Why no RTS games that actually use exploration in MP?

[Castanova]

All RTS games that I've ever played that have any real multiplayer scene are designed under the premise that a competitive player should have the map memorized as a pre-requisite. SC2 goes so far, if I remember correctly, to pre-reveal the entire map at the start of the match.

Why doesn't anyone design an RTS with randomized maps that you have to explore? Is there something about this concept that doesn't appeal to e-sports types?

To be honest, I think it would improve these games considerably. In competitive SC/SC2, there's pretty much a pre-defined strategy for each race vs. race and race/map combination. For 99% of players, where meta-game isn't as important, winning is mostly about executing this pre-defined strategy better than your opponent. What if a competitive player had to actually, oh I don't know, improvise during a match? What if build orders were about flexibility, not super efficient machines designed to execute one particular unit combination?

 

[Destroid]

If you can run through the motions like a robot and win your opponent wasn't good enough anyway.

 

[markec]

In 7th Legion (if I remember correctly played it long time ago) economy was based by capturing random generated boxes of resources and also you could find boxes with power ups and units. The trick was that you had constant black fog of war and no mini map to find your bearings.

 

[Kraszu]

All RTS games that I've ever played that have any real multiplayer scene are designed under the premise that a competitive player should have the map memorized as a pre-requisite. SC2 goes so far, if I remember correctly, to pre-reveal the entire map at the start of the match.

Why doesn't anyone design an RTS with randomized maps that you have to explore? Is there something about this concept that doesn't appeal to e-sports types?

Because that would make the game to random, can you expand? Not enough info you have to know the pathways, and where your opponent is. It would be mostly guessing game without enough information. Not being able to see what you opponent does other then when you can scout it but that isn't guarantee, and you usually only get clues) gives enough randomness.

Now if you could have balanced random generated maps that you can see but that is new to you, then it could be interesting. But nothing can generate such maps.

To be honest, I think it would improve these games considerably. In competitive SC/SC2, there's pretty much a pre-defined strategy for each race vs. race and race/map combination. For 99% of players, where meta-game isn't as important, winning is mostly about executing this pre-defined strategy better than your opponent. What if a competitive player had to actually, oh I don't know, improvise during a match? What if build orders were about flexibility, not super efficient machines designed to execute one particular unit combination?

It would be better if less advanced player would play on slower speed, so decision making would matter more on low level then it does now.

 

[DakaSha]

Now if you could have balanced random generated maps that you can see but that is new to you, then it could be interesting. But nothing can generate such maps.

Oh you again. our resident expert in random map generation :D

 

[PorkaMorka]

Seems like you could generate balanced random maps as long as they were also symmetrical (obviously it wouldn't be completely random, but then they never really are).

 

[Overweight Manatee]

In a way, some games already do this through randomized start positions. However, in general RTSs rely on games that are short, in which map variation could dominate the game too much. If an RTS were based around 2 hour+ games where players had a chance to scout, implement plans, then fight, it would work. But in RTSs where the emphasis is on lol9pool (i.e. SC and all its imitators) pretty much any map uncertainty at all is a bad idea because half of the games would essentially end based on a coin toss.

Generating mostly-balanced maps wouldn't be that hard at all with a good understanding of each side's capabilities, but simply not having the map known beforehand introduces too much of a luck factor in the majority of RTS games. Best solution for those would be to have a generator that spits out a map and then lets the players have 30s to directly inspect a FoW-cleared version (potentially even letting them spawn units to see if certain strats work, e.g. if a siege unit's range is enough to cover a gap), then start the game up. You could even implement a bidding system where if one player thinks the map is excessively imbalanced they can cede a short-term advantage in exchange for a redo of the map generation process. Downside being that I'm sure lots of idiots would simply leave games in which they don't get a map that favours them.

 

[Kraszu]

Seems like you could generate balanced random maps as long as they were also symmetrical (obviously it wouldn't be completely random, but then they never really are).

Not with how different races work in SC2.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

Seems like you could generate balanced random maps as long as they were also symmetrical (obviously it wouldn't be completely random, but then they never really are).

Not with how different races work in SC2.

You could certainly randomly generate maps better balanced than what Blizzard has made so far for SC2...


Keep in mind that a lot of map imbalance comes from the fact that players have played the map 100 times and have discussed playing the map with 100 other people who have each also played the map 100 times. All it takes is a single person anywhere on the planet to find a trick on a map and start abusing it and then a map that was before "balanced" becomes "imbalanced" after 100k of man-hours have been spent playing.

So long as you have some basic rules preventing obvious problems, like "Don't put high ground only accessible by air in range of a player's main/natural" (lol remind you of any ladder maps in SC2?), you would easily make maps that are on the average better than most official ones. Furthermore any map imbalance would actually require some planning skill on the player to spot and take advantage of on the fly, which is what I would hope Real Time Strategy is supposed to be about instead of pre-game planned strategy that have at best minor execution differences based on what the opponent is building. Plus, its not like its hard to edit the map generation algorithm if certain "bad maps" come up too often.

 

[DakaSha]

Seems like you could generate balanced random maps as long as they were also symmetrical (obviously it wouldn't be completely random, but then they never really are).

Not with how different races work in SC2.

And whos talking about SC2. The thread is about RTS and in the case of a game that used random map generation it would obviously be designed around the aspect.. you were already to dense to understand this last time though so meh (if it was indeed you.. if not then my bad)

 

[MetalCraze]

That's because RTS genre is shit, OP.

Good thing it's dead now.


Play Paradox games.


Alternatively play Rise of Nations which is more like Civ in RT.

Or AoE and AoM.

Or RA2.

They had randomly generated maps you know. 10+ years ago. (not totally sure about RoN though)

Why doesn't anyone design an RTS with randomized maps that you have to explore?

lawl

 

[Sulimo]

All sports that I've ever played that have any real competitive scene are designed under the premise that a competitive player should have the playing field or track memorized as a pre-requisite. Soccer goes so far, if I remember correctly, to pre-reveal the entire map at the start of the match.

Why doesn't anyone design a sport with randomized playing fields that you have to explore? Is there something about this concept that doesn't appeal to sports types?

To be honest, I think it would improve these games considerably. In competitive soccer, there's pretty much a pre-defined strategy for each team vs. team and team/field combination. For 99% of players, where meta-game isn't as important, winning is mostly about executing this pre-defined strategy better than your opponent. What if a competitive player had to actually, oh I don't know, improvise during a match? What if plays were about flexibility, not super efficient machines designed to execute one particular cog in the strategy-machine?

 

[DakaSha]

All sports that I've ever played that have any real competitive scene are designed under the premise that a competitive player should have the playing field or track memorized as a pre-requisite. Soccer goes so far, if I remember correctly, to pre-reveal the entire map at the start of the match.

Why doesn't anyone design a sport with randomized playing fields that you have to explore? Is there something about this concept that doesn't appeal to sports types?

To be honest, I think it would improve these games considerably. In competitive soccer, there's pretty much a pre-defined strategy for each team vs. team and team/field combination. For 99% of players, where meta-game isn't as important, winning is mostly about executing this pre-defined strategy better than your opponent. What if a competitive player had to actually, oh I don't know, improvise during a match? What if plays were about flexibility, not super efficient machines designed to execute one particular cog in the strategy-machine?

Yes and while we are at it lets make all computer games like chess or risk since this would obviously be the best use of the extremely versatile medium.
Also new things are BAD

edit (man i wish there was a spectator sport like that btw)

 

[JarlFrank]

Age of Empires series has random maps with fog of war.

 

[Castanova]

Sulimo, that's a silly analogy. Despite the "e-sports" misnomer, RTS games are not sports. They're computer games that are perpetually imbalanced. One of my points here is that, by generating random maps and forcing exploration, you're adding something unique to the (competitive) genre while excising some of that imbalance.

Basically, competitive RTS right now are very much about your performance outside of the actual match. You need to memorize the race/map matchups, you need to troll forums to stay up to speed with all the latest tricks and exploits, and so on. The match itself follows along a basically scripted path, where maybe 5% of the time someone tries something new. I just think it'd be nice both for the players and the spectators if the matches were a little more unpredictable.

I know AoE has random maps/fog of war but no one takes that game seriously as a competitive RTS, right?

 

[Renegen]

All RTS games that I've ever played that have any real multiplayer scene are designed under the premise that a competitive player should have the map memorized as a pre-requisite. SC2 goes so far, if I remember correctly, to pre-reveal the entire map at the start of the match.

Why doesn't anyone design an RTS with randomized maps that you have to explore? Is there something about this concept that doesn't appeal to e-sports types?

To be honest, I think it would improve these games considerably. In competitive SC/SC2, there's pretty much a pre-defined strategy for each race vs. race and race/map combination. For 99% of players, where meta-game isn't as important, winning is mostly about executing this pre-defined strategy better than your opponent. What if a competitive player had to actually, oh I don't know, improvise during a match? What if build orders were about flexibility, not super efficient machines designed to execute one particular unit combination?

Yeah it's pretty sad that most players just follow a script by heart when playing SC2. And I bet that they spend countless hours debating on forums what the best builds are, and they go through stages of fads. I personally always preferred making up my own strategies, but most people just want an easy set of instruction to read with no thinking required. Another thing that pisses me off to no end is the micro in SC, it's crazy. I think people just go through this bullshit because of the elusive money, fame and glory at the end of the rainbow.

And this is really the answer to your question. SC was one of many RTS out there. Does it have the best multiplayer strategy, the best multiplayer mechanics? No, but it came on top because people liked it and so it's the standard today. But it didn't have to be the standard, other ways of RTS competition could've won. Also, the second reason is that I think not many RTS games spend ressources for multiplayer, and randomized maps take time to do.

Personally I recommend 4X games, they have randomized maps. You can play Sins of a Solar Empire, get your RTS fix AND get your randomized maps.

Now only if the RTS future was based on Sins of a Solar Empire..

 

[hanssolo]

Fog of war is stupid, an esteemed general such as myself would not commit to field if they didn't know the lay of the land. Most RTS are on such a small scale it doesn't make sense.

 

[MetalCraze]

I know AoE has random maps/fog of war but no one takes that game seriously as a competitive RTS, right?

That's because most people are stupid and stupid people are unable to grasp anything past WC3.

AoE requires an effort to play.

Why do you care about stupid people?

 

[TNO]

Could work, but I think the sort of RTS would have to have rounds long enough that individual fluke discoveries don't distort the game, or have lots of short rounds so that the results balance out.

To be fair, my understanding of RTS games is that you are often gambling in the meta anyway, so there's already a luck factor. But I'm mainly a TB nerd.

 

[attackfighter]

All RTS games that I've ever played that have any real multiplayer scene are designed under the premise that a competitive player should have the map memorized as a pre-requisite. SC2 goes so far, if I remember correctly, to pre-reveal the entire map at the start of the match.

Why doesn't anyone design an RTS with randomized maps that you have to explore? Is there something about this concept that doesn't appeal to e-sports types?

To be honest, I think it would improve these games considerably. In competitive SC/SC2, there's pretty much a pre-defined strategy for each race vs. race and race/map combination. For 99% of players, where meta-game isn't as important, winning is mostly about executing this pre-defined strategy better than your opponent. What if a competitive player had to actually, oh I don't know, improvise during a match? What if build orders were about flexibility, not super efficient machines designed to execute one particular unit combination?

Yeah it's pretty sad that most players just follow a script by heart when playing SC2. And I bet that they spend countless hours debating on forums what the best builds are, and they go through stages of fads. I personally always preferred making up my own strategies, but most people just want an easy set of instruction to read with no thinking required. Another thing that pisses me off to no end is the micro in SC, it's crazy. I think people just go through this bullshit because of the elusive money, fame and glory at the end of the rainbow.

And this is really the answer to your question. SC was one of many RTS out there. Does it have the best multiplayer strategy, the best multiplayer mechanics? No, but it came on top because people liked it and so it's the standard today. But it didn't have to be the standard, other ways of RTS competition could've won. Also, the second reason is that I think not many RTS games spend ressources for multiplayer, and randomized maps take time to do.

Personally I recommend 4X games, they have randomized maps. You can play Sins of a Solar Empire, get your RTS fix AND get your randomized maps.

Now only if the RTS future was based on Sins of a Solar Empire..

Micro is the funnest part of SC. Go play SC2 if you hate micro so much

 

[FallenOut]

Like someone mentioned, AOE series has a system like what you're describing. I like it a lot more than the fixed maps in SC for example. In AOE 2 I remember specifically that you would definitely have certain resources near your starting location but you wouldn't know exactly where. You had a scout unit with which you have to find them. Everyone would start with a large gold mine, stone mine, forests, 2 board and 3 or 4 deer near their base. Now all of these may be located in places that make them easy to defend and they may not. Your forests might make it easy to wall in, they might not etc. It definitely requires a bit of improvising to make the most of your situation and also to exploit your enemy's location.

I know this is blasphemy but I was always a bigger fan of AOE 2 than SC for a number of reasons, this is one of them. I would rather have this kind of randomness add a new gameplay element than playing the game on fastest speed where the best player at micro wins.

The other thing that bothered me about SC maps was that you sometimes had to know very specific information about each map. Some maps for example (BGH) have that tiny plateau right above your main where tanks can drop. Now the ugly part is that this is only true for a few of the locations on the map and you have to know which ones. I just feel you really had to play SC a LOT in order to not get your ass handed to you. Though to be fair, I still played it when it was a pretty old game and by then I think only good players were left on Bnet.

Btw did anyone else have a problem with much of the SC strategy and race balance revolving around the choke point to your main? I always thought it was kind of goofy that the most popular maps played had (conveniently) only one entrance to your main base making it easy to defend. If there were 2 chokes, would a terran player even have a chance against a rush? I never thought so although I was never that great of a player.

 

[kingcomrade]

But nothing can generate such maps.

Why not, Starcraft maps are pretty much all the same. Oh this one doesn't have a nat expansion! :korean audience whoaaaaa:

 

[AzraelCC]

Exploration is something that RTS games can have, but it requires a good understanding of game design to make the player feel that he won by outsmarting his opponent, not because it took him more time to find a resource than the other player. I think rogue-likes can be a great inspiration for RTS games, since both revolve around economy management anyway.

Your typical RTS requires resources to make units, usually combining two or more types for more advanced units. Say, a footman requires 100 gold and 25 iron as such. The problem is that each tier of unit level has pretty much the same resource requirement, with variations in amounts and ratios only. It would be interesting if there are several types of units available for each tier, with different resource requirements. The map generator would randomly generate the resources which is close (and equidistant) for each of the players, and the unit that they can initially create will depend on the resource at hand. To have more options, exploration would be needed--or they could stay with the same resource initially and have a focused strategy.

This is very similar to a roguelike where you might find wands before a suit of armor, but you can use both to survive and carry on to find other items. It will also push the imperative to scout for each player, since they both don't know which resource is available initially to the opponent. So you either scout for more varied resources, or you go for the opponent's base to see what units options he has.

But of course, it would take a dedicated developer to actually take time to balance such an RTS.

 

[Wyrmlord]

I know AoE has random maps/fog of war but no one takes that game seriously as a competitive RTS, right?

That's because most people are stupid and stupid people are unable to grasp anything past WC3.

AoE requires an effort to play.

Why do you care about stupid people?

Age of Empires and Age of Mythology are your ideas of challenging RTSes?

They are pretty slugg-ish games that reward slothlike players, for sitting, building walls, building wonders, and trying to outlast it all. Not to mention their oversimplified rock-paper-scissors system.

I know you'll respond that you don't think those are deep games, that TBS games are better, but you consider them relatively better than other RTSes - but my point is that RTS as a fast-paced action genre is meant for arcadey stuff like Warcraft 3 and Company of Heroes. The Age games OTOH try to be a halfway point between patient turn-based empire building games and superfast RTS games.

 

[Konjad]

I know AoE has random maps/fog of war but no one takes that game seriously as a competitive RTS, right?

That's because most people are stupid and stupid people are unable to grasp anything past WC3.

AoE requires an effort to play.

No. AoE is shit in multiplayer and doesn't require skills, except if you call 'skills' spamming catapults, archers and some top-tier infantry units. I played it for some time, scale of it (ie larger maps) also make it impossible to defend your base while attacking, so you just hope for luck that enemy won't attack. On smaller maps it's better, but the game is still derp. The only good thing are the random generated maps indeed.

 

[TheWesDude]

But in RTSs where the emphasis is on lol9pool (i.e. SC and all its imitators) pretty much any map uncertainty at all is a bad idea because half of the games would essentially end based on a coin toss.

what are you talking about...

SC was pretty much panned for how slow it was.

thats why in SC FA they greatly sped it up.

but a lot of it was the map.


there is a huge diff between the duration and game tactics on a 5km, 10km and a 20km map.


srsly, look at a replay of finns island vs setons and they are very different games.