Talk:Level Design 101
There is a "Level Design", and a seperate "level designing" topic.
Somebody care to merge? --Spazzo 13:54, 22 April 2007 (PDT)
The latter is far more informative, and has all the information contained within this article. This article should probably be deleted for sheer redundancy. ~DarkWarrior
Better yet: a rewrite. This article needs a more concise write from the information it (and the other article, too) has right now. Actually, this is practically a verbatim copy of the message board topics.
Of course, a lot of things need rewrites, too. Maybe I can draft a to-do list sometime. --Digiku 17:23, 22 April 2007 (PDT)
Ex-forum topics. They were deleted because of these two articles. I fail to see why a rewrite is needed. As I said, the other article contains the information on this one, as well as more information on level editing as a whole. Any changes this article might need would apply just as well to the other article, only more so, as the other is far more informative. ~DarkWarrior
Less talk, more action. The former "Level Design" page is basically identical to the first section of "Level Designing". The move was simple all along.
And as for the rewrite, I suppose you just don't see detail like I do. I surmise this page to need better, more consistent formatting; more concise language (if need be); among other things.
Again, that's exactly what the other page is, a compilation of this and other material on the same subject, much the way the Multiplayer page is comprised of Splitscreen/Online/Gametype/etc information, only all in a far more convenient place. I don't see why we'd need two pages with, literally, the exact same information. EDIT: It seems you moved/deleted the old page. This is now useless rambling on my part. ^_^ ~DarkWarrior
We need a "Bad Platforming" section of Level Desingn 101. It's too big a flaw to be excluded from this page. On Edge 19:24, 6 August 2007 (PDT)
Rewrite (old)
Okay, as mentioned earlier on this talk page, this page is in dire need of a full rewrite. 3 forum topics with different authors and completely different structure strung together is not an article, and especially not when they're frequently redundant.
I suggest something with the following structure. Help me add stuff I missed, and then we should rewrite the article. This information is far too important to leave with such a bad article. -Mystic 10:15, 11 November 2007 (PST)
- Basics of what gametypes are. Note that the player should play a few rounds of multiplayer before attempting to make a map for that gametype.
- Gimmicks. (How to come up with them and how to implement them into your stage)
- Sector layout, dos and don'ts.
- Linearity
- Gametype specific information (symmetry in CTF, etc.)
- Thing placement.
- General information on what powerups are powerful, and how to handle powerful items in both single and multiplayer gametypes.
- Risk vs. Reward.
- Weapon ring section.
- Other information about things.
- Other gametype specific information. (flag placement in CTF, ring placement in match, etc.)
- Creation of level packs and gimmicks for them (Mystic Temples, non-linear level structure, etc.)
I'll start by providing feedback:
- I'd love to know about gimmicks. Actually, I don't really think about gimmicks a lot. What are they?
- Linearity is really important to cover, 'specially for single player. It'd be nice to make the reader aware that, yes, multiple paths are good (but I think you have to use them right...?)
- Balance is really important for multiplayer.
- A separate weapon ring section is also a good idea.
- I'm really big with "Risk vs. Reward". I talk about it all the damn time. :)
- Creation of level packs is also a good topic to cover. A good one isn't made up overnight.
A rewrite should be done right, as far as I'm concerned. Other than the listed structure, maybe we could add little case studies and such on de facto mods such as Mystic Realm, Acid Missile, etc. Probably in the vain of this. What else can we add? --Digiku talk 11:00, 11 November 2007 (PST)
Personally, I'd suggest any examples or case studies be kept to vanilla SRB2 content. GFZ2 has about 15 brilliantly executed level design concepts for those who look at it and examine why it's fun. However, we probably want to just get the basic content right before we do stuff like that. Perhaps have a separate page for examples? -Mystic 14:38, 11 November 2007 (PST)
Guys, if it needs rewritten, then it should have been tagged already. I have done so for you. c_c –SonicMaster 14:44, 11 November 2007 (PST)
The way you started writing this, Mystic, it seems a separate page would be good for examples. I was going to suggest separate pages for separate sections entirely, but this seems good so far. :) --Digiku talk 22:16, 12 November 2007 (PST)
SonicMaster's Rewrite
I'm rewriting this article right now. Lengthy things have been compacted; and it's going to be more organized. It's gonna take me a while. –SonicMaster 19:10, 11 November 2007 (PST)
Done. If it needs fixed, tell me. –SonicMaster 20:13, 11 November 2007 (PST)
EDIT: What's ironic is that this has 14,000+ letters less than the original, but it actually says everything the original said. It also includes tips from me. –SonicMaster 20:38, 11 November 2007 (PST)
The only meaningful part I think I left out is how to make good gimmicks. Then again, it doesn't fit very well with my layout. Should there be like Level Design/Gimmicks or something? –SonicMaster 12:47, 12 November 2007 (PST)
EDIT: Obviously the article title must be called something else; apparently the slash only works like that for non-article pages. –SonicMaster 12:50, 12 November 2007 (PST)
>_< I thought what I did was good... –SonicMaster 21:22, 12 November 2007 (PST)
Sorry; the entire article needed rewriting anyways. :( --Digiku talk 22:16, 12 November 2007 (PST)
But I did rewrite the entire thing. Took like 2 hours. –SonicMaster 23:11, 13 November 2007 (PST)
I used quite a bit of your stuff in the second rewrite, SonicMaster. It didn't go completely to waste. I just wanted it to be a lot cleaner in general. -Mystic 09:32, 15 November 2007 (PST)
2D?
Someone care to give us a 2D mode tutorial? --§HoneyComb§
[*]Well, the thing is, no one has actually made a godly 2D map yet, so it would be a bad section until we can get map making for this mode done right. カラム 01:15, 14 January 2008 (PST)
Don't make a 2D level. They suck. Tutorial complete. -Mystic 11:14, 14 January 2008 (PST)
Well, I don't think we should give up just yet. The issues with all the SRB2 2D maps are that they don't let you go fast enough. They need more open space. Again, that would make it go faster than the original 2D levels, but I just know that a 2D level for SRB2 could be executed properly.
And as for making the level long enough, there could be a two-way teleporter that doesn't make sound and light effects and that gives the illusion that two parts of the level are actually connected. I know exactly how you would do this.
I honestly don't think we should just give up on figuring out how to make a decent 2D level; we could study the official 2D levels like Marble Zone and Green Hill Zone and study what makes those levels so cool.
You even said it is possible to put Homing and Sniper in the same match level if done ever so carefully and properly. Well, if one can make a homing sniper still be fun, one should be able to make a fun 2D level as well. –SonicMaster 12:32, 14 January 2008 (PST)
No, the problem is 2D mode itself. It's been proven again and again that it's possible to make a good 2D level. Palmtree Panic was the most recent example. However, every time you play one, it's insanely clear that the issue isn't with the level designer, but the mode itself. SRB2's 2D mode is awful. It doesn't play well, has camera and control issues, and is generally trash. If you want to make a 2D Sonic stage, there are plenty of other games you should try. Please, don't use SRB2's. -Mystic 14:34, 14 January 2008 (PST)
In that case, shouldn't STJr sort of redesign SRB2's 2D mode so that it plays better? I know you guys could do it; I just know it. But then again, I'm not a member of STJr. I can't decide. Another example is that I'd love for Daimondus to make it into the official CTF rotation (it was so sweet), but that's not my decision. –SonicMaster 15:01, 14 January 2008 (PST)
I don't think it's going to happen. It didn't win the contest it was entered in.--Glaber 18:45, 14 January 2008 (PST)
Fixing 2D is definitely on the to-do list, but until it IS fixed, making stages for it is simply wasting your own time. -Mystic 14:22, 16 January 2008 (PST)
I am a bit hesitant to suggest using SRB1 mode level header all the time, as it might not be good for all applications. Maybe someone can think of the advantages and disadvantages of using the mode? It does make you go slower, which is generally good. I don't know when you would want to use the faster one. Torgo 03:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You don't have to use the SRB1 header. For example, what if you switch between 2D and 3D? Are you going to be able to use the SRB1 header? Would you want to? No. 2D mode is fine as is, with the better camera opening up the possibility for more gimmicks. If Blown Fuse can pull off 8.39 with the poorer 2D mode and use the faster mode, why must we make it slower? Sometimes making it faster would feel cooler, etc. –SonicMaster 14:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Risk vs. Reward example.
I think Thunder Citadel isn't the best example, because in my mind, it overdoes it with putting risk on the Explosion Ring and the Random Monitor. Desolate Twilight, after all, which got a much higher score in its OLDC, doesn't have such a huge risk in getting the power-ups (and this swings the pendulum the other way, I know), but I hope you get what I'm trying to say here: Risk vs. Reward is good, but I think Thunder Citadel overdoes it in certain places and a better example should be used. Which alternative example do you think should be presented? –SonicMaster 21:03, 16 January 2008 (PST)
Hydro Plant, you can get the vital blue bubble, but you'll put yourself at risk of being shot if you slow down too much and a wrong move would send you flying in the water without it. Unfortunately in netgames I've played, most don't bother to get it. Also it is easier to get with other characters than Sonic but you'd follow the logic that flying and gliding in the middle of a battle is just as bad as slowing down. Tree Ring also comes to mind, but its only because someone else is usually already dominating the center area. JEV3 10:59, 17 January 2008 (PST)
Aah, the Hydro Plant Liquid Shield. That's a very good one. *replaces* –SonicMaster 11:03, 17 January 2008 (PST)
NiGHTS
When Digiku comes back (PLZCOMEBAKNAO;_;), we need to label what to do and what not to do for NiGHTS levels? Plus, if any of you have anything to add regarding what's good and what's bad for a NiGHTS stage, let's do so!! –SonicMaster 21:28, 20 January 2008 (PST)
Stop with the minor edits
It's fairly obvious they're not minor, SonicMaster, especially when it says that you've added 245 characters. Don't mark it minor, and add a good editing summary. -Blue04 00:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Rewrite
I reworked the new information, but this article is in dire need of a rewrite. There is simply way too much information written here and it's overwhelming. We should probably split up the information by gametype so someone looking for help on Single Player maps doesn't get all sorts of information about match weapon balance. -Mystic 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd split up this page following something like a Level Design Process:
> Level Design 101
Welcome to Level Design 101. While most articles on the......
(links to sub-pages, below)
-> Conceiving a map
-- What to do before building a map
-- Gimmicks
-> Sector Layout
-- General
-- Single Player
--- 2D Single Player
-- Match
-- Capture the Flag
-- Circuit
-> Thing Placement
-- General
-- Enemies
-- Power-ups
-- Weapons
-> Testing the map
-- Common glitches/errors
-- Getting feedback
--Ezer'Arch|עֶזֶר'AρχTalk 02:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather instead split it by gametype, and have a separate article with the tips for single player, match, ctf, etc. -Mystic 03:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Splitting by gametype makes a lot of sense: if a newbie wants to make a CTF map, he'll want to lean only about CTF and nothing else. The problem is, there are tips and recommendations that apply to all gametypes. Unless we create an introduction page with "general" stuff and a sub-page for every gametype.--Ezer'Arch|עֶזֶר'AρχTalk 04:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I was just going to have redundant information on each page or have a "general" page with information for all gametypes. Probably a little of both would work best. -Mystic 04:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I've finally performed the long-needed split. I split it per gametype, grouping Match and CTF together because they share a lot of information. Splitting the pages made evident that parts of this guide are severely unfinished, especially the Single Player section. I don't really know enough about mapping to fill this in, so I would ask anyone who has more knowledge to complete that part. Another thing that came to my mind is if we should incorporate the Aesthetic Tips article into this guide, now that we have separate pages.
I don't know if the way I split the information and set up the pages works out well, so if somebody thinks it would better another way, don't hesitate changing. As I said, I'm not an expert on Level Designing, I just did what I could do. --SpiritCrusher 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)