Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Greven

FPS/RTS combination idea

Recommended Posts

I've had this idea floating around in my head for a while, so I thought I'd bring it out and see what people thought of it. (Especially since with my current knowledge, there's no way I'll be able to make it ) It would be FPS and RTS combination. It would also be online only due to the nature of the combination. I suppose you could make a single player mode, but I just don't think it would be as fun. But I digress... On the RTS side, it would be a basic war strategy game. You have generals and such commanding fleets of warriors. Telling them where to attack, where to move, and when to retreat. So the RTS fans could have fun. Then on the FPS side, you would be the warrior that is being commanded. You would get waypoints on your maps and such from the generals, and commands on what to do. It would be similar to how Tribes 2 does it when you can assign things for people to do, but I envision a much larger FPS arena with more than just getting a flag and getting back. It would be very realtime which would probably put some lag into the RTS side of it, but I'm sure you could come up with enough action to make it fun on that side. Also, since you won't always have enough people to run everything, you would have a computer AI that can take over when someone disconnects. And when you connect, you get to "posses" the person you choose. You could even have an online rating system so that you have to work your way up to a person of high command. For example, if you are just starting out and you want to play the FPS side of it, you would be a basic grunt. Someone that goes on the worst part of the missions, has the worst weapons, etc. But as you get better, more shot accuracy, more completed missions, you can choose to get one of the better characters. Same on the RTS side. Maybe to begin with you only get to be in charge of a grunt force, commanding them and getting orders from above. But as you complete missions, and make good strategic decisions you move up until you can choose to be the main general (whatever that title would be). I can even envision a warrior getting "possesed" when someone logs on, a nice shot of light from above as the body of the warrior moves from shock. Then a slight glow for a moment after to let anyone around know it's now possesed. Of course this idea has it's issues, but as a whole what do you think? Think it has merit? Always remember, you''re unique. Just like everyone else. EDIT: Formatting... [edited by - Greven on July 17, 2002 3:44:48 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it could work. I''ve thought of something along those lines, I thought you would have a problem say with people not following the orders given to them. That may not be an issue though, if they don''t follow orders and their side loses then next time they might know better. The addition of A.I. is definetly needed.
Is this just going to be battle oriented, one battle is one game, then onto a different battle. Or are these battles where you have the general and your troops part of a bigger war? where you might have someone even higher starting battles to gain something from another side? that may be going alittle to far though. Its definetly a good idea though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking of a bigger on-going war. Maybe even (again, like Tribes) set up clans or "countries" for the teams. Then you can try to take over the virtual world in the game. In the end, the one with the most land wins or something. Or even just make it completely on-going. If you are playing the RTS side, your goal might be to get enough "experience" points to become the leader of the country and order where to attack, and where to move to...

As far as people not following their orders, well they won''t get good points for the missions and won''t be able to move up in the ranks. Which means the game won''t be much fun after a while. They would have to follow orders and be able to complete them to move up. That might be enough of an incentive.

Always remember, you''''re unique. Just like everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also thought about combining RTS with FPS. I think that in order to make it work, the ratio between ''commanders'' and ''grunts'' would have to be about 1:50. The higher rank a commander has, the more RTS elements he can enjoy, but then the number of people who will be able to play that role will be very small. So for like 90% of people the game would still be a classic FPS.

It would be possible to use many AIs to take the role of grunts, but then the number of players able to be in 1 game will decrease significantly, due to server limitations. The reason why large multiplayer battles are avoided is cause the server can support only limited number of people in 1 place. Replacing most of those people with AIs means that several players use up large server resources, which is also impractical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Command & Conquer: Renegade is a game with a very similar idea. You are a unit in a "huge rts", but you aren''t commanded by any general figure. You just do what you want; assault the enemy base, protect supply lines, etc, and use rts/fps skills from an on-the-ground viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And friend and I had an idea once that was similar to this. The basic concept was to have a huge online environment, and maybe let players make their own scenarios or something, and essentially you have players in various ranks who behave as though they were in a true military environment.

Generals, say, would control campaigns and battle fields; commanders would organize individual theaters, directing troops and so on all the way down to the grunt type player. The logistics (how do you win, where do resources come from, how do players get promoted, etc) were never figured out, but I think there is good potential for that kind of genre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This idea is interesting, but could you mix both command and combat from the FPS aspect? I may''ve been playing Halo a little to long, but one way to get extra out of a game''s going-ons is to have the agents chatter -- like they don''t in WC1/2 and SC, but sometimes do in Myth. Give the player the ability to talk to the troops via virtual voice or handsignals, and kick the agents that hear/see with a given input string.
The harder part to this would be establishing useful waypoints from a FP view on a map when you can''t always see what''s going on, or where the spot is.

-Sta7ic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Sta7ic
This idea is interesting, but could you mix both command and combat from the FPS aspect?


I don''t think I''d want to... That would be the point is that it would be two different genre''s in one game.

quote:
Original post by Sta7ic
I may''ve been playing Halo a little to long, but one way to get extra out of a game''s going-ons is to have the agents chatter -- like they don''t in WC1/2 and SC, but sometimes do in Myth. Give the player the ability to talk to the troops via virtual voice or handsignals, and kick the agents that hear/see with a given input string.

Not quite sure I follow what you mean here. I understand the talking, that would make sense. Or at least typed commands or visual prompts. I think visual would be best, and give the option of voice. If the person doesn''t have that capability they can use the visual.

quote:
Original post by Sta7ic
The harder part to this would be establishing useful waypoints from a FP view on a map when you can''t always see what''s going on, or where the spot is.


Not sure what you mean here either. Have you played Tribes? That is the kind of waypoint that I think of. You get a dot on your screen with a number underneath telling you how far away it is. It is probably the best kind of waypoint I''ve seen. It''s also pretty easy to do I''d imagine. And from the commanders point of view, they would have dots on a map. Possibly even real time shot of the action from above. If you used really small models for the commander view, you could do that. They''d see the explosions and everything... You''d of course have to simplify it somewhat to show colors for teams and things like that, or just have an overlay that shows that when you want but otherwise show the real action.

Always remember, you''''re unique. Just like everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might want to take a look at a game called Planetside. It''s going to be a MMOFPS. You would have clans and ranks of power and such. Find there site I don''t remember the address right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On mixing FPS and RTS elements together, please note that one has camera and gameplay requirements, while the other has gameplay requirements. So use a first-person perspective that gives both a gun and a modifiable map.
Having the agents talk when events occur -- enemy killed, enemy seen, bored, whatever -- tends to help a game. Consider the enemy NPC lines in Deus Ex.
The potential problem with a FP RTS and waypoints would be setting them, not spotting them.

-Sta7ic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Sta7ic
Having the agents talk when events occur -- enemy killed, enemy seen, bored, whatever -- tends to help a game. Consider the enemy NPC lines in Deus Ex.



I think I understand what your saying. To use a Tribes reference (can you tell I like that game?) it would be like sending the message "I have the enemy flag." That type of thing. As opposed to a classic Quake match where you really don''t hear anything, you just run around. I definately agree there.

quote:
Original post by Sta7ic
The potential problem with a FP RTS and waypoints would be setting them, not spotting them.



Why would that be? You would be setting the waypoint from a top-down RTS style map, from the commander''s game. The FPS players wouldn''t be the ones to set the waypoints. That way, all they have to concentrate on is following the orders and completing them.

Always remember, you''''re unique. Just like everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Sta7ic
Yeah, but hen you aren''t playing it as a FPRTS, unless you''re manipulating an object.

-Sta7ic


No, I think you missed the point. It''s not a PFRTS, it''s a FPS and an RTS. You would have two different style of games to choose from when you connect. You can play a top-down RTS style game where you are telling people where to go, and what to do. Or you can play a FPS game where you are being told where to go and what to destroy/capture/whatever. It would be played more like "real" war. You wouldn''t be running around in a FPS trying to set waypoints for people and stuff... Make sense now?

Always remember, you''''re unique. Just like everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by PSWind
I still suggest looking at Planetside.


Ok, I did a search for it and found it. It looks like it is the FPS side of my idea to a t. However, they completely lack the RTS general''s side of my idea. But I do like how they have the FPS side layed out. Very nice, and very much like this idea. But at the same time, with the way it reads, I think it will be a lot like a continuous-ongoing Tribes 2. Without the strategy side of it, it will just be a very large death match. Without orders and guidence, that''s what I see happening.



Always remember, you''''re unique. Just like everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ve often thought of similar concepts; combining RTS with real-time war type games, such as FPS, etc. However, I would take it to the next level.

The generals would command troops, tanks, airsupport, etc. Participating players could be troops, tank commanders, airplane pilots, helicopter pilots, etc.

Of course, the bandwidth required for this type of engagement is ridiculous.

--------------------

Neg
negcx@pacbell.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Hey, I got your point. I was thinking the same thing. Look, I imagine an sci-fi game, this make easy way to waypoints. The FPS soldiers use high tech armors with displays in the helmet wich shows an map, distances and the aim system. Voice comunication probably. On the RTS side, could exist representations from each soldier, the "General" select a soldier or a group and assign the task specifing the type (assault, recognize, stealth and others) and the point, which will glow in the helmet map with a message about the task. Everything in real time.
The design in two game types give the chance to role two lines of ranking (action rank: soldier, captain, commander; and strategy rank: information, assistant, commander). The RTS commander could be highest rank of the game.
So, did I get your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.