Description
Role
This is my SOLO project where I have recreated a section of Operation Metro from Battlefield 3. I worked on this Map for two weekends and am really happy how it turned out. I wanted to modernise the level and add more verticality and destruction. The most interesting parts of the level were left out of TDM in the original game so I wanted to see how I could incorporate them into a new layout. The game mode is a modified team deathmatch 6 - 12 players.
Level Designer / Level Scripter
Project
Operation Metro team deathmatch remake
Genre
First Person Shooter
Engine
Far Cry Arcade
Overview
For this project, I wanted to challenge myself to recreate the Battlefield 3 fan favourite map, Metro. Metro is one of my favourite BF levels, so I had to do it right. Using Far Cry Arcade, I was able to test the map design using Bots and host real multiplayer playtests.
While using the Far Cry Arcade editor to create the level, I had many design challenges. Some of these include but are not limited to, figuring out how to use the props in the engine most efficiently to ensure good performance. Secondly, adding destruction was a must for me, as this, after all, is a Battlefield map. I also wanted to incorporate the best parts that were excluded from the original TMD Metro Map. I will discuss my design challenges and how I solved them below on this page.
Cover and sightlines were an area of interest for me on this level remake. I felt that the original Battlefield 3 Metro had too long sightlines and not enough cover. I wanted to make sure that there was a good balance of hard and removable cover, allowing for the player always to be able to react to getting shot. My initial placement of cover was quite sparse in contrast to after my PVP playtest. I made sure to follow the FPS design methodology when designing the new additions to the map. I made sure that there were sharp corners, allowing for breaking off lines of sight. Having destruction elements also are important for opening up dynamic. sightlines
Final Screenshots
Destruction / Performance
My First challenge when adding destruction to the map was learning the engine's limitations. There is a budget for all types of assets, VFX, AI, and physics objects that can be in the scene at one time. The level is split into a virtual grid, which has its own budget limit. If I were to put too many destructible elements in one grid tile, the game would not pass verification and meet the minimum performance requirements.
To optimise my level, I made sure that it covered as many grid tiles as possible to evenly distribute the budget load. When I was tackling how to meaningfully add destruction to the level, I wanted to brainstorm what areas of the map would benefit from it and where it should not be. Destructible elements are textured orange in the level.
For example, main areas, such as the long hallway on the ground floor, should not be touched, as adding destruction to the walls or ceiling would ruin what makes that part of the level so great. The gritty aspect when playing full-scale game modes really shows its best colours. If I were to add destruction to this area, it would take away and possibly remove the identity of that hallway.
Furthermore, the escalators and main staircase next to the long hallway shouldn't have destruction either, as those would hinder the team that already has the low ground from quickly making their way upstairs, adding to their disadvantage.
I wanted there to be meaningful experiences for the player that destruction can add, such as creating new sightlines, opening up pathways or removing secondary pathways and cool Levelution like events.
Here are points where I added meaningful destruction segments to the level:
-
Destruction allows the player to make new paths dynamically, similar to Levolution in BF4.
-
Opening up new sight lines and escape routes if the player felt cornered in certain areas.
-
Having debris fly adds to the chaos of the map and enhances its atmosphere and realism.
Some elements I had to keep indestructible to help the player be able to have a solid cover or to be able to have a fair chance against their opponent. For example, most placed covers around the map can not be destroyed, excluding some dynamic elements. When tackling the Metro station doors to the outside, I wanted the glass to be breakable, but if there was no way for the players outside to be able to safely look in and see if a player was waiting for them around the corner, then that could be frustrating for the players.
As a result, I incorporated two design languages regarding glass into my level layout. The first is breakable glass, which is thin and feels brittle. The second is very thick and has reinforcements, making it look very strong. I used the combination of those two glass types to help players see when it's safe to be behind glass and when it's not.
Destruction / Performance
My First challenge when adding destruction to the map was learning the engine's limitations. There is a budget for all types of assets, VFX, AI, and physics objects that can be in the scene at one time. The level is split into a virtual grid, which has its own budget limit. If I were to put too many destructible elements in one grid tile, the game would not pass verification and meet the minimum performance requirements.
To optimise my level, I made sure that it covered as many grid tiles as possible to evenly distribute the budget load. When I was tackling how to meaningfully add destruction to the level, I wanted to brainstorm what areas of the map would benefit from it and where it should not be. Destructible elements are textured orange in the level.
For example, main areas, such as the long hallway on the ground floor, should not be touched, as adding destruction to the walls or ceiling would ruin what makes that part of the level so great. The gritty aspect when playing full-scale game modes really shows its best colours. If I were to add destruction to this area, it would take away and possibly remove the identity of that hallway.
Furthermore, the escalators and main staircase next to the long hallway shouldn't have destruction either, as those would hinder the team that already has the low ground from quickly making their way upstairs, adding to their disadvantage.
I wanted there to be meaningful experiences for the player that destruction can add, such as creating new sightlines, opening up pathways or removing secondary pathways and cool Levelution like events.
Here are points where I added meaningful destruction segments to the level:
-
Destruction allows the player to make new paths dynamically, similar to Levolution in BF4.
-
Opening up new sight lines and escape routes if the player felt cornered in certain areas.
-
Having debris fly adds to the chaos of the map and enhances its atmosphere and realism.
Here are points where I added meaningful destruction segments to the level:
-
Destruction allows the player to make new paths dynamically, similar to Levolution in BF4.
-
Opening up new sight lines and escape routes if the player felt cornered in certain areas.
-
Having debris fly adds to the chaos of the map and enhances its atmosphere and realism.
Team Deathmatch Level Design
My Metro remake supports a 6-12-player team deathmatch game mode, which features a significant change to the original map layout/flow while adding new verticality. In contrast to the original Battlefield 3 map the player spawns have been moved, incorporating a small section of the underground metro section as shown to the right, excluding the less interesting outdoor sections. I only included the outdoor sections for player spawns.
AI Bot Test (Level Test 1)
I play-tested the first iteration of my level using AI Bots. I spawned the bots in the same locations as where the PVP player spawns would go and also made sure to have the same type of load-outs for both teams to make sure they were balanced.
The test went well, with some funny highlights. The most noticeable problem was that the AI would not be able to get off the train tracks. I added small ramps to help the testing AI traverse the entire level. Fortunately, this mode is Intended for real players, and they can vault up onto the platform just fine.
The AI managed to traverse the rest of the level just fine, including the holes produced by destructive Elements.
I play-tested the first iteration of my level using AI Bots. I spawned the bots in the same locations as where the PVP player spawns would go and also made sure to have the same type of load-outs for both teams to make sure they were balanced.
The test went well, with some funny highlights. The most noticeable problem was that the AI would not be able to get off the train tracks. I added small ramps to help the testing AI traverse the entire level. Fortunately, this mode is Intended for real players, and they can vault up onto the platform just fine.
The AI managed to traverse the rest of the level just fine, including the holes produced by destructive Elements.
New Verticality
A big change I made to the map layout and flow was adding verticality which was not present to the same extent in the inner metro station. I added a whole new shop area above the current ground floor area, adding some much needed variation to the team-death match gameplay flow. Many new emergent gameplay situations started to emerge as players would have new types of engagements from different elevations.
Both teams can flank each other in many ways. As this is a TDM, the spawns move dynamically, so no one team has a high-ground advantage. Later, after getting feedback from a playtest, I will discuss two additions I made to the level regarding verticality.
New Verticality
A big change I made to the map layout and flow was adding verticality which was not present to the same extent in the inner metro station. I added a whole new shop area above the current ground floor area, adding some much needed variation to the team-death match gameplay flow. Many new emergent gameplay situations started to emerge as players would have new types of engagements from different elevations.
Both teams can flank each other in many ways. As this is a TDM, the spawns move dynamically, so no one team has a high-ground advantage. Later, after getting feedback from a playtest, I will discuss two additions I made to the level regarding verticality.
_gif.gif)
Testing
PVP Test
For the First PVP playtest, I had 8 participants, and I learned a lot about areas where I can improve my level. I also had the privilege of having some cool testers take part, one of whom was my level design mentor from Massive Ubisoft and an ex-QA tester for Xdefiant.
For the playtest, I wanted to see how the map flow felt and where the players felt the cover was missing. Along with that if the placement of the destruction added to the experience of not and how the new verticality could fit into gameplay. With the help of my testers, we structured the test as follows.
TEST 1 Camping Potential
Both teams were tasked with hiding in spots around the map. One team would be seeking and the other hiding, and then they would switch. We used this tactic to ensure that the map did not have any spots where the players could camp and hide. This is not a foolproof testing strategy, but it worked well in my tests.
We swapped sides a few times and found that there were never any situations in which the other team could not find and kill the hiding players. With these findings, we moved on to the next strategy test.
TEST 2 Flushing Out Organised Teams
For this test, we wanted to find out if both teams came up with a strategy and the other team knew about it. Would they still be able to flush the other team out from their chosen location? This test would help us understand if, hypothetically, one team knew exactly where the other team was and what their plan was, would they be able to flush them out of that location?
If the other team could not flush the team out, this would highlight possible level design issues that would benefit one side over the other. In other words, this is a simplified balancing test.
With extensive playtesting, we found out that there were no locations where the teams could stay for long periods. However, we found a different problem in some places. Due to lack of cover and long sightlines it would be increasingly difficult to hold a position in some key locations.
Some examples of lack of cover and long sight lines and how I fixed them.
Below, I changed a few things. I added more shops and non-destructive elements to the second-floor addition to the level. Creating two lanes where the players paths cross in a central area with lots of cover.
Example 1
Example 1
Example 1
Old
New
Old
New
Example 2
Below are the before-and-after changes to some of the main sight-line issues. These changes should help prevent players from getting shot from across the map and limit snipers to only the main paths.
New
Old
New
Old
Old
New
PVP Test
For the First PVP playtest, I had 8 participants, and I learned a lot about areas where I can improve my level. I also had the privilege of having some cool testers take part, one of whom was my level design mentor from Massive Ubisoft and an ex-QA tester for Xdefiant.
For the playtest, I wanted to see how the map flow felt and where the players felt the cover was missing. Along with that if the placement of the destruction added to the experience of not and how the new verticality could fit into gameplay. With the help of my testers, we structured the test as follows.
TEST 1 Camping Potential
Both teams were tasked with hiding in spots around the map. One team would be seeking and the other hiding, and then they would switch. We used this tactic to ensure that the map did not have any spots where the players could camp and hide. This is not a foolproof testing strategy, but it worked well in my tests.
We swapped sides a few times and found that there were never any situations in which the other team could not find and kill the hiding players. With these findings, we moved on to the next strategy test.
TEST 2 Flushing Out Organised Teams
For this test, we wanted to find out if both teams came up with a strategy and the other team knew about it. Would they still be able to flush the other team out from their chosen location? This test would help us understand if, hypothetically, one team knew exactly where the other team was and what their plan was, would they be able to flush them out of that location?
If the other team could not flush the team out, this would highlight possible level design issues that would benefit one side over the other. In other words, this is a simplified balancing test.
With extensive playtesting, we found out that there were no locations where the teams could stay for long periods. However, we found a different problem in some places. Due to lack of cover and long sightlines it would be increasingly difficult to hold a position in some key locations.
Some examples of lack of cover and long sight lines and how I fixed them.
Below, I changed a few things. I added more shops and non-destructive elements to the second-floor addition to the level. Creating two lanes where the players paths cross in a central area with lots of cover.
Example 1
Old
New
Example 2
Below are the before-and-after changes to some of the main sight-line issues. These changes should help prevent players from getting shot from across the map and limit snipers to only the main paths.
Old
New
Old
New
Destruction changes
With the feedback from the playtest, I had to make some changes to the destruction. In some sections of the level, destruction negatively affected the player's experience, and in others, nothing meaningful was achieved with destruction present. Along with environmental destruction, there was good feedback regarding some of the minor destructive elements, such as explosive barrels and breakable glass.
There was strong feedback against the destructible terrace area looking down onto the central area of the level. It does not add to the gameplay; in most cases, it is just annoying and seems redundant. They even opened up the already very open upstairs segment and exposed the players in the high ground. The destruction looked cool on paper, but this playtest showed that it had to be first to go.
Example 1
Old
Destroyed
New
Example 2
After some testing, I saw that the little ticket office, which had destructible walls on both sides, caused problems for players who wanted to use this structure for some cover. The destruction would expose them to the most chaotic section of the level, creating unfavourable situations. It also didn't add to the experience. When making the new area on the second floor, I hit a budget limit for destruction and had to remove it from somewhere. This section had to go.
Old
New
Shown above were the most impactful changes to destruction, but not limited to only removing segments. Through the playtest, I saw that I had to add destruction to some sections as many of the players who were BF fans wanted the map to have some cool Levelution sections. Near the outside spawn I added a new way to get to the second floor if the ceiling is destroyed. Unfortunately I am limited in this editor as I can script this type of event which I would have been able to in Unreal. To the left is just a honorable mention to show where else destruction has been substituted.
Exaxmple 3
Up
Old
Down
New
Destruction changes
With the feedback from the playtest, I had to make some changes to the destruction. In some sections of the level, destruction negatively affected the player's experience, and in others, nothing meaningful was achieved with destruction present. Along with environmental destruction, there was good feedback regarding some of the minor destructive elements, such as explosive barrels and breakable glass.
Example 1
There was strong feedback against the destructible terrace area looking down onto the central area of the level. It does not add to the gameplay; in most cases, it is just annoying and seems redundant. They even opened up the already very open upstairs segment and exposed the players in the high ground. The destruction looked cool on paper, but this playtest showed that it had to be first to go.
After some testing, I saw that the little ticket office, which had destructible walls on both sides, caused problems for players who wanted to use this structure for some cover. The destruction would expose them to the most chaotic section of the level, creating unfavourable situations. It also didn't add to the experience. When making the new area on the second floor, I hit a budget limit for destruction and had to remove it from somewhere. This section had to go.
Example 2
Shown above were the most impactful changes to destruction, but not limited to only removing segments. Through the playtest, I saw that I had to add destruction to some sections as many of the players who were BF fans wanted the map to have some cool Levelution sections. Near the outside spawn I added a new way to get to the second floor if the ceiling is destroyed. Unfortunately I am limited in this editor as I can script this type of event which I would have been able to in Unreal. To the left is just a honorable mention to show where else destruction has been substituted.
Exaxmple 3
Old
Destroyed
New
Old
Old
Destroyed
New
New
Old
Up
Down
New
Down
Up
New
Old
New
New
New
Level Additions
During the playtest, there were even areas suggested that would improve the flow of the level. One was already shown above but here are two more that really help the player with traversing the verticality.
Example 1
Players complained about the lack of ways to quickly get to the second floor. If spawning outside in the front entrance to the metro station, a truck blocks the path. Many players tried to climb the truck and get into the building from there, but that was not an option. After some discussion and consideration, I chose to make that another way to get up, adding some interesting gameplay, possibly even taking a player by surprise.
Example 2
In the second addition to my level, I added a new way for the team that spawns down in the Underground to get to the second floor by skipping the ground floor, allowing them to get to the high ground advantage quickly.
Coming from the Underground Spawn closest to the stairs, the players can now run up the stairs straight ahead to access the new tunnel area that takes you to the second-floor area.
This should allow interesting flanks to be done with well-organized teams. It also allows the Underground team to get to the other side of the map quickly. I feel that it works in a TMD setting, but I would like to test it further in the future if time allows. I am not sure how this would behave in a real Conquest game mode, but I would be really interested to find out.
In the second addition to my level, I added a new way for the team that spawns down in the Underground to get to the second floor by skipping the ground floor, allowing them to get to the high ground advantage quickly.
Coming from the Underground Spawn closest to the stairs, the players can now run up the stairs straight ahead to access the new tunnel area that takes you to the second-floor area.
This should allow interesting flanks to be done with well-organized teams. It also allows the Underground team to get to the other side of the map quickly. I feel that it works in a TMD setting, but I would like to test it further in the future if time allows. I am not sure how this would behave in a real Conquest game mode, but I would be really interested to find out.
Example 2
Players complained about the lack of ways to quickly get to the second floor. If spawning outside in the front entrance to the metro station, a truck blocks the path. Many players tried to climb the truck and get into the building from there, but that was not an option. After some discussion and consideration, I chose to make that another way to get up, adding some interesting gameplay, possibly even taking a player by surprise.
Example 1
Level Additions
During the playtest, there were even areas suggested that would improve the flow of the level. One was already shown above but here are two more that really help the player with traversing the verticality.
Conclusion
This week-long project was really fun for me to undertake. There were many challenges, from quickly learning the Far Cry Arcade Editor to understanding its limitations and quirks. Creating an initial map layout and testing it with Bots really helped me see if the player could get snagged on any surfaces or have problems traversing. However, this process was not fault-proof, as we found places where real players would get stuck and where Bots would not even try traversing.
I really enjoyed conducting the PVP playtest and learned a lot from the testers who participated. I have much more to learn about PVP level design, but I am always finding ways to push my understanding. I am excited to apply what I learned in this quick prototype to a project soon.
*FULL GAMEPLAY COMING SOON*