|
Socoder -> Concept/Design -> RTS Idea |
|
| Fri, 08 Dec 2006, 04:06 | |
JL235
|
I've been trying to work over an idea I've had for an RTS, but it feels like something is just missing. Like there isn't enough, and so I'd like people's thoughts, opinions and more ideas on the concept (or what little of the concept). Many of my plans are to try to break away certain conventions in the RTS genre due to an easy lack of originality, conventions which create repetition and so possibly boredom as well as the lack of any real tactics or thought. The general setting for you in the game, is that you are a group (possibly a tribe) of nomads travelling across each level, maybe to conquer. Like 'Homeworld' in a sense, and many ideas here are partly based on ideas 'Homeworld' contained. Instead of one building however, there will be multiple large buildings. First, the big flaw of economics. To win in 90% of all RTS you simply invest heavily in your resource collection and you win. End of. I also dislike the fact it is usually always harvesters (which can date back to Dune 2, which takes it from Dune the book). No need to have to juggle resources or think outside the box with strategy when you have effectively infinite resources, now. The most intelligent adaptation possibly being the likes of Age of Empires simply because there are multiple kinds of resource in varied shapes and forms. Some rare, some common, but even then it is essentially the same scenario of 'resource collection'. Another unrealistic flaw I find is the ability to practically refine anywhere, even where the enemy refines. They rarely care and when you have 10 harvesters you don't mind or notice them travelling to the other side of the map. This is too easy and too unrealistic. This I want to get away from, partly the ability to over invest, but also to take away from the user all control of resource collection. Instead I plan to have it fully automated, with only at most the building itself under the players control, and the units 100% automated. The units will also only work in a certain zone, which means you have to move when you run out of resources. The idea is to discourage having one permanent base. However I still vastly dislike the plain fact this is resource collection with a twist. Suggestion, or simply thoughts, would be grateful. Second part-A, the lack of importance of buildings. Buildings are important for the enemy, because they don't rebuild. They are not important for you however because you can always rebuild. So you lost your barracks, build another. No, build 5. Whilst your at it build 10 refineries, 30 helipads and 100 Photon Cannons. All real tactics used by myself in various games. This ties into the economic problem, when you have that much money you don't need to worry about your base, as it will cover half the map. Sure this is fun the first few times but as a serious tactic it ruins the game and the difficulty. Second part-B, you don't move across the map you expand. Where is the danger (and the fun) when you build across the entire land? This again ties into economics, because you can simply cover the world and you will be practically immortal. This helps to signify the expansion and conquest of you, the fact you now have a base the size of Sicily. But it looses it's appeal quickly, and becomes very unfair on the enemy. I plan to remove the ability to build buildings at the beginning, and the buildings will be strong, big, but expensive and slow to build. When you can build you will only be able to build certain early buildings, and maybe add huge power constraints as a secret restraint upon the players number of buildings. This may be done in a zone style power system, where buildings within the zone receive and consume power. So you can have build 5 barracks or 5 refineries, but not both. I could add the ability to turn off buildings too, a feature implemented but never actually used in any other RTS. Buildings will also have defences, big cannons, and so they can defend themselves quite adequately. The initial idea around the defences is the need for a huge army of hundreds to simply destroy one building. There is an episode of 'Ninja Scroll' (the series) where my vision of this portrayed very accurately. Thinking about it now, I may have defenses and the buildings activities to be able to be turned on and off independently, to encourage power management. I may also add a delay so you cannot simply turn power on and off at a whim. They will also move too like in Starcraft. It makes sense and I loved it when they did that. Third, the lack of unit diversity. I can build any of probably 20 units in C&C, so which do I choose? The most powerful. Why? Because the others are redundant once I can build them. This is all too true in too many RTS games. The initial idea is to allow advancement, their units get more powerful, yours get more powerful. But this often to only a small minor degree cancels each other out, and it is effectively the same units fighting each other. One of the best deviations from this rule is also one of the best games, Starcraft. All units were equally powerful, Goliath were powerful at air weak against ground, Siege Tanks were powerful against ground, unable to attack air. However when you reverse this question of power around, it becomes more obvious why you build so many different units. It is not they are equally powerful (which is actually far from the truth), they are equally weak. They all have major weaknesses, they can all be easily beaten. This forces the user to think of how to beat each unit. However I will not be taking my example from Starcraft as diversity this well balanced will be very difficult to implement. Instead I will be basing it on Myth, which has a more emphasised difference of units. There are only 6 different units yet these 6 are vastly more individual then anything I have seen in the likes of C&C. They are admittedly predictable, Archers get slaughtered in melee combat but are deadly at a range. But it has gotten me thinking that it is all too easy to simply give a unit a gun and then tweak their stats. But in Myth the Dwarf would be one of the most innovative unit, and this is my true example. For those who haven't played Myth they throw explosive bottles and so are one of the most powerful units in the game. But the accuracy is so wide, and they don't always go off, and they can bounce in unexpected directions, and other explosions can blow them back or elsewhere and Dwarfs carry explosive satchels so they can explode themselves when killed by an explosion. All this means that when you use them it is all too easy for them to backfire. Timing and precision is absolutely necessary, I have had my own army completely obliterated a few times (literally killed 20 to 30 men) by me completely using my Dwarf badly. This extreme double edged sword is one of the great aspects of Myth, you need to use all your units correctly not so they compliment each others attack but so they cover each others weaknesses. The 'Total War' series uses a similar system too, but there are too many flaws in other aspects of the games for me to use that example. I suppose what I really want to make is something different, but 'Starcraft' is quite generic overall, proving that originality doesn't equal excellence. There are also plenty of more original games, such as 'War Breeds' which are far less fun. This has been a nice chance for me to express many of my opinions and ideas, and I plan to work more on trying to grasp what it is I want to make. What I ought to do is just make a map, some buildings and some units and work from there. Plus I also like to be the first, in this case in starting a new topic in this section. |
| Fri, 08 Dec 2006, 04:18 | |
|
Yayyak |
Those ideas sound really good, and I like them a lot (I've had a lot of similar ideas myself at times). It'll be hell to implement though. Another thought of mine: I've always disliked the idea of 'ages', where you click a single button and you advance and get all these new technologies. History didn't work like that. If you could figure out how to do it, a much better solution is to make people decide which technologies to research, and not have the 'new age' button at all. You research new things at the barracks, and that lets you build a blacksmith, not the big button. This is a bit more like Civilisation, I guess. If you followed this idea to the full, you could also get rid of this stupid concept of the 'Town Center' (AOE example), and create villagers or whatever in houses (you know, where they are ACTUALLY made). Just my 2 cents. 
|
| Fri, 08 Dec 2006, 04:31 | |
|
JL235
|
A Civilization RTS??? That sounds like a revolutionary idea. That had never occurred to me. But I may abolish technology all together, but you need advancement. Possible solutions are newer buildings, say buildings you couldn't build before because you didn't have the resources. But then it starts getting back to Economics being in control. Maybe you could acquire technology from your enemy, or at least battle or corpses. Or maybe you have to research the surroundings, including enemies and corpses but also simply areas of the map, like real research, in order to improve technology. You have to do something to get better units. This may be nice, but it I don't want to give the player specific troop placement orders which this would be (move player here and do this to get that). I'd like them to either see an opportunity and grab it, like dead corpses, or choose to upgrade at an appropriate time, like if they have the spare cash. An idea that just grabbed me would be to have real life studies too, such as of enemies living and fighting, and of enemy buildings in action, and they must then get back to base with this information. Finally when you said 'hell to implement', which aspects were thinking of and why? |
| Fri, 08 Dec 2006, 14:10 | |
power mousey
|
hey Diablo, okay in this RTS game.....and about the Nomads. (1)Who are these Nomads? Are there certain ones who stand out? Such as heroes,warriors, villians, anti-heroes, some just slaves, and the rest are the peasantry part of the group. (2)why are they wandering and scavenging? what must they do to live and survive? What is the governmental structure...if any...of the this Nomadic tribe. Who is(are) the leader(s)? (3) What foot is their setting on? Earth in the past, or in the future, or a parallel world of some other dimension? Or perhaps another world in our universe? I have some other questions. But for now, these questions will suffice. Here is an idea for a RTS game. Don't mind if I get weird or more weird: In eons past....Shizmek and Shumuzel planned to extend themselves and escape the collapse and destruction of their universe by collecting biomass and star energies to create a mental interdimensional gateway and transverse other worlds and dimensions. um...I'll stop right theen and there. And ponder what will happen next. oh, it will tie in with nomads but with a shock and a surprise twist. true.  cheers, power mousey |
| Sat, 09 Dec 2006, 09:16 | |
Scherererer
|
I like the idea of massive campaings; Instead of just a single battle, an entire war occuring. I've had an idea wherein the economic/political aspects of the game would take place in a TBS mode, where you look at an entire continent or world and attempt to take over territories within it. That way, you would "move" your troops to the territory that you wish to attack, and perhaps setup a route for reinforcements. Remember, this is more like an actual battle, wherein you pretty much bring troops to the battlefield instead of building them at the battlefield. Then, also, controlling certian territories dictates what resources you have, so you can cut off the enemies resources by isolating a territory or something. Addtionally, you could say "build a factory in this territory", so an enemy could attack that territory or send a bombing run or something on it to remove that factory. Then when you attack a territory, it converts to RTS mode, with the two armies or contingents fighting for the ground. The defending team would get a minute or two to fortify their defences, so they would get the opportunity to choose the ground they'd be on (high ground gets a tactical advantage), and they would have the opportunity to build trenches, put pikes in the ground, or any other last-minute defences. The offensive team could use defensive warfare tactics and build the same things aswell, but they wouldnt' get the headstart. -=-=- YouTube Twitter Computer Science Series: Logic (pt1) (part 2) (part 3) 2's Complement Mathematics: Basic Differential Calculus
|
| Sat, 09 Dec 2006, 10:45 | |
|
JL235
|
It sounds similar to 'Total War'. But there aspects which were pretty much pointless, such as sabotaging a neighbouring territories buildings. This is one aspect of almost all strategy games which is rarely or never used. The one very fine example which manages to very successfully break this rule is 'Star Wars: Supremacy' (also known as 'Star Wars: Rebellion'), where most of the game play is based around missions, such as sabotage, because structures are so vastly important. Thinking of this now, I'd like to emulate this importance in my RTS idea, for example 12 shipyards in many games isn't a lot, but in Supremacy, I cannot convey the constructive power you would have. Instead of selecting to build ships you'd build whole fleets, however 12 shipyards takes ages to plan and build. |
| Sat, 09 Dec 2006, 11:11 | |
|
power mousey
|
Diablo, why couldn't you design or even create a RTS gmae such as War of the Gods! you pick your particular singlular god or gooddes...or a shared pantheon of one: oLYMPUS, ancient Egypt, Sumeria, Inca or Aztec, Babylonian, Japanese..especially their SUn goddess, and even Norse. |
| Sat, 09 Dec 2006, 11:17 | |
|
power mousey
|
going further, you god,goddess, pantheon of entites start with a certain amount of shared life force and mana that literally can move mountains. now, inorder to extend their lives in this other world and in living beings...they need a lot of mana in the form of biomass and life force enrgies of life on this planet. in this 3d matrix world that they find themselves in...new needs and desires also begin to take shape in them too. the Powerful Ones. The War of the Ancients. true. new edit-->think back and a similar one like Age of Mythology by Microsoft. And the expansion pack of War of the Titans. cheers, power mousey |
| Sun, 10 Dec 2006, 14:39 | |
|
Yayyak |
@Devil: When I said that it'll be hell to implement, I meant mainly figuring out the logic of technology trees, and coding the enemy AI. Especially in a more civ-like RTS. I've decided that this civilisation-like RTS idea is actually a decent enough one to warrant a prototype. So as I've got holidays coming up soon, I might start doing one. On technology, I think it adds a lot to an RTS, because without it, you just get a lot of different races that look the same. Add a single unique unit and a few technology bonuses and you have a much more interesting game, because the mix is different and people have to think on their feet, because there isn't a single most powerful unit. Avoiding this is one of the very hardest problems in developing an RTS, as far as I can see. @Mousey: One day, I'd love to play a game of word association with your brain. Where do you get these crazy ideas? 
|
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||