Objective Players. What do you want/like in a map?

Flanking routes, high traffic and low traffic areas, high points and low points, vehicles, large in scale, and most important, fast pace. Maps like Containment and Avalanche fit this bill, and did so really well. If you're looking something a bit smaller scale for 4v4, Hang 'em High/Tombstone is a good map for inspiration, not only that, but small symmetric maps are the staples that held Multiflag CTF together in past Halo titles, like Midship and Battle Creek.

 

I like maps like Ghost Town for Objective. Many people hate on that map, but it has it all. And I agree with most of what Speed said.

 

Ghost Town was boss for One Flag CTF, it's a shame no-one else ever wanted to play it. I also loved Orbital for One Bomb. If you're looking for good symmetrical examples, The Pit and Standoff were both pretty sweet although the tired BR stalemates on the former annoyed me somewhat.

 

Standoff could've been good IF: there were more rocks to move freely around, and some mother ****in trees. It was like a flat wasteland of getting BR raped and then the warthogs just drove around uncontested.

 

This gives me an idea; how would Standoff play with Armor Abilities? I'm thinking players could play their roles better in objective games, such as Camo, Armor Lock and Drop Shield for defensive play, then Sprint and Evade for increased mobility to counter the lack of cover. You have very good opinions, good sir.

 

There's not that much different about objective maps. There are some things that are often overlooked in slayer maps because people don't depend too much on them, but in objective maps, it will definitely stand out if these are missing. One of the most commonly overlooked things is building outside the intended play area. Generally people leave just enough space for the players in a map and leave out side corridors and walkways that let people sneak around the enemies. While in slayer this is not often a problem because people rarely want to do anything but rush straight for the enemies, in objective gametypes, a lack of alternative and almost entirely unused routes is a terrible flaw, one that is even visible on some of Bungie's maps, most notable Hemmorage. As you might expect, this will result in quite a few games with no one scoring.
Also in objective games, you need to have some way for players to move around the map quickly. In regular team slayer, there are four "objectives" spread across the map. In most objective gametypes, there is one objective, and it happens to be on the other side of the map and far away from a player who just spawned. No one wants to spend most of their time just running across the map to the flag, so there need to be enough direct paths so players can get into battle quickly. Again this shows up in Hemmorage where people run all the way to the other side then get killed and start over.
In general, your map needs to have good flow otherwise an objective game will be terrible.
Power weapons aren't cut and dry like some of these other things. In my experience, they tend to discourage assaulting the enemy base because most people after picking up a power weapon prefer to camp in their base and kill the onslaught of enemies instead of rushing forward to the enemy base to take the objective. For this reason, I at least prefer to have power weapons outside of the base instead of sitting there ready for campers. The downside of this, however, is that if by chance one team succeeds in pinning the other down in their base, those in the base will have a difficult time breaking out. Generally that situation falls under the category of one team sucking, but it's good to have some kind of safety net, so try to find a balance.
Now for one of the most controversial topics of forge, conflict weapons. I don't think anyone really agrees on what to do with these and the even worse conflict vehicles. In my opinion, they have absolutely no place in objective games because they tend to give one team a great advantage from the start as weapons like a spartan laser or rocket launcher will easily destroy vehicles and leave one team completely helpless. Even if there are no vehicles on the map, a team that has an advantage in power weapons can quickly push the other team back into their base and end the game from the beginning. The other reason I personally hate conflict weapons in objective gametypes is that teams often end up fighting over power weapons instead of objectives.
If you haven't noticed already I play a significant amount of Big Team so my advice is a little more for that than 4v4 objective, but the same principles still apply.
/walloftext

 

- A variation of specific and well defined routes, offering a range of strategies that work well for both teams (so that overpowering strategies are obvious and easily undermined)

- Really great map structure, so that spaces are never used too much or too little. Additionally, different areas should offer completely different situations and tactics. Layout should ensure players can quickly get in to the fight, whether that be an offensive or supportive role.

- Robust and simplistic methods to ensure that objective games have the right number of tipping points in a round. You don't want a map where combat is stagnant until one time finally makes a push, which ultimately leads them to winning. On top of that, you don't want an objective system that is so complex it can be easily undermined.

- A healthy bit of innovation, so that players can't just win by following the formula you have created down to the tee. This could be a gimmick, but in the end it might make your map much more repayable.

 

Nothing against walkways, but nobody will use the one you made. It's far too long and exposed, and considering you can just drop down to the floor, everyone will jump off even if they decide to use it initially.

Your first port of call is to define spaces. Don't think in a 'route' fashion. Think locationally. Decide what objective games you want to focus with, and it is basically going to be symmetric or asymmetric.

If you go with symmetric, you only need to think about one side of the map for now. You need to think of having a base somewhere centralized at the back. It needs a variety of access points and exit strategies, but where you place the objective has to be vulnerable to it's surroundings. Think 'The Pit' for an example.

After that, you need to think of how this teams players will defend their side of the map. So you need to define a space in which players should be able to effectively defend against the opposing side, but also provide routes or techniques that will offer an advantage or incentive to make a push. These are the major two confrontations you will find on a map, so if you get these down to a tee, the rest should fall in line.

If you chose asymmetric, you have a lot more choice. You can really define how the Objective game will be played. Certain areas can offer positions to hold up, while other locations may lend themselves to be quick ways to advance. You also get the choice of how the Objective itself is handled. You could be planning on vehicles or man cannons for a speedy extraction, or offer a series of contained access ways, as a safer more dependable route. Also remember to think vertically as well as horizontally. Mix things up with slopes and gradients. Don't assume that just throwing in a few bridges will cover it. Bridges are Satan. Shooting a player whose sole head is exposed is as excruciating as Hell itself.

Once you have a rough idea of what you want to go for (for example, 1-flag CTF, players spawn in rooms in a lower level, and must push up stairways and lifts, Grab the flag from it's perch in one of the upper rooms and fall down floors for a quick escape) you should start mapping out the spaces.

Think of this from an architects point of view, and i promise you, you shall not go wrong. All of the shapes in your map should somehow come together to provide a good sense of definition regardless of how close or how far away you are. On top of that, you need to cover all 3 major principles with your object placement; Form, Access, Cover. In other words, what you put down has to define the space that you are in, provide routes for players to move and allow them to hide and break line of sight easily, from all locations you want to be defendable.

I recommend actively looking at other maps to better understand the level of cover that is required. Now when i say this, i don't just mean small objects as a temporary stop. I mean the bulk of your map, anything that is blocking line of sight. Cover needs to come together to form the bulk of your map, creating an intricate structure.

Once your getting started, try to work out how you want players to use certain areas of your map. Try to passively encourage what you want. Don't force upon certain strategies, but just subtly hint them. Also, do not create areas or strategies that are too specific and enforcing. A good example of this is creating a web of really tight tunnels and then throwing in a Shotgun. Things like this are just asking to be abused.

Always be mindful of where you want certain weapons to be effective, and place them appropriately. As aforementioned, don't be too specific. Sniper Rifles are always present in exposed locations with long lines of sight, but don't put the Sniper Rifle in the ultimate sniper position. A weapons location should suggest where it is effective, by having it nearby, but placing it at the penultimate location should be avoided.

Ehh that'l do..

 

A small wide Map with the high ground in the middle, low power Weapons near the flank like Nade Launchers or Shotguns and a system to get around the Map quickly like Gravity Lifts or Teleporters. The lines of sights are pretty short to encourage close quarters and because of that, there should be no Rockets or Snipers. Plasma Launcher is acceptable and maybe also a Focus Rifle depending on how the map plays. I'd also like a special feature like a switch. Or maybe even a Random Weapon Box from COD that costs 1 Grenade. I dunno, but be original. Maybe you should try making it on Highlands by blocking off a small part of the Map. It will look much cooler than a box made of Forerunner metal.

 

Make spiritual successor to Standoff. It has all the good elements of an objective map like vehicle action, close quarter action, BASES and good site lines.

 

Bridges or thin walkways shouldn't be used in that large length. They should be short connections to other large areas... Think of it almost like building a building you would go to for a business. Or a large hotel with the fancy lobbies. Your architecture should feel realistic and not like you just stuck pieces together to walk around on.

Check this out

 

Personally I actually like to have some long walkways like that, but they generally should be an alternate route going over a high traffic area and with sufficient cover that anyone on the walkway is mostly shielded from the rest of the map. Think of walkway from the frigate to the final UNSC base in invasion. Walkways like that are good as alternate routes, but make sure they have enough cover. Don't take this as encouragement to fill your map with walkways like the one you have. They should primarily connect buildings or just connect to each other like tsb said, but the long walkways have their place in objective maps.

 

does any one know how to place objects in forge so when you shoot them they fall

 

There is no way... Unless you strap and explosive under it and you shoot it.