Questions Regarding Verticality

[GnomeSatan]

Hey folks! I'm not totally sure if this is the right place to put this, but figured I'd throw it out there. I recently released my first map on here. it got some good reception, but definitely is not very good. I'm currently working on my second one, which is much larger and I'm trying to throw in some more interesting features. The main thing that I'm running in to is difficulty integrating verticality. I tend to fall back on turret enemies or lifts to get the player out of a pit or something, but for whatever reason I have editing block when it comes to anything else. I just can't seem to make it interesting. Does anyone have any suggestions for integrating verticality into  maps in an interesting way?

[Ravendesk]

One thing that I see as fun and try integrating myself is reusing the same geometry in several ways. For example the pillars that you use as cover while fighting in lower part of the map will be used to run on to traverse between two sections when you get to the higher part of the map. Rocks with sniper enemies become accessible later and are used for progression / optional stuff. Generally allow player to access some stuff that he sees above him at some point. This also sometimes allows for more interesting layouts.

 

Another thing that verticality can bring you is being providing the player a nice view of the parts he previously visited (or, on the contrary, tease the player with what's coming after). I think doom engine works amazing well with vertical geometry (despite infinite height and flat map) and you as a mapper can create great visuals with it.

 

As a general advice - for inspiration you can try looking at the visuals of "proper 3d" games, for example at custom quake content. Obviously, not everything will work in doom and there are many limitations you would need to overcome, but it might give you new ideas.

 

And of course, checking out existing doom works with amazing verticality will help. Pagodia map 03 is the first example I think of in that context, it has amazing small-scale verticality while keeping things compact. Many Crumpets maps might serve as a good example of highly-vertical but generally smaller maps as well. Valiant is also pretty nice in that regard. For the larger scale stuff whole Sunder is very vertical, Jumpwad obviously is as well. There are many good highly-vertical maps, this is just what I can think of off the top of my head.

[GnomeSatan]

1 minute ago, Ravendesk said:

One thing that I see as fun and try integrating myself is reusing the same geometry in several ways. For example the pillars that you use as cover while fighting in lower part of the map will be used to run on to traverse between two sections when you get to the higher part of the map. Rocks with sniper enemies become accessible later and are used for progression / optional stuff. Generally allow player to access some stuff that he sees above him at some point. This also sometimes allows for more interesting layouts.

 

Another thing that verticality can bring you is being providing the player a nice view of the parts he previously visited (or, on the contrary, tease the player with what's coming after). I think doom engine works amazing well with vertical geometry (despite infinite height and flat map) and you as a mapper can create great visuals with it.

 

As a general advice - for inspiration you can try looking at the visuals of "proper 3d" games, for example at custom quake content. Obviously, not everything will work in doom and there are many limitations you would need to overcome, but it might give you new ideas.

 

And of course, checking out existing doom works with amazing verticality will help. Pagodia map 03 is the first example I think of in that context, it has amazing small-scale verticality while keeping things compact. Many Crumpets maps might serve as a good example of highly-vertical but generally smaller maps as well. Valiant is also pretty nice in that regard. For the larger scale stuff whole Sunder is very vertical, Jumpwad obviously is as well. There are many good highly-vertical maps, this is just what I can think of off the top of my head.

Thanks for the in depth response! I’ll check those maps out.

[baja blast rd.]

One point is that purely visual verticality is a good tool too. You don't need every plane to be traversable -- you can sometimes have a big pit, gated off by a barrier, or a high cliff that is purely decorative. 

 

Also, saying "fall back on turret enemies" has an odd ring to it because turret enemies are any enemy that is confined to a restricted stretch of terrain. Many possible enemy roles are turrets in some way and they are pretty dissimilar from each other. What sounds like it's happening is that don't know of all the turret variants so you're falling back on exactly one archetype of them. 

 

The most important way to use them isn't just raised perches and cliffs (even if that's what probably comes to mind when you hear the word "turret"). It's monsters that are elevated on pieces of terrain that you reach later.  These are all from the same map because I remember it doing it well, but it's a common device in mapping.

 

 

 

 

 

The two arachs in shot one and the chaingunner in shot two you eventually loop around to later. The arach in shot three is a good example of using pathing restriction with the steps to keep a monster at an advantageous position for it. The imps in shot four (which are also behind the player in that shot) you take a lift up to.

 

A well made vertical layout tends to have many chances to do this. 

 

If you're finding yourself needing to exclusively place pillars, one thing to try is to split areas up in bigger ways, instead of trying to apply some small patches of height variation to a mostly flat area.

 

Here's a cave area split into two planes, with steps taking you up (left) to the higher plane. Good spot for roaming-turret hybrid enemies on the higher plane.

 

(Skilled artist.) Also note that if we have a narrow chokepoint (red) into this area would be fine because you'd have to enter the area more fully to engage with the enemies, which is a good distillation of why a lack of height variation greatly magnifies chokepoint issues. 
 

As far as traversing planes, lifts and teleporters and steep steps (and big drops and suddenly lowering floors) are all fine ways of getting from one plane to another. Don't taboo them. But not only are there a great variety of triggers -- like floors that raise up and raise down automatically, switches you can press to "toggle" a plane up and down, and more, which you can use for variety -- an important idea to know is that you also have the option to have smoother gradients between big areas by making the linking mechanism a full-blown area in itself.  

 

 

Here's a very tall chamber, with floor planes 384 units apart. If you wanted to design a set of steps, you'd have to make it pretty steep. But if you just happened to have an area there, you could have multiple sets of steps, multiple lifts, all taking you part of the way up. 

 

 

(This geometry is ugly but I wanted to do it quickly since it's just for a forum post. :P) Also it goes without saying that when you do this, you don't make an area pure filler, you have an idea for it, or better yet, find ways to bake this into the core design. 

 

My last (and most important) piece of advice would be to play maps that do verticality well because the best way to get a natural sense of ideas is to see them in motion. My main suggestions right now would be Mutabor and Altitude by tourniquet, and Nensha by RJD. 

[GnomeSatan]

7 minutes ago, baja blast rd. said:

One point is that purely visual verticality is a good tool too. You don't need every plane to be traversable -- you can sometimes have a big pit, gated off by a barrier, or a high cliff that is purely decorative. 

 

Also, saying "fall back on turret enemies" has an odd ring to it because turret enemies are any enemy that is confined to a restricted stretch of terrain. Many possible enemy roles are turrets in some way and they are pretty dissimilar from each other. What sounds like it's happening is that don't know of all the turret variants so you're falling back on exactly one archetype of them. 

 

The most important way to use them isn't raised perches and cliffs (even if that's what probably comes to mind when you hear the word "turret"). It's monsters that are elevated on pieces of terrain that you reach later.  These are all from the same map because I remember it doing it well, but it's a common device in mapping.

 

 

 

 

 

The two arachs in shot one and the chaingunner in shot two you eventually loop around to later. The arach in shot three is a good example of using pathing restriction with the steps to keep a monster at an advantageous position for it. The imps in shot four (on both sides) you take a lift up to.

 

A well made vertical layout tends to have many chances to do this. 

 

If you're finding yourself needing to exclusively place pillars, one thing to try is to split areas up in bigger ways, instead of trying to apply some small patches of height variation to a mostly flat area.

 

Here's a cave area split into two planes, with steps taking you up (left) to the higher plane. Good spot for roaming-turret hybrid enemies on the higher plane.

 

(Skilled artist.) Also note that if we have a narrow chokepoint (red) into this area would be fine because you'd have to enter the area more fully to engage with the enemies, which is a good distillation of why a lack of height variation greatly magnifies chokepoint issues. 
 

As far as traversing planes, lifts and teleporters and steep steps (and big drops and suddenly lowering floors) are all fine ways of getting from one plane to another. Don't taboo them. But not only are there a great variety of triggers -- like floors that raise up and raise down automatically, switches you can press to "toggle" a plane up and down, and more, which you can use for variety -- an important idea to know is that you also have the option to have smoother gradients between big areas by making the linking mechanism a full-blown area in itself.  

 

 

Here's a very tall chamber, with floor planes 384 units apart. If you wanted to design a set of steps, you'd have to make it pretty steep. But if you just happened to have an area there, you could have multiple sets of steps, multiple lifts, all taking you part of the way up. 

 

 

(This geometry is ugly but I wanted to do it quickly since it's just for a forum post. :P) Also it goes without saying that when you do this, you don't make an area pure filler, you have an idea for it, or better yet, find ways to bake this into the layout itself. 

 

My last (and most important) piece of advice would be to play maps that do verticality well because the best way to get a natural sense of ideas is to see them in motion. My main suggestions right now would be Mutabor and Altitude by tourniquet, and Nensha by RJD. 

Wow, that was in depth and extremely, extremely helpful. When I say “fall back on turret enemies” I generally mean “eh I have no clue how to add something interesting here, let’s toss a pillar on.” The part about making vertical areas that you can get to later in a natural way is also helpful and speaks to another weakness of mine, which is just general level lay out. But that’s a different topic :). Thank you again, this was really really helpful

[Ravendesk]

7 minutes ago, baja blast rd. said:

One point is...

Holy shit how do you make a quality post like that with drawing and map doodles in like 20 minutes, I spent the same amount of time writing 10 sentences xdd

[SleepyVelvet]

baja blast wrd

[GnomeSatan]

28 minutes ago, Ravendesk said:

Holy shit how do you make a quality post like that with drawing and map doodles in like 20 minutes, I spent the same amount of time writing 10 sentences xdd

Yeah that was wild!