• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
hpdvs2

What makes an RTS great?

79 posts in this topic

[quote name='voidedLine' timestamp='1356735026' post='5015216']
For a non-competitive rts, focusing on the macro strategy level and not the math/direct counters is your best bet.

ie-Just because Race A has a unit that does a lot of damage, doesn't mean Race B needs one(copy) or even a heavy armor unit that can take the hits(counter).
[/quote]

 

I like that, no rock, paper, scissor as mentioned before. Look at MMORPG's most of them also have that triangle and it get's boring.

 

On the other side, many beat'm up games also have vastly different characters and not all are balanced. The developers try to make it still fun by putting a bigger selection in the game.

If there is one character that is a bit stronger in a selection of 3 available the developer has to do something about it (or everybody will use the one character).

However if you have one or two unbalaced characters in 20 characters, the chances that the players will find the proper tactic against thoose two are much higher. The developers don't have to explicitly do something about them, they can pretty much rely on the creativity of the players. Of course the players do need to have the means (in this case many different characters) to do this.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, while a lot of people think of RTS foremost as strategy games, they usually rather tend to be evolution games, where all player start the same (or similar) and as the game progresses, you research/customize/unlock new units, building etc.

This makes an RTS replayable to me. in C&C you always started with a few soldiers and build it up to tanks etc. and C&C 2, 3 etc. extended those possibilities.

 

what I miss in RTS is to have really strategy, at best you have some tactics, but I'm not a game design expert to pull out ideas for how to let the player make great strategy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Krypt0n' timestamp='1356874133' post='5015743']
what I miss in RTS is to have really strategy, at best you have some tactics, but I'm not a game design expert to pull out ideas for how to let the player make great strategy.
[/quote]

Hard to say, but I would have thought that there is a bit strategy involved. Of course there aren't many and often they don't influence the game as much as just being faster than everybody else.

 

But if you think about it, sometimes in Starcraft 2 and many other games one player tries to kill some of the enemy workers early in the game.

Now it's clear the tactic employed is hit and run. But almost all the time the player is having a strategy in mind. In this case, weaken enemy economy early on to weaken his army in the mid-game.

Sure this is a very simplistic nevertheless efficent strategy. The problem is that most of the time games don't allow for anything more elaborate.

 

I'm not even sure myself if it's possible to ask the player for a deeper strategy in this genre. When you take a look at round based strategy it seems much more deeper. However imagine doing the same in real time.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strategy tends to be a matter of scale. Which is problematic when players refuse to spend more than an hour per game. The economies are so simplified, and the military too, that it's really totally impossible to use strategy.

 

You can say that your strategy is to expand quickly and suck up the resources you can, but if there is 1 natural expansion for each player and only 2 other expansions, that seems kinda pretentious.

 

Starcraft games tend to have 1 or 2 raids and maybe some probe harassment and then one or two large battles. How do you have long enough to establish a strategy.

 

A lot of this deals with the environment too. The Russian Strategy was to move back and back and back stretching out German supply lines and exposing them to winter. Starcraft style games don't even have food or supply lines, much less winter.

 

Strategy takes root in complexity. Dominions 3 has strategies. You can spend the game finding magic sites to farm gems for summons and spells. You can expand endlessly leaving no defenses except in an our ring on your border lands. You can expand using your pretender and/or blessed troops or by purchasing local troops. Do you focus on mages or the much cheaper ordinary units? Some people are really into Super Combatants and some use multiple thugs in place of one SC. Other players use astral duels to assassinate enemy mages and some people use seduction units to steal commanders. There is a stealthy scout system too where scouting is actually more than running a guy into an enemy base for a brief glimpse.

 

Most real time strategy games don't have the depth for strategy intentionally, not that they couldn't but because the audience has shifted away from the kind of people with the patience and desire to play deep strategy games.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='aattss' timestamp='1356717762' post='5015118']
There should be completely different gameplay if you decide to have multiple races.
[/quote]

 

 - I like this idea.  Like not just different units with different attack/defense styles, but a completely different approach to game play.  Perhaps different a robotic race, where you can micromanage a lot, but they aren't very creative, I.e. they don't fill in gaps well, so there are certain areas of defense they are weak in.  Then Humans.  You can perhaps order squads around, but what they do is up to how much you've trained the quad.  I.e.  A weakly trained group might have poor aim, and shoot at individuals, where a better trained group might have groups of 4 in the squad each shoot at individual targets to bring them down faster.

 

With the Robots, you simply make the upgrade, and all robots are instantly upgraded.  if defense towers go out, all your robots take on only basic defense and start returning to base.  If the humans lose satelite views, the squads will finish their missions and then return.  

 

Not that I'm going with Humans Vs Robots, but I do like the idea of different perspectives of game play and character management.  There is already something like that in Starcraft, as the Protoss Carriers have lots of little drones, that you don't control, you just control the carrier's location.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a little bit offtopic but @hpdvs2 are any good in programming, as developing even a small RTS is a serious task?

 - OMG Yes.  I strongly recognize how much work would go into an RTS.  I teach classes on Game Development, developed several smaller games, and understand how serious the work load gets.  I'm doing a lot of discussions and reviews trying to figure out the key features of what is important in my target game.  I'm also regularly working in successful Agile/Scrum projects, and will be applying the same standard.  So my ultimate intention is to build the smallest playable game, and add to it.  Starting even with just one unit type, one race, and just have a two player or possibly the AI.  

 

 - I expect that even a simple barely playable feature light game would take at least 6 months.  for me + a small team.  So I need to work out the absolute minimal nature of the game, and start with that.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='AltarofScience' timestamp='1356725705' post='5015160']
I think it might be important to differentiate between exploratory strategy and competitive strategy. Exploratory games want you to master lateral thought and mess around with combinations. Competitive games are the much maligned yet much loved clickfest style.
[/quote]

 

That's a very good point.  I like the exploratory, but I think the competitive strategy also has a place.  "aattss" was mentioning earlier about different races having very different play styles, not just different powers and balancers.  Perhaps in one race, you can micromanage and have better success in click fests, but in another race, you spend more on research, and the character's are primarily driven on AI, which keeps improving with the more research you do.  Balancing that game would be tough, but I think would be a very interesting twist.  Perhaps your research really has to match up with the fast clicker, or your research won't matter to much, so information gathering is essential.  But of course, you spend your time in different ways.  Clickers have there fun, and so do we.

 

Though, I would need to spend some time making sure a mixed play type could really work, be fun and maintain an effective balance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='voidedLine' timestamp='1356735026' post='5015216']
1. Most, if not all of the gameplay/unit data to be scripted/easily editable. Which, for an rts, is already a must imo. 
2. Agile development or something similar that allows for play-testing/significant changes during most of the development cycle.
3. A LOT of play-testing. Preferably by a small group of experienced rts players that can evolve/document strategies as the game progresses(No reason these can't be developers, but time might become an issue)
[/quote]

 

1.  That is a really good point, I wasn't planning on exposing the AI as a Designer ability.  I'm planning on keeping as part of a Descriptor Engine, similar to how Unity attaches components to various GameObjects that provide different AI options.  I think I'll still keep this at low level code, for speed, but keep it more variable, and able to add/remove AI portions.    Ultimately, I think this is getting a bit more to the mechanics of the game, and I'm using this question to discuss more the nature of game play from the what the user sees first.  Though this is still really valuable for discussion at a later point.  :)

 

2.   Agile is BY FAR a key to how I will develop this.  I have a book on game development that covers some Agile, that is in review right now.  I even got review and sign off (after some altarations) from Bob Galen (rgalen.com) who trains Agile in large companies.  I use it regularly and have had good successes with it.  Again, this is not targeting the original question, around what the player would like, but still really valuable mention.

 

3.  Play Testing is a must.  I was a Senior Automaton and Game Development Trainer with Wizards of the Coast, and I believe in very strong testing.  Typically, I would have a trusted ring of people that would have direct access to the developers (call them Development branch testers), that we could discuss with, but are not involved in game's design/programming.  And, at regular intervals, try to get someone new into that group who has not been involved, who will have fresh insight on the playability.  Then, a second tier of Alpha testers, who get builds that we have a good test run on, and it seems in good shape, then have a separate access point like UserVoice, to post bugs and vote on important changes, but can't directly bother the devs/designer.  And finally, a beta crowd, which would only be after significant testing, and more satisfaction from Alpha tester's issues, with a separate User voice site.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='voidedLine' timestamp='1356735026' post='5015216']
For a non-competitive rts, focusing on the macro strategy level and not the math/direct counters is your best bet.
[/quote]

 

This is another good point from voidedLine, and it makes me think about how to avoid getting people to play numbers, and instead focus on the art of playing.  Not quit sure how to get that, but its the difference of a flight simulator, where you could pay attention to the instruments, but most of the time, you'll go by the feel of how the plane moves.  That would be the kind of difference I want to bring back to RTS.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='AltarofScience' timestamp='1356892091' post='5015820']
Strategy tends to be a matter of scale. Which is problematic when players refuse to spend more than an hour per game. The economies are so simplified, and the military too, that it's really totally impossible to use strategy.
[/quote]

 

This is a good point, and something I've been considering is the idea that people are developing cities in war time, but it is separate from the battle front.  You can work to improve your city, but you also need to be developing resources for the war.  Then you can also train up troops, and send them into battle, where you get to be involved in a larger scale ongoing battle front.  It lets players build up resources to help them out in the game over long periods of time, which will change the types of units they can use, as well as tactics, and then get back into the war, and focus on the battles as separate things.  How often do you see forward base operations in military setting up entire mini-cities?  As apposed to mobile structures, like hospital tents.  anyway, I think we can have a good balance between fast war play and long term city management.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Try to stay away from making it micro heavy.

 

Starcraft 1/2 and Broodwar are very micro heavy games. Player keep track of their "APM" - actions per minute (e.g. mouse clicks) and see a high APM as great skill. After being a competitive Starcraft player for 2 years, I developed repetitive strain injury on my mouse hand. :( Also, professional Starcraft players get sponsored to do a wrist operation that prevents carpal tunnel syndrome when they get hired.

 

Be kind to your player's body. Focus on strategy, not fast clicking. (also, if you go the micro route, you'll never beat established giants like SC/BW)

 

2) Minimalistic, Slim, Neat and Elegant

 

Too many RTS went wrong by adding too many "cool" elements. Giant doomsday super weapons, big explosions, huge robots. Stuff that are only interesting for a very short while but serve little gameplay purposes. E.g. Command and Conquer series.

 

IMHO if the only reason to have a unit/feature in the game is because "it will be cool", you're better off without it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


what I miss in RTS is to have really strategy, at best you have some tactics, but I'm not a game design expert to pull out ideas for how to let the player make great strategy.

 

Hard to say, but I would have thought that there is a bit strategy involved. Of course there aren't many and often they don't influence the game as much as just being faster than everybody else.

 

But if you think about it, sometimes in Starcraft 2 and many other games one player tries to kill some of the enemy workers early in the game.

Now it's clear the tactic employed is hit and run. But almost all the time the player is having a strategy in mind. In this case, weaken enemy economy early on to weaken his army in the mid-game.

Sure this is a very simplistic nevertheless efficent strategy. The problem is that most of the time games don't allow for anything more elaborate.

 

I'm not even sure myself if it's possible to ask the player for a deeper strategy in this genre. When you take a look at round based strategy it seems much more deeper. However imagine doing the same in real time.

I think SC2 is especially a tactic game. your 'strategy' is usually limited to your game goals e.g. "destroy enemy by destroying his resource collectors" "destroy enemy by destroying his key base building" "destroy enemy by..." and then you use your usual tactics: take a cheap fast unit and try to break into the opponent's base to spy his build order. the opponent does of course the same and you both know  it and one of the 3 paths will come this one spy.

then, once you know his base, you decide for one of the common tactics and crosses his tactic, kinda like Rock, Paper, Scissors. so, the end of the game is mostly gambling, where both sides try to influence the chances for their side. it is still fun, but usually, both sides know in the same moment 'oh well, he used this strategy and I've used that one, it gonna end like ..." (at least in the more skillful matches).

partly it's also a finger-skill game, where both know in what order they have to click what commands to be most efficient and if you don't make misstakes and your enemy has maybe 3 wrong click (or 3 slow ones), you might be of an advantage even if his strategy was superior.

 

 

Strategy tends to be a matter of scale. Which is problematic when players refuse to spend more than an hour per game. The economies are so simplified, and the military too, that it's really totally impossible to use strategy.[/quote]I agree that it's a matter of scale, but not strictly something that has to be tight to time. of course, if you tend to have very little time, like in blitz-chess, you tend to rather have one goal and follow your mental 'reflexes' aka tactics. but you dont have to be super slow to come up with strategies.

let me coder-mind try a few possibitiles of strategy-game-design:

1. lets say you have the possibility to create buildings without binding them to a purpose. you build a barrack, but you could actually use it as a silo. your efficiency would of course be far inferior than with a dedicated buliding, but if your enemy would see your base with spy drones, he'd see "well, he can produce a lot of soldiers but if I bomb his refinery, he's out of resources and that's worth loosing a lot of my resources on planes". or you could actually place some non-functional imposter buildings/units.

it's of course a trade of, if you spend all resources on faking, your enemy gonna be lucky in any attack he attempts to do.

 

2. in C&C, both sides have their mega weapon, a-bomb or ion-cannon. but how bout having some more possibilities that aren't that obvious? 

- a very slow unit that moves underground, you'd have to create a tunnel across the map, or maybe sneak with that unit somewhere, where your opponent isn't watching frequently, and start digging there, once there is a tunnel, you could move some units along it and start the attack right in the center of the opponents lines.

- a hacking unit that highjacks opponents, but without controlling them. the player can figure out that one of his units is highjacked, but selecting it and giving orders, which a highjacked unit would obviously not understand, but as long as it has to just go on with the usual route e.g. a harvester, it would transport the hacking unit into the base. inside the base, the hacking unit could sabotage buildings, yet again, not destroy them or something, but, lets say, drop their efficiency. by how much? that depends on the player who's send the hack unit. if you set the efficiency of a factory to 99%, nobody might notice, but might also not change anything. you set it to 90% the opponent might notice it sooner or later. you set it to 0%, well, if it's in the middle of his attack, he might not realize his base is not working at all, if you do it during normal gameplay, you might delay him by 3 tanks or something.

- you can 'poison' the enemies resources, maybe with some unit that drives over it to inject something or by regular drone flights that spray something toxic, as long as the opponent has no harvesters with guns mounted.

... but what makes that a strategy and not a tactic? well, you can't just 'build' it, you'd have to go through a chain of researches, or you could continuously research and the longer you do, the more efficient those a-bombs, ion-cannons, hacker, driller etc.

3. research:

usually definitions of strategy vs tactic say that strategy is long term. in case of RTS it means that you setup a chain of events and if they work out, you win. that chain means you need to exploit a particular (possible) weakness. if you can just tank rush the enemy, obviously, you won't see sense in not doing so, that means, you have to be sure you fail with that brute force. if you make a tank rush, the enemy towers will kill you.

but if the defense is overpowered, what's the point? well, it's not over powered, it has some default strenghts and obviously there will be a weakness also. but you cannot exploit it by default, you need to setup something. lets say, beyond the 'fire power', you also have 'aiming speed', 'recharge delay', 'range'.

now you can start to 'research'

- a tank that is very fast, everything else gonna stay the way it is, but it's gonna be so incredibly fast, enemy towers won't be able to hit it, as long as it's moving.

- cost reduction or impostor tech. you will create such a mass of units, that the enemy towers won't be able to recharge fast enough to kill all of them before they are destroyed.

- you can research fire distance of your artillery.

isn't that also just tactics? well, if you just 'upgrade' it and you tank rush -> yes: but you won't win this way, the enemy will react before you're done. but what if you send stronger and stronger tanks? the enemy will start to research stronger and stronger tower. now imagine you've spend at the same time a lot of resources into a very fast tank. the enemy will think "yet another wave of more powerful tanks" and then you unlock their ability and the defense-tower won't be able to hit.

 

4. your units need supplies:

what if similar to that WW2 russian strategy, your units would also need supply. nothing complex, just like a harvester, you'd send a unit that 'recharges' your tanks etc. every time it passes by. it doesn't even have to be like a fuel refilling, just, let say, 50% boost for 30s. maybe those recharge-units give even different 'boosts'. you already have a tiny 'strategy' element in choosing what you gonna boost, now you also don't want your enemy to boost their units, you might let some broken looking tanks behind you and then they'll attack those recharge-units after everything passed them. you might send some planes that just aim at those units, you'll loose a lot resources for those suicide planes, but if they hit, you hurt the enemy a lot. maybe you say 'i dont care bout that boost, I'll just build an extra tank instead of recharge units, saving on researching them means another dozen of tanks'...

 

 

 

 


Strategy takes root in complexity. ...[/quote]

I don't think it's really complexity, it's rather possibilities. but those possibilities can be very simple. I think mech warrior (and other games with RPG elements), expose that by simply giving you the choice how to arm your unit. you might have failed the  mission in the first go and you prepare for a second run. usually you might feel depressed, but in mech warrior, you rather feel challenged "now, with two more coolers and rockets instead of lasers, I gonna rush-kill those lightweight mechs and then it's 1:1 against few of them with simple lasers, then I'll win *yay*"

 

it can be quite random in an RTS if everyone would build their own units, arming them. but if all of them have like 3 abilities and you can put your focus on those, you can try to also focus an weaknesses of your enemy and exploit it.

 

 

Most real time strategy games don't have the depth for strategy intentionally, not that they couldn't but because the audience has shifted away from the kind of people with the patience and desire to play deep strategy games.

that's maybe true, but most of the audience moved completely from RTS games, to simple "lets kill another mob" or "lets push some buttons to see another action sequence". but those who are left, would still probably love a game with possibilities.I think it's similar to what MMORPGs do, they try to stay simple to be approachable, because building your own house, training your riding animals, making complex stuff is way to time consuming to attract the masses. and then there is a tiny game called minecraft, where you have to build your house/castle/... not even from walls, but from little bricks. you have to even craft all your tools.... way too complex to be fun.

what I try to say is, I agree it is done intentionally to not have those possibilities in RTS, but not because it's more fun, but because nobody ahs yet found a way to integrate it in a good way. if you create an RTS, from scratch, have a goal to make one thing very special. playing a retro RTS like in the 90's is maybe fun, but having a stupidly simple game like minecraft, that cannot compete in any way with WOW, except for this one special "building bricks"-feature, would also work for an RTS. I would not care if it's top-down rendered, out of line-units. with just a white background, but hey, I can do this one really cool thing in it -> win. and I think, for an RTS, it's something with strategy. that has barely evolved in the past 20years. maybe that's why they don't sell?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the biggest things an RTS game needs is clear information management. The information doesn't have to actually be true, but is has to be clear. If I'm left wondering what I'm actually looking at, then I'm working on deciphering stuff and not thinking about actual strategy.

Personally I'm a fan of slower RTS games, where actions take time and reactions have to be careful and calculated.

More isn't always better. Choice overload is a dangerous thing in game design, and having too many options just make the game harder to design and play. When given too many choices and having things going too fast, then you may as well make the victory a nice clean dice roll.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well obviously with more choices you want to slow down the game. And more importantly you need to shift the choice zone. Thus macro heavy games taking out micro.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='DtCarrot' timestamp='1356948484' post='5016015']
Of course, to provide for balance, the areas near to the player will have the same type and quantity of resources so that both players will be in the same starting scenario.
[/quote]

 

That brings up another interesting thought.  What if resources are not created equal.  For instance, a robotic force would have little use for wood, but and Elf race would.  (not that I'm planning Robots and Elves:)  Each race or key might have their own strewngths and weaknesses.  And perhaps portions of the maps could be dynamic.  For instance, Instead of a map editor identifying that Crystal is found here, and Oil is found here, etc...  perhaps it could just identify that this is a Resource spot, and when the map is generated, it automatically fills in appropriate resources for the base/race near by.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Krypt0n' timestamp='1356979218' post='5016129']
you build a barrack, but you could actually use it as a silo
[/quote]

 

I like the idea of multi-purposing buildings.  Perhaps just that you have the ability to place a Facade' over existing buildings to make them look like others.

 - I also like the idea of improving armor to buildings.  I.e. the more metal you throw into it, the more armored it gets.  etc...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Krypt0n' timestamp='1356979218' post='5016129']
a hacking unit that highjacks opponents, but without controlling them. the player can figure out that one of his units is highjacked, but selecting it and giving orders, which a highjacked unit would obviously not understand, but as long as it has to just go on with the usual route e.g. a harvester, it would transport the hacking unit into the base. inside the base, the hacking unit could sabotage buildings, yet again, not destroy them or something, but, lets say, drop their efficiency. by how much? that depends on the player who's send the hack unit. if you set the efficiency of a factory to 99%, nobody might notice, but might also not change anything. you set it to 90% the opponent might notice it sooner or later. you set it to 0%, well, if it's in the middle of his attack, he might not realize his base is not working at all, if you do it during normal gameplay, you might delay him by 3 tanks or something.
[/quote]

 

I like this.  I remember in "Dark Reign" (about the same time as Star Craft 1), you had an Infiltrator   The Infiltrator was a character that was easily identifiable as one of yours, but he had excellent visual range, and if he say another Human unit, he could make himself look the same.  The enemy's characters would NOT recognize him as an enemy, and unless the player noticed this rouge character acting on their own, they could move around freely.

 - They would provide a few things of interest.

 1) You could see around in the enemies base.

 2) The infiltrator could sneak into an existing building.

 3) The infiltrator could then start researching technologies that the building created.  (starting with Level 1/weakest versions, and move up.  

 4) The infiltrator would have to make it back to your base and unload the information, but once done, you could then build the items as well.  

 5) if the enemy clicked on a building with an Infiltrator in it, they would see one was in it, and they could expell/mark them with a single click.  All enemies would then see the Infiltrator as a character of the original race again.  

 

It was a good idea, and something provided later in the game.  It seems like an idea to introduce enhanced technologies.  Perhaps they can't do a lot.  For instance, if you put an American Plumber in front of missile diagrams for a foreign country's weapon defense system, chances are they would not be able to make anything from them.  So perhaps the Infiltrator needs to be trained, and make repetitive trips, both sides learning from each other over time.  And of course, not perfect duplicates, but simply new upgrades, or different units entirely.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='hpdvs2' timestamp='1357009942' post='5016246']
That brings up another interesting thought.  What if resources are not created equal.  For instance, a robotic force would have little use for wood, but and Elf race would.  (not that I'm planning Robots and Elves:)  Each race or key might have their own strewngths and weaknesses.  And perhaps portions of the maps could be dynamic.  For instance, Instead of a map editor identifying that Crystal is found here, and Oil is found here, etc...  perhaps it could just identify that this is a Resource spot, and when the map is generated, it automatically fills in appropriate resources for the base/race near by.
[/quote]

 

Maybe the amount of resources that will be changed in each map can depend on the match-up, as you have said a robotic force require more metal instead of wood, on the contrary, the Elves may require more wood. In this scenario, adjusting the resources of just a certain area will suffice. However, what if it match turns out to be Elves vs Elves, I don't think that in this case, the type of resources wouldn't imbalance the game too much since both players are in the same circumstances, if one is unable to make wood-heavy resources, so is the other. 

 

Also, what I don't like about RTS games is the deathballs and AOE effect. Many a times, I see that the deathball system makes game dull. In Starcraft II, you build up a large army for 10-30 minutes in which the game can twist greatly to the side of one player in a matter of 10 seconds. Psionic Storms, Hunter Seeker Missle, Fungal Growth and Colloseus can wipe out large armies extremely quickly. In comparison, I prefer the Warcraft III style of game play. The fighting takes a rather long time which helps to express a player's combat skill better. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='hpdvs2' timestamp='1357010995' post='5016250']
Dark Reign
[/quote]

Nice game, at that time I never got to play it on my own computer. Only when I was visiting friends.

Didn't it also have really long firing distances for artillery and missiles? Over multiple screen widths?

 

That reminds me off Sudden Strike, there was no unit building or base management but it was still alot fun.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asymmetric factions.

Being able to win or lose at every point in the game - a 10/20 min build-up during which you are perfectly safe is no good.

Multiple factors to combat instead of fragile and shallow rock-paper-scissors. For example in Starcraft, when a number of Marines fight an equal value group of another unit type, who wins and by how much depends on positioning, upgrades, micro, and also the numbers of the units involved in the engagement.

Avoid unit/upgrade complexity. It just makes the game more of a boring Excel spreadsheet, and forces a serious player to memorize a ton of stuff. Instead have strongly different units. Make all decisions count. Edited by Stroppy Katamari
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to "Dark Reign":

[quote name='shadowomf' timestamp='1357051612' post='5016373']
Nice game, at that time I never got to play it on my own computer. Only when I was visiting friends.
Didn't it also have really long firing distances for artillery and missiles? Over multiple screen widths?
[/quote]

 

Yes, had Artillery that could shoot half way across some of the smaller maps.  Often hard to find.  It took longer for things to be destroyed, but you couldn't heal easily either.  Had to build a repair bay and have your vehicles return to it.  Excellent game.  Very editable to.  all the character designs where in text script, so you could attach weapons.  For fun, I would attach tachion tank cannons to the top of construction rigs, and the would build turrets in no time.  heck of a lot of destructive ability.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='DtCarrot' timestamp='1357019324' post='5016287']
Also, what I don't like about RTS games is the deathballs and AOE effect. Many a times, I see that the deathball system makes game dull. In Starcraft II, you build up a large army for 10-30 minutes in which the game can twist greatly to the side of one player in a matter of 10 seconds. Psionic Storms, Hunter Seeker Missle, Fungal Growth and Colloseus can wipe out large armies extremely quickly. In comparison, I prefer the Warcraft III style of game play. The fighting takes a rather long time which helps to express a player's combat skill better. 
[/quote]

 

Thats a good point  In starcraft, you go through units like their swiss cheese.  Increasing the life and decreasing the damage might work well to increase strategies.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0