Keeping Maps Small

[SpaceTrash]

I'm trying to get my first level finished - but I constantly find that I keep adding more and more rooms, trying to come up with a level that has fun gameplay with good backtracking etc. It just means that the map ends up HUGE to accommodate good progression and I get disheartened before I finish it. Any tips on keeping things concise? How long is too long? How short is too short?

For context, here's a screencap of the map I'm currently working on - this is maybe a 1/3 of what I need to get the map where I think I need to.

 

[ViolentBeetle]

I had the same experience with the very first level I finished. In my case, a lot of it was motivated by the fact that I couldn't stand my buildings being adjacent to shorter walls so I added areas behind them.

The only advice I can give is to just stop. Use your ideas for fun rooms with backtracking on your second map. the brown block on the right looks like it can be a centerpiece of map on its own. The blob-shaped area on the left is not even connected to anything. Why not move them to your next project and find a way to merge them somehow? That'll show 'em.

[SpaceTrash]

1 minute ago, ViolentBeetle said:

I had the same experience with the very first level I finished. In my case, a lot of it was motivated by the fact that I couldn't stand my buildings being adjacent to shorter walls so I added areas behind them.

The only advice I can give is to just stop. Use your ideas for fun rooms with backtracking on your second map. the brown block on the right looks like it can be a centerpiece of map on its own. The blob-shaped area on the left is not even connected to anything. Why not move them to your next project and find a way to merge them somehow? That'll show 'em.

I definitely think that splitting the map in half - the horseshoe and courtyard were actually made first - is a good idea. 

 

The bit on the left is an overly detailed secret so it'll stay though!

[EmptyCell]

I don't know if my opinion will have any value since I'm still newbie in Doom mapping and I've released only an early version of my mapset that I'm still working on, but here I go.
If you feel like you've done only 1/3 of a map, then add more. But think it through first. If you think that you'll starting to shift focus on nonsense, then just stop.
If you're content with what you have, it's better to stop adding stuff and focus on what you already have. Maybe you'll think of something that you might add later.
Add more if you're really confident in what you want to add (this means that you know exactly what you want to add & you're 100% confident that you're able to build it).

If so, try to understand what you're building (this means understanding the theme, architecture of the complex).

Ask yourself questions about the map (for example: "Is this fun to play through?") and try to answer them in most honest manner.

Most people will play through it, with a thought that this will be your first map (If you'll disclose it, of course). So they won't expect any @Dragonfly or @Bridgeburner56 level of mapping mastery.

I mostly agree with what @ViolentBeetle wrote. If you feel like adding more could jeopardize the map, then just stop.

Also, if you know somebody that could playtest for you, just ask them for some honest feedback.

 

I hope this'll be some use to you. Good luck in your mapping journey.

[Kappes Buur]

If your map is for original DOOM2 then there is little you can do other than to either cram as much into the map or strategically split the map into different maps, MAP01, MAP02, MAP03 .... with no going back to a previous map.

 

If, however, you map for GZDoom DiHF or UDMF, you would have to split your map up,  then you have options with Teleport to Map xyz to travel back and forth between maps (loosing your inventory) or make the mapset into a HUB (keeping your inventory).

 

 

[Stabbey]

I can understand the feeling. I decided to make a map inspired by Doom 2's "Tricks and Traps", so I started out with an octagonal area, with doors on each face... but then I felt obligated to put things behind each door.

 

I had an idea for one interesting setpiece, but the setup for it required adding three more sections, so the map grew tremendously. One of those sections itself split into four sub-sections.

[CBM]

I prefer larger maps where each map is different, since they let you have fun for longer :D

[BoxY]

Here's a few ideas that came off the top of my head:

 

-Draw a bounding box in the map editor of a certain size and map within that space limit.

-Try speedmapping. Can't make a giant magnum opus in 4 hours.

-Take a design you already have that's bloated, divide it into sections, and delete the least interesting ones until half of them are left.

 

I'm sure there are lots of simple limitations of these kinds you can set that would favour smaller and shorter maps.

[Alfonzo]

Never make a level that lasts longer than the idea.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Alfonzo

[elend]

I have huge problems with this, as well. My current techbase was meant to be a "short experiment in mapping" but is now way too huge and will probably end up around the 2 hour playtime mark. I am a beginner and have severe problems with scale or size. But now I kind of don't want to remove stuff and am focusing more on an exploratory style of map anyway and just hope it'll be alright in the end.

 

My solution to this for my next set of (hopefully very) small maps was: Focus on 1 texture theme or gameplay gimmick per map. Also try to keep playtime around 10 minutes per map.

[joepallai]

As someone who likes and tends to make big maps, I can sympathise here; it's too easy to let the map build as you work through your ideas until you hit that one bit that really works for you and ties in the rest (ideally otherwise you have to work backwards and tie things in after the fact).   40oz. once suggested to make the start then place the exit and figure out how to connect the two areas, which is a really good method to go with when making a big map; otherwise there is room/area/idea creep until you realise 8 months in that you still haven't figured out where to place an exit.   

 

Another good idea is to have a hard deadline with your maps; this way you'll have an endpoint to your mapping; without a finish date you could work on a map for years while "perfecting it".  (It's happened to me)   Which is fine if you view mapping as a hobby and not a goal; but right now with this being your first map, you really want that goal of first map release and feedback.  My suggestion is to take your favorite section and the secret area and make a map that takes you no more than 4 to 5 minutes to play through, shorter is better here as a first blind play through by a player is usually double that and no one wants to play a newbie's magnum opus (Deus Vult notwithstanding).

 

Generally speaking; people love short maps as they get more doom levels completed in the same time frame that a large level provides; and there's almost no map fatigue.  Also shorter maps are easier to experiment with and discover new things or ideas as a mapper;  this is the teleport maze map, this is the hot start map, this is the crusher map, the blue map, etc.    Players are also more forgiving on a shorter map with their feedback.  If your map is marginally fun, but only takes 5 minutes of their time; they are much more likely to give you a free pass than if it was 15 or 25 minutes of their time.    I think the sweet spot for player satisfaction vs. frustration is somewhere in the 3 to 10 minute range on a blind playthrough; large maps require the player to be mentally prepared to endure it for them to really enjoy them.

 

You're better off starting small; doing a couple of small maps, then trying your hand at a large map; that way you'll have the experience of making several levels before you tackle your first large map. (Psychologically there is a huge difference in mindset with making a large map; it almost by default becomes a "project" vs. "making a map").   

 

Hopefully some of this helps.  

 

    

 

    

[TheHambourgeois]

Replay scythe and pay attention. Then do some speed mapping

[Stabbey]

13 hours ago, Alfonzo said:

Never make a level that lasts longer than the idea.

 

But how do you define "the idea"? An idea could mean a lot. The overall concept of the level? One single specific room?

 

I had an idea for a map, set entirely on a tower high above ground, where the entire perimeter is one long self-raising staircase, containing the entire level within it. Four times in total you need to circle the tower to complete the level. That was the idea, and I built it, and I like it, but it's a 40-minute map.

 

Maybe that is the right size map for "the idea".

 

But I also had an idea for a map which deliberately screws with the player's expectations. It's really big, because there are a lot of ways to do that. How can one know when a level is longer than "the idea" when "the idea" can be a nebulous thing to pin down?

Edited August 16, 2020 by Stabbey : two ideas

[purist]

Save some new area ideas for your next map. You will thank yourself later when  you get mapper's block.

[Doomkid]

On 8/16/2020 at 4:59 AM, OrbitalSpaceGarbage said:For context, here's a screencap of the map I'm currently working on - this is maybe a 1/3 of what I need to get the map where I think I need to.

I’m curious what you mean by this, where does the map “need” to be? Looking at the screenshot, you could bite it off where it is right now, make a couple areas either keyed off or require a button for progression, fill it up with baddies (ensuring the encounters are actually fun and challenging), slap down an exit room and call it map01.

 

The Magnum Opus mapping approach seems to be back in vogue for the moment, but if you want to make a full episode or megawad, saving some ideas and energy for later maps is smarter imo. Never feel like a map “needs” to be however long, you can always bite it off and re-think progression to suit a smaller map. However, if you want it to be a one map release only, go ham on it and make it as huge as you like.

 

With proper enemy placement and interconnectivity, you can make just a few sectors go a long way in terms of gameplay time.

[Aurelius]

One thing to consider is that map size does not necessarily correlate with play time. A "long" most often implies long play time, but what it consists of can either be a quick run through multiple of areas with just enough enemies sprinkled to keep you engaged (but not for too long), or a series of grindy encounters in a relatively small set of rooms that prolongs the experience sometimes longer than it should. Now there are benefits and problems with both. Pushing the player at the speed of light might not give them much time to appreciate the setting or atmosphere and can be detrimental to the emotional experience the setting is meant to convey from a visual standpoint. But a fast paced approach like this gives the player a consistent feel of progression, and with well placed keys and resources to signpost this there might be little to no feelings exhaustion. In contrast, being stuck mowing down hordes of enemies or just dealing with large groups with insufficient arsenal can make the player feel bogged down. This can be either rocket spamming a massive horde filling the playable space or standing in a hallway killing barons with a shotgun one by one. The former is not problematic in isolation, and in some cases can be considered desirable (as a sub-genre of the ever elusive term "slaughter"), while the latter is often seen as a shortcoming in the availability of proper weapons / tools given the situation. In other words, "grind" can work, but it necessarily requires an element of challenge and tactic of sufficient variety to keep the player engaged. Non-threatening grind is the bad kind of grind.

So when you try to avoid a map being "too long", what you're actually trying to do is to make that map feel fun and engaging throughout is run - no matter the length. This is also (probably?) what Alfonzo meant by his earlier comment. A map outstays it's welcome when you, as a player, start to actively just wait for it to end. It's practically impossible to properly quantify when exactly this happens, though, since it consists of things like player preference, variety in encounter design and how captivating and unique the setting looks, together with the actual physical size of the map. If you walk through a dozen hallways but can't tell them apart, or move through rooms and just see the same thing over and over again, you're bound to feel less inclined to keep going - especially if you know the map is massive. And even if you tread through a gorgeous level peppered with tasteful detail only to be repeating the same fight time and time again, similar feelings can arise. Now sometimes good design in one can forgive shortcomings in the other, and while things that excel only in a few things can become very popular, ultimately the most engaging and revered maps that are out there have both variety in gameplay and unique, memorable setting - independent of map size.

 

tl;dr

 

Make sure that the journey you're designing is one worth taking. Big map, fun gameplay, backtracking and good progression are all achievable at the same time, but it requires smart level design, interconnectivity, variety in encounters and good progress signposting. Don't just slam room after room, but design around key locations. Where does the player start? Where is the exit? What is the exit? Where/what are the objectives? Can you easily get back from one objective to the next? Are there multiples routes? Also, shortcuts that unlock as your progress is the basis of backtracking style gameplay!

 

The map is concise if it's fun to play from start to finish and no part of it feels like a chore to go through. Extensively playtest your own map, and the earliest sign of "I'm not feeling it", kill your darling and try something else.

[ViolentBeetle]

Also, one thing I think helps me keep size in check (For a certain definition of "in check") is my love for hab areas. Most of my maps loop back to the starting area somehow, and there's only so many paths you can draw to its size.

[SpaceTrash]

On 8/16/2020 at 8:14 AM, joepallai said:

As someone who likes and tends to make big maps, I can sympathise here; it's too easy to let the map build as you work through your ideas until you hit that one bit that really works for you and ties in the rest (ideally otherwise you have to work backwards and tie things in after the fact)...

 

Some really good advice here. Aiming for the new version of the map to fall within that 10-minute limit. 

 

13 hours ago, Doomkid said:

I’m curious what you mean by this, where does the map “need” to be?

 

Basically the point at which every area I make is useful and there's a point to it. Originally there was this big idea about looping around the courtyard and then backtracking through the left-hand side section to do... something. That's been canned now and I'm going to turn the courtyard loop and the open-ended tech base into two different maps. 

 

9 hours ago, Aurelius said:

One thing to consider is that map size does not necessarily correlate with play time. A "long" most often implies long play time, but what it consists of can either be a quick run through multiple of areas with just enough enemies sprinkled to keep you engaged (but not for too long), or a series of grindy encounters in a relatively small set of rooms that prolongs the experience sometimes longer than it should...

Some more gold in here advice wise. I'm certainly mainly looking at short to medium encounters - nothing too grindy. But the scope will still be fairly big in terms of distance I suppose. 
 

8 hours ago, ViolentBeetle said:

Also, one thing I think helps me keep size in check (For a certain definition of "in check") is my love for hab areas. Most of my maps loop back to the starting area somehow, and there's only so many paths you can draw to its size.

Love a good hub area - though my old attempts just used to look like a (slightly" prettier version of the Tricks & Traps starting room!