Let's talk about asymmetric level design, and the interesting case of Overwatch
which for a lot of reasons has some of the most wildly asymmetric levels
that I have seen in a multiplayer first-person shooter.
[Intro music]
Designing levels for competitive multiplayer games
where the level design is asymmetric is a contentious thing.
Even in games like MOBAs where the map is nearly symmetrical for both teams,
minor minute differences, like which characters start near which monsters
create a preference for players, and lead to players seeing one starting location
as being more advantageous than the other.
Meaning somebody's always gonna be unhappy.
And it's a fine line for a designer to walk.
Asymmetry provides variety
and creates interesting tactical options for the player every time they play
but it can also leave players just feeling frustrated and like the game is unfair
every time they end up on the side they see as having a disadvantage.
So first, let's talk about standard asymmetric level design.
Usually in asymmetric games, as the designer,
you create all sorts of ways to make the action flow through the map.
action flow through the map whether it's
Whether it's a team deathmatch or capture the flag
a team deathmatch or capture the flag
you'll notice that on any well designed map,
the action doesn't just occur at one point for the entire length of a match
the action doesn't just occur at one point for the entire length of a match.
Instead, you'll find yourself pushing through different choke points
or dislodging your opponent from
you'll be taking different high ground
Sometimes these are subtle:
sometimes these are subtle maybe you
Maybe you simply have to push the enemy back enough
simply have to push the enemy back
to move forward to the next bit of cover.
Or sometimes these can be as drastic as pushing the enemy out of a set of buildings.
But each time this happens, and players flow through the map, it does two important things.
First, the players get to think through new tactical problems.
Lines of sight are constantly changing, cover layouts change,
height advantages change on different
This is interesting for the player!
It's what makes the game feel vibrant and alive.
it's what makes the game feel vibrant
Second, it constantly switches which team or players have an advantage.
Each new stopping point on the players' circulation through the map
should alter who gets an edge from the asymmetric terrain
which keeps the map feeling challenging but fair.
There are a number of systems we use to achieve this:
there are a number of systems we use to
Baked into the level itself are conflict points.
These are places everybody wants to be because they're objectives or because they're advantageous these are places everybody wants to be
like bunkers, hilltops, that sort of thing.
Players will naturally gravitate toward those areas
and the fight will naturally erupt around them as players try to take control
As a battle erupts around one of these conflict points
it will naturally drag other players in because that's where the action is.
Eventually the assaulting side will either push through
eventually the assaulting side will
or find the flank and push the possessing side back,
bringing the flow of the game to whatever the next conflict point is
as one side falls back and the other one surges forward.
Or one of the sides may just give up the point
as the fight becomes either no longer tenable or simply unwinnable.
Either way, the conflict flows onto new areas.
This is often augmented by the spawn system.
There's a lot of different philosophies around how to spawn the player into first person shooters.
You could spawn them at a fixed location for the whole match.
You could spawn them at one of a number of fixed spawn points.
You could spawn them near a teammate.
You could spawn them away from any action that's going on.
And there's reasoning behind all of these options.
In fact, just talking about what the different spawning mechanics do
might make for an interesting episode one day.
But for right now, the important thing is that,
excluding the largely outmoded idea
of spawning the player at a single fixed spawning location for an entire match,
all of these options help the flow of play
and encourages players to move to new conflict points.
If the game has power ups or weapon pickups,
these too can be used as conflict points
and a way to drive the players from point to point
so that the map feels varied but fair.
But however you do it, your built-in map flow also has to depend on two other crucial questions.
As a designer building an asymmetric map, you have to ask yourself:
Are the players' goals asymmetric and
are the players avatars' asymmetric?
Because both of those have a huge effect on map design.
And here is where we get to Overwatch.
Because in Overwatch, the answer to both of those questions is yes.
(at least most of the time)
In Overwatch, there are basically two types of maps:
In one type, one team is assaulting, trying to take ground
and the other one is defending, trying to hold ground.
In the other type, both teams are fighting to control a central objective.
Interestingly, the second game type usually gives us maps that barely feel asymmetric at all
as the design involves only one central conflict point
with a group of minor conflict points radiating out from it
Which often represent different paths to the central conflict point.
Note that this is the only map type where they use a single fully fixed spawn location
implying that the designers felt that asymmetry had far less impact on this map type
and that they didn't have to put as much emphasis on see-sawing
between which team gets the most advantage out of the maps' limited asymmetry.
So let's look at the attackers vs defenders maps, because those are wildly asymmetric.
Intentionally so!
The flow of each match through these maps is pretty evident.
The designers channel the players' movements much more clearly
than your standard team deathmatch shooter.
And because the designers know the map flow,
this means that they can develop a type
that creates a specific tension and interest curve for their online FPS.
At least, theoretically
The first thing to notice on all of these maps
is that the attackers have the initial advantage.
The first point the defenders are tasked with guarding usually
gives the attacker lots of alternate paths to flank from and a modicum of cover.
And the choke points are either relatively easy to break or can be avoided by smart flanking play
On top of that, any defender who gets taken out
has to hoof it all the way from their initial spawn point at the end of the map
back to the area their team is trying to defend
while the attackers respawn much closer to the initial conflict.
Even if the defenders and the attackers suffer equal losses
the respawn distance advantage will push the attack forward.
But as points fall or carts are pushed, the situation flips.
The attackers' final goal usually sits at the end of one narrow corridor
without any alternate routes to flank from and little cover to hide behind.
And now the defenders have the respawn distance advantage
as their spawn point is often right behind the goal
Even trades now work in the defenders' favor
as their fallen teammates return to the fight in mere seconds.
When this all works, it creates wonderfully nail-biting situations
where the games come down to the last second.
It makes both the attack and the defense feel like desperate hard-fought struggles
while at the same time giving each match a sense of motion and progress.
First the outer defenses collapse, and then the inner defenses fall
until the defenders are left performing a desperate last stand
on a patch of ground designed for desperate last stands.
But! When you have this massive asymmetry that channels players down a specific path
rather than allowing them to flow through the level naturally,
you create a much more difficult balance problem.
Because normally, when a particular conflict point is a bit too unbalanced in favor of one side or the other,
players will naturally move their focus elsewhere
and conflict will start again at some other point on the map.
But that's not possible in this case.
Which means that the balance of Overwatch's attacker-defender maps needs be tuned almost perfectly.
And some of them are!
Some of these levels are masterpieces of multiplayer design
but there are others where that balance is just slightly off.
Where the first point typically falls quickly
and then the match turns into a seven-minute grind fest
where the attackers throw themselves at an overly secure final defense point.
Because these maps are designed to flow down one specific path,
there's no self-correcting mechanism in place to resolve the imbalance.
Hopefully in time, the Overwatch team will be able to sand away those few remaining rough edges
until all of the game's levels live up to that perfectly crafted interest curve.
It's a daring and ambitious goal, one that has rarely, if ever, been pulled off.
But they've got a lot of sharp people in that studio, so we'll see what happens.
But Overwatch's asymmetry isn't limited to level design.
Next week, we'll talk about the game's most prominent asymmetric feature:
Its characters.
See ya then!
(boop!)
[Outro music]