Answer whatever questions interest you:
What kind of features would exist in your ideal RTS game?
What features would you like to have for modding?
What stuff have you always wanted to do either playing or modding RTS games that you haven't had support for?
What is your position on micro vs macro(SC2 style clicking on a hundred barracks counts as macro type macro)?
How do you feel about simulation elements ala Majesty: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim or Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom?
Are you a fan of long or short game lengths?
What about the length of actual sessions, vs completing a game?
How do you feel about TBS games and would you like to see some TBS features incorporated into RTS games?
As an example, many TBS games or even single player RTS games with pause functions have things like complex magic systems, hundreds of units in armies, caster characters who are primarily summoners or magic casters as opposed to just ranged characters with high damage and low health, more complex technology/research tress and so forth.
Do you like squad based units or individuals or both with options?
Do you have fun base building or managing or do you really only care about intense continuous combat?
Do you like a map to have only one battle that is significant or do you like a lot of smaller battles to go on at once?
Do you like games with multiple momentum shifts where losing a base area is only a minor setback or do you prefer games where there are generally one or two deciding battles and an economic setback or base loss is pretty much a signal that the game is about to end?
Do you prefer games with careful strategy or turtling with defense towers or games that are about aggressive combat with minimal downtime?
Do you have any thoughts not covered in my WallOfText of questions?
Ideal RTS Game
What kind of features would exist in your ideal RTS game? - Smooth controls, good FPS, action queuing, unit possession, and both coop and versus mode multiplayer
Do you have fun base building or managing or do you really only care about intense continuous combat? - Base building, but not managing. Annihilation combat for the end-game.
Do you have fun base building or managing or do you really only care about intense continuous combat? - Base building, but not managing. Annihilation combat for the end-game.
* What stuff have you always wanted to do either playing or modding RTS games that you haven't had support for?
rpg and mmo element.
* What is your position on micro vs macro(SC2 style clicking on a hundred barracks counts as macro type macro)?
I dont mind either way, micro tends to put more detail into the combat, macro smashes cpu resources so much detail is lost.
* Are you a fan of long or short game lengths?
both.
* How do you feel about TBS games and would you like to see some TBS features incorporated into RTS games?
As an example, many TBS games or even single player RTS games with pause functions have things like complex magic systems, hundreds of units in armies, caster characters who are primarily summoners or magic casters as opposed to just ranged characters with high damage and low health, more complex technology/research tress and so forth.
sounds good
* Do you like squad based units or individuals or both with options?
squads.
* Do you have fun base building or managing or do you really only care about intense continuous combat?
a bit of both is good.
* Do you like a map to have only one battle that is significant or do you like a lot of smaller battles to go on at once?
multiple battles
* Do you like games with multiple momentum shifts where losing a base area is only a minor setback or do you prefer games where there are generally one or two deciding battles and an economic setback or base loss is pretty much a signal that the game is about to end?
multiple.
* Do you prefer games with careful strategy or turtling with defense towers or games that are about aggressive combat with minimal downtime?
strategy is good.
* Do you have any thoughts not covered in my WallOfText of questions?
graphics arent that important, as long as its multiplayer, even flat 2d is fine.
rpg and mmo element.
* What is your position on micro vs macro(SC2 style clicking on a hundred barracks counts as macro type macro)?
I dont mind either way, micro tends to put more detail into the combat, macro smashes cpu resources so much detail is lost.
* Are you a fan of long or short game lengths?
both.
* How do you feel about TBS games and would you like to see some TBS features incorporated into RTS games?
As an example, many TBS games or even single player RTS games with pause functions have things like complex magic systems, hundreds of units in armies, caster characters who are primarily summoners or magic casters as opposed to just ranged characters with high damage and low health, more complex technology/research tress and so forth.
sounds good
* Do you like squad based units or individuals or both with options?
squads.
* Do you have fun base building or managing or do you really only care about intense continuous combat?
a bit of both is good.
* Do you like a map to have only one battle that is significant or do you like a lot of smaller battles to go on at once?
multiple battles
* Do you like games with multiple momentum shifts where losing a base area is only a minor setback or do you prefer games where there are generally one or two deciding battles and an economic setback or base loss is pretty much a signal that the game is about to end?
multiple.
* Do you prefer games with careful strategy or turtling with defense towers or games that are about aggressive combat with minimal downtime?
strategy is good.
* Do you have any thoughts not covered in my WallOfText of questions?
graphics arent that important, as long as its multiplayer, even flat 2d is fine.
I want a campaign mode 
I want it to be like StarCraft 1 or Warcraft 2/3 (but not like StarCraft 2 which is lame).
"What is your position on micro vs macro(SC2 style clicking on a hundred barracks counts as macro type macro)?"
StarCraft 1 style was "just right" for me. I rather dispise clicking on mane things fast.
[size=2]Also, I want a campaign mode.
"How do you feel about simulation elements ala Majesty: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim or Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom?"
It does not sound compatible, even though I like Majesty. It just does not fit with RTS.
[size=2]Also, I want a campaign mode.
Oh yes, and the most important thing, I want a campaign mode
I want it to be like StarCraft 1 or Warcraft 2/3 (but not like StarCraft 2 which is lame)."What is your position on micro vs macro(SC2 style clicking on a hundred barracks counts as macro type macro)?"
StarCraft 1 style was "just right" for me. I rather dispise clicking on mane things fast.
[size=2]Also, I want a campaign mode.
"How do you feel about simulation elements ala Majesty: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim or Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom?"
It does not sound compatible, even though I like Majesty. It just does not fit with RTS.
[size=2]Also, I want a campaign mode.
Oh yes, and the most important thing, I want a campaign mode
Author
I am pretty sure that serious Starcraft play involved clicking on a shitload of things really fast, unless you played single player on low difficulty.
What kind of features would exist in your ideal RTS game?
Varied victory conditions, so it doesn't just boil down to 'annihilate the opponent' in every game. Ultimately, I like the idea that annihilation is a means to an end, not necessarily an end in itself. And I don't just mean on a map by map basis - I'd like to know that I can play *any* map and have a choice of different ways to win.
What features would you like to have for modding?
[/quote]
Ability to add new factions, units, and most importantly of all, maps.
What is your position on micro vs macro(SC2 style clicking on a hundred barracks counts as macro type macro)?
[/quote]
Depends.
Micro can be a good thing - it adds a twitch, adrenaline element to the game which can make the game much more fun. But it can also detract from the strategic element. Overall, I tend to prefer games which favour strategy over having high APM.
How do you feel about simulation elements ala Majesty: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim or Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom?
[/quote]
Not entirely sure what you mean here. I am generally a big fan of simulation-y stuff, but for me, in an RTS game that manifests itself better in the form of physics systems, ballistics, etc a la Supreme Commander, rather than Majesty style, AI controlled gameplay.
How do you feel about TBS games and would you like to see some TBS features incorporated into RTS games?
[/quote]
I like the idea of TBS style campaigns. I generally dislike story based campaigns in RTS, I like to be in control of the overall strategy rather than being spoon fed every mission and it's objectives. I'm not sure about TBS elements in the actual real time portion of the gameplay though. RTS gameplay features need to be streamlined if they are to be workable, simply chucking more options and complexity into a realtime game runs the risk of overwhelming the player.
Do you like squad based units or individuals or both with options?
[/quote]
Both can work. Generally I tend to prefer to work with groups of units, rather than microing every single last unit. Squads can be good, or single unit but with good group selection and management tools can be the best of both worlds.
Do you have fun base building or managing or do you really only care about intense continuous combat?
[/quote]
Personally, I don't think a game needs to be continuous combat. I prefer a game with a varied pace - some intense combat interspersed with manoeuvring/setup play. That may include base building, but does not have to.
Do you like games with multiple momentum shifts where losing a base area is only a minor setback or do you prefer games where there are generally one or two deciding battles and an economic setback or base loss is pretty much a signal that the game is about to end?[/quote]
I don't like the idea that one mistake can cost the entire game. It's boring for both players to play on once the mistake is made, and as a result, unsatisfying, regardless of whether you win or lose. It's much more interesting if there is a reason to keep playing - if there is always a way your opponent can turn the tables on you, it makes winning feel much more worthwhile, and even losing can be fun as you try to figure out how to turn things around.
Do you prefer games with careful strategy or turtling with defense towers or games that are about aggressive combat with minimal downtime?
[/quote]
I prefer games with careful strategy and aggressive combat.
Right now, I won't say much specifically about game-play. Although there are many fundamental elements in RTS game mechanics that are more critical and more important for discussion than what I have to say, for now, I would just like to wish for two (uncommon) features:
1. Smooth pathfinding/movement
Battles aren't cool when all of the units keep getting stuck on each other and unnaturally clog up in their own paths. Checkout what Gas Powered Games has done (called flow fields?).
2. Very lively teammate/enemy AI
In most RTS games, often times, I really just want to practice against AI to get better (prior to competitive online gameplay). But this is a completely reluctant effort. At least in the games I play, AI skirmishes seem pretty bland and, there aren't enough interesting events that happen. I want RTS AI to pass the Turing test.
1. Smooth pathfinding/movement
Battles aren't cool when all of the units keep getting stuck on each other and unnaturally clog up in their own paths. Checkout what Gas Powered Games has done (called flow fields?).
2. Very lively teammate/enemy AI
In most RTS games, often times, I really just want to practice against AI to get better (prior to competitive online gameplay). But this is a completely reluctant effort. At least in the games I play, AI skirmishes seem pretty bland and, there aren't enough interesting events that happen. I want RTS AI to pass the Turing test.
There are no difficulty levels in Starcraft 1 (which, BTW, I find a very stupid idea). You could only add more AI opponents and team them against you.
I am pretty sure that serious Starcraft play involved clicking on a shitload of things really fast, unless you played single player on low difficulty.
Author
Right now, I won't say much specifically about game-play. Although there are many fundamental elements in RTS game mechanics that are more critical and more important for discussion than what I have to say, for now, I would just like to wish for two (uncommon) features:
1. Smooth pathfinding/movement
Battles aren't cool when all of the units keep getting stuck on each other and unnaturally clog up in their own paths. Checkout what Gas Powered Games has done (called flow fields?).
2. Very lively teammate/enemy AI
In most RTS games, often times, I really just want to practice against AI to get better (prior to competitive online gameplay). But this is a completely reluctant effort. At least in the games I play, AI skirmishes seem pretty bland and, there aren't enough interesting events that happen. I want RTS AI to pass the Turing test.
Well I intend to do quite a bit of work with the AI, although for flavor reasons they will be spamming legions of units. I think I could make an AI that would pass the turing test the first time you played a given mission. I do not think I could make an AI that would pass the turing test for a random map generator.
As for pathfinding I will look into it but I think pathfinding would take a shitload of cpu resources. A top tier machine might be able to handle a quality pathfinder but most computers wouldn't.
One thing to note about AI is that the closer an AI is to human, the more likely human players will be to claim that its "cheating".
As for pathfinding I will look into it but I think pathfinding would take a shitload of cpu resources.[/quote]
Perhaps, unless you program it well. And I bet you could ... how does Gas Powered Games do it (they wouldn't be selling Supreme Commander 2 otherwise)? I would say that a lot of A* algorithms are quite archaic by their approach. Be daft and create improvements, or invent your own approaches... isn't that one of the fun things about game programming?
Edit:
Here's something I found:
http://gmc.yoyogames...howtopic=521613
I don't have Game Maker, so I can't get any reference code out of it. You could probably (easily) figure it out for yourself anyway.
Edit:
Oh wait. They're using C++? What????????? Download the zip and there's a folder called "DllSource" which has C++ in it! It should be helpful as a reference, if you don't know where to start.
------
One thing to note about AI is that the closer an AI is to human, the more likely human players will be to claim that its "cheating".[/quote]
?
You're contradicting my understanding a lot here. I thought the fact was exactly opposite.
Why do you say that?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement