Fundamental Advancement of MP: Maps

The general consensus around these forums is probably that Halo’s multiplayer has to truly inspire in the next game. It should score and surprise positively.

I think Halo’s MP has a strong core but it has never really seen advancement upon its core but its core has been buried under more and more additions (what I think is the main issue with that Halo is currently struggling).
During the focus of adding and developing all of this “stuff” I think the most important element of Halo’s MP has been left behind: the maps.

I am of the opinion that you don’t need much stuff in Halo to create a great multiplayer experience when you play on fantastically designed maps.

I asked myself why Halo 4’s and Reach’s maps are often generally considered the worst maps in Halo’s map history.
Of course you can argue that elements like Sprint play a role in here but Sprint is just an additional factor and I think one of the major issues is the general design of the maps that likely had to suffer from too much stuff it had to consider and incorporate.

I think the map themes, the sandbox/gametype compatibility of maps and the weapon placement on maps need significant attention and advancement to increase the general quality of maps and multiplayer gameplay and to create proper spaces for Halo’s large amount of varied multiplayer elements.

Advancements in (constructional) themes
When you compare the maps, especially Halo 4’s but even older ones, you will realize a vast majority of them share the same fundamental theme. They are build around a center.
That centric design has seemed to become classical for Halo’s maps and don’t get me wrong there is absolutely nothing wrong with high quality centric design but nonetheless it has also become quite repetitive, at least for me.
You need diversity in themes when you want to create diversity in the maps and their gameplay.
Maps that share the same theme will function/play quite similar. Maps that have an individual theme will function/play individual.
Therefore, beside the centric theme I would really like to see more varied kinds of themes as well.
I.e.: linear, vertical, dissolved or special themes (i.e. special: “Forerunner theme”: a map that changes/transforms/shifts on set intervals).

Advancing the Sandbox/gametype compatibility
Over the years there were more and more varied things (gametypes, weapons/vehicles, Equipment/AAs, etc.) added to the game with that the maps had to work with.
I often see the suggestion: place it on the map and it will work and harmonize.
But simply placing it on the map won’t make that automatically happen. You have to consider that the map has to incorporate all that varied things into its design, otherwise it won’t play well or like it was intended to be played.
Now the maps have been designed to “work” with nearly everything but the more was added the more the maps lost personality and individualism, disregarding the issue that the maps struggle with handling all those varied elements of the game.
I think to advance the compatibility of maps, maps should get designed more specific and individual, what means that you pick only a handful of certain elements out of Halo’s MP sandbox and incorporate it into the design of a map.
Especially gametypes but even AAs could play major roles in that kind of design and profit from it.
Instead of implementing AAs as tools to enhance the individual player (and likely cause several issues) you could incorporate certain ones into the design of a map and therefore implement them as tools to actually enhance the gameplay experience.
For example, a map with a vertical/ aerial theme could incorporate Jetpack as a necessary movement mechanic into its design.

Advancing weapon placement
I think weapon placement is a craft in its own. When I hear that power weapons create or dictate map flow, I cringe. The map itself has to create and dictate the map flow and not an additional item. Power weapons or weapons in general on the map can either harmonize and support that natural flow or interrupt it and harm it by creating an additional unnatural flow.
When you notice that people leave the key spots (main combat zones) or “getting off track” to get a weapon then there is something wrong with the weapon placement.
I think it shouldn’t require actual map knowledge to figure out where the weapons are located. A well-designed map naturally “leads” the player to the locations and with thoughtful weapon placement it is comprehensible for the player to find a certain weapon in a certain location.
That means weapons should be placed around the key spots and not around rest areas and i.e. a sniper should be placed on a “lookout” and not inside a base.

Quantity and Quality
Of course when you advance map design in such a way it would mean that you would have to design a lot more maps for the game, what could be a potential issue.
However, the result would be unique maps with individual, interesting and creative themes that actually all play different. Each would have its own unique gameplay and combat experience, its own personality.
Plus designing “specific” maps is “easier” than designing “all-purpose” maps since you do not have to consider as much elements, hence the quality of the final results can be generally better as well.

Conclusion
Other than many other things, the maps are essential for Halo’s multiplayer. The map creates the gameplay for the most part.
That’s why I think when you want to significantly advance Halo’s multiplayer experience you have to advance its map design or rather should start with advancing its map design and of course the elements that are directly connected to it.
A large variety of individual and creative map themes should/could become a great staple of Halo’s MP.
And personally I would prefer and appreciate amazing and individual maps that offer amazing and individual gameplay over every other potential new addition.

What do you think about that?
Do you have any other ideas/suggestions of how to advance the maps?
Feel free to comment.

I thought that was a very good post and I think think we do need more maps and more unique designs.

I agree with most of your points, especially the part about maps “leading” players to power weapons. This is the one point I disagree with (which happens to be your main argument):

> Of course when you advance map design in such a way it would mean that you would have to design a lot more maps for the game, what could be a potential issue.
> However, the result would be unique maps with individual, interesting and creative themes that actually all play different. Each would have its own unique gameplay and combat experience, its own personality.

We would essentially end up with certain maps playing the same way every time you play them. Maps would no longer be as flexible, which means less variety in gametype/map/equipment combinations. I think it would also lead to more stale gameplay, since you can’t experience the same map with a variety of different gametypes and vice versa. Granted, some maps just don’t play very well with certain gametypes and equipment and so you will always be at least somewhat limited, but we’re talking about a much more extreme limitation here.

In my opinion, this is not a worthwhile “fix” because it does more harm than good. I think it would be easier and more beneficial to design features that work with existing gameplay than to redesign the gameplay and/or maps to accommodate a few features that aren’t necessary to begin with.

Due to time constraints, Bungie used maps from the campaign. The idea was that when 343i took over there would be additional maps. We all know how well DLC maps work out, so I think it would be best to leave Reach out of this discussion for the time being. I’m sure there will be an appropriate time to bring it back into the discussion later.

I think it’s pretty safe to say that the Halo 3 multiplayer maps were designed from the ground up to accommodate multiplayer game mechanics, which differ from campaign mechanics. Thus, a map designed for campaign should probably not be considered for online matchmaking. You avoid a whole lot of problems right off the bat.

Multiplayer maps are for games where both sides are real people and the characters they are playing are Spartans (or equally powerful Elites) using any or all of the equipment and vehicles that were available in the current game as well as previous ones. The next consideration should be the type of game. A map made for Team Doubles would probably be a bad BTB map, and vice versa.

I didn’t get to play much H2 MM, but it seems to me that even H3’s worst maps were very playable. I really liked that some of those maps had interactive elements like the doors/windows on Standoff and the rotary thing on Last Resort. Maps that have features you can use to make life miserable for the other team should be a high priority for the next release.

The maps that come with the game, however awesome, will soon get old. A time will come when everybody knows the spawn points and the best routes, etc. DLC was the obvious solution but it has turned out to be a poor one. DLC maps only proliferate when they become free or severely reduced in price. Let’s face it. Gamers are cheap. It would be nice, though, if there was a way to keep the map lineup fresh in a way that allows everyone to participate.

As it is now, the maps you use come on the disk you buy. The days of buying a disk to play a game are just about over. What we are moving into is an age where you simply pay for access to a game that resides in the cloud. This opens the opportunity for the developer to make new maps on a regular basis, and when you go into matchmaking you first download the map you want to play on, pick your game, and then search for teammates and opponents. I think this might solve a number of matchmaking problems as well as open up map variety. There are a number of ways to charge for that. What comes to mind is a basic one time charge for content equivalent to what you would get on a disk, and a separate “subscription” to get a new map every month. It would be incumbent on the developer to make maps so awesome that the subscription is worth the price, or at least some of the maps are so awesome that people that didn’t opt for the subscription would pay to get them anyway. I’m talking good friggin maps that can’t be broken by a Jet Pack or any other AA. Maybe you could tailor your subscription to a particular type of map. If you like BTB you could subscribe to a year of BTB maps, or maybe you prefer CQB maps. Or maps best suited for tournaments.

I’m home sick today so I’m just thinking out loud here.

>

I can follow your concern and I must admit I haven’t looked at it from that point of view until now.

Of course the map itself wouldn’t be as fexible anymore and would likely play quite the same everytime but it would play truly individual in comparison to the other maps.

Only to make it clear; I am not suggesting that each gametype should get its own personal selection of maps. That would be indeed extreme and very likely not very benefical.
But that maps get designed with and for an afore selected variety of gametypes/elements and not with and for the entire gametype/element palette, since then you often have to make cuts elsewhere in the design of the map to make it flexible enough, be it its theme or its general quality or that certain gametypes/elements simply won’t work properly.

So, I think you would still have and could achieve a certain degree of gameplay/gametype variety/flexibility on the individual map, less than before of course, but instead the general quality of the map and its gameplay would have increased.

> Due to time constraints, Bungie used maps from the campaign. The idea was that when 343i took over there would be additional maps. We all know how well DLC maps work out, so I think it would be best to leave Reach out of this discussion for the time being. I’m sure there will be an appropriate time to bring it back into the discussion later.

Wasn’t it the other way around? That Bungie developed the multiplayer maps first and then implemented them into Campaign as well.
I think that would be more logical, plus I mean Countdown, one of my all time favorites, definitely doesn’t seem (to me) as it has been designed for Campaign.

> I really liked that some of those maps had interactive elements like the doors/windows on Standoff and the rotary thing on Last Resort. Maps that have features you can use to make life miserable for the other team should be a high priority for the next release.

Yes, I would appreciate some interactive elements on some maps as well. I think they could even become part of the theme in some cases.

> The maps that come with the game, however awesome, will soon get old. A time will come when everybody knows the spawn points and the best routes, etc. DLC was the obvious solution but it has turned out to be a poor one.

I have to disagree. When a map gets old soon, than it isn’t well designed in my opinion.
It isn’t about learning the spawn points or best routes and positions, it is about how the map plays and flows, if the gameplay and combat on it keeps you entertained after x hours of playing or if it does not.

> As it is now, the maps you use come on the disk you buy. The days of buying a disk to play a game are just about over. What we are moving into is an age where you simply pay for access to a game that resides in the cloud. This opens the opportunity for the developer to make new maps on a regular basis, and when you go into matchmaking you first download the map you want to play on, pick your game, and then search for teammates and opponents. I think this might solve a number of matchmaking problems as well as open up map variety. There are a number of ways to charge for that. What comes to mind is a basic one time charge for content equivalent to what you would get on a disk, and a separate “subscription” to get a new map every month. It would be incumbent on the developer to make maps so awesome that the subscription is worth the price, or at least some of the maps are so awesome that people that didn’t opt for the subscription would pay to get them anyway. I’m talking good friggin maps that can’t be broken by a Jet Pack or any other AA. Maybe you could tailor your subscription to a particular type of map. If you like BTB you could subscribe to a year of BTB maps, or maybe you prefer CQB maps. Or maps best suited for tournaments.
>
> I’m home sick today so I’m just thinking out loud here.

Well, I hope the good old disc will still accompany us for a decent time. :slight_smile:
Anyway, basically, in case I haven’t misunderstood you (otherwise correct me), your suggested system is just another form of DLC. Only the people that purchase the additional content will have access to it, why I think it won’t be economical for the developers when they keep developing content only for minorities. Hence I kind of doubt that financing the development of a variety of high quality maps could work with such a system. Then again I am not a specialist when it comes to gaming economy and finances.
But personally, I rather pay one price and get the complete experience that I can share with everyone else, than paying for the standard experience and then have to pay again when I want to expend it but can share the expended experience only with a minority.