I played it in Starcraft and it was quite fun. My friend and I would play against two computers, so it would be 1v2 and it was challenging. What made it most fun, though, was that each player started with a builder unit from the race they chose. So if he chose terran and I chose zerg, our base would be terran, but we would also have a zerg drone. So a bit later, I would head out and build a zerg base.
Ahh, if only wow wasn't so successful... we need a sequel.
Multiplayer cooperative RTS
You ought to check out Ground Control II if you want a good co-op RTS.
I really like this idea, such that I want to elaborate on my own thoughts. I'm in favor of two players swapping control of the same units and buildings, but this feature has to have constraints.
Resources:
For starters, each player could have separate resource pools. This would be extremely easy to implement in a gather system, because you'd simply split resources evenly among each team member as they come in. If someone wants to share his/her resources, it would operate like a tribute (without the overhead cost). This would of course be optional; if you'd prefer to have a single, shared resource pool (to allow faster response time during a crisis), you can specify this when setting up the match.
Buildings/Units:
Control of buildings and units should operate on the basis of who made it. When a player builds a structure, that structure is under that player's exclusive control (i.e., owned by that player) unless s/he toggles a "shared" option for the building, in which case his/her teammates can use the building normally. The building's owner has absolute control and can commandeer the building arbitrarily if needed; in other words, while a building is selected by its owner, no other teammate can use it. Players can transfer ownership to their teammates, of course.
Units would function basically the same way: units are owned by the player who owns the building that produced them, but they inherit the building's shared status, and of course this status can be toggled by the owner. As with shared buildings, shared units can be selected and assigned orders by the owner's teammates unless the owner presently has them selected. Ownership of units can also be transferred.
This system could even work for pickup games. When a new player joins the team, s/he can immediately take control of any shared resources the team has available. If there are no shared resources (i.e., players are greedy), one of the existing players may be kind enough to transfer ownership of a few units to the new guy (this is how some of the missions in GCII worked, so it's only reliable if you're (a) a good sport, or (b) playing with friends).
That's all I got for now.
I really like this idea, such that I want to elaborate on my own thoughts. I'm in favor of two players swapping control of the same units and buildings, but this feature has to have constraints.
Resources:
For starters, each player could have separate resource pools. This would be extremely easy to implement in a gather system, because you'd simply split resources evenly among each team member as they come in. If someone wants to share his/her resources, it would operate like a tribute (without the overhead cost). This would of course be optional; if you'd prefer to have a single, shared resource pool (to allow faster response time during a crisis), you can specify this when setting up the match.
Buildings/Units:
Control of buildings and units should operate on the basis of who made it. When a player builds a structure, that structure is under that player's exclusive control (i.e., owned by that player) unless s/he toggles a "shared" option for the building, in which case his/her teammates can use the building normally. The building's owner has absolute control and can commandeer the building arbitrarily if needed; in other words, while a building is selected by its owner, no other teammate can use it. Players can transfer ownership to their teammates, of course.
Units would function basically the same way: units are owned by the player who owns the building that produced them, but they inherit the building's shared status, and of course this status can be toggled by the owner. As with shared buildings, shared units can be selected and assigned orders by the owner's teammates unless the owner presently has them selected. Ownership of units can also be transferred.
This system could even work for pickup games. When a new player joins the team, s/he can immediately take control of any shared resources the team has available. If there are no shared resources (i.e., players are greedy), one of the existing players may be kind enough to transfer ownership of a few units to the new guy (this is how some of the missions in GCII worked, so it's only reliable if you're (a) a good sport, or (b) playing with friends).
That's all I got for now.
Author
Interesting Division system, Tom. Rating++. IT seems there needs to be some way to keep n00bs or l4m3rz from ruining the game, and your way seems to be it. Perhaps the starting units could be unowned, so that even if a new player drops into a greedy team, they still get to start somewhere.
What does everyone think of this system?
The other possibility I was considering was giving each team a "commander" who, in addition to controlling units, controls what payers have control over. I guess its better for the commander to have limits, in case he's a n00b. The commander can be impeached democratically. The commander cannot restrict control over a certain set of units. WHat does everyone think?
What does everyone think of this system?
The other possibility I was considering was giving each team a "commander" who, in addition to controlling units, controls what payers have control over. I guess its better for the commander to have limits, in case he's a n00b. The commander can be impeached democratically. The commander cannot restrict control over a certain set of units. WHat does everyone think?
It seems like a game like this would need high amounts of communication as to who is doing what. I mean along side the massive amount of micromanagement. For instance a building that a player builds could have a system that controls how it's used. On the side of the game hud a list of all the major buildings and what and how they are being used to keep players from doing redundant things that would slow down the whole. Also a list of how many "workers" are doing what. How many military units are idol and also where they are at.
Maybe even a quick messaging system to set on a group of units. Like player 1 could select a small amount of units and put a tag on them that says "defending this position" to let other team mates know that they are being used.
Okay Last idea and probably the best I can think of at the moment:
When you join a game you choose a class like, "resource management", "defense", "offense", "scout" kind of things. So right when the game starts everyone has their resources in a base and players can queue up seperate kind of buildings. Defense would manage building up small defense buildings or factories that create defensive units (slow moving high attack power, but can be offensive if needed). Then they rely on scouts to find resources and track enemies. Seperate the resources around the map and make more than 2 of them forcing the players to hold onto key locations. The defense player backs up the resource player by doing escorts and overall defense of the key locations. The resource person would be able to build small cheap defense buildings and manage the tech tree along with major upgrades to technology. They may or may not have offensive/defensive units. The offensive person just stays centered on the larger war front and doesn't need to micromanage resources or defense. The scout backs up all three groups by building fast moving offensive/defensive units or assistant units and also manages radar and fog of war destruction to make sure players know what's happening. Only flaw I can quickly see is keeping all of the sides happy when it comes to gameplay. I mean if resource management is boring then it might be hard to find a person to do it even though they are extremely needed.
Maybe even a quick messaging system to set on a group of units. Like player 1 could select a small amount of units and put a tag on them that says "defending this position" to let other team mates know that they are being used.
Okay Last idea and probably the best I can think of at the moment:
When you join a game you choose a class like, "resource management", "defense", "offense", "scout" kind of things. So right when the game starts everyone has their resources in a base and players can queue up seperate kind of buildings. Defense would manage building up small defense buildings or factories that create defensive units (slow moving high attack power, but can be offensive if needed). Then they rely on scouts to find resources and track enemies. Seperate the resources around the map and make more than 2 of them forcing the players to hold onto key locations. The defense player backs up the resource player by doing escorts and overall defense of the key locations. The resource person would be able to build small cheap defense buildings and manage the tech tree along with major upgrades to technology. They may or may not have offensive/defensive units. The offensive person just stays centered on the larger war front and doesn't need to micromanage resources or defense. The scout backs up all three groups by building fast moving offensive/defensive units or assistant units and also manages radar and fog of war destruction to make sure players know what's happening. Only flaw I can quickly see is keeping all of the sides happy when it comes to gameplay. I mean if resource management is boring then it might be hard to find a person to do it even though they are extremely needed.
I still think the best and easiest way is how StarCraft did it, where each player can do everything. Yes, there is always the issue of Player A building something with money Player B wanted for something else, but you have the same issue with every other multiplayer game.
Is your friend deciding to upgrade all your unit's armour over your building a new tank any worse than say, your ally attacking before you are ready to join and wasting an army? Or in an FPS, when a teammate decides they'll take a different route and maybe kill a few from the other team, rather than supporting you where you want?
When me and my friends played, we never really had many problems, we got two bases going fairly quickly, and money wasn't really that much of an 'issue', not like two players fighting over the money of one player, but two players sharing two player's money.
You need to tell your other player what your plans are, but it requires no more communication than playing with normal allies to be effective.
Is your friend deciding to upgrade all your unit's armour over your building a new tank any worse than say, your ally attacking before you are ready to join and wasting an army? Or in an FPS, when a teammate decides they'll take a different route and maybe kill a few from the other team, rather than supporting you where you want?
When me and my friends played, we never really had many problems, we got two bases going fairly quickly, and money wasn't really that much of an 'issue', not like two players fighting over the money of one player, but two players sharing two player's money.
You need to tell your other player what your plans are, but it requires no more communication than playing with normal allies to be effective.
Author
Quote:Original post by Sirisian
It seems like a game like this would need high amounts of communication as to who is doing what. I mean along side the massive amount of micromanagement. For instance a building that a player builds could have a system that controls how it's used. On the side of the game hud a list of all the major buildings and what and how they are being used to keep players from doing redundant things that would slow down the whole. Also a list of how many "workers" are doing what. How many military units are idol and also where they are at.
Maybe even a quick messaging system to set on a group of units. Like player 1 could select a small amount of units and put a tag on them that says "defending this position" to let other team mates know that they are being used.
Excellant! This fits well with the scriptable information gathering and using that I plan on using. Players will have as much information available to them as possible. I plan on trying to make the game diverse and balanced enough that a clever script cannot win the game. too many different tactical and strategic possibilities. I expect balancing so many possibilities will be arduous though.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
