作者：Eric Schwarz

如果你是多人游戏的忠实玩家（特别是射击游戏），你便可能完整地复述出一些经典地图的布局。不管你玩的是《光晕》，《反恐精英》还是《使命召唤》，游戏中可能只存在一两张能够让你感到惊艳的地图，即值得重新游玩或难以忘怀的地图。而我们到底该如何做才能突显任何一个布局的乐趣——即使它与其它布局非常相似？

我将在本篇文章中把注意力放在一些有趣且值得重玩的多人游戏地图所具有的核心元素，以及这些元素在区分良好的关卡和优秀的关卡间所扮演的重要角色。而为了确保整体内容的简洁，我将侧重于阐述竞争性多人射击游戏，不过我也希望这些理念能够适用于其它类型的游戏。

周期性流动

Mihály Csíkszentmihályi的心理流理念已经被许多游戏设计师反复使用，力图为玩家创造出更长久的游戏吸引力。基本的流理念是指一种非常集中的心理状态，即个人将自己的关注点，情感和身体活动都专注于一项简单的任务中；与“传统的”工作（游戏邦注：即人们将会为了完成某些任务而遵照着一定的任务列表）不同的是，流的存在会推动着一个任务自然地过度到下一个任务，最重要的是我们无需停下来考虑任何事物的发展。

在关卡设计领域，流将以一种状态的形式而存在，玩家会发现他们将以一种顺畅或无阻力的方式从一个任务或目标过度到下一个任务中。如果你曾经玩过一个特殊的多人游戏关卡，并发现自己与其他玩家莫名地从一块区域转变到另一块区域，你便会发现有关这一设置的冲突与争议将自然而然地冒出来。除此之外你还需要考虑其它一些“糟糕的”多人游戏地图，如未能明确地告知玩家该去哪里，该做什么，并悄无声息地采取一些玩家所不知情的行动等。

一种良好的关卡设计将始终为玩家呈现出这种状态。一般情况下这种关卡设计都使用了周期性布局，即关卡将引导着玩家在一个封闭的环形中前进，而玩家自然的移动将引导着他们不断地碰见各种对象和对手等。下图便清楚地呈现出这种过程：

de_dust(from gamasutra)

de_dust之所以被称为是一张经典的地图主要出于几点原因：它呈现了许多种选择让玩家在每一轮前进中都能有不同感受，但同时这些选择也是以一种熟悉且可预测的方式呈现在玩家面前。

我想几乎所有射击游戏玩家都非常熟悉这种地图吧：《反恐精英》的de_dust（或者只是叫做“Dust”）。上图的红线和字母“T”分别代表着路线和“恐怖小组”玩家的起点，而蓝线和“C”则代表着路线和“反恐小组”的起点。如果你仔细观察了这一关卡，你便会发现在整个关卡中的任何一个主要冲突区域都标志着黄色的“X”字母。

关于这一简单但却有效的布局还存在着许多细微的差别，我们可以沿着上述路线去明确这些差别。举个例子来说吧，如果反恐小组决定放慢速度并进行防守，这将慢慢地把恐怖小组逼往关卡东部和中心区域的废墟中。而如果反恐小组向恐怖小组发动全面袭击，那么冲突区域将移向地图中心的地下道中，那里共存在三条不同的路线。如果反恐小组决定选择西部的地下道路线，那便不可能有任何恐怖小组玩家会选择走那条道路，他们最终将回到其他恐怖玩家身边，如此便能够给予反恐小组侧翼的机会，并且能够帮助恐怖小组达到目标，即前往关卡的东部或南部，并让自己更好地为不可避免的攻击作准备。

值得注意的是，每个团队穿越关卡的某一区块的时间都是一样的。这便意味着即使一名玩家漫无目的地在一个关卡中奔跑着，他最终也会遭遇到敌人，并且这种几率往往都是在30秒内。当两个团队都有玩家被杀死时，便会出现1比1的情境，而剩下的恐怖成员将担负起在废墟中埋置炸弹的任务，这也意味着反恐小组必须完成最后挑战才能获胜，并且他们也可以立刻猜出恐怖小组是躲在两个地点的其中一个。

尽管从某种标准来看，Dust是一张非常简单的地图，而它能够成为“经典”的主要原因便是，其中不存在一些会让玩家感到分心的冗余路线以及“杂乱的”设计关卡，从而让玩家能够更轻松地感受到流状态，而当玩家在每一轮关卡中经历了30秒以上的体验时，地图设计也将推动着玩家继续自然地循环，直至最后。

垂直性

我所接触过的所有优秀多人游戏地图几乎都存在一个共同点——游戏玩法的垂直性元素，即关卡并不只是呈现出一个平台让玩家在此奔跑，而是提供了两至三个相互交叉的平台，甚至还会提供一些全新的游戏机遇。

垂直性有两大重要作用。从玩家的角度来看，它能让战斗变得更加有趣且更加动态化，因为敌人和好友将不只是从左右两个方向涌现出来，他们还能从上下两处出现。可以说这一元素让玩家能够在射击游戏中感受到360度的完整视角，并能够赋予他们更多有趣的战术优势。例如，玩家便能够从高处向敌人投射炸弹，或者从低往上将手榴弹投掷到上面的窗口而逼出敌人，也就是这种设置能让玩家摆脱传统的“目标–>射击”的游戏流程。除此之外，玩家必须以极快的速度做出这种决定，因为所有内在的风险/奖励都意味着除了基本的决定，玩家还必须做出更多不同的选择。

其次，垂直性能够在关卡间呈现出更多有趣的路线。在之前的例子中我描述了两个玩家团队在相遇之前能够选择4条主要路线，但是当我们仔细观察时将会发现这些路线通常都会出现重叠或交叉的状况。举个例子来说吧，如果玩家打算选择地下道路线而穿越关卡中心，并向西部的立交桥顶部前进，那么朝西的路线将被从上进行夹击。同时，最西部的反恐团队路线将直接引导着这些玩家来到一个高处，并在此俯瞰立交桥下恐怖小组的路线，如此便能够帮助那些灵活的玩家更好地设置最佳防御点。

当然了，de_dust并不是唯一能够突显垂直游戏玩法的地图。另外一个经典的例子便是更具“现代经典特征”的《使命召唤4》地图“Crash”。

crash(from gamasutra)

黄色“X”代表带有多个楼层和窗户的建筑。

“Crash”并不是围绕着垂直导向关卡而进行设计。但正是一些垂直元素才让这一关卡显得更加有趣。如上图，在带有黄色“X”的建筑中便能俯瞰地图中的其它重要内容，如此，带有坠毁的直升飞机的中央庭院以及一些后巷将作为入口或玩家逃离主庭院的路线。几乎每一条单一的主要路线（除了两个区域间的过度路线）都设置了一栋带有窗户的两层楼建筑。

这便意味着玩家既能在地面上，也能在建筑物中观察敌人的行踪。当然了，在主要的冲突区域，也就是中央庭院中共设有多达三栋建筑物，即让玩家可以从三种不同的局部角度进行观察。这三种分离设置便意味着玩家很难轻易接近任何一个优势点或能够看到所有内容的视角，从而创造了一种如“剪刀石头布”般的来回关系，能够引导着玩家更好地在关卡中前进。因为所有路线都是通向庭院，所以当玩家从A处移动到B处时，他们的唯一选择便只能是沿着后巷的路径而前行，而这也意味着玩家不可能从侧道进入庭院。

这种建筑设置的战术性在于它们提供给玩家更多掩蔽物，并呈现出有关战场的更完整的视角，更不用说那些潜在的狙击点了。而对于建筑物的防守任务在任何团队的制胜环节中也变得至关重要。同样地，各种武器，像克莱莫杀伤地雷（游戏邦注：一种定向散镖地雷）在阻止其它玩家轰炸建筑或从背后攻击居住者等方面也变得更加重要。它们之所以如此重要是因为能够将垂直元素引进关卡中，所以其重要性将伴随着其它次要性（但同样属于重要元素）一起呈现出来。所以最终便能够呈现出一张有趣且具有重玩价值的地图，并将推动着玩家尝试着挖掘其中的重点元素并转向下一个任务继续发展。

战略特殊性

我并不是很确定一张让人印象深刻的多人游戏地图所必须具备的第三大元素到底是什么，但是根据经验，我将其归结为所谓的“战略特殊性”——即玩家在每个关卡中可以利用的特定机遇，能够为其带来非常特殊的优势。大多数情况下这应该是玩家每次进入地图时最常执行的行为，而其它时候它便是某些资深玩家所使用的一些小技巧。

以下便是关于这一特性的一些例子，我想几乎每一张具有重玩价值的多人游戏地图都具有其中的某些特质：

1.在de_dust中，非常擅长于投射定时手榴弹的玩家便能够独自消灭那些试图穿越中央地下道的其它团队。通过估算敌人团队的速度并基于声音（而非视觉），玩家便能够有效地区分其它团队的优势，并摧毁他们的防弹衣，或在适当时机使用手榴弹去炸死他们。

2.在《反恐精英》的地图de_dust2中存在着许多双扇门，并只是露出了一道裂缝，透过这道裂缝能够看到另一边的反恐小组集体的动向。恐怖小组装备着狙击枪，并拥有熟练的技能而猫一般敏捷的身手，如果反恐队员不小心脱离了大部队，其生命便有可能葬送在恐怖小组手上。这同时也将鼓励反恐队员去选择交叉路径而非直接逼近废墟地，并让他们避免过早地去挖掘地图另一侧的内容。

3.《军团要塞2》的ctf_2fort地图让各种类型的玩家可以根据自己的优势去探索环境。例如，士兵可以从中央庭院快速跳到敌人团队的城垛上，从而对那些长期埋藏在那里的狙击手造成重创。而火焰兵和间谍能够潜伏在一些关键区域，如通向每个团队放置旗帜/公文包的房间的道路上，或者源自庭院护城河的底下通道里。当然了，狙击手可以利用城垛去阻止其它团队通过庭院，并破坏那些反抗狙击手的团队所制定的战术。

4.《使命召唤4》的广播关卡呈现出了一个摆满许多桌子，且类似新闻编辑部的区域。上面的控制室似乎是枪手或狙击手的最佳射击场所，掌握了这一点枪手们便能够有效地完成自己的任务。作为该区域中的最佳防御场所，枪手们将能够看清楚房间中的一切内容，但是他也可能会忽视从下而来的手榴弹，或遗漏掉从后而逃的玩家。

当然了这并不意味着每张多人游戏地图都必须与其它地图有所不同（游戏邦注：不管是从外观，感觉还是体验中来看）。实际上从布局来看，许多多人游戏地图都非常相似，并只在一些较小的细节，如视觉效果上有所差别。而如果一张地图上只存在一或两个空间配置，并隐藏了场所或其它较小的元素（不存在其它关卡），它便不可能在玩家心中留下深刻的印象。

结论

关于创造一个让人难以忘怀的多人游戏关卡的相关理念还值得我们进行更深入的讨论与研究。当然了，那些过去曾经创造过游戏的开发者可能只是投入少量的时间于地图创造中，或者他们会采用与学术性理念相违背的想法去创造他们的地图。实际上，有些关卡，如《反恐精英》的fan-made和大受欢迎的fy_iceworld便都是一些违背关卡设计标准的成果，并且它们也向世人证明了从某种程度上来看，那些让玩家多年难以忘怀的内容都不是循规蹈矩地设计出来的。

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Musings on Successful Multiplayer Maps

by Eric Schwarz

If you’re a fan of multiplayer gaming, especially shooters, chances are you can recite the layout of a few classic maps flawlessly.  Whether you’ve played Halo, Counter-Strike, Call of Duty 4 or anything else, there’s probably one or two maps in those games that stand out for you as being particularly fun, replayable, or, for lack of a better term, memorable.  But what sets some maps apart from others?  How do we get “fun” out of one layout, even when it might be similar to another one?

In this article I’ll be turning my attention to what I think are the core components of an interesting, fun, replayable multiplayer map, and how these differentiate a good level from a great level.  For the sake of simplicity, this article is primarily concerned with competitive multilayer shooters, but I hope some of these ideas can be applied to other types of games as well.

Cyclical Flow

Mihály Csíkszentmihályi’s concept of psychological flow is something that has been oft-studied by game designers in order to help create games that are more consistently engaging for players.  The basic idea of flow (forgive the over-simplification) is that it is a mental state individuals become immersed in, wherein all their attention, emotions, and physical activity are concentrated on a single task; unlike “typical” work, where we might find ourselves following lists in order to complete tasks, flow allows for one task to move naturally to the next, to the point where we don’t even stop to consider that it is even happening at all.

In the field of level design, flow can be expressed as a state players will find themselves in wherein they move naturally from one task, point of conflict, or objective to the next, in a smooth and resistance-free way.  If you’ve ever played on a particular multiplayer level and found that you end up moving from one place to the next along with all other players, and find that flashpoints of conflict and contention arise without you necessarily “working” to bring them about.  Consider too, how many “bad” multiplayer maps are also ones where sometimes it’s not intuitively clear where to go, or what to do, and the action often seems to pass you by.

A good level design will be able to create this state in players nearly all of the time.  Generally, this is accomplished by using cyclical layouts – that is, levels which direct players in loops which circle back in on themselves and where the natural movement of players leads them to constantly run into objectives, opposition, etc.  The easiest way to demonstrate this is to show it directly:

de_dust is a classic map, and for good reason: it offers just enough options to feel different each round, but also familiar and predictable in the right sorts of ways.

Here’s a map that almost any shooter fan should be familiar with: Counter-Strike’s de_dust (or just “Dust”).  Above, the red lines and “T” mark represent the routes and starting position of Terrorist team players, while the blue lines and “C” mark represent the same for the Counter-Terrorist team.  If you examine the level, it becomes clear that the routes it presents to players converge, roughly concurrently, at several key conflict zones throughout the level, denoted with yellow “X” marks.

There are a lot of nuances to this simple but effective layout, visible simply by following the routes above.  For instance, if the Counter-Terrorist team decides to slow down and play defensively, this will naturally draw the Terrorist team to the bomb site on the east side of the level and the center area.  If Counter-Terrorist players rush the Terrorists all-out, the conflict zones will transition to the tunnels in the center of the map, where three separate routes meet each other.  If the Counter-Terrorists decide to take the west underpass route, and no Terrorist players decided to go that way, they will eventually loop back around on the Terrorist players, giving both a flanking opportunity to the Counter-Terrorists and a chance for the Terrorists to take the objectives at either the east or south sides of the level, as well as to prepare for the inevitable assault.

It’s important to note that the amount of time it takes for each team to traverse a given portion of the level is almost exactly the same as what it takes the other team to traverse their own.  This means that players, even if they run aimlessly around the level, will almost always encounter an enemy eventually, usually within 30-odd seconds.  When the players have been killed off on both teams and a 1v1 situation as arisen, the need for the remaining Terrorist to plant the bomb at one of the bomb sites means that the Counter-Terrorist now has an ultimatum to finish the round, but can also immediately know that the Terrorist is hiding out at one of two locations.

Despite the fact that Dust is a fairly simple map by some standards, it has endured because the lack of distractions, redundant routes and other level design “clutter” allows players to more easily achieve a flow state, and when they have gone beyond that first 30 seconds of gameplay each round, the design of the map ensures that players will cycle around it naturally until the end.

Verticality

If there’s something in common with just about every great multiplayer map I’ve played, it’s that they all have some sort of vertical component to gameplay – that is, the level does not provide one flat plane to run around upon, but has two or three different ones which intersect with each other in interesting ways, or provide new gameplay opportunities.

Verticality does two important things.  From the perspective of the player, it makes combat more interesting and dynamic because enemies and friends can come not just from left and right, but from above and below as well.  It taps into that 360-degree perspective players have of the world in most shooters, and creates more interesting tactical advantages.  For example, something as simple as being able to use high ground to fire down on an enemy from cover, or the opposite, throwing a grenade from below into an upper window to flush an enemy out, can present opportunities for players which stray from the usual “aim -> shoot” flow of gameplay.  What’s more, these are often decisions that need to be made in a split second, as the risk/reward element inherent in them means that there are multiple choices presented to players beyond the most basic ones.

Second, verticality also allows for more interesting routes between levels.  In the above example, I demonstrated 4 main routes that the two player teams each can take before meeting each other, but what is also apparent upon examining these routes is that they often overlap or intersect with one another.  For instance, the route leading under the west overpass can be flanked from above if a player takes the tunnel route through the center of the level and heads west out on top of the overpass.  The westernmost Counter-Terrorist route, meanwhile, leads them directly to a ledge overlooking the Terrorists’ route under the overpass, allowing for a crafty player to set up a point defense against them.

Of course, de_dust isn’t the only level out there featuring vertical gameplay.  Another excellent example of this can be seen in the much more recent “modern classic” Call of Duty 4 map, Crash.

Yellow X marks denote buildings with multiple floors and windows.

Crash is not specifically designed as a vertically-oriented level.  However, it has a few vertical elements which add up to make it much more interesting than it would be if it simply took place on a flat plane.  Above, the buildings with yellow X marks overlook key parts of the map, in this case the center courtyard with a crashed helicopter, and some back alleys that serve as an entrance or escape route from the main courtyard.  Almost every single major route, except for a few transitional routes between key areas, is covered by a two-story building with a window.

What this means is that players have to constantly be on the lookout for enemies on the ground level, but in buildings as well.  The key conflict zone is, of course, the central courtyard, and it has no less than three buildings providing partial coverage of it from different angles.  This three-way split means that no single vantage point has easy access or line of sight to all the others, creating a natural “rock, paper, scissors” back-and-forth relationship as players navigate the level.  As all routes funnel into the courtyard, it is almost impossible to not end up in it eventually as players try to get from A to B, with the only alternative being to take the back alley route, which often breaks out in skirmishes as players try to flank each other inside the courtyard.

The tactical importance of these buildings hinges almost entirely on the fact that they provide cover and a more complete line of sight across the battlefield, not to mention potential sniper spots.  However, defense of the buildings also becomes a crucial element in deciding the winning team, as suddenly, weapons like claymore mines become useful in stopping other players from storming a building and attacking its occupants from behind.  They are important because of the vertical element they introduce to the level, and that importance carries with it many other secondary but equally critical elements.  It all adds up to make for a very entertaining, replayable map which constantly evolves as players try to take key points from each other and move on to the next.

Strategic Distinctiveness

The third major component that goes into a memorable multiplayer map is a bit harder to pin down, but in my experience, it boils down to something I’ll call strategic distinctiveness – certain opportunities that players can use and exploit on a level which make it very different to play on than anything else.  Often these will be near-ritualistic behaviors players perform over and over every time the map begins, while other times they are simply little tricks that more experienced players can use to their advantage.

Below is a list of just a few examples of these, but almost every multiplayer map that keeps players coming back has at least a couple of these sorts of qualities:

1.In de_dust, players who get very good at timing grenade throws can almost single-handedly wipe out the other team as they stream in through the central tunnels.  By estimating the enemy team’s speed and using sound rather than sight, it’s possible to negate the other team’s advantage and destroy their body armor or take a big chunk out of their health with one well-timed grenade.

2.In another Counter-Strike map, de_dust2, a large pair of double doors, open just a crack, overlook one side of the Counter-Terrorist spawn exit.  A caffeine-fueled Terrorist player with a sniper rifle can, with a lot of skill and cat-like reflexes, take out several Counter-Terrorists each round if they are not careful to leave their spawn.  This also encourages them to use alternate routes rather than just rushing to the closest bomb site, preventing the Counter-Terrorists from becoming prematurely entrenched on one side of the map.

3.Team Fortress 2′s ctf_2fort map allows players of various classes to exploit the environment to their advantage.  For example, Soldiers can rocket-jump to the enemy team’s battlements from the central courtyard, allowing them to wreak havoc on the snipers that usually rest there.  Pyros and spies can also learn to lurk around key zones, including the paths leading to each team’s flag/briefcase room, or the lower tunnels leading in from the courtyard’s moat.  Snipers, of course, can use the battlements as a vantage point to prevent the other team from crossing the courtyard, making counter-sniper team tactics essential.

4.Call of Duty 4′s Broadcast level features a large newsroom-type area featuring dozens of desks.  The control booth sitting above makes for an excellent nest for machine-gunners and snipers alike, and often holding this point can ensure a steady stream of kills.  The well-defended position gives ample viewing angle across the entire room, but is consequently prone to grenades tossed from below or players sneaking up from behind.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that every multiplayer map has to look, feel and play completely differently from all others.  In fact, many multiplayer maps resemble each other, in terms of layout, very closely, and tend to only differ in the smaller details and, of course, visual style.  However, just one or two room configurations, hiding places or other little elements that no other level out there has can really make one leave its mark on players.

Closing Thoughts

Of course, the science of what makes a memorable multiplayer level is still subject to a lot of discussion and interpretation.  Certainly, developers have created games in the past whose “breakout” maps have been ones they spent the least amount of time on, and there always be some maps which defy all academic notions of quality.  In fact, some levels, such as Counter-Strike’s fan-made and eternally popular fy_iceworld, are about as close to “bad” as you could possibly get by almost any level design standard, and are perhaps proof that to some degree, success in creating something players will remember for years to come is not something which can always be deliberately engineered.(source:GAMASUTRA)