Multiplayer cooperative RTS
Another aspect to this might be combining cooperative RTS with FPS. This was done REALLY well with BattleZone2. It's a 3D FPS where you can command units to move, attack, build ect. just like a RTS. I thought it was a pretty decent game. Also it's multiplayer, so you can have one player handle economy while another handles battles. Both got to get some good FPS action when the enemy was on the attack too. Another nice aspect was you could go into a command hut and get a top down view of the battlefield. It's a shame more games don't incorporate this...
*face brightens* HEY that gives me an idea to add to my list of projects to do! :-p
*face brightens* HEY that gives me an idea to add to my list of projects to do! :-p
Author
Quote:Original post by lightbringerQuote:Original post by NIm
What do you mean by "the division of duties should be voluntary"? How could it be deterministic?
I was under the impression that you are proposing something along the lines of: player A only has control over structures, player B only has control over units. I thought that wouldn't be a good idea. Reading it now more closely, you do not really specify it like that :)
I think often in these types of games the winning does boil down to superior micromanagement. But what's wrong with that? :D
If players are allowed to join whatever team they want, then whoever has the most players will win, because more players correlates to more attention on the battlefield == more micromanagement.
That's easily solved by only allowing 1vs1, 2vs2, or 3vs3 scenarios. The host will open some slots and wait for players to join.
Though previously mentioned I want to say that both warcraft and starcraft fully support this (especially starcraft). You should also note that no one knows about these modes cause they are not that popular. It is not a bad idea but I think it doesn't work, because of player to player conflicts. These don't usually work unless you play with your friends.
Quote:Original post by Axiverse
Though previously mentioned I want to say that both warcraft and starcraft fully support this (especially starcraft). You should also note that no one knows about these modes cause they are not that popular. It is not a bad idea but I think it doesn't work, because of player to player conflicts. These don't usually work unless you play with your friends.
I played StarCraft for years and never saw this. Guess it's the Big Game Hunters fallacy :D But playing with friends may actually be a large market segment also.
I really enjoyed starcraft when playing, melee mode or whatever it was called. I think the biggest problem with it is, it simply wasn't advertised much. Most people that played the games, had no idea what that mode was, and the few people I convinced to play it loved it.
As far as the team with an extra player always winning, hardly the case. Me and my friends were all about equal in skill, and 2 on 1 after someone dropped, the 1 could still win even if the drop was early.
It really isn't any different than two players having control only over their own troops and not their allies, vs one person.
As far as the team with an extra player always winning, hardly the case. Me and my friends were all about equal in skill, and 2 on 1 after someone dropped, the 1 could still win even if the drop was early.
It really isn't any different than two players having control only over their own troops and not their allies, vs one person.
I've played this type of thing (2 people control one "player") in starcraft with friends... the problem is that unless you clearly define roles you end up in conflict, ie I want to build a tank and my buddy wants to upgrade armour. so when there's enough cash to upgrade and he goes to do it, he can't because I've already built a tank, or vice versa. That equals conflict!! We found it easier to just be allies.
I think the idea of one person having control of the economy and the other person control of the military would work quite well. kind of being Minister for Defence and the Treasurer.....
Either way, I guess the key is communication!!
I think the idea of one person having control of the economy and the other person control of the military would work quite well. kind of being Minister for Defence and the Treasurer.....
Either way, I guess the key is communication!!
I'm fully in support of voluntary separation of power. Mandatory separation would become tiresome and complicated.
Imagine in Star Craft that you're controlling the military. You schedule to have a squad of marines produced, only to be met by your economics manager who says "I'm sorry, but its just not in the budget. Can we stretch the troops out a little?"
Imagine in Star Craft that you're controlling the military. You schedule to have a squad of marines produced, only to be met by your economics manager who says "I'm sorry, but its just not in the budget. Can we stretch the troops out a little?"
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
