Tips for critically evaluating maps?

Design
1

I’m very much a story/character-focused player, and as a result I find that I can overlook a lot of bullshit when it comes to map design and still have a good time. I have a hard time articulating my thoughts on a given map beyond ‘this feels good’ or ‘this feels bad but I’ll suffer through,’ and, as someone who’d like to make a hack of their own, I want to learn more about the why and how of map design.

What are some things you look at when evaluating a map? What makes you go ‘this map is well/poorly designed’?

8 Likes
2

image
image800×600 11.8 KB

8 Likes
3

I didn’t know today was opposite day.

4 Likes
4

this isn’t community; either post something of value or delete this

4 Likes
5

Where does it say you can’t make a joke unless it’s community tag?

11 Likes
6

Are you describing your own maps or the experience of playing others? I think I could try to help break down my thoughts clearer depending on the perspective you want.

7

Are you looking for something deeper than “have something to do every turn”, “don’t have too few units”, “don’t make it into puzzle emblem”, “avoid switching up weapons without prior expectation”?

8

Playing maps in vanilla or other hacks! Sorry, shoulda been more clear.

1 Like
9

Always be careful about surprising the player or punishing them for something they could not anticipate. At the same time, definitely reward the player for anticipating challenges and planning ahead (like a good battle commander should be rewarded with success on the battlefield for preparing for what the enemy will throw at them).

So if there are going to be reinforcements attacking your rear, maybe have a conversation warning the player that this is on its way. If visiting a house will spawn enemy units, maybe make that clear in the chapter starting narrative. If there is a time limit to get some special reward, inform the player of that.

Be very, very careful and limited in ambush spawns. As a rule of thumb, don’t use them at all.

Side objectives are great. But more generally - give the player more than one thing to be concerned about at the same time. That way, they have to split their attention and they have to split their strength / divide their army. They are no longer asking themselves the question “Can I defeat the enemy formation at my FULL STRENGTH using MY MOST POWERFUL UNITS!?” (which is a binary and somewhat straightforward, even boring question) - now they’re asking themselves “How do I best split up my strength to meet this distinct challenges at separate parts of the map to achieve all of my objectives? How many risks can I take?” - that makes for an exciting map.

Avoid maps that involve turn after turn of just dragging your army across a long map. The final chapter of Lyn mode comes to mind, or the assault on Ostia Castle (when you have to save Liliana) in FE6. Keep your maps only as big as they need to be. Non-linearity / multiple paths is a plus, too.

This is a non-exhaustive things that came to my mind when reading your question. There’s also considerations to be had on enemy composition, terrain, difficulty / balance… so much to consider in making a map good or bad! It’s a fun topic to think about.

18 Likes
10

i’m going to ambush spawn green units on you

2 Likes
11

Enemy placement can also make a bad map good or a good map bad. There should be an optimal way of playing a map, imo, given enemy placement, available units & terrain that rewards the player if they figure it out, but other ways of playing shouldn’t make it impossible either.

Endgame Fire Emblem has always been boring because it’s generally just “route 50 enemies”. Engaging the player with certain objectives/events at different stages of a larger map certainly reduces the tedium. There’s a happy medium between too open/empty and too tight - leading to enemies stuck behind one another.

A good map has a player thinking about options every turn.

3 Likes
12

It’s difficult to generalise, but here’s at least some effortposts on the subject.

Things that come to mind in a rambling stream of consciousness:

  • Make sure reinforcements don’t become a fucking whack-a-mole. It sucks if your advance stalls out because 2-3 guys drop on you and it just takes too much of your action economy to handle them AND meaningfully advance. In general, I would rather a frontloaded map and fairly limited reinforcements.
  • Vary up objectives and layouts. When I was making the skeleton of DoW, if I saw a pattern of like 2-3 similar maps in a row, I’d try to break it up.
  • Make sure it’s not going to take a bunch of extra turns to grab chests and such. They’re side objectives, not… not fuck around for ages after the map’s already finished objectives. Yeah.
  • If anyone joins on the map, unless they’re some sort of Est, make sure there are units they trade well against. If they are some sort of Est / trainee, make sure there are units they can safely chip away at.
  • Fog is fine, but make sure your player has torches. Realistically, with vanilla fog relationships, the way to handle fog is to fucking bombard the screen in light so that you’re never actually walking into uncertainty. Similarly, cavalry enemies should be in strict moderation (if at all) on fog maps.
  • Rear cavalry reinforcements are good if you want them to catch up and put pressure on the player; they are bad if you expect them to kill the player and serve as a soft anti-turtle, as the buffer the player thinks they have will erode and they may have effectively already lost.
  • If enemies will escape, make it clear what the escape point will be. Don’t keep them guessing over if it’ll be these stairs or those other further stairs.
  • You want to make sure the player can actually use all the units they bring. Encourage splits through side objectives, try and make sure that they’ll swarm over a large section of the battlefield rather than just cram into a two-deep corridor.
  • Make sure the player has something to do on Turn 1. There’s nothing more depressing than a PP1 where nobody dies. Let the player jump on 3-4 helpless goons and then set up to receive the EP1 charge on favourable terms.
  • Be very careful about mixing types of reinforcement timer. I mean, these days I pretty much don’t anymore. For awhile in DoW’s midgame some of the reinforcements were zone-based and others were death-flag-based and still others were turn-based, and when you went at precisely Dev’s First Run speed this worked great, but when I got better / the maps got easier and I was suddenly two turns quicker to those milestones, a bunch of reinforcements started hitting at the same time and thunderfucked me.
  • Enemy variety is necessary, but don’t go overboard – that leads to unnecessary overhead. Honestly, the inbuilt limiter of faction palettes helps a lot by at least making it more annoying to use the whole set of classes on a map.
  • That said, make sure most of your enemy classes do get some chance to shine, at some point. If you basically never actually end up fighting enemy anima mages, that kind of sucks for your shaman who rocks up with exclusive Luna use, right?
14 Likes
13

Trying not to be too repetitive in what’s already been said, so here’s a little exercise that I like to do, especially for when you get to making your own maps.

Pick out your favorite FE maps you’ve played. They can all be from different games, it doesn’t matter. Just so long as they’re the maps which felt the ‘best’ to you, whether it’s due to its layout/flow, enemy compositions, story integration, feeling difficult in a rewarding way, whatever. Then, look for commonalities between each of the maps.

They’ll probably follow most of the tenants other users have already outlined, but as someone who prefers to see things in front of me > theory, I find it’s a nice way to hammer those points home.

Also, it’s just generally nice to have a short list of inspirations! If you’re about to burn out while troubleshooting your own map, remembering why you’re doing it in the first place is always a nice kick in the rear.

You can also do this in reverse with maps you like the least, and contrast them with better maps with a similar structure and/or objective. Maybe you lost a unit under circumstances which felt unfair, or you were stuck spamming ‘Wait’ on an iffy ‘Defend’ or ‘Survive’ map. Then, brainstorm some ways you’d fix those problems for fun.

One last thing,
Something I’m personally a fan of is when FE’s maps and story feel like they were clearly written alongside each other, as opposed to feeling like we wrote the script, then went through going, [map here], [map here], [map here].

I would prioritize the more technical aspects the others outlined first, if you had to pick only one, but still: A big part of making a map memorable is being able to clearly place it within its context in the plot, too. There’s a reason the most beloved maps tend to be ‘setpiece’ maps, for lack of a better word, versus filler bandit skirmishes.

That’s not to say bandit skirmishes don’t have their place, of course. Not every map can, or probably should be, a showstopper. Both for the sake of not burning out the player and for plot cohesion, I think maps are at their best when their difficulty ebbs and flows in step with the script’s plot curve (Roughly. If the ptag just suffered a major loss, that’s probably not “easy chapter” time, it’s probably “break the player’s kneecaps” time, haha. Hopefully that makes any sense, idk).

Done well, you can order the maps like a storyboard, since the maps are so inextricably linked to the plot. Done poorly, the maps might look like open field/forest #10002 and be hard to parse from one another at a glance. I think I saw you mentioned vanilla FE earlier, so this example might not be the most useful to you, but 3H is my go-to example of the “open field #10002” issue, especially early-game. Without even getting into the maps feeling samey on a mechanical + layout level, playing multiple of these maps in a row feels like you’re spinning your wheels, as opposed to traveling and progressing, which is the feeling that FE generally excels at. It doesn’t really feel great on a player level. I believe that game’s maps are fairly well-documented online, if you want to check some examples out.

Best wishes for if/whenever you make a hack! I’ve started plonking away at one as of a couple months ago, and it’s quite fun.

8 Likes
14

Great advice, thank you. Thinking about side objectives that way is helpful.

Definitely was not planning on using ambush spawns hahaha, I think sometimes they can be fun, but I do not trust myself enough to use them tastefully. One of my favorite maps in the series is chapter 11A from fe6, and I think the ambush spawns in that map actually add to the experience. It’s such a chaotic chapter, has a real ‘no plan survives contact with the enemy’ feel to it, very immersive.

1 Like
15

I fully agree - Chapter 11A is generally recognized as a highlight, maybe even the highlight of map design for FE6

Link to Chapter 11A Map and description

It’s chaotic in the best way possible. Tons of houses to visit / save. Three paths to take from the very start, so lots of ways to distribute your forces. A sense of lots to do every turn. Every deployment slot matters. And big events taking place during the chapter to constantly spice things up.

“Oh man, bandits are attacking the houses!”

“Oh sweet, a green unit Hero spawned to protect the houses. I hope I can recruit her!”

“Oh man that green unit Hero needs some help or she’s just going to die.”

“OH MAN ENEMY SNIPER FROM THE SOUTH? Wait I think I can recruit him. This will require precision.”

“UH OH PEGASUS RIDERS FROM THE REAR! Wait I think I can recruit her. This will require even more precision.”

It’s just go-go-go frenetic reactivity from the start to the finish. Now, not every map can be like Chapter 11a. That’d be too exhausting. But it really showcases how to make your map not boring. Multiple, simultaneous sources of pressure. Lots of potential rewards - but getting them all will take a miracle. New challenges demanding new strategies.

5 Likes
16

Thank you for the detailed response. It is greatly appreciated :smiley:

Awesome advice here. I hadn’t thought about it that much, but stressing communication to the player makes a lot of sense (and it’s an area that vanilla can be lacking in), I guess the challenge lies in giving the player as much information as possible while still figuring out how to be fresh and surprising. Though maybe surprise isn’t the best design principle hahaha.

Great tip about not mixing reinforcement types. Would never have thought of that.

Question about enemy or even player unit variety - what do you think about hacks that deliberately underpower certain weapon types? I’m in the planning phase right now and I’m thinking of having magic units be fairly weak (save for a select few) for story/world reasons, but I’m already having second thoughts as that seems kind of difficult to implement without making things boring.

1 Like
17

Well, I usually evaluate two things:

The first one is enemy placement. Reinforcements timing, weapon choices, enemy Ai, these things can make or break a map in some cases. If enemies are flowing too fast, I’d be too pressured into playing a certain way. If they’re too slow, it jus’ kills the pacing of the map.

Weapon choices are pretty important too. For me, hammers and halberds, etc. are essential for enemies to have, to create diversity and challenge.

And in terms of Ai, having the Ai flow well with the map. If all your enemies are set to “Do Not Move”, there’s almost nothin’ stopping you from jus’ stepping to their range with your strongest unit. Not very fun.

And secondly, map flow. When the map is kept at a steady pace, with a good anti-turtle incentive, and, for me, a memorable niche the map has, like a unique side objective, or a new gimmick to try out.

And for even more, I recommend this video by the legendary Pandan about map design if you’re interested:

4 Likes
18

Maps are only as interesting as their most boring solution, so what is done to stop boring answers from working should be considered.

19

Been a while since I did a full fledged writeup on this forum so let’s shake some of that rust off, pretty fun topic here I will say.

Also sorry Jason, but I’m using your post as a starter

Quick Disclaimer

just to get any confusion out of the way, this is advice meant for someone who seeks to create an experience at least somewhat similar to a vanilla one. As is the case with any art medium, there are many who will experiment and create a different equation for which my advice cannot solve the question of.

Along with that, it is also important to note that nothing I say should be taken as a hard and fast rule to approach your design by. It is all opinion of course, but also it’s important to emphasize that there are no “rules” to art (well, outside of the forum rules haha), and the “rules” that we treat as such in terms of game design are moreso guidelines by which we can choose to follow. Good for beginners, a bit constricting for more advanced creators in certain cases.

This is something I could not disagree more with. Breaking Fire Emblem down as a game, it is not a pure strategy game in any sense of the word. It is a strange and abstract meshing of tactical gameplay, rpg sensibilities, story and character integration, and so on. It is in this cacophony that we find the fluid and freeform gameplay that most of these games facilitate.

To boil down a map in such a game to a singular “solution” is to boil down the game as a whole to the one genre of strategy. And that’s simply not what the game is.

In reality, it’s extremely rare that a boring way to go about a map being available will actually affect most people’s perception of it. We can see that quite plainly in the fact that most of us here enjoy at least one Fire Emblem game. And all of them do have in common that they can be beaten quite easily in a tedious manner.

I fear that approaching a map from the perspective of plugging up any unintended approaches that you personally dislike will lead to a more puzzle box style gameplay than someone would likely intend to make.

I think a lot of us do have some desire to cut down on unintended solutions. I myself had to unlearn the habit of being told about a strange and obtuse method of completing a map and immediately thinking of how to make said method no longer doable. Ultimately, it is in some part a fool’s errand because no designer can make a perfect logic box within a system that is not built for said contraptions. But also, I feel that it takes away somewhat from the fun of a lot of different people.

Now what would I say makes a good map? I would personally say that strong direction is what carries a map. A very solid idea for what you want that map to be. What you want it to feel like, the way in wish you want to integrate the gameplay into the story, the general line of progression. A map with a really strong sense of identity is a memorable map. I can go on and on about common sensibilities like cutting down on downtime, ensuring that objectives aren’t too tight, making reinforcements feel engaging rather than unreactable. But I don’t think that’s so helpful when a lot of other people already pointed those things out, so instead I give more… Nebulous advice? Things that don’t tangibly affect a map, but do in your own design space.

6 Likes
20

Excellent post! You make great points, and I mean you no ill will when I say my philosophy is still different.

Trying to prevent every possible “Wrong” way to play your game and reject every solution besides your sole intended one is a futile endeavor that can harm the game’s playability, but certain “wrong” ways are so excessively wrong they need to be designed against. Wrong ways that could damage not just your fun in the moment, but your future ability to meaningfully enjoy or even complete the game. Games shouldn’t let you softlock yourself or ruin your own good time without great effort. Nobody should accidentally break their save.

Just look at some of the maps throughout the series that could be interesting to think about and play, if they weren’t so easily and obviously cheesable in a way that only hurts enjoyment of the game. Has anyone ever played the Ryoma and Xander chapters properly? Has anyone ever cheesed those maps in one turn, only to end up lower on EXP and optional rewards than they should be?

Civilization IV designers Soren Johnson and Sid Meier said ”Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game,” therefore “One of the responsibilities of designers is to protect the player from themselves." If a dull approach consistently outperforms an interesting one, your mechanics are shouting “don’t bother engaging.” The idea that “most players won’t use boring solutions” is putting faith in them to know enough about your game to know the multiple ways they can beat the game and tell the boring solution from the intended solution. Players typically take the path of least resistance outside of challenge runs, especially over time. Especially once the novelty wears off. Especially when difficulty ramps up. Especially when it’s late and the player is tired and just wants the game over and done with. If your map’s challenge can be trivialized by an instant warp skip or a slow, brain-dead crawl with turtling, chokepoint abuse, some players will go for that because they can, because they don’t want to expend mental effort, or because they feel there’s less chance of RNG turning a riskier play into a failed one.

If the best answer to your carefully crafted scenario is “Put tank there and End Turn 30 times", congrats, that answer is as interesting as a Seth Javelin Solo or a Fire Emblem 11 run that starts with breaking the boss’s axe with Jagen’s face followed by hours of boss abuse. When the player thinks back to their time with your work, that’s what they’ll think of. They might even blame you for it.

I still remember Storge’s maps. The one with pirates and cultists. The one with fliers in a canyon while I’m pursued by a (mostly) invincible boss. The one with men and demons, and more of whichever force whose leader isn’t killed first, a gimmick that encouraged me to redo the map and prioritize destroying the boss and enemy force I didn’t have effective weaponry for. Each map has a fresh theme and gimmick that adds contrast. The gimmicks aren’t overwhelming fun-breakers like in the bad Fates maps. But if these maps were all solved as easily as saying “Just give Jagen a javelin and he eats every enemy for you” they would all blur together.

“But Fire Emblem isn’t a pure strategy game!”

Fire Emblem’s RPG mechanics only make it more vulnerable to being broken by power creep, stat bloat, and EXP grinding. That adds more reason to rein in dominant degenerate strategies, not less. And does anyone really have fun watching invincible tanks/dodgetanks/vantage 100+ crit instakillers/whatever beat the game for them? Does anyone fondly look back on a game that made this easy?

Besides, designing against dominant degenerate plays is good for you as a game designer. It makes you ask…

  • Why is this position or cheese strat dominant enough to trivialize the intended experience of the chapter?
  • How do I make the intended experience something the player engages with positively?
  • How do I encourage mobility, meaningful decisions made under pressure, and fun?

The harder it is to force the player to engage with your map as it is designed and have a good time instead of reaching for the emergency stop lever, the more you have to ask yourself why and consider what the design adds to the map and if there are better ways of redesigning it.

“Player freedom” is a meme. You have “Player freedom” in Fire Emblem Three Houses. You have the “player freedom” to make everyone a Wyvern-riding god who beats the game on enemy phase while maps are giant empty voids full of generic foes placed thoughtlessly. Player freedom shouldn’t come at the expense of a tightly smartly designed game, that’s abdication of authorship.

1 Like