Random map generation to me sounds more like a feature that could increase the longevity of a single player game... in a multiplayer setting, I would have the same reservations that Ashaman mentioned.

Many Online game devs allegedly tried it, but gave it up early in pre-prod or production. Seems focus testing revealed that players generally hated it... "Where's my camping bush?" - "Uh noes, I went all the way here to play superman just to find the usual position is undefendable!"....

Everytime a new guy joins a team of longtime players on a map everyone besides him knows, he stands out... he will not do much useful even if he would be really skilled as he doesn't know where he should be at what time. He will only use a tiny amount of the cover and routes that the map has, thus not really using the map to his and his teams advantage.

Most probably he will die within seconds though, as he might run around a corner only to find himself on the wrong side of a shooting gallery, and the whole opposing team lined up to mess up the lone noob that might come around that corner every match.

Now, imagine if that happens to everyone, every time. Would probably balance out as everyone is now the noob not knowing what to do. But: Gameplay would certainly change, away from fighting, and towards scouting. He who scouts the full map first and understands its layout the quickest will have a huge advantage.

Most of the matches though would most probably be pure chaos.

And that is before touching on the subject of balancing the maps and starting position. Over many matches, things would be balanced. But most matches would end in unbalanced setups.

I can tell you, the one reason why I don't play some games is simply because matches tend to be unbalanced. For example, some tweaks done in Armoured Warfare lead to the PvP battles very often ending very one sided. Now, its not because of random map generation there, there are other factors. But there is no fun in loosing 15-0, nor is there any fun in roflstomping the enemy. Besides other things, that is my #1 for not playing that game anymore... doing PvE gets stale quickly in AW.

As fun as procedural map generation sounds in theory, in practive you need to put a clear limit on what can be changed by the procedure. Depends on the game genre really (might work better for RPG Dungeons for example), but for an RTS, I'd vote nay, at least for the multiplayer.

To be clear, I'm well aware that random maps is not new and there are issues with it in multiplayer. I'm asking people's thoughts (and of any known examples) on specifically the idea of players modifying said maps before the match starts.

Well, a "veto" is something of a democratic instrument.... democracy does not work in a competitive setting though where each player is only looking at getting an edge over the opponent himself.

Problem is, there are actually very, very few people that are able to accuratlely gauge balance and are ready to give up an advantage to make the actual game more balanced. I can tell you from expierience, this is why in tabletop wargaming you usually stick to the STRICTEST of possible rulesets when playing complete strangers. It gives the highest chance there is no table flipping later when somebody finds out that their opponent tricked them somehow by abusing some obscure rules or using unknown units from weird expansions.

I would clearly NOT let people potentially shafting their opponents before the game even starts, either making the game loopsided and unfair for the opponent, or starting a war of shafting and getting vetoed until the pre-game rules end this silly nonsense.

Funfactor? Most probably nil. Amount of rage built up before the game even starts? Most probably a lot.

IF you want to try something like that out, make it a strategic game of its own. Make sure the whole "map preparation phase" plays out according to a fixed ruleset that is balanced so given the skill and knowledge about it is evenly distributed among both opponents, the result is balanced, without silly vetoing.

IMO I wouldn't give the players the tools to actually "change" the map.... they could built strucures, like supply bases, or bridgeheads to prepare before the battle starts. Maybe prepare their bases. Giving the players the ability to scout the map might be interesting, at least for new players.

Changing the map sounds like the hardest task with the least amount of fun factor coming out of it. Everyone will try to make sure their opponent has a huge disadvantage... either your pre-game ruleset is extremly strict about what players can or cannot do, severly limiting the amount of impact of this system, or this system might completly screw over the hard balancing work you did on the main game.

Really, what you propose sounds like an AWESOME game for good friends to have a blast, just as having a beers and pretzels tabletop game testing out the most OTT special units from the weirdest expansions for fun and giggles.

It doesn't sound like a game that has any chance to become a competitive gamers favourite, or is even very fun to play for strangers over the internet. Strangers playing competitive games against each other tend to be pretty much a**holes, using every loophole they can... yet they will complain about the loopsided battle and missing balance afterwards.

Giving these player less options that they can use to make the game less fun for themselves and their opponents if often a good idea, even if players might tell you otherwise.

You said that the player doesn't know his start position. That makes it very hard to modify the map, because the players won't know where to optimize. They can only try to move the map towards more homogeneity, which doesn't sound particularly fun to me.

If the players pick there start locations, you've got a lot more options. There's divide-and-choose, where one player places both bases and the other selects his preferred one. You could also make the scouting phase variable length: you can keep spending more time scouting the map and learning more about it, but once an opponent selects his base that region is off limits: so you have to balance gaining more data to more accurately gauge the best location with selecting the best spot before your opponent does.

Regarding vetoes, you might break a map into regions (say a 3x3 grid) and allow vetoes of each region. That should speed up the process some, as each map doesn't have to be reanalyzed from start, and you're determining imbalance in a smaller area.

Another choice would be to create very vanilla maps and then have some resource that builds up and allows modifications. Maybe there's no iron/gold/whatever at all at the start, you have to deploy them during the game (with some rule about distance from other resources). You can also build mountains/rivers/whatever at certain points, so you can shape the map to your advantage as you go. By starting with a plain map all the unique advantages are player set. And the player might have to balance having more resources with better defensive terrain.