I've got some questions for you master forgers.

I highly recommend this http://www.forgehub.com/threads/forge-fundamentals.147829/

 

Yes definitely read forge fundamentals. I've read it several times. It was really helpful for me.

As for spawning it took me awhile to make spawning on maps even somewhat decent. Really I'm still not that great at it. Its kind of something you start to understand a bit more over time. I do try to create some areas on my maps for safe spawning, But I do know that there are people in the community a lot more qualified to talk about spawning then myself, so I'm gonna stop here.

If you like designing asymmetric maps I don't see any reason why you can't create single, dual or tri atrium. Its just up to you to make it work. I personally have been taking a lot of inspiration from quake and reflex maps recently and already have some layouts sketched out for them that I'll be making once forge releases.

Anyway hopefully someone a bit more knowledgeable then myself will come in here and give you some pointers.

 

That link Xandrith posted is excellent, Chunk has written some good things on forging.

I'm no master forger by any means whatsoever, so take everything I say lightly.

In terms of spawning, while I typically don't go out of my way to designate huge areas for spawning, it's not uncommon for forgers to make small pockets or divets in the wall to spawn into safely. You're more than welcome to create small rooms or alleys for the sake of spawning, as long as your map isn't riddled with holes and pockets, it's not a big deal to have an area serve for spawning and nothing else

In terms of layouts, you should never feel obligated to create a map around a single atrium, or dual atrium, or tri atrium, unless that's what you actually want to do. You can have no atrium if you want, it doesn't matter. Symmetrical vs assym is completely and 100% up to you, so never feel pressured to build something a certain way to fit into tendencies. These concepts are cool, sure. But there's so much more to explore. Most maps in Halo 5 actually don't fit into any of those atrium 'categories'.



As for pathing, I have a whole video on it that I never posted that might help you, I'll message you the script for it right now

I'm a big fan of not having control points on a map, I think it represents an old school style that you'll see in CE/Quake, and keeps people moving. Most people will disagree, and follow the formula from more recent Halo games. What you prefer is going to be up to you.

Flow? Don't even worry about that lol just make your map. Test it. Refine it. And that'll all come together on its own :]

Again, I'm pretty controversial apparently. But I honestly think the most important thing you can do for a map is just have a vision for it and what you think will be an awesome goal to shoot for. eg. a linear aggressive map that takes place on a bridge over a canyon, strong sniper points. No power position, and a focus on ghost gameplay.

Having a vision like that is essential, the finer details will come as you test your map and hammer out the issues, just keep your vision in tact.

Design videos are filled with tons of information, even if you don't agree with everything at the very least they'll offer different view points. But I understand how overwhelming they can be, especially for someone a little newer to forge. You shouldn't have to take every bit of information you hear and go back to refine your map towards these theories. They're really just good for explaining concepts so that hopefully they're ingrained in your brain well enough to where you don't even need to think about it, you just kinda do it when you build a map without realizing. For now, just go forge. Have fun, build ****. Play it, find the issues. Learn, and then move on and make something else.

Honestly, every map you build will make you a better and better forger and map designer whether or not you realize it. I think you should just go build things And when the time comes, these concepts and information in the design videos will all make sense to you in time, and they won't be overwhelming in the least. And then you'll be making your own design videos! With your own opinions! :]

 

I'm gonna reiterate a bit on what Multi said above and something that I agree with greatly.

You need to have a vision of what you want your map to accomplish before you start building it. I use to go into forge and build maps off of a vague idea all the time. The problem was although I was creating some cool ****, It just didn't accomplish anything purposeful and ended up suffering in the end. It ended up being a jumbled mess of blocks that looked like **** and couldn't play for ****.

Control points I really don't think that a single control point should be too prominent on a map, But thats just me. I like to encourage movement on my maps. Not so two teams sit in the same spot the entire match.

One last thing, Any rules that people tell you. Honestly just don't take them too seriously. I wouldn't recommend you follow them to the T. Listen to feedback, But just cuz one person says change you whole map doesn't mean you should. Make it your own. Just have fun with it really.

 

@Mr Bouncerverse I absolutely love your passion for gaining level and gameplay design knowledge, and you very much remind me of myself when I first started designing a few years ago. I was extraordinarily lucky that the first Halo/forging forum I joined was The Halo Council (THC), which had a massive, collective, and evolving base of both level and gameplay design knowledge due to the awesome (and often hostile) combination of competitive-minded designers with highly competitive Halo players on the site. It was the wild west of forging, and I very quickly met some of the most knowledgeable, experimental, creative, and cultured designers in the Halo community, such as @a Chunk, @WARHOLIC, @xzamplez, @purely fat, @Korlash, @Sethiroth, @Xandrith, @Doju, @Chef Linguini. I sought out honest, blunt, and constructive feedback on my earlier designs, absorbing everything and participating in as many testing lobbies and design discussions as I could. Most of these guys are still super active in the forge community and are more than willing to provide feedback, so be sure to reach out to them when you have designs ready to show and test.

In regards to symmetry versus asymmetry, routes/control points/verticality, and map flow: all of these design pillars largely depend on the primary game type(s) you are designing for. Symmetrical maps are favored for symmetrical game types (e.g. Multi-flag CTF, Ricochet), whereas asymmetrical maps are favored for asymmetrical game types (e.g. Slayer, Oddball, King of the Hill, Strongholds, One-Flag CTF). The best designers strongly embrace the marriage between level design and gameplay design, and as many have stated above, it is extremely important to define your map's purpose and intended experience(s) in the pre-planning stage.

To further iterate on @MultiLockOn's point about flow (and perhaps enlighten him about something cool he's been doing intuitively without realizing it); while flow can certainly evolve over time, the best designers very much intentionally design flow on their maps. In fact, routes/control points/verticality are all pillars of flow design. Every imbalance present in your map design factors in to your overarching flow, whether those imbalances are simply major/minor differences in verticality or the presence of control points. The best designers spend a ton of time studying how imbalances influence gameplay, and fully embrace that influence through intentional implementation of imbalances across their maps to define flow. I am personally far more passionate about gameplay design than level design, so once I design the basic mass-out of a map, my focus completely shifts into an analysis of how players will use the map; how players will move, think, engage. I will literally run circles around my map for hours, envisioning combat and movement. Over time, you will learn how to accurately imagine gameplay events and movement sequences before players ever set foot on your map.

In regards to control point philosophy, it ultimately depends on both preference and the specific game that you are designing for. The core of Halo: Combat Evolved's multiplayer component, which was much more true to traditional arena design pillars, was based on movement, verticality, and the simultaneous empowerment of both the individual and the team. CE had a true utility weapon that empowered the individual player off spawn, and the combination of faster spawning power-ups with vertical, asymmetrical maps created huge movement incentive and expanded the movement/combat skill gap by rewarding players who possessed extensive gun game mastery, movement mechanic mastery, and map knowledge. However, Halo 2 completely changed the multiplayer component of the series. Halo 2 removed utility weapons from the design, lengthened time to kill, and ultimately removed the empowerment of the individual--thus shifting the balance in favor of the empowerment of the team. The game devolved into a strong reliance on team shooting and positioning around control points, and while many high level players favored this experience as it expanded the skill gap from team to team, it ultimately diminished the skill gap from player to player. Unfortunately, the Halo series has continued along the path Halo 2 started ever since, and the game has yet to return true balance to empowerment.

Anyway, tl;dr: Level design is a never ending learning process, and the challenges vary drastically across different projects and games depending on intended game mode/game type, feature set, movement mechanics, weapon sandbox, time to kill, and various other pillars of a game's overarching gameplay design. Take the time to extensively study the gameplay design present in the game you are building for.

 

The thing you need to give close attention when making more traditional arena shooter layouts is how segmentation is done whether a wall, window or a hazard. You need to maintain the balance of being able to predict movement and having an interesting layout and flow. If movement is too unpredictable, which means too many routes and not open enough to support the free flowing nature of the map, then you have the issue that most people who say they hate room-based maps have with room bases. You can also do what ever you ****ing please as I do.

 

And then everyone starts playing totally against the flow you envisioned and the 5 year old in you comes out. "You're doing it all wrong." **Stomps Feet**

A simple little thing you can do to speedup your learning process is to build modular test concepts. Start with a massive blank canvas, add as few objects as possible while trying to ramp up gameplay. Build a tiny map with barely enough height to jump, fill it with objects and try to enable fluid movement in the cramped space. You don't need to waste time making a fancy map to grow in experience, just test the concepts you have or the concepts that confuse you and then apply them to the maps you want to make.

On the topic of spawn points, I would think it easier to casually add a hint of cover afterwords than design a map with spawning in mind.

 

"Good designers know the rules of map design, but also know when and how to bend or break them."

 

Feel free to add any of us on Xbox (My current GT is The Fated Lava). I'll be sure to involve you in our playtests once forge releases. Just get ready to get sweaty, cause we play for blood. It causes bad blood sometimes

 

"You can also do whatever you ****ing please as I do."

While this isn't the kind of advice I'd give to someone just starting to get out of their comfort zone, it's something that does need to be remembered.

You need to remember that all the questions you ask don't really have a "right" answer. It's really up to you determining what kind of map you want and how you want it to play.


1). There's nothing wrong with designing an area solely for spawning. If the room has no other purpose/benefits, then it will be as if the room doesn't exist after spawning, as no one will have any reason to go into it.

2). I would advise going against this classifying of map styles (outside of Quake), because many maps tend to blend styles, making it hard to categorize them. Guardian doesn't have an atrium, and neither does The Pit.

Like Fated said, certain game types tend to compliment map styles, but always remember: "You can do whatever you ****ing please....". You can absolutely make a symmetrical Oddball map or an asymmetrical Multi-Flag map. You can even try to make your map support multiple game types.

3). Intuition, but also vision. I use "vision" because two experienced forgers may have a completely different threshold of what too much verticality, segmentation, or connections is. Not wrong or right, just different based on preference.

4). Yes, I am aware of the general flow of the map before creation, but I'm also very prepared to change the map during the designing process, and after the testing period.


I want to reiterate that literally none of these questions have a right answer. Map design is very much subject to personal preference. With that said, once you can bring an idea to life, we will have a much easier time giving you advice on how you could change/improve the design. All of these questions are situational, and the "answer" depends on how the feature/characteristic interacts with the rest of the map.


My only advice to you is to start simple. If you're going to try a dual-atrium asymmetrical layout: Don't make it too vertical, keep the connections on the same floor (bottom floor of atrium A connects to bottom floor of atrium B), limit the overlap, etc. While doing these things will generally make your map less interesting, it will also be much easier for you to visualize gameplay on it as you're creating it.

 

Great posts by everyone.
One comment I'll add regarding spawning is that it largely depends upon which gametype/s your designing for. On a Slayer map I definitely don't add areas specifically for spawning. I'll take the existing geometry and adjust it slightly to allow safe spawning. On a Multi-Flag map, however, it's critical to have areas to spawn players both when the flag is at home and when it's away, and this is something I'll definitely keep in mind during the design process.

Like most things in life, everything you're asking about is best learned through experience. Concepts are good as a starting point, but don't let them bog down your learning process. I took a similar approach when I began forging...read as much as I can, study as many maps as I can, try to 'figure it all out'. Ultimately, all of the information taken in during this investigative stage proved to be of little value. It was only through experience that I began to 'understand'.

What's your GT? I'll be happy to give you feedback when you start forging.

 

Just a solid reminder for making maps is that you do not need to have the whole thing planned out beforehand. Many of the best creations I've seen throughout the years and spanning Halo games, would be maps that were "winged." Map design is important but you do not need to design a map before you make it. If you are planning a map for Halo 5, by all means, design your heart out. Think of anything in your wildest dreams. If you do however already have the tools (H2A Forge) I would recommend, at least where you are stuck, to "wing it."
I know this might sound silly and go against what people are telling you, but...
The best way to figure out the pieces of the puzzle are to mess around with the actual pieces. Just like a real puzzle, examine the piece options, rotate and twist them around until it feels right. Don't try to get too caught up in a professional mindset or you may critically overthink the simplicity of what feels good in-game. "Perfect map philosophy" gets you nowhere if it doesn't feel right, or quite frankly is not fun.

 

A good designer knows there are no rules only guidelines.

 

That's what I like to hear!

 

I think this "rule versus guideline" terminology dispute is primarily just semantics, and I agree that when using the actual definition of the word, "guideline" is a more appropriate term to use in the context of level/gameplay design. However, in the same way that scientific theories evolve into laws over time based on repeated supporting evidence collected across the scientific community, certain guidelines are regarded more so as "rules" based on repeated supporting evidence collected across the level design community--and when said guidelines are dismissed, there are often immediate, disastrous consequences in gameplay (e.g. dynamic spawns in CTF).

Level and gameplay design is all about balancing moves and counter-moves. The designer has complete autonomy throughout this balancing process, but when insufficient counter-moves are provided to players (e.g. when forcing players to interact with vehicles in spaces that are not designed for infantry-vehicle interaction), the design flaws are clearly and objectively evident in gameplay analyses.

This balance between moves and counter-moves is exactly why most maps cannot simply be converted from one game to another (not even from one Halo game to the next), as the balance present in one game's overarching gameplay design may not be present in another.

Anyway, @Mr Bouncerverse: As @a Chunk said, the best way to start truly understanding all of this conceptual discussion is to actually start designing and testing. Over time, all of this will become clear through experience.

 

Usually the theories become laws, because there is no evidence supporting any other outcome.

With map design, this pool of unlisted "rules" touches from general guidelines, like '3 routes into and out of a room/area, to more agreed upon concepts, like 'don't make a map so vertical, that you need a sniper to see the bottom floor'.

I'm being silly, but it's true. These "rules" are endless, and many have been broken successfully. But, yes: Semantics.