quake deathmatch with WWII weapons. I was bored to tears most of the time.

These new maps are what I have been wishing for since RO first came out.

They promote teamplay, they encourage firefights, they are more realistic, and they are MUCH more intense and fun on a larger level.

Konigsplatz is amazing. THAT feels like a WWII battle.
 
Upvote 0
linear = good for multiplayer design.

honestly who wants huge maps allowing teams to cap any objective? That would just mean people spread out all over the map, and would turn the gameplay into "chase the flag" (a term i use for BF2 maps with low numbers of players...) - i just dont think this would work at all well in RO.

At the moment you have the combat intensity focused on only 1-2 objectives at a time, which promotes teamwork and intense fights...but at the same time there are still multiple ways to attack/defend objectives.

That is what is really important, and currently i think RO strikes a perfect balance between flexibility and linearity.
 
Upvote 0
I agree completely with FlashPanHunter. With 32 players linear maps are a must. Only small infantry maps (Jucha, Kessel, Krasnyi, etc) should have a lot of different routes because there will always be enemies around. Firefights are barely big enough as it is and making the maps any less linear would be a bad decision in my opinion. The trick is to make the maps linear without making them feel linear. Odessa is a good example of this as there seem to be a lot of routes to flank and objectives to take but in reality there is only two main streets for most of the map and only two objectives that can be taken at once.
 
Upvote 0
I personally believe RO is (still) on the wrong kind of engine, An engine that wasn't built around the idea of an arcade futuristic sci-fi shooter game, with 64 players (I'd love to see 128 or 256) or more would enable RO-O to start considering taking on a more "battlefield" like scale, with larger more open maps instead of just a small team skirmishing on tiny tiny maps.
 
Upvote 0
gonzman said:
I personally believe RO is (still) on the wrong kind of engine, An engine that wasn't built around the idea of an arcade futuristic sci-fi shooter game, with 64 players (I'd love to see 128 or 256) or more would enable RO-O to start considering taking on a more "battlefield" like scale, with larger more open maps instead of just a small team skirmishing on tiny tiny maps.


The engine wasn't built around anything. UT2003/4 were showcases for the Unreal Engine. The engine is actually being used in a huge range of games:

Unreal Engine 2.0 Based.

In development:
San Guo Online — Wayi
Brothers in Arms PSP — Ubisoft
MagnaCarta Portable — Soft Max
World War II Combat: Road to Berlin — Direct Action Games
WWII Combat: Iwo Jima — Direct Action Games

Released games:
Advent Rising — (2005) GlyphX Inc.
America's Army v1.0 ~ v2.3 — (2002) U.S. Army (The MOVES Institute)
America's Army: Rise of Soldier — (2005) Secret Level
Brothers In Arms: Earned in Blood — (2005) Gearbox Software
Brothers In Arms: Road to Hill 30 — (2005) Gearbox Software
Combat: Task Force 121 — (2005) Direct Action Games
Dead Man's Hand — (2004) Human Head Studios
Desert Thunder — (2003) Brainbox Games
Deus Ex: Invisible War — (2003) Ion Storm
Devastation — (2003) Digitalo Studios
Exteel — (2005) NC Soft
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban — (2004) KnowWonder Digital Mediaworks
Land of the Dead: Road to Flidder's Green — (2005) Brainbox Games
Lineage II — (2003) NC Soft
Magic: The Gathering Battlegrounds — (2003) Atari
MagnaCarta: Tears of Blood — (2005)
Marine Heavy Gunner: Vietnam — (2004) Brainbox Games
Men of Valor — (2004) 2015, Inc.
Postal
 
Upvote 0
[5.SS] Hollenfeuer said:
Does this mean we'll have 64 slot servers soon with new, bigger maps? :p

Yoshiro implied on IRC that if the devs can get some server optimisations going which reduce CPU load quite a bit they may consider upping the player limit, but obviously if some servers can't handle even 32 players, they're not going to cope with more than 32 are they?


<Yoshiro> due to the fact that we use a realistic balistics model
<Yoshiro> every round fired must be calculated
<Yoshiro> this puts a heavy load on servers
<Yoshiro> which forces us to keep the setting at 32
<Yoshiro> if we make significant CPU improvements down the road
<Yoshiro> we will rethink that size
 
Upvote 0