We've all seen it - some games there's this one noob just turtling in his base, not building an army or attacking, just adding more and more turrets and eco to the base. (I used to be that guy) I see it a lot in ZeroK games, and we call it "Playing SimCity".
The ZeroK community and manual try hard to discourage this behavior, because that's not how you win. In ZeroK, like most Spring games, you have to expand to win.
But it got me thinking - what if there was a game based on this sort of "SimCity" behavior? I came up with a game idea. It has two factions: the City and the Raiders.
The Raiders are the mobile faction, and their goal is to destroy the City. They can grow their army by harvesting natural resources that spawn across the map, and by pillaging sections of the City for more resources.
The City starts out as just a small base, and it's goal is to expand to cover the entire map, thus choking out the Raiders. It has to grow economically, building up better econ buildings and a defense force to guard against the Raiders as it expands. It can also build a mobile force to hunt down the Raiders outside it's borders. It is protected by a moat or wall
Thoughts?
"Playing SimCity"
Moderator: Moderators
Re: "Playing SimCity"
That sounds much like journeywar's dichotomy between base-building Centrail and guerilla-style Journeymen, i hear.The Raiders are the mobile faction, and their goal is to destroy the City. They can grow their army by harvesting natural resources that spawn across the map, and by pillaging sections of the City for more resources.
Would be a nightmare trying to balance those sides i think
Re: "Playing SimCity"
It's sad that old mods like simbæs won't work.
Re: "Playing SimCity"
yeah... at least now that multi-engine support is coming in that kind of thing won't have to happen again...zwzsg wrote:It's sad that old mods like simbæs won't work.
Re: "Playing SimCity"
yes, thats a good point you made there. Basically the RTS-Genre always was split into two internal factions.. the one who wanted a conflict, the more, and the faster the better. (GroundControll, Dota, SupCom)
The other one wanted to build up majestic Citys, and see war more as a dangerous monster coming closer to there artwork. They have whole genres to themselves. (SIM City, ANNO)..
However, i have to admit that journeywar doesent completly support those two diffrent playstyles. Yes, i have one faction that is basically porcingdorking while the other one engages in traplaying and guerillia warfare. But none of this faction is puristic base building. That would still need two players too share the team.
It would need a much more refined teamplay mechanism:
Basebuilder start ahead. There buildings are offlimits for there teampartners. In return, those can order units - and rely on them beeing delivered as best as the basebuilder can. If the same does not deliver, he is punished.
Its really difficult to balance i guess, as both things are very entangled in classic BA. War is Economy. Economy is WarMaterial.
But catering to both sides, without serving one of them pots of Spinach poridge, that would be some real feat.
What to do when boredome strikes though?A Classic RTS is designed to create artificial breakes between clashes. Same goes for basebuilding. You can only level up so Mohohoho.
You could add the Dota part to the active side.
And you could ramp up the ressource system, the sience, adding little "civilian missions" to the base builders.
Do that, and all you have to accomplish is to get two completely diffrent types of people to get along. Congrats Sucess is all yours.
The other one wanted to build up majestic Citys, and see war more as a dangerous monster coming closer to there artwork. They have whole genres to themselves. (SIM City, ANNO)..
However, i have to admit that journeywar doesent completly support those two diffrent playstyles. Yes, i have one faction that is basically porcingdorking while the other one engages in traplaying and guerillia warfare. But none of this faction is puristic base building. That would still need two players too share the team.
It would need a much more refined teamplay mechanism:
Basebuilder start ahead. There buildings are offlimits for there teampartners. In return, those can order units - and rely on them beeing delivered as best as the basebuilder can. If the same does not deliver, he is punished.
Its really difficult to balance i guess, as both things are very entangled in classic BA. War is Economy. Economy is WarMaterial.
But catering to both sides, without serving one of them pots of Spinach poridge, that would be some real feat.
What to do when boredome strikes though?A Classic RTS is designed to create artificial breakes between clashes. Same goes for basebuilding. You can only level up so Mohohoho.
You could add the Dota part to the active side.
And you could ramp up the ressource system, the sience, adding little "civilian missions" to the base builders.
Do that, and all you have to accomplish is to get two completely diffrent types of people to get along. Congrats Sucess is all yours.
Re: "Playing SimCity"
Imho, city-building RTS games have been kinda abandoned as they move to Tower Defense games... really, city-building works better as an SP game anyways rather than multiplay.
The prototypical city-builder RTS would be Metal Marines - it'd be awesome if somebody brought something like that back.
The prototypical city-builder RTS would be Metal Marines - it'd be awesome if somebody brought something like that back.
Re: "Playing SimCity"
Code: Select all
You are not wanted here in our midst peacefull, buildup Ghandigamers- take your shitty railroad tycoon and get out of my personal sandbox, were i show my lesser equals what it means to be a real- huge- elitist- great- Conqueror of the known Miniverse. I dont want anybody else here, i dont need anybody else here, i want the realworldos to disappear, to be gone, till my mother drags me back to homework.
"You dont want to fight? You cant.. speak it out, you cunt.. you cant, you dont dare, because that would take some skill."
-
klapmongool
- Posts: 843
- Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 13:19
Re: "Playing SimCity"
Warcraft 3 had custom maps that had two teams build their cities, generating monsters to attack the enemy city. Was pretty much a city building RTS.Pxtl wrote:Imho, city-building RTS games have been kinda abandoned as they move to Tower Defense games... really, city-building works better as an SP game anyways rather than multiplay.
The prototypical city-builder RTS would be Metal Marines - it'd be awesome if somebody brought something like that back.
Re: "Playing SimCity"
There is a alien saucer in simcity.. so it is catering to the death and destruction faction
-
Google_Frog
- Moderator
- Posts: 2464
- Joined: 12 Oct 2007, 09:24
Re: "Playing SimCity"
Interesting idea but I don't think it would cater to the current SimCity players. SimCity at the back of teamgames is 'safe' and simple. If it were the focus of a game it would become much more taxing on the player. SimCity in a game focused around SimCity is no longer safe or simple.
Re: "Playing SimCity"
The real SimCity however: http://imgur.com/a/gW7F9
Re: "Playing SimCity"
I have this old DOS-based city builder called Utopia I think, in it you build a city and fight against another city.
Still, you won't get around the central problem that people who play city builders usually want a relaxed game and competitive RTSes are always fast paced and stressful because you gotta be efficient or you will be left behind in the arms race. Micro Modules was supposed to be relaxed but obviously it's all about farming faster than your opponent so playing it in a relaxed fashion only makes you lose.
Still, you won't get around the central problem that people who play city builders usually want a relaxed game and competitive RTSes are always fast paced and stressful because you gotta be efficient or you will be left behind in the arms race. Micro Modules was supposed to be relaxed but obviously it's all about farming faster than your opponent so playing it in a relaxed fashion only makes you lose.
Re: "Playing SimCity"
I ll admit defeat here. KDR is right.
It would be stressfull under all conditions.
Unless.. you would allow the citybuilders to construct "builderorders" in a sort of endless game singleplayer ahead of time. And then switch between those citybuildorders depending on the situation.
Still could be either boring (watching basically a replay of yourself) or stressfull (The plans, they dont fit)
It would be stressfull under all conditions.
Unless.. you would allow the citybuilders to construct "builderorders" in a sort of endless game singleplayer ahead of time. And then switch between those citybuildorders depending on the situation.
Still could be either boring (watching basically a replay of yourself) or stressfull (The plans, they dont fit)
Re: "Playing SimCity"
You allow them to tweak the plans. Foster communication between the players, run it as a dual-personality coop game. Most coop games appeal to a variety of personalities, the moment you put in a dedicated support type, you create another user persona.
Re: "Playing SimCity"
This only happen for overcrowded map. If you play map where map where expansion matter (e.g. comet catcher redux 2v2, koom valley for 6v6, etc...) those pips die in 5 min
Re: "Playing SimCity"
because the game is not really cut out for them..
NO EXPANSION, NO MICRO, NO SERVICE!
NO EXPANSION, NO MICRO, NO SERVICE!
Re: "Playing SimCity"
Maybe spawn some big city at game start?
You would not need to add to many more things and can start fighting.
You would not need to add to many more things and can start fighting.
Re: "Playing SimCity"
Imho, designing a casual multiplayer RTS needs to go far further than simply making it defensive. RTS games are intrinsically hardcore - they're based on slippery slopes, elimination, and randomization - three things that are highly casual-unfriendly. What's even worse is that attempts to make an RTS "casual", like giving them beefy early-game defenses, actually only prolongs the one-sided stomping of the game, converting a quick execution into a long painful evisceration (see Dotalikes for this problem).
I'd look outside of the RTS industry to see what makes games palateable to casuals... even the most vicious FPS games are more casual-friendly because they've taken elimination off the table and have very little slippery-slopeage - the loser is free to start respawning over and over again, and all he needs to get into the game properly is an armor pickup and a weapon pickup. He'll get promptly obliterated, but still, he can keep getting into a good position as long as it's FFA (less-so with a 1v1 where his opponent can take complete map-control).
Go even further, look at kart games - a huge difference between Mario Kart and its more hardcore copycats is randomized pickups, as well as feeding catchup-oriented pickups to the rear players and special weapons that target the leaders. Obviously you can take this too far - the Blue Shell is an abomination before God and Man. Randomness takes a bit of the edge off since it means a weaker player can get a bit of luck and get an occasional win. Also, we've got the opposite of a slippery slope called "negative feedback", which basically means "punishing the winner/rewarding the loser". Quite the opposite of RTS games where the winner can snowball larger and larger firepower.
Now, obviously randomization can frustrate hardcore players, but it can be made palateable by focusing on randomization of equipment and peripheral stuff instead of direct Risk-style roll-the-dice-for-damage. Things like watching your tanks get pwned by hoplites in Civ are bad randomization, because it makes the player feel most directly like he was killed by the dice. Meanwhile, random loadouts may be the same "killed by the dice" in effect, but it's less directly frustrating to the player.
Taking a step further, look at popular boardgames - look how most boardgames avoid the "murder every other player" goal and instead focus on victory points or other victory mechanics, meaning that even as the leader is on the edge of victory, all the other players are still in game. This must be tempered with kill-the-leader or negative feedback mechanics, though, because otherwise you get situations where the game is completely moribund... all the players are in-game, but victory has long-since been decided and we're just going through the motions.
Kill the leader is a fantastic casual mechanic (hardcores hate it because it causes a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingmaker_scenario) but it requires offering players far more complete information than is typical of an RTS. In Catan or SmallWorld or Cosmic Encounter or Munchkin, you can see roughly how close a player is to victory - their only secret are the cards in their hand, but you have a rough idea of their power and how close they are to winning based on the stuff that's face-up on the table.
A good example of an RTS that embraces these kinds of mechanics is NetPanzer - in that game, the map is dotted with factories, and players spawn in with a squad of tanks. There is no fog of war - players just grab factories. First player to N factories wins. So we've got a kill-the-winner mechanic and respawning to keep everybody playing. The problem is that NetPanzer is a bad game - dull unit-spread and terrible unit-AI makes it tedious instead of fun. Also, RTS buffs will be disappointed with the near-total lack of construction. But still, the mechanics are there.
Anyways, my point: it *is* possible to create a casual PVP RTS, but you'd have to heavily break from traditional RTS mechanics and look outside the genre. Focus on fun sources of randomization, keeping every player in the game until the end (so non-elimination victory is a must), reducing the slippery-slope snowballs that are intrinsic to the RTS genre, and kill-the-winner or other negative-feedback mechanics.
I'd look outside of the RTS industry to see what makes games palateable to casuals... even the most vicious FPS games are more casual-friendly because they've taken elimination off the table and have very little slippery-slopeage - the loser is free to start respawning over and over again, and all he needs to get into the game properly is an armor pickup and a weapon pickup. He'll get promptly obliterated, but still, he can keep getting into a good position as long as it's FFA (less-so with a 1v1 where his opponent can take complete map-control).
Go even further, look at kart games - a huge difference between Mario Kart and its more hardcore copycats is randomized pickups, as well as feeding catchup-oriented pickups to the rear players and special weapons that target the leaders. Obviously you can take this too far - the Blue Shell is an abomination before God and Man. Randomness takes a bit of the edge off since it means a weaker player can get a bit of luck and get an occasional win. Also, we've got the opposite of a slippery slope called "negative feedback", which basically means "punishing the winner/rewarding the loser". Quite the opposite of RTS games where the winner can snowball larger and larger firepower.
Now, obviously randomization can frustrate hardcore players, but it can be made palateable by focusing on randomization of equipment and peripheral stuff instead of direct Risk-style roll-the-dice-for-damage. Things like watching your tanks get pwned by hoplites in Civ are bad randomization, because it makes the player feel most directly like he was killed by the dice. Meanwhile, random loadouts may be the same "killed by the dice" in effect, but it's less directly frustrating to the player.
Taking a step further, look at popular boardgames - look how most boardgames avoid the "murder every other player" goal and instead focus on victory points or other victory mechanics, meaning that even as the leader is on the edge of victory, all the other players are still in game. This must be tempered with kill-the-leader or negative feedback mechanics, though, because otherwise you get situations where the game is completely moribund... all the players are in-game, but victory has long-since been decided and we're just going through the motions.
Kill the leader is a fantastic casual mechanic (hardcores hate it because it causes a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingmaker_scenario) but it requires offering players far more complete information than is typical of an RTS. In Catan or SmallWorld or Cosmic Encounter or Munchkin, you can see roughly how close a player is to victory - their only secret are the cards in their hand, but you have a rough idea of their power and how close they are to winning based on the stuff that's face-up on the table.
A good example of an RTS that embraces these kinds of mechanics is NetPanzer - in that game, the map is dotted with factories, and players spawn in with a squad of tanks. There is no fog of war - players just grab factories. First player to N factories wins. So we've got a kill-the-winner mechanic and respawning to keep everybody playing. The problem is that NetPanzer is a bad game - dull unit-spread and terrible unit-AI makes it tedious instead of fun. Also, RTS buffs will be disappointed with the near-total lack of construction. But still, the mechanics are there.
Anyways, my point: it *is* possible to create a casual PVP RTS, but you'd have to heavily break from traditional RTS mechanics and look outside the genre. Focus on fun sources of randomization, keeping every player in the game until the end (so non-elimination victory is a must), reducing the slippery-slope snowballs that are intrinsic to the RTS genre, and kill-the-winner or other negative-feedback mechanics.
Re: "Playing SimCity"
In Spring games the 3D camera alone can be very confusing.
If a game decides to use such camera system then that alone means it can not be easily accesible for new players.
Same if you build a powerful interface and the game relies heavily on understand how it works. One can try to improve the interface or try to make the game less dependant on UI.
Problem is, in spring games these decisions are never really "made", there is no game design so to speak.
If a game decides to use such camera system then that alone means it can not be easily accesible for new players.
Same if you build a powerful interface and the game relies heavily on understand how it works. One can try to improve the interface or try to make the game less dependant on UI.
Problem is, in spring games these decisions are never really "made", there is no game design so to speak.