Author Topic: Designing Forgotten Hope 2 Maps  (Read 3513 times)

Offline Matthew_Baker

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.353
    • View Profile
Re: Designing Forgotten Hope 2 Maps
« Reply #15 on: 07-12-2016, 19:12:20 »
@hitm4k3r I think you're reading through these posts with the wrong idea in mind. We (at least I) am not saying that we know what gamers think is fun. I'm also not saying that we can dictate what is and isn't fun to gamers.

For me, its an argument of design. I said in my last post;
Quote
All gameplay is designed and effected by the parameters that game makers (modelers, coders, mappers) create. It's the manner of utilizing this design to the advantages of the games mechanics that makes a map 'good' or 'bad.'

When you design a map (when you design anything really) you have to take into account the parameters that you are designing for (code, setting, art direction, everything that makes up a video game) and you have to design your product (in this case, a map) around those parameters. When you ignore these parameters and don't design with them in mind, you are designing poorly. (this is objectively true)

Let's say I wanted to make a map for FH2 but I designed that map with PR in mind. I made large open areas with view distances that the statics can't render at. I've included little to no spawn points thinking my players could create FOBs and Rally points. And I've made the size 8km X 8km that will not play well with the texture sheets and models that FH2 has. I've also made all of my vehicle spawn times very large assuming my players will use this vehicle for the whole round.

Now we have this map in FH2 and there are problems, both technical and gameplay related.

This map, objectively, is poorly designed for FH2. This map will play better, and be better designed for PR. I'm not saying that people will not have fun on this map, or that people who like PR style gameplay aren't right. I'm saying that this map is better suited to be played under a different set of parameters.

There are plenty of settings in which, open, player driven environment creates good gameplay. FH2 is not one of those settings, because it wasn't designed that way.

P.S. everyone should check out PRv1.4 8)
« Last Edit: 07-12-2016, 19:12:43 by Matthew_Baker »

Offline hitm4k3r

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.117
    • View Profile
Re: Designing Forgotten Hope 2 Maps
« Reply #16 on: 08-12-2016, 01:12:01 »
The funny thing is, that FH2 itself doesn't have a predefined general design determining what is right and what is wrong besides a few overall mapping standards that people didn't allways care about - thatswhy it evolved how it did, not only from the official POV. Just check all the maps from all the different people (not only official) and you will notice that we all had different ideas of how our maps should look and feel or how they should play like, with a few overlapping coincidents that are clearly there by design standards (like classic conquest) and some people having different skill levels or opinions on stuff. Thatswhy I said that this tutorial is nice when you want to create a classic conquest map. But that is just one way of doing a FH2 map, and not THE WAY.

One of vFH2 basics standards is from my POV it's immersion by detail and to throw you into WWII, with most of this being down to visual stuff and how we approach the senses. We never had someone saying: this kind of gameplay or that kind of gameplay is not possible. One day someone introduced Koth or Neighbouring Push, someday people tried to establish new standards and it backfired or it worked. People in the tourneys created stuff that is from my perspective far better or in some areas far worse, as the rallye point system for example wich really makes the game more enjoyable. There are even devs who find some of the design decisions in FH2 terrible. Did they take and the hammer and changed it? Nope. Go speak to them all and you will see that we all have very differing opinions of how a game should play like and what is quality, designed gameplay and what not. And FH2 is far away of being a reflection of that. I think the most overlapping fact is, that we are WWII nerds who like Battlefield games ;D

FH2 is using BF2 as a blueprint and in that regard are PR and FH2 more similar than you think. I never said that there is no design idea at all. Far from it and you should know me enough to know, that I design my stuff careful aswell. We all use what DICE shiped in 2005 and what some clever people explored and evolved over the years. I am not talking about people not being able to use their tools. Missing lightmaps or bad textures have nothing to do with design decisions. A 8X8 km map can still offer amazing gameplay, even in FH2. Sadly most of this is down to engine limitations and not a design desicion by the mapper. Sure you could say, that people using their tools according to their limits is a clever desicion aswell. But at the end those people never get a proper chance to establish their ideas because of those limits. Breaching the limits is something, that is actually more interesting, aka 100 player code and stuff like that. Before that 64 players was a standard in FH2 and it changed. If I want to create a chase gamemode in FH2, none of you will stop me from doing that.

If I throw you at an 8x8km map with nice textures, lovely landscape and a few little details that I just place for the sake of being details, with a minimum of predefined strategical planning from my side, I can asure you that you will find people in the FH2 community who are immersed and say: "this is amazing, it feels like something I ever wanted in FH2". Sadly, terrain with that size looks shit in BF2 so I don't even start. Am I clever now? Propably not. Render distance, viewdistances and stuff like that is stuff that I mostly consider as an engine limitation and not a design desicion by myself,  because otherwise I would have set the viewdistance higher on Arad and on that other map even higher, but I just don't want the server to crash so that the map plays smooth. A static popping out and in has nothing to do with planning gameplay, it's just me finding it ugly and avoiding it for aesthetic reasons and has zero impact on whether the player is in charge or not. I could set a much higher culldistance - again engine and hardware limitation and not my personal desicion where I really have that much of a choice.

You saying, that open, player driven environments with good gameplay are not possible in FH2 is just beyond reality and neglecting the fun, that people had on those player driven maps in FH2 over the years. That this is not fun for you is purely subjective and actually the complete opposite of what I experienced. Saying that FH2 was not designed for this, is pure contradiction in that regard aswell, because people have proven that players can enjoy different approaches using FH2. Or why do you think that tournaments had a chance to establish themself in the world of FH2 or why people tried to establish stuff like mumble? There was a demand from people to get exactly that kind of gameplay within the world of FH2 and they succeeded. Maybe you two guys should simply take a look at the TS server of FHT during the campaigns and you will notice that you are not necessarily a representative majoritiy of how people want to play FH2. Maybe I am seeing FH2 not as much as a "product" as you do, but my general impression is that this community produced all kinds of gameplay and not the only single holy grail of FH2-ishness wich is something that I consider as f*cking amazing and not someone breaking the rules ;)

@Ts: Ofcourse it is pretentious to claim to know that people don't know what they enjoy in a game because it is impossible to cater towards every taste of every person who plays FH2. If you think that this is your job, then I can't help myself but to call you megalomaniac. It is also pretentious to claim that I have to get out of the players mindset to do my job. Every marketing guy, who wants to develop a product will tell you the exact opposite thing. You have to get into the players mindset and try to get an image what he will do and what decisions he will make. Arad is what it is because I didn't look through the eyes of a dev but a player.

Offline Matthew_Baker

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.353
    • View Profile
Re: Designing Forgotten Hope 2 Maps
« Reply #17 on: 08-12-2016, 03:12:35 »
I just want to address a few of the things that you claim aren't design decisions because they really are. This is a core part of what we are talking about. All of these things (+many more) are design decisions that have an overall effect on gameplay.

Quote
Sadly most of this is down to engine limitations and not a design desicion by the mapper.

Mappers need to take into account engine limitations when designing a map. It may be a subconscious decision, but it's a very basic and important decision.

Quote
Render distance, viewdistances and stuff like that is stuff that I mostly consider as an engine limitation and not a design desicion by myself,  because otherwise I would have set the viewdistance higher on Arad and on that other map even higher, but I just don't want the server to crash so that the map plays smooth.

This is a design decision. It's actually a huge one even tho it's done almost automatically. It's a decision dictated by how the FH2 mod is made. This decision is made differently when designing a PR map, because PR is made differently from FH2.

Quote
A static popping out and in has nothing to do with planning gameplay, it's just me finding it ugly and avoiding it for aesthetic reasons and has zero impact on whether the player is in charge or not.

It really does tho. If you have a static popping in and out and a player can or can't see what's happening behind it, it effects their decision on what to do next.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, in every argument I've seen for more "open, player driven gameplay," you give examples of games, mods, or minimods that have different core mechanics (and therefore different design parameters) from FH2.

Quote
People in the tourneys created stuff that is from my perspective far better or in some areas far worse, as the rallye point system for example wich really makes the game more enjoyable.

FH2 public (what TS's dev blog is about) =/= FHT. This mod and its minimod play far differently from each other. Things that work in FHT, don't always work on FH2 public.

Quote
You saying, that open, player driven environments with good gameplay are not possible in FH2 is just beyond reality and neglecting the fun, that people had on those player driven maps in FH2 over the years. That this is not fun for you is purely subjective and actually the complete opposite of what I experienced. Saying that FH2 was not designed for this, is pure contradiction in that regard aswell, because people have proven that players can enjoy different approaches using FH2. Or why do you think that tournaments had a chance to establish themself in the world of FH2 or why people tried to establish stuff like mumble? There was a demand from people to get exactly that kind of gameplay within the world of FH2 and they succeeded. Maybe you two guys should simply take a look at the TS server of FHT during the campaigns and you will notice that you are not necessarily a representative majoritiy of how people want to play FH2.

Here you're talking about the FHT. This is a minimod for FH2 that plays completely different from public play. It has more 'teamwork,' a structure/ chain of command that dictates how the players play the map. This is something NOT present in FH2 public play. The people who wanted this type of gameplay literally got together and changed the game so it could be more fun for them.

And this is what I'm talking about. They re-designed FH2 (albeit to a small extent) because they weren't having the type of fun that they wanted in FH2 public play. And that's great, there is now a minimod where people who want this type of gameplay can go.

However, the design ideas behind these maps, can not be translated into FH2 public play, because the same parameters don't exist. Your arguments for more 'open, player driven gameplay' would work well if you designed a map for this setting. This same type of gameplay falls short when you jump to public play and there is less 'structure/ chain of command/ teamwork/ etc...'

Quote
@Ts: Ofcourse it is pretentious to claim to know that people don't know what they enjoy in a game because it is impossible to cater towards every taste of every person who plays FH2.

This a great quote. "it is impossible to cater towards every taste of every person who plays FH2." :) This is absolutely 100% true. You can't cater towards the taste of every gamer. That's what different games are for and that's why FH2 caters towards the taste of a specific type of gamer by designing their maps (and gameplay) in a certain way. This is what TS presented in his blog.

If you try to cater to the taste of every gamer you get a heterogeneous mix of maps and gameplay styles that have no cohesive design choices because they are contradicting each other. I'm not going to argue against FH2 having a few of these pitfalls itself. that's what happens when a mix of amateurs (and some professionals) create a mod over 10+ years. However, this doesn't mean that it's a good idea to continue this trend and try to cater to both 'typical fps players' AND 'players who want more open, player driven gameplay.'

This devblog is trying to bring some design cohesiveness to the mod by showing the underlying structure of how map should be made (for this mod's current iteration).

Quote
I never said that there is no design idea at all. Far from it and you should know me enough to know, that I design my stuff careful aswell...Arad is what it is because I didn't look through the eyes of a dev but a player

I would actually like to know what your design process is and how it differs from what TS laid out. How would you make a conquest map where the player is more in charge? as far as I see it, the player is no more in charge on Arad then on Dukla Pass.

Quote
If you think that this is your job, then I can't help myself but to call you megalomaniac.

::) let's seriously try to keep this civil. Having these discussions and debates shouldn't be a bad thing for the mod. Lets have it help to advance the mod to a better state.

Offline Ts4EVER

  • Banner of THeTA0123
  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 7.583
    • View Profile
Re: Designing Forgotten Hope 2 Maps
« Reply #18 on: 08-12-2016, 05:12:14 »
Regarding tournaments and PR: These have design as well, but outside the map. In tournament the design lies in how the teams are organized, how communication is handled and how tactical decisions are made and communicated. In PR it's all those base building and randomization systems, as well as the manual that tells players how to act ingame.
It is similar to those role playing games where people dress up as orks and run around in the woods. You don't need to design the woods for that, but the role playing system, you need to setup the infrastructure for people to live there for a weekend and you need to assemble a bunch of weirdos with the needed imagination.

Offline GeoPat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 419
    • View Profile
Re: Designing Forgotten Hope 2 Maps
« Reply #19 on: 08-12-2016, 06:12:56 »
Regarding tournaments and PR: These have design as well, but outside the map. In tournament the design lies in how the teams are organized, how communication is handled and how tactical decisions are made and communicated. In PR it's all those base building and randomization systems, as well as the manual that tells players how to act ingame.

Finally getting to the heart of the matter.  The types of maps which Hitmakr talks about and I prefer require more teamwork style gameplay, which I also personally prefer.  But it begs the question, Is FH2 pubby style gameplay really by design or by default?  It seems to use the BF2 tools, squads and VOIP, but in a completely optional way and with no significant changes.  Thus, in my opinion, teamwork in FH2 public is half-assed on a good day.  As many people know, this has led to all kinds of server admin problems over the years, changing rules and their enforcement, stacked teams accusations, etc. etc.  Again, is this really the FH2 way or just a reality that some have tried to address through map design rather than change gameplay?

Anyway, I dont see the point in endless arguments about this.  The diversity of design in the official maps tells me that these points were never really settled.  I think the only answer is to continue with the diversity.  I think the servers running the CMP for example should operate under different rules and do more to enforce teamwork to make their maps play better.  In time they can introduce more features in the minimod to reinforce it, tournament style Rally Points, kick for not joining squads or soldier classes tied to squads like PR, etc.  And of course, revival of FH2 Mumble would be phenomenal.

Offline Ts4EVER

  • Banner of THeTA0123
  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 7.583
    • View Profile
Re: Designing Forgotten Hope 2 Maps
« Reply #20 on: 08-12-2016, 13:12:15 »
Quote
Anyway, I dont see the point in endless arguments about this.  The diversity of design in the official maps tells me that these points were never really settled.

Most maps that do not follow these guidelines are from the earlier patches. Lessons were learned after that. Not a single map in 2.4 or after does these wrong.

If you manage to implement more teamwork on the public server then more power to you. I know the first thing I always do in a round is jump in a squad. In fact, if FH3 ever happens, I would be for making lone wolfing not even an option.
However, tournament or custom map "design" (wouldn't call it that) has nothing to do with the level of teamwork. These maps work in tournaments despite their layout, not because of it. There is no reason why a properly laid out conquest map with lots of space and flanking routes wouldn't work in a tournament, for instance, unless you think that what I wrote in the OP for some reason leads to less teamplay, which is ludicrous. So even if FH2 officially implemented features to further team play, like, from the top of my head:
- proper ammo sharing system
- proper suppression system
- reworked or replaced sl spawn system
- revive or similar squad cohesion system
this would not change these basic map design principles.
From what I see on the custom maps, this whole "They are made like that for teamplay!" idea is an after the fact rationalization to justify incompetent map design by inexperienced mappers.

Offline hitm4k3r

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.117
    • View Profile
Re: Designing Forgotten Hope 2 Maps
« Reply #21 on: 08-12-2016, 14:12:45 »

This is a design decision. It's actually a huge one even tho it's done almost automatically. It's a decision dictated by how the FH2 mod is made. This decision is made differently when designing a PR map, because PR is made differently from FH2.


I can asure you that the guys from PR face the same engine limitations that we do. And if you played PR, you might have noticed that their performance optimization is total crap for that very reason, leading to unplayable framerates in some sitations and wierd glitches, atleast on my end with hardware that was considered NASA tech when BF2 was released in 2005. That's not a design desicion, that's bending engine limits into wrong directions and overestimating the abilities of your tools, same as we do with some of the CMP maps leading to server crashes because of hardware limits. If my design desicions create server hickups, unplayable framerates, or even glitches and noticable bugs (like the glitching roads on 1x1 or 4x4 maps) then that's not a design desicion within the limits of this engine. It's the same as breaking physical laws with an airplane: sure I can make the desicion to break them, but when my wings are gone they are gone. There is a reason we use 100 players as a benchmark and not 250 or even more. All this is not dictated by how FH2 is made but the BF2 engine and our hardware so please don't mix this up. It's like those funny "elections" in authoritarian states where you can only select one single party or go to jail.

Let me put it like that: if I had the chance to create a 4096x4096 map with the same details as I can make one with 256x256 without all those foreseeable bugs and glitches, I would do it right away. But I can't as there are hardcoded limits. And this is no different for PR than it is for FH2, as much as you make it sound like that I have a choice to crash the server or not. We have those glitches and bugs in FH2 aswell, like terrain LODs or people being visible behind invisble rocks in the distance or UG draw distances as prime example. Stuff like that is not in my range of desicion as it breakes the game in one way or another.

About tournaments and PR: sure you have a point that FHT is a minimod on top of FH2, but the underlying mechanics are still the same for the player, atleast for me with very few differences like the rallye points. As I allready explained, I don't see those huge differences in gameplay that you see and it is still FH2 for me and there is no reason why rallye points should not work in vFH2 - we have those in form of SL hiding in bushes wich is alot more stupid tbh and takes atleast 4 players or more out of the interaction. A person building an 88 works the same as a person placing a mortar via pickupkits. The tournament battles that I played, were pretty much similar to what I do on a public server -> WASD, look for enemies, aim and kill and some communication. Placing mines or smines, using vehicles etc., everything works pretty much the same. As abstract as it sounds, a player building a sandbag wall in games like Squad or PR is nothing different than a player driving a tank in FH2 and giving people behind it cover. We have a kitlimiting system aswell and we use a pickup system too.

Sorry about the "megalomaniac" btw, as it was not my goal to insult anyone. Should have worded it better - like good self-confidence. I think too that this discussion is good to gather some ideas about game design, so lets keep it civil.


Offline Matthew_Baker

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.353
    • View Profile
Re: Designing Forgotten Hope 2 Maps
« Reply #22 on: 08-12-2016, 16:12:36 »
@hitmaker PR has the same engine limitations. The difference is that they've made sacrifices in some areas of their mod in order to make advances in others. They can have larger maps/ view distances because they've cut down on texture sheet sizes, made their statics render at longer distances etc... These are all design decisions that they made early on while FH2 went in other directions. That's (part of their reason) why they play so differently.

Regardless of whether or not we agree the extent of what a design decision is. I'm looking for some common ground that's at the heart of these mapping decisions; would everyone agree that the main objective of a multiplayer map (in FH2, BF2, whatever) is to provide interaction with other players?

Offline hitm4k3r

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.117
    • View Profile
Re: Designing Forgotten Hope 2 Maps
« Reply #23 on: 08-12-2016, 22:12:27 »
Not necessarily when we are talking about mapping in general. As I allready explained: just take a look at all the different mods and content for BF2 or any other FPS game for that matter. Sandbox mods, stuff like the Monstertrucks by Rad. What about people who only play against bots? I could just create a map for the sake of creating a map and to fly around or bomb some stuff without any player interaction. Other people are creating dioramas, some people create art with their maps like this guy for example:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgmX4icpN3HnOOwYtmyYz2w/videos
There were some jump and run maps for CoD UO like Minas Tirith, where you didn't have any player interaction but just tried to master a parcoure. You can do all this stuff in BF2 aswell and the possibilities are allmost endless. When we talk about multyplayer only in the classic sense with PvP, then you are right though ;)

Offline Matthew_Baker

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.353
    • View Profile
Re: Designing Forgotten Hope 2 Maps
« Reply #24 on: 09-12-2016, 00:12:10 »
When we talk about multyplayer only in the classic sense with PvP, then you are right though ;)

I'd agree. That's why I specified.

So if the main objective of a multiplayer map is to provide interaction between players; then it would stand to reason that a map designed to promote and incentivize player interaction, is better designed than a map that deters or ignores it.

You see where I'm going with this.... that's the logic behind the idea. We can say that one map is better designed than another because it better serves the purpose of what a map is; it exists to have players interact.

Offline hitm4k3r

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.117
    • View Profile
Re: Designing Forgotten Hope 2 Maps
« Reply #25 on: 09-12-2016, 19:12:31 »
I would be careful with that logic. In that regard PR maps are better designed because for one fact that mod has more players and is obviously more successful using the same tech as we do. Sure you could bring now again the argument that they make their maps according to their gameplay same as we do, but I could port my maps to PR and the player interaction would be the same - WASD and killing each other, with some voice coms, same as I could port a PR map to FH and the interaction would still be the same in an abstract sense ofcourse. They are still BF2 maps. This stuff is forward and backwards compatible as wierd as it sounds for you. Same as PR has smaller skirmish and push layers and we have maps with huge open spaces that emphasize on teamplay more than others. I know that Ts4ever hates Cobra and thinks that it is just successful because of the many toys we have, but one cool fact about that map is that player interaction works pretty damn well on that map even if it is badly designed. What a contradiction, isn't it?

I got to say, that the PR maps are not better designed, not because they are open sandboxes but some of them have technical problems and glitches that I allready explained, aswell as performance issues where I think that you can avoid this when you know your limits and tools. I know, you still think that this is a design decision but I will let this point rest now. When you dig deep enough into mapping in the BF2 editor, and I got a few hundred hours now and made and still make enough mistakes, you might get another view of what a design desicion is and what not.

I remember that we had a discussion allready long time ago between Natty and some other PR guys about that very topic. Natty told the PR guys that they are too lazy to design proper maps and force it by gameplay and the PR guys told Natty, that it is a cheap way to push players through chokepoints because they have no other choice. My opinion about them: none is right or wrong and both have a right to exist as both force player interaction but just on different levels and ways (still talking about the maps only) - at the end both are equaly good designs. There are maps like that Tudra map (dk the name) that would work pretty awesome in FH2, and this map is huge with very view chokepoints and would rely heavily on player interaction and force it even more, because otherwise you are lost when nobody covers your ass and flanks. In that regard huge open maps are even far superior from a gameplay perspective, because they heavily force player interaction not only with your enemies, but also with your team mates. You need to think about tank formations and stuff like that and that's stuff that works in FH2 aswell but isn't forced that often. In that regard I consider some of our maps pretty poor because we don't force teamwork enough. In our game player interaction is basicly on a minimum and we have a much smaller diversity of player interaction, not because people are not able to build FOBs and other fancy stuff, but because they are not forced to work together by the maps and their design. Players in PR don't join squads and build FOBs because they are forced to do that by their manual like you believe. They are forced to do that by the size of the map and their will to survive. You can still play as lone wolf in PR, but it just gets you killed faster and makes life alot harder in most cases.


A few self critical examples from the top of my head regarding problems in FH2:

1.) Players are not forced enough to fight for a position because possible spawnpoints are too close from where they died. One reason is that our maps are too small and the controllpoints too close together giving not enough incetive to get a flag. If I know that a flag gives me some nice vehicles, a safe spawn position and a superior position against my enemy and maybe some well needed transport, I might also be more forced to actually attack and defend it as it is very valuable -> try to tell that the average FH2 player.

2.) There are not enough surprise moments where you rely on your teammates and it doesn't matter for you to be in a squad or not except for having a mobile spawnpoint as you just rush in one of the waves like a CallOfDuty-zombie.

3.) Not enough desicions for the player of where to go and how to do it and too few options against enemies. Even spotting, retreating and evading an enemy should be an option, but it isn't and looking for different ways is often not possible. At the end the virtual life in FH2 is not valuable enough for the player himself. People in FH2 most of the time don't spot enemies because it makes them survive longer, but because they simply get teamworkpoints for it. If I can't get flanked by a group of tanks that often, there is no incentive to do it and save my butt.

On a final note: don't take this too harsh now. I still love and prefer FH2 for various other reasons. But I played many different games and shooters with different degrees of player driven gameplay and I can tell you, the more diversive games excited me more. Best example: Red Orchestra - Ostfront 41-45. That game had no different mechanics than FH2, even far less tbh (no squads, no SLs), but it offered small pipemaps and huge open PR like maps at the same time and it was awesome in both ways because it demanded different approaches from the players and alot of teamwork. And graphics, effects and ambience were awesome for it's time, both on small and very big maps.  :)
« Last Edit: 09-12-2016, 19:12:09 by hitm4k3r »

Offline Matthew_Baker

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.353
    • View Profile
Re: Designing Forgotten Hope 2 Maps
« Reply #26 on: 09-12-2016, 21:12:18 »
This is pretty obviously going in circles at this point and it's futile to continue a discussion if the same logic isn't being used. :-\ I'll leave you with a few points.

I would be careful with that logic. In that regard PR maps are better designed because for one fact that mod has more players and is obviously more successful using the same tech as we do.

I don't think you understood my post. Are you saying that PR maps are better designed because they have more players? That has nothing to do with the statement I made about multiplayer maps.

Quote
I know that Ts4ever hates Cobra and thinks that it is just successful because of the many toys we have, but one cool fact about that map is that player interaction works pretty damn well on that map even if it is badly designed. What a contradiction, isn't it?

This isn't a contradiction. Just because a map is designed poorly doesn't mean that player interaction won't occur. I'm saying that a better designed map would encourage player interaction more. TS has a point in saying that the map is poorly designed. There is a lot of room to improve player interaction through a better design.

Quote
I know, you still think that this is a design decision but I will let this point rest now. When you dig deep enough into mapping in the BF2 editor, and I got a few hundred hours now and made and still make enough mistakes, you might get another view of what a design desicion is and what not.

I have a complete understanding of what a design decision is. I trained in it for 5 years at my university. Design is a universal concept. It is essential through all art mediums (painting, sculpting, architecture, video games, movies). The definition of a design decision isn't based on opinion. This point is moot in our discussion tho.

Quote
In that regard huge open maps are even far superior from a gameplay perspective, because they heavily force player interaction not only with your enemies, but also with your team mates. You need to think about tank formations and stuff like that and that's stuff that works in FH2 aswell but isn't forced that often. In that regard I consider some of our maps pretty poor because we don't force teamwork enough. In our game player interaction is basicly on a minimum and we have a much smaller diversity of player interaction, not because people are not able to build FOBs and other fancy stuff, but because they are not forced to work together by the maps and their design.

You're using the wrong logic here. Forcing teamwork and encouraging teamwork isn't the same thing. Just because people are using teamwork in spite of the map, doesn't mean the map is encouraging them to use teamwork.

You wouldn't say that an open ocean is designed to keep you afloat because you'll die otherwise. You would say that a life raft is designed to keep you afloat because that's the purpose it serves.

Quote
Players in PR don't join squads and build FOBs because they are forced to do that by their manual like you believe. They are forced to do that by the size of the map and their will to survive. You can still play as lone wolf in PR, but it just gets you killed faster and makes life alot harder in most cases.

This isn't correct. Players in PR aren't forced to use teamwork because of the maps. They are incentivized to use teamwork because of gameplay mechanics. (longer spawn times, the medic system, integrated mumble, not being able to place rally points without people next to you.) These are all the incentives that PR has created to encourage teamwork. These incentives are not mapping related, they are gameplay mechanics, and hence, irrelevant in our discussion.

I'm a bit done with the long winded posts. I've laid out my arguments clearly. At least this way, people with an open mind can read and interpret them. :)

Offline hitm4k3r

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.117
    • View Profile
Re: Designing Forgotten Hope 2 Maps
« Reply #27 on: 10-12-2016, 00:12:17 »
Matt, I can try to keep it shorter. But you see, this is no topic that you discuss in five minutes. Thatswhy people are studying this stuff and discussing it aswell. It's science and in science there is no ultimate truth ;)

If you really think that PR don't enforce their teamwork by their mapsize and design then you clearly have to make some research, especialy regarding some basic military principles, principles that apply in FH2 aswell if the map is big enough or allows it. It's a fact, not some imagination or wishful thinking by myself, that you have better chances of surviving when you cooperate in a small group covering 360 degree unless you have a 360 degree vision and the ability to cover that area with fire - wich you don't have alone for different reasons. You don't need ultra marine military knowledge to comprehend this. And the bigger your map gets and the less funneled it is, the more it is important to work together with other squads or that people help you by spotting. This is no different in FH2 than it is in PR. Maybe make some drawings or play some ArmA and you will get the idea. This interaction gets forced by your surroundings - simple game design. If my tank runs out of ammo on a huge map, it's better to drive an ammo truck to that tank instead of driving the tank back to base. Stalingrad just comes into my mind.

There is a reason why there exist different formations for units, may it be on the land, on the water or in the air, even for ship convoys *cough*. If my next objective is 20 seconds footwalk away it doesn't matter for me whether I have mumble or not. If I need it to stay alive (calling a medic, calling for transport etc) or to get to an objective that is a 1km away, it matters much more. It's not like they created all the nice teamwork stuff and thought ... oops, this gets more important on bigger maps - in fact it gets forced by them. The bigger my map is the more important it gets that I stay alive triggering a complete new set of logical strings -> need for proper air support, need for proper tank drivers, need for proper transport, need for a proper medic. Take a look at Squad. You have huge maps there and they enforce teamwork, not the other way around.

All this is simple math. If I play on a map as big as Brest, I don't need transport. If I play on a map like Cobra, transport gets more valuable and if the spawntime of that transport is huge, then even more. Take a stopwatch and do the test. If a map is less funneled the more stuff you have to take into account when engaging the enemy. I am not telling you all this stuff because I made it up somewhere in my brain. It's simple logic and my experience from all the different games I played. You are also completely ignoring what I told you about RO. That game never had an infrastructure like PR, even less than FH2 but it still enforced more player interaction and teamwork without any fancy voice coms besides the Steam VOIP.

Offline Ts4EVER

  • Banner of THeTA0123
  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 7.583
    • View Profile
Re: Designing Forgotten Hope 2 Maps
« Reply #28 on: 10-12-2016, 02:12:53 »
Seriously, the more I read this, the more I cringe. You simply do not understand what Matt and me are talking about. Now you are suddenly talking about mapsize, whereas this whole thing is about map structure. Doesn't matter if a map is 1x1km, 2x2km or 4x4km, you need to properly structure it. It is mind boggling that you think this is even up for debate.
But as long as you want to talk about map sizes and "basic military principles": The average offensive frontage of an infantry company in WW2 (100 guys) was about 400 metres. Even considering respawns, that means that the kind of player densities you see in PR are highly unrealistic for WW2. A bunch of small squads running around in the bushes are more fitting for modern warfare or anti-partisan stuff.
And there might not be a final truth in science, but that does not mean the opinion of every pathetic creationist or other nutjob is suddenly valuable.  ;)
« Last Edit: 10-12-2016, 02:12:40 by Ts4EVER »

Offline Matthew_Baker

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.353
    • View Profile
Re: Designing Forgotten Hope 2 Maps
« Reply #29 on: 10-12-2016, 02:12:31 »
Matt, I can try to keep it shorter.

There's really no need. You seem to have gotten so far off topic in the last 2 posts, it's as if you're in a different thread. I've come to the same conclusion as TS. :-\

You simply do not understand what Matt and me are talking about.