One approach, though this may seem crazy, is impliment the social rules into the game. Now, hear me out, obviously if these "rules" exist then there are people who think they are a good idea and like to play by them... so integrate them, make the process for setting up a game include chosing options from a ruleset, then players will be able to search for the ruleset they like(like on Xbox live), whether it be strict or more loose. Then enforce them in the engine. No rushing? Red team can''t come within a set distance from any Blue building, Blue buildings must be created within a set distance from another Blue building, come up with something that logically enforces the rule. everyone wins. A well balanced game will also help alleviate the need for these "social rules" as well.
Ravyne, NYN Interactive Entertainment
[My Site][My School][My Group]
Combatting 'scrubbiness' in games.
One way to solve the typical strategies becoming R-P-S would be to change something fundamental about the game. For example, there is ''fog of war'' of some kind of practically every RTS. What would happen if you removed it entirely, or maybe for the first few minuts of the game to let both players get the jist of what the other is doing. It eliminates rushes (since you''ll see it coming) and might be interesting. Or maybe the minimap could instead be intelligence from satellites that can show all units, but shows an ''outdated image''(ie the unit positions you''re seeing for the enemy are as they were 3 minutes ago or somesuch)
You could also have ''unit types'' instead of ''units'', where a ''scout'' will always make a good scout, but how good it is at other things could change from game to game.
You could also have ''unit types'' instead of ''units'', where a ''scout'' will always make a good scout, but how good it is at other things could change from game to game.
quote:Original post by Sensei Maku
I think that RTS''s should have a more dynamic strategy element. In Warcraft/Starcraft, once you choose a tactic, significantly changing that tactic almost ensures defeat. One way to accomplish this is to have base units that can quickly change into another unit. For example, a simple peon unit that can change into a grunt/archer/thief. Or a ship unit that can be changed from a A2G bomber into an A2A fighter. This would also create balance issues, but that could at least be partially resolved by making the unit better at each type based on how much time the unit spends as that type. Also, they should not realistically be able to change types anywhere/anytime. Perhaps only by returning to the main building, or the building they were created. (Actually, I kind of like this idea...I just might have to work on this a bit more.)
Hey, I REALLY like this idea. You could have some very interesting tradeoffs with units and a great deal of punch-counterpunch type gameplay. Alot of times victory in an RTS is determined by knowing what your opponent is building. If you could cheat (as in some old Starcraft games) you could counter whatever was coming and devise a strike that had no counter.
With a rearming mechanic to gameplay, tactics, positioning and deployment become infinitely more vital than build order, peon pumping and the typical race for the super-unit. Withdrawing units to fight another day would take on more importance. If you had mobile resupply wagons, supply lines would also take on practical importance, as well.
I definitely encourage you to work on this more. It sounds cool!
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
quote:Original post by MadKeithV
What about adding more randomness to the possibilities of what you can build/recruit?
Something like this: the list of what you can build is created and extended by a "random unit generator". There''s a reasonably big peak in the middle of the curve for effectiveness, but it can be shifted up or down a little. By having more than one unit available, generated randomly, separately, you still retain a statistical average, but strategies may be directed by the quirks of the units you end up with. For instance, ending up with a VERY cheap infantry unit, where infantry is generally thought of as weak, but your side can now do very effective "cannon fodder rushes".
This would certainly encourage players to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the units and strategies of the game. You could place this in the context of "what HQ is supplying you with," as well, which really would weed out the true strategists that can improvise with what they have and those that lack imagination.
My only concerns would be that you''d need to have some idea of what your opponent could possibly deploy (maybe visible to both sides ahead of time?) and you''d have to provide a bit more stability for newbies who are just learning the game (for newbies especially, since their choice of units and tactics is determined by their past successes or failures in deploying both).
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
quote:Original post by Kazgorothquote:we may have to consider toning down the rock-sissors-paper dynamics found in many RTS games
I always found it highly amusing that rock-paper-scissors is so often used as the example for the misbalance in RTS games. After all, I know of no game OTHER than rock-paper-scissors which is perfectly balanced.
The problem with rock-paper-scissors balancing is it is highly brittle.
Its very hard to imposible to change you tactics & strategies mid-stream and not end up dooming your self. And lets not go into what happens when you chuck an unknown/new element into the system. Normally breaks it.
This staticness in the tactics & strategies makes it boring , its just a matter of who can follow the script better.
The problem is not only that the tactics & stratagies for most RTSs are fairly static, but the rule set actively discourages you to changing strategies in a significant way .
You need know what your enemy is doing (Name the last RTS you known about which had scouting as a fundamental part in your planning) and, importantly, know early enough to actually make a difference so you can make an informed choice on what types of strategies you should be using.
IMO the problem with R-P-S balancing is its done on the unit level, and not the tactics & strategies level. Doing R-P-S balancing on the unit level practically demands that the rule set discourages changing strategies.
The reasoning behind this is that each unit generally represents onyl a few possible tactics & strategies, and there are a limited number of units. So the unit type you pick to use, dramatically reduces you options in what tactics & strategies you can employ. Thus choosing a unit type and thus a unit, is a significant investment.
Now the problem is in most things(games or not), you can not change a significant investment in a hurry or even have it economically viable todo so.
quote:Original post by Wavinator
My only concerns would be that you''d need to have some idea of what your opponent could possibly deploy (maybe visible to both sides ahead of time?)
What you could do here is have a set of "basic" units that you can always build - stuff like a basic light footsoldier, basic troop transport, basic tank.
Any additional units you want would be subject to the random generator. At first, the randomness might be small - getting either dirtbikes, or dune buggies, where the first is a little faster and the second is a little tougher. The further the game progresses, the larger the random element, so that by the end of the game, it might vary from light artillery, to ICBMs, or something along those lines.
This also puts a bit of pressure in rushing the game, because you become less and less certain of the kinds of tactics you might employ as time progresses.
quote:Original post by Wavinator
and you''d have to provide a bit more stability for newbies who are just learning the game (for newbies especially, since their choice of units and tactics is determined by their past successes or failures in deploying both).
By keeping the opening games short, as they usually are, the new player will first learn to use the basic units, and gradually start to see the effect of the random extra types of units as she learns the game. I think this could work quite well, though learning all the possible strategies would require playing quite a few long games too, to see what the generator has to offer at those levels.
quote:Original post by MadKeithV
What about adding more randomness to the possibilities of what you can build/recruit?
Something like this: the list of what you can build is created and extended by a "random unit generator". There''s a reasonably big peak in the middle of the curve for effectiveness, but it can be shifted up or down a little. By having more than one unit available, generated randomly, separately, you still retain a statistical average, but strategies may be directed by the quirks of the units you end up with. For instance, ending up with a VERY cheap infantry unit, where infantry is generally thought of as weak, but your side can now do very effective "cannon fodder rushes".
I like this concept, and I''ve been thinking of doing something similiar with the Reinforcements idea.
I''m not sure I want it to be random though. I was thinking of attaching some kind of ''supply/demand'' value to each unit, the more powerful units being in high demand (and thus harder to get in vast quantities) while the bog standard cannonfodder troops are in such huge supply that HQ are just giving them away.
The computer would act as some sort of logistics officer. Every time you request reinforcements of a unit, an algorithm would then be run, based on your progress in the current game (and perhaps your overall ranking) and determines whether you deserve to get that unit or not. If not, you might get something similar but which is in greater supply or less demand.
Each time you request a unit, that unit''s demand goes up. Each time you get a unit, it''s supply goes down. The player is then faced with a choice whenever he requests reinforcements. Do I need to ask for the Ubertank, and run the risk of not getting it (which also hurts my chance of getting it in the future) or can I get away with the MediocreTank for now, and save the UberTank for when I *really* need it?
My concern is however, that this isn''t terribly transparent, and is almost guaranteed to confuse some people.
quote:Original post by Sandman
...and determines whether you deserve to get that unit or not.
Or for an interesting twist, determines whether HQ feels you need this unit or not! If you are already doing very well, ostensibly beating the daylights of the enemy, they might not give you that ultra-rare, very expensive uber-tank to get shot up.
Or in game-balancing terms, the player who''s ahead may end up having a harder time getting units than the player trying to catch up... this kind of thing used to be done in arcade racing games too, to keep things exciting even if the skill levels of the players weren''t exactly matched.
quote:Original post by Sandman
My concern is however, that this isn''t terribly transparent, and is almost guaranteed to confuse some people.
You can counter some of that with a "supply" indicator for each unit (from abundant to all used up), and a kind of goodwill indicator from your contact at HQ. Do it the civilisation way - display that person''s face. If they are smiling, it''s all good, if they look angry, don''t count on getting that brand new type of grenade.
Maybe even an explicit indicator: "you currently have a 50% chance of acquiring this unit from HQ".
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
