Good enemy placement?

[Matthias]

I really love making Doom maps... You know, you open UDB, start making the geometry, the architecture, putting your ideas together. That's fun. But when I am done with the geometry, the map is playable and you can go from the beginning to the end and everything works... then it happens. The map is empy and there is nothing, so I have to start putting there monsters/weapons/ammo and so on.

 

And for some reason, I don't enjoy this part... Actually I kinda hate it, because I have no idea what to do. Ok, here is a long corridor... ok, let's throw there a couple of imps or something. What about this room? Hmmm, let's put there some Mancubi or something. I don't know... I feel like it sucks...

 

Ok, here, let's make an ambush and maybe I could put something here and there... Meh.

 

People often complain that my maps are too easy and also my placement is boring, predictible and such. But I have no idea how to make the monster (and other things) placement more interesting.

 

How you do it exactly? Do you have any system or something?

Edited December 12, 2021 by LiquidDoom

[Dusty_Rhodes]

I kind of don't like things placement either. Geometry, heights and depth, and decorations are what I like.

 

But I think I do an okay job of monster placement (that sounds conceited . . . .).

The enemies actually need to work with the geometry. So I try to add incidental encounters in hallways and small rooms and try to make bigger set piece fights in larger rooms. 

 

So when it comes to small areas, I throw some imps and zombies in, no big deal.

 

But for big fights, using long range pain elementals, cyberdemons, and mancubi one of my favorite moves. It puts pressure on the player. Especially if you have damaging floors near by. 

 

I struggle with making hard maps too. Sometimes I don't want to make hard maps, my Map05 from Community Trunk is an easy popcorn map. Because I wanted it to be. I wanted to make a fun, run and gun E1M4 style level. So just be confident in what you want to do.

[thiccyosh]

Think about the strengths and weaknesses of a few handpicked demons.

 

 

Here is an example: You have one long hallway with an ambush in a map that isn't too challenging.

 

(+ = good/strength , - = bad/weakness)

 

What do we take? Pinkies or Imps?

 

Pinky:

 

+bulit like a truck and easily blocks players

 

+somewhat tanky with 150 health

 

+high damage output: minimum is 5 dmg, maximum is 40 dmg.

 

-also blocks other pinkies

 

-has a high pain chance

 

-attack can be avioded without thinking about it.

 

Imp:

 

+has a ranged attack and can melee you

 

+dangerous in smaller groups

 

+is the all rounder for most combat scenarios

 

-pathetic with their 60 hp and with their 3 to 24 dmg attacks

 

-easily infights with other enemies, especially hitscanners

 

-has an even higher pain chance than the Pinky.

 

 

The Pinky here is the most fitting for this ambush, as he limits the movement of the player in an already restricted enviroment and can kill him with just a few bites.

 

Keep in mind this is just an example, how you place the enemies is up to you. That is just my way of doing it.

 

[Dusty_Rhodes]

@thiccyosh makes some really good points. It's all about monsters' strengths and weaknesses. Try to use monsters that compliment each other. 

 

In the op you asked if there was a method to monster placement. For me there really isn't. I start making rooms and think "these monsters can go here," and I take it from there. But that works with the style of maps I like making and playing. I love incidental combat scenarios that lead up to big things. So just placing monsters around and testing thoroughly is my "method". I test over and over changing and adding things till I get it to where I want. 

 

[DSC]

Remember turret use too. Mancubi, arachnotrons, masterminds and cybies, are all excellent area denial measures.

[baja blast rd.]

- Don't work start to finish all the time. You might build around important moments instead, then build the rest to complement those.

- Play good wads and try to understand what monsters are doing. Keep in mind as well that it won't just be "serving as threats" -- many monsters can exist just to be enjoyable to fight in some way. 

- Think about creating scenarios rather than accruing individual monster placements. Even in incidental combat, have an idea for it, like "I want an outdoor area where mancubi get used as meatshields against hitscanners, and there are plenty of imps, and a sudden trap keeps the player off balance" or "this space is big so I want arachnotron turrets everywhere, as well as scattered groups of zombies and imps that also get sliced up by the arachnotron streams."

- Be willing to place no monsters in an area, or something light and relatively quick, if you can't think of a good combat purpose for that area.

[Captain POLAND]

Just fill the entire map with as many enemies as you can fit. Then remove them until you get to what you want. Or don't remove them at all and make it a slaughter map.

[Weird Sandwich]

39 minutes ago, rd. said:

- Be willing to place no monsters in an area, or something light and relatively quick, if you can't think of a good combat purpose for that area.

 

All good points but I like this one in particular. It can be very tempting when you see empty space in the editor to want to fill it all in with enemies, but having quiet moments can help the pacing of the map.

 

One thing I'll add is that even if you do choose to make the entire map before placing things, don't be afraid to make further changes to the geometry once you start adding monsters. e.g. If you think a Mancubus might be more fun a fight in an area but there's no space for him, just widen the walls or add an extra ledge to accommodate. Even be willing to make major changes to player progression, if it will result in a better map.

[Dusty_Rhodes]

1 hour ago, rd. said:

- Play good wads and try to understand what monsters are doing. Keep in mind as well that it won't just be "serving as threats" -- many monsters can exist just to be enjoyable to fight in some way.

That's another great piece of advice. I love maps that give you a rocket launcher, tons of imps to gib, and RoTT music. Nothing wrong with going for the fun factor over difficulty.

[Azuris]

Think on what would make fun to fight in that area/room.

 

How would the enemy behave in that room/area and how would the player.

 

Use the Geometry/Layout and the Monsters/Items to tell the Path.

[Nirvana]

One of the big mistakes I see from a lot of people who have the complaint that they don't enjoy monster placement is that they are building their entire map without considering monster placement at all. 

 

This isn't to say that you should sketch out every encounter on paper and have the entire map pre-planned from the outset, but rather that each space should be built with some form of player interaction in mind; be it a brief platforming section, a lock-in scenario, incidental combat or what have you. Note that rooms with no monsters and no gameplay are totally fine as well, as long as they offer something unique aesthetically or otherwise.

 

If I don't have a strict idea for an encounter in mind, I usually try to build out a room with shapes that can be used for monster closets, platforms, or to make traversal/combat interesting. Think about which enemies function well in which spaces (rooms with multiple pillars often facilitate good Arch-Vile encounters, rooms with lots of large pits may require flyers etc.) then start placing monsters into the space before it is completed and just let them move around the area. Does a Manc feel too big for the space? Do the monsters get stuck in certain parts? Is there apparent threat for the player from only one angle allowing camping in a safe zone? Is hitscan too devastating due to lack of cover? 

 

Many of these thoughts come from having played the game a long time and understanding Doom's sandbox, but a lot of it can be figured out by simply putting monsters into a space and watching how they interact with it. Much of the time I will start with the hardest iteration of an encounter and work backwards, nerfing until it feels right, but this is more useful for 'challenge' encounter design than incidental stuff. For incidental placement the process is similar, but interconnecting areas are more prevalent and so you need to consider things like sound propagation (can these monsters hear me from miles away and start clumping up in areas that will hurt gameplay?) and sightlines. Having ambushing monsters can help introduce moments of threat without needing full lock-ins.

Also think about how a player will move in reaction to the monsters in a given space. If a Vile is in front of the player, they are likely to move backwards and seek cover, therefore you can pincer them with other enemies to make that cover less accessible and make the encounter more dynamic. Learning how to push and pull the player around and considering how people playing your maps will drag monsters about the space is incredibly valuable for designing encounters.

 

Anyway this has been some meandering advice that got a bit out of hand. Hopefully it was helpful in some way :D

Edited December 13, 2021 by Nirvana

[Kinetic]

The best advice I can give is to play/recall maps you have played that you think had good enemy placement, then start making maps with enemies similar to how those enemies in the maps you've previously played were placed. You'll probably find certain combinations of level geometry/physical monster placement/monster type(s) that make for fun gameplay just based on what you notice in maps with good enemy placement. You can also do this with aesthetics too. 

[BetelgeuseSupergiant]

I placing enemies right after creating room. I choose their location, trying to make it realistic. Imps and pinkies stays near human corpses, zombiemans walking on base and searching survived humans or remain on their workplaces. Cacodemons flying on open spaces, like air patrol. Evil marines (from Brutal doom) ambushes with small groups.

[OldDoomer]

You may look at your monster placement through drops, rather than outright fights or encounters.

 

Example: remember that you have two enemies in the line-up that drop retrievable firearms; the former sargent and (if Doom 2) the chaingunner. Doom 2 actually uses the dynamics of enemy drops to really good effect starting out. If you play Entryway on any skill level, the only enemies present are zombiemen and imps. Unless you access the secrets you will not obtain a dropped shotgun until the next level.

 

You could use these sort of dynamics in building up challenges for your players through the level. You can assume that most players are used to starting out from a pistol start, so instead of having a shotgun or chaingun as a placed item you could have these obtainable only through drops. While that may not immediately sound like a challenge, you could force a player to have to use a pistol or even place a higher power weapon such as rocket launcher or plasma rile with very limited ammo that has to be conserved, in the hopes that the player is going to make it to the sargent or chaingunner carrying the drop. For a first play through this might generate a false sense of power for the player in giving them higher powered weapons with limited ammo, but then those players quickly realizing they do not have immediate access to a shotgun or chaingun.

 

Where the shotgun and chaingun become important is that most Doom players will likely use both against lower level enemies. The shotgun tends to be an all purpose firearm often easily replenished and the chaingun great for deal with congregations of hit scanners (not to mention, bullets are often easily replenished thanks to zombiemen placement). If you give a player a plasma rifle and they're fighting imps and pinkies they're going to realize that they're not receiving item drops.