Multiplayer Map Design for H5

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

Introduction:

One of the most under looked aspects to Halo multiplayer is the map design. It is crucial for any particular map to be designed to match up with the physics within the game. This is the problem with Halo 4 in my opinion. Halo 4 did not design a majority of its maps to parallel its multiplayer aspects.

Armor Abilities in past Halo games:

Halo, Halo 2, and Halo 3 all perfectly had their in game physics match the design of their maps. There were CQB areas for shotgun/sword fans, there were long sight lines for snipers, and there were areas which implemented both aspects. Halo Reach and Halo 4 did the exact opposite. They implemented elements closer to class based shooter then to the Halo arena genre. In these two games they had load outs and AA which in effect caused imbalances not only in game play, but also in the flow of maps.

Symmetric vs. Asymmetric:

With all the halo games previous to Reach they had a mix of symmetric and asymmetric maps which worked with respect to balance. Some iconic examples of asymmetric maps are:

Halo CE’s Damnation
Halo 2’s Lockout
Halo 3’s Guardian

Iconic examples of symmetric maps are:
Halo CE’s Warlock
Halo 2’s Mid Ship
Halo 3’s The Pit

All of these maps and many more I did not mention become favorites due to there designer’s abilities to tie in the game’s physics with the layout of the map. The main violator of this concept is Halo 4. Abandon in H4 is a perfect example of how asymmetric maps can go wrong.

In my experience maps which are asymmetric in the sense there are great differences in elevation in certain areas of the map create imbalance. Abandon displays its imbalances where one team is at the open part of the map and the other team is in the center building. The players in the open are instantly at a strategic disadvantage. These types of things happen in asymmetric maps which display this design characteristic.

What Halo 5 needs:

Halo 5 has already taken a new direction in restoring balance to their franchise with respect to MM. They have now replace AA with inherent abilities. This makes every player capable of the same thing and at the same time ads new things to the multiplayer. With these new abilities in mind 343 needs to take advantage around these abilities to make sure they flow with their maps. This change really goes back to the arena based FPS which Halo is and brings back a competitive nature to Halo 5.

With symmetric maps in mind 343 has the idea of what it means to create great symmetric maps such as Haven, Opus, and Simplex. With respect to there display of asymmetric map design they need some work. In my opinion they can add elevation to symmetric maps but they need to cross map areas which obviously are not the same but at the height such as what is seen in previous successful asymmetric maps.

Conclusion:

I have now spouted quite a bit about halo map design, but I have not by far covered topics such as weapons or game types. The two topics I touched on were just tastes of the whole process which is needed to make a create map. I have no experience in ever designing actual Halo maps, but I have been playing Halo for over ten years so I am basing this information on that. In the comments below discuss further on what I touched on or other aspects and I am sure to continue the discussion.

2

I find symmetrical maps way more fun than asymmetrical. It’s just instant balance. You get the same spawns, weapon spawns are equal and fair etc. From a design perspective, it’s hard to go wrong. That said my favorite halo map ever is Guardian. The problem in design is trying to account for all variables. When you go symmetrical, you at least get to check off one very big variable. Introducing Armor Abilities was just asking for trouble. Now you have to account for all the abilities (which is a huge task in and of itself) on top of trying to balance an asymmetrical map. Not to mention deciding where the spawns should be, weapon placement and so on. These spartan abilities (if they are what we think) might throw just as big of a curveball as AA’s did. If there are things like jump pack, thrusters, sliding and things of that nature like some have theorized, the maps could very well be just as -Yoinked!-. Depending on the extreme they take it to. I’m talking out of my -Yoink- though. We shall wait and see. I’m at least confident this game will be better than H4. That’s all I really ask.

3

> I find symmetrical maps way more fun than asymmetrical. It’s just instant balance. You get the same spawns, weapon spawns are equal and fair etc. From a design perspective, it’s hard to go wrong. That said my favorite halo map ever is Guardian.

But Guardian is an asymmetric map…

> In these two games they had load outs and AA which in effect caused imbalances not only in game play, but also in the flow of maps.

Classes aren’t what is affecting map design, things like jetpack are.

4

I blame sprint and utility weapons with 3x scopes for the declining map quality. Gameplay elements like those do not operate in a vacuum. Each one affects and influences other aspects of the game. Effective utility weapon range, average engagement range, player movement abilities, average map size, distance between cover, types of cover, shield recharge characteristics, average engagement duration, average time between engagements…

Ripples.

5

I believe if maps are made with sprint in mind they can really work well in multiplayer. With that said if sprint is not included in H5 there needs to be consideration for that too.

6

[deleted]

7

I think the biggest issue the majority of H4’s maps have is fundamental:
Poor or white-bread concepts or rather poor or white-bread executions of concepts.

When you design a map you start with a concept, a theme, a basic idea, often just a single term.
What kind of gameplay/combat do you want to generate with the map and how do you execute it in the best possible way?
That is basically the main question.

Now, I have of course no idea what the exact concepts were behind H4’s maps (though in some cases they seep through imo), therefore I will just judge and focus on the executions.

For example Haven.
One of H4s generally considered better maps or even the best.
The basic idea I personally see behind that map is “constant movement”.
The map doesn’t really offer any fixed spots to control like power positions, doesn’t have actual rest areas, rare amount of cover and camping isn’t an option either on that map, all what would take out or slow down the movement.
Instead it has an environment that encourages you to move constantly because to gain advantages via the map terrain you have to flank the enemy.
In my opinion a great idea but I think the execution of said idea with Haven is at best mediocre.
The map lacks the amount of alternative pathways and sight relations. It likely would have needed to be way more loosed, likely would have needed to work with split levels and voids.
The map is too strict and “dictating” as that dynamic and interesting constant movement could get generated.

As another example the BTB maps in general:
A balanced and dynamic infantry/vehicle gameplay is what I expect of a BTB map.
In H4 we have more “infantry” than “vehicle” for the most part.
It seems like as if vehicles were not really put into consideration but rather just added. The maps are generally way too cramped and often signficantly lack alternative routes for vehicles and as a result vehicles have not enough space to properly operate within the game.
The only BTB map that I think can offer an overall good vehicle/infantry gameplay is Longbow (though the tanks do not fit).

Persoanlly, I am still waiting for a successor of Sandtrap.
I think the basic idea of that map is so simple yet genious.
Instead of creating the space for vehicles in the centre and pushing infantry to the sides, like it is the flaw of the “blood gulch maps”, turn that just around. The space for infantry gets generated right in the middle while the space for vehicles gets generated around that.
That has the effect that you can relate infantry and vehicles better to each other, create proper spaces for both and you can cross said spaces more easily and also more interesting.

Other things that I criticize:

Repetition.
There is not much diversity between the maps. For the most part they follow primarily one main schema: horizontal, centric, symmetrical.
At one point that is sucked dry.
Besides with Simplex, Onyx and Impact we have basically 3 times the same map only with a different name. What makes it worse, at least for me, is that the gameplay on the mentioned “Midship maps” is just plain stale. You can call them simple and minimalistic arena maps all you want but I think it is simplicity and minimalism without much depth.

Proportions:
No other Halo had proportion issue like Halo 4 has.
Only because of the addition of a simple mechanic: Sprint.
However, sprint isn’t the main impact on proportions, nor does it naturally create disproportions.
Killtimes have the main impact on map size and proportions, not necessarily sprint/movement.
(As an example: play on a small map with short distances between cover designed around base movement speed, once with sprint and SWAT settings and once with sprint and regular settings)

Halo’s killtimes allow you to travel quite long distances before you die in comparison to other shooters where you can already die after making a single step because one proper hit is enough to kill you, hence in said shooters you can implement sprint but still generate quite short distances between cover for example.
Back to Halo, sprint in combination with slow killtimes allows you to reach even further distances before you die, plus it makes you a harder target to hit as well.
That has to be put into consideration when designing maps because when the distances are too short between cover then you create an imbalance between offensive and defensive gameplay in which defensive gameplay is more effective.
Anyway, stretching the distances has the negative effect that the distances between the average encounters will increase as well.
What leads to more mid to long range encounters, less CQC encounters and strafing loses effectiveness, what I would say are the actual downsides sprint brings to Halo, aside sprint-or-shoot-gameplay.

In conclusion, I think map design needs some major attention and that starts right with the concepts and their executions.
Aside the general quality I think the maps also need some fresh air.
Too many map concepts and themes have been sucked dry.
Halo plays in a sci-fi universe. Why not making use of that and coming up with and implementing something unconventinal?
Maps that change their structure/layout during the game a la Forerunner architecture, either on set intervals or via player actions.
Aerial themed maps. Maps that work with different gravity zones was a decent idea I saw around this forum as well.
Just some examples.
Anyway, I think you can have as much great features as you want but when the maps aren’t fantastic or do not work with them then the whole gameplay suffers.

8

For Halo 4, 343i designed the maps to match with the Halo Universe. They wanted each map to tell a story. Remember, Halo 4 was designed so that newer players can enjoy the game. There was no competitive aspect for the multiplayer.

Hopefully, 343i learned from their mistake and create halo 5 as a competitive game.