Keeping players from just backing out of encounters?

[Arctangent]

Something I seem to have issues with while mapping is making sure that the situations I toss the player into aren't just cheesed by backpedaling to the nearest corner or doorway ( actually containing a door or no ) and camping there. I'm aware I can just forcibly make going backwards either difficult or flat-out impossible - through drop-offs, one-way teleporters, monster closets / teleporters behind the player, etc. - but I can't help but feel that's an inelegant method to rely on and I'm missing various ways that just make the player feel like they can slug it out.

[baja blast rd.]

Arctangent said:

but I can't help but feel that's an inelegant method to rely on

Why? That doesn't any sense. It's also such a fundamental base-level thing that you can hardly call it a 'method'. It's like saying "using monsters to create challenging scenarios" is a 'method'.

Anyway, the usual alternatives:

1) Structure your entire map as a single open or semi-open area in which there are no safe spots. (Bear in mind that if you want your map to contain a second discrete area, one that isn't campable . . . well, you know where this is going.)

2) Restrict monsters' movement so they can't follow the player to the camping spot. Imagine a room with turreted mancs or something.

3) Control the player's resources in such a way that they are obligated to move forward into monster-occupied territory to make any sort of progress and unable to reliably dispose of monsters from safe spots without exposing themselves to harm. Imagine ammo stashes generally being in the midst of monsters.

4) Use environmental hazards -- damaging floors, crushers, etc. -- to make retreat costly or risky, or alternately, to mandate aggressive play (e.g. having to fight on a damaging surface with a limited number of radsuits at your disposal).

5) Boss turrets with line-of-sight of campable areas. (This works in tandem with #3.)

6) Make camping inherently draining on resources. Viles, for example, resurrecting stuff unless you play aggressively and get rid of them.

[Arctangent]

rdwpa said:

Why? That doesn't any sense. It's also such a fundamental base-level thing that you can hardly call it a 'method'. It's like saying "using monsters to create challenging scenarios" is a 'method'.

I think it's because it doesn't feel like a lot of my inspirations don't use such absolute restrictions and still manage to keep me from camping unless I'm in such a poor state where not camping is just too risky. Granted, this might just be my reckless playstyle over the level designs, but ...

Regardless, thanks for the ideas!

[kuchitsu]

I agree that most "absolute" methods feel cheap, predictable and just make the author look desperate when used often. Like "and that's all you can do? just close bars behind my back again and again?". For me they are okay once in a while, like in 2002 A Doom Odyssey for example: there they feel like "special events" rather than something regular and that makes them actually kind of cool. But I think mappers should definitely be very careful with such methods, otherwise I will probably lose interest in their level quickly.

In my eyes the best solution to this is to offer alternatives that are much more fun than camping. Don't make encounters too overwhelming, don't place hordes of chaingunners\viles\etc that force the player to hide. Give the player some opportunities to be aggressive without risking too much. And if they still insist on camping... Well, maybe just let them do it if they really want. For some people it can be enjoyable too.

[baja blast rd.]

kuchitsu said:

I agree that most "absolute" methods feel cheap, predictable and just make the author look desperate when used often. Like "and that's all you can do? just close bars behind my back again and again?". For me they are okay once in a while, like in 2002 A Doom Odyssey for example: there they feel like "special events" rather than something regular and that makes them actually kind of cool. But I think mappers should definitely be very careful with such methods, otherwise I will probably lose interest in their level quickly.

In my eyes the best solution to this is to offer alternatives that are much more fun than camping. Don't make encounters too overwhelming, don't place hordes of chaingunners\viles\etc that force the player to hide. Give the player some opportunities to be aggressive without risking too much. And if they still insist on camping... Well, maybe just let them do it if they really want. For some people it can be enjoyable too.

Dunno. I think one should avoid repeating a specific technique in a way that conveys that they are short on ideas. But it's certainly possible, in some levels, to reuse a specific technique in a way that gives the map thematic unity.

Ideally, in most maps without such a tight unifying concept, the mapper will be able to create a mix of encounters such that the player doesn't even bother stopping to think "zzzz, another one of these?" The mapper might space the harsher LISPs (lock-in set pieces) out, include smaller escapable encounters, include setups that don't rely on absolute restriction for threat, place many of the level's monsters incidentally, use some of that incidental opposition to enforce a "soft lock-in" (i.e., you can freely escape encounters, but that will entail diving straight into other encounters), use ideas like the ones I listed above -- and in levels that aren't supposed to be that challenging, do as you said and provide alternatives to camping.

But I think that absolute lock-ins are just like any other method, and the typical player's impression will be shaped more by the usual things like how fun they are, how well they are staged, how they govern the level's pace, etc. -- than by the fact that they are used at all. There will always be people who don't like them as a matter of principle, much in the way you've said you don't like teleport traps, but you can't please everyone. You just have to make sure the people who are amenable to the methods you use end up liking it, I guess.

[VGA]

You could use a little ammo or weapon starvation to make backpedalling or corner fighting much harder. So the player is tempted to make a dash for the SSG or the BFG in an all-or-nothing attempt.

[dew]

rdwpa said:

But I think that absolute lock-ins are just like any other method, and the typical player's impression will be shaped more by the usual things like how fun they are, how well they are staged, how they govern the level's pace, etc. -- than by the fact that they are used at all. There will always be people who don't like them as a matter of principle, much in the way you've said you don't like teleport traps, but you can't please everyone. You just have to make sure the people who are amenable to the methods you use end up liking it, I guess.

Yep - I very much dislike repeated use of locked-in arenas. It's kind of why I'm not so hot for ribbiks' maps despite appreciating both the refined gameplay and the stunning visuals.

[VGA]

I usually like setpiece battles unless they are way too cheap.

Painkiller-style, clear the enemies to continue.

[40oz]

Another thing you can try is putting monsters on ledges or pillars to draw the player in. If the monsters can't get to you, you have to get to them.