Make maps not levels

[tasbili]

What is making maps?
Making realistic and varied terrain for the player to use in creative ways.
What is making levels?
Making an area which is supposed to play out in a certain way, enforced by limitations that are shaped after realistic terrain. (Red orchestra ostfront 41-45)

my second suggestion regarding maps is dont make them predestroyed. it makes the player feel redundant and since they will actually be destroyable, there is no reason to predestroy them.

 

[BlueSmiley]

my second suggestion regarding maps is dont make them predestroyed. it makes the player feel redundant and since they will actually be destroyable, there is no reason to predestroy them.

Nice idea, but a few buildings should be destroyed from the beginning to give the 'war feeling' from the start.

 

[FlyXwire]

Tasbili,

All map have edges, and they all come to an end somewhere, so they're finite. Sure, they can be linked together in a matrix, but in a sense all maps are just "levels" anyway.

A lot of these suggestions presuppose that the skills or desires of the map makers are equal. I'm sure some care to make small maps to simulate the close-quarters combat, and for Stalingrad this would be accurate for many of the battles too.

Insisting that map makers limit their creativity to certain ways of thinking is not really for anyone but the map maker to decide (within what is capable with the game tools).

A last consideration concerning the crafting of destructible environments, is to realize much of this will be new "ground" to map makers, and will require some time and skill to master. We might get pre-destroyed maps merely because it fits the mapper's mission ideas, or even because the work isn't implemented to make the map post-destructible.

This is one reason why I'm looking forward to "TWI" maps especially, because the expectation is they'll be fully destructible out of the box (including their later DLC maps).

 

[tasbili]

FlyXwire, i think you misunderstood parts of what i said.

All map have edges, and they all come to an end somewhere, so they're finite. Sure, they can be linked together in a matrix, but in a sense all maps are just "levels" anyway.

Borders are the necessary and rational limitations of maps. 'Truly' unlimited maps would be theoretically impossible to be made or to be played on anything but computers with unlimited power.

A lot of these suggestions presuppose that the skills or desires of the map makers are equal.

No, only that the skills are employed in a somewhat different pattern of dividation of map elements compared to Ostfront.

Insisting that map makers limit their creativity to certain ways of thinking is not really for anyone but the map maker to decide

Actually i am suggesting that no parts of the map be unnecessarily limited which creates new options for the mappers to express their creativity.

A last consideration concerning the crafting of destructible environments, is to realize much of this will be new "ground" to map makers, and will require some time and skill to master.

No doubt about that. Buw TWI brought it out as a feature and i believe they can fullfill it.

We might get pre-destroyed maps merely because it fits the mapper's mission ideas, or even because the work isn't implemented to make the map post-destructible.

On the contrary i think it can not only be a development assisting tool but will also be a great feature in the game.

This is one reason why I'm looking forward to "TWI" maps especially, because the expectation is they'll be fully destructible out of the box (including their later DLC maps).

That is what i mean also. It will certainly take longer for custom mappers to release a map for HOS if they decide to implement destructability as well.

 

[FlyXwire]

I'm not sure I misunderstood your points, I guess I didn't get them. (?)

 

[EvilHobo]

my second suggestion regarding maps is dont make them predestroyed. it makes the player feel redundant and since they will actually be destroyable, there is no reason to predestroy them.

Considering that most places underwent some sort of artillery barrage prior to the actual infantry engagement taking place, it makes sense to have parts of the map destroyed already.

 

[Hausfeld]

I enjoy Darkest Hour's maps much more than RO's. They usually incorporate a whole town or village, and are typically larger with advancing spawns. Compared to RO maps that real feel like they were made for competitive gaming with very short distances and lack of environmental variety. The time is usually 30-50 minutes, which allows large sweeping battles that can see an actual flow in a battle.

Maps that are made in a 1:1 scale to a real engagement obviously feel much more authentic and I think play better than imagined maps that only share components with their respective historical battle.

 

[LogisticEarth]

I enjoy Darkest Hour's maps much more than RO's. They usually incorporate a whole town or village, and are typically larger with advancing spawns. Compared to RO maps that real feel like they were made for competitive gaming with very short distances and lack of environmental variety. The time is usually 30-50 minutes, which allows large sweeping battles that can see an actual flow in a battle.

Maps that are made in a 1:1 scale to a real engagement obviously feel much more authentic and I think play better than imagined maps that only share components with their respective historical battle.

Bingo. I think the DH mappers learned some lessons from ROOST maps. However, when ROOST first came out it's maps were somewhat realistic compared to other multiplayer FPSes of the day.

After playing some of the best of RO's custom maps, plus DH's maps, the importance of 1:1 scale and realistic cover layout is important.

The best maps blend realistic 1:1 environments with a touch of planning to thier design. That is, the defending side gets good, intelligently laid out defensive positions, and the attackers get multiple paths of attack, and other advantages like superior firepower or more reinforcements.

 

[Nezzer]

I enjoy Darkest Hour's maps much more than RO's. They usually incorporate a whole town or village, and are typically larger with advancing spawns. Compared to RO maps that real feel like they were made for competitive gaming with very short distances and lack of environmental variety. The time is usually 30-50 minutes, which allows large sweeping battles that can see an actual flow in a battle.

Maps that are made in a 1:1 scale to a real engagement obviously feel much more authentic and I think play better than imagined maps that only share components with their respective historical battle.

You must be talking about few DH maps, because most of them are BF-like with scattered capzones without an order of capture, like Lutremange (I hate that map). That's what really bothers me to and that's what keeps me away from the Battlefield series. Fallen Heroes has no order of capture, but it's small and the objectives are next to each other, so there's no problem with it, but lage maps with scattered objectives and no order of capture is a mess. I hope we don't get to see any Lutremange-like maps in RO2.

 

[Hausfeld]

You must be talking about few DH maps, because most of them are BF-like with scattered capzones without an order of capture, like Lutremange (I hate that map). That's what really bothers me to and that's what keeps me away from the Battlefield series. Fallen Heroes has no order of capture, but it's small and the objectives are next to each other, so there's no problem with it, but lage maps with scattered objectives and no order of capture is a mess. I hope we don't get to see any Lutremange-like maps in RO2.

I hear you. Lut is tough to get one's head around and while I like it for its ample foliage and very nice woods, I totally understand why people dislike it. You eventually get a cartwheel of a map with a team unable to take one of the 3 objectives without sacrificing their defense of what they do have.

But Schutze Sepp is undeniably a DH mapping legend. His Ardennes series are my absolute favorite.

 

[Dwin]

You must be talking about few DH maps, because most of them are BF-like with scattered capzones without an order of capture, like Lutremange (I hate that map). That's what really bothers me to and that's what keeps me away from the Battlefield series. Fallen Heroes has no order of capture, but it's small and the objectives are next to each other, so there's no problem with it, but lage maps with scattered objectives and no order of capture is a mess. I hope we don't get to see any Lutremange-like maps in RO2.

Um, there is only one BF-like map in Darkest Hour that is played regularly, and is the one you mentioned, Lutremange. The others are tank maps, which by necessity are non-linear.

I completely agree with what tasbili has to say, and that Darkest Hour's maps are much superior because of they accomplish this. That is, Darkest Hour's maps place very few artificial restrictions on the map boundaries. Ostfront maps feel like you are playing in an arena, built specifically for you to fight in. Darkest Hour maps feel like they are taking place in an actual, plausible location. The result is much more dynamic gameplay, because the map does not funnel you into one style of play. This is of course, in no small part due to the fact that many Darkest Hour maps are recreations of real locations, while many Red Orchestra maps are completely fictional.

 

[tasbili]

Considering that most places underwent some sort of artillery barrage prior to the actual infantry engagement taking place, it makes sense to have parts of the map destroyed already.

That is true but in most situations both teams start on the outskirts or in the end of a part of the map, which does not make it seem that at least the defending side has been stationed in that location. So the predestruction rather gives a static feeling than a war feeling.

 

[FlyXwire]

Maps​

Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad will launch with a total of 10 maps. All maps are designed for 64 players. Playable portions of the maps and number of slots per class will be scaled down depending on max players (defaults 64, 32, 16) In between numbers (think 24 or 40 players) will scale up to the next default setting. One of the maps will be focused entirely on tanks.

(Source: Bswearer PAX interview)

I think TWI's ideas and planning for RO2 maps have moved along a bit, it's another one of those paradigm shifts.​

Their included maps are going to be able to scale by design.​

​

​

 

[SovietPower]

What is making maps?
Making realistic and varied terrain for the player to use in creative ways.
What is making levels?
Making an area which is supposed to play out in a certain way, enforced by limitations that are shaped after realistic terrain. (Red orchestra ostfront 41-45)

my second suggestion regarding maps is dont make them predestroyed. it makes the player feel redundant and since they will actually be destroyable, there is no reason to predestroy them.

The majority of the fighting in Stalingrad was fought between ruins.
It's realistic and gives it more of a gritty and war feeling reletive of the time.