BTB Design Theory

Let's first clear things up.

BTB - 8v8 - more focused on vehicle influenced gameplay.
Squad - 6v6 - more focused on player influenced gameplay.
Squad BTB - a made up term to somewhat balance the more competitive nature of 6v6 squad player interaction with the 8v8 vehicle focused gameplay while maintaining 8v8 player count.

 

There are a couple ways I can think to balance travel times while still allowing hogs to go most everywhere a spartan can.

The first is drop-offs that only allow vehicles to go on a path in a certain direction while infantry can simply jump up in order to pass in both directions.

The second is doorways that aren't large enough for vehicles but lead to two different parts of the same vehicle path. The easiest description would be a U-shaped path with a door connecting each arm of the U. Vehicles can still drive on every surface of the map, they just can't fit through the door.

Edit: Thought of a third. Man-cannons that only affect infantry or can only fit infantry.

Lol @ "made up term"

 

Rat's Nest is actually a fairly good example of this kind of design ("Squad BTB").
You can take a warthog anywhere on that map if you really want to (It's a pretty big "Oh ****!" moment to be chilling in the Mauler corridor only for several tons of angry Warthog to come barreling down the hallway and squash you against the wall), and the outside track does have enough cover for infantry to see it as a viable (if not ideal) route too.

Intentionally restricting routes too much tends to make the map easier to "solve" by which I mean an optimal method to do something is found and then the metagame for the map becomes almost set in stone for that particular action. When the possibility pool is expanded, even with some high risk options with a low probability of success you increase the ability for inventive players to shine and reduce the chance of the metagame become locked in so early at higher levels of play.

 

Squad design is something I began intuitively working towards in Halo 3. I've iterated on it over the years since and began actually putting it into words more recently. Originally, I just shared the theory with a small group of individuals who took an interest, but I eventually described it in a pair of videos on my old channel. I was pleasantly surprised to see several forgers take an interest and decided to capitalize on the opportunity to crowdsource the community to contribute more to the theory than a small group of individuals ever would. The forgers who embraced the theory during the contest were a pleasure to work with.

What we now call squad evolved naturally as an approach to BTB design starting with MockKnizzle, Flying Shoe, and I in Halo: Reach. We found that a 6v6 player count was the sweet spot for the maps we were creating. This player count fit the tighter maps we were creating, but still provided large enough teams to orient players into various roles. It was really just a matter of synthesizing BTB down to our favorite elements of it and building maps which combined those elements as well as possible. We forewent the wider open spaces typical of BTB maps in favor of tighter spaces and created more overlap between areas used by vehicles and areas used by infantry. This is where the term infantry-vehicle interaction comes from.

The goal of this concept is to create additional depth. Traditional BTB maps tend to have relatively simple infantry areas with limited vertical overlap. We wanted to have infantry areas as complex and vertical as the spaces you'd expect from a 4v4 map to make the infantry gameplay more comparable to what is expected from smaller player counts. The vehicle gameplay on these maps also featured jumps and drop-offs, leading to more directed and more vertical gameplay than what's seen in most BTB maps. Things got really interesting, though, because the vehicles and infantry were actually occupying the same space and interacting with one another. This adds depth because it requires heightened awareness for both. These maps also highlighted a positioning skill element for warthog drivers which is underdeveloped in traditional BTB maps.

Another core element these maps focused on was travel time balance. This was born out of a need to balance the viability of running a flag on foot with running it in a vehicle as most of these maps were primarily designed for objective play. If a 'hog could cross the map in seconds, it would be the best option for flag runs and players on foot would not be empowered to contest the flag. It's widely agreed upon that there should never be a "point of no return" on flag maps and that a team should be empowered to contest its flag all the way to the opponents' base, so balancing travel times to empower players to do this was a natural choice. Some classic BTB maps like Headlong, Standoff, and Rats Nest achieved this, but others like Blood Gulch and its decedents did not. Our maps threw a wrench in this travel time balance because they still focused on allowing infantry and vehicles to interact throughout most of the playspace. This contrasts with a map like Rats Nest which balances travel times by having infantry areas which cut through the center while vehicle areas loop around the outside.

The first map which really demonstrated all of these elements which have now been labeled as "squad design" was Panic Attack. This is a fairly straightforward two base flag map which some broad similarities to Sanctuary. However this map featured elegantly simple vehicle routes. A player who could position their 'hog effectively could make a huge difference in how engagements played out on the map. Panic Attack creates a simple clockwise vehicle circuit using jumps and drop-offs but also provides a route which cuts lengthwise across the center to re-enter the circuit from a different angle.

There are three key elements of this circuit which differentiate it from what is typically seen in BTB. First, it balances travel times. Infantry can cut through bottom mid and can jump up the drop-offs, giving them more freedom. This travel time balance means that a flag run on foot and a flag run in a 'hog are comparable time-wise. Again, this element is nothing special on its own. It's important to note alongside the other two, though. The second key element is that the entire circuit is as friendly to infantry as it is to vehicles. The only areas on the map not accessible to vehicles are the upper floors of the bases and the cut-through in bottom mid. This means that the main infantry areas and the main vehicles are one in the same. This contrasts with traditional BTB maps which feature distinct infantry areas and vehicle areas which are largely separate from one another. The trick is that these areas aren't dumbed down from an infantry perspective in order to account for vehicles; the map features a decent amount of vertical change and overlap. If vehicles were absent entirely, the entire map would still feel relevant. This again contrasts with most traditional BTB maps. Imagine playing Blood Gulch without vehicles; the wide expanses which are featured throughout most of the map would not be relevant. The third key element of Panic Attack's circuit is that it forces vehicles to move vertically. In order to move from base to base, 'hogs must move up and come back down. Forcing this vertical movement plays into my earlier points about about not dumbing down the infantry areas and ensuring that the sort of vertical overlap and more complex geometry which you would expect from a 4v4 map but rarely see in an 8v8 map is present.

These elements have become the core pillars of squad design since. These pillars can prove difficult to design around. A common trap people fall into is constricting vehicle routes on squad maps to be too road-like. It's easy to design a circuit which is too reliant on linear directional routes, overly restricting vehicle play. A squad map will rarely allow vehicles the type of freedom they have in the open expanses on a map like Blood Gulch. Driving on squad maps is much more about positioning than speed and maneuvering.

Squad was always intended to be a more niche experience which fit between traditional 4v4 and 8v8 experiences. However, some of these design elements are now being applied to 8v8 designs. These are just alternate ways of thinking about BTB design. Whether you prefer traditional BTB experiences or squad experiences is purely a matter of personal preference. All of this theory has evolved organically over the years. Maps which incorporate it have been enjoyed by players of all skill levels, both on foot and behind the wheel. I've tested these maps with Naked Eli and members of BTB.net, with the Halo Wheelmen, and most recently with members of 343's pro team. These maps incorporate many elements from traditional 4v4 experiences, and those include many of the competitive elements that those experiences are known for.

It's been a pleasure to see new squad experiences created by forgers recently. The attention BTB has gotten recently has been great to see. I hope everyone will remember that these squad elements are merely alternate ways of designing BTB. Squad design still has much to learn, but traditional BTB design also stands to learn a lot from this squad theory. There's no reason they can't coexist.

 

I just think that you guys need to do a better job with base design on these style of maps as it can be extremely difficult for players to push out of the base if they lose control. Maps like rats nest, headlong, standoff all have good areas for players to spawn and fight from. You can still control the spawns but these maps do a particular good job of giving the players a good chance off of spawn. Unless you get the back of the base warthog run going on standoff that can be absolutely brutal. The btb.net team I would sub for now and again back in the day would never let vehicles stay up for more than a second and generally avoided warthogs unless they were in matchmaking and there was a gauss hog because it took away from there team shot while not entirely increasing the damage they dealt and the possibility of two being down because the other team would unload on the warthog increased like crazy. (That last bit was not as big of deal as in most matches everyone died a lot.)

things I would like to see be done more effectively:
Smoother angles for vehicles to turn so they can maintain higher speeds more effectively.(This would help decrease the damage done by team shot if they can dip and be scrappier in the warthog.
Increased depth in bases either through verticality,more structural depth or terrain variation.

In no way do I disagree with what you are trying to do or am I trying to hinder it. I just think these couple of things could really help improve the map style as a whole and broaden the fan base of the style.

 

That's constructive criticism I can work with. While it's important to focus on slower, more careful driving in a lot of squad design, that's not to say that there aren't times when you would want to speed through an area. So long as this didn't negatively affect travel times (which if the map is designed well it shouldn't anyway) this is a good point.

For the bases I'd generally agree that more complexity in the bases would be preferable, which bases are we comparing between here? Can you show examples of bases on squad maps you think exemplify this issue?

 

@shoe panic attack and that map fated made that was like panic attack. Very easy for a team to spawn kill and very difficult to fight out of. Those were really my only issues with those maps and maps similar to them.

I felt that the bases could have been a little taller with more terrain elevation on the low side of the base could have been more varied. speaking about panic attack specifically here.

 

I never really played any Squad-BTB maps, but I think the idea is to take concepts from smaller player maps, and apply it to BTB. I'm all for the idea, because those maps tend to have geometry I find more interesting.

If you're going to be influenced by a map, like Midship, be aware of how and why it works. The base design of Midship is what makes it as fair as a two-base design that plays at that pace can be: Give the team spawning a chance to execute a counter-attack, but also limit their options and manage line of sight to assure that the team in control has the advantage.

That sweet spot can be hard to find, and I think Tyrant (Purely Fat) is saying that those maps have it skewed too much in favor of the team controlling the map.

Just look to Midship and try to emulate what makes the base design work for the map.


I understand there's a big difference between 4v4 and 8v8 design, but good base design is of the utmost importance for any two-base map.

 

During Reach's BTBnet run we actually played a map I made that was entirely based around infantry combat and it ended up being a mainstay of that game's competitive BTB scene [Click for footage (Disclaimer: not the most recent build) if interested: Slayer | CTF].
At the same time we also continued to use maps like Spire, Headlong, and Breakpoint which hit the complete opposite end of the scale to good effect and had the added bonus of forcing teams to get good at a wider variety of gameplay styles over the course of a BTBnet season if they wished to be successful.

If you have a specific goal in mind at the start of the map creation process you can make damn near anything work with enough iteration and balancing. At the time my infantry only map was built we still only had a 100% bloom DMR, so the goal I set was to build a map in which the vast majority of shooting occurred within the red reticle range of the weapon (unlike Boardwalk, the other mainstay infantry only BTB map) so as to minimise the effect of bloom on the gameplay. At the outset that might sound incredibly chaotic for BTB (and probably violates a lot of the gameplay preferences in BTB for many here; but that's okay because as mentioned before the map was intended to meet a specific goal for a specific audience), but with enough careful adjustment of cover & height variation, a solid weapon set, and 2 sets of teleporters on each side of the map we ended up with something that might even be described as an "Arena BTB" experience that over time came to be fairly well received by everyone from BTB diehards to several teams of (at the time) MLG "semi-pro" players.

I wouldn't make the exact same map again because several years of it being hammered at a high level did put a magnifying glass over some flaws, and the design was a lot more linear than I would have liked had Reach's budget and performance allowed for further expansion. But the moral of the story is that even if your concept sounds like a ridiculous idea just give it a go anyway, and provided it's balanced there's no reason that a map shouldn't be well accepted by its target audience (and hopefully a wider audience too!) as long as it manages to offer either something a lot of people want that is missing from the game or something very new and different without falling into the trap of being gimmicky.
I think that with Halo 5's improvements to object count and performance we should be able to see a lot of concepts fully realised that simply couldn't be done with an appropriate amount of polish on the Xbox 360. This excites me in particular for BTB, because we saw so many great maps both conventional and unconventional for 1v1-4v4 on the 360, and now there's a very real chance that such creativity could expand to the 6v6-8v8 stage too.

 

I have no idea what we're talking about anymore

 

I'm with you on this one. In my opinion a good "squad map" is simply a map that is scaled and designed in such manner it can support both 4v4 gameplay and 8v8. If a map is designed for 6v6 gameplay exclusively it shld by consequence support both. Good examples from halo 2 include but arent limted to Burial Mounds, Relic, Zanzibar and Terminal(let's forget the attic exists lol)