3D Computer Game Engines - Original plan comparisons, Rule of the Loop and Overall conclusion.

Original plan comparisons:

Through this unit, I have been following through with plans from the previous unit, which was to lay the ground work to create a map within the Unreal Tournament Editor.

Though I was tasked with only creating a blockout variant of the map, I am fairly confident I have stuck to my initial plan fairly well, which was to create an industrial styled steel mill, with an environmental hazard in the centre.

When comparing with my mood boards, I am reasonably happy with my outcome to this point.
(Mood board located at: https://uk.pinterest.com/plissken1989/unit-75-ctf_mill-moodboard/)

The idea was to have the BSPs within the boundaries of the map be placeholders for groups of pipes, with the possibility of their own tunnelled sections at a later point in the design process.
The implementation of my environmental hazard is almost exactly as I had planned it out in my head, there were only two alterations from my initial plan is that three molten steel containers are involved, I did not have a pre-determined number of containers planned for the interactive portion of my map and I originally intended the hazard to be activated on a button press, this was of course edited out through the rule of the loop, allowing the hazard to be triggered autonomously.

Dundoc & Trello usage:

Whilst I have continuously updated my Trello board throughout this unit, moving items between categories as appropriate, due to how closely I have followed my original plan, I do not feel my Dundoc needs any alterations making to successfully show the progression I have made from the beginning of the project to my current position.

Both my Dundoc and Trello boards can be viewed via the links below;

https://trello.com/b/mkTzLuNb/ctf-mill-development-board

https://www.dundoc.com/project/1046/3zlyioul6

The Rule of the Loop:

To implement and utilise industry standard techniques within this project, I have been working by the rule of the loop, essentially trying something, play-testing, gathering opinions and tweaking any elements which either don't work properly or could be improved upon. This can factor into anything, things such as map size, layout, functionality and flow of the map too. Once an issue has been fixed, the map is generally saved out under another version number to keep development history log and so that I can personally see my own progression through the process or map creation.

Through a total of 11 iterations or my multiplayer map, using my peers for feedback with every progressive build, I have developed what I believe to be a fairly competent Capture the Flag map, which acts as a basic Team Deathmatch map also, the Team Deathmatch variant of my map does however need a good amount of tweaking to things such as amount of and placement of weapons, armour, ammo and health pickups. I also need to modify the environmental hazard to reflect that which occurs within the Capture the Flag variant.
Whilst these are changes which can be made at a later date, it proves my map as least functions for both CTF and TDM game mode variants.

Below are screen captures of my CTF and TDM maps in action.

Capture the Flag:

Capture the Flag (Environmental Hazard Active):

Team Deathmatch current functional build:

Overall Conclusion:

Through this unit I have utilised industry standard techniques to produce through iterative measures, a multiplayer map for use in Unreal Tournament 2015. The map is built mainly from BSP brushes, with some Static Meshes in place for interactive elements.

Whilst I already had some knowledge of the UE4 blueprinting system, it is somewhat different within the Unreal Tournament Editor, and feels more akin to UDK than UE4 itself, limiting some of the content I can edit with blueprints when compared to the blueprinting system in Unreal Engine 4.

Despite this, I feel as though I have built on my previous knowledge from multiplayer level creation in at least UDK which will benefit me when building further, going forward in Unreal Engine 4.
For example I now have some basic experience in adding in interactive elements, which are more complex than simple lifts or teleporters (which are now physically provided within Unreal Tournament Editor itself) from implementing my environmental hazard, aimed to affect the flow of a multiplayer game by forcing the players/bots to use alternate paths..

3D Computer Game Engines - Peer Review Cycle 5; CTF-Millv10

I have conducted one final peer review to gain feedback on the environmental hazard alone, following tweaks made to benefit play, the questions were as follows;

Q1. I have tweaked the regularity of damage dealt to the player within the limitations of Unreal Tournament. Do you feel this change has any bearing on the effect to the player, for example do you think the player would be more likely to want to escape as soon as possible.

Q2. At 10 damage per second, split into 2 hits of 5, do you still feel the damage is enough to impact the flow?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Peer 1:

1.  I think the change on the more/faster pace of damage is better and it will make players avoided or try to get out of the hazard as soon as.

2. I do think this damage is sufficient enough if it was possible to do more damage it over time this would be a better option.   

-----------------------------------------------------------

Peer 2:

1. I think the player is more likely to avoid the central path with the new damage.

2. I still think it may still be a little low? Though you cannot avoid damage by jumping, you can still use the translocator, which I guess is a risk vs reward, as you are exposed while you aim/teleport.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Peer 3:

1. Lava is much better now – workaround for two ticks per second is solid without having to tamper within blueprints needlessly. It feels more ‘realistic’ although you could work on having it dripping from the player – melting arms, legs and faces. Get on it lad.

2. Apparently I don’t read questions ahead; as answered previously – yeah I feel the damage is definitely more on par with what you’re looking for here. The whole point I made initially was that you could literally strafe around and get a handful of kills and with other incoming fire you barely noticed it at all. Now however that isn’t the case you do feel the impact and I would safely say it affects the flow.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Peer 4:

1. Definitely! Makes you want to get out and find alternative routes and avoid the lava, so it brings variation to the game and opens up.

2. No, the game feels fine. It just causes you to think more about routes to take, rather than going a direct route or standing in a fire fight too long I think.

-----------------------------------------------------------

From the feedback I have received, I can tell there are still tweaks I could ideally benefit from making, however within the limitations of Unreal Tournament Editor I'm not 100% sure how modifiable these are.
I would ideally like the Translocator removed from my game mode, but on researching that change, without modifying the core blueprint of my game mode I cannot remove it.
There is also still the possibility of adding more damage to the pain caused by the environmental hazard, whilst I personally feel 10 health per second is enough, I will look into this again and test higher damage scales in full play with bots present.

From this point going forward, whilst these may not be reflected within this unit due to time constraints, the elements I will look to continue working on are;

• Overall damage dealt by environmental hazard.
• Implementing my own game mode blueprint based on CTF, with the ability to remove the translocator.

3D Computer Game Engines - Changelog 4.0; CTF-Millv10

Items modified this changelog;

• Lapse in time between damage dealt via pain causing volume.

Details;

I have been experimenting with the time lapse between damage when the player interacts with the environmental hazard, though the damage per second still ultimately dictates the amount of damage dealt.
If the damage per second remains at 10, but the lapse between damage is set to 0.5, the damage dealt to the player will appear as 5, this is down to the damage being predetermined to "damage per second", and the length of time itself isn't editable as such.

I have changed the lapse between damage to 0.5 seconds, whilst the player is still receiving the same damage, they are receiving it more frequently and this may result in player experience changing, wanting to get out of the environmental hazard faster to minimise damage taken, this is still not set in stone and I will continue testing until I and my peers are happiest with the result.

I am also having slight issues with the implementation of friction within the environmental hazard, this was a suggestion by one of my peers, to possibly slow down the movement of players and bots when within the pain causing volume.

I am under the assumption that without making the volume a water volume, I am unable to alter the fluid friction, as I have changed the value between 1.0 and 40.0 with, producing no navigational effects on players or bots.
Changing the volume to a water volume would add unnecessary animation changes to both the player pawn and bots in-game, and would result in them appearing to swim over the molten steel which would look out of place.

Without casting effects to the pawn used in the UT Editor, I am unsure as to ways I could change this. Adding to this, as I have tried adding effects to the character previously (when trying to blueprint my own damage over time sequence) and have come to various stumbling blocks, due to the limitations of the character effects in blueprints.
These are of course counteracted by the fact there are things like pain causing volumes freely accessible to use, but there are once again, limitations to the usage.

Bearing this in mind, I will for now, be leaving the friction unchanged and moving forward into another peer review for any feedback on the regularity of the damage dealt, once this has reached a point at which I and my peers are happy with the values and functionality, I will endeavour to revisit the friction values once again.

3D Computer Game Engines - Peer Review Cycle 4; CTF-Millv09

Having applied the last change detailed in the previous changelog, the audio clip. I found the correct way of implementing the audio into the level in the form of the "Play Sound 2D" node within the level blueprint. The players are now alerted to the Environmental Hazard by both visual and audible stimuli.
Below is the finalised blueprint as it stands, this is of course subject to further tweaking following this peer review cycle.

I have once again prepared questions to be answered by my peers.

Q1. The damage dealt by the environmental hazard has been doubled, does this feel more adequate in terms of affecting the gameplay?

Q2. The environmental hazard will subside roughly half way through the round, and then make a resurgence with roughly 1:45 left on the clock, does the hazard re-emerging feel like it makes a better impact on the flow of the map?

Q3. Do you find yourself using the upper pathways any more or less with the doubling of the environmental hazard damage?

Q4. The blueprint is set so to introduce the environmental hazard twice in the first half and twice in the second, do you feel the environmental hazard lasts long enough before subsiding both times during play?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Peer 1: 

1. The damage seems sufficient and better than before

2. It showing up twice does make an effect on the game

3. Not really as I can still run through it and take only 10 damage and I can use the teleport gun to jump over it.

4. I thing the hazard last long enough in both halves.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Peer 2:

1. I think the damage value is better, though are you able to increase the rate of damage?

2. There is more of an impact though you can still run through it. You could try adding in a channel that comes up and puts a wall either side of the lava to make it harder to just walk through the middle and further force the gameplay change.

3. I do prefer to use the upper paths anyway because it’s less risky.

4. I think twice per round is a decent number of times to affect gameplay and make it interesting.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Peer 3:

1. I felt like playing the game was fast paced, I found it pretty difficult to get over to the other side of the map without dying, however that might be because I’m not good on PC game FPS.

2. Yes, I loved the idea of doing that as it makes you have to use the bridge. However, I’m not sure if you can get across it or if you are meant too, if you are not meant to get across it I did a wallride and managed to get past it without using the bridge.

3. Again, I was not too sure on what it did, I understand the idea of not being able to cross, at least I think it was the idea? When I did die on it and I got a notification telling me that I forgot to turn on the water, I started looking for a tap, not sure if there is one but if there isn’t I think you should add it!

4. Well, because of how rubbish I am at playing games I did not play the entire length of the match, But I feel like once it is activated, if you added like a Mechanism to turn it off, or maybe a fire wall which will point in the direction of an opposing team, and when the flag is captured the lava will start gradually increasing on the opposing teams map until either the flag is returned or a flag is scored, other than that, great job!

-----------------------------------------------------------

From this feedback I have gathered that there are still some slight changes I could possibly make to this, I will be be experimenting with the length between every hit of 10 damage when in the environmental hazard.

Due to mixed abilities of peers, and that of potential end users I would be hypothetically aiming my map at, I will be taking into account all points made, but I will not be adding a tap, corresponding with the "You forgot to turn on the cold water" message when the player dies in the Environmental Hazard.
With regards making it harder to get through the environmental hazard also, I may look into inserting a volume which slows player movement down a little, though with the damage extended, and enemies/bots dealing damage in tandem.

Changed I will be experimenting with are as follows:

• Length of time between each damage tick when interacting with Environmental Hazard.
• Player/Bot movement speed when interacting with the Hazard.

Any changes made to the level will once again be detailed in a changelog.

3D Computer Game Engines - Changelog 3.0: CTF-Mill_v08

Since my latest peer review cycle, I have made 3 of the 4 required tweaks suggested by my peers, with the only omission being that of the sound clip, to provide an audible alert when the steel container animation is occurring. This will be added shortly, when I figure out exactly how to add it, since the two methods I have tried in the blueprinting process so far have not worked.

I have also removed the switch to start the process, allowing the steel containers to move autonomously, and now entering the playable area twice, this allows for the flow of the game to be altered up to four times in one game of Capture The Flag as opposed to the initial one time.

The amount of damage the environmental hazard now causes has been doubled also, to hit for 10 health per second, this actually feels much much effective in playtesting, as it as least made me take note of my health more often, and left me facing the decision of whether or not I should retreat to gain health from nearer my base, or risk there being some unclaimed near the enemy base.

It took some extra tweaks to get the times just right, but overall it feels like an improvement on impact of flow, as I have also experienced some bots dying in the environmental hazard, as well as physical gameplay.  The lack of a button would take away the dependency of players competing to get to the button to trigger the hazard, and allows the flow to continue unhindered until the molten steel and with that, the pain causing volume actually appear.

I will continue playtesting this and endeavour to add the audio clip in to signal the start of the environmental hazard, I will also hold another peer review cycle once the audio clip has been added in, to gain feedback on the changes I have made to the map once again, with an eye on improving it even further.

3D Computer Game Engines - Peer Review Cycle 3; TDM-Millv08

Through peer review cycle 3, in addition to my CTF map, I converted the map, at it's core to a TDM build, taking the same map and seeing how it would cope in a straight shooter environment with no objective to fulfil other than killing the enemy to score points.

I again prepared questions to be answered;

Q1. Jump straight in and get playing, add in 15 bots and progress, when the game is five minutes in, access to the environmental hazard will become available.

Do you think this is an acceptable timing for access to the environmental hazard? As I feel leaving it til 7:30 in would be too late to have any real effect on the flow.

Q2. Do you feel the map, when played in TDM flows any differently to how it flows in CTF mode? If yes, do you feel this is this a positive or negative difference?

Q3. As with the CTF mode, do you think the health deducted by the environmental hazard is appropriate? Should it be increased or decreased and why?

Q4. Do you find yourself using the upper pathways more or less in this mode than you did in Capture the Flag?

Q5. With the objective simply being to kill opponents and gain points, do you feel the amount of weapons available is still enough to always have a reasonable amount of ammo ?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Peer 1:

1.   Alright so you’re basically planting the switch in under halfway by a couple of minutes. Honestly I’m not too sure, having tested this substantially at my end I feel that this works absolutely fine – on a more competitive level this may have more bearing but it seems fine, just don’t take my word for it on the timing here.

2.   Despite the obvious of no flag carrier to ‘hunt down’ not particularly. Your map is small, compact and flows well with it’s layout so TDM doesn’t really change anything up here as with CTF you’d either stumble into the flag carrier or you wouldn’t – whereas this just removes that but still has the general idea at hand. I think it works well.
3.   I’ll literally copy and paste my answer from the other document here:

‘The idea and role of the hazard will be absolutely fine end game but I tested this over several games and it currently feels redundant in the sense that you can practically ignore this and be at no real disadvantage. To test this, I stood in the lava and strafed up and down the length and got about 5 kills before the lava eventually finished me off.

·         The lava needs to be ramped up in terms of damage. This will work because the pouring serves as a warning that the lava will surface and thus people have plenty of time to position. Also you can pretty much avoid the damage from this entirely by jumping – arguably you’d take an incremental tick of damage which you won’t even notice anyway amidst the fast paced game type.

I feel that the lava should still be a per second damage type but perhaps triple. I’m not sure double would do it justice (but this could be your next rule of the loop testing here, double it and see how it balances). I feel like it should have more of a decision on the outcome of whether you live or die if you take ticks from this and it doesn’t feel like that currently.’

4.   If anything less due to instinctive nature of going up top allows you to see past the walls so you can spot the flag carrier easier. This is at no fault of your map and honestly it still works well because your upper pathways are connected well; offering freedom of routes.

Probably. The only thing I’d really test for this TDM iteration going forward is this – maybe carefully place a few more mid / lower range weapons as you see fit and test it as I think this ‘might’ be beneficial.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Peer 2:

1.   Because this is Team Deathmatch, the gaming is focus on mostly the combat. In my own opinion it would be better that have the hazard appear earlier, because the player will be mostly focusing on each other.
2.   I don’t see any change when the map is played in TDM. Because of the game mode the players are focusing on each other and thus it is the same experience as CTF.
3.   The environmental hazard dos not need to be changed at all in this game mode. But what you do need to add is another switch for the other team. Because there is only one of them and it is place at an opposing team are.

4.   When playing this map I did indeed use the upper pathways less. This is because the fact that most of the bots are playing on the ground. In order to find out if they get used or not it is best to test this on a LAN network.

5.   I would say that you have a good amount of weapons in the map and the amount of ammo is ok.  I have noticed that you have some weapons place close together. What you could do to get the top area used more often is to place some of the weapons on the upper level as well. This could get the bots to use that top area.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Peer 3:

1.   I think the timing for the hazard is acceptable and dosent need to be altered in the sense of timing, however I don’t think it has as much impact on the game as it potentially can in a ctf game. This could change if the damge was higher than that in ctf.

2.   I think it flows the same but as the objective is different I think more cover needs to be added as it is to open for the tdm mode as I can see the enemy team pretty much straight away and I am always fighting multiplayers on my own which can sometimes get annoying in a death match mode.

3. I didn't find myself using them at all but I thing that is partly down to all the bots being on the ground as well and them not going up there either.

4. In my opinion there need to be less or they need to be relocated as things like health and armour are too easy to access and need to be more scarce as this is vital on keeping players moving in a death match mode.

-----------------------------------------------------------

From these answers, it is quite clear my map isn't quite ready for the transition into a straight TDM map yet, mainly as there are cover issues with too many open spaces and the pickups are placed in an ineffective manner.
There will also be changes made mirroring the CTF mode changes, making the environmental hazard appear more often, for bursts at a time.
I will be looking into making these changes, but they will take second place to the changes made for my primary game mode, Capture the Flag.

These changes will be detailed in a changelog following experimentation.

3D Computer Game Engines - Peer Review Cycle 3; CTF-Millv07

For this peer review, I implemented the Team Deathmatch game type as opposed to Capture the flag, allowing myself to expand on the quality of my map with a second style of play.

My map was in part designed to be capable of handling both TDM and CTF game modes, somewhat similar to some of the most successful maps on shooters like Call of Duty's 'Scrapyard' and 'Highrise'.

For this peer review, I had implemented the steel containers on a matinee for base functionality, triggering the appearance of lava and a pain causing volume for realistic gameplay feedback.

I once again formed a set of questions, this time four, more detailed questions, as I am progressing through this unit I feel more detail is necessary to gain proper feedback, the questions were as follows;

-----------------------------------------------------------

Q1. Without adding bots in, play the map and wait ‘til 3:30, the switch to activate the environmental hazard should appear, press the button and let the animation play out.
Do you feel the animation is the right sort of length? Or would you say it is too short or too long?

Q2. Back out then restart the game, add in 15 bots and play with a focus on making sure you activate the environmental hazard.
How do you feel the hazard impacts play? Is it balanced in terms or health deductions? Too much? Too little?

Q3. Do you feel half way through the round is an adequate time to enable access to the environmental hazard? Or would you bring the time forward or push it back slightly? If you would make any changes, why?

Q4. How do you feel the environmental hazard impacts the flow of the game, do you notice any slow down to the pacing or any other negative effects on gameplay structuring?

-----------------------------------------------------------

The feedback was fairly positive in terms of functionality, with suggestions of tweaks I could make to the environmental hazard itself.

Peer 1:

1.       The animation itself is fine, not that it’s relevant to functionality but I like the added touch of the block out pouring the lava. It just feels correct and it serves as a pre-emptive warning that the lava will be coming up.

2.       The idea and role of the hazard will be absolutely fine end game but I tested this over several games and it currently feels redundant in the sense that you can practically ignore this and be at no real disadvantage. To test this, I stood in the lava and strafed up and down the length and got about 5 kills before the lava eventually finished me off.

·         The lava needs to be ramped up in terms of damage. This will work because the pouring serves as a warning that the lava will surface and thus people have plenty of time to position. Also you can pretty much avoid the damage from this entirely by jumping – arguably you’d take an incremental tick of damage which you won’t even notice anyway amidst the fast paced game type.

·         I feel that the lava should still be a per second damage type but perhaps triple. I’m not sure double would do it justice (but this could be your next rule of the loop testing here, double it and see how it balances). I feel like it should have more of a decision on the outcome of whether you live or die if you take ticks from this and it doesn’t feel like that currently.

3.       I can’t help but feel like it should slowly sink and disappear. I like the idea that it surfaces half way but when this no longer disappears it feels a bit off to me. Quickly thinking of something you could into your next test what about quarters? So 3.5 / 2 = 1.75. So you could have the lava surface 1.75 in and then have it vanish at 3.5 – at 5.25 it resurfaces and stays until end of round at 7 minutes.

4.       No issue whatsoever really, the lava is jumpable – and assumable on final blockout it will be encased by a small raised section (so it makes sense) which will either automatically be a part players step over depending on the height you set this or a simple jump. I don’t feel this really adds or takes away from the flow at all, the map is practically the same. Another point here regarding the CTF map type inparticular is that this shouldn’t be affected in either way either – even for the flag carrier for the reasons described above.However I would look into what happens with pain volume scaling (if it even exists) when flag carrier opposing team has advantage.
Final Comments:
Adding to what I said in 3:
Because the switch surfaces and may not always get used instantly the timings could be off, now you could either keep it working in quarters regardless of when the button is pressed (ideally wanting players to hit it close to as soon as it spawns) or you could ditch the switch entirely and have the lava automatic. This will possibly add to the idea of your map – automated machinery on timing systems pouring the lava and the lava draining over time etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Peer 2:

1.  Animation is fine to be honest and a really nice touch.

2.  I found with the hazard, it forces you to go through alternative routes.  So by the hazard being there and causing health problems and potentially death, you are creating choke points else where in the level and not having as open, although there are several options to back and forth across the map.  It’s a nice touch.

3.  It seems fine.  Possibly bring it in slightly earlier, but when you’re killing bots you don’t notice the time being an issue for the hazard.  The map covers all the bases I feel.  There is a lot of variation, its large enough, plus the hazard, its fast but not too fast.

4.  Doesn’t slow it at all. Just forces the player to take alternative routes.  It’s a quality map!

-----------------------------------------------------------

Peer 3:

1.       I think the animations length is fine however if possible try extending the damage over time so that players can just stand in it for too long.

2.       The hazard doesn’t seem to hinder gameplay to much however if you do increase the damge over time I would added a few more vertical floors near the middle to avoid hindering your map flow once it is active.

3.       I don’t think the timing of when the hazard can be activated needs to be altered at all and is set nicely.

4.       Currently as the hazard doesn’t kill players that fast it doesn’t have that much impact on the flow of your map however if you altered this then some changes would need to be made.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Peer 4:

1.       The animation feels about the right length as the objects themselves are enough of a warning that the hazard is being activated.

2.       I think to have more of an impact on the gameplay, the damage should be higher to make it more of a risk/reward type element.

3.       I’m not sure if this is something you already have in mind, but if I were to implement this hazard myself, I would make it first accessible around 1 minute into the round, then the hazard area itself should stay for around 30 seconds, then it should clear up and after another minute the event is accessible again. Making it a repeatable event, and not just one that stays will keep the gameplay fresh and have the players always using different routes through the map. Possibly putting the button in the middle of the upper gantry will make that a strategic area for gameplay, fairer on both teams, and I think this would make more sense thematically.

4.       I think the hazard needs to have more of an impact on gameplay, as I didn’t notice much of a change. I think the repeatable event and higher damage would help with this. I think it would be interesting to have the level flow change multiple times through the game. 

-----------------------------------------------------------

Peer 5:

1.       I would say that the animation is indeed the right time. By putting it at the halfway point it adds a nice twist to the gameplay.

2.       With the addition of the lava in the middle of the map, it will make the player take the higher level. This will also put the players at a disadvantage, so it is up to them wherever to take that risk or not. I like the idea you have put there, but I have noticed once it is activated it stays there. You could make this so it can pop up for a certain amount of time and then it falls back to the ground again. But if you do what it to stay up there, I would say the damage over time is fine.

3.       I liked the idea of having the hazards at the halfway point. It makes a great game changer and it could also turn the table for the team players. If one team is using that bottom part a lot, then activate that switch to stop that from happening.

4.       I do not see any changes to the gameplay when the hazard is activated. The bots still take the hazard route anyway, so the best way to find out is the gameplay slows down or not is to test with human players. In my opinion I nice twist for the hazard is to have the damage over time increase at the time passes. It would make the game more interesting.

-----------------------------------------------------------

From this peer review cycle, having gathered feedback from five of my peers has allowed me to pinpoint some experimental things to try out with the next build, I will be experimenting with;

• Environmental Hazard damage values (Currently 5 health per second, looking at 10)
• Environmental Hazard presence (Possibility of making it subside and resurface)
• Remove interaction to begin Environmental Hazard sequence.
• Insert sound clip for audible warning

These experimental changes will be documented in the next changelog.