Gameplay Theories

[FireSworD]

I started this topic because I want to gather more information on what makes this game fun, and how we can make it more fun.

When most people start creating a CTF level, little thought is put into what the game-play will be like when the level is nearing completion. Some people plan layouts based solely on a good-looking design, instead of what the design will offer the level game-play wise. Some skilled level makers will make a CTF (or any type of level) with good game-play in mind, but only to innovate the level by adding gimmicks that haven't been tried before. I'm aware that most skilled level makers take into account the turn out of the level's game-play; the level is almost, if not exactly as it was intended to be made.

The question is, what makes good game-play for ctf levels? - We are, or at least most of us are familiar with flow, ease to learn, balance etc - Ironically, some of the most addictive levels like DW and BBlair have been those with rather quirky flow and balance, and don't say it's because they are old levels that people have simply learned to like. Take QQ for example, a relatively new level, it seems to be becoming rather popular because of R3ptile's Tournament: QQ is probably the most popular level on the JJ2WC map-pool list, yet it isn't the one of the highest quality (not meant as an insult to the author) due to flow, bugs, control issues and minor things like being sucked up in the tube at the middle of the level against one's will if he/she made a minor mistake, which happens often. The level isn't perfect, but it's addictive as heck, gets plenty of attention, and is played often, even more than levels that probably out-class it. Why? - Maybe frustration adds to fun somehow?

[SteelTalon]

A good balance between friction/frustration and silky smooth flow is the formula for a bonafide hit - though not necessarily the best map for competition. Simply, levels that have "too good" of a flow are just boring. That is all there is to it. The map needs to present itself as a tool to the player, allowing the player to manipulate it to his opponent's disadvantage. With a more "frustrating" map, the onus is taken off the opponent. A weaker opponent, for example, may feel more comfortable if he feels he can exploit the map better than his opponent, rather than just being annihilated in a simple level which exposes all of his weaknesses. Most importantly, it adds variety to the match; excitement. For instance, is snowboarding down an extremely steep hill built for speed and speed only more fun than one with jumps, trees, bumps in the way, etc.? Some may say yes, but that would be the purist crowd speaking out. The general public likes the gimmicks (though I hesitate to call them gimmicks, it could just be an especially interesting piece of architecture).

However, a level that makes itself too difficult will also flop horribly. A perfect example of a level going overboard with the "frustrations" factor is, ironically, my own level PreSenT PaST. Part of this was a design decision, as it was simply meant to be a hardcore level, but I learned the hard way that without popularity all that hard work will go to waste. Now I'm putting on a bit of a self-pity cap here (ready the little violins) but nobody ever bothered to notice the myriads of routes in my map or the painstaking measures I took to such an assymetrical map. Probably about half of the secrets went undiscovered, too. Part of that was my fault, just a poor design decision. Never, I repeat, NEVER hide key powerups from the player, even if they are positioned perfectly for balance. That does not matter - if the player cannot find them, then your whole concept of balance is thrown down the window! In fact, you should really be taking that into consideration while mapping.

The point is that both levels like PreSenT PaST (overly complicated) and overly "simple levels" do one thing: accentuate the skill gap between players. While good for "hardcore" play, this does not serve itself well to a community as small as Jazz, where that audience does not exist. The map must then be used simultaneously as a mediator, evening the skill gap, while also being a tool for the player to use against their opponent. A paradox if there ever was one. See, mapping is a lot harder then you thought, huh? ;) Proves why I haven't released a map in 3 years. ;)

Hmm, this looks like good material for me to post on the ELM Tree (http://www.jazz2online.com/elmtree/). Wow, this turned out long.

[blurredd]

I've come to several conclusions from the past so I'll just share them (assuming any of this makes sense--I should be sleeping now).

Players like levels they know they can win in. It's pretty obvious, but no one really thinks about this factor, nor do they really have to, while making a new level. To find out how well you can do in a level encompasses the process of becoming more familiar with it. And a player can often be hestitant to go through the hassle of learning a new level, especially when it has to be done in a short amount of time. To overcome that obstacle, a player has to be able to find some unique strategy in that level to his or her gain. If someone thinks he/she can get a certain advantage in a level, that person will want to play in that level more often--even if the event placement isn't that great, the eye candy is subpar, and the gameplay is lacking. This all happens without much thought in the process.

Another factor as to why a level might become popular is how organized it is. Good organization of events and passageways gives players a good sense of where to go and what to do right from the start. This can naturally be best seen in team games like JB and CTF. Each player has the objective to get ammo, get powerups, reach the enemy's base, take carrots, and move around as quickly as possible. A clear balanced layout with just the right amount of routes from base to base eases the pain of learning an entirely new level, plus it allows players to focus more on defeating the other team. Furthermore, organized layouts helps players to predict what others are trying to do and to possibly counteract them. This, as you probably already know, is often the key to victory. Also, if the events are spread out adequately across a level, it forces players to keep moving, making camping unwise. Movement means more action, tactics, and fun by all. And no one likes a camper anyway. Levels that accomplish all of this tend to be hosted frequently.

Personally, when I make a level, I try to place ammo and other events where they are particularly useful, and I usually avoid mixing two types of ammo together. This way players are forced to take certain routes to get what they need, allowing for more predictability and strategies and such.

With all that being said, let me now "try" to answer FS's last question. I wouldn't say frustration adds to the fun directly. I see obstacles in a level as something exploitable assuming you don't get entangled by it yourself. This is why people both hate and adore things like a powerup in a dead end. If you can get away with it, it's fine, but you'll want to take out anyone who falls prey to the trap. Anything potentially frustration could be the deciding point for whether something is overhosted or never hosted again (See Happy Semiconductor CTF). But if it's something small and fairly ignorable, it's not going to change the people's opinion on the level that much in the long run.

By the way, if you read all of this, I commend you.

Edit: So much for getting the first reply. This could be an especially interesting thread.

[White Rabbit]

I'm better at creating battle lvls when it comes to experience and J2o ratings so I'll talk about battle lvls instead. ;P

Btw, I'm not quite sure how frustration, which basically means that you, more or less, get irritated, can make a lvl enjoyable. If it was enjoyable, it wouldn't be frustrating. It would be hard, challenging, difficult, etc but frustrating is a negative word so I think it'll be hard to find ppl who is happy when they are...not happy. Plz re-phrase question.

[Ragnarok!]

Well, people like levels or they don't. But to be really honest. Levels like DW and Semi, aren't particularily good. I mean, they haven't got good EC or flow, its just that people have played them so much and that is what makes it so overplayed. Also, now that r3p's tourney is launched, the levels contain levels that may not be SUPREME, as FS said, but they are only being played because they want to win the tourney. To be honest, I don't really think some people REALLY want all the levels to be in it.. And some of them they might not find particularily fun.. They win, then they say "IT ROCKS" or whatever.

I think the way to make a level fun, is to make it as open and as destructive as possible. What I mean is by making it opened up like BBlair, (and if you want me to write BAD comments on that later I will) and place the strongest weapons, or the most easy way of roasting. That is what I find fun. Like in Sacrifice, CelL said that the reason I like it, is because I love having a nice destructive weapon like the Seeker PU. And that is true. The fast fires are together, so you can get powerful with them and the Peppermint PU, even though it only does 1 damage, but anyway, its fun rampaging in with weapons and harming people.

Also, generally, I think the way to make levels really fun is to make it tactical, and in such a way that you can bombard those ANNOYING campers. So they GO AWAY. FOREVER. FWAHAHAHAHA.

:D :D :D The level doesn't need to be sophisticated, just well designed. :D :D :D

[White Rabbit]

@Rag: Lvls like Distopia? :D It's so simple, medium-sized, easy to play and there are plenty of stuff/ppl to blow up. ;D

The thing is, almost all lvls can be tactical, depending on how many members a team has. The more ppl there are, the more tactics/strategies can be used, until a certain limit is reached and, in the end, ppl will start dying in droves everything turns into a roasting-fest (for CTF too).

[Ragnarok!]

Ok maybe not dist. I mentioned the STUP camping there. Didn't I?
OMG. OMG. OMG. OMG. Its up there. ^
That is a cack level. Forget dicklucksuxia

[White Rabbit]

But camping IS a tactic and it, provided it takes place in the right place, with the right weapons, can work really well. Someone who doesn't camps will miss good opportunities to kill their opponents when they're not ready for you.

[Ragnarok!]

That has a place in my sig.

[Grytolle]

Actually, if the camper is skilled in dodging, there is no way you can counter him (/her)...

[FireSworD]

The point is that both levels like PreSenT PaST (overly complicated) and overly "simple levels" do one thing: accentuate the skill gap between players. While good for "hardcore" play, this does not serve itself well to a community as small as Jazz, where that audience does not exist. The map must then be used simultaneously as a mediator, evening the skill gap, while also being a tool for the player to use against their opponent. A paradox if there ever was one. See, mapping is a lot harder then you thought, huh? ;) Proves why I haven't released a map in 3 years. ;)

It's obvious and I agree with your point on the jj2 community lacking the right audiences for competetive play, as well as the audience for the "hardcore" levels which skilled level makers try so hard to bulit so often by mistake. I'm glad this topic has shed light on that. Maybe now we will stop wasting our precious time creating high quality CTF levels on jj2 for nothing. One of the reasons I started this topic because is because I feel, if possible, there needs to be more dimensions added to gameplay for how we create levels, especialy CTF gameplay, then it may be possible to make high quality levels that appeal to a wider audience, maybe even thoose who claim to hate CTF will change their minds. Who knows?

[MaGoo]

A great CTF level is balanced on both side of the level. If you were to cut it in half, one base to the other from the middle/carrot/ammo placement are all key. Of course the level has to create an even layout for both teams. But here's where some levelmakers go wrong. This does not mean you must create both sides of the level EXACTLY the same. The key to a truly great map is to make sure that each team has the same advantages/disadvantages, but at the same time put change up the eyecandy somewhat. Congruent levels are good, but can become boring after a while.

[Blackraptor]

Camping IS a tactic, a working one. In fact, it's probably the tactic I use most often =P.

As for levels, I find that with almost any level, if you pinpoint a gun to a person's head and make them play the level over and over countless of times, they'll grow to like it =P (Levels like Battle 1, DW, semi, bblair even, are examples of this).

[blurredd]

Still, camping isn't much without ammo and powerups.

In other news, I virtually gave up on CTF. "So Blurred, your not making ctf levels anymore?" Not any time soon, that's for sure. Why? Because I'm still having trouble finding the right tilesets to use, and it's not because I think my work isn't appreciated enough.

Long live semi-symmetrical levels.

[Grytolle]

Still, camping isn't much without ammo and powerups.

Unless you camp at base with blaster and you always come back from death at that place.

[Nielsje]

Camping with a blaster is not really that succesful, I think.

[EvilMike]

To make a popular level, you just need to make one that looks good, is easy to learn but still allows for good strategy and tactics, and needs to have good flow. All of my most popular levels have those qualities. Generally looks are the most important when it comes to popularity. I can also say that all of the levels I've made which revovle almost entirely around gameplay are almost completely unknown to people besides me.

But this post is not about making a popular level; it is about making a good level. By good I mean one that has good gameplay. Eyecandy, music, and other aesthetic things like that are important, but secondary to gameplay.

<b>Plan Ahead</b>
When I am about to start a level, I plan things out. I decide what I want the level to become, how it will "feel", and general things like that. I don't go so far as to sketch things out, but I give myself a set of guidelines on what the level will be. Doing this usually takes a while, and once I am done accumulating ideas the level usually goes together in about 3 days. Planning helps. If you just design a level off the top of your head you will have to rely on luck for it to be good.

<b>Routes are important</b>
When making the level think of routes players can take between bases or between key points in the level. Make sure there are many routes. Also see if you can make the routes interact with each other. ALWAYS use items to reward players for taking those routes, and do not force them. If your level does not have specific routes then you cannot form strategies as easily, and that makes the level less fun.

<b>Camping sucks</b>
It's just not fun. In CTF it's a bit of a problem, but you can help that. Don't put the bases close together, and do NOT put key items (carrots, powerups) at safe distance from the bases because the campers will most likely use them more often than defenders. Place key items along the main routes of the level, but do not put too much along one route or else you will get campers that are fully loaded. Make flags easy to attack by placing them in "unsafe" places, but still allow them to be defendable. KEEP BASES AS DISTANT AS POSSIBLE FROM ENEMY START POSITIONS.

<b>It's nice to have ammo near the start positions</b>
Maybe a gun barrel, or even just a simple clump of events. This is useful because it allows players to have more than just a blaster at almost all times. It can also make camping a bit harder if players start with gun2 or any other long range weapon.

<b>Gimmicks are fun but don't rely on them</b>
I consider a gimmick to be anything you do not find in a normal CTF level. Sometimes they can make an otherwise normal level original, and many people have used them to good effect before. But many people have also made levels that revolve completely around gimmicks, and those levels are never good. Happy Canyon CTF is an example of a bad gimmick level. Note that these levels in general tend to be less popular, even if good.

<b>Ammo placement</b>
Place ammo in areas where you think it will be most useful. Try not to put every time of ammunition in one spot; spread it out a bit. Powerups should be easy to find, and I reccomend placing most of them along main routes. Putting some in out of the way places is OK though, and can make a level more interesting especially if those areas are unsafe. Don't put too much ammo in the level, but put enough so that a player won't usually run out. Don't overdo seekers, and be warned that RF missles cause 3 heart kills. Also note that pepper spray is a very useful weapon in some levels, despite what some people think.

<b>Carrot placement</b>
In battle, an even number of carrots isn't too great for duels because it can mean each player just goes between the two carrots, or worse, just camps at them. Because of this, try to use an odd number. Using 1 to 3 carrots will make a level focus largely on hit and run tactics. Using more than that will make a level more focused on fast paced chace and ambush tactics. Either is good. Although I find not many people are used to dueling in levels with a lot of carrots. It's good fun though. Despite what logic may dictate, using a lot of carrots can make a game faster paced in battle mode.

In CTF, Full NRG carrots are your best choice, although 1h carrots are fine too. I usually prefer an even number, but an odd number is ok as well. I'm not particularly fond of CTF levels with one carrot though, since it makes a level too focused on a single point.

<b>Warps, tubes, and all that</b>
Again, don't overrely on them. Tubes can make a level interesting by providing quick shortcuts between areas, but depending on the speed they can also make you an easy target. Good things, strategy wise. Warps are your best choice for "connecting" areas without making things too dangerous, and are VERY nice if you want to make a level more strategic. Overusing them is a bit tacky though, not to mention confusing.

<b>Secret areas</b>
A few secret areas are ok, but using a lot of them is a bad idea and makes a level unfair to new players. Try not to put all your important stuff in secret areas.

<b>Flow</b>
I'm somewhat obsessed with flow, and a lot of the things I did in some of my old levels have caught on and become commonplace in todays CTF levels. Some of those things are good, some of them are bad. PLEASE don't overuse float up events to make your level easy to move around in. It's annoying if you can notice them. With that said, try to keep a level fluid, but don't make it TOO easy. I suggest keeping the main routes with good flow, but make it so with a bit of work a player can also use all sorts of tricks to their advantage. Basically, keep a good balance. I've gone overboard with flow before, and it makes levels seem a bit bland. A level with bad flow will be annoying to play in, though.

<b>Size</b>
Some people seem to think there is an ideal size for a level. There isn't. If your level is open, then it's a good idea to make a level big. If the level is mostly cramped corridors, then you don't need so much real estate. With that said, any size is good, and we need more big CTF levels for things like JDC.

<b>Have your own style</b>
You know of have to "know" jj2 levels to notice this, but look at every well known level maker out there. Each one has a number of traits that they put into their levels. Even if they are hard to notice, each one of those people has their own style. This is because they know what they are doing. Do not make a level which you think other people will like. Make a level YOU will like. Know what you like. Know what you dislike. If you make something that tries to please everyone, it probably won't turn out as well and will probably feel generic.

<b>Eyecandy is nice but can get annoying</b>
Please don't feel like you need to use every layer. I hate it when eyecandy goes in front of the main level. Don't overuse layers 1 to 3 and do not clutter the background with tiles that belong in layer 4. Save all of that for single player. In multiplayer, people want to PLAY, not all the pretty scenery.

<b>TEST</b>
Here's a breakdown of the amount of time I spend making most levels. 1. Indefinate amount of time planning and getting ideas. 2. Roughly 3 days making the level. 3. WEEKS testing it and getting feedback. If you don't test the hell out of a level, it will feel unpolished and won't be nearly as good as if you obsessively go over each and every aspect. I'm talking about going down to a single TILE and asking yourself if the level would be better if you did something like move that tile one space to the left. It's tedious, it's obsessive, and it works.

<b>So now that you've made a level...</b>
You have to get people to like your level as well. You can't just plop it on j2o and expect people to play it. Host it or get people to host it. Try to get your level circulated in a tournament like JJWC or JDC. Tell people about your level. Be annoying. No one is going to like your level if they don't get a chance to even play it.

<b>On frustration</b>
It was mentioned in the first post, so I'll cover this. I think a level is ok if it has a few frustrating aspects, but overall a level still needs to be fun. Try to keep the frustration limited to things like places you can get easily ambushed. Don't make stupid things like freeze enemies, or tubes/warps which pull you away if you accidently bump into them. Make it so if a player can make a mistake, it is a strategic/tactical mistake and not a mistake like "Ugh I pressed jump when I shouldn't have."

<b>Obstructions and stuff</b>
ST covered this well, but I'll add my thoughts on it. Anything that detracts from the flow of the level can actually be used to good effect, but it has to be used well. Deleberately making a level flow poorly is NOT a good idea, since it forces players to think more about simply getting around, rather than killing the enemy. If you are going to make use of obstructions, do it in a way that slows players down but doesn't make it too hard to get around.




Ok, this post was long. I might add more later, I didn't covereverything.

[The March Hare]

This is one of the best threads on level design I've ever read.

It's very inspiring, makes me want to bust out the JCS and cook something up.

Keep bringing the theories.

-The March Hare

[Violet CLM]

My general strategy when making multiplayer designs (which I almost never do) is to try to mess it up somehow. I always want to have something which I'm not used to. Of course, I'm pretty sure I've never made a popular level, but the point is that I feel satisfied, right?
And the same applies to downloading levels. If you don't have anything interesting looking I won't care about your level in the least.

[EvilMike]

Sometimes the interesting part is how it all goes together. A lot of levels don't have anything "new" in them, but still manage to have an original design. It's sort of hard to explain how that works, but it is pretty easy to tell if a level is original or just plain generic.

[White Rabbit]

I can see that you think testing is quite important, EM. But what about the fact that good betatesters, even the best ones, can make mistakes? You should advise ppl never to overestimate betatesters. Betatesters have failed me a lot of times and bugs kept plopping up months after the release (despite me having betatested a lvl for over 8 hours).

[EvilMike]

For multiplayer - Screw betatesters! Just host the beta version of the level online and see how it plays. Ask people to comment on things. Make observations yourself. Tweak level appropriately, then host again. The best way to test a multiplayer level is WITH multiplayer. If you are afraid of letting people see your unreleased work, then get over it. All of my best levels were tested publicly like this.


For single player - Find people you know and send the level(s) to them. Have them play through the pack and give as much feedback as possible, good or bad. Finding bugs is also important, but a good level shouldn't have many to start with. The important thing here is feedback so you can make the level better. Make sure you set a deadline for the testers, and bug them occasionally. Once you extract as much feedback as possible from them, make your adjustments.

Good, now you can repeat the process. Find new testers who haven't played it yet, and send the updated level. You can go with less testers this time around since most of the major issues should be resolved. Again, set a deadline and again try to get as much out of them as possible.

By then your level should be nearly bug-proof and highly polished with all that feedback. If not, either your testers failed to give you good advice, or you failed to listen to them. Or a combination of both.

[DarkSonic]

Omg... great suggestions by EvilMike. Thanks alot!
I also think camping is very irritating, but it's also fun to kill people while camping. Ït's irritating if it's used against you. I don't know what to add to the things EvilMike posted. I really like that long post because I think it will be useful for me. And yes, I will host my levels online when finished instead of letting them beta tested(unless someone can't join the server and really needs me to send the level on MSN.

[blurredd]

EvilMike's Guide to Making Levels!!!!!!!Sounds like article material to me.

[White Rabbit]

Yeah, spontaneous stuff is always the most inspired and creative ones...even if the idea was triggered by someone else. ;P

EDIT: I've half-made a lvl within 8 hours acordin to Mike's "plan". Let's see how it turns out... :p

EDIT 2: It's finally finished. http://www.jazz2online.com/J2Ov2/do...hp?levelID=3674 It's kind of a 'try-out' lvl although it's far too late to change the stuff in it if I've made a mistake. DL and review, plz.

EDIT 3: Still waiting for more reviews, but so far it seems to work. The bases were too close to each other at the beginning, so I blocked off a central route and made a hole in the wall instead, which takes you to a red spring before you can go to the base. It's better than when you could just jump and copter between the two bases. :p There are obstacles beneath platforms so rather than to let ppl fall directly down, they actually have to go left, then right, in a sort of zig-zag way, while falling. The seeker PU's position only gives you one shot, so if you make a mistake, you'll have to go all the way back up again. The spider's web makes you stuck for about 0.5 seconds and it can be hard to escape from it if you willingly enter the web turret. Er... we'll see if these 'obstacles' and 'frustration areas' add to the fun or not. :p

[DarkSonic]

As you wish.
I don't think my message was that offtopic but... oh well.
I'm going to plan a layout for a level and I'm going to make that level after.

[Blackraptor]

I really need to plan out more levels before actually making them. So far, I've only planned the entire layout of two levels I've ever made before actually making them.

[FireSworD]

<b>Camping sucks</b>
It's just not fun. In CTF it's a bit of a problem, but you can help that. Don't put the bases close together, and do NOT put key items (carrots, powerups) at safe distance from the bases because the campers will most likely use them more often than defenders. Place key items along the main routes of the level, but do not put too much along one route or else you will get campers that are fully loaded. Make flags easy to attack by placing them in "unsafe" places, but still allow them to be defendable. KEEP BASES AS DISTANT AS POSSIBLE FROM ENEMY START POSITIONS.

Isn't camping a cheap strategy that so many people love?

<b>Flow</b>
I'm somewhat obsessed with flow, and a lot of the things I did in some of my old levels have caught on and become commonplace in todays CTF levels. Some of those things are good, some of them are bad. PLEASE don't overuse float up events to make your level easy to move around in. It's annoying if you can notice them. With that said, try to keep a level fluid, but don't make it TOO easy. I suggest keeping the main routes with good flow, but make it so with a bit of work a player can also use all sorts of tricks to their advantage. Basically, keep a good balance. I've gone overboard with flow before, and it makes levels seem a bit bland. A level with bad flow will be annoying to play in, though.

Any level flows well when practiced enough. So why not make people get used to obstacles? First impressions help a lot? A level that has orginal ideas implemented has to be learned to some extend; Most people don't take too well to original ideas at first but will eventually like them. So screw good first impressions.

<b>Size</b>
Some people seem to think there is an ideal size for a level. There isn't. If your level is open, then it's a good idea to make a level big. If the level is mostly cramped corridors, then you don't need so much real estate. With that said, any size is good, and we need more big CTF levels for things like JDC.

Cramped corridors may make a small level slow the time for one to get to one point to another and give one more options and routes to take yet will make it a lot hader to avoid getting hit with so little room, dodging is difficult to impossible. Maybe that negates your point that a small level could work, maybe it's just better to make bigger levels.

<b>Eyecandy is nice but can get annoying</b>
Please don't feel like you need to use every layer. I hate it when eyecandy goes in front of the main level. Don't overuse layers 1 to 3 and do not clutter the background with tiles that belong in layer 4. Save all of that for single player. In multiplayer, people want to PLAY, not all the pretty scenery.

I've noticed levels that use excessive eyecandy make the level confusing only for a period of time until the player adapts to it. I know, some people will bring up Carrottus to the Max by JmaN, but that level can be learned as well.

[EvilMike]

Isn't camping a cheap strategy that so many people love?
Yeah, but that doesn't mean you can't make it a bit harder, just to balance things out. With camping I am bascially talking about players who spawn and immediately beeline for the enemy base, regardless of the status of their teamates. Not the best strategy in a lot of cases, although it has its uses, and in some levels it can be a little too useful.

No one should never make a level impossible to camp in. While I feel it is annoying, and maybe even "cheap", it's a valid tactic. I just see nothing wrong with making it difficult.

Any level flows well when practiced enough. So why not make people get used to obstacles? First impressions help a lot? A level that has orginal ideas implemented has to be learned to some extend; Most people don't take too well to original ideas at first but will eventually like them. So screw good first impressions.
That is true, but if flow is bad enough then a level will just be annoying to play in. It's ok to make it so a player has to jump or change direction every once and a while if they want to get somewhere, but with too many obstacles I've found it just gets annoying, even after learning the level. Too many obstacles can make a level feel "cramped" and that is not something many people like. Most levels tend to strike a good balance really, even when the authour puts no thought into it.

Good flow is really just a nice added touch. A lot of it is first impressions, but I think it makes levels feel more polished in a way. The way I see it, unless there is a gameplay reason for obstacles (such as wanting to make it take longer to go along a certain route) then there is no real need for them. Also, good flow lets people more quickly, and I like "fast" levels for some reason.

Cramped corridors may make a small level slow the time for one to get to one point to another and give one more options and routes to take yet will make it a lot hader to avoid getting hit with so little room, dodging is difficult to impossible. Maybe that negates your point that a small level could work, maybe it's just better to make bigger levels.
I don't really like cramped levels either. I just think a small level with a lot of open space will wind up being a bit TOO small, since you'd be able to get from base to base in like 3 seconds or less.

And by cramped I don't mean so cramped you can't even jump. I just mean levels without a lot of open space, like quasar quandary, to name a popular level.

Although I'm not a big fan of that level either. Like bob said, counter-intuitive.

I've noticed levels that use excessive eyecandy make the level confusing only for a period of time until the player adapts to it. I know, some people will bring up Carrottus to the Max by JmaN, but that level can be learned as well.
Of course. You can adapt to everything. You can adapt to a level where every tile has a horrendous animation of flashing colours at 30 frames per second, if you had to. Adapting to something doesn't make it any less annoying though.

It doesn't matter if a level has bad flow, bad (or overly good) eyecandy, or whatever. If it's annoying, it stays annoying. Even after getting used to it, it is still more annoying than getting used to a level that doesn't have any of that crap. Annoying is basically the opposite of fun, and I think it's very important for levels to be fun.

With levels that have too much obstructive eyecandy I play on low detail. I find that even after learning to play in a level with lots of obstructive foreground (to the point where it no longer has any real effect), disabling it feels refreshing somehow. It's like cleaning my glasses or something.

[blurredd]

What I find amusing about EvilMike's guide is that several people seemed to think Mike meant eye candy isn't important. What he said was eye candy isn't as important as gameplay. In the long run, people replay a level over and over again for the gameplay, not the eye candy. But eye candy is a close second. You wouldn't want to play a level with a great layout but looks horrible, would you? Also, eye candy can greatly influence one's first impressions (naturally), making an easy way to get high ratings, even if no one ever hosts that level again. So basically what I'm trying to say is eye candy hooks people in, and gameplay keeps them interested.

[White Rabbit]

'Eyecandy is nice but can get annoying
Please don't feel like you need to use every layer. I hate it when eyecandy goes in front of the main level. Don't overuse layers 1 to 3 and do not clutter the background with tiles that belong in layer 4. Save all of that for single player. In multiplayer, people want to PLAY, not all the pretty scenery.'

Yeah, Mike didn't make it very clear did he? ;P Hmm, he hasn't mentioned anything about a comparison between the importance of eyecandy and gameplay. He did point out that 'all that' should be saved for singleplayer, so ppl think that they shouldn't bother with eyecandy, which is misleading.

[DarkSonic]

I completely agree with BlurredD. Gameplay is more important, but I like to see levels with alot of eye candy. Levels with lack of eye candy usually aren't too good(except BBLair for instance) but that's because the gameplay in it is so good. Good gameplay and eye candy are two things that fit to a great and popular level. So, I think the fact about eye candy is the only thing of EvilMike's guide I don't agree with.
One thing I might want to add is that you have to place alot of Multiplayer starts because people can learn the start if there is only one and directly hit a player that just spawned. This is very irritating if used against yourself.

[EvilMike]

Look, I was talking about eyecandy that goes in front of stuff. I don't care if your level is pretty, just don't overuse layers 1-3. I like to be able to SEE things that are actually important.

Blur is right in that you people completely mininterpreted me. Why the hell would I want people to make ugly levels?

[FireSworD]

Some levels don't need to be cluttered with eyecandy to look good anyway. I've seen levels with basic eyecandy that actually look better than some with all sorts of junk in them.

[DarkSonic]

Well, we have levels with eye candy where there is just put some stuff in layer 3 alot. This is not a good thing, because overusing can be confusing indeed. I'm not saying I am going to fill my levels with eye candy that it's hard to see anything. I'm just saying that eye candy is an important thing that's unmissable in my opinion.

[White Rabbit]

Do you think QQ could be popular because it offers a good balance between hammering on the keyboard in the small corridors and long-distance shooting in-between bases? Basically, the lvl is both fast and slow-paced, which suits everyone.

[FQuist]

QQ has speedy gameplay and lots of strategic options (the PU rooms, the totally different paths away from the base after having grabbed the flag)

This is sort of related to the gimmicks discussion, it's a thing I would like to see in a level: having some random factor in it. Using trigger zones (if you want it to be local) or trigger crates (if you want it to be global) it's possible to make it so that every time a level is played to a certain extent it's different from the last time (randomisation using animations, etc). A path changed here, a PU changed there. And posting this revives the thread. Yay.

[blurredd]

Almost made a level like that, but I lacked the inspiration to make another CTF level. Guess I can't claim that idea as my own anymore.

[White Rabbit]

I'm actually planning to make a CTF lvl based on the Golden Heart (you know, from the Hitchhiker's series). Im planning to have a <s>fully</s> functioning Infinite Improbability drive available, so a lot of random things can happen during the course of the game. Some things I think it safe to give away: petunia bowls, fried eggs, ammo rain, platforms appearing/disappearing, PUs mysteriously falling through the floor.

EDIT: Oh, and Blur, check your inbox for any PMs from me. If there aren't any, plz remind me to remind myself to send you something.

[Olsen]

I'm actually planning to make a CTF lvl based on the Golden Heart (you know, from the Hitchhiker's series). Im planning to have a <s>fully</s> functioning Infinite Improbability drive available, so a lot of random things can happen during the course of the game. Some things I think it safe to give away: petunia bowls, fried eggs, ammo rain, platforms appearing/disappearing, PUs mysteriously falling through the floor.

EDIT: Oh, and Blur, check your inbox for any PMs from me. If there aren't any, plz remind me to remind myself to send you something.

That sound awesome. :)

[FireSworD]

I hate reviving topics but I just have this one thing on my mind.

There seems to be a rising trend of more complex levels. Is it because jj2 players are finding it easier to learn layouts? Oddly, most layouts of old (levels that were considered good at their time) levels are fairly complicated and are considered bad by todays standards, or at least they were until now. As long as I've known, ease to learn has been an essential standard, albiet a limiting one as you can only put so much into a level. However, there seems to be a trend where you just have to play long enough to learn the level. I guess we are finally learning to be patient! or something like that.

I support this change, even though it may be frustrating to learn a complex layout, in say, a JDC event.

[Newspaz]

If you ask me people are just desperately trying to invent something new. Something no one has ever done before. And they need to, in order to keep it interesting. Maybe they also want to give others a reason to play their level. Also keep in mind that the people in this community are growing up, and have less problems to make complex constructions now.

[SteelTalon]

I guess PreSenT PaST (http://www.jazz2online.com/J2Ov2/downloads/info.php?levelID=1349) was ahead of its time then. :P

[Newspaz]

Or perhaps you're just old ;)

[Grytolle]

Or the levelmakers stopped creating good levels...

[blurredd]

Complex levels often go hand in hand with large levels, and I have no problem with that since I don't favor playing in smaller levels with 9 other players. The added complexity also creates more opportunities for strategy, which I can't argue against. I usually support anything that means less chaotic gameplay.

[Grytolle]

MiniDW is great for 3vs3. ^^

Oh, and no one spends enough time on jj2 to learn complex levels.

[cooba]

Oh, and no one spends enough time on jj2 to learn complex levels.Speak for yourself >O.

[n00b]

I actually spend time playing CTF/Battle levels in SP mode to learn the layout.

[DarkSonic]

My levels are usually not complex, but they're very simple. But some levels aren't very hard to learn, thus they're not complex. I don't think they're lots of complex levels that are still played.

[Grytolle]

Easy to learn levels are more fun.

[cooba]

Easy to learn levels are more fun.Speak for yourself >O.<!---->

[blurredd]

I prefer easy to learn but difficult to master.

[blurredd]

I read this entire thread again. Most of it doesn't include anything really controversial. I didn't want to make a reply to these threads since they are too specific, and I have no problem reviving old but good threads. By the way, I rambled a bit.

I've figured a little while ago that most key ammo and powerups should be placed where they are least useful to discourage camping--this counters what I said in a previous post. I still think different types of ammo should go in different places though. If a powerup requires EBs to get it, I support placing those EBs on the other side of the level. I support any idea that encourages players to use the entire level.

I now want to bring up layout issues. Specifically narrow versus open. I used to like PurpleJazz's Condemned a lot more until I realized how frustrating it was to try to actually kill a specific person (on a side note, it would've been nice if Codename: Alliance was hosted on J2O so that I could've found the pack by searching "condemned"). The level plays a bit better than PurpleJazz's other epically big levels when only few players are in the server, but the gameplay isn't as good as I expected. It's too open for starters. And the bouncer powerup and nearby bouncer ammo is poorly placed--makes it easier to camp and shot opponents climbing to the top of the level; see previous paragraph. I've been pushing levels to be more open than narrow for some time now, but I'm now going back on this considering how much I still like levels like EvilMike's Evil Fortress and Abandoned Robotics Factory.

Secrets: don't make them impossible to find. In fact, make everything in the level easy to figure out the first time it's played. Pits: need to be more obvious. I may make JJ2+ help point out pits in the future, but I don't know how just yet. Here's something I don't see too often: using the same powerups on both sides of a CTF level. It shouldn't hurt to make gameplay even more balanced.

So most of us probably agree that spamming shots is a cheap tactic and shouldn't be rewarded. This is part of the reason why I decided to use less seeker ammo and no seeker powerups in my levels. I'm now thinking about removing seeker ammo entire and making seeker powerups take minutes to respawn in levels like E. Prime and Security Breach . And I plan on replacing the seeker powerup in Security Breach with a harder-to-access RF powerup. Tell me what you think of these ideas.

I'm still not sure how to punish spamming and reward ammo conservation further. I have no problems with making provisions to make a custom limit for ammo through JJ2+ (it would only affect JJ2+ users), though I wonder how much it would help. One way to reward ammo conservation would be to have less ammo in a level, but then spawning players will have a hard time getting ammo. To counter that, I may make a JJ2+ add-on so that players can start with ammo after spawning--some time after I fix JJ2's net code... Though you could just place ammo right next to start positions or make some ammo only accessible by spawning players.

Now, for some extremely late replies:
Also note that pepper spray is a very useful weapon in some levels, despite what some people think.
I'm finding pepper spray too awkward to fire and way too inaccurate. I'll take my noisy RFs any day.

Despite what logic may dictate, using a lot of carrots can make a game faster paced in battle mode.
I'm still blindly following this logic. It definitely depends on how many people are playing in the level if Quickz's Sandstone Ruins is any indication.

[EvilMike]

There's stuff in that post I made 4 years ago that I'd say differently today, but on the point of pepper spray I still think it's useful. RFs are usually better, but in a level with a lot of long, flat corridors, pepper spray tends to work better than RFs as a chasing weapon, due to its range and speed. For situations other than chasing its a pretty useless (and actually slow) weapon though. Its one of the more specialized weapons in the game.

As for carrots, a battle level with 10 carrots is probably going to be a slow and tedious duel. But I think a decent amount is still a very good idea... certainly more than 1 or 2. It depends on the size of the level really. Also, respawn time is a good thing to consider: I think with carrots, faster is probably better. 15 or 20 secs.

[Ragnarok!]

If a powerup requires EBs to get it, I support placing those EBs on the other side of the level. I support any idea that encourages players to use the entire level.

I'm beginning to shy away from this whole idea altogether now. Personally, I think powerups should be easy to get, as that adds to the whole fun of it, rather than making it frustrating. I'm beginning to stop placing powerups in walls now, unless there is a way of getting it both manually and cleverly with electro blasters.

While I also encourage usage of the entire level, I really think if you want to place a powerup in the wall, place the way of getting it nearby (in this case EBs), because that way it's less annoying. Another really annoying thing is when you see the powerup and think, "ooh I should get that." So then you make all the effort to run along and get the gun, and then you come back and it's gone. While one can argue that you should have gotten the EBs in the first place, it's still kinda less fun, or even so, if there's only one place with EBs, someone can just be annoying and camp it just to spite people who want the powerup or something. Okay, call me random and a bit crazy but still.

Another really annoying thing is that you only get +20 of the powerup if you get it from the wall, and if you already have the gun, it's not even any more. I find this, in most levels, to be a rediculously low amount of ammo to be able to barrage enough to do something useful. Yeah, I may waste my ammo, but I think it's more fun that way too.

Again, my theories on fun are possibly wrong, as my levels aren't the most popular.

I'd just like to add: I hate peppermints, while I think they're good for chasing and if youre clever enough you can do it up hill too, but you need to adjust that. If only there was a way of doing it while like, holding up and running at the same time. However EBs, they are truly a great gun as their possibilities are just really cool if used/applied right. You can shoot through walls; but think about what may be behind the wall... A camp-spot, a carrot which may drop down making it easier for you to get from your current location, a powerup which someone may have been about to kick. I'd probably change my opinion on these two guns critically if they both had the possibility of doing two damage powered up. They'd be probably amongst my favourite guns, though I dunno if I'll still favour RFs, as I tend to RF hop while I'm chasing, to gain speed and get closer and stuff.

This post is pointless.

[blurredd]

There's stuff in that post I made 4 years ago that I'd say differently today, but on the point of pepper spray I still think it's useful. RFs are usually better, but in a level with a lot of long, flat corridors, pepper spray tends to work better than RFs as a chasing weapon, due to its range and speed. For situations other than chasing its a pretty useless (and actually slow) weapon though. Its one of the more specialized weapons in the game.
Too specialized for my tastes, though I still may use it as filler ammo in future levels, even though filler ammo is a lack of effort on my part. I often don't think of what is the most ideal ammo and powerup selection for the level I'm building and instead go with the weapons I like to use the most or simply include every type of weapon. Now I realize there's nothing wrong with including the same powerup multiple times and maybe I don't need to include seeker or pepper spray ammo.

As for carrots, a battle level with 10 carrots is probably going to be a slow and tedious duel. But I think a decent amount is still a very good idea... certainly more than 1 or 2. It depends on the size of the level really. Also, respawn time is a good thing to consider: I think with carrots, faster is probably better. 15 or 20 secs.
I can't say this for sure since it's my impression from reading comments from duels, but a longer respawn time may actually be better for some levels. Quickz made Sandstone Ruins - Lite, and it appears to play faster for duels when he changed the carrot respawn times from 20 seconds to 30 seconds. The change was needed probably because of all the safe routes and the larger playing area compared to levels like Abandoned Robotics Factory and EvilMike's Evil Fortress.

I'm beginning to shy away from this whole idea altogether now. Personally, I think powerups should be easy to get, as that adds to the whole fun of it, rather than making it frustrating. I'm beginning to stop placing powerups in walls now, unless there is a way of getting it both manually and cleverly with electro blasters.

While I also encourage usage of the entire level, I really think if you want to place a powerup in the wall, place the way of getting it nearby (in this case EBs), because that way it's less annoying. Another really annoying thing is when you see the powerup and think, "ooh I should get that." So then you make all the effort to run along and get the gun, and then you come back and it's gone. While one can argue that you should have gotten the EBs in the first place, it's still kinda less fun, or even so, if there's only one place with EBs, someone can just be annoying and camp it just to spite people who want the powerup or something. Okay, call me random and a bit crazy but still.
There shouldn't be a major camping problem if a powerup is only accessible by EBs located in one spot of the level. And even if there is, just make multiple areas containing EBs. Players attempting to hog ammo and powerups tend to follow a predictable pattern anyway. Personally I don't find not having EBs when I see a powerup in a wall frustrating enough to want to use this combination less often. I find it more frustrating when I never get a powerup because it's too accessible.

Another really annoying thing is that you only get +20 of the powerup if you get it from the wall, and if you already have the gun, it's not even any more. I find this, in most levels, to be a rediculously low amount of ammo to be able to barrage enough to do something useful. Yeah, I may waste my ammo, but I think it's more fun that way too.
I find not always getting +20 ammo fairly annoying myself, and I have no problem making this a permanent fix in JJ2+ when Plus Only is on, assuming no one minds.

Anyway, if the level is designed well, you shouldn't be accidentally getting ammo you don't want. This is why I usually try to make ammo easily avoidable such as by not putting it directly on the ground and requiring players to jump to get it.

[PurpleJazz]

It's too open for starters. And the bouncer powerup and nearby bouncer ammo is poorly placed--makes it easier to camp and shot opponents climbing to the top of the level.

I tried making the level really open as I feel it gives players a lot more freedom of movement during fast paced matches. This level was intended to be played in more casual games, so I thought giving a lot of room to blast others would make things more fun. As Ragnarok said, I was under the impression that if the PUs were placed more convieniently, players would feel more comfortable getting them in midplay. However, this just became an annoyance in a couple of JDC events, it seems players always try to get to that spot first and then just fire away. I should have probably swapped the Bouncer and Toaster PU around, or something along that context. At least I made sure not to have a Seeker PU, which the beta had and that just killed the gameplay. I've learned from my mistake, and in my future levels I'll try to discourage this kind of camping.

One issue I feel like bringing up are key items being placed too close to CTF bases. Take a level like BBlair for example. Players camping the blue base have to make very little effort to get the two power ups surrounding the base above and below. This means that players feel completely comfortable hanging around there for lengthy periods of time, and since they have a consistant source of firepower they have plenty of fend off enemy players. The problem this causes is that for other players it's too difficult to approach the base as the defenders have a constant supply of ammo and so are not likely to be shifted any time soon. To counter this kind of camping I feel that PUs should be placed as far from the bases as possible, or at least in a way that makes it so players have to temporairly leave the base unguarded so that they can load up, and in that time players can attack the base unharmed.

Yet, I'm also feeling that these kind of cheap tactics can make a level more fun. Players naturally, as Blur said before, like levels they can win in; and will probably do anything they can to do so, no matter how cheap it may seem. Levels like BBlair and Semi have several so called "cheap tactics", however they're only called "cheap" by the victims of them. If a player knows he can do something that will give him a likely victory, he is obviously going to do it. I think that although players should be discouraged to try and win soley on simple tactics and be required to use more strategy and planning to win, but they should not be completely discouraged so that they feel too restricted by the level design so they can't play how they like to, and I feel that levels that are too restrictive on a player's personal choices are not very fun. I do agree that Seekers are often overused during gameplay though, and while it can be extremely annoying for some, others find it more fun when they can use them easily, and most of the popular levels I find allow easy use of them.

This a difficult issue - do we force players to play more strategicaly and conservative with their ammo, or do we allow them to play as prefered and give them the chance to spam seekers if they wish?

[Grytolle]

Only way to counter that on bblair is to make lots of use of the bouncer-box (giving the red team basically unlimited unpoweredup bouncers)

The main reason I like semi so much (besides knowing all the trick jumps by now) is that the design doesn't allow seekers to travel very far. That prevents lots of airhits, which ofc makes jj2 a lot more fun

[Raven aka StL]

Gry pretty much nailed it there.

Since Carrotade was released I've felt like games have become more lag based somehow, and now that JJ2+ came out it's become quite clear to me. I dunno if I'm crazy or what but that's quite honestly how it feels like.
More often than not there's some player who I just can't hit no matter do I spam seeks all around them or do I shoot 20 rfs at them while chasing them, they just bounce and don't get hurt, then they turn and shoot a couple of times to hit me without problems.

This didn't happen (at least, not so often) a few years back. I have no idea what's the definite cause for this change.

That was ...slightly off-topic, now to adjust... I've never liked how some players pretty much rely on seekers to win games (not to bring up the talks about Gry using some infinite seeker ammo cheat or whatever, which I never believed he did) but a lot of people spam seeks a lot when they're present in the level and particularly lately this has become quite a nuisance, since I've started averaging around 10 airhits per game.

I suggest that whatever standards some people have for including seekers in their levels are discarded for the sake of less lag-based gameplay.

[FireSworD]

I used to like bblair a lot. I always knew the level is unbalanced/not perfect, but I tolerated the flaws, because I liked the tricks involved. It was the only level most players would duel in besides Battle1 and DW. When I think back, some players have won duels solely because of the start position that allows red to recapture after being killed; blue team does not have this advantage.

I still like to play the level for fun at times.

[Ragnarok!]

I now dislike using seeker powerup - fullstop.

[FireSworD]

I'm curious how important we consider balance when it comes to levels, ctf levels especially. There are a few levels that would be so good if there are adjustments, like replacing or moving a +1 carrot, a powerup being placed somewhere else, or even a slight layout adjustment. Small things can matter a lot, especially in a 2d game such as this. However lots...actually scratch that, MOST popular levels are imbalanced. I can think of one reasonably balanced popular level at this moment, and that is sbv2. Even sbv2 isn't as popular as some other levels. In the past, I considered balance to be important, but there was very little chance of having your levels played, and level making was more of an art, so I made stuff for fun, and I didn't put too much focus on making balanced levels. Completely symmetrical ctf levels were (still is?) considered boring, and making them was discouraged. I find symmetrical layouts boring if they aren't designed in some way I consider interesting. There's another way I know to make balanced ctf levels, which is making the bases accessible at one point with teams using the same spawns . I'm not sure if ctf levels that use non-symmetrical layouts can be truly balanced. Admittedly, unbalanced levels can be more fun than balanced levels, but the fun is because it's easier to exploit the imbalance and dominate your opponent(s).

[EvilMike]

I stopped making CTF levels a long time ago but I always cared about making levels balanced. I usually went for an asymmetrical style, since I think those types of levels are more interesting, but I always tried to make it so both sides have a good balance of advantages and disadvantages. I think I was successful with most of my levels. None of them are perfectly balanced, but I don't think any of them have serious flaws. Or, for the ones that did, I fixed them in later versions. My most balanced level is probably Helldome because it's the only perfectly symmetrical one (aside from the RF and toaster powerups).

I think the key is not to make a level that is PERFECTLY balanced but rather make a level that is balanced enough so that a player who is skilled can win over a player who is less skilled, regardless of team. And if the two sides are evenly matched, maybe one side gets an advantage, but it shouldn't be big enough to be decisive.

I say this because (a) it is very difficult to make a perfectly balanced level, unless it is perfectly symmetrical, and (b) levels are usually more interesting if there is SOME difference between the two sides.

I think it's a bit pointless to worry about a level being slightly skewed. Consider that pretty much every game that's played (video game, sports, board games, etc) tends to give one side an advantage. For example in sports the home team gets a bit of an advantage, and in chess white has an advantage over black due to moving first.

[Ragnarok!]

Think about it; games play more fun with balance. I'll bring a load of examples to the stand just to represent my point:

In world of warcraft-burning crusade, [yes totally different], rogues are able to kill everyone, except for healers and warriors. And even so, they can beat some healers. This is imbalance if you ask me, and this is just stupid if you ask me. It's annoying to be on the losing side because of stupid inbalances, and there are very few counters, making this such a "great class".

In Diablo II, some characters do rediculously high damage and can finish off other players in a matter of hits, while other characters are so easily countered, such as the sorceress as it is easy to pocess a high resistance to her specialty. Furthermore, characters such as the assassin appear very quirky and fun, but in reality are really underpowered, in terms of skills, and their horrid equipment. This is another inbalance, again, annoying.

In games such as WC3, certain maps have been realtered about 200 times just to perfect the balance, and each time, it's clear that the map is getting better.

Moving in, levels such as BBlair, red team usually always wins, because they:
A) Have a carrot directly on their base, making it easy to RTS etc.
B) Have two good powerups on the opposing side, which can be obtained while attacking, whilst on the other side there's a meagre EB powerup.
C) Some of their start positions place you almost on the other base, preventing some crucial scores for the other team.
Personally, I think skewing balance can annoy gameplay, and is therefore stupid. Some people like it when they're on the dominating side of it, but personally, that shows no skill. It just shows you're able to take advantage of flaws in levels, and that you were lucky enough to be on the side with the advantage.

In terms of different powerups being on both sides, in JJ2, in most levels it's justifiable due to the abilities of the powerup and the structure of the level. For instance, in my level [I'm only using this example because I know how I made this clearly], Starlit Summit, there's a bouncer powerup on one side, and RF on the other side. Now, you can easily attack from above using the bouncer powerup, and that can allow you to dominate the game if you do so correctly, as the level is quite large and easy to come in from above. Furthermore, they are empowered by fast fires. Since there's no seeker powerup, there isn't a completely equal counter. However, on the other side, there's RFs. These are good for chasing in the various corridors, and also are effective near the bases, as the RF impact is very annoying and can blast other players into pits, with ease. In my opinion, the two powerups on opposing sides allows balance here. This causes the symmetrical level to be balanced.

However, a powerup balance that I have seen before but to be honest is never pulled off correctly is the Seeker vs Blaster combination. I think the general argument is that seekers... well you know what goes here. And then blasters, never run out, making the powerup everlasting [till you die]. However, this is pointless in many levels without fastfires, as fastfires are the only things that power up blasters enough to make them match to seekers. And even then, it's still arguable if it's equal. Also, blasters will require you to gather the fastfires too, wasting extra time and therefore making further inbalance.

Now I'm gonna bring up some other examples of inbalanced levels. One of my first levels, TCS, RagCTF05 or whatever. It takes 4 seconds to get from one base, to the other, but the other way round, it takes 5. While you can argue it is only a second, but this effectively means that one team is 25% faster than the other team. To recompensate, I put the bouncer powerup near the base, but in reality, it's actually equally hard to access it from this base without sufficient ammo, as it needs a good jump with RFs, or an entry from above. This is another type of inbalance I hate.

Another one? Semi. Haha. Right, the carrot. Yeah, it's in the middle. Yeah, its attackable from both sides. Say you're going from your base to the carrot though. Here's an overview of what happens from red base: You'll go down the hole, and go straight to the carrot. Now here's what happens from the blue base: You'll fall down, and then have to fit through some annoyingly small slits in the floor. This can waste a lot of time, unless you have perfected the annoying fall. Then, you can run to the carrot. Is it major? No, but it's enough to make someone lose, even if they're better than someone else. You can argue that you should have perfected the fall, but why does the other side not have to do it?

BBSwing! What happens here? Well, one team [on the right] will have a carrot in clear view near their base. On top of this, they have another carrot towards the middle of the level. The other team however, only has quick access to the middle carrot. This carrot isn't even on view, and is equally close to the other base. This means, that one team has two options, while the other does not. You can argue, that to balance, there is a seeker powerup closer to the left base, but every player wants the seeker powerup, while players usually leave carrots only to flag holders. This still gives an advantage to the team on the right in my opinion.

If you do not see the point I am trying to get across, levels should be very close to balanced, or perfectly balanced, otherwise, they are annoying to play in my eyes. Quite a load of levels have achieved this, sadly few of the ones that are commonly played. I hate the thought of "if we were on the other team, I woulda nailed these guys", because it just shows one side is lucky. You may not agree, but that's my view.

[Grytolle]

agreed on semi (although for slightly other seasons) and bblair (it's even worse in CTF events since you can't stay alive close to base and red has a warp at the bottom to theirs)

bbswing, no i've never noticed any imbalance there when playing - i feel that the better team wins regardless of colour

TCS pwns but yeah that's a major flaw


A seeker powerup is way more powerful than a blaster powerup, imo.. except when the server lags a lot, you can always dodge blasters in open areas (move away and drop the occasional seeker)

I do enjoy the challenge of beating someone as blue on bblair though, you just have to think out of the box (or rather, into it ;)). In 2on2s or duels you can move around the entire level, so really only the blue spawnpositions are a problem. In 3v3 you can compensate well with teamplay.

[Unhit]

I usually have a symmetric placement of events (although not always exactly the same weapon type). Second to that is a mostly symmetric placement of masks (meaning platforms, corridors etc.) so that the ammo isn't just spread equally, but that it is also equally accessible. I usually vary a lot with platforms, but for corridors and more "solid" ground/mask parts, I stick to a rather strict symmetric schedule (see KMC, NiN). It's because I do believe that symmetry is important and "fairer" indeed.

To the named examples: in BBLair, I always preferred to play as blue actually because I liked to have the seeker ammo (20 from repeated powerup getting) close to me. However, that was in the old days when duels there ran a lot different (that sounds stupid but it's just like that), e.g. many people didn't know about blasting the red carrot down with TNTs etc. etc.
Semi: I think semi sucks anyway (I guess that's not a secret :P) and I totally suck there myself, no matter which side. If I'd have to decide for which side I hate playing less, I'd definitely go for red though. Easier navigating around your base, more immediate access to the seeker powerup from a position close to your base (don't have a two seconds delay through the tunnel) and such stuff.

[Grytolle]

Semi: I think semi sucks anyway (I guess that's not a secret :P) and I totally suck there myself, no matter which side. If I'd have to decide for which side I hate playing less, I'd definitely go for red though. Easier navigating around your base, more immediate access to the seeker powerup from a position close to your base (don't have a two seconds delay through the tunnel) and such stuff.It owns despite/because of its flaws! I agree that red is the better side, but on the other hand, you can rush more easily as blue (only 2 exits from your base making it easier to keep an upper hand). Red has the advantage of the perfect DD-spot at the red powerup which still is quite close to their base. Then again, blue has slightly better spawnpositions. Basically, it's easier to RTS as red, but you can compensate for that by not really RTSing as blue, for example you can keep laming at the seeker PU and let someone else clear base. It seems to me that the best team wins also on semi, atleast in 3v3. 2v2 is a bit imba because of the DDspot at red, and 1on1 because of the blue spawnspot

[Ragnarok!]

Have you ever played vs CzEcH in semi? The amount of rushes he does on the red team is amazing...

[Grytolle]

Have you ever played vs CzEcH in semi? The amount of rushes he does on the red team is amazing...Yeah, but I never let him score in the first place ;) No, but seriously, it has never happened so much that it bothered me. The thing is that it's easier to block two exits (blue: up, down) than three (red: left, right, up). It isn't that much harder to rush from red to blue in my experience

[FireSworD]

Another thing that bothers me is the issue of rating levels based on their size and/or complexity. Levels of all sizes can be fun depending on the amount of players or the game-type. While size and complexity don't mean everything, they are very considerable: For example, sanguis may be considered to have the best eye-candy of dark reign, because of the complexity of the tile-set use.

I've always designed multiplayer levels mainly for duels to 3vs3s (perhaps larger, since ms and je have been used in jdc events). Duels and 2vs2s are played more often, so the levels are more likely to be played.

I've often considered large levels that use original concepts with decent eye-candy to be great; For example, I rated Rag's "Err.. More CTF Levels?" 9.0, because of the original concepts, tactics, and size of the levels. While perhaps not suitable to smaller games like duels, I thought the sheer size of the levels was enough of a justification for the rating. When Rag uploaded Starlit Summit, I thought it had good gameplay and nice ec, but it didn't have outstandingly original concepts, or a certain 'wow' factor I was looking for.

Another thing I take into consideration is rating game-types, like sp vs mp. I always considered mp levels to be worthy of high ratings if designed well, simply for the fact they are designed for you to play other people in them.

[cooba]

the issue of rating levelsis void.

It beats me why do people still aim for high J2O ratings rather than people's actual opinions. The rating's validity is compromised by being able to be changed by anyone in anytime. Why does everyone feel bad about their levels if they're given a 4 by a newbie without any idea about level design? I'm not even going to mention levels getting deleted because that's a retarded extreme.

I no longer have a good handle on what ratings are suitable or not. All the new levels made by the active good designers are rated from inbetween 8 to 8.5 - which leads to a sloppy (in my opinion) level and a solid, well designed level getting a similar rating. Did the lame level get overrated, or did the good level get underrated? It took me ages to figure out a proper rating for plunk's domination level (I'm still unsure if I gave one) purely because of this.

Can "fun", "tactics" or "concepts" be measured in a scale from 1 to 10? Figure out yourself.

I stopped caring about the ratings I get a long time ago and I recommend that everyone does the same. I'm making levels for my own enjoyment now. If someone likes the eyecandy or the micro tactics, that's a nice bonus. If someone doesn't like the level, tough nails, I'll just try something else next time. If someone doesn't like the "something else" I made later, then <em>TOO BAD</em>.

[FireSworD]

I don't believe so, it all comes down to personal opinions, and I already knew this. The reason I posted, is because I feel a lot of opposition towards mine, and other people's reviews, and would like to discuss it. Obviously, nobody is going to rate a level like zappo egypt over 8 unless it's a joke review. Although there is no solid ground to the 'quality' of a level, I believe that there are standards a level has to comply to.

[cooba]

I feel a lot of opposition towards mine(..)reviewsThat could probably stem from the fact that you raise ratings on some's levels just to make them "happy", and then you rate Summit lower than VSFC because of "no wow factor". Why wouldn't you rate Summit higher to make Rag happy? Why would you raise a rating of a level that apparently did <em>not</em> have the wow factor?

If there are standards, I'd like them to be universally applied.

Making properly sized reviews, instead of quick reviews, also helps if you're willing to go into detail about tactics and whatever the hell.

[FireSworD]

I admit that I have raised ratings on levels, but only a few times. I've actually done more than that, I've even rated levels just to raise the overall ratings. I am more concerned with the overall rating, and getting the level spotlight, so that it'll be noticed and possibly even played. I believe had it not been for me, levels like atom heart would not have been played as often. You see, if people want me to rate absoloutely stricly, then I will by all means be 100% consistent with all my reviews. However, I am concerned with playability and popularity of levels.

[Unhit]

It owns despite/because of its flaws! I agree that red is the better side, but on the other hand, you can rush more easily as blue (only 2 exits from your base making it easier to keep an upper hand). Red has the advantage of the perfect DD-spot at the red powerup which still is quite close to their base. Then again, blue has slightly better spawnpositions. Basically, it's easier to RTS as red, but you can compensate for that by not really RTSing as blue, for example you can keep laming at the seeker PU and let someone else clear base. It seems to me that the best team wins also on semi, atleast in 3v3. 2v2 is a bit imba because of the DDspot at red, and 1on1 because of the blue spawnspot

That's cool and all, but I still think Semi sucks D: <3

[Ragnarok!]

That's cool and all, but I still think Semi sucks D: <3

I want to marry you.

[Ragnarok!]

How do you guys feel on camping? I really thought about it and I've concluded, various areas shouldn't be campable, such as full NRGs or +1 carrots or seeker powerups or whatever you want.

On the other hand, I think CTF doesn't play as fun if the base is too uncampy. It should be campy to some extent. This is because of the tactic of "R"ing and "RTS"ing. It's very annoying to be on 3 health but so easily vulnerable when you are at an advantageous position of being able to score, say if the enemy is at 1 health.

However this idea flips in terms of levels like Zaitox. In Zaitox, I find that you usually HAVE to take a hit in order to get past to the flag if there's a good camper/defender. I find this very irritating and since there is no counter, it means you either have to play two players to one, or take the hit and take that chance. However there are those ever so lucky occasions where the player can hit you back down and then by the time you get back up you're dead because you stopped blinking.

Personally, I find that levels with 3 routes into the base work best, because its often the case where you can defend at least two routes from one position. I think base areas can work in open spaces, but at the same time, can work in slightly more confined or limited areas too. While I like the idea of defense, I also like counter defense. I think levelmakers should strike a balance between the two, but probably skewing it slightly towards one or the other ever so slightly.

[PurpleJazz]

In my opinion, it is best to place key items so that they are fairly accessible, which makes them easier to get but in turn makes them harder to camp. In CTF I often like to put the most important items like Full NRGs/Power Ups out where they are easily reachable, which can lead to people fighting over them but in turn makes it harder to camp there safely. I also have lesser items like +1 Carrots/Ammo containers in slightly more sheltered areas so you feel safer to go ahead and get them, although you get less of a bonus for doing so.

A good way to deal with camping if you think it really an issue is to try and punish those who attempt to camp. For example, let's take City of the Sn00zE. The Undergroud route at the bottom of the level is the safest route in the level to take, and contains a rather convienient Seeker PU. While yes, it is very easy to camp and is hard to approach someone camping there, it is a potential death trap for the camper as the only way out of the Underground is to take either two of the warps on the side walls, which your opponent could camp either of the targets and get an easy kill. It is possible to RF climb your way out of the manholes though if you possess the skill, but since there is no RF in the Underground you only have what you picked up earlier. Camping by the Full NRG can be countered as it is very vulnerable to Bouncer/EB fire. Camping any other item in the level simply isn't worth it.

One really sneaky tactic is to have something like a hidden crate that creates a suprise pit to catch out unsuspecting campers. (DnC is an example of this) Or, you could have an area which has a pit open up if a player camps there for too long. (Undulation is an example of this)

[FireSworD]

I don't really mind periodic camping if it serves as a temporary option for defense. I am really starting to dislike levels that players can camp almost all the time. It's boring, frustrating and cowardly. In fact, I'm starting to dislike battle1 for this reason.

I agree on the defense/counter defense being as balanced as possible, but I disagree on a minimum of 3 routes to base. I believe a minimum of 2 routes is all you need, then again it all depends on the design of the level. Generally, it seems most players like levels where they can gain an upper hand and take control. Often taking control means there will be a lot of limitations in the level, which means camping will take place.

Another thing that's on my mind is toastering ammo, carrots or other items below floors. In some levels you can take items out of the game. I don't see a real problem with it, since if you do this, it also affects you and not just your opponent(s). So does anyone see this as a problem, or is it another "DON'T USE SHIELDS" or "DON'T EXPLOIT THE CTF BUG"?

[Ragnarok!]

If someone's enough of a dick to do it, they get punished too, and the chances are, lag will tell them that the item may not be shot through the ground for the opposing player, if there's enough lag at least.

[PurpleJazz]

Reviving this thread.

I've just been wondering, what are people's opinions on CTF levels with only one carrot? From my experience, it just leads to annoying camping, especially in duels where in levels such as JE and Semi it's normally about getting the first hit and then a mad dash for the carrot, which is either followed by the damaged player running straight into doom or 5 minutes of camping. I personally hate having to rely on camping to win in levels, and would much rather move around dynamically, making swift assault on the player and wearing them down until I have a chance to kill them. It's why I like playing levels like BBlair in duels, despite being an unbalanced level. As long as there's at least two carrots, even if it's just two +1s, it still makes a huge difference in the gameplay in duels over levels with just one.

Anyone feel the same way?

[Raven aka StL]

Thing is that when there are multiple carrots and only one guy trying to keep you from collecting any of them, it takes a bad-as-hell mistake to get killed before you recover.

EDIT: Unless the carrots are very close to each other, in which case it defeats the whole purpose completely.

Also, never compare JE and semi. In JE the carrot is in the center of a wide, horizontal area and otherwise only accessible from below. This makes it easy as all hell to camp.
The carrot in semi, on the other hand, can be reached in a plethora of ways and the carrot is in a downhill area that can quite easily be attacked from the outside.

[Troglobite]

Reviving this thread.

I've just been wondering, what are people's opinions on CTF levels with only one carrot? From my experience, it just leads to annoying camping, especially in duels where in levels such as JE and Semi it's normally about getting the first hit and then a mad dash for the carrot, which is either followed by the damaged player running straight into doom or 5 minutes of camping. I personally hate having to rely on camping to win in levels, and would much rather move around dynamically, making swift assault on the player and wearing them down until I have a chance to kill them. It's why I like playing levels like BBlair in duels, despite being an unbalanced level. As long as there's at least two carrots, even if it's just two +1s, it still makes a huge difference in the gameplay in duels over levels with just one.

Anyone feel the same way?

I agree completely. My favorite setup is probably one full NRG in the middle and a single health carrot per side. (For example, Medieval Skyscrapers, Destroyed Casiss Factory, or Gauntlet.) This allows someone to camp the middle and slow down the opponent's recovery, but camping alone won't work.

[PurpleJazz]

Thing is that when there are multiple carrots and only one guy trying to keep you from collecting any of them, it takes a bad-as-hell mistake to get killed before you recover.

EDIT: Unless the carrots are very close to each other, in which case it defeats the whole purpose completely.

Also, never compare JE and semi. In JE the carrot is in the center of a wide, horizontal area and otherwise only accessible from below. This makes it easy as all hell to camp.
The carrot in semi, on the other hand, can be reached in a plethora of ways and the carrot is in a downhill area that can quite easily be attacked from the outside.

While yes, the carrot in Semi is placed in a rather awkward posistion, that doesn't change the fact that it's your only option for healing. Attacking a camper there can still be difficult because if you hit them, they'll just take it for themselves and make a quick escape and/or finish you off. A skilled camper there can pretty much defend all of the routes simultaneously anyway. There are few "effective tricks" yes, such as long range EB shots to shoot the carrot down and obtain from underneath, although those sort of tactics come with a high risk and unless your opponent gives you a large opening and/or you're extremely quick, you will probably get killed in the process.

What I'm trying to say is that levels with only one carrot tend to rely on hit-run-camp tactics which focuses all of the action around a single point and therefore less of the level is used during the gameplay. Levels with more than one carrot involve more hunting and quick reflexes, which, in my opinion, leads to more active duels where prediction is vital, more usage of the level and thus more fun.

Of course, these are only my personal views, some people prefer levels with only one carrot as it means it's easier to kill someone if you have skilled dodging and time your hit exactly right. However, levels with multiple carrots can still be easy to control too, just as Troglobite suggested, just with the difference that you don't have to rely off just one carrot to heal. All of this applies to duels only though, in team games having just one carrot doesn't seem to be an issue due to the fact there are more players to be hit by and thus being harder to successfully camp.

Basically, the carrot setup decides the gameplay in duels.

[Grytolle]

Only one carrot works great in 2v2 at least (if you don't wanna die, don't go to the camper and let your teammate get r)

[EvilMike]

I agree with grytolle, one carrot works well as long as it's a 2vs2 level, since it creates interesting tactical situations. 1 carrot in a duel is a bit dull though.

For duels, you want to have more carrots, even though there are fewer players. In CTF, 2 (of any combination) is a good number. 3 can work as well but it's harder to balance: 3 full nrg is usually too much for a 2vs2, 2 full nrgs and a +1 is also usually too much, and 1 full nrg and 2 +1's is the best 3-carrot setup, but if done wrong it lead to the same problems as having just 1 carrot in the level. More than 3 carrots and you are veering into crazy giant level territory (good for 8vs8, but way less tactical).

In battle mode, I'd say 3 carrots minimum, and never use full nrgs unless it's a coin warp. 1 carrot isn't enough, due to having 5 hearts. 2 carrots can be annoying in duels (takes forever to play, too much emphasis on hit-and-run tactics, basically all the problems of having 1 carrot in a CTF duel) and makes the level's routes way too "back and forth". 3 lets the level be a bit more dynamic. Keeping the respawn times shorter than CTF is a good idea too.

[FireSworD]

So there seems to be this paradox of really good eyecandy and really good gameplay. It seems most levelmakers philosophies on good eyecandy is to spam the level with stuff or make something really big with fancy platform structures. They may look nice and all, but simpler layouts are generally prefered. I couldn't care less to duel or play a game in them just because of the ec spam or the really fancy platforms (I am not refering to platform placement/organization). In fact, I think levels with simple ec can look equally amazing (for example snooze's cloud level). In fact, too much ec used the wrong way can hinder gameplay. There are levels which I consider to be a mess since the tileset usage is mostly random (and the layout suffers bad gameplay from this too), but since the 'overall look' is nice then it's fine :mad:.

I find that making levels with decent use of the tileset while having the freedom to make an interesting design is possible. So is ec spamming worth it or not?

[PurpleJazz]

A lot of level designers don't follow this idea, but eyecandy is absolutely nothing without theme. Theme is basically the subject of the level, and the eyecandy serves as the content. Writing a story without a title is meaningless - so why does some people think it doesn't matter in level creation? Simply put, your chosen theme should determine what kind of decorations your level will have.

There are some occaisions when using repetitive eyecandy can actually work out. For example, cooba and Ragnarok's Rainforest Revelry uses a complex eyecandy method which gives the feeling of density like you're actually in a jungle, which makes perfect sense as the use is justified by the theme. This type of eyecandy approach would not work in something like say a Castle level, as logically an "artifical" level would have more finesse in it's design - you don't see totally random house designs now, do you? The tiles you use also help create a theme. Sometimes it's not always a good idea to use all of the tiles in a set, and instead focus on certain aspects and making them stand out, if my level Condemned is an example of this.

Theme can also justify gameplay as well, for example an indoor level would likely have a more enclosed design built out of paths and corridors, whereas an outdoor theme would logically have more open spaces. It's not a general rule of thumb though, there are exceptions and it can be interesting to see the two styles mixed and/or reversed.

[FireSworD]

Reviving this topic, but it's better than starting a new one.

I recently thought up something concerning balance and the unified base system used in undulation and one spot: What do you all think of a ctf layout with an a-symmetrical/non-symmetrical layout containing a relatively small symmetrical portion with both bases? - Would this ensure balance if done a certain way? (warps?) - Would it make for an interestingly varied and balanced ctf level?

[EvilMike]

Reviving this topic, but it's better than starting a new one.

I recently thought up something concerning balance and the unified base system used in undulation and one spot: What do you all think of a ctf layout with an a-symmetrical/non-symmetrical layout containing a relatively small symmetrical portion with both bases? - Would this ensure balance if done a certain way? (warps?) - Would it make for an interestingly varied and balanced ctf level?

Ultimately, a level will be perfectly (and I should stress perfectly) balanced if and only if both teams are placed in the exact same situation. A perfectly symmetrical level is balanced because each team gets exactly the same things (the only difference is that one side is mirrored, which does not affect balance).

By this definition, a level like you just described cannot be absolutely balanced. Even if it contains a symmetrical portion, the teams will be placed in slightly different situations because (and perhaps only because) their spawns will be in different places. You could of course remedy this by spawning both teams in the same spots, but that would be highly unusual.

This is all theory, though. In practice, you can make a level that is balanced enough (not perfectly balanced, but enough for competitive play, which is the case of most levels) using the concept you just described. You would just need to design the non-symmetrical part of the level carefully, and pay attention to where the spawns are.

As for your question "would it make for an interestingly varied and balanced ctf level?", I don't think it's a matter of "would it?" but "does it?". After all, we already have two CTF levels (that you named) which fit this description, more or less. We need only to look at and play those levels to see if the concept works.

In my opinion it does work, although it could be implemented better in both of those levels. Undulation has multiple warps to the base area, which makes it harder to defend (although the bases are somewhat camp proof, which helps). This can lead to a feeling of luck when it comes to scoring a point. One spot does a bit better by only having a single entry point, but the base area is too small and cramped, and is campable (warp + small box + camping is usually a bad idea, especially when said box contains two bases).

Probably a "perfect" solution would be to use one spot's entry point into the base area, and combine that with undulation's anti-camping system (it is best to discourage people from hiding in a warp area).

Interestingly, I actually have a sketch of a level which I was planning to make this month, basically using this concept. I've been planning it for quite a while, but have been putting it off due to the strangeness of the concept.

Strangeness is actually the main problem here. This is a neat idea that can lead to neat gameplay, but it is vastly different from normal CTF (more than your average gimmick; it changes the gameplay in a way that it almost becomes a sub-type of CTF rather than standard CTF). Thus, not many people would play the level unless you got someone to host it.

[FireSworD]

Just curious, how should we deal with character biases in levels of any gametype?

[PurpleJazz]

Character biases are in all honesty, completely unimportant. This is because players who intentionally choose Lori or Jazz over Spaz will have to understand that this could make it more difficult for you to get around in many MP levels, in fact probably the vast majority. People who choose non-Spaz characters have no right to complain about character bias because it's a problem they have created themselves - for freak's sake why can't they just play as Spaz like everyone else? Simples.

[[GpW]Urbs]

Should leveldesigners even bother with that?

I mean, if you make a map lori friendly its likely to have very easy jumps which is gonna make the difference between very good spaz players and lori players a lot smaller.
I mean, spaz is mainly the rule for most levels.

But you could try to make a "jazz-only" level. A level where hovering would be so crucial u couldnt use spaz in it. We would get people using jazz/lori again, and you wouldnt have to worry about making the level fit 2 very different types of characters - Spaz on the one hand and Jazz and lori on the other.

[cooba]

If a Jazz player can't get around your level without uppercutting or having to pause just so he can precisely jump, you let everyone know that you're either a lazy jerk, or you can't make levels. How hard is it to put a spring or two?

I just tested several blur and EM levels (and all of mine) with Lori and not once there was a double jump only situation.

[Nerd]

I just tested several blur and EM levels (and all of mine) with Lori and not once there was a double jump only situation.

How about the RF climbs in EotM?

[cooba]

I didn't take RF climbs (optional routes) into account.

[Treylina]

Well, people are going to hate me for this comment...

I remember back when I considered being a levelmaker, I just wanted to make levels that were good for Jazz/Lori and ignore spaz. But really, if you do that, people will whine, it won't encourage them to use different characters, because that's what they're used to. Players want to play with something they're used to, or some character they consider "better". So, why do I think it's more fun making a level character balanced, or at least making it functionable for other charas. Just imagine in fighting games, telling everyone to use the same character against another because people say he's the best. It wouldn't be as fun. That case probably happens though, but I don't like it. Okay I know they're two both completely different catagories, but for short, I enjoy diversity. Not for simply for the sake of being different, but I being aware of other advantages at, not the same stuff all the time. Should I make a Jazz biased level and tell them it's their fault for not choosing him at the start because they weren't used to using him and some problem they created themselves? No, I would be called an idiot. That to be said I did make some Jazz biased level before, but most still used Spaz. Yes I'm pretty aware about some disadvantages I get and all that stuff, but must I really change main character just because "everyone" else is?

[Sean]

Yay revival. Necroposting, ew.

PJ, is right, gameplay is very much centered around the carrot. Therefore, any 'good' map (let's put aside differences for a moment and say) such as Semi or JE has tricks to obtain the carrot. As already mentioned, a long-range EB shot (which I have to say has been almost perfected by Kenny) can be used to shoot the carrot down on Semi and then obtained from underneath. Similarly, if planning is done before you actually need the carrot, you can shoot the carrot on JE onto:

1. Left or right side
-Surprisingly good spot, lots of people don't notice it there. I once played a match where I shot the carrot off to the right and the guy kept complaining there was no carrot, allowing me to not die the entire duel.
2. Left or right spring
-Obtained by simply going through the springs from underneath, spamming seekers.
3. Slowly sliding down the tree trunk
-Annoying, especially for those who think its gone all the way down. A plus for this is you don't necessarily need to enter the trunk, it's just at the side.
4. All the way down
-Normally hidden, people will sometimes think there's no carrot. Just waltz right in and regain health.

EOTM has a very tactfully placed carrot, inside a tube and very, very risky to get. But you can still shoot it down and out to enrage your opponent. Same goes for my map Beach Fall (nope, not advertising). Distopia has a very campable but also attackable carrot. Wicked Wood has a carrot that can be shot down or up (EPIC WIN :D ). I can provide you with hundreds of examples.

[PurpleJazz]

Tricks around the carrot area do indeed contribute to making successful camping more difficult. In many of the popular dueling levels, despite preferring multiple carrots I haven't really found having just one carrot because it was still difficult for the opponent to completely freeze off all access to the carrot when I needed it.

There are of course a few exceptions, such as the box in DW. There is very little you can do about camping there, aside from hitting a camper with EB but even then they can still just get the carrot themselves, and escape with 3h which still means they're playing in the advantage, and they'll probably just hit with with their own EB and kill you anyway.

There is a somewhat situational tactic of shooting the carrot down to the lower right corner and burying it with Toaster, allowing you to get it from below, but that's only assuming you've already gone to the carrot and done this already before your opponent can hit you.

This is why I hate DW with a passion in duels. However, I don't mind the box at all in teamplay because blocking off the enemy team from the carrot is a much more legitimately viable strategy that isn't really considered "lame" or anything.

[Sean]

Forget about carrots for a second and think about the bases. I don't have much of an interest in creating battle levels because in those levels it's about running around randomly shooting in the hopes of killing anyone you see while in CTF levels the movement is actually centered around bases and carrots and not dying as opposed to getting the most kills. You have to consider the position of your bases carefully and situate it in a simultaneously campable and attackable position. You have to make it hard for people to capture the flag in team games but also provide many different methods to capture. In Distopia my preferred method of capturing the red flag is coming from the middle and raining bouncers onto the base, but red can counter this maneuver by spamming bouncers from the top of the sucker tube at the right of the base. Similarly if blue approaches from underneath, red can camp with seekers at the tubes below. If blue chooses to drop from above, seekers shot randomly everywhere will be guaranteed to hit blue. At the bases, it's about providing several options for defense and several counter-attacks for capturing.

[Grytolle]

I wouldn't consider distopia an example of a level with good bases, nor as a very good level for 3v3. If you want good base areas, take a look at Wicked Wood or epitome

[[GpW]Urbs]

DW, BBlair, Semi, JE, m'kay?????

Don't neg-rep plz:(

[Ragnarok!]

Ultimately, a level will be perfectly (and I should stress perfectly) balanced if and only if both teams are placed in the exact same situation. A perfectly symmetrical level is balanced because each team gets exactly the same things (the only difference is that one side is mirrored, which does not affect balance).

By this definition, a level like you just described cannot be absolutely balanced. Even if it contains a symmetrical portion, the teams will be placed in slightly different situations because (and perhaps only because) their spawns will be in different places. You could of course remedy this by spawning both teams in the same spots, but that would be highly unusual.

This is all theory, though. In practice, you can make a level that is balanced enough (not perfectly balanced, but enough for competitive play, which is the case of most levels) using the concept you just described. You would just need to design the non-symmetrical part of the level carefully, and pay attention to where the spawns are.

As for your question "would it make for an interestingly varied and balanced ctf level?", I don't think it's a matter of "would it?" but "does it?". After all, we already have two CTF levels (that you named) which fit this description, more or less. We need only to look at and play those levels to see if the concept works.

In my opinion it does work, although it could be implemented better in both of those levels. Undulation has multiple warps to the base area, which makes it harder to defend (although the bases are somewhat camp proof, which helps). This can lead to a feeling of luck when it comes to scoring a point. One spot does a bit better by only having a single entry point, but the base area is too small and cramped, and is campable (warp + small box + camping is usually a bad idea, especially when said box contains two bases).

Probably a "perfect" solution would be to use one spot's entry point into the base area, and combine that with undulation's anti-camping system (it is best to discourage people from hiding in a warp area).

Interestingly, I actually have a sketch of a level which I was planning to make this month, basically using this concept. I've been planning it for quite a while, but have been putting it off due to the strangeness of the concept.

Strangeness is actually the main problem here. This is a neat idea that can lead to neat gameplay, but it is vastly different from normal CTF (more than your average gimmick; it changes the gameplay in a way that it almost becomes a sub-type of CTF rather than standard CTF). Thus, not many people would play the level unless you got someone to host it.

Wholeheartedly agree.

And in regards to making levels balanced for both characters I only test them using Jazz (unless its a race, then sorry I don't take you into account most the time). Chances are if it flows for Jazz, that it'll flow for Spaz.

[FireSworD]

I am concerned about how the latest exploits affect jj2 game-play in certain levels. Wall-jumping in particular, because it can be used to scale up walls in ways that rf jumping can't, that probably breaks some levels. The good news is that wall-jumping is relatively difficult, much more-so than rf climbing.

Another thing, how does everyone feel about loose 40 sec shields in mp levels? - I don't mind the bubble shield in battle1, since it's easy to fend off with camping and careful playing, though it can be quite annoying in open-ended levels. Also, the shield in DW makes more sense considering the design and concept, although I'm not encouraging playing DW!

[PurpleJazz]

40 second shields can work, although they do need to have a long spawn time or be very hard to obtain at least so someone can't camp at them with ease. The spawn time needs to be at least 80 or so since anything less than 40 would mean that a player could potentially camp at the shield and just get it over and over again as it respawns.

[cooba]

Unless some "coder" decides to "improve JJ2" and make walljumping easier, it's not much of a problem because of how time consuming it is.

[Seren]

I wanted to write that a typical walljumper as is me succeeds in about half of his attempts, but I decided to not post any data I didn't confirm before. So I went to battle1 and started to wall jump the most left wall.

Results after 50 attempts:
25 fails
12 single wall jumps
9 double wall jumps
2 triple wall jumps
2 quadruple wall jumps

Edit: Btw, I know no one asked for any random science data but I wanted to <s>raise my self-esteem</s> say it's not really that time consuming if 50% of the time it comes out successful. The above data means that on average, two attempts are needed to perform any of RF climbs in semi without RFs, and about 13 attempts to climb to the top of a medieval skyscraper.

[cooba]

Okay. Now try the same in a 3on3 game while you've got the flag.

[Seren]

Currently I suck at using any tricks in-game. Wall jump has only saved me from dying multiple times in ww, and once or twice let me recapture in semi.

[Violet CLM]

Moment of truth: I don't actually know what walljumping means. :(

[Seren]

It leaked enough anyway so I probably won't change much by explaining it. "Wall jump" aka "wj", formerly also "4x jump" or "omg NF SE you only can cheat" is a simple technique based mainly on luck (unless your eyes can register single gameticks), allowing a player to use a flat vertical wall to jump on a height of a regular jump and regain the possibility of double jump. The move is performed by pressing down arrow key exactly at the moment of touching the wall. Jump key must be hold at the same moment. The higher horizontal speed the easier it is to succeed. Plus command "/wc" doesn't affect wall jump in any way (people often ask me about that), neither does the character of choice. With wall jump it's theoretically possible to climb a wall of any given height, in practice people can rarely perform it more than 5 times in a row. It happens though, I once climbed all the way up to the water shield in b1.

[Violet CLM]

Oh, okay! I've had that happen to me on occasion over the years but never really thought much about it. Thanks! Carry on with discussion.

[Grytolle]

Unless some "coder" decides to "improve JJ2" and make walljumping easier, it's not much of a problem because of how time consuming it is.
In levels where there already are RF's, walljumping gives a slight extra advantage to players who don't have ammo yet. Considering how much competitive JJ2 is currently focused on controlling ammo, walljumping could be considered a positive balancing factor. Whenever a player has ammo, they will prefer to use an RF-climb, because the success rate is a lot higher.

I wanted to write that a typical walljumper as is me succeeds in about half of his attempts, but I decided to not post any data I didn't confirm before. So I went to battle1 and started to wall jump the most left wall.

Results after 50 attempts:
25 fails
12 single wall jumps
9 double wall jumps
2 triple wall jumps
2 quadruple wall jumps
I just did the same thing at blue base in semi (climbing up to the left where the little "camp chamber" is), and I had roughly the same successrate as you. In general I would succeed like 5 times in a row, then fail about as much until I got into it again.

I've never managed to do a double walljump at all, by the way. It seems to me that that is a lot harder to learn

Edit: Btw, I know no one asked for any random science data but I wanted to raise my self-esteem say it's not really that time consuming if 50% of the time it comes out successful. The above data means that on average, two attempts are needed to perform any of RF climbs in semi without RFs, and about 13 attempts to climb to the top of a medieval skyscraper.
I didn't realize that you only needed one walljump to reach red base in semi. Nice O+ But anyway mimicking RF-jumps is a very small extra advantage in a level which has RFs. Everything past 2 walljumps is definitely not worth the risk in a stressed situation because it's simply to hard - that is, if you're really fucking good at jj2-trix. Mortals like myself would probably stick to single walljumps, and those won't get you higher than RF-climbing would.

As I said above, being able to do a little more without ammo is a good thing considering all the ammo-camping playing that's been going on lately. On the other hand, just like level makers can make it impossible to RF-climb in a certain area, it would be nice if the same option could be given for walljumping. In a patch, an option could of course be added to disable walljumping in your server, but I see no good reason to make that the default option, considering how it is more comparable to RF-climbing than to wallclimbing (ppl want to do the former in a 3v3, but they don't want to get stuck in a wall) - or to Lori kicking through thin walls for that matter (a bug which atleast slightly compensates for her being so disabled compared to spaz in general:+). I'm undecided whether walljumping should by default be added in levels that don't have RFs, but considering that all mappool levels have RF's it's not a very urgent issue to me personally.

Your conclusion regarding semi, SE, is probably flawed though: I can't seem to do the walljump blind at all (to the left of C in semi), and I need some 30 attempts to walljump out of blue base.

Climbing out of the level in MS is ofc not an issue:
1) you won't have time for so many attempts
2) people will get copter and hunt you down - and you would be better of waiting 4 seconds for the copter yourself anyway

Currently I suck at using any tricks in-game. Wall jump has only saved me from dying multiple times in ww, and once or twice let me recapture in semi.
I've taken C several times in WW, and killed some flag that was camping there by jumping up with blaster after I spawned, and I've managed to stay alive slightly longer at blue base in semi, and I think I've scored once or twice (in like 100 games) in that fashion

Edit: Oh yeah, I just remembered: Another advantage is that you can walljump when you're blinking (in which case you can't RF climb yet)

[Seren]

As I said above, being able to do a little more without ammo is a good thing considering all the ammo-camping playing that's been going on lately. On the other hand, just like level makers can make it impossible to RF-climb in a certain area, it would be nice if the same option could be given for walljumping. In a patch, an option could of course be added to disable walljumping in your server, but I see no good reason to make that the default option, considering how it is more comparable to RF-climbing than to wallclimbing (ppl want to do the former in a 3v3, but they don't want to get stuck in a wall) - or to Lori kicking through thin walls for that matter (a bug which atleast slightly compensates for her being so disabled compared to spaz in general:+).
I'm glad you compare it to the other bugs in a similar way as I do. I agree it should be never disabled by default and making it possible to disable is probably a good idea. Designing a level so it's impossible to wall jump isn't that hard, ceiling slopes work rather well at that (they don't make it fully impossible but really discourage it). Making it so there are RF tricks but no wall jumps is harder, but still possible. Also I think arranging a good walljumper to test your level for unintended wall jumps is always a good idea. I know one such guy and he has too much free time.

considering that all mappool levels have RF's it's not a very urgent issue to me personally.
<3 EMEF

Your conclusion regarding semi, SE, is probably flawed though: I can't seem to do the walljump blind at all (to the left of C in semi), and I need some 30 attempts to walljump out of blue base.
No idea where is the first one you mentioned, the other one will be as easy as the rest if you find out how to do it. I can show it to you if you want, just ask.

Climbing out of the level in MS is ofc not an issue
I agree, I didn't mean to say it is, it was just the only one where I remembered how many wall jumps are necessary to perform. :p

[Grytolle]

No idea where is the first one you mentioned, the other one will be as easy as the rest if you find out how to do it. I can show it to you if you want, just ask.
1) Stand on blue base, jump out of it (up and right)
2) Stand on the ground below the C, walk left so you stand under the sucker tube, walk a little further to the left and jump up there


I agree, I didn't mean to say it is, it was just the only one where I remembered how many wall jumps are necessary to perform. :p
Ah, ok ;)

[Seren]

1) Stand on blue base, jump out of it (up and right)
It's as I told there. If you know how to, it's not harder than the rest. You might need some additional knowledge about that place though.
2) Stand on the ground below the C, walk left so you stand under the sucker tube, walk a little further to the left and jump up there
I still didn't know what do you mean and I had to go to semi. And then "oh, that one"! I totally forgot it in every wall jump training. Right now when I tried it though, I had about the same success rate as in b1 (what is surprising, because I'm a type of walljumper who sucks at right walls; left walls good, right walls bad). You however have to wall jump, as I said, the right wall there, the part that's visible. Wall jumps in one tile of horizontal space are much harder, especially when you don't see your rabbit.

[Grytolle]

It's as I told there. If you know how to, it's not harder than the rest. You might need some additional knowledge about that place though.
I've done it a few times... It's just harder because you need to jump half a tile higher than on the other side, else it will fail

I still didn't know what do you mean and I had to go to semi. And then "oh, that one"! I totally forgot it in every wall jump training. Right now when I tried it though, I had about the same success rate as in b1 (what is surprising, because I'm a type of walljumper who sucks at right walls; left walls good, right walls bad). You however have to wall jump, as I said, the right wall there, the part that's visible. Wall jumps in one tile of horizontal space are much harder, especially when you don't see your rabbit.
2) you use the right wall?:D

[Ragnarok!]

Bouncers vs. Powered-up Bouncers

Recently I've been going over this one in my head, obviously the bouncer PU itself is probably the better option since it does 2 damage instead of 1. What I do wonder though, is does anyone prefer the way the original bouncer ammo bounces off walls and stuff, or do they prefer the powered up one?

I'm aware the powered up one is more versatile in terms of going through walls of 3.5 tiles and down steeper slopes; so better for defensive use too, and if I recall correctly moves faster too.

However the non-powered up one bounces off walls and bounces back in the opposite direction rather than going back at the wall it bounced off with some weird recoil. If I recall correctly, non-powered up bouncers can just about go through 2 tiles of mask (or maybe just a bit less).

I notice in levels like AYB and Frontier Falls, while they'd benefit or not benefit and they might also drastically change the level. However I've always noticed gameplay in levels without the two best powerups (Seeker and Bouncer imo), turn out to be easier to survive in and more fun - generally less chaotic, hence Frontier Falls being such a success...

So anyway, bouncer PU is used in most levels that are made, but minus the extra damage, does anyone prefer the mechanic of how the non-powered up bouncer bounces, or prefer the powered up ones?

[Sean]

So anyway, bouncer PU is used in most levels that are made, but minus the extra damage, does anyone prefer the mechanic of how the non-powered up bouncer bounces, or prefer the powered up ones?

Go thread revival!

As always, level design determines the best weapon assortment, and personally I think the different physics of both the powered up and the non powered versions are useful in different ways. Powered bouncers are more useful for tactical uses, but the non-powered ones are more for trick shots - and here I emphasize the trick part. It's easier to defend a base with the non-powered bouncer on some maps because the bouncing is reliable and you can count on it to consistently cover a section of the map. Back and forth. Back and forth. The one real definite use of the powered's recoil, though, is to shoot through that layer 3 passage nearby the carrot in Semi. I've hurt many people because of the powered bouncer's physics that way. Otherwise I tend to use the powered bouncer for its ability to go through more tiles. Have you tried shooting powered bouncers through the floor in the seeker ammo area near the carrot? Pretty damn useful.

[Grytolle]

I'm just gonna throw into the discussion that non-pu bnc is quite effective for hunting people down: it's fast and has a long reach, it can go through thin walls and it has a good chance of hitting people even when they run down-hill

[Ragnarok!]

The point I was trying to elaborate more was Grytolle's, @Sean!

Yeah I'm aware powered bouncers are good for certain areas in Semi and possibly BBlair or battle1, but other than that, they either break levels or are a real dominant superpower, possibly equal to seekers. Most people in CTF levels counterbalance a bouncer pu on one side of the level with a toaster pu, some with an RF pu; given the right layout I might even consider a seeker PU. (just wanted to throw that in there)

Meanwhile, non-powered bouncers remain bleeding strong (like seekers) for different situations too. Certain areas can be pretty much blockaded by the correct use of bouncers, while powered-bouncers don't really boast this advantage, but instead a much stronger height advantage!

[Sean]

Personally I think the main point of non-powered bouncers is to be used as a defense, as its physics are terrible for offense. A good strategy would be to hit them with the non-powered bouncers then follow up with a powered weapon to kill.

[Ragnarok!]

Also, if a level featured peppermints and RFs, people would probably not use the peppermints, and use the RFs (since they can be used for impact shots and RF jumping/hopping). People are also more used to pressing 5 for when they're chasing to spam RF. Anyone think a level without RF could work, and peppermint instead?

Would mean pressing 8, having your chasing gun be affected by fastfire, and no little jumpy tricks from RFs, not to mention they're harder to see...

[Grytolle]

pepper spray hits never seem to register for me...

Sean: I thought we explained in detail how non-PU bnc could be useful for hunting o.O

[Ragnarok!]

Personally I use non-powered BNC in AYB, they're really effective for the layout. =p

[cooba]

Guys, I'm happy to see you're having a discussion, but even though the thread in in General Jazz Talk and the title "Gameplay Theories" is rather apt, this is largely a level design thread.

[PurpleJazz]

Reviving this topic.

A popular opinion goes that the Seeker PU is an obscenely strong weapon in MP. Whilst I agree with that statement - recently, I've been coming to think that the power of the Toaster PU has been overlooked, especially in Battle. It is usually placed where it is quite easy to obtain, and ammo for it generally occurs in abundance. For what it lacks in range, it sure-as-hell makes up for with an incredible spread and low ammo consumption. Even in a heavily populated server, a good player is unlikely to ever run out of Toaster ammo if they get 50 from the PU until they die. Most level designs allow players to easily charge through and "go Rambo" on a whole group of players with virtual impunity.

I don't think the Toaster PU should go unused entirely, but I would suggest that JCSers reconsider the amount of ammunition they're providing Toaster users.

[Grytolle]

The thing about toaster is that it's one of the few weapons with which you can have a reasonable hope of hitting someone who has the high ground, because of the amount of "bullets" it shoots. You need to button-bash a lot harder with other weapons. I also like that it's a rather short range weapon, so the kills you get with it are more often due to good prediction than random bullets that hit.

On the other hand, there's no reason why you'd need to have a toaster power-up per se, seeing as non-powered-up toaster can server the same function just fine. I'd strongly advice all level makers not to use seeker power-ups, unless their level has a really quirky lay-out, to somewhat reduce the importance of the air factor.

(If you think timing-reliant levels are fun, you could even consider making a rather small map with no power-ups at all, but much ammo.)

[PT32]

What about Electroblasters? The ability to shoot through walls could probably be pretty useful, especially on close-quarters levels with a lot of parallel passages...?

Plus, it helps that the EB goes faster and farther (if I'm not mistaken) when fired on the run.

[Grytolle]

What about Electroblasters? The ability to shoot through walls could probably be pretty useful, especially on close-quarters levels with a lot of parallel passages...?
Yes, they provide a nice tactical element, but they're not really useful uphill.

Plus, it helps that the EB goes faster and farther (if I'm not mistaken) when fired on the run.Yes, as does all other ammunition in JJ2 :) I almost never shoot standing still

[Jelly Jam]

Sorry for reviving the thread, but I want to know what you guys think of underwater battle/CTF levels, and is it possible to make one that actually has good gameplay and event placement?

[Love & Thunder]

CTF would be pretty difficult, but I could imagine a pretty cool Battle one. Would be a little slow, though.

[Jelly Jam]

What about the other water level mode, where you can move like in the non-water spots, but the jumping and falling physics are diffirent?

[PurpleJazz]

Low gravity water levels are still rather problematic since falling is initially very slow unless you buttstomp which makes you vulnerable, and exacerbates Spaz-bias tenfold because the advantage of having double jump becomes far greater.

[FawFul]

Water can always be used as a visual addition. Low gravity water should be avoided, Purplejazz summed that up nicely.

Water as gameplay has a direct link to the goal of the level. To use water as a playable area, you should ask yourself why you want water in your level.

You can aim for a lot of combat in water for example. This is generally a big size pool with ammo inside it. The combat is generally a lot slower and slower paced and can only work well if the level doesn't take itself too seriously. It can be fun as a JDC event type of level, because the chaos can be hilarious.

As for a competitive level (1v1, 2v2, 3v3), I think it's better to only use small portions of water as a route. The movement drawback of swimming is too big of an annoyance to actually fight seriously in. Water can be used as route for rushing CTF scores or getting to a specific area with rewards (carrot, powerups). The water in this case is meant to make the player vulnerable, but not to take combat in.