Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

175 Neutral

About Elpyfo

  • Rank
  1. Elpyfo

    Creative Fantasy RTS races

    Thank you for your feedback, everyone :).    So far I've got this: (note that this is pure spitballing and keeping it very generic.)   Race 1: Nature theme, tall green nature-lovers. Map belonging to their faction slowly turns to lush green landscape, filled with forests, waterfalls.. They are opposed to destroying natural beauty for the sake of expansion, so they will try to harm nature as little as possible. This limits their buildings to certain locations, but they are hardy and get many advantages for adhering to their strict rules. Elitist faction, so strong but high cost units. They come along fine with Race3 and Race4 as life and death are part of nature, but they find the senseless destruction of natural beauty of Race2 abhorrent, and thus have trouble forging alliances with them. Easiest victory condition: Cultural   Race 2: Industrial theme, steampunk humans. Map belonging to their faction turns into concrete, steel, paved roads.. Mass production means fast units and big economy, but sometimes at the cost of quality. Their tendency to destroy natural beauty makes political relations with Race1 difficult, as their people’s interest do not align very well. Easiest victory condition: Economical   Race 3: Death theme, necromancy-practicing non-humans. (insects? mythological creatures?). Map belonging to their faction becomes charred and black, filled with tombs and graves, generally depressing. Race4 are their natural counterpart, but they come along fine with Race1 and Race2. Easiest victory condition: Military   Race 4: Life theme, land belonging to their faction becomes filled with white marble buildings, towers, … They are the natural counterpart to Race3, but they come along fine with Race4. Easiest victory condition: Political
  2. Elpyfo

    Creative Fantasy RTS races

      Nice. I like it :). Could be very interesting, as they would be opposed to destroying nature in order to expand, so they'd need to be either compact in base size or integrated in nature. It's also easy to imagine a greedy corporate/industrialist faction being their logical counterpart.
  3. Good day to you all.    I am in the process of writing up my game idea for an economic-heavy fantasy RTS where the main focus won't necessarily be combat. Mechanics-wise I've got a good idea of the kind of stuff I need right now, but as for races, I'm a bit lost.    The technology level should be that of late middle ages/renaissance, so early gunpowder stuff should be a possibility, but nothing beyond that. I'm a big fan of steampunk, so it would be cool to make a race who's got that as a major theme.    My problem, however, is that I want to do something creative with the races. Not the same old Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, ... I've decided so far that I want a standard human race and a non-standard dwarf race, but I need some creative new races, which I'm struggling with.   The idea would be that the races are more or less unique, ie none of them play quite the same, with different emphasizes and resources well suited to them, but at the same time that every method of victory (so far: military, economical, research, cultural, political) is still a viable option for them.   (If you're interested in some mechanics I've thought out with the help of you guys, I've got a thread  http://www.gamedev.net/topic/670767-real-time-strategy-mechanics/ wherein we muse about possible mechanics. I haven't written out what goes and what doesn't yet, but most of the stuff I replied positively to will go in the game one way or the other :) )    So for every race we've got the possibility of making/upgrading certain faction buildings to change the focus of the civilization towards more economic/military/cultural and so on buildings, but I'd like to give every race some unique modifiers and quirks to make them unique.    I've thought about implementing a sort of warrior race insect people, but I'm not sure how well that would tie together in a medieval fantasy setting.  Do any of you have ideas for unique RTS races/quirks/special resources?   As for the resources, you may think "generic fantasy RTS" for the time being.  We've got our wood, gold, stone, food, luxury resources (gems, linen...) and "special" materials needed for certain units (let's say a special sort of metal required for a certain armor)   I'm aware how broad my question is, but any form of inspiration/creative thoughts would be much appreciated. I'll get to expanding upon the lore as our game progresses through the testing phases :)   Thank you! 
  4. Elpyfo

    My first model

    Coming from someone who's been struggling with blender for quite a while I can say this is a job well done ;).    However, try working on the lighting before rendering. Namely, environment lighting (on the right hand side in the little tabs, try the one with the world icon) and just play around with the settings a bit. You'll see the render improving a lot once you find what you're doing ;)
  5. Elpyfo

    Food for aliens

    I think there's a few routes to take here.. either go for a more generic "food" resource and forego explaining it (the easy way out) or players will have to wait with the actual conquest until they know how the aliens' food industry/metabolism work (could be researched, perhaps? But that implies capturing aliens, performing autopsies and whatnot..Or peaceful observation ;) ).
  6. Elpyfo

    Real Time Strategy mechanics

    Because you need one person to hold this all together (yes, I know Valve does it diffirently), you seem to be lacking the project leader. Quick advices based on me managing these teams in the past: - limit the number of team members to maximum 4-5 people, the overhead of additional people is killing - give the "game designer" position to the programmer (it solves a lot of problems since the main task of a designer is to explain to the programmer how to make things, if that's the same person it speeds up things greatly) - mercilessly get rid of people who are lazy or "have no time", it leads to nowhere - it's nice to have one "support" or "marketing" person (to update website, wiki, twitter, facebook, contacting with press, etc), I would surely sacriface one team slot for such person (even at the expense on one artist where artists are quite valuable), note such person could also be the project manager (strangely the project manager does not need to have such great tech skills or even understaning of the game you are making)     Thank you for your feedback. I have linked this thread to our programmer. Our team is going to be 5 people tops (best case scenario) and I hadn't even thought of a "support" person before. I will re-read this many times, I am sure :)     This is the case for us. We've been friends for years. It's just hard to try to get them into a working atmosphere from this background. But we'll get there. Eventually :).      This is why we did the voting thing initially. Because we want to see the best idea out there before spending our time developing it. We've got our very rudimentary basics down. Once september 1st comes around, I'll make a new thread to detail the creation process, hardships and whatnot.. I'm looking forward to the whole thing kicking off!       I like this a whole lot! I was thinking a Necromancy-based race anyways :) . And I absolutely LOVE the idea of using the environment/buildings outside their main function thing. Thank you. As for the playtesting, we are going to make our first good build out of whatever comes out september 1st and then comes the playtesting. (Which I'm looking forward to. Our very first test build was just the camera, rudimentary movement, box selection, unit creation from buildings but nothing resource-y yet.      It is important to pin down your core gameplay (eco-simulation) first. Don't stop tweaking it, until it feels right. It is always tempting to add new features, if the core-gameplay doesn't feel right at the beginning, but you need to understand, that a new feature will only draw your attention temporary off the issues with the core-gameplay.   Once you have the feeling, that the core-gameplay feels good (prototype+tests), you can add a more advanced combat system which suits into the gameplay and doesn't fight it.     Alright, so no skimping on the rudimentary core mechanics before adding more refined features. Got it!      Thank you for all the feedback, everybody. Feel free to add your thoughts, reply and whatnot. I'll be keeping an eye on this thread ;). 
  7. Elpyfo

    Real Time Strategy mechanics

      The person whose idea gets voted (Only people who are committed to helping in the project get a vote) gets the role.      I know lots of the things talked about would work pretty well in a turn-based game, but we've all sort of "meh'd out" on turn based games.      My idea would be skirmish vs ai/local multiplayer (starting out as direct IP/LAN games, we haven't gotten far enough to consider hosting yet..) with more options coming around as soon as we hit a couple of milestones. We (the developers) 'd like to be able to play simple 1v1 matches against each other for testing purposes as soon as our game is a bit more playable and we've laid the foundations for direct IP connection. We're not looking for financing right now as we find it bad form to ask for money when we have so little to show the world. (That, and we don't want to ruin our nonexistant reputation online just yet :) )    I've taken a look at your game and it looks promising as hell. Therefore I automatically assume you know your stuff. Could you please tell me why you think it's such a bad idea to vote? Our programmer has had concerns about the amount of work the as-of-yet unsigned team members will deliver.    Thanks for the feedback and honesty, I much appreciate it :)
  8. Elpyfo

    Real Time Strategy mechanics

    Never played Stronghold, but K&M. It is based on the idea of settler with an expanded combat system which worked due to the formation system. But combat is really slow paced in this game and not comparable to modern really, fast paced PvP RTS games. I doubt that K&M will work really good in an competive multiplayer scenario, but I'm just guessing here, just played the single player campaign.   A strong focus on the (single) core gameplay is better then to support two "core"-gameplays. Many eco-simulations have a battle component (settler,civ) and many RTS games have a eco-system (star craft=>two resources , etc.), but all have a single core game mechanism, either eco simulation or battle. If you take the concept of e.g. a RTS game and add the "burden" of a eco-sim, then you are suddenly trying to develop two games in one.   Alright, so I'm guessing I would go for the eco-simulator with a combat component here. But how do I make it so that it is this rather than two game? I understand what you mean, but I do not see the means to achieve it. 
  9. Elpyfo

    Real Time Strategy mechanics

      Thank you for your feedback. I see what you mean, here. I should not make the economy too difficult to not alienate the playerbase. As previously stated, however, military conquest in my idea is just one of the victory conditions. If you have ever played Stronghold/Knights & Merchants, that's the level of complexity we would put in the economy. Seeing how both of these games still allowed for big battles, I don't think that would alienate too many. But I'll still keep an eye out not to overdo it. Thank you. 
  10. Elpyfo

    Real Time Strategy mechanics

      I like the idea. Though I like the idea of a perfectly self sustaining fortress. Needless to say, the bigger it is, the more space you'll need to claim/defend in order to make it self-sustaining.        My vision would be to emphasize the skirmish/multiplayer aspect of it. Not sure if I would make a single player campaign a priority, if at all. Personally, I get very little enjoyment out of the campaigns in RTSes, compared to the AI skirmish and multiplayer. Am I alone in this sentiment or do more people feel the same? Not sure how RTS players in general feel about this.. Depends on where the project leads us, I suppose. I would start out with more or less similar production chains as a platform to add unique specialties and such, as you put it. 
  11. Elpyfo

    Real Time Strategy mechanics

      This may need a lot of investment before the player has what he wants/needs. I recommend to have the player start with a lot of semi-end-products he can quickly turn into what he wants(military units i assume) with the use of one building, then he can invest in the building that produces those semi-end-products so he can build units again, and-so-on until he builds the most basic production(farm ?) as a last building. You can see this in Settlers 3 and later, in Stronghold they fixed this by allowing a lot of trading of resources.     Yeah, this was pretty much the idea behind it. We want it to be quite the investment to set up an industry. We feel that most RTS games don't make you work enough for your economy. This was why we loved Stronghold/Settlers and whatnot. They made you work to get your industry running. I'm also a big fan of Dwarf Fortress, where, because of the investment needed to get certain industries running, it's so very satisfying to see it up :). But yeah, I'd rather go for the "trading" approach than starting the players out with too much resources. I would prefer to see the players work hard to get their industry running and have only a skeleton crew defending their city, perhaps even ignoring the conquest victory mode and going full defensive/research/cultural/economical to get the win. Thank you for your feedback. 
  12. Personally, I was completely addicted to Tekken Tag Tournament 2 for a while because I saw the pros go at it and was absolutely amazed by their ability to just keep juggling their opponents indefinitely with just one launch, the tag combos being big and flashy, the awesome sound effects...    I played because it was ridiculously fun to play with my friends. As for fighting games in general, it's just very rewarding to practice for ages on a move and then pull it off flawlessly in an online match to utterly destroy your opponent. Fun times!
  13. This game you're creating, are you thinking Sid Meier's pirates but in your WWII setting or something more large scale? This seems very interesting. Also      This. 
  14. Elpyfo

    Real Time Strategy mechanics

      This sounds awesome. More or less the same production chain for every race, but using different resources.  That would lead to certain races preferring certain biomes and epic battles for angora bunny fields. I'm loving it.  It seems like this needs to be heavily emphasized, combined with our factions thing we've got planned, and possibly fun times will follow .  Thank you for your feedback!       Indeed, the core elements will be important here. I'll do my best to work out the faction differences .  And I think I'll shelve the second idea for the time being. There are too many reasons why it won't work with our programmer's wishes and specifications, and we'll encounter too many problems, the balancing and rock/papers/scissors deal only being one of them. It's definitely going to be idea #1 for me, for this project. Of course, that won't mean my team will necessarily vote for my idea, there's at least 1, at best 3 other ideas coming from the rest of my team. But even in the worst case scenario, this is still a pretty solid base for a project later on.  Thank you for your feedback!       You mean as in "the base is persistent throughout several matches, you only actually do battle with the armies?". What I meant with "competitive RTS" would be for example: "You start out with a base building, some walls and 5 worker units. The resource gathering phase starts and lasts a couple of minutes. In these couple of minutes you are tasked with gathering resources and building out your base. Once the phase is over, we go to the battle phase, where you "send" units over to the enemy, the units to your disposal being dependant on the buildings you have put down/the technologies you have researched in your resource phase. There would be little that is persistent over the games, maybe a sort of "skill tree" as you can see in games as League of Legends, conferring only minor (but still pretty important) bonuses and customisations of your chosen race. After a couple of minutes of that, we go back to the resource phase. This process keeps repeating until one base would be completely destroyed. Thank you for your feedback!
  15. Elpyfo

    Real Time Strategy mechanics

      Thanks a lot for your input. I have discussed the subject on the chat and with my programmer, and it would seem that idea #1 is the way to go. As for the graphic style we're going to do, we're not quite sure just yet, but that's what our deadline and following discussion/voting will point out for us. More input/opinions/eventual brainstorming would be much appreciated!
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!