Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Thoughts on Splitting Up the RTS...


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
26 replies to this topic

#21 Dan Violet Sagmiller   Members   -  Reputation: 897

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 January 2013 - 12:50 PM

I think a MMO strategy game would have the best shot at being interesting and balanced if it was split into shards of a manageable number of people, if the shards were reset once in a while (e.g. at the victory of one faction), and if alliances were fixed for the duration of the life of the shard to prevent the degenerate largest-alliance "strategy".

 

I have to agree here.  To manage, I'm planning on letting players compete in live battles for control of planets.  some large number of players controlling regions of a planet.  The idea is that when you control a region, you are establishing an atmospheric defense system, which will only allow ships through of your side.  But it only defends a certain portion of the sky.  hence the regions.  Once all regions are under control of your side, enemy ships can no longer get through to the surface, and the planet becomes 'safe'  This leaves it more manageable.  

 

Next, other players, who have attained a strong enough skill level/status in the game to produce a colony defense, can only produce squads that await orders in open battle fields.  The players controlling the regions of the unconquered planets would have power to identify missions to take in battle space around their planet.  (certain amounts of credit for this)  Like Defend this area for 5 minutes, or take out an approaching tank armada.  AI would have to determine the threat level, and spend a certain amount of special credits to send in an appropriately matched force for the challenge.  So already many squads enter the battle field from assorted players on different planets, for temporary amounts of time.  

 

I'm also considering the idea that AI controlled systems will be recognized by the same side.  and that players can take over a fully AI run region of a planet.  that way a battle  and strategy can keep playing.  The AI's would also decide  on how to spend mission credits to defend the region if the player isn't.  like 1 new thing every minute, or something like that, and if you haven't picked any missions in 5 minutes, it will then spend all but 1 of the credits on assigning random missions to help the planet.

 

However, I am starting to get to much into specifics on my own side.  I will again point out that none of this is in stone yet, and I am still open to entirely different ideas and approaches.


Moltar - "Do you even know how to use that?"

Space Ghost - “Moltar, I have a giant brain that is able to reduce any complex machine into a simple yes or no answer."

Dan - "Best Description of AI ever."

My Game(s), Warp Wars is in early development and can be found here: http://blog.WarpWars.Net.


Sponsor:

#22 powerneg   Members   -  Reputation: 1463

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 January 2013 - 10:03 PM

i wouldnt realy call this idea "splitting up" but more trying to combine two genres, aka the normal RTS on one side, and the citybuilding on the other.

RTS:log in, play ~30 minutes whenever you want to, complete match

city-building:play for ages, often having to be online at times/intervals to increase your performance without actually happening a lot.
(i would actually call city-builders turn-based because of waiting-intervals, or something else (persistent ? ) at least not real-time )

right now, with your idea, you would be attracting two different kinds of players who would both be mainly interested in one aspect of the game, and who would be wondering why they always have to deal with the other aspect of the game.

regarding your experience with a bad city-builder:
pay-to-win exist, dont make them if you do not enjoy them, there are more ways of getting your money.
a safe city is good, most games already won't let you lose your last city(or planet or whatever), expand a bit on this concept instead, have goals you need to reach to have multiple safe cities for example.
combat:when sending out an army, give them orders, start with something like a defensive and offensive stance, add units with specific strengts(for example a unit that is good in covering a retreat from chasers.) and add a better combat-report, one that showed what happened and why it happened that way



#23 AltarofScience   Members   -  Reputation: 934

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 January 2013 - 01:40 AM

online games with lame economic systems are an issue. city-builder style games like those from Impressions, the Stronghold games, Settlers and so forth are far more deserving of the genre title city builder.



#24 Dan Violet Sagmiller   Members   -  Reputation: 897

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 January 2013 - 07:58 AM

i wouldnt realy call this idea "splitting up" but more trying to combine two genres, aka the normal RTS on one side, and the citybuilding on the other.

RTS:log in, play ~30 minutes whenever you want to, complete match

city-building:play for ages, often having to be online at times/intervals to increase your performance without actually happening a lot.

 

thats a good point.  I am targeting two areas, but I believe there is significant value here.  For instance, in most strategy games, like starcraft, you are still doing city building, it just takes no time at all to build a nuclear reactor, or a tank factory.  about the same amount of time as it takes to build a tank.  This game would provide a way for players to enhance/upgrade buildings, in a protected environment, to fuel battle after battle, not just condense all their city building features into one battle, and when they move on to the next start over with nothing again.

 

right now, with your idea, you would be attracting two different kinds of players who would both be mainly interested in one aspect of the game, and who would be wondering why they always have to deal with the other aspect of the game.

 

The game does allow for player to focus on only one area and never have to touch the other, but they will get more out of hangling both parts of it.  Their choice.

 

pay-to-win exist, dont make them if you do not enjoy them, there are more ways of getting your money.

 

I know pay-to-win exists, but what I want is a game with better balance, for instance, a player of 10000 military units can't just go attack a player with 100.  No honor for instance, unless the weaker player starts it for some dumb reason.  But I don't mind a pay-to-player taking on equal size masses.  You can't pay for experience, which the other side could certainly have.  Some games make better balances of this, but some don't.  I'm mostly saying I want it to be better balanced.

 

online games with lame economic systems are an issue. city-builder style games like those from Impressions, the Stronghold games, Settlers and so forth are far more deserving of the genre title city builder.

 

I certainly agree here, and would lump Master of Magic in with your list.  excellent setup of small forces, city building, etc...


Moltar - "Do you even know how to use that?"

Space Ghost - “Moltar, I have a giant brain that is able to reduce any complex machine into a simple yes or no answer."

Dan - "Best Description of AI ever."

My Game(s), Warp Wars is in early development and can be found here: http://blog.WarpWars.Net.


#25 markr   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1653

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 January 2013 - 09:11 AM

I expect you've played the UFO-series of games - which combines the "Geoscape" - which is a kind of resource-management game with some strategic elements, with a turn-based tactical "Missions" game. The nicest thing about it is that when the UFOs attack your home base, you end up playing a "map" which is actually your own base how you laid it out in the RM part of the game, so they overlap quite well.

 

Really inspired piece of design. I think we need more games using these kinds of ideas, so +1 from me!



#26 Dan Violet Sagmiller   Members   -  Reputation: 897

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 January 2013 - 11:56 AM

I expect you've played the UFO-series of games - which combines the "Geoscape" - which is a kind of resource-management game with some strategic elements, with a turn-based tactical "Missions" game

 

I'm not entirely sure what your talking about, but I think I have an idea.  could you include a reference to a game I could look up?

 

The nicest thing about it is that when the UFOs attack your home base, you end up playing a "map" which is actually your own base how you laid it out in the RM part of the game, so they overlap quite well.

 

This sounds interesting, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you build a base in one area, which it being the interactive combat field.  then, in a different perspective, but very similar layout, you are now in a combat in the same area.  I like the concept, though I'm not sure if i'd use it.


Moltar - "Do you even know how to use that?"

Space Ghost - “Moltar, I have a giant brain that is able to reduce any complex machine into a simple yes or no answer."

Dan - "Best Description of AI ever."

My Game(s), Warp Wars is in early development and can be found here: http://blog.WarpWars.Net.


#27 markr   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1653

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 12 January 2013 - 08:10 AM

The Wikipedia page:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO:_Enemy_Unknown

 

Contains a detailed description of (and screenshots) the two areas of gameplay (Geoscape and Battlescape). Neither of them is a RTS, but it's quite easy to see how it could work with one.

 

Mark






Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS