Airsoft site design

[Graydar]

Hi - I've always seen a lot of people on the likes of game forums chat about the art of designing game maps for their respective titles. Is there an equivalent design etiquette for airsoft field maps?

I would make a number of points to put into consideration, namely;

- Roleplay (if you name the instance "kashmir" and put up WW2 posters I will be dissapoint)

- Spawns and spawn protection (where, when and how many times can you spawn and what's to stop you being camped)

- Adaptability (for different game modes and playstyles)

- Balance (it's not fun if one side has an inherent advantage :C)

 

[Adolf Hamster]

- Balance (it's not fun if one side has an inherent advantage :C)

Click to shrink...

actually i'd argue the very opposite, a balanced game tends to lead to a grindfest (especially when unlimited respawns are concerned) and this leads to frustration at the lack of progress and resultant creative employment of cheating.

the best games i'd say are the very heavily biased ones, like a multi-zone push game where the defending team have 1 or 2 lives per zone, if the game rules make it abundantly clear you're going to lose before you even play then the focus changes to simply putting up a good fight.

of course nobody wants to lose all the time but the simple way is to run the same game twice but switch teams, then for the sticklers who absolutely must have a measure of their success then you just time the games and whoever survives longest/attacks quickest is the "winner".

generally i'm not a fan of spawn points, for where there are spawn points there are spawn campers, and where there are spawn campers you have guys holding the flag railing the bushes with their other hand chanting "spawn kill spawn kill"

 

[Graydar]

the best games i'd say are the very heavily biased ones, like a multi-zone push game where the defending team have 1 or 2 lives per zone, if the game rules make it abundantly clear you're going to lose before you even play then the focus changes to simply putting up a good fight.

Click to shrink...

True, but that's more of the game mode rather than the map at play. Rather than being a contest in who can one up the other, it's a race against the clock. I generally mean balance in terms of the map.

If you're in a game in which you're getting absolutely rolled over, there's a large loss of morale and people not really wanting to play any more and that's not really all that fun for the people losing (and sometimes the other side). Usually it'll just be that the other side is better than you - but you also have to ensure that the map itself isn't biased towards one side or position or loadout or whatever and there's space for varied play. If one spawn is closer to an objective than the other, or there's better cover near one spawn, or one way has easy access to high ground, or blah blah blah.

The problem with running the same game twice with swapped teams is that aforementioned morale issue. Getting crushed isn't fun - it just kinda feels like I waste of time.

 

[Adolf Hamster]

True, but that's more of the game mode rather than the map at play. Rather than being a contest in who can one up the other, it's a race against the clock. I generally mean balance in terms of the map.

If you're in a game in which you're getting absolutely rolled over, there's a large loss of morale and people not really wanting to play any more and that's not really all that fun for the people losing (and sometimes the other side). Usually it'll just be that the other side is better than you - but you also have to ensure that the map itself isn't biased towards one side or position or loadout or whatever and there's space for varied play. If one spawn is closer to an objective than the other, or there's better cover near one spawn, or one way has easy access to high ground, or blah blah blah.

The problem with running the same game twice with swapped teams is that aforementioned morale issue. Getting crushed isn't fun - it just kinda feels like I waste of time.

Click to shrink...

guess maybe its a difference of opinion, but personally i feel like it's better, if you're losing its a frantic fight to hold ground, if your winning it's good to feel progress.

map design does play a part in it, last game i was at we had a capture the flags style game, 9 flags but 6 of them were in the forest and 3 in the open area. now in terms of the square acreage that's fair but they didn't factor in that if you're in the forest it's dead easy to keep folk out, which is why the game stalemated at the transition and the team that started in the forest won by default.

 

[Rogerborg]

Huh, I prefer to be on a losing team, at least where it involves getting pushed back towards respawn.  You get far more action that way, even if some of it is heroically futile deaths.

Personally I prefer fast, unbalanced games with a switch-over, rather than stalemated grind-fests.  Games that come down to who has the most ammo are the worst.

Good marshalling can help.  Shout out to the Depot in particular, where marshals constantly check how games are going, and take action to help out teams who are getting hosed.  One that I particularly like is that they often tell players to skip the 2 minute bleed-out and go straight back to respawn if they're obviously not going to get mediced back in due to their team playing timidly.  That in itself encourages bold play.

 

[Arwen]

I'm another that prefers the "one team is always gonna loose" kind of games. Especially if you know they will be played twice, with each team taking a turn at being the "loosing" team. Generally these are times, so who ever hangs on and defends the longest generally wins over all.

Site's that have clear points to defend can be good, but they quickly become stale mate bottle necks if they are too defensible. Having entry points all around is a simple way to alleviate this, especially if 2-3 defenders cannot cover all points at the same time. Making the defence "area" large, or in two segments can also help, as a simple grenade kill may not kill everyone there. 

Double ended "covers" are something I wish I saw more of. Most barricades/covers are designed to provide cover from one direction. Which is fine if you are the team attacking in that direction. If you are not, then it quickly looses it's status as a good place to attack or defend from. 

I'd like to see more sites putting up H shaped objects rather than "n" shaped things to hide behind. These can then be used from either side, without one side having more protection. 

Zig -zag half "walls" I have found work rather well, regardless of the direction of play.  Unlike a straight wall, they provide cover for sneaking up the length of the wall. 

Having different levels helps a lot too. For buildings, this is simply using multiple stairs to access the same floor for an objective. Outside, this can be making trenches. These can be easily defended or attacked depending on the play, but if they are forgotten about they provide a way to rapidly move across the site without being seen. 

 

[Rogerborg]

Double ended "covers" are something I wish I saw more of. Most barricades/covers are designed to provide cover from one direction. Which is fine if you are the team attacking in that direction.

Click to shrink...

So much this.  Defenders are fairly axiomatically able to choose to make the best of of any available cover.  Attackers have a harder job, and will usually have to step out from cover in order to advance.  If there's not more usable cover (usable for their axis of attack) within a short sprint away, they're going nowhere.  H or X shaped cover should be the default, rather than flat walls.

Something that I've been thinking about is stairwells.  They can be bloody murder for attackers having to play the pop-and-shoot game against a defender who's just waiting for them.  You can pop out at various height, but you can only do so in one direction.

I don't know how practical it would be, but I was wondering what would happen if you put in barriers that stick out into the stairwell at the corner.  That would give attackers the option to hunker behind them and pop either out or over, or multiple attackers can do both at once.

Consider.

 

[Arwen]

Stairwell are always going to be bottle necks I think. And putting things inside them may end up more a hazard than a benefit. Having multiple stairs to use is the key I think, so the folk defending the stairs always need to watch their backs for attackers coming up another stairway. From the games I've played at the depot, I've noticed some players seem to forget there are multiple stairs they can use, and get fixated on taking the one they are attacking at that moment.

Sometimes it is best to just give up on one stairwell and move to another one. 

 

[Rogerborg]

putting things inside them may end up more a hazard than a benefit.

Click to shrink...

Most likely.  I'd like to see it tried on at least one stairwell though.

Having multiple stairs to use is the key I think

Click to shrink...

F is currently verboten because of the Digger Incident, and in games with B & C closed off, that leaves 4 staircases.  2 defenders per staircase, specifically at the top shooting down, can deny it very effectively even with paper pyro allowed now (since few attackers follow it up resolutely enough). Granted, you don't always get 8 or 10 people out of 30 or so prepared to bunker down like that, but when it does happen it can result in stalemate.  On Sunday we had a spinner in the corner half way up D that stayed unspun for most of the game because of two upstairs defenders turkey shooting everyone who tried to get across to it.

Wild idea #2: place a riot shield at each stairwell, that can be picked up by anyone and used, but only within that stairwell.  When it makes it to the top , it has to be left there, and can then be used by the other team to force their way back down.

That could be generalised to any site which has an open area that needs to be traversed and which is likely to ebb and flow.  Movable cover within set bounds.  Am I tripping?  I've just necked some Dr Pepper, I have no idea what they put in that stuff.

 

[Arwen]

I like the riot shield idea much better than the fixed barricade. I'm normally against riot shields, but  I think they would add more to the game than they take away in those scenarios! 

 

[ghostwalker]

See I like the way Combat Action Games starts the day. 

Usually the first 2 games are a attack/defend game that gets flipped. It gets new players into the idea of shooting and getting shot and also gives the marshalls a chance to view how the teams balance out. If one team gets absolutely decimated, it results in a few of the more experienced players getting swapped about to rebalance the teams. 

Then the rest of the day is set out to whatever the theme is. Skirmish, milsim light etc. 

Its funny though as the winner of the timed opening games nearly always opts for the defend side of games. 

 

[Game Cam]

There was a game mode last weekend where we had to hold certain boxes and one side was starting out in the open while the others started in the structures.

I think you can guess which way it's bias.

We started off in the structures and won, we then swapped and started outside. everyone was saying how we were screwed but a few of us came up with ideas of how to cap as many as possible as quick as possible and come the end of the game we ended up drawing.

Me and the guys were proper chuffed with that! We were cheering and everything because we managed to do well with all the odds against us which is way more satisfying than a fair fight.

 

[Callyourhits]

Yes to everything except balance. 

Some of the best games I've ever had have been unbalanced. If one team has the perceived map design high ground it really doesn't mean jack unless they can cover all angles. There's always a way through. 

The first players to get rattled are the one's using the same tactic over and over and getting nowhere. 

 

[Druid799]

Hi - I've always seen a lot of people on the likes of game forums chat about the art of designing game maps for their respective titles. Is there an equivalent design etiquette for airsoft field maps?

Click to shrink...

Couldn’t tell you mate , problem is I play in the real world not a computer game so I play on an Airsoft field NOT a fecking map ! ?‍

Bloddy gamers ! ?

 

[Graydar]

Totes is tho. You map out the site.

 

[Druid799]

Totes is tho. You map out the site.

Click to shrink...

Meh ! Symantec’s ! ?

 

[Adolf Hamster]

Meh ! Symantec’s ! ?

Click to shrink...

*semantics

i'll get my coat....

 

[Arwen]

Meh ! Symantec’s ! ?

Click to shrink...

You don't work in IT and are stuck with maintaining the backup system are you?!  (Veritas/Symantec’s NetBackup...)

 

[Druid799]

*semantics

i'll get my coat....

Click to shrink...

Meh ! Apple predictive text ! I’ll hold it for you while you put it on , then show you the nearest door ! ?

You don't work in IT and are stuck with maintaining the backup system are you?!  (Veritas/Symantec’s NetBackup...)

Click to shrink...

If life has shown me anything it’s IT support workers are lifeless empty drones , so I do hope you’ve understood from my many sarcastic reply’s to posts that no I don’t work in IT , the thought of me on the other end of a phone trying to talk some cockwomble through fixing a problem they created in the first place would not be a good one ! ?‍

????

 

[Arwen]

I won't tell you what I do for a living then....