Post by wittyscorpion on Dec 24, 2012 4:49:53 GMT -5
Prelude
Lately I have been doing some close examinations of BO2 maps. While I am at it, I made an attempt to categorize them: I came up with a few categories (see details below), and for each category divided the maps into 3 tiers.
In this thread, I would like to share my 2 cents categorization effort and hopefully inspire more map oriented discussions.
----
Categorize by size
To simplify, I used the "A->B<-C" distance data published by iw5000:
Small: less than or around 20 meters;
Medium: 22 to 24 meters;
Large: > 26 meters.
----
Categorize by symmetry
Mirror symmetric: A side and C side are mirroring each other, with only pure aesthetic differences;
Functionally symmetric: A side and C side are different, but functionally very similar;
Asymmetric: A side and C side have different designs
----
Categorize by navigational complexity
What I mean by "navigational complexity": how easy or difficult for a player to mentally navigate from where he is to where he wants to be (objective markers, enemy red dots, enemy spawn, etc).
This one is purely based on my personal evaluations, and is roughly correlated to how "maze-like" I feel about each map.
"Straight forward": these maps are often consisted of clear left-mid-right paths as the main theme.
Medium: flanking routes, number of enclosed areas, and/or verticality add more complexity
Large*: even more complexity
* the boundary between medium and large is pretty blurry.
----
Categorize by player favoritism
As you would expect, this one is highly subjective. I based my categorization on 1) my personal in-game experience regarding map voting, and 2) discussion threads of each map.
Lately I have been doing some close examinations of BO2 maps. While I am at it, I made an attempt to categorize them: I came up with a few categories (see details below), and for each category divided the maps into 3 tiers.
In this thread, I would like to share my 2 cents categorization effort and hopefully inspire more map oriented discussions.
----
Categorize by size
To simplify, I used the "A->B<-C" distance data published by iw5000:
Small: less than or around 20 meters;
Medium: 22 to 24 meters;
Large: > 26 meters.
- Small (6): Standoff, Carrier, Hijacked, Overflow, Express, Yemen
- Medium (5): Slums, Cargo, Raid, Plaza, Meltdown
- Large (3): Turbine, Aftermath, Drone
----
Categorize by symmetry
Mirror symmetric: A side and C side are mirroring each other, with only pure aesthetic differences;
Functionally symmetric: A side and C side are different, but functionally very similar;
Asymmetric: A side and C side have different designs
- Mirror symmetric (4): Express, Hijacked, Meltdown, Plaza
- Functionally symmetric (2): Aftermath, Cargo
- Asymmetric (8): Carrier, Drone, Overflow, Raid, Slums, Standoff, Turbine, Yemen
----
Categorize by navigational complexity
What I mean by "navigational complexity": how easy or difficult for a player to mentally navigate from where he is to where he wants to be (objective markers, enemy red dots, enemy spawn, etc).
This one is purely based on my personal evaluations, and is roughly correlated to how "maze-like" I feel about each map.
"Straight forward": these maps are often consisted of clear left-mid-right paths as the main theme.
Medium: flanking routes, number of enclosed areas, and/or verticality add more complexity
Large*: even more complexity
* the boundary between medium and large is pretty blurry.
- Straight forward (6): Aftermath, Express, Hijacked, Meltdown, Overflow, Slums
- Medium (5): Carrier, Drone, Plaza, Raid, Standoff
- Complex (3): Cargo, Turbine, Yemen
----
Categorize by player favoritism
As you would expect, this one is highly subjective. I based my categorization on 1) my personal in-game experience regarding map voting, and 2) discussion threads of each map.
- Low (6): Aftermath, Drone, Express, Overflow, Plaza, Turbine
- Medium (4): Cargo, Carrier, Standoff, Yemen
- High (4): Hijacked, Meltdown, Raid, Slums