Design Your Thoughts on Resource Placement?

[DKR_87]

[ Planets are "to scale" with a star system size of 69,632 and planet size of 2048 ]​

Lots of different map design concepts have been in mind lately. Since I was young, I was usually learning and perfecting map design of 3D, first-person shooter maps. RTS maps seem to follow similar principles with regards to map symmetry and the balance of resources, be it the amounts or physical locations.

I'm working on a space-themed rts. It's basically 1v1 within a single star system. Here's 3 videos of my progress so far.
RTS Testing #1
RTS Testing #2
RTS Testing #3

Above is an example of two ways the planets can be placed within the map. Please notice the light gray concentric circles and, although they're quite hard to see, the darker gray concentric circles as well. While there will also be asteroid fields and gas clouds for resource extraction, the planets are basically the "gold mines" from the Warcraft rts games. They're the main resource targets.

With symmetry in mind, both players (blue planets) start on either side of the star. An equal amount of planets are symmetrically placed on each player's side, with two "neutral" planets being directly left and one directly right from the star.

The example on the left shows a perfectly symmetrical, mirrored, planet layout. The example on the right is what I called 'staggered", where the planets are located on a dark-gray circle closer or farther away from their default light-gray starting circle. This gives it a more...natural feel?

Both examples are placing planets at the same angle from the star. The distance is simply modified, which leads me to the point of this post.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bearing in mind resource symmetry (not necessarily planet placement symmetry), and my desire to retain the same amount of resources on each player's side, how would you feel about either one of the following? :

1. In conjunction with modifying a planets distance, the planets could also have a limited angle range from their default starting position on their circle. Say, +45 and -45 from the star. This could make it feel even more "natural", yes?
2. In conjunction with modifying a planets distance, the planets could also have a completely random angle from star (limited to their side of the map). Some necessary adjustments would have to be made in the case of planets colliding with each other or being TOO close, but each planet can be anywhere on their orbit circle.

I can't say that I'm necessarily worried, but I am quite curious how a totally random angle would look. Honestly, I'm envisioning planets clumping together, 3 planets that randomly chose approximately the same angle and now it just looks goofy that three planets are more or less in line with each other from the star. And now there is 3 resource targets close together, giving that player an advantage. My thinking is by allowing them a LIMITED range of an angle from the star, they won't cause any goofy situations like that. But to be honest, what WOULD the advantage be if there were 3 planets close together?

I wanted to get your opinion, however. What would be smart? Silly? Unnecessary?

Would the allowance of a random range in planet placement introduce any negative effects on game play? Is it worth the trouble for players who would at least want the option?

Should any thought be given to the uniformity and predictability of planet placement? Would irregularities in planet placement introduce advantages for one player and disadvantage for the other?

You guys here in the forums seem to be quite experienced, so here I am.

Thanks,
Dustin

 

[DKR_87]

Figured I'd try something on a small scale first. I made a script to spawn planets within a given distance from their default orbit, and with a range +/- from their default angle from the star.

That "32" in the top left corner is actually the "range" amount. I can go from 2,4,8,16, and 32 pixels. Any more than that then the planets can over into the other player's side.

It appears to work just fine and I haven't seen any instances of planets being TOO close to each other. But the occasional close 2 or 3 planets might give it some character? What do you think?

Remember, this is a 1/64 scale representation. To scale, in game, that's 128, 256, 512, 1024, and 2048 pixel range!.

Here's a YouTube video of me discussing this process. Not a very exciting video, and its also my very first YT video, so don't expect any great production value.

EDIT: Update. New video, got my planet system working!

 

[Yal]

One idea could be to just place planets randomly, then figure out a good way to place players so that neither gets an advantage. For instance, decide on a distance the players will start from the central star. Try all 360 angles (or with steps of 3, 5, 10, 12, 36 degrees or something) and for every angle, measure the "goodness value" of both start points... e.g. the average planet distance for both the possible player start points, perhaps weighted with the amount of supplies on each planet, the distance to it (so very nearby planets give much more points). Pick the start position that makes the difference between both players' starting positions' goodness value the smallest. If the difference is too great, you could consider spawning in more planets near the weakest player, or reroll the randomization, but it shouldn't be a very likely scenario.


EDIT: Actually, checking the first 180 degrees is enough, since the players start on opposite sides of the star so you'll just check every start position twice if you go beyond 180. Derp. x3

 

[sylvain_l]

I'm more into turn based than RTS but I think rule works for both.

don't over think it. Symetrical map/ressources != fair chance of win for both player.

technically, if different races are available with different bonus/malus; and also if game has enough depth to allow a range of different strategy (like range/order of unit you decide to build). Some could adopt speed/short term game strategy vs more long term; as for aggressive vs defensive. Or simply because you have a newcommer/casual vs a master/hardcore player. It can result that unsymmetrical map can be more fair/fun than only perfectly symmetrical map.

So having map editor / or allowing player to have unsymetrical balance option would open to more match option.

 

[Gerald Tyler]

I'm more into turn based than RTS but I think rule works for both.

don't over think it. Symetrical map/ressources != fair chance of win for both player.

technically, if different races are available with different bonus/malus; and also if game has enough depth to allow a range of different strategy (like range/order of unit you decide to build). Some could adopt speed/short term game strategy vs more long term; as for aggressive vs defensive. Or simply because you have a newcommer/casual vs a master/hardcore player. It can result that unsymmetrical map can be more fair/fun than only perfectly symmetrical map.

So having map editor / or allowing player to have unsymetrical balance option would open to more match option.

You're entirely right, unsymmetrical can be more fun. I would personally go with a system where you're using perfectly symmetrical maps for Ranked (As in, the more skilled player should win, not simply who gets a terrain advantage), and then put non-symmetrical maps in Non-Ranked (Casual, Social, Non-Competitive)

This allows both (A false dichotomy I know, just the two largest groups of hardcore and play-for-fun) groups to get the experience that they're after. Competitive players demand a level playing field over a "Fun" one. And non competitive players are typically willing to put up with an unlevel playing field if it provides interesting scenarios or increases their fun. A good example would be a 1 sided capture the flag match. The defender's side of the map looks one way, while the attacker's looks another way.

And to the OP's question of "Would irregularities in planet placement introduce advantages for one player and disadvantage for the other?" The answer is a big fat axiomatic YES. Now that doesn't mean that the player will capitalize on their advantage, or even realize it exists, but an unlevel playing field is an unlevel playing field. You could try to give one side a tempo advantage (Fast quick play style) while giving the other one a resource advantage (Slower open game but much stronger end game) Then it becomes about how well the first player is able to perform a blitzkrieg while the other struggles with low resources long enough to eventually overpower their assailant. Sort of like the Zerg Rush.

 

[DKR_87]

Very good responses. Thank you. I have a lot to think about. I'm currently creating documents on the different factions and faction bonuses. I think this will come into play heavily with regards to how I design maps.

I totally agree about the casual vs pro play here. And you're right, I feel like I've read numerous times that very same thing you're making a point about.

My current goal is to give the player control over the map layout via some mini map designer, with the ability to configure the size of the system, number of planets, the positions, and the balancing of those planets.

Asymmetrical map design is an option I want the player to have, but there's a point where asymmetry turns into utter unfairness and thus, no fun. I'll have to get creative!

Currently, according to my schedule I've laid out for myself, I'm in the ship designing phase and race creation. I think I need to really nail these down before I really balance map resources. Keep an eye on my YouTube channel?

I like all of your responses!

 

[Gerald Tyler]

Yes, do the ships and race first, THEN do the map. Sort of like how Mario was designed. You start with the abilities, and then the "Level" is just a space created with the intent of allowing players to realize those abilities. You don't want to make a map, then create an ability which would completely dominate that map. So you create fun / somewhat balanced abilities first, then do the play area afterwards with those in mind.

I went ahead and subbed to your channel. A channel I would recommend you sub to is Extra Credits, which are what I consider vitally necessary videos on game design. Here's a video on Perfect Imbalance to check out:

 

[Yal]

A channel I would recommend you sub to is Extra Credits, which are what I consider vitally necessary videos on game design.

They can be a bit high-brow sometimes and a bit "this is only useful for people in the industry" sometimes, but overall all of their videos contribute something and they're really useful to get both inspiration and cultural-osmosis'd knowledge. Definitely supporting that suggestion.

Some other suggestions while at it...
Mark Brown / Game Maker's Toolkit: has incredibly good breakdowns of game design, and is currently doing a series called Boss Keys where he breaks down all the Zelda series' dungeons to figure out how level design has evolved in the last 30 years.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqJ-Xo29CKyLTjn6z2XwYAw

GDC, the biggest Game Developer Conference that exist: they release lots of interesting talks, and while not all of them are immediately useful, you're guaranteed to find SOMETHING you'll enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0JB7TSe49lg56u6qH8y_MQ

Errant Signal: makes incredibly in-depth analyses of worldbuilding, how a game affects your mindset while playing it, and stuff like that.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm4JnxTxtvItQecKUc4zRhQ

Hamish Black / Writing On Games: Also does deep analysis in game design, usually focuses more on gameplay than storytelling (and how to make mechanics match your intentions of the game).
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPlWv88ZRMxCcK3BGjrX7ew

 

[Gerald Tyler]

Oh nice I didn't have those last two, thanks for the info!

 

[DKR_87]

Awesome list of resources. I always try to watch Extra Credits, I like their style. I can definitely tell there's an emphasis on 'in-industry' developers, but it's helpful and enjoyable to watch nonetheless.I've watched a few GDC, sometimes it's rough to watch those, as they can be dragged out in my opinion, and sometimes they don't get as specific as I'd like them to. But I've literally watched only a handful of GDC videos. I should really look at all the others.

Never heard of the other video channels. Thanks! Gonna check them out. Took a few days off from my project, put together a new Ryzen system, should be back on track now!