I have an idea for a hybrid style game. I'm not sure if it's been done but if it hasn't it should be. Heres the basics of my idea for the game. You have a person playing in an RTS mode of the game. They build a base, create units ect. Then you have people playing in an FPS or RPG mode. When the RTS person creates an infantry unit a FPS/RPG person spawns at the barracks. This could make for a very dynamic game play where entire buildings are destroyed, vehicles, and super-weapons play a more pivotal role in the game. I'm not so much asking for feedback on how to program it but if it would be a style of gameplay that you would enjoy. Thanks for your response! I'm new to the forums and didn't see the Game Design topic so I first posted this topic under the Game Programming topic. Here is a link to the thread. http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=321674

I really appreciate your guys feedback. Hopefully you'll be able to preview my game in the next year or so.

I once had an idea like this; side A plays an RTS while side B plays an FPS to defeat A.

One problem I think there is is that people are used to larger battles with multiple units. Even if we assume that 100 people can play, Each side is only using 49. In a game of Total Annihilation, for example, it is not uncommon for people to reach their 500 unit max.

Also, what happens when there are less than the max spawned? Do the FPS players just sit around doing nothing?

Well, one issue I can see right off the bat is that its hard to get so many people cooperating in such a fashion. The commanders may give orders that none of the "units" follow, which may end up being just a total mess and everyone blame the commander for doing an aweful job. Or the situation can be turned around where you have "units" that do exactly as the commander says, but the commander has no clue what he/she is doing, so things still turn out to be a mess. There's just way too many human factors involved. And for anyone who has ever played many team/squad based games, you'll know that finding a good team is hard enough not to mention time consuming at times (which is why there are clans).

But in general, its probably not something that you can do as a pick-up style random game. This is probably why head to head, everyone for themselves, style of play is still more popular. Just because there's nothing complicated involved. You get dropped into a game, you shoot at people or anything that moves. You can't blame anyone for getting killed. Then if someone gets on your nerves, you just try to gun them down. Simple, clean, clear cut and you're out in say 30 minutes.

Of course, for groups of people who have alot more time on their hand and better organized, yeah, a RTS/FPS hybrid may be attractive.

Let me restate my idea more clearly. At the top of the chain you have a person playing RTS. This person gets currency or whatever to upgrade, spawn guys, get vehicles and make the base defenses. The RTS person won't actually move the units, although they could click on a FPS player and then click on an area where they are needed. When a person spawns they will play in FPS/RPG mode and fight against the opposing side. The FPS/RPG guys will kill other FPS/RPG guys and try to destory the enemy base. My idea wasn't to have somebody leading a squad although this could be an alternative to solo FPS/RPG gameplay.

your idea is actually more similar to Savage than natural selection.

I've never played savage but It got a lot of positive attention. I think as long as you don't get a moron commander, it could be great. Even if noone wants to obey him, the tactical info he can give would be worthwhile.

To try and guarentee that you get a good commander, one could implement a selection method based on player voting, current score (kills, deaths, somethign else?). And a player could pass the commander role if they wanted to stay in fps mode.

In FPS mode you can play as a commander leading a squad. The RTS style commander leads the FPS players. I'll have to check out that savage game.

Quote:Original post by I_Smell_Tuna
Let me restate my idea more clearly. At the top of the chain you have a person playing RTS. [...]

I've also thought of a similar system, but I didn't stop there, I added one more layer on the top: at the top of the chain you have someone playing as a god, ie. as in the original Populous (not Populous the Beginning, which is fundamentally different)...

The gods could do anything to the environment. They could reshape the territory, throw in hailstorms, and what have you. They cannot, however, control any individual sentient life forms.

The RTS players could build structures and give orders, much as was suggested.

The FPS/RPG players could... ...well, do their thing. Fight. Roam around. Collect loot. Whatever. [grin] Depends on the theme of the game, and whether there is a "role-playing" element included.

The RTS players would build temples for the gods, trying to gain their favor. The FPS/RPG players could do all sort of religious stuff in the temples, such as sacrificing stuff or worshipping by other means. The gods would gain power from worshipping and then use this power as they see fit. RTS and FPS/RPG players could also pray for miracles etc. Gods could grant divine powers (spells etc.) to worshippers.

Note that the god players and the RTS players have different goals. An RTS player could build temples for different gods. A god could help out opposing factions of RTS players. If a god player wins (ie. by being the only worshipped god in the game), it doesn't necessarily mean anything for the RTS or FPS/RPG players. If an RTS player wins (controlling all the factions left alive), it doesn't necessarily mean anything for the god players.

Quote:Original post by Dakar
One problem I think there is is that people are used to larger battles with multiple units. Even if we assume that 100 people can play, Each side is only using 49. In a game of Total Annihilation, for example, it is not uncommon for people to reach their 500 unit max.

How about having computer controlled "stupid" grunts for the RTS players to control as well? They could be weaker than the player controlled units.

Quote:Original post by nihilisticod
To try and guarentee that you get a good commander, one could implement a selection method based on player voting, current score (kills, deaths, somethign else?). And a player could pass the commander role if they wanted to stay in fps mode.

Player voting can be good, but using the score can be a bad idea; a good FPS player is not necessarily a good RTS player and vice versa. Don't forget The Peter Principle:

Quote:Laurence J. Peter, "The Peter Principle"
Everyone rises to their level of incompetence.

That is, as long as you know what to do and you do it well, you will get promoted. Eventually you will reach a level at which you are incompetent and can't get anything done, let alone well. From that position you won't be promoted — you have reached your "level of imcompetence".

Still, I have to agree with WeirdoFu here, though. It wouldn't be a game for the casual gamer. It could require a lot of co-operation and certainly would require discipline — you could just join as a FPS/RPG-player, but if you wanted your faction to win, you'd better follow orders...