The Theory of Modern Wads Design

Hey everyone!

I'd like to discuss the design methodology of maps that feature fast-paced, almost arcade-like gameplay that's prevalent in a lot of modern wads. Think Valiant (especially the Moon levels), Antaresian Reliquary, etc.

 

When I am inspired by maps like these and want to attempt to make a map with a similar feel, I realize that there are a lot of things I am not sure how to do, and so I wanted to hear everyone's opinions, advice and thoughts.

 

The design of the maps in question seems to have these general characteristics:
 

• Fairly open and connected architecture
  • Small rooms and corridors are rare, and when there are rooms and corridors (think Antaresian Reliquary, MAP06), everything tends to be connected at multiple angles. In general, rooms tend to have more interesting shapes and connect with each other at different junctures
  • There's usually a high variation of heights
  • Spaces tend to be very large
  • The player is not forced into a linear progression, and any path you take, it's interesting and well-balanced. In fact, a big part of attractiveness of these maps is that their replay value is high at least because of how differently one could choose to tackle each map
• A lot of automation
  • By which I mean that these maps tend to take advantage of gradually opening sections of the map, sometimes in ways not anticipated by the first time player. Every column, every wall has the potential to contain additional monsters, and existing structures tend to get transformed through lowering of floors and such throughout the level's progress
• Very well-designed fights
  • Although spaces are open, monster encounters (traps and placement) are very well controlled, almost regardless of which weapons you currently have
  • Good control over sniper monsters. Snipers do exist, but are usually very well used.

 

These are my general observations. Perhaps someone can add additional points.

 

When I am trying to design a map like this, I run into difficulties which demonstrate that I don't entirely understand the design principles behind these modern maps and exactly how should a map designer think about it.

 

Specifically, and in no particular order, I have difficulties with these concepts:

 

• The architecture of these levels, although frequently breathtaking, is, first of all, practical. It facilitates fun gameplay and the way rooms are positioned seems to be dividing the level into scenes. However, I am not sure how helpful it is to think about this way, and if it is, what's the right way of going about it. When I design maps, I frequently feel that I don't know where to start and I don't know what I am doing. Like, what should my intent with the architecture be.
   
• Modern level architecture seems to have a sense of flow to it. I, on the other hand, struggle to come up with where things have to go. Even if I come up with a relatively interesting location, I am not sure what's the best way to extend it further. I constantly face "writing blocks" where I'm just not sure what has to be beyond what I already have
  • Specifically, I recognize how many of good Doom levels use height variation to constantly feed into the same room to make it interesting: lifts and stairs get the player to platforms from which just moments ago monsters were fighting at her, but now you see the room from a different angle, press buttons and unlock previously closed sections of the same room, etc. Although I recognize the concepts, I find it very difficult to implement it in a way that isn't boring
     
  • I also find it difficult to create open spaces without fights turning into a mess. If there is a lot of space around, I end up having monsters from everywhere fire into the current location and move towards it. I am not sure how I should design monster placement in order for that to not consistently be a problem. Of course, I get the general idea that monsters should be hidden from view or introduced in a way that prevents it, but exactly how to consistently do it, I am not sure
     
    • I also wonder whether there is good insight into how to populate a location with different monster types and not have them infighting. Many of the aforementioned modern maps manage to somehow separate monster groups, and the infighting is minimal. I am not entirely sure how to do that. Perhaps, assigning different heights to different monster groups is one method, and I do notice it in some Valiant maps. Curious, if there are more.
       
  • I frequently run into "design awkwardness": suddenly the stuff I built is inconvenient for what I want to do, so I have to come up with awkward passages to get the player somewhere or some strangely looking lift or stairs. And somehow I find it very difficult to not get into that. I wonder if someone can relate to that, I am not sure I'm giving a good description of this phenomenon, but it just happens all the time
     
• A somewhat technical problem: I find it extremely difficult to conceive complex room shapes
   
  • Everything that I end up designing is rectangles. I have no problem with adding lots of fun details, but the room shapes, stair shapes, all of this is hopelessly rectangular. The only time it works is if I literally take someone's map and copy an interesting room linedef by linedef. Maybe that's just the limitation of my brain, but I have always felt very limited in imagining spaces, and I wonder if anyone has advice for how to improve it.

 

 

 

Okay, so this is it. I can definitely write more about it, but I think this is a good start. Really looking forward to everyone's comments on this!

 

p.s.: I am not a very known mapper, so I see many answers assuming that I am a beginner. I am not. I have been making wads for the good part of 15 years. I have created dozens upon dozens of maps, most average, but a couple decent that were even somewhat liked on this very forum. I have experience creating tiny maps, average-sized maps, large maps.
The reason why I wanted to point this out is that I'm looking for a bit more advanced advice, not "play more maps" or "start making smaller maps", because this advice is not helpful for me because I did do that. I am looking for deeper insight. Even if it's "make smaller maps", okay, but which kind?

Edited July 14 by LouigiVerona : Added the p.s.:

Generally speaking, it takes experience of playing maps, and practice in creating maps to get a knack for how to design. There are no shortcuts, no "one weird trick" you can use to instantly get to high-quality maps overnight. It's a skill and you have to develop it over time, just like everyone else.

 

All I can say is playtest, playtest, playtest. Don't just playtest in the same way every time, try different approaches, different weapons, try fighting from outside a room, try fighting from inside the room, try running from fights. All kinds of approaches, then tweak your maps and playtest again.

 

If you find yourself running into trouble with design, then my suggestion is to hold off on detailing until a fight is polished. Go one room at a time and refine fights over and over again until you're happy with them, and only then add in cosmetic details (just watch out for any gameplay effects those produce).

this reads like you're enjoying some of the best modern wads, and you want to learn how to map like this. But you're not sure how, so you run into blocks.

 

From my background as a writer, I've studied writing block extensively.
Often it comes from too quickly trying to go above your current level. You're asking more from yourself than you are right now capable off, and that causes blocks.

Realize that the WADs you mention aren't just made by some of the best mappers around, but that it often took them years to get to that level. 

Skill grows with practice, and mapping is no exception. The most important thing while doing anything creative, is that you enjoy the process - and don't try to force an end-result. From a writing perspective, start writing some short stories, and see them develop over time into something longer. You can't sit down and start writing a novel.

Same holds true for Doom mapping. Make maps you enjoy mapping and you enjoy playing, and put your goals one-step higher on every map. Goals like using a new texture, using new enemies, building around a certain weapon, mixing enemy types in different ways, etc. This way you'll expand your skills organically, rather than forcing yourself to reach an end-goal of becoming a master instantly. 

There are a ton of things addressed in the main post that are all a culmination of many small learned pieces coming together to form what the answers to them would be. Additionally, there are many ways to design stuffs so one question can have many viable answers. I'll share my insights, but these are of course nowhere near the only or best way to do things. They just work for my niche preferences.

 

That said, I always liked enemy placement so I'll tackle that side of things, but ultimately you'll need to just play a lot of wads while thinking about how and why the author did the various things they did. It also helps to just make some weird and wacky stuff to play around with new encounter ideas. Anyway:

2 hours ago, LouigiVerona said:

• I also find it difficult to create open spaces without fights turning into a mess. If there is a lot of space around, I end up having monsters from everywhere fire into the current location and move towards it. I am not sure how I should design monster placement in order for that to not consistently be a problem. Of course, I get the general idea that monsters should be hidden from view or introduced in a way that prevents it, but exactly how to consistently do it, I am not sure
   
  • I also wonder whether there is good insight into how to populate a location with different monster types and not have them infighting. Many of the aforementioned modern maps manage to somehow separate monster groups, and the infighting is minimal. I am not entirely sure how to do that. Perhaps, assigning different heights to different monster groups is one method, and I do notice it in some Valiant maps. Curious, if there are more.
     

Open spaces can be a scary thing to work with as a new mapper. A tip that always helped me was empathy. Empathy for the player and for the monsters.

On the player end, you need to be able to anticipate what a player will be thinking, and learning the subtleties of doom design communication to draw their attention where you want it. Theres an old example thats floated around for a long time on this and i think its a good one: imagine opening a door. There's a room on the other side. You begin to enter and monsters pour out of every orifice, so you back up and door camp, and the encounter becomes a mess. Imagine that same scenario, but this time there are some key supplies or a big ole shiny in the middle of the room. Given the reductive nature of this scenario maybe that won't "fix" the issue for all players, but it will lightly encourage all to at least consider entering it anyway. It's a subtle tool that can certainly have no effect if used ineffectively, but can also make all the difference in the situations that need it. And there are lots of little design tips like that which all combine to make a larger picture of things, but the key is learning how to communicate with players, and the key to that is empathy.

 

On the monster side, it always helped me to think of each monster and "life" in their shoes, insofar as the life of doing an idle dance until some rowdy player wakes them up, then walking in that direction and battling like a pokemon. Additionally, what (situations lead to) roles can they play and what roles do you need them to play? Monsters will always do slightly random things, like when they decide to shoot or what direction they walk in when they reach a point they want to change direction, etc, but they will always generally be consistent in groups as well as in their overall behavior. Take some time to poke around with them and learn their roles, their strengths/weaknesses, how they function in a group setting, if they have a good retirement plan, if they can cook a good spaghetti like my dear mama mia used to... the important stuff. Joking aside, think of all the enemies as your little chess pieces; the board/map will play and feel very different depending on how you place those pieces.

A silly thing perhaps, but also don't discount silly and niche setups. Some of the most memorable set pieces are those that are quite niche and specific. Don't be afraid to throw down a hundred zombiemen or a horde of bulls just because. Sometimes an enemies role is to be a meat shield, and thinking of them outside of the box will get you many miles of interesting designs.

Getting back on subject, it also helps to separate groups of enemies to keep them from infighting too much, including using turreted positions for particular monsters and different attack angles for others. Knowing what can infight with what and how their attack patterns affect where they can safely shoot to/from is very helpful for that. And sometimes it's best to just add a few more enemies on ground level to "replace" those who will be shot by turreted mobs and go off to hug a wall. Even simple solutions can be good ones. The biggest thing is just thinking of how your decisions will impact a player, all going back to empathy. And of course to test it vigorously yourself.

 

It's also good to look at how big your enemy groups are and if they're able to be effective in the role you wish them to serve. Try adjusting numbers in your groups up and down to find a good middle ground for them to be effective. A lot of mappers recommend doubling and halving group sizes to get a quick feel of things and I find it to be a decent enough way to go about it as well.

 

For more open setups, I like to make a big ole shiny to draw the player in first and foremost so I can have a rough idea of where I estimate them to be. I also constantly keep note of player weapon options. From there, I look at the room shaping, where are turret positions, where are goals/sub-goals for the player to go to, etc. That informs me of where I want pressure to come from, and I can shape that into my desired enemy composition and encounter design with player weaponry in mind.

I tend to like and thus gravitate towards setups with pressure from multiple angles, but that pressure can come in many forms and the more out of the box you can think the more pieces you'll have to work with on that front as well. Health/ammo/supply deprivation is an easy one to think of, as are some big ole bigguns and turreted monsters, but pressure can also come in the form of simply fighting for space or doing an action to escape with any amount of timing to it, etc.

 

Kinda a lot of rambling here... stuff I wanted to say and have forgotten amongst the rambles, but I'm not better able to more concisely address the larger things without getting lost in the weeds so here is this post. Hopefully it's helpful 😃

Edited July 14 by Fonze

Folks,

 

Thank you for the responses so far. I edited the post and will add this here, because I think I didn't provide enough background on myself.

 

I am not a very known mapper, so I see many answers assuming that I am a beginner. I am not. I might not be good, but I am not a beginner. I have been making wads for the good part of 15 years. I have created dozens upon dozens of maps, most average, but a couple decent that were even somewhat liked on this very forum. I have experience creating tiny maps, average-sized maps, large maps.

The reason why I wanted to point this out is that I'm looking for a bit more advanced advice, not "play more maps" or "start making smaller maps", because this advice is not helpful. I have done all that. I am looking for deeper insight. Even if it's "make smaller maps", okay, but which kind?

The answer by @Fonze is much more what I'm looking for (and maybe this is what's going to be useful to other folks, lurking in the background).

Looking through my bookmarks, here are some threads with specfic practical advice:
 

 

^ Read posts by rd and RJD to start
 

^ Lots of detailed guides
 

 

While there are many facets to your post, I will specifically try to talk a little bit about building combat setpieces. Usually I have a room, any sort of room, of a given size and shape. I try to make it an interesting shape, that is to say, it's often not a square. If I have a square/rectangle, I will probably try to turn it into another shape by moving vertices around, or cutting up the room in multiple parts, or appending something to the room and so on.

 

It feels to me that a lot of really compelling layouts and fights consist of simple shapes that have been intersected with each other. For me personally combat design consists of drawing things until I have a shape that I can take advantage of to build a combat encounter. You use your knowledge of monster placement and what role each one fulfills to build something that, hopefully, plays well.

 

But the only way to know whether it works is to test it. It won't necessarily play well right the first time. It might be a complete disaster. I have had rooms that I genuinely thought were unsalvageable. Well, sometimes they are, so I start over and try again. But a lot of the time I get an inkling that something might play better if I move monsters around, if I switch certain monsters with a different type, if I place them in different positions around the arena, if I increase or decrease the amount of monsters.

 

That is to say, the perfectly tuned encounters that you're playing in the wads that inspired you probably went through a ton of testing, from the mapper themselves and also from other testers. By the time you get to play it, the kinks have already been ironed out. That includes awkward monster positioning, awkward infighting, too high difficulty or too low, too many monsters or too few.

 

What I can say is, don't settle for a square. Try to do something more. And when you have a fight, if it doesn't play well, tweak it. Test and tweak and test, and after doing that give it to someone else to play, and then tweak it more. Do this as many times as you need.

 

And above all, don't give up. I hope this is helpful.

Just gonna spoiler this big 'ole comment here to not clog up the thread...
 

I hope that helps at all, or at the very least makes sense.

Great thread here. I don't have much to say about layouts to be honest, a fair bit of the stuff I've made has been pretty symmetrical, even if it's not impossible for that to be fun or anything. I suppose the only real piece of advice I can give in this regard, and I know this may not be super helpful is I guess try to design your maps like a building. Not literally but just assume its your house in some regard. It's hard to describe specifically what I mean by this, but if you're going for a more conventional, Knee-Deep In The Dead-like layout, might be useful to keep that in mind I suppose.

 

I think you're definitely on the right track with using height variation to fix there being too much infighting. Unless you have a bunch of hyper beefy fights where they're infighting on purpose or relatively little monster variety (which can be fun if you know what you're doing), a strategy I've become fond of for height variation, especially in big areas is a pyramid design. In general I find Revenants very good in this regard for applying pressure too, and of course the flying monsters. Can't emphasize height variation enough tbh, turret monsters can save probably just about any rather limp, open fight. 

 

Oh, and, I'd honestly say don't even worry about rectangles tbh. I don't exactly know how much you're prioritising visuals here, but fully rectangular maps can still be fun all things considered.

 

 

I find saying "almost arcade-like gameplay" interesting too, as that's how I've  been trying to map especially recently. I've been practicing a hyper minimalist style, only really having the essentials, no more than about 5 different textures and flats with a consistent color palette, rarely longer than about 3 to 5 minutes or so, mostly inspired by Italo-Doom and other games like Katamari Damacy and Pac-Man Championship Edition. I've almost been thinking about it as, in a sense, a logical conclusion in some regard to the patented Skillsaw style. Maybe some food for thought, I suppose? Hope this was helpful in some way.

 

Glad i didn't reply yesterday, I'd definitely be giving the virgin advice to play more maps. Instead I'll give a chad advice to play more maps analytically. 

 

There's a crucial difference between the two. When you play with the specific intent to analyse the map, you start seeing things in a different way. You're taking part as a designer, playing to learn, not playing to have fun. A painter in a gallery looks at the exhibits completely different way. Examining the structure, composition, each brush stroke, the colours, how light and shadows play off of each other. The energy, the emotions.. asking how the individual creative decisions inform the piece as a whole, and what effect the piece as a whole have on you. That all applies to mapping plus one huge part, how does the design suggest you interact with it. I think that's absolutely essential. 

The interactivity is the most interesting piece, i think.

 

Random example, you want to make a wild, arcade action like MAP02 of Overboard. You have a chaingun, and imps/zombies, and an obvious path to take. Some clips on the floor, reinforcing a path to follow. That suggest you start running and gunning. Now imagine there's a door. You open it and there's a small group (2-3) of revs right there that start running at you screaming. What's that do? Perhaps making you back out into the space you just cleared to fight them. 

Now imagine the same scenario but the revs are behind the door around a corner waiting for ambush. You're running and gunning, open the door, run in it, and hear revs screaming behind you. Now instead of stopping and retreating, you keep running ahead, in hopes of finding a better gun. 

 

Same layout, same enemies, same everything, they're just placed differently. And they resulted a different experience. 

 

The beauty of doom/level design is creating these push/pull situations with the player. Players want to push buttons and gather resources, and you can push them forward or back with deliberate geometry and strategically placed hazards. 

People who have been making maps for a years/decades are very deliberate with their design choices. There's a lot to learn from them. 

 

Edit: addendum: I'm specifically speaking about this kind of personal understanding because i don't think there is a recipe you could follow. A list of things to do and avoid. Sure, the maps that play more arcade-y have something in common, but i think it's much more important to figure that out from understanding the design purpose rather than having a checklist. 

Sorry if that's not an answer you were looking for. It's a very good question, though

Edited July 15 by Sneezy McGlassFace

Another thing (sorry if I'm hogging the thread) is experimentation. Deliberately leaving the mindset of trying to make a good/fun map, and just trying out bad ideas. Making areas that are way too big or way too small, and making scenarios that work within them. Too few doors, too many doors. Too flat, too much height variation. All sorts of things. Many of them can turn out to work really well if done a certain way. Mind, these don't ever need to be published or even complete. Just brainstorming ideas, and seeing how they work. For that i love to read threads of things for beginner mappers to avoid . Because every single "don't" can be turned into its head and be made fun. 

For example, there's a common advice that you shouldn't use too many textures, pick the ones that work together and stick to them. But then you have maps like Tambourine Tangerine, which is using every single texture (maybe not every single one but a ridiculous amount). It's kinda genius.

Edited July 15 by Sneezy McGlassFace

Hey everyone!

 

This was really helpful! Everyone's advice was stellar, and I want to give special thanks to @Catpho, those links were exactly what I needed! A great collection. This needs to be documented somewhere!

21 hours ago, Sneezy McGlassFace said:

Another thing (sorry if I'm hogging the thread) is experimentation. Deliberately leaving the mindset of trying to make a good/fun map, and just trying out bad ideas. Making areas that are way too big or way too small, and making scenarios that work within them. Too few doors, too many doors. Too flat, too much height variation. All sorts of things. Many of them can turn out to work really well if done a certain way. Mind, these don't ever need to be published or even complete. Just brainstorming ideas, and seeing how they work. For that i love to read threads of things for beginner mappers to avoid . Because every single "don't" can be turned into its head and be made fun. 

For example, there's a common advice that you shouldn't use too many textures, pick the ones that work together and stick to them. But then you have maps like Tambourine Tangerine, which is using every single texture (maybe not every single one but a ridiculous amount). It's kinda genius.

 

I will definitely play that, btw! :D

@baja blast rd. Thank you very much for your comment!

 

I think the danger of analyzing maps on your own is that at some point you don't feel your analysis is good enough or even correct. There are so many ways to look at it. Also, my initial post _is_ analysis. And it's not nothing, but I reached out to the community because I wanted more help. So, I am absolutely not discarding the idea of continuing to analyze maps! 🙏

 

Another thing is that analysis is just a part of it. Another part of it is the methodology. Let's say that I generally understand how MAP26 works. But how do I build a map like this? Where do I start? What should I be thinking about?

And this is where Catpho's links were super helpful (your comments are featured there too!)

Some things that I got from it and already began to practice, with interesting results.

1. Layout-first design.

A simple idea, I have actually ran into the same issue as many other mappers - I would get into detailing way too early and then either get stuck or just under-develop the main idea of the level. Now that I began to just super quickly create a level, it became way more fruitful.

2. Looping layouts by boris and your methodology of creating more interconnected maps

 

Both ideas are closely linked, and when I tried doing it like that, I immediately began getting more interesting results. Things like getting a key and appearing in front of the door that needs it became automatic.


So, this has been very helpful, and I will now be practicing and exploring this new-found knowledge! 👍

7 hours ago, LouigiVerona said:

1. Layout-first design.

A simple idea, I have actually ran into the same issue as many other mappers - I would get into detailing way too early and then either get stuck or just under-develop the main idea of the level. Now that I began to just super quickly create a level, it became way more fruitful.

 

Yes. If you're looking at all those Highly-Detailed Modern Wads, and you think the key to making a good map is to start detailing first and worrying about gameplay later, you've probably seriously misinterpreted how the authors of those Modern Wads actually made them. I imagine a great many - probably most - authors prioritize gameplay first and detailing comes later.

 

I always test areas for gameplay first before moving on to another area. The idea of building and detailing an entire level before testing with monsters does not make sense to me. Only after I'm satisfied with gameplay do I concern myself with detailing.

 

The last thing you want to do is spend three hours meticulously detailing an area carefully, and realize that the combat doesn't play out quite right and you need to move the now intricately detailed walls around.

Edited July 19 by Stabbey

This advice is only a small part of this balanced breakfast, but one little digestible "nugget" of designing good gameplay is: try and make it so the player is engaged by enemies from different directions (e.g. forward, from the side, from behind, pincer attacks, etc).

 

It sounds like a small maybe-obvious thing, but maps that only ever place monsters directly in front of the player and nowhere else usually feel very "flat", gameplay-wise. Thinking about this area tends to lead to more interesting/creative designs in general, I find, and modern classics tend to be very good at this particular aspect.

On 7/19/2024 at 9:51 AM, Xaser said:

This advice is only a small part of this balanced breakfast, but one little digestible "nugget" of designing good gameplay is: try and make it so the player is engaged by enemies from different directions (e.g. forward, from the side, from behind, pincer attacks, etc).

 

It sounds like a small maybe-obvious thing, but maps that only ever place monsters directly in front of the player and nowhere else usually feel very "flat", gameplay-wise. Thinking about this area tends to lead to more interesting/creative designs in general, I find, and modern classics tend to be very good at this particular aspect.

 

Interesting. I realize now while it wasn't something I was consciously doing, most fights in my maps consistently have the player engaged from different directions. It hadn't really realized that's how I was doing it, but I was. Every map has at least some parts where you need to juggle threats from multiple angles.

 

I wonder if that aspect of my design comes from the fact that I used to play the Serious Sam games - solo - on Serious difficulty. The aspect of needing to manage multiple enemy threats from multiple directions simultaneously is prominent in the Sam games.

 

I also note that these kinds of multiple-angle fights are common for arena combat, which is the most common style of combat in retro boomer shooter games. I guess a lot of developers have caught on to this simple principle to keep players engaged.

 

EDIT: I'm now remembering being influenced by this video, which is about how to handle combat puzzles, but the information can actually be applied by mappers to create combat puzzles:

 

 

Edited July 21 by Stabbey : added a video

On 7/14/2024 at 2:08 PM, LouigiVerona said:

• A somewhat technical problem: I find it extremely difficult to conceive complex room shapes
   
  • Everything that I end up designing is rectangles. I have no problem with adding lots of fun details, but the room shapes, stair shapes, all of this is hopelessly rectangular. The only time it works is if I literally take someone's map and copy an interesting room linedef by linedef. Maybe that's just the limitation of my brain, but I have always felt very limited in imagining spaces, and I wonder if anyone has advice for how to improve it.

 

I came to this problem from a different angle (quite literally!); I knew what I wanted to have for a

final result but found so much tedium in how to get there. What I ended up doing was to alter my

map building practices. In my example, which I've boringly used in about the last five maps I've

made, I settled on a new base unit of construction. I began with a hexagon. That would be a

small hexagon with a radius of 64 if I recall correctly. I used the stock tool in DoomBuilder for

making a sector and just increased the default vertices from 4 to 6. After making this single

hexagon, I selected it and chose Copy. Now that I had this hexagon residing on the mythical

"clipboard", I began pasting it nonstop adjoining one edge of the new to one edge of an

existing hexagon. When I began this process, I had no idea whether any of this was going to

work out at all but it was going to be a great mental exercise regardless. One thing for sure

was I would not end up with very rectangular rooms!

 

As I could fill my DoomBuilder viewport quite quickly using this copypasta method, I was

able to free my mind up more with what my end result was going to look like rather than

being so obsessively detail oriented about how straight my corners were or other such

nonsense. Selecting multiple hexagons as a group, I would select Merge Sectors where I

knew I wanted them all to have the same height, ceiling and floor textures as well as their

common lighting. Eventually, I'll move on to a new method for mapping as I believe I've

run the course as far as I want to using this construction method. But the point is if you

don't want to have things turn out the same way every time, change how you begin and

don't give a rip about whether your method will actually pan out into anything.

 

On 7/14/2024 at 4:36 PM, Fonze said:

... Don't be afraid to throw down a hundred zombiemen or a horde of bulls just because. Sometimes an enemy's role is to be a meat shield, and thinking of them outside of the box will get you many miles of interesting designs.

 

I recently discovered this role for monsters, it's actually really excellent strategy for both the mapper and the player!

 

On 7/14/2024 at 6:38 PM, taviow said:

But the only way to know whether it works is to test it. It won't necessarily play well right the first time. It might be a complete disaster. I have had rooms that I genuinely thought were unsalvageable. Well, sometimes they are, so I start over and try again. But a lot of the time I get an inkling that something might play better if I move monsters around, if I switch certain monsters with a different type, if I place them in different positions around the arena, if I increase or decrease the amount of monsters.

 

Salvage, that's a good key.

Make a lot of garbage. Seriously! Save shit1.wad, save shit2.wad, etc. Then, go back and document it!

You never know when you might want to use something you've made before so document why didn't this

work for me? What did I hate about it? Sometimes, you'll put stuff on a shelf and not touch it for three years!

In that time, you've matured as an individual in so many ways, you'll barely recognize your old self.

An introspection of your old work is so valuable as it can be very illuminating when you've painted yourself

into a dark corner!

 

On 7/15/2024 at 6:35 AM, Sneezy McGlassFace said:

...Deliberately leaving the mindset of trying to make a good/fun map, and just trying out bad ideas. Making areas that are way too big or way too small, and making scenarios that work within them. Too few doors, too many doors. Too flat, too much height variation. All sorts of things. Many of them can turn out to work really well if done a certain way. Mind, these don't ever need to be published or even complete. Just brainstorming ideas, and seeing how they work...

 

THIS!!