I should probably reply to a previously made topic, but I hate reviving.

Anyway, I find that X designs in jj2 levels are godly. Eprime seems to originate from an X-shape with routes that are elaborated. Another good exmple is Sub Junction 3, with the X-shaped middle intersecting with the overall layout. Maybe an X design, depending on execution, is the key to making extremely good/great multiplayer levels?

However, this is just an observation, and I'm not totally convinced.

Some good levels are circles. Some are rectangles.
Squares are never good. But I think that X's are just a coincidence.

1. It is important to have many distinct zones in a level, some moderate distance apart from one another.
2. It is important to have some or all zones be joined by some number of linking areas, so that players can come together from different directions, possibly even with different stocks of ammo.
3. The mininum number of linking areas, assuming more than one zone, is one. The most basic polyzone layout will thus be a single linking area surrounded by two or more zones.
4. It is much easier to navigate in JJ2 on the horizontal than on the vertical axis. Therefore paths to zones leading directly upward or downward from linking areas will be the most difficult, and generally the most automated (sucker tubes or pets).
5. Layouts to expect are lines, crosses, or diamonds. In a line, a single L (linking area) is in the middle, linking two Z's (zones), one on either horizontal side. A diamond is slightly more advanced than this, again with two Z's, but with two optional L's in-between, presumably one above and one below. A cross is then L-centric, with four Z's coming out of it, one from each corner, making maximum use of the horizontal axis and yet separating zones from one another.

I've always believed a good multiplayer level should focus on "paths". A path is any route that a player takes between key points, such as carrots, CTF bases, and powerups. They should feel natural to the player, and be easy to navigate.

All paths should connect to other paths in some way, so dead ends should be avoided unless they contain something very important (like a base). Even then it's usually more fun to avoid dead ends. Note that I do not consider something like the bottom left of battle 1 a dead end, because even though you can only exit it from 1 direction, you can enter it from 2, and also players generally don't go to that area unless they are passing through or setting up an ambush.

Finally, to make gameplay interesting and dynamic, paths should intersect occasionally. This is where the "X" design comes in. The centre of the level is one big intersection, with several paths branching off of it. Presumably, the ends of the "X" connect to each other in some way, perhaps through tubes or warps. These intersections often form "hubs" where a lot of gameplay occurs.

The "X" design is good because it focuses on a central hub, with a bunch of paths branching off. This kind of level is easy to design, and also feels natural to players, so it is no wonder why a lot of good levels use it.