Random Map Generators for single player gaming?
LShaping
wondering how much a random map generator adds to a single player
game. As far as I can tell, most gamers in here want random maps for
after the scripted part (campaign?) is finished. OK. But does it
help that much with such bad play by the computer? Assuming a random
map generator is included in your favorite game, will the next
complaint be about how horrible the computer player is after the
campaign is over? You know it cannot play worth beans on a random
map.
FWIW: Imagine playing single player on random maps with base plans
for the computer player. You could get potentially thousands of them
from the Internet for any given game. So at least your computer
player opponent would start out building a half decent base (any of
who knows how many different bases from various designers,
continuously updated), even though it would be followed by the same
lousy non-scripted play.
LShaping
--
The keyboard keys Microsoft never told you about.
http://pages.prodigy.net/logicshaping
--
RoadRunner subscriber disagree with you? Can't handle peer pressure? Silence
your opposition the easy way. Send a few of his "off-topic" posts to ab...@rr.com.
Jeremy Reaban
"LShaping" <noS...@all.please> wrote in message
news:qnb8cugjiap3s5hdc...@4ax.com...
> I do not play single (except Total Annihilation sometimes), so I am
> wondering how much a random map generator adds to a single player
> game. As far as I can tell, most gamers in here want random maps
for
> after the scripted part (campaign?) is finished. OK. But does it
> help that much with such bad play by the computer? Assuming a
random
> map generator is included in your favorite game, will the next
> complaint be about how horrible the computer player is after the
> campaign is over? You know it cannot play worth beans on a random
> map.
????
Most turn based games do not have scripted AI. Most games with map
editors don't really have scripted AI.
Quite frankly, I don't see why an RTS fan would care about random maps
or not - there's only half a dozen (or more) RTSes coming out a month,
so they always have something to play. There's what, 5-6 prominent
turn based games a year, and most of those suck
Code Monkey
says...
>
> Quite frankly, I don't see why an RTS fan would care about random maps
> or not - there's only half a dozen (or more) RTSes coming out a month,
> so they always have something to play. There's what, 5-6 prominent
> turn based games a year, and most of those suck
>
Even ignoring the fact that you're just as much a troll as LShaping in
most of your posts, your half-dozen figure is off by a significant
amount. Counting expansions, there are maybe 2 or 3 RTS releases on
any note a month and they are usually about as similar as Jagged
Alliance 2 and Homm3 are for the TBS genre. In other words, you have
no point.
I can count on one hand the number of good RTS games I've played in the
past 5 years, it takes me at least two hands to count the good TBS
games. I don't give a fuck what the ratio of releases is, a good game
is a good game and a bad game sucks just as much as any other no matter
what the genre.
Tim
column. Sorry LShaping, I didn't mean it to.....
> OK. But does it
> help that much with such bad play by the computer?
> You know it cannot play worth beans on a random
> map.
I don't play RTS's, but I've always been under the impression--from what I
hear and read--that most RTS fans would say that the AI can't play worth
beans on a designed map, either. That's why all RTS fans insist on MP
support and "equal / balanced" MP maps.....
Either way, I think most of the AI used in the games I play aren't scripted
for any particular map but to play the game in general against a human
player. I don't play RTS's much, are RTS AI's scripted differently from map
to map? (I wouldn't know, but that would help me understand why some folks
don't see the point of a rmg) I was under the impression that AI's were
generally given "behavior" models (expansionistic, aggressive, passive,
peaceful, etc) and acted (or tried to act) accordingly. Your experience
with RTS's may be entirely different from that, but that's my view as a guy
who generally plays turn-based games. AI's just try to act out behavior.
Personally, I don't think AI coders write the base AI code with a particular
map in mind--what happens if the map is changed at the last minute, or even
dropped? All that code is worthless (assuming it is as tightly tuned to a
specific map as you suggest).
I'm not arguing that AI in SP games is any good, but I would argue that it's
just as bad on a "scenario" map as it is a "random" one because the AI
wasn't written "for" a specific map--it was written to exhibit some general
form of behavior.
Given that, the random map generator is something that I loved in
Civilization, Master of Magic, MOO, Imperialism, etc. The AI wasn't great,
but it was sometimes challenging--particularly when you started in a very
bad position and had to really work to survive--much less win. The AI will
surprise you--sometimes because it will appear to be soo stupid, but other
times because its move will look like pure genius. Starting in a bad
position is just an extra challenge to a *strategy* game, starting in a good
one will have you cackling in glee at your advantage.
The excitement, I think, was distributed between the exploration and
exploitation of a random map. Sometimes you'd get a map with killer choke
points; other times you'd get nothing but wide-open plains between you and
your nemesis. Your game was always different, even if you played against
the same number of opponents and used the same races. A lot of games tout
their replayability because they offer lots of "hero classes" or "upgrade
paths". Bah. Humbug. I played Civilization non-stop. It didn't have hero
classes. It didn't have exclusionary upgrade paths (that I remember,
anyway). So what changed from one game to the next? What was the one
factor that made the game interesting to play? The map. Sometimes it
sucked, sometimes it was beautiful, but it was a joy to explore and exploit
every time.
The scenario you cite regarding "building a base": In my view, the problem
there isn't with the map or the fact that its a random map, it's that nobody
taught the AI how to build a base. The base building you describe appears
to be scripted, so what you propose is that somebody actually go through and
create 1000's of base blueprints for an AI to use. Why not just teach the
AI how to build its own base? For that matter, what are the odds that
somebody is really going to go and create 1000's of blueprints without using
a random blueprint generator? <g> You could argue that each would be
single-handedly sculpted, but even then you aren't ensuring that the quality
will be any better than the maps a random map generator would provide over
1000s of iterations.....
You don't like the map you just started playing? No need to hop online and
go looking for a new map that has a decent rating and good commentary by
other players you know and have corresponded with in past searches for new
maps. Just hit "New Game". voila.
> Assuming a random
> map generator is included in your favorite game, will the next
> complaint be about how horrible the computer player is after the
> campaign is over?
Screw the campaign. Put the resources into building an AI that plays
better, period. Really. IMHO, designer scenarios are over-rated. You gave
me 28 maps to play with and such amazing stories like "capture this city",
"kill this hero", "defend this town", "protect this", "restore that". Guess
what: Master of Magic has let me play out ALL of those scenarios--and I've
probably already played 5,000+ maps since it came out in '94 thanks to its
random map generator! I don't ever have to hop online to get a map. I
don't have to wait for the vaunted "designers" to release a new map pack! I
hit "New Game" and I'm off and running! I have replayed just about every
epic fantasy story I've ever read with MoM. I can use whatever my
imagination can come up with.
Lose the scenarios. Build an AI and a random map generator. If your game
has heroes or you want to let players play campaigns, teach the rmg to scale
the map's opponents to the carried-over units. At the end of every map, let
the player decide whether to retire or "continue the campaign" and carry
some of their units/heroes over to a new random map. MOO2 does this, where
if you play with a custom race and Mutate it in a game, for the next game
you can play the custom race with the new mutations. WBC almost did this,
except, AFAIK, Battlecry doesn't have a random map generator (I could be
wrong here, anyone?). But you can keep on playing with your heroes....The
point is, with the kind of architecture described in the beginning of this
paragraph, you can play a campaign for as long as you want to....and instead
of spending all their resources designing new scenarios and stories, the
developers can focus on new, high-level units and spells to let you take
your campaigns even farther!
I suspect there are a lot of folks out there who like scenarios (be gentle
with the flames, please), but I haven't really seen the point. I sorta feel
the same way about some rpg's that I play. The story is too "set". You
can't really change it. When I play MoM, I get to make up my own story to
go along with the game. I've been the Dragon Reborn, the Exiled Death
Knight, the Spider Queen, the King Under the Mountain, the Lord of the
Rings, the last Kai Master, and a horde of other characters (kudos to
getting any of those references).
MoM, Civilization. They don't really care what the story is. They say:
"Here, you're a wizard. Go win." or "Here, you're a king. Go win." In
HOMM or AoW and the rest of the scenario-based world, you may be able to
change your characters a bit or alter an opponents race or something, but
eventually the "exciting, detailed storyline" gets old and stale. Not to
you? You've never clicked your way right through a dialogue or story bit
because you know what it says?
I finished a great game on a random map (Warlords 3:DLR, I think) and loudly
cursed when I realized that I couldn't take my heroes to another map or do
anything else with them (this was after playing through a campaign where I
could do just that). I could probably have turned that game into a novella
if I bothered to write it all down. When my starting city was sacked. My
greatest hero and his sidekick slain. It was beautiful. It wasn't some
developer's story. It was mine.
That's what I want. MoM with a little window at the end that says "You won,
do you want to travel to other planes and conquer them (new maps with same
wizard), or start a new wizard (on new maps of the default planes)?"
<sigh>. I suppose it's because I grew up with those
Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books.
I enjoy HOMM. I like to play AoW. I may play each a dozen times through or
so. But MoM is still on my hard drive and always will be--because every
time I play it's on a map no one has seen before...and it's a story no one
has heard yet.....
Tim
Fear the Gladestrider. Write him at cfl rr com
"LShaping" <noS...@all.please> wrote in message
news:qnb8cugjiap3s5hdc...@4ax.com...
out, LShaping
<j...@Xconnectria.com> wrote:
>Most turn based games do not have scripted AI. Most games with map
>editors don't really have scripted AI.
So it is like a puzzle, based mostly on the map design.
out, LShaping
wrote:
>In article <uc8s8c4...@corp.supernews.com>, j...@Xconnectria.com
>says...
>>
>> Quite frankly, I don't see why an RTS fan would care about random maps
>> or not - there's only half a dozen (or more) RTSes coming out a month,
>> so they always have something to play. There's what, 5-6 prominent
>> turn based games a year, and most of those suck
>>
>
>Even ignoring the fact that you're just as much a troll as LShaping
Well, Jack, I guess that means you cannot use a news reader,
considerding the fact that the only two posts in the thread before
your reply came from authors you consider trolls. Please keep in mind
that you are in a thread which I started, a thread which you could
very easily ignore by pressing the Ignore Thread key in any free news
reader.
LShaping
(parts snipped)
>I'm not arguing that AI in SP games is any good, but I would argue that it's
>just as bad on a "scenario" map as it is a "random" one because the AI
>wasn't written "for" a specific map--it was written to exhibit some general
>form of behavior.
>The scenario you cite regarding "building a base": In my view, the problem
>there isn't with the map or the fact that its a random map, it's that nobody
>taught the AI how to build a base. The base building you describe appears
>to be scripted, so what you propose is that somebody actually go through and
>create 1000's of base blueprints for an AI to use.
I am suggesting that individuals in the entire game playing community
be able to do so, and be able to share the plans (just like being able
to share maps).
>Why not just teach the AI how to build its own base?
>Put the resources into building an AI that plays better, period.
I am sure that there are some game AI programmers who enjoy being paid
to try.
Spanner
news:ftgr6sk8l9u8bppop...@4ax.com:
<snip useless bs>
Bah bye! Plonk!
Jeff George
>
<snip extremely impressive post>
I agree completely with everything you said. And I'm sure I'm not the
only one. You must lead us to random map salvation!
--
Jeff George
Soy El Diablo Gringo Supremo (Loco)
Richard Hutnik
Muhahaha :-)
Anyhow, the key to having a base builder script is to have it done up
as programmable macros that a person could pick and choose as the game
goes on.
- Richard Hutnik
LShaping <noS...@all.please> wrote in message news:<qnb8cugjiap3s5hdc...@4ax.com>...
Richard Hutnik
> Tim wrote:
> >
>
> <snip extremely impressive post>
>
> I agree completely with everything you said. And I'm sure I'm not the
> only one. You must lead us to random map salvation!
Go back to LShaping's early day posts. He was vehemently against
random maps. Maybe he has become the Paul of random maps. Go on
LShaping preach the gospel of random maps. Spread the good news of
why random maps are good.
Amen!
- Richard Hutnik
out, LShaping
>Congratulations to coming to your senses on this issue LShaping.
That change came about some time ago, after I realized how popular
random maps are and then figured out how my base planner thing might
fit into the mix.
>Anyhow, the key to having a base builder script is to have it done up
>as programmable macros that a person could pick and choose as the game
>goes on.
>- Richard Hutnik
You know that clearing around you at start of a typical real time
strategy game, the area which is mostly flat/featureless? Why not
expand that area a little and let it be edited by the player? Just
like making a map, except limited to the starting area. (Also, if
desired, a base plan can go on top of that.) You still get the rest
of the map randomized. The cleared area at start of game is like your
home turf, the out lying area is unexplored/unknown. Looks like the
best of both worlds to me. You could choose either of three options.
1. Just edit the starting area.
2. Just make a base plan for the flat/featureless starting area.
3. Do both, edit the starting area and make a matching base plan for
it.
None of those would change any rules of a typical RTS game. The
edited starting area, the base plan, and the combination could all be
sharable.
LShaping
have to work on consistently removing that.
BTW, FWIW. My support for random maps is conditioned on the idea of
allowing the starting terrain to be edited and a base plan to be made
for that. I still object to the whole idea of plonking down a castle
in the middle of nowhere, having no idea what is in the surrounding
area at start of game, losing a castle in two seconds after a barrage
of catapult fire hits it, etc. I think that nonsense should be
removed from RTS.
javajeff
Hutnik) wrote:
Well, he does not want to actually play the games. He needs full
automation, and random maps require some thought.
I question if he actually plays games. It must cut into his trolling
time.
Regards,
javajeff
LShaping
>On 23 Apr 2002 14:15:53 -0700, richar...@hotmail.com (Richard
>Hutnik) wrote:
>
>>Jeff George <jeffge...@DAMNSPAMmsn.com> wrote in message news:<3CC59AA5...@DAMNSPAMmsn.com>...
>>> Tim wrote:
>>> >
>>>
>>> <snip extremely impressive post>
>>>
>>> I agree completely with everything you said. And I'm sure I'm not the
>>> only one. You must lead us to random map salvation!
>>
>>Go back to LShaping's early day posts. He was vehemently against
>>random maps. Maybe he has become the Paul of random maps. Go on
>>LShaping preach the gospel of random maps. Spread the good news of
>>why random maps are good.
>>
>>Amen!
>>- Richard Hutnik
>
>Well, he does not want to actually play the games.
How about a game of Total Annihilation, javajeff?
>He needs full automation,
That is a lie. I do not see the need for frantic clicking in
something called a strategy game. Javajeff takes offense to that
idea. Too bad.
>and random maps require some thought.
And javajeff's games require a lot of mouseslinging, which a real
strategy game does not require.
>I question if he actually plays games.
How about a game of Total Annihilation, javajeff? I will put that
question to rest real quick.
>It must cut into his trolling time.
>javajeff
Javajeff is still hurting from the correction I gave him about his
"Best RTS of all time" bit. Two weeks ago, he said this.
>[Empire Earth is the] best RTS ever made.
>javajeff
And then just two days ago, he said this.
>[Age of Kings is the] Best RTS of all time so far...
>javajeff
And he thinks my admiration of Total Annihilation is misplaced.
javajeff
I do not own TA anymore. Sorry.
I am not hurting from any correction. I said that they were each the
"best RTS of all time" at different times. I am happy to let them
share the honor since I love them both. Furthermore, I am permitted
to change my mind, be indecisive, or have different feelings about
games at different times. This is not court with some truth
involved...this is personal preference that we are discussing. HOW
MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT I LOVE BOTH GAMES!
Regards,
javajeff
Christopher E. Johnson
richar...@hotmail.com says...
> Congratulations to coming to your senses on this issue LShaping.
> Muhahaha :-)
>
>
>
the past year or so, but when did LShaping change his spots <g>? I
remember him as being a quite sane individual at one point. Now Istvan
seems sane and LShaping is the punching bag. Interesting <g>.
Chris
LShaping
>In article <37bc9e37.02042...@posting.google.com>,
>richar...@hotmail.com says...
>> Congratulations to coming to your senses on this issue LShaping.
>I must admit that I haven't been following the group too closely over
>the past year or so, but when did LShaping change his spots <g>?
So Richard noticed that. Actually, I tried before to get his opinion
on the modification to the base planner stuff, but he seems to just
pop in and out. Like now. He has noticed that random maps are OK in
my opinion. A year from now, he might notice that I am talking about
editing the free space around the startup position. Must be work
related.
>I remember him as being a quite sane individual at one point. Now
>Istvan seems sane and LShaping is the punching bag. Interesting <g>.
>Chris
Most people are brought up watching television which appeals to the
lowest common denominator (sex, drugs, violence, hatred, etc). Some
people on the Internet get their jollies by watching people put each
other down. I think it is a news media mentallity, or more likely a
sitcom mentallity.
Richard Hutnik
> Christopher E. Johnson <john...@ufl.edu> wrote:
> >In article <37bc9e37.02042...@posting.google.com>,
> >richar...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >> Congratulations to coming to your senses on this issue LShaping.
>
> >I must admit that I haven't been following the group too closely over
> >the past year or so, but when did LShaping change his spots <g>?
>
> So Richard noticed that. Actually, I tried before to get his opinion
> on the modification to the base planner stuff, but he seems to just
> pop in and out. Like now. He has noticed that random maps are OK in
> my opinion. A year from now, he might notice that I am talking about
> editing the free space around the startup position. Must be work
> related.
usage. Feel free to drop me some email, and we can discuss this. I
think that having an empty space around where one starts would work.
I know Warlords Battlecry 2 gives one a default area with needed
resources plus a basic area to build in.
> Most people are brought up watching television which appeals to the
> lowest common denominator (sex, drugs, violence, hatred, etc). Some
> people on the Internet get their jollies by watching people put each
> other down. I think it is a news media mentallity, or more likely a
> sitcom mentallity.
Actually, it is the second wave of usage of a media that results
in the appeal to the lowest common denominator. Then, eventually the
"highbrow" side fights back and forms its own niche. It happened with
TV and radio, and the same is going on with the Net. I recall the
good old days when you could actually use Usenet for personal ads and
whatnot. And also have sane posts on here.
- Richard Hutnik
Tim
"Jeff George" <jeffge...@DAMNSPAMmsn.com> wrote in message
news:3CC59AA5...@DAMNSPAMmsn.com...
> <snip extremely impressive post>
>
> I agree completely with everything you said. And I'm sure I'm not the
> only one. You must lead us to random map salvation!
"You have bled with Wallace....Now bleed with me!"
I'll see what I can do. Unfortunately I've been writing Java code the past
5 years, haven't touched C++ since before then, and Sun has only recently
started their "Java Gaming" initiative. I would have loved to have been at
the GDC to see what might be done. I think doing remakes of old classic
turn-based games would be a great way to tune Java Game Programming skills.
MoM and XCOM will be the first on my list. There. I have now joined the
ranks of hundreds of folks who have declared their intention to remake these
fine games in their original image. Don't hold your breath. <wry grin>
In the meantime, it would be nice to hear from these guys:
about where their project stands.
Anyways, I will continue to stand upon my RMG soapbox and cry out until I am
heard!
Tim
Tim
news:f2rbcugpb4sv1f6h7...@4ax.com...
You're not Jeff Kesselman by any chance, are you?
Tim
Tim
news:dbqbcu0aps772re63...@4ax.com...
> richar...@hotmail.com (Richard Hutnik) wrote:
> You know that clearing around you at start of a typical real time
> strategy game, the area which is mostly flat/featureless? Why not
> expand that area a little and let it be edited by the player? Just
> like making a map, except limited to the starting area. (Also, if
> desired, a base plan can go on top of that.) You still get the rest
> of the map randomized. The cleared area at start of game is like your
> home turf, the out lying area is unexplored/unknown. Looks like the
> best of both worlds to me. You could choose either of three options.
> 1. Just edit the starting area.
> 2. Just make a base plan for the flat/featureless starting area.
> 3. Do both, edit the starting area and make a matching base plan for
> it.
> None of those would change any rules of a typical RTS game. The
> edited starting area, the base plan, and the combination could all be
> sharable.
> LShaping
Now I understand where you were coming from with the whole base planning
idea and I see why I didn't grasp it to begin with: in the turn-based games
I play the most, your starting area is only one tile big (or the inside of a
transport, in X-COM's case). There is no "sprawling clearing" that you
cite. That's why I didn't understand. Sorry 'bout that.
For RTS's, or "base builders", I would agree that the RMG would probably
need to have some rules about terrain immediately adjacent to a player's
starting point. I got no problem with that. It's not far removed from the
rule in my games that forces a player to start on land, not at sea.
Tim
javajeff
wrote:
No. Sorry. Jeffrey L. Cooper.
Regards,
javajeff
LShaping
>"LShaping" <noS...@all.please> wrote:
<parts snipped>
>> You know that clearing around you at start of a typical real time
>> strategy game, the area which is mostly flat/featureless? Why not
>> expand that area a little and let it be edited by the player? Just
>> like making a map, except limited to the starting area.
And at start of game, that edited terrain would be plonked down
immediately for any player who chose to do so.
>For RTS's, or "base builders", I would agree that the RMG would probably
>need to have some rules about terrain immediately adjacent to a player's
>starting point.
>Tim
Thanks for the comments. What is an RMG?
LShaping
Jeff George
>
>
> Anyways, I will continue to stand upon my RMG soapbox and cry out until I am
> heard!
>
FREEDOOOOOOM!