Mapping Theory & Combat Design

[BluePineapple72]

Hey all! I wanted to prompt a discussion about the "Theory of Mapping" on this forum (though I don't know if Wad Discussion would be a more appropriate location for this).

 

This whole topic is something that @Death Bear and I have been talking about for a few years and have been wanting to formally write about one day. But since I'm bored at work I thought I'd prompt the community with some questions to just begin an engaging discussion.

 

For mappers, what would you define as the key aspects to a successful approach in doom level design. Specifically: how do you build your level from the ground up? What inspires you? What fundamentals patch together your core inspiration into a finalized level. What to you is a good level?

 

In addition (tangentially and critically) to the conversation of core map design, what principles make up a good combat encounter? What sets apart one fight from the next?

 

 

For the players who may not map I wanted to extend this perverse and haughty discussion with another question(or mappers who like this question): what levels (pwad or iwad) would you say stand out in terms of design and why? What specifically makes this level in particular stand out.

 

 

 

Also also also: I kinda just plopped some smart sounding sentences down all Quick & Dirty like to get the ball rolling. If you have any mapping philosophies you'd like to share or some theory hoo-has beyond what I've posted here feel free. Wanna really get this science stuff sciencing.

Edited October 8, 2023 by BluePineapple72

[Noiser]

It's difficult to tell as I feel this is very subjective. I don't think there's a ruleset that would work for everybody. Most importantly, I like when the mapper put their own personality and style on his creation, no matter if it will cater to a group of people or not. That kind of enthusiasm is always inspiring to me.
 

That said, I like when the map tickles my spacial awareness somehow - either by multitasking or with threats coming from different directions. That combined with non-linear exploration puts me in "the zone" very easily because I know if I die I can take another route\strategy and let the RNG dices roll again. It's fun! In terms of "layout standards", I think height variation and interconnection are the two main elements that can expand the possibilities in level design. It's not a requirement, of course - but definitely gives more tools to the mapper in all possible areas (combat encounters, exploration and visuals).

Edited October 9, 2023 by Noiser

[Cutman 999]

I'm gonna talk more about combat, my actual layout making is just the embodiment of procrastination, so much it would make my college homework blush.

 

Good doom combat, like good game design, is giving the player an interesting dynamic to engage with. If engaging with it is not encouraged at all, the design is bad. The reason why i love most archvile setpieces, is simply because that enemy forces you into a different mindset depending on the enemies and placement. You could make it sorrounded with some fast demons to serve as his bodyguards, making him a sniper that you don't have to immediately delete from the map but consider because of his zap attack, or to misdirect you from other monsters. Dynamics that makes you think interesting ways of taking him down, not just shooting him until it dies.

 

Simple gun and runs can be good, but i say if that works or not just depends on the pacing of your map and how you propose incidental/set combat.

[WhateverComic07]

1 hour ago, BluePineapple72 said:

(though I don't know if Wad Discussion would be a more appropriate location for this).

Probably Doom Editing

Not a (published) mapper but I think that the core of map design is making something you enjoy. If you enjoy it someone else probably will. It might not be as universally enjoyed like Scythe, Alien Vendetta, or more recently My House, or Overboard. But even smaller projects find their enjoyers. Like The Thing You Can't Defeat by @YourOpinionsAreWRONG. There's a wide variety of different approaches that are very different to the core.

Toilet of the Gods wants to be ball bustlingly hard combat and platforming with an intended solution that the player figures out through trial and error then mastery of certain mechanics.

 

Scythe Map 30 - Fire and Ice is a nonlinear combat puzzle and key hunt that can be taken in effectively any order.

 

Grove is an obtuse environmental puzzle, that wants you to explore and think rather than actually testing your reflexes or anything like that

 

Mock 2 is an amalgam of early 2000s humor in a doom wad.
 

Infested is challenging combat with the side objective of showing off GZDoom features and custom assets.

 

And even within the same "style" there are many differences in approach. For example, I'd say both Dance on the Water and Sunder want to be just downright unfairly difficult challenges with many similar tricks, but as someone who has played both (with very generous save scumming) I can say they feel very different to play and I found myself consistently enjoying Sunder more.

 

Essentially, what I'm saying is don't apply set design rules to all mapping, instead you can study similar types of maps to form a framework with which to reference other similar maps, including any possible maps you make. Because while many people might enjoy Scythe 2 more than Grove, that doesn't mean that Grove is inherently worse for not conforming to the mapping style of Scythe 2.

 

Sorry if that was a bit incoherent, I just kind of wrote my thoughts as they came because I wanted to add more to the convo than just where I think the post should have gone.

[xScavengerWolfx]

1 hour ago, BluePineapple72 said:

For mappers, what would you define as the key aspects to a successful approach in doom level design. Specifically: how do you build your level from the ground up? What inspires you? What fundamentals patch together your core inspiration into a finalized level. What to you is a good level?

Oh boy this one is going to be a long one but i can give an answer for this.

 

For me when i first started mapping it was like "Start here, got to objective A, grab the key, go to objective B, grab key, exit while killing enemies". But that got old fast and so i decided to start planning what i wanted the player to do and how to do it. For example i have a map where it's basically surviving, you have limited health and ammo and you have to figure out what you can and can't use in combat. Of course this was for a community map i was apart of (not going to do a shameless plugin) and after being apart of it i went off to do my own thing for mapping. 

 

Key aspects of a successful approach to doom level design? I would have to say the kiss factor has a heavy hand in this one for me at least (kiss stands for Keep It Simple Stupid) I like to keep my levels short, sweet and simple. I am not a big fan of "oh, got to make this look like a massive giant plant and have lots of tricky in this because it's cool", i don't like big overplayed maps that looks pretty....but sucks all the fun out of the experience of a level. If you make a map that's simple, fun and enjoyable then that's a successful approach to doom level design, if you decided to go "big" and over detail it, sure that's a successful approach....but your also giving up good potential of having a fun map.

 

How do i build a level from the ground up? Simple i just fuck around in the editor and what ever works, works. But to give an actual answer I mostly go with whatever works for me.

 

What inspired me to do doom mapping? Well i always wanted to make levels for games as a kid because i grew up on the old classics like Halo series and other FPS games but never doom (i was way too young for doom anyways) when i found out about doom 2016 coming out i decided to check out doom and behold i found a lot and a lot of community maps for doom and doom 2. I was so awed by it i check if doom was on the xbox 360 and sure enough it was there with the no rest for the living add on as well. Well after that doom 2016 came out and i did the snap mapping for that until i got bored with the limited space you can use for your maps because it was not fun to do, so shoot all the way to 2020 i find doomworld, joined and i played wads until i got enough inspiration to make my own maps. Now shoot to late 2022 / early 2023 i got my inspiration from a lil know mapper know as Snaxalotl aka Snax, her ultimate doom wad know as Stickeny Installation. Her UD Mega Wad inspired me to go out and do my own UD mega wad called Abandon: Shadows of Darkness, i wanted to prove that a doom 2 mapper like myself can make fun but challenging maps without the used of the super shotty and the megasphere power ups. But my other insperations came from the following: Slience by wilster wonkles, old doom 1 wads i found from 1996 - 2002 (mostly from shovelware stuff), Doom: Damnation by Osifil (his midis fit my maps very well too) and Doom 64 for the spooky stuff. 

 

What fundamentals patch together your core inspiration into a finalized level? This one is kinda a eh? But if i had to give an answer i would have to say just making sure everything works and it's balanced.

 

What to you is a good level? Me? it would have to be somewhere between easy to understand what to do in the level and hard but not slaughterly hard. The level also have to be fun to look for secrets and not bullshit puzzles to the point i need to no clip (looking at you Doom Zero) and finally make the fights hard but not over power fantasy hard.

 

Hope this helps with your questions

[Egregor]

Layout: this i how the level unfolds. It can be linear, bi-linear (two [or more] paths), and non-linear/sandbox (multiple paths, often including loops). We've got central hubs, we've got branching paths that place locked doors before the keys so you have a place to bring key back to, changes perspective of already traveled areas, ripe for monster closets and warp-ins. We've got one-ways; These are jumping off of cliffs, going up lifts, a door or bars closing behind you, a teleporter. We add height for navigation complexity and combat design, so pits, towers, bridges, jump-connections, raised ledges, etc.

 

Combat: 5 main types: melee/blocking (no projectiles), projectile/hitscan hunters (travel in same space as player), flying hunters (can travel across obstacles), and snipers/campers (enemies that for whatever reason will not seek), and finally Arch-Viles, which are kind of odd aliens. Find ways to add complexity (usually) with minimal infighting. With arenas and slaughter I think of Doom Guy as a glorified sheep herder, corralling the monsters into the center so they can be circle-stafe-slaughtered. Often good combat encounters will prevent this from being a fully viable tactic. Loops provide a way for Doom guy to "escape" and attempt to corral monsters, and (IMO) are one of the most crucial concept to engaging combat.

 

Shape: boxy, angular, building like architecture is often mappers starting point. We also have free form or small-grid, these are good for caverns and cliffs. Octagonal and diagonal shapes are super common. Circles have recently (thanks to editors like Ultimate Doom Builder) become much easier. I actually love bold symmetrical areas. I love areas that APPEAR symmetrical but play different on each side. This could be as simple as imps on the left ledge, shotgunners on the right, while pinkies are stuck in the middle with you.

 

Scale: Doom's scale, it's size and spacing, can be very elusive. It took a long time for me to get the hang of it, but usually a compelling aspect of a good map is it's ability to make contrasting scale part of layout and the combat. Often I think of "tuning" a combat encounter like tuning a guitar string. I make it purposely too big and tighten up the right bits as I go as a way to make the encounter easier or harder.

 

Combat Pacing and "set-pieces" vs. "random encounters": ya-da ya-da.

 

Anyways, fascinating thread. I like hearing everyone's thoughts about this as well!

 

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Egregor

[HQDefault]

There's a lot of different possible answers to "How do you design a level from the ground up?", and is hard to give advice on because that's primarily based on how your own mind works. All I can really advise mappers in that regard is to try a bunch of different methods that people use and stick with whichever one works best. Perhaps a better question to ask is "What makes a level layout engaging?", because there is a much deeper discussion to be had there.

 

However, not too long ago I heard a very useful piece of advice that I will paraphrase as: "Unless you are trying to introduce a new idea to the player, make sure they always have more than one problem to deal with." This video by Josh Strife Hayes is what got me thinking about it: 

 

 

The basic idea here is that if a player has only one problem happening at any given moment, gameplay becomes a very basic process of "if X then Y", which gets boring very quickly. You need to have a good understanding of what each enemy or hazard expects from the player and then create your encounters by letting these elements intersect with each other. In Doom 2, it's very easy to do this without even realizing it, just pit the player against differing combinations of enemies on a regular basis. But consciously thinking about how each enemy can create unique challenges, and what those challenges mean when used in tandem with another enemy or environmental hazard is the recipe for creating fun gameplay.

 

[Finnisher]

I've just made a single map so far after picking mapping up again after 25 years or so - learned mapping in DOS days, made a few pretty bad ones, lol - so my experience is limited, but I really wanna have an overall concept for a map.

 

Be it a location or type of layout or both. Makes the map feel more coherent and grounded imo plus I feel it helps with fleshing it out. I'm not a super creative person so I need some kind of framework.

 

Then when I feel the layout is good I start designing fights around it, likely having had ideas for some already during the making or even made a location to cater for a specific fight.

 

For combat I think a couple of things need to be considered:
- give the player space to move wrt. how many enemies you have

- no cheap shots, do not place hitscanners on the opposite edge of a large room that you cannot reach

- make the enemy mix interesting, experiment, having 3 revenants and 3 mancubi will play completely different to having 3 cacodemons and 3 hell knights

- take infighting into account, does the fight "auto complete" if the player just runs around or hides? If it does is it by design?

- pacing, have the occassional "trash mob" to let the player relax a little or a room without enemies

 

and last the really hard one:

- cheesing or player choice? It's a damn vague line really.

I wanna enforce some fights and make the player "solve" them but rather not have hard locked arenas and only a single way to win, as in "fire the BFG from this corner 3 seconds after the fight starts or lose"

 

I guess that's about it in a nutshell for me. Really good topic and wanna hear what others think!

Edited October 9, 2023 by Finnisher

[Hebonky]

My personal theory is that the map should be incredibly easy to navigate without the use of random teleporters, at the end of a long section you could find a lift that brings you right back to the hub area. and said easy navigation should also go for monsters to add dynamics to encounters.

For an example, in a map I'm currently working on, there are several encounter based around a central hub area for a time, however you may leave these fights at any time, however doing so doesn't lock the monsters inside of that room, those monsters can escape and continue to harass you in other fights. You could run past multiple fights, however doing so just causes chaos.

 

The scale of my (new) maps are incredibly small, with corridors twisting around existing main areas. It gives a sense that the area is carved out, and is using as little space as possible. It's a very interesting feeling.

 

Combat has a constant burn with threats of low ammo, health, and armor plaguing the player. Fodder enemies- like imps- serve a double purpose as rocket food, and simultaneously as rocket deterrent due to the cramped construction of the maps, and the cramped construction also favors heavies like barons and hell knights who will it make their mission to box you in. Revenants will make it their life goal to push you into a corner, or to harass you from long distance with homing missiles which will either make you keep hiding (bad) or start running. Area deniers (Masterminds, Cybers, Mancubi, and Baby spiders) will try to keep you in cover. However their undistinguishing fire should allow them to be excellent infighters, and if they run out of meat you die. Also in major event fights, archviles will appear after the fighting, but it's also possible to accidentally trigger the archie early, by either walking to far or killing a big monster too early. If not this then the dread of visible, yet unkillable, archviles is a major point of the fight. Large fights should feel totally inevitable, however small skirmishes should be absolute jumpscares with the use of pop-up monsters. however clean up should be relatively painless/

 

So putting it all together the best example I have of my theories is this fight in the soon to be released Halloween map called Wormius

 

 

 

On the upper deck is a cyberdemon, and a cheerleading squad of revenants. There is a lift that constantly raises and lowers which brings imps up to where you stand. When the cyber dies four archviles teleport in and will either teleport down with the imps, or stay up with the now dead cyber for a moment keeping you stuck while his buddies below revive everything you left behind. This fight is hard simply put. This is not mentioning the two barons and mini caco cloud you may have left behind because they're too tanky if you didn't grab the plasma yet.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Hebonky

[DRON12261]

I have previously written about tips that in theory can help absolutely any mapper:
https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/2703732

 

And about testing your maps:
https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/2640803

In general, the topic is about the extra features of certain ports and specs that can be leveraged in vanilla or boom maps (See answer by Gez and then by me):
https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/136375-vanilla-friendly-features/

And maybe not exactly on topic, but close - about how to effectively build your own texture pack, getting past some of the pitfalls:
https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/2652222

 

[volleyvalley]

I mostly enjoy compact layouts with timid monster counts with some explosive action, so most of @franckFRAG's levels from the 3HA series is honestly perfect for me.

[Pechudin]

I usually make my maps by thinking of 2, 3 or more combat puzzles which have to be beaten by figuring out the intended way of beating the encounter - which is usually evident for an intermediate player. Then I draw the rest of the map around these encounters, favoring at least some non-linearity in the sense that the player can choose which key they can go for. Also, I like to put optional areas that can hold weapons which, if not picked up, can make the map substantially harder to finish. Not my fault if you do not explore. I like that aspect of old-school mapping - letting the player screw themselves over.

[TheHambourgeois]

I'm trying to figure this out to a degree still (as we all are, probably) but I am going to echo something others have said: you need to give the player some kind of mechanic to engage with.

 

I think you see this directly with the differences between Doom and Doom 2. In doom, most projectile enemies throw a projectile directly at you, or hitscanners shoot a bullet directly at you. The most varied enemies are Pinkies, by virtue of melee, Cacodemons, by virtue of flying, Cyberdemons, by virtue of shooting more than 1 projectile, and the Spiderdemon, by virtue of shooting a continuous barrage.

 

Most of the Doom 2 roster expansion is to mitigate the lack of enemy diversity in Doom. Chaingunners, Mancubuses, Arachnotrons, Revenants and Arch-Viles are all much harder to avoid, by either unique spread patterns, the refire behavior, homing, or whatever the arch-vile does. All of these new combat styles add a bunch of extra mechanics to the game to engage with and make the gameplay more dynamic.

 

Heretic has a lot of the same problems as Doom, with projectile pattern diversity being low, but its still a bit more varied (i think this is basically the reason heretic level creation has always been marginal). The most interesting mechanic is the Ghost mechanic that allows certain projectiles (Axes, Phoenix Rod, Firemace, Iceball) to pass through, which can be used to great effect and is my favorite mechanic to design around.

 

In terms of layout, I think a big part of it is what you're trying to accomplish: if you want a conventional level, I think flow is the most important (player should not feel lost), if you are making a slaughter map, arena design comes to the fore, you can get a lot more experimental if you're making a cryptic exploration or mood map (The thing you can't defeat is excellent, on this front). Scale is important for both feel and combat design.

 

Power level is another important factor: is the player in acute danger but with plenty of resources? is the player in slow, chronic danger with limited resources? Is the player fighting some hard monsters with weak weapons? Is the player fighting lots of hard monsters with powerful weapons? All of these questions will imply what play style you are going with.

 

In short, I tend to like making conventional maps, so I like making interlocking maps with linear progression, but not layout. I like re-using old areas. I feel like I need some practice on combat design, but I do like making setpiece/arena based battles more than incidental combat. I like mixing low power, survival gameplay early in a mapset with higher power, run and gun gameplay later in a mapset.

[Sneezy McGlassFace]

Sorry to be the party-pooper but I don't accept the premise of the question. I sincerely believe that doom mapping is better for the lack of established design theory.

Beginner mappers always make threads like this, looking for answers to what a "good map" is, what should they make. And they're always told to not worry about that. Just learn the editor and start drawing lines. Follow your heart. Make a map you'd like to play. Pour your heart into it, and test religiously. Make it public, stand back, and listen to what people have to say. Some feedback is useful, some less so. Learn from that experience, rinse and repeat. But you already know how to make maps, Blue. There's no reason you should get a better answer than any of the people who asked this already.

For every rule you can come up with there's a bunch of caveats. Every list of what mappers should avoid written by people with enough self-awareness clarify that rules only apply "unless that's what you want."

 

But to actually answer some of your questions, lest I be dismissed as needlessly contrarian

17 hours ago, BluePineapple72 said:

what would you define as the key aspects to a successful approach in doom level design

The most important aspect in making a good doom level is having fun. Having fun making what it is you're making. If you're doing it for any other reason than enjoyment of the process, you're probably gonna have a tough time.

 

19 hours ago, BluePineapple72 said:

What to you is a good level?

To me, a good level is one that has a sense of identity, a core idea that it was built from. May that be a visual theme, combat scenario(s), particular atmosphere, or really any kind of "vision" making it a unified experience. That includes something entirely disjointed as SuperCupcakeTactics' Tambourine Tangerine because its disjointedness is the core identity.
All of my favourites have a strong identity, which is probably the only common aspect I value more than anything.

[Bobby :D]

There is not a whole lot I can contribute not already covered in amazing resources created by many different level designers, professional or not, in their careers. I recommend researching the Level Design book, a compendium of common ideas and strategies of thinking employed by hobbyists and pros alike, it has a lot of elements to chew on. One thing in particular I found interesting was analyzing maps in different lanes, a concept common for analyzing multiplayer maps with an emphasis on streamlined and circulation level design that can be reapplied back to doom due to the retroactive influence of popular deathmatch games like Quake and Unreal. Most level design theory can stem back to people trying to figure out what made different parts of Doom and Quake work like a damn charm, so it's really interesting to see the result of that analysis implemented back into the same game again. To give an example of what I mean, in a later post I will utilize analytical concepts from the Level Design book as a loose frame work for describing how some maps from Scythe 2 are organized.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Bobby "J

[Maribo]

On 10/8/2023 at 5:51 PM, BluePineapple72 said:

If you have any mapping philosophies you'd like to share or some theory hoo-has beyond what I've posted here feel free. Wanna really get this science stuff sciencing.

Guess I'll take this opportunity to talk about the specific philosophy that went into making I CANT GIVE YOU ANY THING, which I've gone into in bits and pieces in various Twitch stream chats or Discord servers when people would ask questions, but now it will be formatted in a more organized manner compared to scattershot Q&A conversations.

 

I CANT GIVE YOU ANY THING is a very emotional WAD, in that it was made almost entirely in 1-2 hour stretches of speedmaps aimed at cultivating a very specific mood. Most of the time this mood was intended to be one of intense anger, pain, or melancholy, mixed with disorientation/confusion. The maps are full packages in this way. Aside from the speedmapping aspect, I spent a lot of time on picking out music (lots of maps had music replaced more than once in development) and deciding on titles, usually longer than it took to make the map itself. This also extended to all of the episode names, intermission/endgame text and music, and the graphics for them. Every map has meaning to me behind them, but that's for me know the exact details of and for the player to merely speculate, or not, it doesn't really matter.

 

I chose the monocolor textures + HOMs and "ugly" textures like FIREBLU because I believed it would work to the WAD's advantage to be a series of abstract voids. Some of the color schemes explicitly work in tandem with the music to be more melancholic or intentionally aggressive. There are a lot of people who would consider HOMs to be a universal negative, but they were very instrumental in executing on the disorientation angle. They're a dynamic element, they bleed elements that aren't supposed to be there all over the screen. The player's movement paints the background, they player drags monster sprites across them, the BFG ball and tracer spray sprites sometimes offer a brief restoration to the perceived loss of depth from so many stacked sprites, sometimes Archvile flames will stick around long enough to "cleanse" the background before it gets painted over again. There are a couple of maps in the WAD that ended up highly experimental in their aesthetic execution, both of which were the byproduct of realizing I had even more tools to mess with the player's perception than I was initially aware of.

 

On 8/1/2023 at 9:50 PM, msx2plus said:

evil experience across the board, completely inaccessible and unflinching. most maps are singularly invested in the death of the player. this is for a very specific kind of person, and that kind of person will like this a lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is mostly true. I made the WAD for myself and invited friends to contribute if anything spoke to them, so it is very much made for a specific person (me), makes little to no compromises for accessibility, and is expressly hostile and alienating towards the player from the first minute.

 

Lots of the macroslaughter style maps in the WAD follow a pattern of having a difficult opening section that becomes much more (relatively) tame once you establish a circle strafe or U-strafe, which is largely intentional, but the depth in these maps comes less from merely surviving and more from escaping a death trap and killing the monsters as efficiently as possible. I guess that's the speedrunner in me bleeding out into the design. There's more than one map in the WAD that will be exceptionally prolonged if the player focuses down the wrong monster group, but could be similarly shortened if they are mindful of their positioning to maximize infighting potential and their own damage output. You will also be dragging along a massive ball of revenant missiles in many instances, unless you go out of your way to break them on a wall or some monsters, so it's often possible that you can still trip up and instantly kill yourself with one poor move.

 

Some precursors to the philosophy found in the WAD can also be found in my D5DA3 maps, although on a much more crude and unrefined level, being limited to IWAD resources and a five minute work limit. They  still have many of these elements present though, arguably in an even harsher form in some ways. My JunkFood 2 maps were also made during the development of I CANT GIVE YOU ANY THING (and some maps intended for JunkFood 2 actually ended up in I CANT GIVE YOU ANYTHING instead of Junk Food 2 because I wanted to do more with them, lol) and both of them carry similar energy, just with a couple of different toys available at my disposal.  I've been told by more than a few people that they come away from my maps in all three of these WADs feeling like they were a dream, which is something I really appreciate, because it must mean that I'm connecting with people on some level.

[DeafPixel]

The statement "There is no correct standard" is correct, but not always useful.

I cannot speak to being an expert in Doom Mapping, but I take a similar approach to it to other creative endeavours.
The best piece of advice I can give is this: Play lots of WADs. Play lots of WADs. Fuck around with doombuilder. Open other's maps in doombuilder. Seeing what others do and what you like and how they do it is the best way to learn. Doom mapping is uniquely accessible for a few reasons - most important to me is I have the power to view the source of every doom map ever made without any effort.

e.g I could list at least 10 seperate maps / authors which i took inspiration from when making the map im currently working on in terms of combat and visuals.

The second best piece of advice is fuck around and playtest. Put 20 cyberdemons in a room. Fight sucks? Why? See where you fail, see what's going on, add more monsters, remove monsters, etc. Other people's opinions are also obviously important, but don't let anyone else tell you what to do, yknow.
 

[baja blast rd.]

The way I look at it is that theories are just tools. I have a big mental box of them and I use them for different situations, sometimes even in same situation. Take a highly specific aspect of microslaughter as an example: how many species to use. Ribbiks has a lot of minimalist setups that use just 2-3 enemy species. Authors like WH-Wilou or Darkwave mix in more species, sometimes for the sake of variation. Which is better? That's not the point. When I want highly constrained 'technical' fights I'm more likely to use a minimalist approach because fewer species lead to more controllable behavior. When I want more of a "react well" fight, or a fight that's pure fun for its own sake, I use an approach inspired more by authors like the others. (These days I do skew a lot more towards monster stew.) 

And that's just one highly specific 'variable' in one highly specific type of setup with one highly specific type of focus -- like, in setups where I cared more about narrative than combat dynamics, other theories would get emphasized). It's also just a theory about the end result (some of the best theories aren't about the end result, but about the creative process itself and how you build from an idea to a final starting point -- one simple being whether you start with highly planned-out intentionality vs. start with raw, chaotic experimentation). When you add everything together there are so many possible theories. 

 

Personally I find that when I really understand a context, I'm aware of many different conflicting theories about the same context, and am able to choose which one fits whatever I want to go for at that time. People sometimes make a big deal about how secrets shouldn't be mandatory, for example, which is bunk if you treat it as an absolute; sorry, nonsense. But I still almost never (maybe even never -- not sure I've ever done that) have mandatory secrets simply because I rarely go for the mapping objectives that involve using mandatory secrets. 

 

That being said (and I said this before in a derail that got split off because it was ruining the thread), I think the premise of the thread has merit as long as you don't interpret it as "What is the correct theory?" and are able to maintain that superposition between many possible theories all existing and being valuable tools for the right objectives. To that I'd say fuck yeah, because why not. Sure, I'd like to read about different theories and maybe gain a few more tools to use. 

 

Even so, maybe the one meta theory that rules above them all is "do whatever makes you most effective." So if it's a big superposition, go with that. If you for some reason have to believe in One True Approach where everything else is wrong and that makes you way better, sure, go for it -- although your posts about that might not be popular and you're still wrong, just wrong in a way that is useful to you. :P

[BluePineapple72]

2 hours ago, baja blast rd. said:

That being said (and I said this before in a derail that got split off because it was ruining the thread), I think the premise of the thread has merit as long as you don't interpret it as "What is the correct theory?" and are able to maintain that superposition between many possible theories all existing and being valuable tools for the right objectives. To that I'd say fuck yeah, because why not. Sure, I'd like to read about different theories and maybe gain a few more tools to use. 

 

Oh absolutely! This discussion prompt isn't following the lineage of scientific theories that seek to probe unknowns to establish a rhetoric of truth; rather, I hope for discussions to talk about the nuances of doom mapping as a very specific and evolving form of art.

 

Speaking of art! Part of my intention with the OP was to hopefully ask (and I may rephrase the question or help guide discussion towards this [or not if it is not a worthwhile disucssion]) what elements of doom mapping exist within the language of art principles:

Spoiler

 

These are the elements and principles of design. While they can all can be individually used to help design and discuss Doom levels, I'd like to think that Doom level design can create its own lingo similar to this that allows enough freedom to create pretty much anything while allowing discussions on the successes of doom levels to be rooted in concrete ideas rather than something random.

 

And I said evolving too. Even after 30 odd years of doom levels, people are still making new ones. Many of which that floor veterans of the craft in the stupor of doing something fun and interesting.

 

I do want to be specific too about this being a discussion of doom level design too. Although level design principles are pretty universal amongst pretty much every video game ever, Doom is one of the few that has had random ass people making levels for it to the point of it becoming its own art form with its own annual Oscar ceremony. With little golden statues too! I would like for Doom Level Design and the way in which we move vertices around to be regarded distinct and special from the theory crafting of generalist game design; especially given that Doom's combat is so specific and design for how to use enemies has been refined, redefined, and derefined hundreds of times across three decades and given too the uniqueness of Vanilla Doom's (don't want this sentence to be an indication of modern/advanced mapping to be invalid from this discussion btw) strict limitation of no jumping, lack of vertical aiming, and no sectors beneath sectors, I think that a particular design language and unspoken theory of that design language have been developed in a very interesting way over the course of thousands and thousands of wads.

 

But as with music theory, that design language can be put through the fuckin shredder... and yet you would still yield music.

 

Again, I want to reiterate pretty plainly that I don't think there is a wrong way to map or design levels, but I do think that there is something underlying the levels that people keep coming back to and remake in their own levels. My intention is the attempt at creating a formal (if not tongue in cheek) language of the tools and resources at the disposal of mappers, new and old alike, to help the doom level making process easier. No rules, just ideas.

 

TLDR and or slash speaking reductively: the only universal truth of doom is that when the player starts a level there will be an exit...

 

...except when there isn't.

 

Edit:

3 hours ago, Maribo said:

Guess I'll take this opportunity to talk about the specific philosophy that went into making I CANT GIVE YOU ANY THING

 

I also wanted to use my finger to point at this post right here as an example of a good use for this discussion. To talk about art you need to talk about... well... art! It is especially helpful when the magician tells you his secrets too. I see a lot of discussion of people talking about levels they've played and all that, but I think mappers too should have an open forum where they get to discuss the ideas that went behind something that they created. No matter how big or how small.

 

I also probably should have searched if something like that existed :P

 

Again again, I'm open to this discussion evolving: so if I need to change the OP title to something like 'the art of mapping' and then edit the OP to have a link to my CashApp general gist of what discussions will end up happening here then I'm totally open to it. Just wanted to kick the ball down the hill.

Edited October 10, 2023 by BluePineapple72

[TheHambourgeois]

11 hours ago, baja blast rd. said:

... I think the premise of the thread has merit as long as you don't interpret it as "What is the correct theory?" ...

 

Yeah I think people should basically treat this like music theory, as in its a descriptive account of what has been done that people tend to like, rather than something prescriptive.

[Bobby :D]

14 minutes ago, TheHambourgeois said:

 

Yeah I think people should basically treat this like music theory, as in its a descriptive account of what has been done that people tend to like, rather than something prescriptive.

Said it perfectly, ultimately these are analytical frameworks that one need not entirely adhere to if they want to make something. 

[CravenCoyote]

On 10/9/2023 at 1:14 PM, Egregor said:

Circles have recently (thanks to editors like Ultimate Doom Builder) become much easier.

 

You had some great points in your post - but I just wanted to mention that Circles and be easily made in editors as far back as Doom Builder 2 (shift + c).

My mind exploded when I learned this because I spent the longest, pain-staking time trying to do them 'by hand'

[magicsofa]

My goal when creating maps is to give the player a lot of choices. So, the opposite of railroading. I want my maps to immerse the player in something that doesn't just feel like a level in a game... instead it should give a similar feeling as exploring new places in real life meatspace.

 

To accomplish this, I go for nonlinear layouts that don't phone-in to the player about what they mean, where to go, etc. It's a balancing act because at the same time I don't want people to just be completely lost. I find that the nonlinear aspect can actually help immensely with this if done correctly, because with multiple paths to any given area, the player has less opportunity to pass by that singular important doorway and waste time searching for it.

 

Combat can have a similar flow as well, and while I do tend to include at least one setpiece in every map, I usually do them "soft" meaning they can be approached from multiple angles both in terms of literal location and strategy. Locking the player in an arena with no exit until they finish the battle would be the opposite of that. I feel that it's more interesting if the player can retreat in search of supplies, and if at least some of the enemies can pursue that player. Monster only teleports are crucial for helping the very basic AI to catch a ride to new areas... if I find monsters collecting in a corner during testing, I have no problem throwing in a teleport line to ship them a little closer to the wandering player. I do also try to avoid too many "cups" so that they could walk around on their own, but it's impossible to avoid completely especially if a player is purposely trying to stuck them.

 

When these ideas succeed it creates a level that feels functional and alive, rather than a box full of combat puzzles. Not that there's anything wrong with the latter, I'm just not that kind of mapper most of the time. I like it when players can choose between many strategies. I want people to sometimes retreat and search for a different path, lead monsters around to gain an advantage, and accidentally aggro more baddies while already engaged in a battle. On that last point I have been attempting to make better use of sound propagation... with a little planning it is possible to create cascading situations where monsters open a door, you shoot at them, and that new opening causes yet more monsters to wake. This was something I loved about Wolfenstein 3D that is quite possible in doom but harder to set up, and rarely used. But it gives that oh-shit feeling of escalating danger without relying on cheesy teleport sequences.

 

This leads right into interactivity which is another factor I've been really trying to improve on in my maps. Even with vanilla actions there's a lot of possibility that most maps gloss over... I've been recently experimenting with "doors" that can be permanently closed or opened by the player (I actually use the raise floor and crush action so that monsters can't just hold it open). This allows the player to cut off the horde sometimes, a stable of zombie movies but rarely employed in doom. I try to also let monsters open doors and operate lifts often. I want the player to have choices, but not full control! Finally, I've been trying to include a lot more things to press that don't directly relate to opening areas or closets. Switches that operate non-essential lights, crushers, and other moving parts give the sense that the place you're in has a function in its own right rather than having everything be a setup. I don't want players to look at every switch and immediately know that they have to press it to continue. I want them to be thinking on their feet and interacting with the game world in an organic way.

 

I could probably ramble on more but those are just some specific areas that I have been focusing on. It is quite antithetical to the sort of "catered" mapping style which is geared toward players who want to UV-Max everything. I still can enjoy playing that kind of map, but in terms of the way I want to paint the canvas, I aim for an immersive and somewhat unpredictable experience, to give more the vibe of penetrating an infested structure than solving a series of gladiator tests.

[Egregor]

Diving into specifics, these are atributes of the map I always consider, and every level has aspects of these three attributes, so they are good for analysis. Some of this I've already mentioned above:

 

-Layout: How the level flows and combat is connected. How big or small is the overall level is. Something I forgot to mention in my first post is how grand it is to look from a vista and see an area you've already traveled through or will soon be headed to. That sense of interconnection, to me, is fascinating, and makes the level feel huge (even if it isn't). Using keys as signposts/lures during these moments is *chef's kiss*

 

-Combat: we have the enemies themselves, but also actions to spring traps and put the player at the center of the action.

 

The BIGGEST difference between a novice mapper and an experienced mapper is how often the player can just open a door to a new area and just start firing until everything is dead and then walk in. To me, the less of THAT, the more experienced the mapper is.

 

More experienced mappers often lure the player to the center of their combat design (not necessarily the center of the room) and let the combat unfold. These types of encounters will force the player to MOVE and dodge. It may not be clear where to retreat to or where is even "safe". That's when the fun happens >:D

 

-Aesthetic: This is like level theme/setting, textures, lighting, visual set pieces. This element gives the level it's vibe/mood. Is the level bright, sleek, minimal, and symmetrical or dark, gritty, cluttered, and filled with variety? The aesthetic ground Doom is capable of covering never ceases to amaze!

 

Finally, we can look at how well these three elements have been blended together. We've all played maps that are heavy on the atmosphere but weak on the gameplay or vice-versa. How about levels that look gorgeous but they are too big and you have no idea where to go. Or those that are just too damn hard that you can't get anywhere. The first 3 areas look cool AF but that triple AV encounter with just a shotty is just too sadistic to continue, etc.

 

When a level uses a strong theme or set piece, the layout, combat, and aesthetics all support that theme making them all stronger. The sum is greater than it's parts.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Egregor

[fishy]

On 10/8/2023 at 7:51 PM, BluePineapple72 said:

For mappers, what would you define as the key aspects to a successful approach in doom level design. Specifically: how do you build your level from the ground up? What inspires you? What fundamentals patch together your core inspiration into a finalized level. What to you is a good level?

 

In addition (tangentially and critically) to the conversation of core map design, what principles make up a good combat encounter? What sets apart one fight from the next?

 

Starting to make the map is definitely the hardest part of all, because you need to make a decent starting room and you have to visualize a way to convey whatever theme you choose for your map to the player in one single room. When i make maps i just start by making random shapes and then i get ideas about the theme i want, once that's done, i continue by visualizing the next part in my head and roughly attempting to make it real. Once i have a somewhat decent layout i start making it look pretty. Maps should have at least one small puzzle in them in my opinion, at least for a secret.

 

After the initial mapping and detailing phase, we have the combat phase. This is the most time consuming part for me actually. I have to play test a map constantly to make sure every single change in enemy placement and ammo placement doesn't make the game too easy or too hard. Striking that balance of challenge and fairness is pretty hard to do, and on top of that you have to be creative with it, that's what makes a good combat encounter. You can't just make a wall lower and have 400 archviles, there's gotta be thought behind it. Making creative traps for the player, stage hazards, utilizing the map geometry to go against the player, etc. You kinda get a decent idea of what parts of the map require tougher demons and which ones don't, that's what makes one fight different from the other.

 

Once this is all done, the polishing phase comes. That means refining the combat segments, utilizing 

 

A good level has places that you can explore, has creative solutions to puzzles, is challenging without being unfair, has enemies utilized in ways that the player doesn't expect usually, has the map progress in at least one or two uncommon ways and it has to look pretty.

 

[Egregor]

3 hours ago, fishy said:

Starting to make the map is definitely the hardest part of all, because you need to make a decent starting room and you have to visualize a way to convey whatever theme you choose for your map to the player in one single room.

 

I'm a relative outsider but I tend to approach mapping from a "top-down" perspective. I'll often outline an "exterior" and then begin building within it, in roughly the shape of the map layout idea I've selected. Each area gets a "rough-in" pass before moving on to the next. The first room/area may not even be defined yet. I've even changed starting rooms before, switching them with an optional weapon area near the beginning.

[Treehouseminis]

49 minutes ago, Egregor said:

 

I'm a relative outsider but I tend to approach mapping from a "top-down" perspective. I'll often outline an "exterior" and then begin building within it, in roughly the shape of the map layout idea I've selected. Each area gets a "rough-in" pass before moving on to the next. The first room/area may not even be defined yet. I've even changed starting rooms before, switching them with an optional weapon area near the beginning.

Being a newish(almost 1 year) mapper myself I'm always interested in others methodologies.  I do almost the opposite and will fully detail, place things, and make sure combat feels nice in a given area before moving to the next.  

 

Though in doing this my earlier maps are really just arena after arena and feel pretty linear. I've tried to get out of the habit or just try harder to make maps that have more interesting and looping layouts, even if it's linear in a sense that there's one way to progress, they don't feel too linear because of space and pacing.  

Edited October 11, 2023 by Treehouseminis

[Pechudin]

On 10/10/2023 at 4:28 AM, DeafPixel said:

The second best piece of advice is fuck around and playtest. Put 20 cyberdemons in a room. Fight sucks? Why? See where you fail, see what's going on, add more monsters, remove monsters, etc

 

This. Sometimes I have a neat idea, but I usually do not draw lines until I got the map planned out on paper. Usually that means my map is adjusted very little, and playtesting is done only at the end. This is something I am trying to change now.

[TheHambourgeois]

10 hours ago, Treehouseminis said:

Being a newish(almost 1 year) mapper myself I'm always interested in others methodologies...

 

My (imo) best maps are almost universally laid out with keys, intended paths, setpiece battles, etc. sketched out beforehand. It's not fully set in stone, and scale is definitely something I determine more in the mapping process. I think its a good practice if you tend to slap rooms together organically (this is how I used to map as well, I think there's a balance to be had between planning and spontaneity).

[Treehouseminis]

1 hour ago, TheHambourgeois said:

 

My (imo) best maps are almost universally laid out with keys, intended paths, setpiece battles, etc. sketched out beforehand. It's not fully set in stone, and scale is definitely something I determine more in the mapping process. I think its a good practice if you tend to slap rooms together organically (this is how I used to map as well, I think there's a balance to be had between planning and spontaneity).

I do mostly spontaneous, but then I get ideas how certain areas can work and flow well together as I'm building, then I'm halfway done with the map in editor but all way done in my head.  I've never had a full floor plan or layout before starting but I wanna try that soon, mostly because I want a specific look and vibe to an upcoming map and if I wing it I know it won't turn out as good.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Treehouseminis