quote:
SandMan... if you go straight techno with Carriers, then my zealots will tear your base apart, you might call that a rush. Though by the time you''ll have 3-4 carriers, I''ll have what... 36-48 zealots? Which WILL be killed, some day by those flying units, though, they''ll do enough damage so you can''t do anything else

This is all true, but none of this is contrary to my original statement, which was that in the later stages of the game, the zealots are pretty much obsolete - you have researched everything, you have enough resources to build all the carriers you want - why would you want to build more zealots? I suspect though, that you never end up in that situation - your last post suggests that you prefer the faster game which probably doesnt last more than half an hour to an hour. I prefer a longer game, but the RTS''s at the moment tend to favour your style of play. My perfect RTS would be very different from yours.

Hm, this has become quite a SC talk, and as much I dislike SC, I will interfere.
xEricx, you sound like a hardcore SC player and that''s why the only thing you could want/think of, just as any hardcore SC, is bigger, better SC. I agree that SC has somewhat nice interface and gameplay, but it certainly in not the RTS of the future, IMO. And playing vs the PC''s AI will always be here, no matter you like it or not.

I like the One-Big-Map idea, really. It is better than the Fast Play scenarios with "Rebuild your base from the beggining up to level 10" thing every 40-50 minutes. Even if we have a split in several pieces big map, it would be nice to have ability to transfer units from other bases and regions that you already control. Or, if we have it as a one huge map, it would also be interesting. You''ll need to build really smooth infrastructure though all your bases for supplies, ammo, healthcare, etc. Also, you will have a battle on many fronts, so you could be surprised at any time by saboteurs in one of your first bases.

And tasks, yes, they could be assigned dynamicaly, in the process of the game and depending on what progress the player has by now. I.e. if your first task was "Take over Enemy Base 1" and you not only took that base, but also Base 2 and you control the supply route to Base 3, then your second task won''t be "Capture Base 2", but "Destroy Base 3 fuel silos". Just an idea... Also, task could depend on unit count, total unit strenght, specific units in army, supply routes, transportation means, roads controlled, etc. This would allow many different ways to complete the campain. You could have a save option only at the completion of each task, for the hardcore gamers.

Also, let units have experience, as seen in several games, but we need a better experience system. One that really values the veterans'' skill to get into or avoid combat. Say the more experienced your units get, the better they use the tactical terrain bonuses, or they start collecting supplies from enemies bunkers, bases, buildings, bodies as they pass by. Experience may also make some units leaders, which means that others will be willing to stick with them, as it is much more likely to survive with a skill commander.

And that leads me to a thought. Units should not seek their own death, unless programmed (for robots, i.e.), strictly commanded. Even then, infantry would flee if a huge tank brigade comes over the hill. No matter the orders. And you cannot order a medic "Halt", till 10 feet away there are soldiers dying. What I''m trying to say is that units should act smart, not just follow orders, not matter of the circumstances.

Enough for now, gotta run...


Boby Dimitrov
boby@azholding.com

Nah, I haven''t check out for updates about this game since a while. You have the URL?

quote:Original post by xEricx
The perfect RTS would look pretty much like StarCraft.

Hah. I remember people saying this about FPS games and citing Doom/Quake. Then Half-Life came out. Imagine, if designers thought the only FPS game type acceptable to be Doom/Quake, there'd have been no Half-Life...

quote:
In your perfect RTS you should have both micro and macro management. Producing in multiple expansions (pumping peons) is a skill that not every player has. It's hard to be good at macro management. Also you should have enough unit control to have good fights, and at equal forces, the one with the best mouse/keyboard control should win.

That's odd. Given that this is a strategy game, I'd think the one with the best tactics and strategy should win. Victory shouldn't as much go to twitch as it should go to brains.

Micromanagement gives even starcraft the same tedious build order. People eventually min-max the build order anyway, and in time know exactly how many peons to pump, which buildings to build first, etc... They publish this on websites, everyone eventually gets it, and then the game devolves into lame puzzle solving. If that's the case, why include it? It only works until someone finds the perfect build order.

At that point, it becomes an obvious choice. Any obvious choice (citing Game Architecture & Design here) should be automatic, because all other choices aren't really choices at all.

quote:
No need to waste time on game types like King of the Hill... hardcore gamers wont play them, you can't get known at being good in a King of the Hill game!

If you only cater to ego driven pugilists (which I sometimes am, too), then yes. They'll only want games which demonstrate their superiority over their fellow gamers. In that case, direct confrontation design only.

But not everybody likes deathmatch. For everyone else who wants to play this more for fun than for bragging rights, deathmatch gets damned dull. Hence you need other games. (If you don't play friendly games, I can see how this'd be lost on you.)

quote:
And by the way, "mass expanding" then producing lots of the same unit IS a strategy, and it's easily counterable. So you shouldn't cut the user to use any strategy... if he wants to rush, let him go, since the other player can also rush to defend himself.

Rushing is indeed a strategy, but it's often a lame early strategy that directs the game in a single, uninteresting direction. Every game reduces to either defending specifically against the rush by rushing yourself or getting rushed and falling behind economically.

Does this get you a win? Yes. But like I said, if you're not in this solely for ego, and instead are playing LAN games with friends, then this drastically limits the scope of the game.

quote:
Both melee and ranged units are important. If you plan to let the user produce "masses" of units, you should also include spell casters or anything with the ability to kill masses when used the good way.

I'm fine with this, but these guys should come earlier to neutralize the rush. Tiberium Sun (an otherwise crappy game IM-not so-HO) at least had this right for one side with the fixed EMP cannon. More stuff like that, so that people can't "Templar Rush"

btw, do we really need peons?



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Edited by - Wavinator on June 22, 2001 2:53:37 PM