Art of War - Part 35 Map Dynamics

[Myll Erik]

Welcome to our new series where we will be taking a look at various RTS game-play mechanics and examining what makes certain things work. We will also be discussing various other aspects of the RTS genre, so keep checking back for new topics! Now for some ground rules :

• Stay on Topic
• Keep things as general as possible - this is not a bashing thread! We are now adding in an End of Nations spin!
• This is to encourage thought - therefore well thought out ideas are encouraged!
• Healthy Debate is also encouraged, but flaming/spamming will be dealt with swiftly.

Art of War - Part 35 Map Dynamics

This time on Art of War I'm breaking things down a bit and going to start a topic about map dynamics and how they affect the RTS game and genre. Everything from map choke point to maps creating elevation or straight map bonuses will be explored.

First I'm all about the fair map. That means I want to beat my opponent fairly without having any inclination of an inherent map advantage. That means that each us of have the same chance as winning and it's not dependent on a map giving one of us an advantage. I really enjoy a good RMS (Random Map Script) so that A)The map is random each time and cannot be memorized and B)It's fair for both players 95% of the time. This creates that randomness and fairness that I strive for however it does present other problems. With a RMS you can be given maps where a choke point works particularly well in your favor or you could be given a map where certain resources or points are the same distance away from each player - yet there is a mountain or another barrier in the way. So, that's why many RTS games have focused much more on the pre-made map where all players play the same exact map over and over again. While this leads to more repetitive steps and this does help the fair factor a lot.

Speaking of choke points and other map dynamics, I’m not typically a fan of these when they give players bonuses but are only applicable to one player or play-style. I’d prefer to give players options. For example, I could be on a map with impassable terrain and use it to my advantage by funneling my enemy to the choke point; rather than have a map that chooses the choke point for me, I get to pick the place myself. And then there are examples of RTS games that give players bonuses for elevation or controlling certain icons or units on a map. These things, in my mind, take away from the pure RTS aspect of the game. Elevation is tricky as it does provide some realism, however in terms of game balance I’m not a fan. Capturing a random object on the map isn’t really my style either; are you fighting each other or are you fighting over a point? I guess it doesn’t affect many people, but that’s my typical point of view. If you are going to include points or strategic objectives the game should focus on them so they don’t feel like a halfway incorporated idea.

This week I'm eager to hear back from you about Map Dynamics :

1. Do you like playing the same map over and over or would you prefer a RMS?

2. What do you think about having maps laid out where you don't get to choose your tactics?

3. Within End of Nations - have you seen any maps or heard of any maps that you think sound fun?

4. What are your thoughts on having in-map elements that give you some sort of bonus?

[Zhenya]

1. Do you like playing the same map over and over or would you prefer a RMS?

2. What do you think about having maps laid out where you don't get to choose your tactics?

3. Within End of Nations - have you seen any maps or heard of any maps that you think sound fun?

4. What are your thoughts on having in-map elements that give you some sort of bonus?

1. I like playing the same maps over and over. I think a lot of interesting strategies come from really drilling deep on maps, and randomized maps, (or even map pools that change all the time) don't really allow that kind of strategy development which I think incredibly fascinating and adds a ton to my enjoyment of RTS. There is something to be said for being able to think on your feet in terms of random maps, but to me I get a lot of my enjoyment from in RTS from the planning/practicing outside of games, and a lot of randomness diminishes the ability to do this.

2. I'm not 100% sure I understand this question, first of all. Any map is going to "choose" where you engage to a certain extent by virtue of its terrain - there will be good and bad places to engage for a given strategy. I guess an ideal map will have a variety of playstyles be viable, but at the same time having different strategies be good on different maps isn't a bad thing either. It encourages players not to pigeonhole themselves into one style all the time and makes people understand a wider variety of the game mechanics. Alternatively, it requires a player to really explore the map deeply to make their "normal" playstyle work, which is also good.

Finally, I'm generally fine with highground/other mechanics IF they serve a good gameplay reason - "realism" not being a good enough justification on its own. So, it is really a case by case basis.

3. Well, I got to play Resource Hog and Deep Hammer at Gamers Day in SF. Of the two, I think I liked Resource Hog better, as it felt a big more dynamic and open, where as Deep Hammer was a bit more just two armies crashing straight into each other. Granted, there is fun to be had with that as well, but over the long haul if I had to guess RH would provide more interesting games.

4. It really depends on what the bonus is. If it is totally arbitrary, I'm not a huge fan. (Sit a unit here and you get 15% increased whatever!) It isn't that I don't mind parts of a map being more important than others, but sometimes with these kinds of points provide such a bonus that they must be held to won (which effectively severely limits viable strategies). On the other hand, maps which are designed to have important terrain that is worth holding for strategic or tactical reasons definitely give a "bonus" for holding them, but I'm pretty sure you aren't talking about this kind of emergent bonus.

[BrodlRodl]

1. Do you like playing the same map over and over or would you prefer a RMS?

2. What do you think about having maps laid out where you don't get to choose your tactics?

3. Within End of Nations - have you seen any maps or heard of any maps that you think sound fun?

4. What are your thoughts on having in-map elements that give you some sort of bonus? [/B]

1) Not at all.

2) Sounds interesting - but i think i would have to tryOut first. Would be like "randomDraft" in Mobas, right?

3) I have heard, there will be a lot of different gameModes in EoN. I think thats a great idea, while it might make balanceWorks even harder, than having the progression does anyways.
Still, there should be some sort of "main-battleMode", that fills about half the maps. I d suggest some sort of domination-mode.

4) Especially in a game like EoN, where we aint got much of Macro-Work at all, it might be cruzial to have some regions that grant cover(roughWilderness), extraDmg(plainFields), extraSpeed (streets) and so on. I would really like to see such things in EoN...

[wayward]

This week I'm eager to hear back from you about Map Dynamics :

1. Do you like playing the same map over and over or would you prefer a RMS?

2. What do you think about having maps laid out where you don't get to choose your tactics?

3. Within End of Nations - have you seen any maps or heard of any maps that you think sound fun?

4. What are your thoughts on having in-map elements that give you some sort of bonus?

1. I like playing the same map over and over. To me, learning a map, and how to effectively play on that map, is a big part of being a good RTS player. Also, typically strategies for each map tend to evolve over time, which is slowed down by randomly generated terrain (which by itself can cause huge issues like that mountain you mentioned that blocks what should have been a fairly close natural resource source).

2. I'm not 100% sure I understand your question here... Neither do I fully understand your example. I think a well-deisgned map will allow for a variety of play tactics to be successful (though some play styles will be at a disadvantage, I think that's inevitable). As zhenya said, though, I thnk (particularly for a tactical game like End of Nations) that encouraging different play styles in various maps is a very good thing: I hope to see that 1v1 and 2v2 maps will play very differently from 28v28 maps, for instance!

Also, in an objective-based multiplayer game (such as Brink) various maps being equated with various game modes helps make multiplayer more interesting. Hopefully, base/tower defense, point capture, horde mode, and other game types will be explored in EON, either for competitive multiplayer or single player. In fact, I actually tend to prefer objective-based games such as DOW2 or CNC4 over straight competitive games like SC2... Just a personal preference thing, so I won't be able to write a novel about it.

In terms of game balance, LOS blocking gives a potentially huge advantage to air units and artillery units, just look at seige tanks + cliffs in SC2. While balanced in the overall scheme of things, it's relatively simple for Terran players in that game to monopolize cliffs and choke points in ways that easily invalidate many Zerg (in particular) ground strategies.

3. I can't wait to play Deep Hammer and Icebreaker (that 2v2 on the ship that you've been showing off so much lately - Mike Legg let the name slip at E3)

4. Coming from a Command and Conquer background, I do like having capture points on a map: super weapons, watch towers, resource generation... even unit garrisoning is a form of "capture point" on a map. I think that if these are well balanced, they can add a lot of depth and interest to a match. Also, on a map-by-map basis, it can add new dynamics to your faction, team or play style. If you're talking about like, a stat bonus or similar (+2 armor for holding this factory) to me, that's an interesting mechanic and a MORE interesting take on unit upgrading than what we see in games like StarCraft.

[Zottebengel]

1. Do you like playing the same map over and over or would you prefer a RMS?

2. What do you think about having maps laid out where you don't get to choose your tactics?

3. Within End of Nations - have you seen any maps or heard of any maps that you think sound fun?

4. What are your thoughts on having in-map elements that give you some sort of bonus? [/B]

1) I don't Like to play all the time the same map, I prefer RMS. If u got rms, its more variable and more fun. Also its nice to relook tactics, etc...

2) Lame... I realy dont like that way, but actualy word of trying it out.

3) I only saw the maps from the movies, and the one of the last movie lookt verry nice !

4) I would love it, something like crates that give u a extra air strike or somthing? but please don't put to many on one map, becaus that would greate a crappy game then.

[comradeDa]

1. Do you like playing the same map over and over or would you prefer a RMS?

Sometimes RMS is fine, but most people will tend to play a very small selection of maps (for a variety of reasons). If you wanted to go the whole nine, you could have RMS where the players can choose which possible maps the RNG selects (or not play). It would be interesting to see the statistics on that if that were implemented.

2. What do you think about having maps laid out where you don't get to choose your tactics?

Most maps should be areas where each class or specialisation can shine. However, it is possible to try to be too 'clever', so try to keep it relatively simple. Once more expansive testing begins, modify the maps to suit balance (or not).

3. Within End of Nations - have you seen any maps or heard of any maps that you think sound fun?

Most of the information available concerns newer game mechanics, rather than any specific maps. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as this game is relatively progressive.

4. What are your thoughts on having in-map elements that give you some sort of bonus?

It is perfectly acceptable. However, have only bonuses that affect a relatively small area, or be very limited with global bonuses. Too much positive feedback alienates new players and shortens games significantly.

[Rebel Comrade]

1. I'd like to have both types of maps.
3. Nope.
4. Yes, I'd like to see such elements, such as parts where you move slow (river, marsh), unable to get damage (starting position, home base), giving bonus range (high places). Because they add some interesting variety.

But those bonuses should be little and few, so people can focus on micromanagement.

[ZZZX]

I know something that would add replayablity even more to the game

Mayb Include a Map editor?

That would be better and best maps gets higher in ranking and well possibily it doesnt effect ranking / win-lose rating or whatever theywill put