Question: My question is how the design team is going to achieve the epicness of scale, while also preserving tactics on both the individual and faction level. What's going to make Arkhona be a jaw dropping visual experience while remaining tactical on both a 1:1 to a 1000:1000 scale?

Reason: I watched a few things about level design and the timelessness of certain maps in successful games and read up on some things. I am asking the experts here because I did some homework and I keep hearing the same thing over and over:

Simple and Predictable
Familiarity to a level makes everyone feel like their on home turf, making each side capable of fighting tactically rather than one side having a home team advantage. This may not always be the case (especially when a faction actually is fighting on their home turf) but in the wilds of Arkhona maps with some sort of symmetry or simplicity in pathing makes for more enjoyable combat.

Example:

DOTA Map - Yes, we've beaten this example into the ground, but compared with Battlefield 3's Bazaar Map:


The pathing is almost identical, with 2 outer lanes, a chaotic "(Urban) jungle/ambush" area separating the other "lanes" from the central, hotly contested path in the center. The Bazaar is an iconic BF3 map, and there are others like it in Space Marine: Shattered Bridge, Waste Management, Manufactorium, Basillica, Hab Bloc, Aquila Canyon, Chem Refinery, Wasteland/Ruination and Mechanicus Dome. I'm not asking for a direct copy paste of the DOTA map, but the concept is similar in the sense that the best formula for teams to engage in a tactical way, is by this kind of deathmatch level design.

Hab Bloc,Wasteland/Ruination, (I can't remember the actual name), and to some extent, Shattered Bridge are symmetrical in a very odd way; (they can only be divided once or twice while others, like Waste Management are almost a perfect circle) with multiple paths leading into different environments, the level is far more interesting than a "perfectly" symmetrical level.

This essentially makes for quality game play on anything we've seen before that involves less than 64 people. We're getting a bit into uncharted territory when we expand into a much larger world with a host of other problems; but the one that concerns this question the most is how to transition from a Deathmatch type experience, into a much larger battlefield that does not turn into an exploitation fest. I humbly suggest that the team considers using a Fractal mindset to generate the world around these hubs of conflict. To those reading, a Fractal is using a pattern that repeats itself endlessly on every scale from 1:1000, 1:1, to 1000:1. By getting into the mindset of fractals, we could see balanced maps appear effortlessly and naturally into the larger world.

For example, imagine if you will, the Bazaar Map along with the SM maps mentioned each represented by a colored square from the DOTA map above. Each map is laid into the terrain and can be fought over independently with forces ranging from anything between 8 players to over a hundred. The struggles inside these nodes are so fun, so immersive, you may even forget that you're even part of a greater war. Outside these deathmatch hubs, we have a viable conquest of battle tanks and such. The open world between these hubs is connected the same fashion that the small maps themselves were designed: only on a much larger scale. Just like each hub has multiple, well defined paths, the conquest paths that reach them will have players going toe to toe as a glorious army, or brave the "jungle" where armies can ambush each other and then, in certain areas, launch ambushes onto the armies using the main lanes of traffic.

Something that really resonated with me considering I feel like the current size of the buildings is not yet big enough, is that:

Elevation = Force multiplier to a position. This is even sometimes a problem on the Table Top as an elevated position has sight over the majority of the battlefield while giving loads of cover (and is difficult to assault). These types of level designs can be problematic when they can see huge swathes of the battlefield. Surprisingly, even with a flawed Lascannon, Space Marine handled this issue far better then Battlefield 4 since the majority of the time anyone was using a Lascannon, their Line of Sight was limited generally by debris acting as cover, level walls, and large structures. The Heavy Bolter to some extent enjoyed the same treatment and with only a few exceptions, they were exposed to fire. However, in Battlefield, this was not the case, and I will refer to my reference youtube video to explain it in detail. Essentially, on certain levels when paths run parallel to each other, control of a single, elevated position will be able to control a huge section of the map: a poor design for a skirmish map, a good design for a mountain fortress that oversees mountain passes.

Assault classes are a Force Multiplier in open terrain

The one thing I can speak from experience is that the Assault Class is optimized when it has a chance to fly and close the gap quickly. Limiting movement in tight spaces makes the Assault Class much more difficult to use.

Thoughts on where the game currently stands

From what I've seen from only a few months of pre-production and two months of production, the art and design teams are clearly hard at work. However, the layouts to the bases cry more to Planetside, which has failed to deliver a tactical experience, than to a tactical experience of many generations of FPS's and SM. The buildings aren't as epic in scale as I remember in Space Marine, which delivered this in spades even though it was a much smaller game world. The mountains however: YES, PLEASE, GOOD JOB.

I say this because from what I've seen in the 3 current base designs are:

A traditional Deathmatch map surrounded on four sides by bastion walls. The first working map of EC and a great pre-alpha mock up of strategic gameplay. Had a lot of vulnerability to assault classes due to no ceilings anywhere but right next to the capture points. I didn't understand why there were girders connecting the rooftop's of buildings when there would be more cover on the ground.

Two outposts connected by girders that expose those on the rooftops to assault classes. This could be alleviated by lowering the walkways and raising bars of cover on their sides, making it slightly harder for assault classes to maneuver on the walkways. This also helps the aesthetic of the entire structure feel "grand" since us players may be larger than life in combat, but no one is above the Emperor and his Holy Imperium. Having girders connect roof tops robs players of feeling small, even when they're 9 foot tanks. Assaults also have problems in tight spaces, and a low ceiling stairs is pretty much the worst place to be with a jet pack, so removing one doorway to a capture point and adding a stairway instead makes defending and capturing it a much better experience. The girders really bother me though. Unless in some sort of industrial complex like a refinery, I feel as though they should not be used unless they fit the setting.

Connecting two baroque church sized buildings with skyshield scaffolding? Please, don't.



I love the improvement. God I hate those girders. Unless it's a refinery, just build a bridge below the roof instead.



Just remember that to both sides of this bridge, there is plenty of cover to utilize. If it doesn't make sense to do this, then why connect the buildings in the exposed air in the first place?

There is also the issue of the spiral staircase wrapping around the center of the large Medicae building. I can see why it's there, it just seems so bland and unprotected at the moment. There is virtually no cover to use along that pathway; in a fight, players would find virtually every excuse not to use it.

Lastly, the most recent development.



I am only assuming that this is either an updated version of the 3rd base (the one done in a month) or an entirely new one. Personally I love the Imperial Kremlin-like towers. As I saw the 3rd base, developed with a little bit of everything already I couldn't help but feel at least a little relieved. The map wasn't good yet; having a severe advantage to Assault Classes as yet another open air base, but it wasn't horrible either. I'm a bit worried considering that once inside the base, there aren't many well defined paths to base objectives, nor is there a lot of believable cover to make it enjoyable. I see the coming of debris for cover; this is exciting.


TL: DR: I feel as though the scale of the buildings needs to larger, and that the development team should consider designing the game using a semi-fractal formula of having deathmatch elements from bases expand to how the actual game world is laid out. I can't wait to see what's in store for us, especially if we begin to see a bit more deathmatch inside the bases, and bit more conquest outside of them. My question is how the design team is going to achieve the epicness of scale, while also preserving tactics on the individual and faction level.

Reference: (A good watch for any ideas of level design)


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN7iLKUR8eY

Well shit.
No comments here.

You're thinking in terms of single small-scale maps. We're talking about maps that from what I've heard will be similar in scale to continents on Planetside 2. (roughly 64sqm)

You're also talking as if the only way to kill an enemy in an elevated position is to blindly charge that elevated position.

Annoying sniper hiding somewhere? Don't worry, there's another annoying sniper coming to kill him and take his place shortly.

A squad of enemies firing down from a cliff? Send in a bomber or drop a squad on top of them and let all hell break loose.

These scenarios play out in a gajillion different ways everyday in PS2. Everything shouldn't be symmetrical and everything shouldn't be some sort of tower defense/moba lane.

You're thinking two dimensionally but we're talking about a 3D space.

I think you look at it the wrong way, a BF or a DOTA map have to be mirrors to give both teams an equal chance on the match, we are talking of attacking a fortress here, the map should be defensible not symmetrical. There was a post by @ShawnBauer talking a bit about this, he said they were taking inspiration on things like Helm's Deep

Several defense lines with killzones between them. IMO attackers should not have a fair battle, if you want to conquer a castle you better be prepared to lose a toon of soldiers.

Damn that pictures look way to big http://i.imgur.com/e9k4MTy.jpg

I agree with the weird walkways needing to go. And that some more epic scale buildings need to be included. Other than that... yes, symmetry is important, but this is an asymmetrical game, it matters a lot less. Its more about tactics and dealing with the situation/terrain at hand. So basically, what Joram and BloodGusher said

I definitely do not want symmetry. It will start to feel like your playing the same map over and over again just like in PS2. Would much rather have a mix of entirely different building/battle field types which changes gameplay depending on whether your attacking/defending or just caught in the middle of something nasty.

Symmetry in opportunities to win does not necessarily means symmetry in map layout.

As long as there are hard counters to every strong position on the map, there is balance.

Ultimately, I think that while asymmetric maps are harder to balance, they offer the possibility of deeper gameplay than classic map layouts.

IMO, an interesting map should have :

-Good pacing (To keep the game interesting, you have to make the players move around. Limited time to complete objectives or a path where the enemy can come from behind, etc... are all valid ways to make players get out of their spawn point and run around)

-Maps that can be remembered without too much trouble. (Allows you to choose your class/weapons/skills/etc... in accordance with the type of map you're playing, +allows planning to take place between squadmates about who goes where and does what.)

-Multiple choices in pathways, and enough connecting areas. Different types of choke points (long range, and CQC bottlenecks) and both teams should have equal opportunity to reach the advantageous positions. Yeah, strategy should matter.

-The layout should allow different all types of players to play the way they like. Snipers, CQC, Melee, Stealth, etc...

-It should be balanced (the skill of the player and the skill of the team should be the deciding factor of winning)


And obviously, it should be fun to play.

Don't think small-scale closed circuit FPS. Think large scale open world asymmetrical combat areas for RvR (realm v realm) combat involving hundreds of players. Also, I wouldnt take any terrain/buildings we've seen as a true indicator of whats to come. All these things are likely to change a great deal.

I believe the best approach is to view the "battle map" from the stand point of a global map design, you need to think big. Think big on the level of map design from maps like Alterac Valley in World of Warcraft all the way up to the layout of each continent in Planetside.






First you need to think of that layout - in the terms of the flow and movement of players traveling to combat zones and during those travels laying out the map to benefit different scenarios - for example, a main road is a fast and easy way to get from point A to point B, A being the main base, B being a fortress. The road is the fastest... yet not the safest way, because there are hills and terrain in the area which benefits the enemy attacker if they wish to establish an ambush zone for example - what's the best defense? Interception before arrival!

Not to mention many other complex systems of design applied to such a large map...

Inside the giant continental map exists smaller "Skirmish Zones" which are themselves "arenas" within the giant arena and they have their own layouts which they adhere to based on the intended purpose of the zone by the developer in it's use by the player.

I think the better option and a more dynamic approach to making for a much more enjoyable and less repetitive experience (and the developers of PS2 attempted this approach with their recent released continents) is to have a firm mix of both Defensive focused zones and Symmetrical "Balanced" combat zones. Where one favours the defender - while the other favors the team with the best teamwork, skill and tactics. Both scenarios always favour those with the greatest strategy to win, both require different approaches.

One requires a planned attack (Asymmetric), the other simply requires good teamwork and skilled play (Symmetrical).

It's actually harder to design a balanced defensive map than a balanced competitive map. And in a large open world game, it would in this case be rather "zones" than actual maps. Firstly, since it's open - you need to consider the surrounding terrain, something which the original designers of PS2 didn't consider in the equation when setting up bases and hotspots, as a result a sniper or a tank could position themselves on a nearby raised hill and abuse that lack of consideration to their advantage - aka sit overlooking a spawn point and make the game anything but fun for the defenders. That's something which first of all needs to be addressed.

Second of all is the planned layout and choice based on the ground objectives of each location, how should barriers be designed? Should there be vehicle access or not? Should there be alternate routes of entrance, should there be an escape option? Should there be a hidden back door? etc etc...

Good map design is more complex than you realize and itself is an element of game design.

The best way towards learning to make a good map is to learn from the mistakes of past approaches to then follow though with an approach which corrects those mistakes based on the statistics gathered from how players respond to different situations. A balanced map is fantastic... for a situation where you want all sides to have equal chances at the prize when going in blindly and being fully reliant on their own tactics as they make them up on the fly. While in other situations, you want them to have to plan ahead and if they don't - punish them for it, or simply design it so that they need to throw everything at it in a terrifying zerg rush while the defenders try their best to repel the inevitable long enough to gather the forces for a counter-attack.

An open world massive battle situation where you have hundreds of players, instead of a dozen is a very different can of worms to a skirmish game.

There better be trench lines in the map somewhere. My trousers would explode if I saw a line of entrenched space marines fending off an Ork WAAAGH!