I dont know, i sort of appreciated, this hidden layer of tactic- you didnt see it immediatly, you didnt grasp it in numbers or coloured stripes - but after some battles you somehow knew, what was good for moral- and what was bad, and you started to avoid such situations. Never send militias uphill into the arrows, alone.
It gave those living creatures down there in my slaughterhouse antfarm something human. And in darkomen, by quicktiming you could boost moral for one unit.
I think the real problem is human limitations. Its just so visible in click rate and economy, when noob meets veteran. Even with the learning curve not existing, this still doesent lead to a battle with interesting decisions (whipe him now or whipe him later?) Thats why i will include those AI-controlled(geohivespawns) units in the journeywar, so that even sub-mediocre players could mount a at least half interesting battle for the veterans. Wish we could seperate midst-game, were the battle shows to be inequal - just split one server into two, one with noobs only, the other one with the pros, fighting the real war.
I also found it most intersting how those factions in Conflict Terra play out. Drones vs NKGs traditional base building- its like whole-map-using guerillia warfare vs traditional base+ outpost, and surprise, this is quite well balanced.
Last but not least, its zwzwsgs wise words to quote :"Interesting units can be quite unfair." Those templars were never "fair", if you think about it. But incredible fun to use, and if you got the Lightnings over your units, you never were so angry, because it felt partially like your own fault, not mircoing them appart, anticipating that move.
RTS Design Theory Thread
Moderator: Moderators
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
Practically any sign of intelligence from units in a game at this stage would be awesome, since they are all walking cones...
SC2 and SC1 have things like hotkeys which you must remember making the learning slope last forever...
you have to memorize everything than you have to remember all the calculated ways of attack and ways of beginning a match...
I think the game could have easily been designed to skip a lot of this unfun hassle...
Remembering many hotksyes is annoying as hell.
SC2 can with no hotkeys.
A game can have a lot of units but than you have to adjust the control mechanisms cause they cannot like the ones used in smaller scaled games.
Reading some of the posts makes me happy that i trolled the EE forum after they scaled it up...
Amazing how after it completely failed and all it's fans gone someone like smoth can still fail to see that it was due to the scaling..
SC2 and SC1 have things like hotkeys which you must remember making the learning slope last forever...
you have to memorize everything than you have to remember all the calculated ways of attack and ways of beginning a match...
I think the game could have easily been designed to skip a lot of this unfun hassle...
Remembering many hotksyes is annoying as hell.
SC2 can with no hotkeys.
A game can have a lot of units but than you have to adjust the control mechanisms cause they cannot like the ones used in smaller scaled games.
Reading some of the posts makes me happy that i trolled the EE forum after they scaled it up...
Amazing how after it completely failed and all it's fans gone someone like smoth can still fail to see that it was due to the scaling..
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
We all knew the scale change had a negative impact on the player base, but it wasn't our decision to make, and it certainly wasn't the only factor.
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
Even if the pro had a lowered clickrate (like give him a very bad mouse that always misclicks and with no scrollwheel) he would still win because he uses his clicks more effective. When playing vs new players I sometimes have very low apm - just queing eco + fight move is often enough.I think the real problem is human limitations. Its just so visible in click rate and economy, when noob meets veteran.
Generally RTS is a genre where small advantages sum up until one player wins. In counterstrike even a noob/medicore player might get a lucky headshot vs a good player. In RTS there is no way that the noobs 10 tanks somehow win against the 20 tanks of the pro. So the newbs only chance is to win as fast as possible with a risky rush, which will obviously fail.
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
Playing a lot of league of legends has allowed me to abstract rts gaming and honestly, I agree with knorke but will give you a single sentence summary.
"Wining in an RTS is entirely about capitalizing on your enemy's mistakes"
"Wining in an RTS is entirely about capitalizing on your enemy's mistakes"
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
Does this mean your gonna change Gundam's gameplay?
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
I am always changing gundam, so yeah.
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
In response to the whole epic thing. For that to work effectively the game needs to have the proper framework to manage large groups of units and obtain information on their status and composition quickly. Spring does not really have these features (or maybe it does, least it did not when I tried to do this myself). In order for large scale unit control to work you need to be able to organize groups of units which can then function with a higher degree of automation than one might get from more scaled down rts games. As far as the icon wars thing goes, well how is that significantly different from back in the day when games used sprites with barely any detail. If you devise a system that allows you to rapidly assess the composition of a group of units from any distance it doesnt matter if they all turn into indistinguishable ants you can still maintain proper control. It all comes down to being able to organize your units and obtain information about them at a glance. This is all interface work and unit grouping behavior. The concept again is not at fault what is at fault is the limitations of the game. The problem is that just because there are some limitations a whole bunch of you decide to be small minded and pretend ideas cant work ever and are bad ideas to pursue instead of attempting to improve the functionality of something so it can eventually be used for that idea. Epic scale is a prime example of this.
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
Looks like its time for me to step in and call people out on their bullshit EE nostalgia yet again.
Epic EE had significantly better balance (in lots and lots of other ways) to the previously scaled version.
On two seperate occasions I have played epic and [whatever ver number that one IK gets all excited about is] back to back with big groups of players, and all of them have agreed that epic scale played better
Addressing Smoth's point re player errors: As RTS scales up, the capacity for a player to efficiently manage all aspects of the game rapidly diminishes, with the effect made exponential by "poor" unit automation. This appeals to me. Moving the game away from rigid techincal execution of 1 of ~6 standard plays a la StarCraft, and into a panicked mess of desperately trying to make as few mistakes as possible on an ever expanding front, while balancing stategic/economic planning.
I think "epic scale" is entirely a preference thing, and I greatly prefer it.
There is no doubt that large unit groups could be managed more efficiently (synchronised custom formation fight moves, and intelligently automated focus fire) but even the barebones Spring UI offers a greater capacity to deal with this than every other strategy game I have played.
To summarise my rambling nonsense: Epic scale is definitely far from farcical. The major variable to be considered in its effective and fun implementation is the capacity for intelligent scaling of conflict, where each layer of complexity, or additional actor, is a meaningful aspect of the strategic situation/an engaging aspect of the game.
Epic EE had significantly better balance (in lots and lots of other ways) to the previously scaled version.
On two seperate occasions I have played epic and [whatever ver number that one IK gets all excited about is] back to back with big groups of players, and all of them have agreed that epic scale played better
Addressing Smoth's point re player errors: As RTS scales up, the capacity for a player to efficiently manage all aspects of the game rapidly diminishes, with the effect made exponential by "poor" unit automation. This appeals to me. Moving the game away from rigid techincal execution of 1 of ~6 standard plays a la StarCraft, and into a panicked mess of desperately trying to make as few mistakes as possible on an ever expanding front, while balancing stategic/economic planning.
I think "epic scale" is entirely a preference thing, and I greatly prefer it.
There is no doubt that large unit groups could be managed more efficiently (synchronised custom formation fight moves, and intelligently automated focus fire) but even the barebones Spring UI offers a greater capacity to deal with this than every other strategy game I have played.
To summarise my rambling nonsense: Epic scale is definitely far from farcical. The major variable to be considered in its effective and fun implementation is the capacity for intelligent scaling of conflict, where each layer of complexity, or additional actor, is a meaningful aspect of the strategic situation/an engaging aspect of the game.
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
imo "epic scale" has nothing to do with rigid buildorders of SC or tactic vs strategy. It is just that the unit ranges are too large to be fun to play with.
"too rigid gameplay" (ie starcraft) vs "too much freedome" (ie BA) is a different topic and both directions can be bad if it leans too much in one direction. Imo rebuilding mex and making lines of energy while your factory is on repeat is just as mindless as timing your supply depot by the ┬Á seconde.
"too rigid gameplay" (ie starcraft) vs "too much freedome" (ie BA) is a different topic and both directions can be bad if it leans too much in one direction. Imo rebuilding mex and making lines of energy while your factory is on repeat is just as mindless as timing your supply depot by the ┬Á seconde.
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
I think a major distinction about the scale for me is map size and layout. I refer to "Blizzard style maze maps" for games such as DoW and all the obvious others. .... I guess what I mean is the number of potential angles of attack, force compositions, timing pushes, tactically important areas of the map (beyond simply bottlenecks) available as a game scales up.
I think a lot of "epic scale" games have focused too heavily on the macromanagement of HUEG BATTULZ a la SupCom, to the detriment of the smaller scale gameplay (small map 1v1/tactical micro).
I totally agree that spamming eco just to keep up can be very lame, but I think that is a subjective instance of flawed game design (make centralised/teched economy more rewarding), I.E. the exectuion, as opposed to some inherent flaw in games of that scale.
I think a lot of "epic scale" games have focused too heavily on the macromanagement of HUEG BATTULZ a la SupCom, to the detriment of the smaller scale gameplay (small map 1v1/tactical micro).
I totally agree that spamming eco just to keep up can be very lame, but I think that is a subjective instance of flawed game design (make centralised/teched economy more rewarding), I.E. the exectuion, as opposed to some inherent flaw in games of that scale.
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
These map layouts (and other things) give some "structure" to the game. There are stages that the game progresses through and that makes it interessting.
Like music the game needs some kind of rythm or it is just funny sounds.
The 180┬░ counterpart might be something like a flash spam game of BA on CCR where there are no "stages" and it just trying to outmanoever the enemy like in a game of Liquid Wars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QztlQ1e4oz8
It is all about expanding as fast as possible and making tons of units to swarm the enemy. Maybe some bombers in late game to kill the commander and win.
Some might hail it as the ultimate large scale strategy game, I call it spamming stuff.
Also look at Micron Wars for an more articulated example: http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=25528 (and my last post in thread)
Like music the game needs some kind of rythm or it is just funny sounds.
The 180┬░ counterpart might be something like a flash spam game of BA on CCR where there are no "stages" and it just trying to outmanoever the enemy like in a game of Liquid Wars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QztlQ1e4oz8
It is all about expanding as fast as possible and making tons of units to swarm the enemy. Maybe some bombers in late game to kill the commander and win.
Some might hail it as the ultimate large scale strategy game, I call it spamming stuff.
Also look at Micron Wars for an more articulated example: http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=25528 (and my last post in thread)
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
I just return from episode one hl2, dev-coment, and bring another stone of wisdom. If player have to excell at the same task for a long time, fatigue drops in- and that is what starts to bore them, and if they dont do it for the competition, drives them away.
So you need to have some sudden changes of pace/interest even in a rts game. For exampel, to level up a factory, you need to collect 3 stunned enemys of this and that type. Sort of a miniquest, to avoid monton repitition. Problem is in a normal rts game your attention is already stretched out over a large battlefield full of problems.
Problem Solution? You add a phases, were every unit is very durable and slow+reduce the firepower, basically the game freezes.
So you need to have some sudden changes of pace/interest even in a rts game. For exampel, to level up a factory, you need to collect 3 stunned enemys of this and that type. Sort of a miniquest, to avoid monton repitition. Problem is in a normal rts game your attention is already stretched out over a large battlefield full of problems.
Problem Solution? You add a phases, were every unit is very durable and slow+reduce the firepower, basically the game freezes.
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
Alternatively you could add some randomisation. As in: on game start each player is randomly assigned a "technology perk" which upgardes certain kinds of units or replaces them with others while the rest remains unchanged. This of course holds the chance of imbalanced games when one player is really unlucky and/or they aren't designed thoughtful.
On the other side you could say screw balance and make objective based multiplayer maps which may hold a handicap for one side. For example team A hast to escort a number of unarmed units from one side to the other while team B has to kill them.
Or a map with a nonstandard way of aquiring ressources.
What makes games dull is when the goal is always "build base, kil enemy base" and the way to achieve that is always the same "build A build B build another A, factory ..."
On the other side you could say screw balance and make objective based multiplayer maps which may hold a handicap for one side. For example team A hast to escort a number of unarmed units from one side to the other while team B has to kill them.
Or a map with a nonstandard way of aquiring ressources.
What makes games dull is when the goal is always "build base, kil enemy base" and the way to achieve that is always the same "build A build B build another A, factory ..."
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
Just wondering. What do you guys reckon is the best way to prevent a game from being like this?Erik wrote:What makes games dull is when the goal is always "build base, kil enemy base" and the way to achieve that is always the same "build A build B build another A, factory ..."
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
PTSnoop:
Oh and why do RTS designer always make us start with a couple worker or base factory? I want more missions where we start with a full base and slowly lose it!
TA had maps with nonstandard way of acquiring resources. Like metal map (cheap metal), jungle map (tons of tree to reclaim, Metal maker based economy), city maps (with lots of metal rich building wreck to reclaim, storage is important and keeping a balanced income/spending is hard). It didn't change that much what to build to win, but still added a nice variety to the game.
I haven't seen much RTS with competitive multiplayer missions.screw balance and make objective based multiplayer maps which may hold a handicap for one side. For example team A hast to escort a number of unarmed units from one side to the other while team B has to kill them.
Or a map with a nonstandard way of aquiring ressources.
Oh and why do RTS designer always make us start with a couple worker or base factory? I want more missions where we start with a full base and slowly lose it!
TA had maps with nonstandard way of acquiring resources. Like metal map (cheap metal), jungle map (tons of tree to reclaim, Metal maker based economy), city maps (with lots of metal rich building wreck to reclaim, storage is important and keeping a balanced income/spending is hard). It didn't change that much what to build to win, but still added a nice variety to the game.
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
i did some random brainstorming- meaning- i wikid computer games, closed my eyes and hit one of the list of titles.
Result was super mario brothers- so how to implement jump and run aspects into rts? Impossible. No, sir, its after all just a skillztesting obstacle course, so its a escort mission, with rising difficultielevel.
Okay, a olympic game, that wouldnt make sense in a rts game. A micromanagment olympia? Thats ridiculous, what disciplines would be there? Walking out of the artilleryrain? Minesweeper Jumpjeting? Races?
Now next blind hit... oh, shit its blade runner. So basically atmospheric singleplayer - would need cutscenes, stuff spring cant do, would need point and click, something spring cant do. Would need awesome voice acting (something very rare). Good Singleplayer, yes...
next, oh, the 7th guest, bah, horror doesent work, when you can alt+tab, but hey that would be horror, imagine, if you zoomed in on a battle, and there are snipers, they could shoot you out of your commandseat- and like in battlezone, you would have to grab a tank/vehicle and drive back to base. RTS with a venegance.
next, noh, sims... oh, yes, if dont dress up your com, and get him a decent house, he will go mad.
Lots of good ideas out there, but many of them wont make fun, or are not possible due to work load and or performance.
Result was super mario brothers- so how to implement jump and run aspects into rts? Impossible. No, sir, its after all just a skillztesting obstacle course, so its a escort mission, with rising difficultielevel.
Okay, a olympic game, that wouldnt make sense in a rts game. A micromanagment olympia? Thats ridiculous, what disciplines would be there? Walking out of the artilleryrain? Minesweeper Jumpjeting? Races?
Now next blind hit... oh, shit its blade runner. So basically atmospheric singleplayer - would need cutscenes, stuff spring cant do, would need point and click, something spring cant do. Would need awesome voice acting (something very rare). Good Singleplayer, yes...
next, oh, the 7th guest, bah, horror doesent work, when you can alt+tab, but hey that would be horror, imagine, if you zoomed in on a battle, and there are snipers, they could shoot you out of your commandseat- and like in battlezone, you would have to grab a tank/vehicle and drive back to base. RTS with a venegance.
next, noh, sims... oh, yes, if dont dress up your com, and get him a decent house, he will go mad.
Lots of good ideas out there, but many of them wont make fun, or are not possible due to work load and or performance.
-
bobthedinosaur
- Blood & Steel Developer
- Posts: 2702
- Joined: 25 Aug 2004, 13:31
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
Ive been playing dune 2 the last, week and although the units behavior is incredibly frustrating at times I found myself surprised at how fun it was just as I remember playing it in the 90's. Anyways after reading about some other of the 1st RTS games I ran into this: http://www.danielthomas.org/pop/videoga ... page01.htm
which sounds like it might be an interesting game play if it was redone (it had a similar commander unit concept to TA).
Anyways if you look at RTS development over the years some thigns have become RTS standards, like mini maps, group control, etc.. but I feel like too many of the games are slightly changed plots of the same game design. Star craft was just warcraft in space. Command and conquer was just dune 2 wit NATO technology and a touch of sci fi.
I feel like there are many games that are too focused on the tunnel vision of the RTS standards. While some old games blow them out of the water on game play mechanics (but maybe not in graphics or controls).
which sounds like it might be an interesting game play if it was redone (it had a similar commander unit concept to TA).
Anyways if you look at RTS development over the years some thigns have become RTS standards, like mini maps, group control, etc.. but I feel like too many of the games are slightly changed plots of the same game design. Star craft was just warcraft in space. Command and conquer was just dune 2 wit NATO technology and a touch of sci fi.
I feel like there are many games that are too focused on the tunnel vision of the RTS standards. While some old games blow them out of the water on game play mechanics (but maybe not in graphics or controls).
Re: RTS Design Theory Thread
http://www.danielthomas.org/pop/videoga ... page02.htm
thats how flag should be placed on S44 maps imo. Not this "one flag every 200 meter"
thats how flag should be placed on S44 maps imo. Not this "one flag every 200 meter"
the build base, make army, kill enemy base thing works pretty well though. If the game has good gameplay and interessting units then I do not mind playing ie c&c clones all the time. In all RTS (with base building) is always about killing the enemy and collecting resources.I feel like there are many games that are too focused on the tunnel vision of the RTS standards.
Dont you think these games play different? What should they have done to make them more different?Star craft was just warcraft in space.