Level Design Looking Into Mapping, Am I Planning Alright?

[Thelionheart]

So I'm thinking about learning how to map, and before I start something generally I like to get my general idea down on paper (or in this case, a little mockup).

My general idea behind this map is to have allies attacking German positions in a heavily defended and dense forest with bunkers and trenches scattered throughout. I want this map to be BIG. With long range engagements, tons of smoke, and suppression being necessary to move forward. Bunkers will be defensive hard points and will require team work to take out. Allies will have one tank, so the forest will have some avenues of advance where the tank can maneuver.

Basically, am I approaching map-making correctly (if there is a "correct" way), and if not what would you suggest?

Here's my map/brainstorm that I did. (WARNING! REALLY BIG FILE)

 

[Spaehling]

first map?

you said you planning big. so i can promise you min. a year of work. maybe bit less if you dont test a lot. and on the your screenshot.... lots of trees. take only A, B, F and G. thats enough work, for your first map.

my first tipp for you, start small.

 

[Thelionheart]

first map?

you said you planning big. so i can promise you min. a year of work. maybe bit less if you dont test a lot. and on the your screenshot.... lots of trees. take only A, B, F and G. thats enough work, for your first map.

my first tipp for you, start small.

My definition of big is Bridges of Druzhina or Winterwald size, maybe slightly larger or slightly smaller. Also I've never made a map before so this map would be my first if I chose to make this map. I figured this map would be easier to make then say something like Winterwald with the village and large base and AA guns towards the back. This would basically just be a huge forest with lots of trees, some bushes, and some bunkers here and there.

 

[Spaehling]

My definition of big is Bridges of Druzhina or Winterwald size, maybe slightly larger or slightly smaller. Also I've never made a map before so this map would be my first if I chose to make this map. I figured this map would be easier to make then say something like Winterwald with the village and large base and AA guns towards the back. This would basically just be a huge forest with lots of trees, some bushes, and some bunkers here and there.

Never underestimate the power of the dark side!

Iam not sure how long Danh and Harley worked on their maps exactly, but both make the feeling for me, that they dont play the firs time with something like the sdk.

and both maps are really huge. there lots of experince in both maps.
i dont wanna drop you off, from you plan. every new mapper is welcome. but please for your own motivation, start simple and small.

exp. is apparments. its a complex map and really "small". something like that is size would be enough for the first.

btw:
i worked 1 year on climbup and 1 year on stalag.... i got now min. 30 grey hairs more, if i not done it.

 

[Nightingale]

I recommend that you cover the snow with ground. Having that many trees will already place a large load on most GPUs, and you don't need grass and foliage making it any worse. Otherwise, it looks like it will be a pretty solid map idea. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions on how to get certain things done, even simple things. I'm not the most experienced mapper out there (I actually can't say I've even released one map yet), but I know what it's like trying to learn such an immense piece of software with nothing but a few video tutorials and incomplete wiki articles.

 

[Hardcore Hartzer]

I would recommend to start with a small map. You`ll encounter many often highly time robbing problems where you need to ask the experienced mappers. I now nearly finished my first map and I always thought that every thing I made will only take the half of the time it took. So I think it`s better to start with a small map but always build the map that you always got the option to make it bigge rif you want/need to.

 

[Thelionheart]

So I guess I have three options in how to move forward.

1) Make this map (which I have come to realize is probably too much work for a first timer)

2) Make a smaller map, finish it and release it

3) Make a smaller map solely for learning purposes, don't polish it and don't release it.

I'm leaning towards three since I'm guessing the polishing phase is very time consuming and learning won't be as efficient if I was to work that way. If anyone has any more specific suggestions on how I should procede it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Spaehling]

So I guess I have three options in how to move forward.

1) Make this map (which I have come to realize is probably too much work for a first timer)

2) Make a smaller map, finish it and release it

3) Make a smaller map solely for learning purposes, don't polish it and don't release it.

I'm leaning towards three since I'm guessing the polishing phase is very time consuming and learning won't be as efficient if I was to work that way. If anyone has any more specific suggestions on how I should procede it would be greatly appreciated.

yeah you see it correct. i thought at the beginning i do the same, why directly my own meshes. but i had no plan of creating meshes and it came out like ****. so i decided to make a map, with only assets from the game. thats climbup now. and the map isnt that big.

in your position i do 2) and 3). the point is, somewhere you need to start. and its always good to have a finish in your imagination. but i swear you, like Hardcore Hartzer said it, you will spend 3x more time you think you need.

Nightingale is also correct. the video tutorials of udk are good for the sdk, but specific things are different and the videos or other tutorials get useless.

there lots of good mappers out there who have enough experince to show you the most important steps for you first map.

check the steam group (Ro2 Map Makers Guild) and start to annoy everyone. if someone is to annoyed from you, he gonna send you to another person, from who you learn lots of new stuff too

the community is the KEY!

 

[danh]

Hello.

1. Your map is a bit large. The spacing between objectives is too far. Players will be lost in the dense forest.

2. Forest is too dense. FPS will suffer and players will complain.

3. Not really a problem but you might need defining landmarks such as a village or another river to help guide players.

My suggestion is to join the guild. All of the admins have made at least one map.

Your map can still be the size of Bridges or Winterwald, it is just that your planned map looks too large and spaced out. I suggest reducing the space between objectives and make the map more narrow. So what you have is good but reduce the distance by 50%.

Add a few defining landmarks to make the map more interesting and to help players feel like they are in a real place.

Reduce trees or use very low poly trees.

 

[Thelionheart]

Hello.

1. Your map is a bit large. The spacing between objectives is too far. Players will be lost in the dense forest.

2. Forest is too dense. FPS will suffer and players will complain.

3. Not really a problem but you might need defining landmarks such as a village or another river to help guide players.

My suggestion is to join the guild. All of the admins have made at least one map.

Your map can still be the size of Bridges or Winterwald, it is just that your planned map looks too large and spaced out. I suggest reducing the space between objectives and make the map more narrow. So what you have is good but reduce the distance by 50%.

Add a few defining landmarks to make the map more interesting and to help players feel like they are in a real place.

Reduce trees or use very low poly trees.

I should clarify a few things to make sure no one interprets my crappy brainstorm map in a way I didn't intend. The trees there are mainly to just indicate that trees will be there. I made a few trees in photoshop and then cloned them and cloned the group of trees multiple times. This resulted in a bunch of overlapping and making the trees seem ridiculously thick. This is about the density of trees I'm going for at the thickest parts of the map. Thanks for telling me about the spacing for objectives, now that I look at it it does seem to be a little bunched up in some areas and spaced out in others.

This map is being based off of the battle for Hurtgen forest, so I don't feel comfortable putting in a bunch of buildings. What I have planned for certain landmarks though are burnt out allied tanks that tried to assault the position in the past but were destroyed, Little fox holes will be scattered throughout the map as well, such as this. There will be aisles between trees that have been cleared out that are large enough for tanks to pass through, so hopefully those also give a big pointing arrow to players.

As for the narrowness of the map I actually took an image of Bridges of Druzhina's overhead map and put it in photoshop and measured that it is practically a 2:1 ratio for length and width. I decided that was probably a good ratio since I also want this map to promote flanking a lot. Especially for the Hill which will be available to be taken after the clearing. So the spawns for attacking the hill will be a little bit above B and the second spawn will be practically in the clearing, my reasoning behind this is that the Allies would be wise to capture the clearing first so it can get a flanking maneuver on the hill and not have to do a full frontal assault on a fortified position like that.

I now know that this map is not for a first timer, and as such I'll probably start coming up with an idea for a smaller, more manageable map. Thanks for critques so far everyone. Once I come up with a new Idea I'll probably post it here.

 

[danh]

I should clarify a few things to make sure no one interprets my crappy brainstorm map in a way I didn't intend. The trees there are mainly to just indicate that trees will be there. I made a few trees in photoshop and then cloned them and cloned the group of trees multiple times. This resulted in a bunch of overlapping and making the trees seem ridiculously thick. This is about the density of trees I'm going for at the thickest parts of the map. Thanks for telling me about the spacing for objectives, now that I look at it it does seem to be a little bunched up in some areas and spaced out in others.

This map is being based off of the battle for Hurtgen forest, so I don't feel comfortable putting in a bunch of buildings. What I have planned for certain landmarks though are burnt out allied tanks that tried to assault the position in the past but were destroyed, Little fox holes will be scattered throughout the map as well, such as this. There will be aisles between trees that have been cleared out that are large enough for tanks to pass through, so hopefully those also give a big pointing arrow to players.

As for the narrowness of the map I actually took an image of Bridges of Druzhina's overhead map and put it in photoshop and measured that it is practically a 2:1 ratio for length and width. I decided that was probably a good ratio since I also want this map to promote flanking a lot. Especially for the Hill which will be available to be taken after the clearing. So the spawns for attacking the hill will be a little bit above B and the second spawn will be practically in the clearing, my reasoning behind this is that the Allies would be wise to capture the clearing first so it can get a flanking maneuver on the hill and not have to do a full frontal assault on a fortified position like that.

I now know that this map is not for a first timer, and as such I'll probably start coming up with an idea for a smaller, more manageable map. Thanks for critques so far everyone. Once I come up with a new Idea I'll probably post it here.

The map is fine for your first time. It is doable. Just less trees will be better. The only problem you will run into is how to make each zone more exciting. Just tighten the distances and you should be good to go. As for basing it off the size of Bridges of Druzhina, don't forget bridges had a huge city to go through. You only have forest and more forest so you can reduce the amount of forest but keep the same objective layout and what I mean by reducing is tighten up the distances between objectives.

 

[Thelionheart]

The map is fine for your first time. It is doable. Just less trees will be better. The only problem you will run into is how to make each zone more exciting. Just tighten the distances and you should be good to go. As for basing it off the size of Bridges of Druzhina, don't forget bridges had a huge city to go through. You only have forest and more forest so you can reduce the amount of forest but keep the same objective layout and what I mean by reducing is tighten up the distances between objectives.

So even less dense than the picture I showed? Bear in mind though that that picture was showcasing the maximum density I would allow.

 

[danh]

You will understand the best possible density for trees once you try it out. Check out Winterwald or Bridges of Druzhina. They are not as dense as real forests but players won't notice the difference and the fps is stable.

 

[Thelionheart]

So I started to learn the SDK and made a terrain that I textured and placed a few static meshes around. So far it seems simple enough, although I will probably regret that I said that later. The biggest question I have right now is how large to make my terrain and whether the number of patches that make it up matters at all. I know that I can increase the scale after creating the terrain, so I'm not sure if these two features are redundant or if they are distinctly different.

 

[Srinidhalaya]

Because you want trench's, be sure to tesselate your terrain TWICE before doing anything, or you will end up redoing your map, come time to lay down trench's.

A 2x Tes terrain, @ 512x512 is reasonable play area, then you can use less tes'd terrains for background, if you can get things to line up right.

If you havent done so, check out Dahn's thread on perfect trench's.

 

[Catalavos]

So I started to learn the SDK and made a terrain that I textured and placed a few static meshes around. So far it seems simple enough, although I will probably regret that I said that later. The biggest question I have right now is how large to make my terrain and whether the number of patches that make it up matters at all. I know that I can increase the scale after creating the terrain, so I'm not sure if these two features are redundant or if they are distinctly different.

Yes! The size of your terrain will make a huge difference in performance, level of terrain detail and whether or not you can use the in-game trenches. The decision to use trenches or not should be one of the first things you think about while planning your map. It seems minor now but it will save a ton of heartache later down the road.

If I understand it correctly, each "step" of tessellation will increase the number of patches x 4 thereby increasing the number of patches the engine needs to draw.

And to figure out how large your terrain should be, there are 50 UU's (universal units) per meter

 

[Nightingale]

Fortunately, now that RS has been released, you have access to trenches which do not require that you tessellate your terrain that finely. You can theoretically make maps 4x as big so long as you do not make use of Mamayev's trenches. However, RS's trench meshes are a little more awkward to use, and you may or may not prefer the look and variability of the Mamayev trenches.