• Making a “Puppy Map”: The Beginning
  
• Handling Player Feedback ← (you are here)
  
• Polish and Release

• Using Signed Distance Fields to Create Complex Particle Behavior
  
• Creating a Map-based Artillery Cannon
  
• Creating a Planetary Skybox

• Asymmetric and Non-Standard Capture Point Layouts
  
• Going Beyond Fighting Over Rocks

• Shattered Giant
  
• Bulwark Naval Yards 5-3
  
• Tamarack Shipping Depot 3

Feedback is the most critical part of creating for other people and mapmaking is no exception. My goal when making maps is to get feedback early and often. I prioritize developing the map to a playable state first and foremost so I can play a game on it as quickly as possible. As I’m developing I’m posting screenshots, videos, and ideas online and soliciting comments on them. Maintaining this process of frequent feedback has two major benefits: it helps me refine the concepts and highlights the problematic areas, and it helps keep me motivated to finish the project.

When it’s time to do a test game on a new map I announce to the players what kind of feedback I’m looking to hear. Then when the game ends and we debrief I repeat the same thing. Directing feedback in this way keeps it focused on what I’m trying to test. Often I’ll explicitly say I don’t want feedback on something. For example if I’m trying to test the asymmetric point structure on the new map Tamarack Supply Depot I’ll say to the players “How did you feel about the capture point arrangement? I don’t want feedback on the lighting.” Being explicit keeps debrief sessions short and avoids wasting anyone’s time.

Early on in the mapmaking process I find it is important to solicit feedback at a general, emotional level. It’s what I call the “vibe check”. Specific feedback, especially feedback in the form of solutions, generally is not directly useful and I’ll need to go through a reverse engineering process to understand the problem that the player is trying to solve. Later on in the process once the vision is fully executed I’ll ask for solution-oriented feedback. A player can’t have my full vision in mind when suggesting solutions to problems so the solutions are often counter to the direction I want to go. On the other hand, players telling me that they feel negatively about some aspect of the map helps me realign the vision to address the perceived problem.

The final bit of important advice is that not everyone will like a map. A creative map concept that steps outside the norms is also likely to be divisive. If a player is consistently giving feedback that runs against the fundamental concepts of the map then they might just dislike the map. That’s entirely reasonable! It is okay to ask that player to refrain from providing feedback or participating in the test process if their constant negativity is becoming unproductive. Fortunately I haven’t had to deal with this directly but I’ve seen it come up in other areas.

The initial test of Tamarack involved placeholder asteroid and structure geometry and was mainly directed at determining if the major concepts of map-based artillery and asymmetric capture points were at all viable. It was also a bug-finding test as it was the first real test with a full team. The initial reception was mixed, which I expected. The gameplay was chaotic and swingy, which I did not expect, and this indicated that the potential for balance was there even with the asymmetric layout that provided a 6 to 1 advantage in capture points for one team. Amongst other things players noted that the artillery felt like it was ineffective. They also noted that it didn’t feel like a 5v5 map because there wasn’t the typical ten-minute wait before seeing an enemy that 5v5 maps so often have. The major takeaways from the first test were that the map had legs and the artillery needed to be buffed up.

After I fixed the bugs and heavily tuned up the map artillery I held the second test of Tamarack. This test was focused on determining if the artillery could be enough to swing the outcome of such an asymmetric capture point layout. To that end nearly every stat of the artillery was buffed dramatically, with the intention of finding the top-end of their performance. This test was successful in that respect. Many players ended the test upset about how oppressive the artillery felt. Team 2, which controlled the artillery, achieved a crushing victory despite being disadvantaged in capture points. This was an excellent example of using negative feedback to realign the direction of development. The other major takeaway was that deployment zones were too close together, which actually prompted a whole reevaluation of how deployment zone distances were calculated.

The third test of Tamarack commenced after I brought the guns back to reasonable levels and added multiple signposts on the map to indicate where they were able to have an effect. I also adjusted the deployment zone location for this test. Team 1, who does not control the artillery but does have the capture point advantage, lost decisively. The debrief at the end of the game, however, indicated that Team 1 felt they lost because of the way they played and not because of any feature of the map. The artillery seemed to have been brought down to a reasonable level where it could have an impact but wasn’t oppressive. This test, again, was a success. There were no major takeaways on the fundamental aspects of the map from this test.

With the core problems of the map stabilized the next round of work is finishing the map geometry. A playtest will occur once that’s finished to evaluate if anything needs to change. From there final texturing will be done along with more special effects. Some special effects such as artillery muzzle flashes and projectile trails can change how players interact with the map so those will need to receive special attention to ensure nothing regresses once they are added. The big source of feedback during this process is actually screenshots and videos rather than playtesting. I post liberally in Discord and solicit feedback on looks and vibe to help me create something that is as exciting visually as it is mechanically.

The next major article in this series will be on the polishing and release process. That will be out closer to when the map is finished. Until then, there will be side articles on various technical challenges as I get around to writing them.