For me, without hand-drawn sketches, I don't know what I'm building. I guess it depends on the individual, it sounds like you use the brush editor to do your "sketch." 

love to see an example or two of your sketches from Rubicon 2 or Ant. 

Yeah, I just think better in 3D. I'm very visual so I can feel an area better if I can see it in front of me ... By the time I sketch out a version, I could have blocked out 3 versions in that same amount of time. :) 

I am terrible. I'm getting better, but I tend to just build the layout in the editor, almost completely linearly. I also do most detailing as I go. I can totally see the benefit of drawing pics and sketching layouts beforehand though. 

 

I pre-plan layout with a flow chart (bubbles connected by lines.)

A lot of games companies do that method. Some call them 'action bubble', 'encounter' or 'scenario' they are a very good way of grouping a chunk of gameplay together.

it's better to draw isometric or draw both plan view + elevation view

Lots of design tests still expect Level Designers to be able to do this at interviews on whiteboards or for written tests. Being able to represent an encounter space isometrically is a good skill to have, but this is different to 2D floor plans. 

Is important yeah, I usually draw concentric rings somewhere and label what I want to happen in each loop.

When I sketch stuff its usually something that'll tie the level together, like a light fitting, pillar, bunch of crates or something.

Sock's got a good list there, I'd also add:

Keystone Texture
Choose a single texture, then base the entire level around it. Make a few rules for yourself, some examples:
Use the keystone texture in every room
Use the Keystone Texture only on vertical Trims
What texture you use is obviously important, but in various ways - slime is going to be a different challenge to a flat metal without detail, for example.

If you're feeling particularly adventurous try choosing it randomly.

Tilt
This is a rescue thing more than anything. Once you've built your 'uninspired' level, rotate it 15 degees on the ZX or ZY axis.

Difficult to get it on grid, but I guarantee you'll have something interesting afterwards.

Story
Choose a series of events and build seperate areas for each one. 'A bunch of marines crash in a ship into a netherworld castle. They fight their way out of the crash site and reach a deactivated slipgate. They then fight their way across the castle to a key but are mostly slaughtered trying to reach a missing gizmo to reactivate the gate. The lone survivor is killed by some big monster.'

Arm up each of those instances as a set-piece scene, then link them up and bang a start point in there for the player (who isn't the lone survivor). You could try showing them to the player in sequence, but it's a pain in the balls to get right. Just the act of you telling the story for yourself will give the level a much stronger sense of place. 

I never said I just draw the plan, I also draw the outside or the look/feel of the area too... having a plan allows me to play with ideas without having to lay down brushes (which for me is really the time sink part, plus I find if hate an idea then I'd rather hate it at the sketch phase than have to redo a bunch of brushes)..
Having the plan view *and* the profile view, plus my pre-made brush prefabs allows some much nicer workflow and consistency.

I'm really surprised that some of the great mappers here just work in the editor. Like RickyT, StarkMon was a pretty beastly map... I can't imagine trying to make such a complex map without something on paper.

I guess I draw much quicker than I map, but I have been drawing for about 20 years longer than I have been mapping. ;) 

i draw nothing. maybe this hurts my design process a little in that there is less context and cohesion, but i'm too impatient for that kind of thing. if i'm sitting down to make a map, it's because i already have an idea in my head and i want to start building it right away. 

I can't draw for shit, so when I do draw it tends to be 2d - isometric sketches of even rudimentary quality aren't really in my purview...
So i'm pretty Necros style, I guess... Except, you know, I don't actually finish my maps.

Even as a student I only end up pulling my act together because of extrinsic motivation (aka deadline).
Hence only speedmaps being produced, I suppose. 

On personal projects, I never preplan. I'm a big believer in the Cerny Method in game design, where you do lots of preproduction and iteration until you have something like a single level that is shipable that you are happy with, and then enter production from that point. For me as a level designer, that fits how I work as well, I make 1 fully detailed area and theme, generally something like a central hub, and then plan from there.

I also really like reusing spaces. I think it helps give a sense of place to enter leave and return to an area several times. It takes a little bit of thought how to connect things, but I think it's worth it in maximizing how much gameplay you get from a space. The trick can be to make sure it feels natural.

scampsp1 is a good example, the room I made first (with the spiral stairs and angled walkways and gold key door) I basically stuck a bunch of doors at what I felt were natural places, and then thought 'how would I get from that door to that door', and just mentally decided between a few different options until I had a clear plan.


At Raven, I had to draw layouts or use sketchup drawings and write documents of a plan for the level (based from a paragraph blurb for the level from the master Design Document) and then present it to design / art / project leads who would ok or modify the plan. Honestly hated these, often they would be a giant waste of time because sometimes you would get blindsided by random new plans for your level that were decided in other meetings... or the art lead would just randomly decide that some cool centerpiece would need to happen that you had no plan for... or some crazy storyline encounter would be decided on the fly... yattta yatta yattta... and then once you built the map, you'd go through much the same process and likely have to revise several times again anyway! 

Actually that's one of the larger stumbling blocks for me as experience has shown that the original plan for a level is almost never how it actually ships - so why bother? Get something going quickly because you're going to throw it away anyway. It's just how it works... Iteration will eventually result in a fun level. 

Is the best way - start by slapping down big coarse chunky areas, move them around, refine and iterate. Eventually you'll end up with something good.

Nothing worse than spending ages drawing something out on paper then realising it doesn't work when you've built it. 

At college!

(Rapid Application Dev. for anyone who isn't familiar).

I guess I use the dated Waterfall methodology.

Should be using an Agile methodology.... 

like I'm a bit of an anomoly here... With Deck it's easy since the layout and plans are already in my head (and made in UT) so I have no need to lay anything down. But I have a blue map (it may be the next one, maybe) that I drew some above and sideviews to get a kind of feel (the idea came to me when I was going to bed, so I drew it so I wouldn't forget)...
Once it's released I'll scan the plans too for fun. :)
I deviated a little, plus the actual map itself is way more detailed. 

a pragmatic approach. 

I start,
then I'm lost,
I fall,
then I crawl,
I cry,
then I fly,
I wrench,
then I drench,
I choke,
then I'm broke,
I wind,
then I'm blind,
I carve,
then I starve,
I map,
then its's crap,
reconciles,
takes time of miles,
I flute,
then I salute. 

 

I really have to stop reading func_ when trying to finish a map. I can get a basic layout done then I find something cool on func_ and get lost playing with it. Teaching old progs.dat thread is a good example. Quoth has so many tricks, now func_detail is here. Redo the map now to optimize vis? Go to The Tome of Preach find more tricks and must have models, spark a new idea for the layout. Map gets larger, more complex, larger add features and never actually finish. ohh wait look Fitz V can now do this or that, new idea! more complex larger map. I really need discipline! 

Where has ZealousQuakeFan been? After TyrUtils release I thought we would see that massive map with func_detail optimization. 

That would probably help him a big deal. Though maybe he's given up on the whole thing already. 

is if all engines had support for quake 2 style brushes (trans33, trans66, monster clip, current, flowing)...

And TB had native support for Quake2/3 etc. 

ZQF the other day. 

 

Don't need engine support, just QC
Pox's qc extras have moving/flowing water already.