"Mapception" Forge Concept

[RogerDodger]

Map - cep - tion (n.) When a forged map can be divided up into sub-maps​

Origin: from the movie Inception, a word explained to be "a dream within a dream".​

Therefore, replacing the first syllable with a noun leads to "a {noun} within a {noun}".​

​

As a little hook, I started inquiring about mapception when making a BTB map (Right now it's called Excavation, potentially in my Fileshare). My primary focus was to make an Infinity Slayer map with a side of Dominion. The problem was that I could not find three cohesive areas to plant my bases. What I ended up doing was spawning structures along a relatively open part of my map that was intended to be used primarily as a vehicle path. Essentially, this created a new part to a pre-existing map, a "sub-map" if you will.

Then it occurred to me - what are the other uses that mapception could be applied to? Its not really that new of a concept; in fact, Multiplayer maps have utilized this for quite a while. Taking this one step further, one could make a map tailored to multiple needs while not necessarily remaining true to the original layout of the map.

Here are the two ways in which mapception can be applied:

1. Gametype Labels. For example, if I wanted an object to appear in Slayer but not Dominion, I would have to select "SLAYER" and "NO_DOM". Once the correct labels are applied, different objects will appear in different gametypes, if so specified. Everything is all together under one roof.
The downside of this is that your budget (not necessarily light budget) will still be drained for the objects you place, regardless of the gametype you're editing in. If this is a concern, you may want to try...

2. Map Derivatives. You take a map in its current state and make it a template. Then, use that template to make another map more suited to your requirements. A good thing about this is that there isn't any tedious labeling to do, or budgets to worry about. I'd recommend doing this for something like a 2v2 variant of a 4v4, or basically something not involving gametype changes. If you're going to change the gametype, though, it might just be better to use the labels. People won't want to sift through tons of maps to find one compatible with what they want to play.

You can combine these two concepts to create mini-renditions of the same sub-maps (eg. 4v4 size with Flood, Extraction; 8v8 size with KOTH and Dominion, etc).

Alternatively, you can go about with RevRight's concept here. This is a method that achieves the same results meant by mapception.

 

[Skyward Shoe]

While a somewhat cool idea, generally it's best to design a map for a few key game modes and polish the hell out of those instead of trying to work in more way to play it. Spawning in whole structures or areas takes resources away from other parts of the map, and in the end you are trying to fit 2 things into the space where one was designed to go. Similarly, people want 1 version of the map, not many to sift through. t is cleaner and more polished to simply pick a few game modes and focus on them, then make a different map entirely for other modes.

 

[mrgreenwithagun]

If you notice the developer playlist maps, whenever any new structures or objects (crates, vehicles, etc.) are introduced, the map name is changed slightly. For example just the introduction of scorpions on Valhalla made the map Valhalla Heavy. It can be very confusing to have two apparent maps with the same name.

...also, what Flying Shoe ILR said...

 

[RogerDodger]

Similarly, people want 1 version of the map, not many to sift through. t is cleaner and more polished to simply pick a few game modes and focus on them, then make a different map entirely for other modes.

If you notice the developer playlist maps, whenever any new structures or objects (crates, vehicles, etc.) are introduced, the map name is changed slightly. For example just the introduction of scorpions on Valhalla made the map Valhalla Heavy. It can be very confusing to have two apparent maps with the same name.

(Probably should have been more specific in the guide, but) The first way to use the concept with gametype labels, it's probably the preferred option. However, I could see in some cases where making multiple copies of a map could fill a niche otherwise not possible with the former.

 

[The7thSeal]

Though the idea sounds interesting, I usually forge small minigame maps, so this wouldn't work for me.

 

[Fuzzle]

sounds good but we will run out of budget and you end up with 2 half made maps

 

[Rev Righteous]

I used a bit of this idea in my most recent map actually, a base version of the concept you could say. On my map Hubris, one of my main ideas was to build a map that would play a little differently for different objective types. I didn't actually build separate versions of the map, however, or have any geometry that appears only for specific gametypes. I went the route of making certain areas of the map more or less important for the various supported gametypes. For example, on the map there are small bases beside the team vehicle hangers. These buildings are mostly pointless in slayer, simply providing some safe spawns. But in Dominion they become very important, since they house the Alpha and Charlie terminals. In this way I was able to use the "map within maps" idea without having to build parts of the map for only certain gametypes. To illustrate, I drew out some overlays of the map that show the basic, primary flow for each gametype to illustrate how they differ:

Slayer follows a "U" shape, with players going from the hangers towards the neutral base at the bottom of the map to try and control the high-ground vehicle path and tank.

Dominion follows the familiar triangle flow, with the underground part of the neutral base becoming more important as it houses the terminal.

King of the Hill is laid out in a sort of hybrid ring/infinity-loop, the hills meant to draw the conflict to various areas ranging from the tress near the outer edge to the central inner caves

One-flag CTF is straightforward assault the base setup, with the two teams starting at either end of the map, making the vertical portions of the central spine of the map the default foot path unlike other modes.

Now these are just conceptions of the main flow. Players still can weave in and out of map, take side routes, and the make use of the verticality of some areas. But even this most basic breakdown on flow for different gametypes shows that you can have a lot of the "sub-maps" benefit with no need for extra versions of the map, simply by careful placement of the objectives for the various modes. Also, by being ok with some parts of you map being unused in some modes, you can construct a single map that contains all the bases and places you may need and then switch which bases become targets in which mode.

I think the idea of maps that are different for different game types, or for which there are variants tailored to different gametypes is a great one and it's great that you brought it up. I look forward to seeing a map that makes use of this idea in full. But I think there are not just the two options you laid out: gametype-specific geometry or gametype-specific maps. There is a third way: build a map with different and overlapping regions where each is useful for every mode, but vital for a different mode. For the very same objections/concerns that others have raised here, I went with this compromise of the third way. It may not exactly be "mapception" but I found it very useful and challenging.

 

[RogerDodger]

There is a third way: build a map with different and overlapping regions where each is useful for every mode, but vital for a different mode. For the very same objections/concerns that others have raised here, I went with this compromise of the third way. It may not exactly be "mapception" but I found it very useful and challenging.

I greatly appreciate the effort and thought you put into this idea. It will be included in the OP as a worthwhile alternative.

 

[Tomtris]

See I remember this map from a game called Lost Planet 2 Called "Cube", that changed for each game mode accordingly by raising and lowering cubes.

Now for a Simplistic yet effective map, you could create something like this, and have different Building blocks labeled for each game type.

 

[RogerDodger]

See I remember this map from a game called Lost Planet 2 Called "Cube", that changed for each game mode accordingly by raising and lowering cubes.

That'd be fun! If you're not going to make it, I might look into it.

 

[ShortBizzle]

...
Slayer follows a "U" shape, with players going from the hangers towards the neutral base at the bottom of the map to try and control the high-ground vehicle path and tank.
View attachment 3465
...

Umm... why haven't I played this yet??

While a somewhat cool idea, generally it's best to design a map for a few key game modes and polish the hell out of those instead of trying to work in more way to play it. Spawning in whole structures or areas takes resources away from other parts of the map, and in the end you are trying to fit 2 things into the space where one was designed to go. Similarly, people want 1 version of the map, not many to sift through. t is cleaner and more polished to simply pick a few game modes and focus on them, then make a different map entirely for other modes.

Most of the default maps are set up to play all the game types. That is why there is the option to make objects game type specific, no_dom, or asymmetrical/symmetrical/both(doesn't really apply to Halo 4 yet). In my opinion it is much cleaner to have one version of the map with slight differences to make the map work better in different modes. It's also easier to update just one map at each iteration.

Examples:
*No tank on Exile in dominion
*Bridge in colossus during slayer but not CTF (Halo 2)
*No front bridges on Relic during asymmetrical game types

I wouldn't try to do too much at once tho. Avoid drastic changes to map geometry between game modes. Blocking a route, having different weapons, changing initial spawn locations and removing or changing vehicles are all good examples of this idea. Adding a base or building on a different part of a map completely would be bad.

 

[Lights]

The same can be done with mini-games. In Halo 3, I had a working, yet never released, mini-game map that utilized all three layers of Sandbox for a completely different mini-game. 3 maps in 1. It's a nice idea if you can muster it.

 

[NinetysBorn]

Seems interesting, but somewhat unnecessary.