"Mommy says I'm special" - Map theory

[poub_]

A new year begins and I thought it time to ask a very basic question:

What makes a good map and what breaks it? What is the secret combination that makes players vote the map on servers, that makes it 'standard' for certain gamemodes and popular throughout the community? What is so magic about q3dm6? Why is cpm3a so powerful that it even managed to influence CPMA's gamedesign and -balance? Why has ne_duel not taken off even though it had every reason to do so, being a community project with input from several mappers and continuous feedback from players?

Experiences, theories, opinions, tell me about it

[Foo]

History
Chance
Gameplay Quality
Graphical Quality

Roughly in that order.

[Lukin]

Almost every game has it's own map (or a small set of maps) that cannot be replaced - q2dm1, pro-q3dm6, cpm3, deck17, and so on... Usually it's just the first map that's good - when players get used to it they don't want a change. That's why people play the same maps for Q1 since years, and that's why ne_duel (and a lot of other great levels) didn't taken off. IMHO.

[pjw]

Not a whole lot to add to those two posts--that covers most of it.

Assuming equal "gameplay quality" (and there's a whole mess o' discussion about what that can mean), I'd just add that there's an "originality" sweet spot that a map can hit.

If a map is somehow different enough (in a cool way) from the norm to stand out in peoples' minds, without being so different that it gets a negative wtf reaction (and sometimes that's quite the knife-edge to balance upon), that originality does a great deal to help its chances of getting lots of play.

[GODLIKE]

(Note that Lukin made two of the 'never-to-be-replaced' maps for Q4, so he's got cred.. )

But, I'd have to agree with Foo.. Luck and timing have almost as much to do with 'winning popularity' of a map as weapon balance. Know any songs that you hear on the radio over, and over, and over.. They're not really that good, but at least you know the words?

People get used to a certain feel.. and especially when the game is "serious" (ie, a tournament or other very competitive scenario), players will normally opt to play a map they have already played a thousand times.

Certain things are required, I mean, the map has to be good, or at least decent. Gameplay should allow the player to win while still expressing their own style, so the player has a lot of choices, and can feel at home on the map. Visually the map shouldn't be COMPLETELY hideous, and it shouldn't contain too many serious bugs... but after a certain point in the lifecycle of the game, players don't push too hard for change, because they already have a handful of maps that are 'legend' because there's 200 demos recorded on them.

Eg: Phrantic is a good example of "simple things done very well". Phrantic is solid, and comes from a good pedigree (swelt's maps did a lot to define what "good gameplay" actually IS).. But it's not a revolutionary or amazing map. However, it was one of the first really good maps for Q4, and everybody who has played the game online has played Phrantic.. So it will stay in the loop as long as Q4 is healthy, likely as not.

[xgo]

Hope the cpl picks up ne_duel, seems like a very interesting map. ive tryed to get some pub players to play it with me, but they all wantet to play ztn ://

[Lukin]

(Note that Lukin made two of the 'never-to-be-replaced' maps for Q4, so he's got cred.. )

That actually reminded me about another factor, which is the mapper's recognition. If Swelt or ZTN would make a map today everyone would at least check it. In my case this would probably be this way: "Lukin again? Let's give a chance to someone else"
The point is: building your own brand is very important. I used to include a little resume ("hey, I made this and this map for that ancient game, maybe you remember it blah blah blah") in the posts about my maps - even if no one knows you you at least don't look as a total newbie in this bussiness. Testing "anonymous' first map" is sometimes very painfull experience, players avoid that.

P.S. What intruges me the most is why so few mappers jumped to "Q4" when it was the best time for it And why so few are interested in another big chance given by Id

[xgo]

we love u Lukin

[v1l3]

What makes certain maps become popular is word of mouth...whether it be by playing in servers, or by using a sort of advertisement.
I always viewed doing reviews at ..::LvL as a form of advertisment of certain maps as maps worth downloading. ..::LvL is the dominator of custom map sites for q3 maps.
Speaking of promode maps..I remember back in 2003-2004 there was a huge group of mappers at the promode forums that worked together in makings maps, and I along with another couple of people spent time in making sure that they had decent reviews enough to cause people to be interested in getting them. It became such a powerful overtaking in map making that it was pissin off the vQ3 mappers to a point of them nearly quitting making maps. That wasn't really a good thing in the longrun..though at the time it seemed to be great.
When q3a first started out, a good part of the best mappers in the world were making maps for it. Over time they disappeared, and went on to make maps for other games and left q3 pretty much. It's hard for people to make original style maps nowadays because it's difficult to make something original that hasn't already been done by the masters. People aren't interested in getting maps that don't meet the expectations of beating what's already done (Gameplay -n- looks).
pro-q3dm6 hit it's popularity by online-play. cpm3 didn't become a powerful map until Rat had that interview in the past about which maps he believed to be the strongest tourney maps. He said he loved cpm3....then alot of people actually gave it the time of day it deserved because of that. There's alot of followers...and less leaders. Before cpm3, cpm1a was the height before it. I personally fell in love with ffdm2(cpm15) way back when I'd play in servers which apheleon would be in also, and just viewing him moving though the map, and doing double-jumping....I was astonished by a map which presented such abilities that no other map had at that time.
I'll always be around with the same goal of what I've always had in hyping maps..as mostly everyone that knows me is aware of...though there's only about 800 people that are still downloading maps...well 400-500 realistically...but around 800 over an elongated period of time.

though Poub...you personally have a map that no one has ever done though => b0

I personally think that a group of us need to start another wave. I don't mean promoders...though I mean Q3A'rs. Q4 is never gonna hit the mark of what Q3 has done. I believe Q3 hit the same excitement level that Doom hit originally in the making of something that had never been done by any other game company.

Power of the word of mouth. That what makes a map...along with someone that actually spends alot of time in the making of it.

My opinion though...sorry to be so long winded =o

[GODLIKE]

P.S. What intruges me the most is why so few mappers jumped to "Q4" when it was the best time for it And why so few are interested in another big chance given by Id

I think the answer to that is complexity.. mappers who didn't make anything for Doom3 had a big curve ahead of them to make a Q4 map. If you compare things like "number of brushes" or "time to align a bumpmapped texture vs a vQ3 texture".. Q4 is a lot more complex.

In my own personal case, I wish I'd made a duel map a long time ago, instead of months ago.. The duel map loop is already pretty much concrete, and "building your own brand", as you say is difficult in a hostile market. :icon26: Sadly, when Q4 was released, I started working on an FFA map.. But it was a fun project, and that's really what it's all about, or was at the time.

[wviperw]

Factors that affect a map's success:
(basically restating what others have already said)

Word of mouth - Like v1l3 said, this matters a ton. Word of mouth is pretty much the only form of advertisement maps have.

Timing - This can play a huge role. I believe a big part of why Placebo Effect became popular was the fact that I released it right before the CPL made their map-selection. Timing can be everything.

Brand-name recognition - This has been demonstrated time and time again, with the most recent occurrences appearing in the Q4 mapping scene of late. In VQ3 you pretty much had to be id or ztn to get your map played. Q4 was very open to new maps at first but eventually came to be a swelt/Lukin monopoly. (/me tickles Lukin) :P Again, part of the reason Placebo was accepted was that I could tote "from the maker of the 1st place FragArcade map, Cobalt."

Filling the niche - This is an often overlooked trait that every mapper (who wants his maps played) should have. You've got to be aware of what is currently out there and what gaps need to be filled. For example, Q4 is *still* needing TDM maps so it'd be a lot easier to break through in this area.

Originally I hade "luck" down as a factor, like others have done, but I realized that the appearance of a mapper getting "lucky" with a map is usually just a facade for what's really happening behind the curtains--a combination of timing, skill, finding the niche, etc.

[pjw]

Q4 is a lot more complex.

I disagree, at least when we're talking MP. More complex? Yeah, I suppose. A lot? Nope. Really, the only part that has much of a learning curve at all is the new lighting system. Other than that, it's pretty much the same stuff.

Now if you're talking SP...well, that depends on what sort of map you wish to make, and how much complexity (e.g. scripted stuff, AI-ish stuff, fx, eye-candy, supporting cast, etc.) you wish to put into it. You could make a rock-simple very Q1-ish find-the-key-and-the-exit map pretty quickly.

[GODLIKE]

Q4 is a lot more complex.

I disagree, at least when we're talking MP. More complex? Yeah, I suppose. A lot? Nope. Really, the only part that has much of a learning curve at all is the new lighting system. Other than that, it's pretty much the same stuff.

I should clarify, I suppose: I don't mean that there is a lot of "technical skills" which constitute complexity.. I mean more simply that with the added 'depth' of Q4's rendering (I play with high detail, and I map with it) one ends up making more complex things, in order to make it look good.

Especially if you're like me, and you think things like "lights should actually appear to come from light sources, and cast shadows accordingly", and "tiling the same texture around a corner in a way that the material described in the texture could never do in real life is NOT okay", etc. In Quake 3, I would happily tile an entire tier of an MP map with mostly the same texture, maybe some trim.. In Q4, I never do this, because it just doesn't look right.

Originally I hade "luck" down as a factor, like others have done, but I realized that the appearance of a mapper getting "lucky" with a map is usually just a facade for what's really happening behind the curtains--a combination of timing, skill, finding the niche, etc.

This is quite astute.. I should have said "opportunity", rather than luck. You need right-place-right-time, but the ability to capitalize on such an opportunity is a skill, and people who are really dialed in to the community can often make their own opportunities.

[wattro]

luck favors the prepared... in my eyes, it's certainly a skill


as with most success stories, there are couple common factors

-right place, right time
-persistence pays
-quality
-evolutionary

although this thread is about map theory, the thread has really become about why maps make it and others don't.

we have acknowledged that some really good maps don't make it and some decent maps do make it - for whatever reason

that being said, professional gaming (is that the criteria?) has been around for some time now and there are many tried and true formula for creating a map. this makes it even harder for a new map/mapper to make it because the tried and true formula has become somewhat saturated. perhaps we aren't pushing the envelope

as a game designer, i know it's extremely hard to sell ideas that don't have a proven positive bottom dollar. this makes innovation very difficult. not in terms of having the ideas, but in terms of getting buy-in and executing them. custom modding/mapping is great for this, because essentially, there is no bottom dollar to worry about

i think for a new map to be a keeper, you can try the following
-hit a new game with a good player base
-start from the base formula, and do something original but not gimicky... make an evolution, but don't be radical
-take time to get good, get to know your market and penetrate it

point is, if you are trying to build the newest uber Q3 map... good luck... there are so many maps out there. know the markets, know where success is most likely, and go there


/mommy doesn't love you...

[poub_]

Very interesting turn of things indeed

The point of timing and niche fascinates me, in hindsight it's obvious... as v1l3 said: b0_beta3 was that, a niche (at least for CPMA) and with the right timing. Picking up tried and true elements (its core is the jjm-concept along with defrag), taking them a few degrees further (add grain of originality) and releasing the map to a community that is open to new maps.

Again I wonder what a small if any role actual layout and construction plays in all the posts. I'm reminded of my boss who I once asked "what makes a good application for a job"? He said the ultimate application is the one that comes just at the right time, when the company is in need. Just fit the outlined criteria and you're in. Kinda funny how close those two examples are

So I think the main drivers for map success are identified, but what about now? What about Q3 or more precisely CPMA with vq3 and cpm? What does a good map need now (to succeed)? Timing is still a question, word of mouth, should a mapper release maps along with tournaments, should there be other ways of map-distribution?

Maybe as e-sports evolve and everything points towards competition and tournaments, those elements should seek out mappers and help them distribute their work? What guidance would you give a mapper that has the basics down and wants to create competition maps? How would you yourself go about creating a 'great' map for competition play and how would you get people to play it?

Another point of view: Do we - do the mappers know better than the players what makes good maps? In the end, the topic here tends to point that way, not exclusively but it's clearly a trend. I know from experience that you have to sort through player's feedback carefully, but do I really know better? And most importantly, does all the feedback make the map actually better or is it down again to more soft factors like timing and word of mouth?

[wviperw]

What does a good map need now (to succeed)? Timing is still a question, word of mouth, should a mapper release maps along with tournaments, should there be other ways of map-distribution?

In Q3 the only thing that will allow a map to succeed is for it to get picked up by the CPL. The only way to do this is to have all the ingredients previously discussed in this thread--timing/niche/solid gameplay/"luck"/word-of-mouth. The timing/niche part is already "in the bag" for Q3 IMO--players seem to be clamouring for new/fresh 1v1 maps. So the only real things that a mapper further needs is a) solid gameplay and b) word of mouth/recognition.

For the solid gameplay part even a noob mapper can get a good start by seeking out forums like this one and reading up on things like the competitive design guide. However, theory can only get you so far.

I think the real solution for a mapper looking to "break through" is that he must immerse himself into the community of players of whom he intends to play his map--he must hang out in the IRC chat rooms, harass the e-sports forums for feedback, and become intimate with the "pro" players who can really stress test the map. The importance of player feedback cannot be stressed enough when it comes to competitive maps. It is what carries the map beyond the theory of gameplay into the realm of applied/practical gameplay. Furthermore, it is a double-edged sword in that it gives a map the word-of-mouth factor that is so desparately needed for the map to have a chance at succeeding.

Of course the hard part, when taking feedback from players, is separating the wheat from the chaff. Ultimately it is the mapper who must have enough experience and wisdom to know which advice to take and how to mold the map into a successful creation.

[wattro]

if you are designing a map for good game play, then you have to be a good player. that is, you need to understand the system you are designing for so you can capture the elements that make the game exciting. a good layout that works well in Unreal will not always work in Q3. of course, having artistic skill lets you build an inviting environment, and having technical skill lets you build with respect to performance

i believe that you are generally better off with feedback, as everyone has their own style of play. a mapper/player will tend to make maps that fit their style, and may miss elements that don't pertain to their style. with that in mind, if you want to make a map that is embraced by the gamers, a feedback group that is balanced between play styles is probably a good idea. you're job as a designer is to make the best decisions from their feedback.

find mapper/gamer buddies who play & map differently from you. have them critique your work.

if competitions are going to go this route, then I would assume they would target a couple mappers as well as identify a feedback community to help build the maps to be used. the caveat to this is that new maps, while they may be fair in that no gamers have played them before, aren't necessarily fair in that users have different learning curves and one will learn the mapper much quicker. it's only one measure of skill, but shouldn't be ignored in the overall picture... though neither should it be counted overly.

the other good news going this route of having feedback from the players is that your map will be somewhat well known, as will you. it will be possible to gauge the relative success based on the feedback sessions, even at the early stages and decide whether to continue on from your prototype or abandon it. ask them specific questions about the features in your map.

the other thing that can be done is to run some surveys & interviews, and ask the gamers... what is missing from the maps you play? what is your favorite map? how could it be improved?

lastly, if you are starting a map, why not write a brief for it and story board it? what experiences do you want the players to have? simply coming up with a layout may work, but having a vision guide your design can pay off big time.

/believe in your own success

[axbaby]

i have always wondered why one guy can post a map here for review and get tons of feedback but another of equal quality map gets little input.

a lot of it is timing .. this forum is busy sometimes and dead other times.that may be why some maps get noticed others don't

i remember when quake3 came out and someone released Japanctf .. that taught us that a map doesn't have to conform to what the default id software maps look like.
that map opened many doors i feel but not many people were willing to test the waters
later. we seemed constrained by what Threewave was throwing at us, i hated all Threewave maps but if you wanted to make a ctf map you were stuck making a Threewave type map .. dizzing,confusing,too many paths.
i think with Quake4 we are stuck with how a default id map looks like.
there will be hundreds of the same maps pouring out very soon with the same colors
and themes and basically there is not much you can do about that.
right now i have shaped what i think will be a very fun map to play except i'm stuck figuring out how to make it different.
as far as i'm concerned if it isn't unique then your wasting your time.

[wattro]

lastly, and maybe most importantly... distribution. so many great maps just sit on hdd's hoping someone will find it, say it's a great map, and put it on a public server

smaller maps have a much greater chance of being downloaded
talk to the people who run servers, get your map up

on another note, i have a question... not being widely aware of the nuances of the quake community... how closely related (currently) are the CPL players and the general quake playing community? are they vastly different communities?

[Kaz]

@GODLIKE: I'd say that you're correct in stating that q4 mapping is more complex, but perhaps you're making mapping for q3 out to be more simplistic than it really is? I wouldn't ever "happily tile an entire tier of an MP map with mostly the same texture, maybe some trim" in either q3 or q4.

I agree with you, but as pjw pointed out there isn't that big of a leap.

Anywho, not to derail or anything.... a few thoughts about generally related things:

I think that name recognition is a huge thing and that "getting in early" is a large part of that. Lukin made some kick ass maps for q3, but when you think of q3 most people think of mappers who created great maps when the game was still young, and not later mappers, although their maps may have been awesome or better. However, it seems that Lukin's name is synonymous with competitive q4, due in large part (I would say) to his quickness in releasing his maps into the community. If q4 ever becomes saturated with custom maps, he will still be remembered while it will become exponentially harder for new mappers to gain recognition, even if their maps may be better playing or looking.

This has probably already been stated above, but whatever :P

[wviperw]

on another note, i have a question... not being widely aware of the nuances of the quake community... how closely related (currently) are the CPL players and the general quake playing community? are they vastly different communities?

From my point of view at least, they are almost synonymous. Sure there are the random RA3/CTF scrubs out there still playing the same old maps, but the only real active part of the Quake community seems to be the competitive scene, and that is being kept alive by the CPL.

[GODLIKE]

@ Kaz: I think we're basically in agreement, so I won't over-work this... My point I suppose is that there are Q3 maps which use less than ten textures and simple brushwork, and which don't look awful.. I'm not sure I can say the same of Q4 mapping in general.

Re: Lukin - I think Lukin is kind of stuck under a double-edged sword, due to his "early emergence" for Q4. On the plus side, his maps will never be removed from the maploop..On the down side, because he dominated the scene so completely, many players will be negative about "yet another" Lukin map, or give mediocre quality feedback. (For the record, I still think that "monsoon" is one of my favourite deathmatch maps in ANY Quake.)

Ultimately, though, it SHOULD come down to 'gameplay'. In a perfect world. People don't buy Mercedes cars necessarily because they're the best... but they're good cars, so it's a tough line. How much of map dominance is "brand-building"? .. Hard to say.

wviperw's guide, Lunaran's various writings on connectivity.. There are some "classics" to read. And, I have to say, if swelt took the time to write down what he thinks makes a great map.. I'd probably read it. So, while I can't give that much advice (aside from obvious things like "be polite to people who share feedback ideas with you, even if you think they're wrong") on how to handle the community to promote your maps... I would advise any mapping seeking to release a successful map to review the good maps which have come before. Originality is important, but smart originality builds on what players already know and love.

[Lukin]

Yeah, all this "finding a niche, name recognition, good timing" could be a curse sometimes. That's what happened to me when I made a map without a railgun (actually it was just a remake of my q3 level, done in a few days) right when people where looking for a replacement of "Phrantic". The level were considered "the best ever" by some until pros played the first tourney on it

Also, I admit that I gain recognition by an early entry to "q4", however I must add that it wasn't as easy as many suppose. Basically I had to do what wviperw said - discussing with the players community. I actually spent more time on forums than in radiant. It's really a hard job. But this communication not only made my name known - it, in the first place, influenced the quality of the maps ("Monsoon" had about five beta versions). Without this they would be removed from the loop along with bliptourney, lost fleet, amcs, fool's run...

if you are designing a map for good game play, then you have to be a good player.

Not necessarily. Of course you can't be totally bad, but I think the more dedicated player you are the more you're closed to different styles of play. I believe watching demos and listen/read game analysis is a better way to "understand the system".

In Q3 the only thing that will allow a map to succeed is for it to get picked up by the CPL. The only way to do this is to have all the ingredients previously discussed in this thread--timing/niche/solid gameplay/"luck"/word-of-mouth. The timing/niche part is already "in the bag" for Q3 IMO--players seem to be clamouring for new/fresh 1v1 maps. So the only real things that a mapper further needs is a) solid gameplay and b) word of mouth/recognition.

For the solid gameplay part even a noob mapper can get a good start by seeking out forums like this one and reading up on things like the competitive design guide. However, theory can only get you so far.

I think the real solution for a mapper looking to "break through" is that he must immerse himself into the community of players of whom he intends to play his map--he must hang out in the IRC chat rooms, harass the e-sports forums for feedback, and become intimate with the "pro" players who can really stress test the map. The importance of player feedback cannot be stressed enough when it comes to competitive maps. It is what carries the map beyond the theory of gameplay into the realm of applied/practical gameplay. Furthermore, it is a double-edged sword in that it gives a map the word-of-mouth factor that is so desparately needed for the map to have a chance at succeeding.

Of course the hard part, when taking feedback from players, is separating the wheat from the chaff. Ultimately it is the mapper who must have enough experience and wisdom to know which advice to take and how to mold the map into a successful creation.

Amen to this whole post.

[v1l3]

i have always wondered why one guy can post a map here for review and get tons of feedback but another of equal quality map gets little input.

The majority of the time, when a map is made that is done very well, yet gets no comments, is because it's already considered a flawless map in construction. It's the maps that have errors that usually need the most comments.

I know alot of mappers take the "no comments" as a bad thing, when sometimes it's actually a good thing.

[axbaby]

don't rush the map out the door.. follow through with your vision..
if your not happy with a section of the map take a break.
it doesn't take much to make a real good map fail because of
a poorly done section of map.
when the map is done and you release it for beta expect Many Many more hours of work on the map.

my maps get very little feedback and i've always thought that was a bad thing and looking back some of them were real dogs.
the problem for me is finding the time to map so when i get a month off i map 16 hours a day till done.
that's why my maps fail because of my self inposed deadline ,given more time i could do much better.
i have some time off ,a good idea in my head ,have fired up the editor many times in the last few days but unsure if i want to stop life as i build another new map which may never get played dispite how good it may turn out.
if i do release a map it will be anonomous in case my name is part of the reason for failure.