Hey I've been thinking about this for a while now: In your typical RTS game, your map has to end somewhere - I've basically only seen 2-3 different possibilities of this in games so far: Note: I'm talking mainly about outside maps here, so either topdown, isometric, or 3D, mainly bird's eye perspective. 2D side view is another thing entirely, which I wish not to cover here. If you're interested in that, start a seperate thread. - edge of the world: you have the edge of the (square, rhombe, rectangular, whatever) map and beyond it, it's just black or a very dark pattern. Some games even take it to the ironic, and make it like the stereotypical edge of the world (cave-like, with stalagtites and so forth) Examples: Settlers (2?,) 3 & 4, Transport Tycoon, Rollercoaster Tycoon, Tropico, Sims, Heroes of Might & Magic series, and I think, all AoE/AoK based games (i.e. AoE, AoE2, America, etc.) - scrolling limit: you just can't move the viewing area outside a certain rectangle on the map, an therefore can also not order your units outside of that area. Examples: Command & Conquer series (although the top and bottom map edges are not technically that way), and I *think* the Warcraft/Starcraft series. Stronghold. Possibly Commandos. - invisible barrier: there is an "edge of the world" even though it might not be visually apparent. Either you bump into it or you get penalized if you cross it. The map itself extends a bit farther out, but you can't access that part. Mainly used for 3D games. Examples: Ground Control (invisible wall, think Time Bandits), Tribes2 (if you're carrying the flag you lose it, and you lose health if you stay outside the mission area for too long), and many flight sims I would think. I believe Warcraft III is sort of this way as well, although you don't see very far (at all?)outside anyway, so I count it as category 2. My question is: What other ways can (has?) this be done? Most of the current methods are rather "awkward" when you actually come to think of it. I know we have become very accustomed to them, but that's no reason why we shouldn't improve them. A way to circumvent the problem entirely is to use a wrapping map, meaning you don't have an edge in the first place. The most intuitive form of this would be a "planet" scenario, but that would either mean you have huge maps or a tiny planet, neither of which would fit your average multiplayer skirmish RTS very well. Planet worlds are (I take it) slowly actually being done, but I think they're overkill for say at least, 2-6 players. They also don't fit many real settings. Wrapping as in Settlers 1 is just plain weird - small maps wrapping round for no apparent reason at all are rather unintuitive, and are even worse with respect to realism. So what other methods are there? Personally, the most comfortable would be an enormous map, but the actual action is confined to a certain area. The players just don't have a reason to wander far off. This is very possible to do for some games. Example: siege games - why would you abandon whatever you're trying to protect? OK, you might want to admire the untouched natural surroundings, but that won't get you far in the game... Your opponent will probably also not want to go far into the jungle when he's supposed to destroy/take over your fortress. In more classical strategy games (think C&C, either with or without building bases) such a map system would provoke highly defensive gameplay, and games would last for hours or days. Ideas? - JQ Full Speed Games. Are back. P.S. Some of my examples might not be 100% accurate, and I would much appreciate it if this thread would not consist entirely of pedantic posts... edit: formatting & stuff [edited by - JonnyQuest on November 11, 2002 9:13:12 AM]

I am looking forward to planets that are freely roamable although I think your points are valid. A full planet is only feasible in a massively multiplayer game, for 2-6 player skirmishes maybe larger maps than are necesary for the actutal action is the best idea. The problems come when newbies are playing on open servers and decide to go wandering around the place believing they can find some secret something and spoiling the game for the rest of the players.
Mark Coleman

The "newbie" problem you describe is valid - I hadn''t thought of that. However, if you stay consistent within the game and have all maps this way, you will eventually get the point across even to the dumbest newbies.

- JQ
Full Speed Games. Are back.

To be honest, I don''t think the enormous map idea is necessarily the best solution. The benefits don''t really outweigh the disadvantages, in my opinion.

Pros
1. Better suspension of disbelief - arbitrary map limits remind the player that he is playing a game.
2. I can''t actually think of another advantage.

Cons
1. Technology - generating a complete planet will probably push the limits of technology quite hard before you''ve even added any units and buildings and AI.
2. Needle in a haystack: What is to stop a player sending a unit off and building something in some obscure part of the map, meaning you can''t win until you''ve scoured the entire planet and found him. Given the lengths some people will go to to be annoying in online games, I don''t think this possibility can be ignored.
3. You''ll still lose suspension of disbelief, since the planet will most likely be rather empty. Populating it is going to make #1 more of an issue.
4. Resources - how are resources going to work? If resources are confined to the ''playable'' area, #3 comes into play. If they are distributed over the map, players will naturally migrate away from each other, which is precisely the opposite of what you want them to do.

I''d rather force my players to stick to an limited area than to open the can of worms that a freely roamable planet offers.

Also, I think you missed another solution which is often used - surrounding the playable area with impassable terrain, so the player simply cannot explore outside it.

I think my favourite solution out of those listed, would be the scrolling limit, although this doesn''t work so well with a roaming 3d camera. For a 3D game, I''d be inclined to go with the invisible barrier.

Sandman, you´re still thinking in Dune terms. RTS (etc.) can and should be much more than that by now.

How about something like this:

You have designer generated maps, with the addition of randomly generated terrain once you leave the core area. That way you have full control over relevant areas while not restricting players movement.

Now for the restrictions:
The "kill all enemy" win condition isn´t really useful anymore anyway, so one stray unit won´t hurt you. Make victory conditions based on overall military strength, certain buildings, etc.
Make a supply system, requiring every unit to have a designated base somewhere. If there´s no base within a certain are the unit cannot go there (think of it in terms of abstract fuel capacity). That way the farther out a player tries to go, the more expensive it gets.
Then you´ll probably have your resources, that, and the need to supply your bases with raw materials will put a natural limit on how far players will build. Raw materials exist only in the core map, thereby limiting the players incentive to move around too much.

Check out my game: War Worlds. It''s got wrapping maps like you describe.

I guess of particular interest to you would be the screen shots page, but you can also download an early version of the game.

I haven''t worked on it in a while, but I haven''t totally abandoned it

If I had my way, I''d have all of you shot! codeka.com - Just click it.

quote: Original post by Hase
Sandman, you´re still thinking in Dune terms. RTS (etc.) can and should be much more than that by now.

True. If someone mentions RTS I tend to assume they mean something like that unless they give me a reason to think otherwise. A bad habit I know.

quote:
The "kill all enemy" win condition isn´t really useful anymore anyway, so one stray unit won´t hurt you. Make victory conditions based on overall military strength, certain buildings, etc.
Make a supply system, requiring every unit to have a designated base somewhere. If there´s no base within a certain are the unit cannot go there (think of it in terms of abstract fuel capacity). That way the farther out a player tries to go, the more expensive it gets.
Then you´ll probably have your resources, that, and the need to supply your bases with raw materials will put a natural limit on how far players will build. Raw materials exist only in the core map, thereby limiting the players incentive to move around too much.

I like this idea. My only concern is that by letting the player roam [relatively] freely, you are potentially confusing the player rather than helping him. I remember playing some flight sims and other games which generated random terrain outside the main map, and it is very easy to get completely lost, and be unable to find your way back to the main area. The camera could have a hotkey that resets it to the right part of the map, but I can''t help feeling that this approach is more trouble than it is really worth.

It depends on how much you´re going to guide the player. If its a traditional "find the enemy base" RTS then problems like those you mentioned are likely, if however you manage to draw the player to the core areas of the map not only passively (resources, etc.) but actively (enemies emerging, etc.) then the player will automatically direct his attention there.

The same would have been true with that flying game you mentioned, people are drawn to action, so as long as the game would have presented you something interesting to look at you would have automatically gone there (you could even rig random opponents to draw the player back to the action).

You bring up an interesting point, and one I have only considered obliquely in my own game. I think having "unlimited" maps brings in an incredibly variety of options to strategic thinking.

In today''s games, due to the restricted nature of the maps, the battle areas themselves become chokepoints. In other words, the game designers (specifically the level designers) have already dictated where the battles will happen. In real warfare, this is one of the most crucial skills that a commander must learn, knowing where to fight. But the level designers have basically robbed the players of this decision.

Most pivotal battles in history took place because one commader was skillful enough to force the other side into battle then and there. Some will say that where a battle will take place in today''s limited map is just a matter of scale....the good player will chose the best chokepoints to attack, or attack obvious targets like resources.

Trouble is the designer has already narrowed choices to the plainly obvious. I''m sure the French were quite mortified in WWII when the Germans simply bypassed the Maginot line by rolling through Belgium. I''m also sure the Germans were surprised when the allies attacked the farther coasts of Normandy instead of directly across from Dover.

Having unrestricted ability to chose when and where you fight is of the utmost importance in a strategy game...far more important as a matter of fact than what units to send to battle, or even how quickly you can build up your economy. If you can force your opponent to always react, then you dictate the course of the war. I even hate how many games don''t allow you the true opportunity to maneuver. When I used to play miniature wargames, I hate how the table limited how I could use my forces. I often wanted to send my fast cavalry units on a wide sweeping flanking maneuver. They would effectively have been unuseable to me for the first half of the game, but getting hit on the flank or rear with cavalry is not a good position to be in, and is often times worth it. The same thing happens in computer games where the map limits where I can maneuver my forces.

So I think unlimited maps are a great idea, but technologically, I''m not sure how you can do this. I suppose you could borrow some tricks from flight sims and use fractal generators to generate the terrain, but then you have pseudo-random terrain, which really isn''t feasible. Another possibility is generating maps during runtime rather during compile time. In other words, depending on where you wish to fight, the game engine actually takes a database of the world and constructs it. However, I imagine this would dramatically slow down the game. Still, depending on how it''s done this could be workable. For example, lets say that you are playing a WWII game, and you think that a straight drive from Normandy into Germany is a stupid idea. So you get the idea that if you can drop some airborne divisions into Holland to capture some key bridges and then take the backroad into Germany, this is a much better idea (which was Field Marshall Montgomery''s failed alternative plan to assault Germany). Most games will probably force you into the obvious choice and only generate maps for France and Germany. But in this game, when you chose to drop your forces into Holland, the computer dynamically generates the maps of Holland from a database file.

Instead of having .dll files that holds the resources for the game (maps, wave files, icons, etc), you can have the game engine generate the map from the database data. The database data would be more compact since it is more abstract but the game engine would essentially "build" the world from key data. I think this is doable, but the load times for missions would probably be staggering, and only the most patient players wouldn''t get turned off by this. But I think it''s a possibility to create unlimited maps. The other advantage of .dll files is that they would be more responsive since they have already gone through the compiler''s optimisation. Since the game engine would have to build the map data to it''s own internal data structure, I''m not sure how responsive it would be compared to a more tradtional map structure. I''m only a novice programmer, so more experienced programmers are free to shoot my idea full of holes But it''s the only thing I could think of off the top of my head.

One other way of visualizing the edges of a map, is one that I would love to see in a game (hmmm....maybe I''ll put that in my wishlist doc :D ).

I don''t know if any of ya have seen the movie ''13th Floor'', but they ended their ''world'' in wireframes :D

Quite nifty to show the edge of a map if ya ask me

-G-