Continent Map Design

[Kipper]

Just a fleeting thought, how do you design a continent for three teams that's both fair and encourages fighting?

Assuming, for instance - that you can spawn Galaxy in your foothold/home hex, and in a dropship centre, which to be of any signficant advantage in flight times etc, would have to be further away, perhaps toward the centre of the map (so you can launch attacks from there). If it's anywhere BUT the centre, then it favours the empire its closest to.

Also assuming that other main bases carry some advantage; if empires don't have "one each" in their default zone of control, people are going to end up crying that some empires have advantages that the others don't on the map.

This is assuming that the closer the hex is to an empires foothold, the less often it will change hands because there'll be higher empire traffic through there and its more likely to be surrounded by friendly hexes.

So if there can only be one dropship centre, and each faction (to be equal) has to have equal number of main bases in their default zone (even if they are different bases with different but balanced advantages) doesn't that mean that all of the continents will essentially be symmetrical?

Also - if terrain is unique (as we know it is) across the continent, some capture points are just going to be easier to fight on than others, what if some empires feel as though their territory is 'easier' to capture?

How do you design 3-way levels that are fair, but interesting?

[Kipper]

/Opens can of worms.... No not me but you....

I aim to please....

It goes back to real life not being fair as to who owns what territory and resources, and that's just how it is, but gamers demand everything to be perfectly balanced.

Me, I just want to shoot blue and purple guys, but I'm interested as to how much thought has to go into it and where you'd even start. If its completely even, it would be boring and look unnatural.

[Xyntech]

I doubt that Galaxies will be spawned only at specific facilities.

We know that PS2's towers can spawn some vehicles, and are around the size of PS1 bases. My guess would be that smaller vehicles (ATV's, Lightnines, ES fighters) can be spawned at towers, while larger vehicles (ES tanks, Liberators, Sunderers, Galaxies) can be spawned at any base.

The spread of resources is the primary value of territory, at least as we understand so far. As long as no footholds are left short changed for nearby resources compared to the other empires, it should be pretty balanced.

They will probably have to tweak it a little though, to get it right. As you mention, differing terrain will result in different balance issues. I am not super worried about this at the moment, because the PS2 team seems somewhat on the ball when it comes to level design and level balance. PS1 had really haphazard base layouts and terrain. It felt much more MMORPG than FPS in that way. Map design is a very important balance, but if done right, even asymmetrical maps can be balanced.

I do wonder if we will ever see anything like rotating foothold locations though, where which empire owns which foothold is swapped around. That would probably fuck things up gameplaywise though, with empires suddenly moved away from their centers of territory. Maybe it only happens when one empire controls all territory on a continent? lol

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

I doubt that Galaxies will be spawned only at specific facilities.

Last word on this was only footholds and Tech Plants (Dropship Centers are not a current base type in PS2).

[Snipefrag]

I aim to please....

It goes back to real life not being fair as to who owns what territory and resources, and that's just how it is, but gamers demand everything to be perfectly balanced.

Me, I just want to shoot blue and purple guys, but I'm interested as to how much thought has to go into it and where you'd even start. If its completely even, it would be boring and look unnatural.

I guess they can balance it over all the continents, so that certain factions have slight strategic advantages on certain continents.. Or they could offset it by placing bases that are almost as useful slightly closer to the empires that are further from the drop ship center. But I think they will probably make it an more organic approach, maybe make the home bases on a conts rotate every so often? Who knows :confused:

[The Kush]

Just a fleeting thought, how do you design a continent for three teams that's both fair and encourages fighting?

Assuming, for instance - that you can spawn Galaxy in your foothold/home hex, and in a dropship centre, which to be of any signficant advantage in flight times etc, would have to be further away, perhaps toward the centre of the map (so you can launch attacks from there). If it's anywhere BUT the centre, then it favours the empire its closest to.

Also assuming that other main bases carry some advantage; if empires don't have "one each" in their default zone of control, people are going to end up crying that some empires have advantages that the others don't on the map.

This is assuming that the closer the hex is to an empires foothold, the less often it will change hands because there'll be higher empire traffic through there and its more likely to be surrounded by friendly hexes.

So if there can only be one dropship centre, and each faction (to be equal) has to have equal number of main bases in their default zone (even if they are different bases with different but balanced advantages) doesn't that mean that all of the continents will essentially be symmetrical?

Also - if terrain is unique (as we know it is) across the continent, some capture points are just going to be easier to fight on than others, what if some empires feel as though their territory is 'easier' to capture?

How do you design 3-way levels that are fair, but interesting?

Please do your research before making posts that have already been addressed.

The devs have already said different bases will mean different things to different factions. By doing this they can always assure that each faction will be on an even playing field. For example:

X base is the most desired benefit for the NC and obviously for this reason it is the farthest away from the NC home base and right next to the TR home base. That same x base to the TR, which is closest to their home base, is a simple benefit to them instead of a really desired benefit like the NC would get from capturing that same base.

[Kipper]

Please do your research before making posts that have already been addressed.

It was much more a theoretical question than a practical one - the perfectly balanced map would be perfectly symmetrical, but that would be dull. The question was more about how a designer reconciles the need for balance with the need for unique and interesting features which might affect gameplay.

For example - a team holds a hex with a river, which they don't have to cross from their foothold, 3 hexes are owned by them adjoining it and 3 hexes held by the enemy means that according to the capture mechanic - both teams can capture at the same speed.

A determined assault across the bridge captures it for the second team, but the original owner can recapture it much easier, because despite the surrounding territory being even, they never have to cross the river to retake it, and the enemy do to reinforce it.

Does this lead to this type of hex just not changing hands? Do you have to provide everyone with their own hex that has equal bias? Do you move tha capture point depending who owns it? Etc etc.

Personally I don't want to see total (obvious) symmetry, I'd go for interesting every time - but also wouldn't like it to feel like there are specific areas that are 'meant' to belong to one team - I want to see a constantly evolving front line, with the chance for battles on every inch of the map.

[Erendil]

I would like to point out that fair <> symmetrical. There's no need to make the maps literally triangular or otherwise geographically symmetrical for all 3 empires. The large size of the maps means that there will be areas where the fight will be decidedly unfair for one or more empires. And that's okay, so long as no one empire is at a disadvantage across most of the map. :cool:

But it wouldn't be that hard for them to introduce geological features like lakes, mountain ridges, etc that would reduce some of the inherent advantages an empire might have if their foothold is in close proximity to a valueable base or territory, for example.. If the closest empire to a base has to traverse a mountain range but the other two empires have to cross large, but relatively flat, plains, who has the advantage?

They could also design the maps to play to an empire's strengths and weaknesses, like strategic placement of resource types that are more valuable for one empire than another, or designing sections of the map to be most advantageous to the TR's superior vehicle speed, or the VS's superior accuracy and ability to go over water with their Mags.

And to be honest symmetrical and "fair"would IMO be boring anyway, :p and not just from from a geographical standpoint. A lot of challenge and variety in gameplay can be had from overcoming hardships inherent in the map design.

Another thing they have mentioned is the ability to dynamically changes the resource values of different territories on-the-fly. That will no doubt be used as another balancing measure.

And IIRC, the Devs have said they were designing the maps so that every inch of the map would be used and fought over. I don't believe they've ever said that every inch would have fair fights.

[The Kush]

It was much more a theoretical question than a practical one - the perfectly balanced map would be perfectly symmetrical, but that would be dull. The question was more about how a designer reconciles the need for balance with the need for unique and interesting features which might affect gameplay.

For example - a team holds a hex with a river, which they don't have to cross from their foothold, 3 hexes are owned by them adjoining it and 3 hexes held by the enemy means that according to the capture mechanic - both teams can capture at the same speed.

A determined assault across the bridge captures it for the second team, but the original owner can recapture it much easier, because despite the surrounding territory being even, they never have to cross the river to retake it, and the enemy do to reinforce it.

Does this lead to this type of hex just not changing hands? Do you have to provide everyone with their own hex that has equal bias? Do you move tha capture point depending who owns it? Etc etc.

Personally I don't want to see total (obvious) symmetry, I'd go for interesting every time - but also wouldn't like it to feel like there are specific areas that are 'meant' to belong to one team - I want to see a constantly evolving front line, with the chance for battles on every inch of the map.

Okay I get what your saying but what your forgetting that base that has a river, a different one has a forest, another one maybe has a rock cliff. Basically every base obviously won't be the same and that's fine. I don't think it will make that big of a difference what obstacles are along the way to the base. The biggest factor is the players and their strategy. It is up to each faction to use the surrounding terrain to properly defend or attack depending on the situation. Being unique is a real world idea. And real life isn't always fair. The world is chaotic and symmetry has no use in a game like this.

[Kipper]

I agree interesting is better - I'm just curious as to whether there were meetings about it (as there will have been to discuss weapons, vehicles etc) or whether the brief was just to make something that looked unique and awesome and worry about how it plays when we play on it.

I can see how you balance weapons and vehicles with maths and spreadsheets - but how does a map designer know how his or her map is going to play? I'm just curious.

[The Kush]

Yea ^ that's def something we will have to wait till beta to see. But they have many years of experience with mmofps so since this isn't their first time around the block I'm sure they have a good foundation to build off

[Bravix]

I imagine that, resource wise, each empire will be more fond of a certain type.

Example: Vanu equipment uses mostly Element X, whereas NC equipment largely requires duct tape.

This would allow for more equal positioning of the resources. Put the one that each empire needs near their start, that way missing out on the bases further in doesn't present such a large dissadvantage.

As far as rivers and other geographic stuff goes, IDK. That's kinda like how the TR always inter-farm from the same bases in PS1....You can't really balance it perfectly. Just gotta deal.

[cellinaire]

I aim to please....

It goes back to real life not being fair as to who owns what territory and resources, and that's just how it is, but gamers demand everything to be perfectly balanced.

Me, I just want to shoot blue and purple guys, but I'm interested as to how much thought has to go into it and where you'd even start. If its completely even, it would be boring and look unnatural.


Man... even in 'Lobby-instance' online FPS games there needs to be a lot of work put into the game, just to make the balance near-perfect. So I'm sure that they always think about that very, I mean very seriously. And obviously, they even decided to make this game in the first place, because they were confident.

(Not trying to say we have to be much more magnanimous just 'cause it's MMOFPS, though.) ;)

[Xyntech]

Last word on this was only footholds and Tech Plants (Dropship Centers are not a current base type in PS2).

Thanks.

Well that still is a lot more common than "1 Dropship center per continent."

I knew there were only base 3 types (AMP, Tech and Biolab), so I knew it wouldn't be like PS1 that way.

[Attackmack]

If, in some way, footholds are not fixed but changing that would mean any map no matter layout will be balanced.

Possibly the foothold is a movable fortress. Issues would still be risen but not unsolvable.