HARBOUR
Tactical Multiplayer FPS
Introduction
I started this project without any prior knowledge of the new hammer engine. It was a fresh start and included a level design that applies the rules of bomb defusal in Counterstrike 2.
My goal was to create a map that would feel like it could be taken into the game while presenting new angles and rotations that had not been used before. The result is a fast map that promotes split-second decisions and movement.
Project Details
What I did:
-
Created an understanding of what makes CS maps competetive.
-
Learned Hammer from scratch
-
Set up a server for online testing
-
Layout iteration
-
Playtested by Mapcore and experienced players with 2k+ in-game hours.
-
Minor set dressing to communicate callouts and recognition.​
-
All meshes and assets are part of the hammer kit.
​
Play the map!
Get the map on the steam workshop:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3179313212
Overview
The map takes inspiration from the legendary map Dust 2 and creates a circular movement around sites to promote player choice and flanking.
Design Process
The focus of the project was to create a layout in which players could compete, a balanced map promoting flanks.
Pre-Prod
Pen-n-Paper
I started out making this level with pen and paper. With experience in Counter-Strike 2, I could easily imagine what lineups would cause a problem and how a player would tackle both attacking and defending a site.
This layout was specifically inspired by the clover design pattern.
Clover Design
The clover design (in the red) is a pattern to create rotations that different maps use in Counter-Strike. Combat resides on the corners and intersections of the square.
The green represents an approximate area where combat resides for this pattern to work. All corridors lead into these areas with a chokepoint, creating room for the players to influence by defending the area.
Understanding CS2
The biggest challenge for me in the pre-prod was to understand the spacing of counterstrike since a lot of the layout comes down to how long it takes to rotate to different areas.
​
I created this map to understand the different tools that I had at my disposal.
The first handrawn draft of the map in form of an overview.
A testmap created and published on steam to test the pipeline.
A clover design analysis of the finished map. Green zones are spaces to be influenced.
Blockout
The map was taken into a prototype stage that could be played early on.
Doing this during the blockout stage allowed me to quickly change parts of the layout and points of engagement for balance.
The Blockout process
When creating the blockout I focused heavily on the timing when both teams sprint towards an area.
Measuring timing early on creates an understanding of where the point of engagement resides.
Discovering flaws
One of the most memorable flaws in the blockout was a long line of sight from B-site to the middle.
While playtesting I came to the conclusion that a line of sight from the B-site to the other end of the map would tear down the entire concept of the map.
A line of sight that was removed since it broke the layout.
I decided to put a door here that can be opened if the defending team engages in mid.
​
This promotes decision-making for the attacking team that resides in mid since they run the risk of being flanked if they stay in mid for too long.
The new area to block the line of sight.
Adding Connector
Layout Design
When creating the layout I wanted to promote player choice while allowing for flankroutes.
Creating Flankroutes
There are a lot of angles to hold in the middle which promotes a sense of stress, in which the attackers must commit to a play or be flanked.
​
The answer for the attackers is to take control over larger parts of the map, creating a map that allows for different plays every round.
Promoting Choice
​Mid-lane consists of an open area that connects to the rest of the map for the T-side. The easily controllable mid creates uncertainty for the defenders.
It also rewards the defending team to flank the attackers lingering in the middle.
This mid has a lot of angles and promotes movement for both sides.
The defending team can be rewarded for flanking.
Dynamic Sites
The bombsites work the same way with flanking routes. The defending team will have an easier time retaking a-site if it has more possibility for flanking.
A-Site.
B-Site
Playtesting
In the playtesting stage, I got a lot of feedback on the map. Both positive and negative. Players often tended to call the map fun, and that it felt like Counter-Strike. They could not break the map and focus on strategy.
Feedback
There was three main points of feedback that could be found:
-
The map felt like cs, and was fun to play!
-
There was a lot of angles that could be exploited.
-
The layout has a flaw revolving the negative space.
Feeling like Counter-Strike
The map played out as intended and the flaws revealed themselves in the philosophy of Counter-Strike rather than in the metrics.
​
I had created a map that was played with the same essence of gameplay as other maps in Counter-strike.
​
Faulty lineups
The intent of playtesting the map lies in finding exploits and timings that are off. A lot of this came to light when playtesting early on.
​
This led me to take two weeks to "fix" the map. I removed line of sights and exploits that was revealed in the playtests.
Negative space
In Counter-strike negative space is all about the gaps between the playable area. In this case it revolves around that there is not enough gaps in between areas to influence.
​
This negative space is what creates a slower pace when playing. It is the uncertainty of "can there be an enemy here right now?"
Picture taken from the playtest video.
Defender holding the connector doorway, while actively afraid of the crossing from B-main.
Attacker defending the bombsite from a retake, choosing his angles wisely.
A retake from the playtest video where a lot of different angles had to be reworked.
Whitebox
After playtesting I returned to the map to create a whitebox which included all the fixes for the level. I also textured the areas to create a easily readable space.
Describe your image
Mid too easy to take
One of the critiques of the map that tied together with many of the other feedback points was the fact that mid was too easy to take control over for the attacking side.
​
The solution is another point of engagement for the defending side in the mid, slowing down the tactical element of attacking middle.
Solving negative space
The last point of the feedback was tricky. It revolves changing the layout drastically to create more negative space.
​
A way to solve this is to broaden the map and create more room for engaging at a slower pace in certain areas to influence.
The last layout addition to the map. The hole is easy to defend and hard to attack.
A potential fix to the maps negative space revolves adding more empty space to create longer routes.
Talkthrough
Closing Thoughts
The goal of this project was to understand what made multiplayer in counterstrike recognizable and add a map with a new take on the core concept. If the map got into the game as a level in the core map pool, it would be considered similar to older maps but with fresh lineups and different rotations.
The comment “it feels like counterstrike” is something that signify that angles and metrics matches the core of the game, which is the result of hard iteration at the early stages. The next stage would be to decorate it and keep playtesting since maps of counterstrike always keep evolving.
Thank you for reading - I'd be happy to talk more about the design in person!
Frans Alexandersson Jensner
