What makes a good 1v1?

Beyond scaling, there really is little difference between a 1s design and your standard 4s design. You should know, however, that core gameplay in Halo revolves around team-based operations, thus the fundamental "requirements" of designs within the game are heavily influenced by that aspect. So heavily that I would consider 1s fundamentally broken just because that idea of teamwork is naturally void. I'm not saying that they cannot work, however, but IMO the best advice anybody could give here is to apply what you know about 4v4s to this 1v1 while accommodating for the aforementioned omitted gameplay aspect.

 

This is the perfect spot for this question.
Stagnation is the main worry when building a 1v1 map. One thing that they should always have, imo, is fast spawning power weapons with low ammo counts. This promotes movement, and rewards awareness.

 

Not to mention that it becomes even more important than in other maps (where it's already important) to have balancing positions for EVERY dominant location, and to place power weapons generally in places where they are not that useful. If you can grab a sniper three feet away from the best place to use it, and that place is not directly offset by at least one other spot that is equally as powerful, then your 1v1 map is a huge fail. People will just struggle for that one position and/or weapon all game long, turning the match into a tedious slog; and inevitably one guy will gain control for an extended period and just sit there, protecting his lead.

 

Asymmetry

 

Nah.

Asymmetry can be really cool on the right map, but that's equally true of 4v4s as it is of 1v1s. And symmetrical 1v1s can work just as well as symmetrical 4v4s, too.

 

This thread. I love it.

 

Aesthetically, you can go crazy

 

A 1v1 map needs to be less exploitable than it's 4v4 counterpart. In a 4v4 map, you can somewhat rely on a team of 4 to counter exploitable positions on a map, since there are more players involved. In a 1v1, an exploitable position is much worse because there is only one other player to counter a player that is exploiting the map.

Also, like Chunk mentioned, quick respawning power weapons with less ammo. 60 second Snipes with zero spare clips and 90s GL's with 1 spare clips were the bread and butter of Reach 1v1's and 2v2's, along with the CPU.

 

Emphasis on can. It's really quite hard to make a symmetrical 1v1 require anywhere nearly as much map knowledge as a symmetrical 4v4.

Example of success of 1v1: Rail
Failure of 4v4: Station 9

 

Maps specifically designed for 1v1s tend not to be scaled down versions of your typical Halo 4 4v4 map from my experience, but I'm sure somebody could find an example that goes against it. I guess Auburn disagrees.

1v1 maps should have almost as much weaponry as 4v4 maps (depends on what kind of 4v4s you make, really) because they can get very campy without weapons spawning often.

The whole aspect of lack of teamwork is important, too. You can't storm powerful places from 20 angles at once, so either they need to be weaker or your weapons need to spawn faster and with more ammo so that the players in powerful places will be drawn out.

 

Nah, I don't disagree with that (if I'm reading what you wrote correctly). The point behind my initial post was not to state that you could just down-scale Sanctuary and deem it an excellent 1v1. The fact that your standard 4s map naturally implements team-based influences into the design keeps that idea from being plausible. The point I was making is that there isn't a fine line between them in terms of the standards that make them "good", thus you only need apply your knowledge of one to the other while accommodating for the omitted (or present) factor that distinguishes the two; teamwork. I admit, that's a pretty vague answer to the question, but it's the best way one could put it without listing specific, conditional nuances.

 

Symmetrical maps can work for 1v1, but they are seriously that much more dull, having a whole side to yourself. It gets even worse with symmetrical weapon sets because it promotes having a free power weapon at the start for each player ("Here's my sniper, there's your sniper. Let's meet at the top and go at it."). That's stupid to me. The only saving grace for a competitive 1v1 being symmetrical is if it has an asymmetrical weapon layout.

I would rather have players start in different environments, scavenge weapons that are reachable / work for them, and decide if they actually have to contest the weapon or not. The early game is less predictable, and requires more skill/knowledge. Not to mention it forces players to learn a whole layout rather than half or fourth of the layout.

Don't like your starting spawn? 1v1's should be played best 2 out of 3, so you deserve an opportunity for the alternate spawn.

Yes, the concepts of asyms can apply just as well for 4v4's. The only reasons symmetrical maps are popular for 4v4 is they are easier to design and accommodate symmetrical gametypes (such as 2-Flag). However, 1v1 maps only play asymmetrical gametypes (eh...slayer), so Asymmetry should be the focus.

 

Funny enough, that's what I just did on a 1v1/2v2 map I just made - it's symmetrical with an asymm weapon layout. As long as the weapons are equidistant off initial spawn, I like that approach. No need to have a sniper on both sides when you can have a sniper and a railgun (or whatever) and let them decide which weapon is most worth rushing. It's a little more dangerous if the two weapons aren't contested, though - it can introduce a balance issue that is difficult to correct since you can't do anything to the map layout to compensate. (On an asymm map, you could flat out give one person the more powerful weapon, but give the other person a compensating advantage in map control; however, that kind of balance is a high-wire act, to say the least.)

However, I feel like you're reducing symmetrical maps a little too much by talking about my side vs. your side. If the map is interestingly designed and not just a straightforward mirror image map (e.g. with two bases opposite each other and three interrelated hallways connecting them), it can be symmetrical in ways that encourage people to not just set up shop on "their side" and wait for the other guy to appear. Rotational symmetry is often easier to make into a more dynamic-feeling map than mirror symmetry, and to produce a feeling where it's less clear which territory "belongs" to which team; also, using more 45 degree angles (or even more exotic ones) creating avenues that cut across the map's basic square/90 degree angle layout will add a lot of flavor and flow. Basically, there are a lot of approaches that aren't "The Pit but smaller."

Sure, and those are all good things. But it introduces a problem that many (I'd say most) forgers can't overcome - inherent imbalance. Asymms are the hardest maps to balance for obvious reasons, and when there are only two players on the map that issue can sometimes be brutally magnified. I still love a good asymm, mind you, but I feel like a lot of the people that tout their virtues are really downplaying the main advantage of symmetrical maps: built-in balance. Not to mention that while the amount of knowledge required is lower, a well-designed symm can still offer a lot in the way of strategy. (I've played 2-base 2-tower maps a million times, but I still enjoy every game I play on Simplex, and find interesting wrinkles in the strategy; and that's a VERY well-worn symmetrical design compared to the more exotic ones a forger might dream up.)

Even in that case, if there's an imbalance, one player gets to take advantage of it in two games as opposed to one for the other guy. Not insignificant. And many 1v1s outside of a tourney format are not played best-2-of-3.

 

Just decided to read it all.. Good read. You guys make me want to make a 1v1 map, or two.
Should I just go for it? Taking all the advice you guys have given, Of course.

 

Sure. Can't hurt to try.