A Team-based RTS
Posted: 05 Apr 2008, 09:57
Just some musings on mod design. This is going to be an Argh-worthy post so ill include a tl;dr:
An RTS built for team play should take a page out of RPG's or team-based FPS's such as TF and implement a system of complimenting classes.
A response i often get to question of why players play team games over 1v1 is simply because of the teamwork, interaction and group accomplishment that comes with it, rather than that the game is suited to or plays better that way- BA for example is made for 1v1. Most mods do nothing to encourage teamwork, even ones supposedly balanced towards team games. The majority of the time players work in a vacuum ignorant of the actions of their allies, let alone actively attempting to take account of or coordinate them. The assistance of allies is rarely needed or sought after unless to defend against an opponent who is beating you. Although i personally often cut sideways and lend my support to an ally if the enemy opposite me porcs, this is more a strategic decision to strike the weakest point in the enemy line than a truly active effort at teamwork.
So how to make an RTS that actually encourages the style of play most people claim they play spring for? An example can be taken from team-based FPS's, namely a class system. With each player having a unique and essential ability or part to play in the overall effort, teamwork becomes natural. In addition to this, players can find a class that suits their playstyle.
A series of factions, each distinct in abilities, is one way to implement this, ala War Evo (though not a strictly traditional RTS). However, if one faction is specifically strong against another then you get R-P-S play before the game even starts. War Evo solves this by not allowing you to see what class the enemy has chosen. However, then you cannot see what your allies have chosen and get people weighing the team towards one class (everyone picks pyro, or for a horrifically long game, everyone picks engineer) with no ability to switch to a more appropriate one in game. As a side note War Evo is an excellent example of a class-based system fostering strong teamplay in my experience.
Another implementation might be a game with expensive starting factories, each with a distinct set of units (possibly a distinct constructor making distinct structures). The starting resources could be considerable in comparison to the rest of the later economy, meaning that while dual-facs would be possible, it would be more difficult than in some other games. However, you would be able to reclaim and change factories (at the cost of spending the time and a portion of the resouces- E and BT in the traditional sprig setup). This could also be done with hardcodedly limited 'one type per player at a time' factories, which would alleviate some issues with the above.
In both cases unit sharing would probably have to be forbidden.
The specific classes can find rough analogs in team-based FPS. A defensive 'Engineer' faction, a faction with heavy expensive units, another with aggressive spam and another focused on intel and precision strikes (air and stealth units, say). There are a wealth of possibilities here so i wont go into them.
Critique
It is debatable if players truly play team games 'for the teamwork', despite what they might say. As noted above, they make very little effort to actually work together, despite the fact that this can actually benefit them an awful amount, if only to coordinate troop movements. An extreme example of teamwork might be starting all commanders next to eachother, pooling the starting metal into a single factory, then blowing up the commanders one by one and taking their metal as the starting resources run out. This would probably be an incredibly powerful teamwork strategy but its not something you'd ever see outside of a very, very rare Greenfields game.
I would speculate that mostly people play team games due to diminished responsibility. This is especially appealing to casual players (I wont say 'those with fragile egos or of lesser skill' because that would be mean...). Team games are seen as 'less stressful' because of the perception that less relies on that player. There may be other factors in the way it alters the gameplay, as team games usually allow for more porcing and simbasing, which a lot of players seem to enjoy. There may also be a sense of disparity as 1v1 players are usually of a higher skill level, so most players are unable to find an even matchup.
So, it may not be the case that an RTS built specifically for team play would be popular with the proportion of the playerbase that claims they enjoy team games due to the teamwork- but i think there is little doubt that it would find a niche if well executed.
No, im not planning on making this game any time soon although there are lessons to be learned here for CA (see if you can connect the dots to some of my other design philosophies for CA).
An RTS built for team play should take a page out of RPG's or team-based FPS's such as TF and implement a system of complimenting classes.
A response i often get to question of why players play team games over 1v1 is simply because of the teamwork, interaction and group accomplishment that comes with it, rather than that the game is suited to or plays better that way- BA for example is made for 1v1. Most mods do nothing to encourage teamwork, even ones supposedly balanced towards team games. The majority of the time players work in a vacuum ignorant of the actions of their allies, let alone actively attempting to take account of or coordinate them. The assistance of allies is rarely needed or sought after unless to defend against an opponent who is beating you. Although i personally often cut sideways and lend my support to an ally if the enemy opposite me porcs, this is more a strategic decision to strike the weakest point in the enemy line than a truly active effort at teamwork.
So how to make an RTS that actually encourages the style of play most people claim they play spring for? An example can be taken from team-based FPS's, namely a class system. With each player having a unique and essential ability or part to play in the overall effort, teamwork becomes natural. In addition to this, players can find a class that suits their playstyle.
A series of factions, each distinct in abilities, is one way to implement this, ala War Evo (though not a strictly traditional RTS). However, if one faction is specifically strong against another then you get R-P-S play before the game even starts. War Evo solves this by not allowing you to see what class the enemy has chosen. However, then you cannot see what your allies have chosen and get people weighing the team towards one class (everyone picks pyro, or for a horrifically long game, everyone picks engineer) with no ability to switch to a more appropriate one in game. As a side note War Evo is an excellent example of a class-based system fostering strong teamplay in my experience.
Another implementation might be a game with expensive starting factories, each with a distinct set of units (possibly a distinct constructor making distinct structures). The starting resources could be considerable in comparison to the rest of the later economy, meaning that while dual-facs would be possible, it would be more difficult than in some other games. However, you would be able to reclaim and change factories (at the cost of spending the time and a portion of the resouces- E and BT in the traditional sprig setup). This could also be done with hardcodedly limited 'one type per player at a time' factories, which would alleviate some issues with the above.
In both cases unit sharing would probably have to be forbidden.
The specific classes can find rough analogs in team-based FPS. A defensive 'Engineer' faction, a faction with heavy expensive units, another with aggressive spam and another focused on intel and precision strikes (air and stealth units, say). There are a wealth of possibilities here so i wont go into them.
Critique
It is debatable if players truly play team games 'for the teamwork', despite what they might say. As noted above, they make very little effort to actually work together, despite the fact that this can actually benefit them an awful amount, if only to coordinate troop movements. An extreme example of teamwork might be starting all commanders next to eachother, pooling the starting metal into a single factory, then blowing up the commanders one by one and taking their metal as the starting resources run out. This would probably be an incredibly powerful teamwork strategy but its not something you'd ever see outside of a very, very rare Greenfields game.
I would speculate that mostly people play team games due to diminished responsibility. This is especially appealing to casual players (I wont say 'those with fragile egos or of lesser skill' because that would be mean...). Team games are seen as 'less stressful' because of the perception that less relies on that player. There may be other factors in the way it alters the gameplay, as team games usually allow for more porcing and simbasing, which a lot of players seem to enjoy. There may also be a sense of disparity as 1v1 players are usually of a higher skill level, so most players are unable to find an even matchup.
So, it may not be the case that an RTS built specifically for team play would be popular with the proportion of the playerbase that claims they enjoy team games due to the teamwork- but i think there is little doubt that it would find a niche if well executed.
No, im not planning on making this game any time soon although there are lessons to be learned here for CA (see if you can connect the dots to some of my other design philosophies for CA).