Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

#Actualmipmap

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:11 AM

  • Good readability in stressful environment, using textures, animations and UI alerts:
    • Understanding if some resource is missing.
    • Understanding if you are under attack, without cluttering interface with alarm
    • Units and building easy to distinguish
  • Fairness: as the competitive side of it cannot be underestimated so being able to purchase advantages for real money is unfair and therefore ruins the game. 
  • A good balance between auto-control features and micro management. In Age of Kings you had units moving in formations, which suited its game-style. In Starcraft they clutter up into deathballs, which adds a skill-level when you try to deal with it. However, it can be off-putting for beginners.
  • Strong limitation to resources in combination with lots of strategic/tactical options encourage player creativity.
    • Related to this is a good expansion set management. Expansions tend to add overpowered stuff that feels like cheating, which I find boring. Keeping the player starving is what keeps the game interesting. Don't be afraid of starving the players!
  • If you are developing a bigger title with an editor and using a component based engine - build in support for packaging and transfering of units, resources, spells, effects etc. This would help a possible modding community immensly. 
  • I usually find the early parts of RTS games much more interesting then the later part, because you have much more constraints. If you would innovate in the later parts so that the overly-cluttered bases and huge armies would become more interesting then that would be real feat!
  • Town management is a fun part, but it has to be quick and easy to operate. I really like placing roads and other infrastructure and I miss out that kind of features in some RTS games.
  • Army size vs. control: Most RTS games which I have played have been fun when you have smaller squads to control. Once they become larger it quickly becomes... unmanagable. It's more like large blobs that interfere with each other. Some games use formations to make it more managable, but that also reduces the fun part of microing the units. So perhaps you could consider adding different tools for managing large and small armies, that makes it more readable and fun. 

#4mipmap

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:09 AM

  • Good readability in stressful environment, using textures, animations and UI alerts:
    • Understanding if some resource is missing.
    • Understanding if you are under attack, without cluttering interface with alarm
    • Units and building easy to distinguish
  • Fairness: as the competitive side of it cannot be underestimated so being able to purchase advantages for real money is unfair and therefore ruins the game. 
  • A good balance between auto-control features and micro management. In Age of Kings you had units moving in formations, which suited its game-style. In Starcraft they clutter up into deathballs, which adds a skill-level when you try to deal with it. However, it can be off-putting for beginners.
  • Strong limitation to resources in combination with lots of strategic/tactical options encourage player creativity.
    • Related to this is a good expansion set management. Expansions tend to add overpowered stuff that feels like cheating, which I find boring. Keeping the player starving is what keeps the game interesting. Don't be afraid of starving the players!
  • If you are developing a bigger title with an editor and using a component based engine - build in support for packaging and transfering of units, resources, spells, effects etc. This would help a possible modding community immensly. 
  • I usually find the early parts of RTS games much more interesting then the later part, because you have much more constraints. If you would innovate in the later parts so that the overly-cluttered bases and huge armies would become more interesting then that would be real feat!
  • Town management is a fun part, but it has to be quick and easy to operate. I really like placing roads and other infrastructure and I miss out that kind of features in some RTS games.

#3mipmap

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:04 AM

  • Good readability in stressful environment, using textures, animations and UI alerts:
    • Understanding if some resource is missing.
    • Understanding if you are under attack, without cluttering interface with alarm
    • Units and building easy to distinguish
  • Fairness: as the competitive side of it cannot be underestimated so being able to purchase advantages for real money is unfair and therefore ruins the game. 
  • A good balance between auto-control features and micro management. In Age of Kings you had units moving in formations, which suited its game-style. In Starcraft they clutter up into deathballs, which adds a skill-level when you try to deal with it. However, it can be off-putting for beginners.
  • Strong limitation to resources in combination with lots of strategic/tactical options encourage player creativity.
    • Related to this is a good expansion set management. Expansions tend to add overpowered stuff that feels like cheating, which I find boring. Keeping the player starving is what keeps the game interesting. Don't be afraid of starving the players!
  • If you are developing a bigger title with an editor and using a component based engine - build in support for packaging and transfering of units, resources, spells, effects etc. This would help a possible modding community immensly. 

#2mipmap

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:04 AM

  • Good readability in stressful environment, using textures, animations and UI alerts:
    • Understanding if some resource is missing.
    • Understanding if you are under attack, without cluttering interface with alarm
    • Units and building easy to distinguish
  • Fairness: as the competitive side of it cannot be underestimated so being able to purchase advantages for real money is unfair and therefore ruins the game. 
  • A good balance between auto-control features and micro management. In Age of Kings you had units moving in formations, which suited its game-style. In Starcraft they clutter up into deathballs, which adds a skill-level when you try to deal with it. 
  • Strong limitation to resources in combination with lots of strategic/tactical options encourage player creativity.
    • Related to this is a good expansion set management. Expansions tend to add overpowered stuff that feels like cheating, which I find boring. Keeping the player starving is what keeps the game interesting. Don't be afraid of starving the players!
  • If you are developing a bigger title with an editor and using a component based engine - build in support for packaging and transfering of units, resources, spells, effects etc. This would help a possible modding community immensly. 

#1mipmap

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:02 AM

  • Good readability in stressful environment, using textures, animations and UI alerts:
    • Understanding if some resource is missing.
    • Understanding if you are under attack, without cluttering interface with alarm
    • Units and building easy to distinguish
  • Fairness: as the competitive side of it cannot be underestimated so being able to purchase advantages for real money is unfair and therefore ruins the game. 
  • A good balance between auto-control features and micro management. In Age of Kings you had 
  • Strong limitation to resources in combination with lots of strategic/tactical options encourage player creativity.
    • Related to this is a good expansion set management. Expansions tend to add overpowered stuff that feels like cheating, which I find boring. Keeping the player starving is what keeps the game interesting. Don't be afraid of starving the players!
  • If you are developing a bigger title with an editor and using a component based engine - build in support for packaging and transfering of units, resources, spells, effects etc. This would help a possible modding community immensly. 

PARTNERS