(Discussion) What makes a great 1v1 map? For many people 1v1 may be a new category of gameplay that they may have never considered or forged for. With new found interest thanks to the upcoming contest, some may be looking for basic guidelines to help them forge something that the judges and community will continue to enjoy multiple games in. I'm creating this thread as a place to consolidate the discussion that has already been forming in multiple locations so that everyone may read up and obtain a rough idea of the general consensus and varying opinions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There's surely more to consider but I thought id start this off with basic gameplay. As of now there are a couple concepts that seem to be widely agreed upon. I will try to approach these as objectively as possible and then below i will follow up with my own subjectivity. Feel free to add to this, challenge or help others understand your own POV. Predictability in respawning: Since every kill grants a short amount of uncontested time players would generally be moving into a location that would give them an advantage for the next encounter. This would be used to spawn the enemy away from an incoming weapon, in a location where they're less effective to fight back or somewhere they have less routes and opportunity. Having less spawns that are more predictable is important so that positioning yourself after a kill will have reliable results. In a 1v1 you don't have your teams position to help determine where the enemy may be. It helps with both players having better awareness of where the other player is and decrease stagnation for example two players waiting for each other to show themselves or find one another. Its also important that the player spawning in has a legitimate chance to fight back. Don't put spawns in a location where they can be easily farmed, spawn killed or at an extreme disadvantage. Lastly consider a single digit number of spawns and think of their placements ahead of time while building your map. General flow: When creating a 1v1 map its important that players feel the need to continue moving rather than fighting over and holding down one area of the map. In a 1v1 it can quickly become stale if every battle is between two points. Create a map that has multiple counters to the other locations so that you'd always feel comfortable moving around and between different positions to gain a new angle. Its normal to have power positions but don't allow them to be the only strategy. Imagine if during rock paper scissors both players had a second to change their decision. Both players would repeatedly switch their attack method to counter the opponent. You want to dance around the map together! This could be forced through multiple means such as basic geometry, teleporters and weapons or powerups. The Subjectivity: Spawning: IMO its relatively as straight forward as i explained above with some additional concepts. For grabbing power weapons and powerup's they should often be placed in locations that would put the spawning player at an advantage if grabbed too slowly after a kill. It helps with balancing the increased lethality they create during a 1v1 and adds risk vs. reward. 'Will i grab the weapon now or wait until i get a kill while i'm closer?' Otherwise, for controlling where the enemy spawns for traditional encounters, its very tedious when there is always one spawn that is repeatedly preferred. I could understand two but three is a relatively sweet spot. Also please set team specific starting spawns. General flow: Depending on which method is used to create movement, this is an area that will highly effect the types of gameplay we will get out of the maps. I lean towards gameplay that comes from the simple geometry of a map. IMO a good 1v1 map will flow well with no weapons on the map and could be considered well balanced and enjoyable without them. I prefer more traditional arena style gameplay where weapons aren't the end all be all strategy to winning and prefer fights to be a majority of pistol vs pistol with secondary pickups for specific roles such as a long range power weapon or CQC. With that said i do recognize the feasibility of using multiple power weapons and powerup's in a 1v1. Designing the map around them specifically creates a totally different style of gameplay that can work extremely well if balanced correctly but i wouldn't be inclined to consider those any more creative than the former. The downside here is that it can quickly be over-done and create a messy game of fiesta. I really don't enjoy being forced to fight with/over powerups and weapons constantly. Especially if they are respawning quickly or directly after being depleted. For teleporters i'm fine with them so long as i can reasonably expect a player to be shortly entering one or have a direct view of it happening. If i'm getting jumped from behind out of total randomness then its bad design and much less forgivable in a 1v1 than higher player counts. Some weapon thoughts: 1v1s are a great opportunity to utilize the stale weapon sandbox we have. Lower tier weapons like br, dmr, smg, plasma pistol/rifle, etc are all viable power weapons in a 1v1. You dont have to just stick to tier three weapons. Don't put precision weapons all over the map requiring goal one to be grabbing them. The pistol is a great utility weapon to focus gameplay around in 1v1 even at long range encounters. Consider low ammo on weapon pickups The gametype the maps are being tested on does not spawn you in with AR. Its a great pickup weapon. Balance your maps around this!
Yes, we definitely want players to be rewarded for aggression. Yes, we want spawning to be somewhat predictable but also fair. The only thing I disagree on is the use of pickups to direct flow. Pickups should be used to compliment your map, and not as the only movement incentive to an area, and here's why. Lets say that you're finished with your maps geometry, and you recognize an issue. There are one or two spots on the map that don't seem useful in any scenario that you could think of, or these spots are just flat out death traps and impossible to push out of. Your first thought might be to place a power up or a power weapon in those areas so that players are incentivized to use those parts of the map, but this in practice actually achieves the opposite of what you want. First of all, if the only reason to take a path is because of a weapon, then what about the huge portion of the game that you don't have a weapon there? It's dead, useless geometry and that's not what we want. Second of all, if a spot on your map isn't useful to be in or is underpowered, then placing a weapon there will only briefly fix your problem. Once a player retrieves a weapon, there is no longer any reason to be in that area. The player will then naturally head for a power position, which in fact makes the spot he came from even worse. Not only is that area now devoid of any utility, but the player who retrieved the power weapon is making the underpowered area even harder to push out of because he's in a better spot AND he now has a pickup. TL/DR: Pickups accentuate your maps trends. Make sure that everything is balanced and situationally useful before placing your weapons and powerups, and you'll be gucci. Other than that, be creative and make some beautiful ****.
I agree. Dont use weapons to incentivize a player to use content not properly designed. Plan the content around the pickup ahead of time. There are instances where death traps and generally unused space can be planned with a pickup in mind. For example using a dead end that increases the time it would take to grab a pickup so players would prefer to fight over it than rush first. Another example being very open spaces like the cat walks on hang em high. I think the overshield on Bioshift, rockets on Northern Darkness and camo on Box CE would all be good examples of it done properly. They all spawn in locations that a player would never willingly go otherwise but add planned depth to the maps gameplay.
While I'm generally inclined to agree with you here, I don't think it's a rule that should be followed 100% of the time. I don't think it's inherently wrong for a certain path or platform to only be used every 60 secs or whatever. Undesirable maybe, but I've seen examples that work. First to come to my mind is OS (I think that's the powerup there) on Loading Zone. While it is a high point, it isn't really a power position by itself due to limited sightlines and the fact that the pipes are directly above other geometry. I just don't think it's completely necessary that every playspace on your map be used equally and/or in the same way. There can be routes that are used simply for transition 99% of the time, and I don't think it's inherently bad to put a power weapon or power up in locations such as that. Please do rebut if you have one.
NGA's response sums this up nicely. It's totally okay to design an area of your map around a pickup, like OS on Legion. However, it's detrimental to use a pickup as a remedy for an otherwise useless area. Even still, I do think it's worth trying to make the areas designed around a pickup still have some situational utility, again like Legion. The best example I could give would be something like this; You make a map, test it, find an area that is never being used or is a death trap, so you move a power weapon to that spot. Like I said, pickups accentuate your geometry, but can never change it. The best way to remedy a problem like this is to redesign the area or the map.
It's called a band-aid fix, because it doesn't fix the problem. It just tries to hide it. But, I wouldn't even pay too much mind to these types of principles. As long as you know why they exist, then you have no need to follow them. They are just general good rule of thumb for newer level designers.
FWIW -- i'm not trying to nitpick... but it's the "latter", as in the "latest thing I just said". But actually, the way you constructed your argument means you probably meant to say, the "former", as it was not the last thing you just mentioned. Otherwise, a very good write-up and I found it very useful as a 1v1 noob. Thanks,
I try to look at design elements as a gradient, and how tuning one affects the others. Flow and balance being two examples. Basic example: A player is on a raised platform, and a player is on the floor level. Balance: The balance is skewed in favor of the player on the platform, because they have a more advantageous position. Flow: The player on the floor level will want to get onto the platform. The player on the platform will want to stay put, because they have the advantage. Let's make a change: The high platform is now walled in, with no visibility to the lower floor. Balance: The balance is far less skewed, as the platform no longer sees over the floor. Flow: The player on the floor will still want to get onto the platform, as we instinctually flow up on maps. The player on the platform may want to move to find the other player. The player on the platform may also want to stay put and wait for the other player to come to them. So, tuning one will always affect the others. Some would say common sense, but breaking down design this way is how I refine my maps.
I would like to see multiple playstyles made viable on any given map. Options that allow you to close in the distance between you and the target, enabling cqc. Crows-nest like areas, allowing your to survey the map in search of the enemy. And weapon set combos like D boost and hydra, or speed boost and smg. Honestly, any one of the suggestions mentioned above can also be said for higher player counts. The same rules most apply here, save for a huge exepction; it's critical that players have viable options wherever they spawn. Lift room on bioshift is a perfect example of a spawn trap nightmare, with no good options to challenge.
I would like to talk about the "predictable spawning" advice being given. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I want to understand why it's so desirable. Is it just about rewarding the killing player? Because it seems to me that whenever someone gets a kill in a game like this, seeing as they do not need to wait to respawn like the dying player, they already have the reward of the scored point and the ability to set up wherever they want and grab anything available. Why then, do they also need the advantage of being able to easily find the other player? Wouldn't some unpredictability in this area create a situation where a less-skilled player cannot necessarily beat the more skilled player ,but continue to enjoy themself by surprising them from time to time? Shouldn't the killing player be a little nervous about what comes next? WOuld like to hear more...
I'm going to be honest here... 1v1's don't make bullshit automatics any less bullshit --- Double Post Merged, Aug 17, 2017 --- I like to make spawning somewhat predictable because it reminds me of the glory that is the CE spawning system, but I wouldn't really even call it a preference. I also think it just adds another layer to the gameplay that the better player will use to his advantage, but only if he's paying attention. I like that sort of thing, but like someone smart said, there are no rules.
Because having predictable spawns adds one more element of skill in a map. Since CE spawn manipulation has been a very important aspect in 1v1s. The goal, (and it's rather difficult), is to ensure the spawning is predictable, while giving the player spawning options to choose how they want to approach the next fight. It's very easy, and undesirable, to have a map with predictable spawns turn into a spawn killing nightmare. For the record: I'm not opposed to unpredictable spawning. The idea of even further rewarding the player that just got a kill with an immediate advantage seems unfair. I just don't think it's possible with Halo's spawn system, unless your map has a ton of depth. And if it does have a ton of depth, you're probably going to run into other problems, like pace.
I did devise truly random spawning for my first published H5 map, "Octagon Ex", but it has its drawbacks, for sure. The main issue with it is that it can spawn an enemy directly on or behind the surviving player. it is sort of exciting in an octagon environment, but may not work so well for a competitive 1v1 It may be possible to improve with further scripting that identifies whether the zone the spawn is going to use has a player in it, if so, don't use it. Actually, I just visualized what I'd need to change to make that happen... hmm... Also, another topic: Do people always run 1v1 as two teams, red/blue with 1 player each, or as FFA? I saw NGA's note about team initial spawns...
Two teams (Red/Blue) I would think is the preferred option. That way you can design a map with a color pallet that wont give either players an advantage.
How did I mess that up so bad? Total brain fart on my part. Good call. I put this in the subjectivity section because its a preference. Im glad you grabbed it out for discussion. Just like any other 2 team gameplay I like to formulate a gameplan ahead of time and having an idea of which side I'm spawning on helps to react immediately rather than having that moment of uncertainty. It can't be only me that fumbles my start sometimes simply because I got caught off guard by the initial. It will also help assure that we are experiencing both starting spawns equally while testing. It's open for discussion ofc. I'd like to address other posts too but I'll come back later... I'm on my phone.
@Xandrith I edited my post a little read back just in case you missed it. Also referring to team vs FFA, I've always used redvblue and I feel that's the proper game mode. You can still get random spawns by not setting the initials up as team specific.
I suppose you could do both types, set some to "Slayer" and some to "FFA"... Slayer would be team specific, and obviously FFA neutral. That way, if someone uses the other gametype cuz they're dumb or something, it still works.
Yea that's a good point. I could imagine people wanting to set up extra spawns for ffa but still have two set specifically for 1v1.