Map Layout thread

[Nasturtium]

  In this thread I would like to have a discussion about map layouts, what works what doesn't, suggestions on how to create level-flow that works with the unique gameplay of m&b, not a discussion about specific maps, if you have a specific map you would like to discuss please move your discussion to the map development thread, thanks!

  Things I have observed so far through trial and error:

Complexity: This seems to be the most important aspect of map making in Mount and Blade Multiplayer. Players do not seem like complex tactical situations.   Objectives should be clearly defined and easily reached, corridors for movement should be very large and uncluttered, and visibility should be medium to far.  So far intricate maps I have made, with small side passages, restrictive fields of view and lots of visual clutter have been poorly received.

  The most popular maps in the game, are largely open fields interspersed conservatively with a few large props, a layout more reminiscent of table-top gaming than pc gaming. This is understandable; players need room to swing long two handed weapons without injuring teamates, and calvary needs room to sneak up on players from the sides. This is in sharp contrast to many fps-style games out there which seem to favor tight, cluttered and visually interesting areas.
a Cod4 map:

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Field by a river, the most popular m& blade map

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Balance: A word tossed around alot, Players do not like to feel at a disadvantage, be it real or percieved. Since the game puts such a heavy emphasis on winning and losing, 'situational maps' featuring fortified positions, chokepoints that can be exploited by one side or another, an elevated position for one side over another, or a tactically critical area that is situated closer to one teams spawn than the other, are bound to be disliked by whichever side has a perceived weakness.  The haute de jour of Crpg seems to be maps with two choices, since gameplay is mostly dictated by an 'angry mob' mentality, maps that require a level of complex tactical coordination above 'charge here, or charge there' or 'don't charge here and don't charge there' are bound to not only draw rounds out as stragglers get lost in the mix, but also quickly become annoying to a speed-round oriented player base.
A final word on balance: Most medieval battlefields where simply open fields dominated by one or two terrain feautures, and after playing mount and blade its easy to see why: its hard to coordinate large groups of men clearly when your only form of communication is line of sight and how far you can yell, players want to be able to see where the mob is headed and make a decision about where they can be most valuable to the team with their play-style, if the team gets seperated into small groups by the terrain, it is harder for them to do this.


The track:  This is the second form (but less common) of popular m&b map, it features very wide streets interspersed by blocked off buildings, with two clearly defined sniper positions, as clearly indicated in the popular Nord town

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

The action can be more closely funneled into chosen spots, with alleys allowing horses and ninjas to flank into each sides spawn. The trick here seems to be keeping the map simple enough to keep players from hiding, while complex enough to keep it visually intersesting.
Your thoughts?

[Vammo75]

I would like to know what size maps are fitting for cRPG in terms of the x and y values (as percentages/fractions of their respective tabs) in the Warband terrain creator. What sizes are good for e.g. city maps, plains maps forest maps etc or for 80, 120 ppl etc.

Thanks in advance/

[Thranduil]

I would like to know what size maps are fitting for cRPG in terms of the x and y values (as percentages/fractions of their respective tabs) in the Warband terrain creator. What sizes are good for e.g. city maps, plains maps forest maps etc or for 80, 120 ppl etc.

Thanks in advance/

I think that's something you just have to get a general feel for since the terrain creator doesn't list x and y in terms of any measurement.  Really, the exact size of your map isn't quite as important as how far/close the spawns are.  A general rule of thumb I've been told, and seems to work, is to have the spawns no more than around a minute's run apart.  So if you can run from one spawn to the other in somewhere between 30 and 60 seconds, it's a decent sized map.  More than 60 seconds and it's starting to get big.  Though knowing myself, it's never stopped me before. 

[Kong Ming]

For map size, I've never had to make a map that needed any more than about 25-33% of the slider.  100% is a HUGE map.  One trick I've learned to use for this is to utilize the Ground Color Paint tool.  Get an essentially flat and bare map set up at about the size you think you need, and then use various bright colors from that tool to paint the features you plan to add on the ground.  Magenta for a river, yellow for spawn locations, blue for buildings, etc.  This way you can see how much room you need very quickly and while the terrain can still be re-sized without screwing things up.  You'll want about 30-50 extra meters on each side because the game uses an invisible boundary around there to keep people from leaving the map.  The colors can also give you a helpful guideline as you start actually building, just like spray-painting the ground at a construction site.  When you're done, just turn the color to white and the brush size to 100, and erase all the colors in a snap.  Warning:  Do NOT use the "clear all" button to do this.  It also wipes all elevation and texture information from the terrain map.  This once made me very sad.

[zagibu]

Thanks for this tip, that's actually quite clever. Could have used this when I was trying (and failing) to do snowy terrain on my siege map.