BvG
Novice
- Joined
- May 23, 2010
- Messages
- 22
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.
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.