Why no RTS games that actually use exploration in MP?

[BvG]

Why is there a lack of exploration gameplay in multiplayer RTS games?

Because of two reasons:

1. Exploration takes time
In an RTS, especially in Multiplayer, things are geared towards time optimisation. If some task takes a lot of time, it tends to become reduced in play testing, because testing will show that people are annoyed by slow pace. Exploration takes a lot of time with little reward during that time. Inversely, most single player campaigns are often only exploration (for example in Empire Earth). Again this is because Exploration takes a lot of time, but doesn't need any additional programming time. As development time is money, using explorative gameplay allows to create a lot of content.

2. Exploration is hard to balance
Exploration only makes sense if things can actually pop up randomly. If things pop up randomly often, then they're not explored, but expected. If a thing is at the same time sparce and random, it becomes hard to balance, and increases luck. This is generally considered a bad thing in multiplayer environments. A good example is comparing goody huts in Civilization (foremost a single player game) and Creeps in Warcraft 3. The two concepts seem similar at first sight. You have to find them and exploit them. However, in all Civilization incarnations, the goody huts are random, and sparce. In Civ 1 they sometimes sprouted barbarians, often killing your exploration unit. Creeps in WC3 are very common, and the maps show clearly visible pockets where they are to be expected. They always behave the same way, and the reward is fixed (relative to their strength). So in a sense, they are much more of a resource then random finds.


In essence, the expected gameplay of multiplayer RTS is not easily geared towards explorative gameplay. Because it's hard to balance, and hard to make fun in the context.

 

[Castanova]

1. Exploration takes time

Well, that depends on how the game is designed. It wouldn't take more than 30-120 seconds to explore a StarCraft map. I don't think the point is to have massive, convoluted levels where you have to map out a labyrinth just to find your opponent. It's more to randomize the smaller maps you're on so that every match isn't about twitch-optimizing a rote strategy.

2. Exploration is hard to balance

True, if you take exploration as the defining feature and expand it out (kinda like WarCraft 3's original concept before they gave up and made it a straight RTS). But it's not hard to balance if we're talking about fairly standard maps except you don't know EXACTLY what to expect each time.

In StarCraft, you scout because (a) MAYBE you don't know which spawn point your enemy is in and (b) because you want to see what your enemy is building. What if you could add (c) you want to know what strategies are viable for this map? Rather than (c) being answered by the title of the map at the loading screen.

 

[attackfighter]

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:

*spits out his coffee*

There's huge variation in the SC1 map pool, juat take a look at these examples and see for yourself:
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images/6/63/200_Outsider.jpg
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images/9/96/199_Heartbreak_Ridge.jpg

Vastly different both in the ways they look and the playstyles they require. No other RTS has as varied and large a map pool as StarCraft 1.

 

[DraQ]

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?

There is no problem with generating symmetrical map layout randomly, and they are balanced by definition.

Generating interesting map layout may be another thing, but should be possible. Generating asymmetrical, balanced map would be hard and might require extraordinary feats of balance - not just any side performing just as well against any other given equal starting conditions, but any side being able to adapt to different possible start conditions.

 

[attackfighter]

There is no problem with generating symmetrical map layout randomly, and they are balanced by definition.

Generating interesting map layout may be another thing, but should be possible. Generating asymmetrical, balanced map would be hard and might require extraordinary feats of balance - not just any side performing just as well against any other given equal starting conditions, but any side being able to adapt to different possible start conditions.

Symmetrical maps aren't balanced 'by definition' if there's more than one playable faction to choose from.

 

[FallenOut]

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.

I can't speak for Age of Empires having never played it. I've played the sequel however and I agree that they are a kind of a halfway point. Not as fast paced as SC for example and not as slow/strategic as 4x games. In AOE 2 though you are definitely NOT rewarded for being a slothlike player. Turtling like in any good RTS only works against bad players. On most popular maps (arabia) it was impossible to turtle and while on some others it was easier, if you tried it it would mean only that you would die a slower death.

 

[Johannes]

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.

Derp

Try watching some games of AoE2 and think how far you'd get with spamming the best units and hoping enemy won't attack.
Quickly searched example game http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1UEf4auHHg

 

[gp1628]

Dominions 3 definitely does. It has the ability to create a random map in the game or use one someone manually created. There is exploration and discovery involved. The terrain is known but the other players and the extent of their domains must be found. Also each province must be searched to find special sites allowing boosts to economy or allowing the recruiting of unusual units.

As people have said, some multiplayers dont like random maps. It depends on their gameplay. Some are more RPG and dont mind random variables. Others are more into the strategy even to the point of being ladder players for ranking. Those people tend to hate that a game can be decided by randoms and not purely winning or losing by your choice of tactics.

Dom3 supports both types of play. Some people play only on manually created balanced maps, others only play on random maps for the surprises. Dom3 also has extensive map commands which can be added to a text file for a map which can create VERY different highly random games, or make changes to cut down on the micromanagment. The last is important because the game can support some really HUGE maps. Up to 1500 provinces which can give each player hundreds of provs to take before running into another player. It can play almost like a MMORPG.

I regret that so many of the MPers tend to play on small tight maps. Dom3 has 73 nations (moddable up to 99) all of which are unique with special abilities and units. MPers who play on the same size maps all the time tend to develop opinions on what nations are "great' and which ones "suck". But some of them (which tend to be my favorites) are obviously designed around large maps so their built-in advantages make them "suck" on small maps.

 

[DraQ]

There is no problem with generating symmetrical map layout randomly, and they are balanced by definition.

Generating interesting map layout may be another thing, but should be possible. Generating asymmetrical, balanced map would be hard and might require extraordinary feats of balance - not just any side performing just as well against any other given equal starting conditions, but any side being able to adapt to different possible start conditions.

Symmetrical maps aren't balanced 'by definition' if there's more than one playable faction to choose from.

If your factions aren't balanced in a competitive game, then the factions, not maps are your problem.

 

[Kraszu]

There is no problem with generating symmetrical map layout randomly, and they are balanced by definition.

Generating interesting map layout may be another thing, but should be possible. Generating asymmetrical, balanced map would be hard and might require extraordinary feats of balance - not just any side performing just as well against any other given equal starting conditions, but any side being able to adapt to different possible start conditions.

Symmetrical maps aren't balanced 'by definition' if there's more than one playable faction to choose from.

If your factions aren't balanced in a competitive game, then the factions, not maps are your problem.

No if the fractions would be balanced for every symmetrical map, then they would be exactly the same economically wise, and they would have to take as much advantage on different terrain composition that would make the game dull, if you want distinctly different fractions then you need maps that work with that.