More interactive maps

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

Sometimes the maps in halo 4 can be a little bit too static. there is no way for the player to change or move features about it strategically to his advantage, you know what I mean? this is something that bothers you a tad too? hopefully this changes with halo 5.

If I was designing levels I would add many ways for the player to change certain things. buttons and switches that do various things such as active and deactivate hard light bridges, turn man cannons and teleporters on and off, etc. everyone is always foaming at the mouth about a lack of “map control” well here you go!

besides buttons and switches there could also be automated turrets and other defenses you can build and repair at certain locations like in dominion but for every playlist. I would add a surveillance system you can access and see parts of the map if your team controls the controls for it. things such as this.

also there should be features on the map you are able to permanently change by shooting or hitting or exploding them. such as a large structure collapsing when under fire and altering the map significantly. Lastly I want more map danger. add more explosive barrels to each map and make it so players can pick them up and move them (cant sprint or fight back while carrying explosive barrels around, like carrying a flag).

So what do you think? I believe this would greatly enhance map control like everyone always talks about right? it would be very strategic in terms of map control and the team that exercises better map control would gain the upper hand. not to mention it would be a lot of fun!

2

Map control, in their context, is knowing how to utilize every cover, height, positional advantage a map provides.

For example, holding the pelican on Valhalla gives you plenty of cover, and allows you to snipe anyone on both sides of the middle hill.

As for dynamic maps, it depends highly on what we are trying to accomplish and how high of a skill gap we want in our game. For example, say I can disable a bridge, causing someone to fall to their death. I killed someone just by flipping a switch. Not exactly competitive design.

Whereas if I force myself through an enemy base, and open a door from the inside, I’ve rewarded my team with easier access in the future, but still had to work at it.

I thought dominion was a good concept that wasn’t expanded upon properly. For example, what if the bases were permanent? What if a CTF game had turrets, but I could infiltrate the base and disable them? What if players had a generator inside their base that gave them bonuses, but they also were required to guard it? Tribes Ascend does all this quite well.

3

> Map control, in their context, is knowing how to utilize every cover, height, positional advantage a map provides.
>
> For example, holding the pelican on Valhalla gives you plenty of cover, and allows you to snipe anyone on both sides of the middle hill.
>
> As for dynamic maps, it depends highly on what we are trying to accomplish and how high of a skill gap we want in our game. For example, say I can disable a bridge, causing someone to fall to their death. I killed someone just by flipping a switch. Not exactly competitive design.
>
> Whereas if I force myself through an enemy base, and open a door from the inside, I’ve rewarded my team with easier access in the future, but still had to work at it.
>
> I thought dominion was a good concept that wasn’t expanded upon properly. For example, what if the bases were permanent? What if a CTF game had turrets, but I could infiltrate the base and disable them? What if players had a generator inside their base that gave them bonuses, but they also were required to guard it? Tribes Ascend does all this quite well.

wait so map control is different than what my idea of it is? could you explain in some more detail what others mean when they say they want more map control aspects of halo introduced because I honestly thought that they had something like this in mind.

4

When people talk about “flow” or “map control”, they are talking about how a map plays out.

I control the map. Meaning, my team has control over every power position, every power weapon location, essentially every advantage. It’s not a game mechanic, it’s a mindset.

For example, let’s take…eh…Abandon.
We have a sniper in the middle tower.
We have people with shotguns guarding the ramps.
We have someone running around flanking people trying to get to us.

We essentially have the map locked down.

Too much map control is bad, but at the same time too little is also bad.

Let’s say we have two bases far away from each other on a flat plane. No weapons on the map. There is no incentive for people to move from those bases. They can just camp there, and they don’t benefit at all from leaving.

5

Dynamic map switches and controls were a necessity in Halo 2 and Halo 3 for 1 reason: 1-sided objective gametypes. As far as I can remember, some of the more focused maps from the series were:

Halo 2-
-Containment: Gate switch to open door to main base (unlock in front of each base)
-Relic: Teleporter lock (unlock in Defender’s base)
-Zanzibar: Gate switch to open door to main base (unlock in 2nd floor of Defender’s base)

Halo 3-
-High Ground: Gate switch to open gate into Defender’s base (unlock on 2nd floor of Defender’s base)
-Last Resort: Gate switch to lower barricades to main base (unlock on 2nd floor of Defender’s base)
-Longshore: Gate switch to extend bridge above Defender’s base (unlock on 2nd floor of Defender’s base)
-Standoff: Door switch to open doors going down and out of each base (unlock on 2nd lowest floor of each base)

As you can see, there are 7 interact-able maps in Halo 2 and 3 combined. Of those, 5 are for 1-sided Objective games, while the other 2 maps (Containment and Standoff) are more for accessibility areas within each base.

Halo 4 didn’t get a single interact-able until Vertigo, and it features the first map in the series with a switch that resets after a given time, instead of after rounds change.

I’d love if Halo 5 had dynamic switches for temporary things like light bridges, bridges in general, and movable objects (fan on Zanzibar), or even lifts and conveyor belts that can either help an Attacking team or help a Defending team, or both. However, things like that can have timers so they don’t last forever, but rather maybe only 30 seconds-1 minute. These type of interactions offer map movement and give a new flow to a pre-existing map layout and structure. I feel these were replaced by AA’s and less so by Halo 3’s equipment. However, there can be doorway gates to gain quicker access to an enemy base or allow a quick escape in games like CTF. Some doors can open to allow vehicle access and further offer more map movement.

I feel Halo 5 could strongly utilize switches that could affect other aspects of gameplay like equipment did. An example, a switch that could active a Distortion Field that interrupts vision with static through the player’s visor to a certain degree while within an area (think gravity room on Reach’s Condemned map).

Maybe a map could have a room with gravity at 500% going into an enemy base, and in that enemy base could be a switch that deactivates the intense gravity in said room, allowing for jumps to be completed that are otherwise impossible with the gravity active.

Those are options right off the top of my head, but I feel that some could be implemented fairly well if done right.

6

I really like the idea of dynamic maps. There could be bridges that could be extended, doors opening and shutting, maybe even a little map destruction.

7

> I really like the idea of dynamic maps. There could be bridges that could be extended, doors opening and shutting, <mark>maybe even a little map destruction</mark>.

no map destruction, that would really change the style…not that H4 didn’t but we want to go back to arena style not more like a COD/BF style in my opinion.

8

> > I really like the idea of dynamic maps. There could be bridges that could be extended, doors opening and shutting, <mark>maybe even a little map destruction</mark>.
>
> no map destruction, that would really change the style…not that H4 didn’t but we want to go back to arena style not more like a COD/BF style in my opinion.

Why does map destruction not fit with arena gameplay?

9

INTERACTIVE MAPS:

We also require Maps to be Interactive. Maps are one of the most important things about Multi-Player. And a game with bad maps, will not play well. I believe Halo Maps needs to have more interactive maps like those of Halo 2 and Halo 3.

The Interactive Maps in Halo 2/Halo 3 were one of the reasons that made these 2 games so great.
CTF on Halo 3 Highground was hard, unless you could open the gate, which made it more easy. This gave the map another objective that needed to be defended and attacked.

The train on Terminal was a blast, as you watched the enemy drive off with the flag in the warthog, only to see it get splattered by the train. Even those in the warthog got a massive laugh out of it.

These interactive environments have all been lost since REACH and need to return. Look at what Dice is doing with BF4 (Evolution Maps). They Look bloody amazing and changes how the game is played.

I love to see more maps that have the following items that can be activated or deactivated:
Light Bridges
Elevators (That can fit a Tank)
Teleporters
Gates
Shield Doors
Auto Turrets / Base Defences etc

For example, Imagine a base up high, and at the front of the base is a large Elevator. You have the base pretty much covered, and the enemy is not having much luck breaking through your defences. The controls to the elevator are in your base, and left unguarded. The enemy teams works together and placed a Scorpion on the Elevator and sneak someone into your base to activate the elevator switch.

Then the Elevator comes up, with the enemy team and they have a Scorpion Tank. All Hell breaks loose. The game has changed or because someone activated a switch which activated the elevator. This would be awesome. And be great to see these elements available in FORGE.

I would like to see more gates that could be open and closed. The main interactive environments in Halo 2/3 were one way. Once activated, they remained open, except for Halo 2 map Containment.

Containment was a great map. The map had a Main Gate at both bases and when the switch for the gate was activated, you only had 30 seconds before it would close again. This created many great fights at the gate and the gate controls, as once you saw your gate open, you knew the enemy would be making an attack. You could also activate the gate as a diversion, as people mostly thought you would enter from the gate, but you sneak in around the side. This was a great map, and probably one of the best Halo maps made.

With the new Xbox One, 343 should be able to add many new and interesting Interactive Environments that were in Halo 2 / Halo 3.

Halo 5 needs to be great, and return Halo to the # 1 spot on Xbox Live, because we all know it deserves to be there.

MAPS AT LAUNCH:

I think Halo 5 requires about 20 maps at launch will be sufficient.
Map Types Required for Launch:
6 Small
6 Medium
6 Large
2 Very Large (Forge World Size)

And Fire Fight Maps to work with Match Making maps. Not to be new maps.

This may seem to be many maps, and a lot of work for 343i, but if half of these maps were evolved remakes of the best Halo maps. Then the hard work is already done. This would give Halo 5, 10 new maps and 10 remakes. Even 5 new maps and 15 remakes would be great.

Player Increase to 32, for Massive BTB and evolved Invasion/Dominion Playlist.

10

> Dynamic map switches and controls were a necessity in Halo 2 and Halo 3 for 1 reason: 1-sided objective gametypes. As far as I can remember, some of the more focused maps from the series were:

Halo REACH also had 1 sided objectives and even had Invasion. But still REACH had no maps that were Interactive other than the Elevator on the Ivory Tower remake “Reflection”.

Even Halo REACH map Breakneck witch was a remake of Halo 2 Headlong was missing Interactive Environments. In Halo 2, the bridge and beam were able to move. But in REACH these are both static.

With the power of Xbox One, 343 should be able to add Interactive Environments that have never been done before. Some Forerunner maps should be designed that the map can change over time like it does in the Halo 4 campaign. This could create some very interesting and fun game play.

Halo has so much potential, and I would love to see light bridges and other cool features to be used in multiplayer.

11

> > > I really like the idea of dynamic maps. There could be bridges that could be extended, doors opening and shutting, <mark>maybe even a little map destruction</mark>.
> >
> > no map destruction, that would really change the style…not that H4 didn’t but we want to go back to arena style not more like a COD/BF style in my opinion.
>
> Why does map destruction not fit with arena gameplay?

I like big battle maps anyways. CQC is boring for me.