|
Hey all, just starting here in TL. I am developing an ambitious custom map with highly dynamic gameplay that should cater to competitive ladder players as well custom map players. However, my mind still quibbles over some of the design decisions. Hope you are kind enough to give me your feedback on the following issues:
1- Different victory conditions. Atm I am aiming for three victory conditions for the default mode of the game: i) destroying the enemy main building, ii) accumulating a certain amount of a resource, and iii) holding a control point on the map for a certain time. The idea here is that players would change what victory condition they are pursuing on the fly during a game, making it more dynamic. They also have to "predict" what victory condition the enemy is pursuing. Do you think this would work well / is feasible at all?
I am particularly excited but doubtful about the condition of accumulating a certain amount of a resource. My idea is that some players could decide to use all of the resource to try to gain an advantage, while others could try to save some of it little by little, hopefully making for some interesting decisions players would have to make. Would this work at all? Or would players never save/not use the resource? I am thinking it could maybe work if the amount needed to win was fairly low, but I am not sure.
2- Units going up in rank. I´ll be honest, the design of the game does not call for the feature of units "leveling up" of sorts. It is supposed to be a fast, competitive game -taking perhaps 20-30 minutes to finish at most.
But the feature undeniably adds some level of fun. Plus to make it more dynamic I thought that unit upgrades could be linked to the rank of the unit -ie. a unit is able to use a new ability when he reaches rank 3 for instance. I am just not sure how this would play out. Take into account that I want units/battles to last a bit longer than those in starcraft 2, and that players will control at most 15-20 units.
|
The unit leveling sounds a lot to me like someone used to play Warcraft III and misses long, micromanaged battles. I think its a good idea, in fact if I knew how to import skins and other in-depth aspects, I would strive to re-create Warcraft III on the starcraftII Engine.
I think that having the player chose one of the three VCs while the other choses his independently is a great idea, one must now remember to protect his base, and either gain a military advantage to achieve the building kill (costing resources), or protect "the hill", save up the cash and expand (costing resources) and trying to use as few units as possible to fight off the enemy.
It makes for interesting gameplay for sure. If you make it I would give it a go.
|
It is hard to give any valuable feedback when we don't know about your game concept - is it like sc2 melee maps in other aspects?
On 1. The problem that I see is if one condition is much easier to achieve than the others, making it the only valid path to go. If one player makes a more expensive army while you save resources, you can only hope to pull him off the victory point(s) if your army is more effective. I think this might work beacuse of the rock, paper, scissors-mechanic in sc2. You might want to tune this more, so that resources are less valuable and thus saveable IF you counter your opponent army well enough.
|
If you want to go in depth about UMS maps and discuss about game- / leveldesign elements, I would recommend you sc2mapster. They offer these things on a higher level than TL, wich can provide more discussion about melee maps. Although you will still get decent answers here.
|
<3 1/ "variation" of winning victory conditions" but it's going to be long to implement/create (loads of things/galaxy objects to consider)
however, your variations seem "blizz regular" to me... nothing crazy or out of the box...
not exiting to me: one main building? ... macro turtling.. control?... well i do like "control"
You can do better than that (hard to do but that's not the issue)
<3 2/ i would love "leveling units" ..not sure if most sc2players would !?
(difficult to learn for players to id which is which ..., and they are a lazy bunch ;p )
To get it "out of melee issues/discussions" just make it a mere... graph/sound issue (ie: a veteran marine has a changed sound/model to the unit (player's unit menu ingame and model displayed ingame), no stats change ;p
Crossing the two seems a nice victory trigger idea: have a unit "m"with "x" kills do "z"
glhf creating a cool galaxy
edit: fixing typo
@oneil: the 1 building would not be so easy to destroy (a 10000hp building would do it)
but i agree with the feeling though
|
Am I the only one who would 1 base rush mutas, mass 15-25 of them and go two shot the enemy's nexus?
|
I should have said that this game will be quite different from melee, though still geared towards competitive players, so issues such as the one oneil brings up do not apply (there are different rules). Thanks Meltage for the heads-up.
Basically the concept is:
Each player starts with a main building, from which it can create only 3 unit types. Players do not create buildings or a base, but rather claim neutral buildings spreaded around the map. These neutral buildings are quite diverse and form the core of the game: some let players train 11 types of units, some give resources, some give points, etc.
Many thanks for the great answers
|
Woah. Based in what you just said, it sounds like you are trying to retrofit SC2 into Advanced Wars. Awesome.
The only problem I've run into with victory conditions like this are them being exploited by the melee game balance that already exists. But, if you're going to redo the gameplay mechanics like that, you can probably overcome them. It will still take a lot of work on your part to balance it, and I can't really comment on how well it will work until it is further along in development.
|
You mean Advance Wars for Nintendo DS? I am reading about it now. The more ideas I can get the better.
I think the victory conditions part is probably a non-issue; I can always have different game modes. Plain units going up in ranks or not is probably more important at this stage of development.
|
From one review of Advance Wars:
"Although every unit comes standard with 10 stamina points, each has its own specific limitations on armor, movement, attack range, and sight. For example, infantry and mechanized troops can move only short distances and must attack adjacent enemies, but they are also the only units that can capture cities or bases; APCs have thick armor and can transport troop units a great distance, but they have no attack capabilities of their own; and bombers have excellent range and insanely killer firepower, but they have very little armor and are especially vulnerable to antiaircraft guns and missiles.
Mixed in with the unit strategy, terrain type and morale level also affect your units' movement, sight, and attack capabilities. Mountains, forests, and reefs offer a defensive boost and an increased sight range, but it takes longer to traverse them, while highways offer a speed advantage to land vehicles, but only at a cost of higher vulnerability and narrowed sight. If you're playing with fog of war enabled, you can also hide units within forests and reefs for an added element of surprise. Morale is a factor to consider, as it gives attacking units a slight strength advantage over those on the receiving end. This alone can turn the tide of many battles, because it can help you gang up on enemy tanks with cost-efficient antiaircraft guns and jeeps.
Overall, Advance Wars is a highly balanced game that is easy to learn but full of strategy. Whether you excel with land, sea, or air units, you can usually find a way to exploit your own inherent strengths in battle. To make the game more interesting, however, the commanding officer you choose will also bring his own distinct strengths, weaknesses, and CO power into the equation. Andy, the first CO you'll play with, is average in all respects, but his CO power, hyper repair, is a formidable ability that can repair all allied units by two stamina points. Eagle, another CO, is known for his superior air units, but he earns most of his reputation from his CO power, lightning strike, a skill that lets all of his units attack twice in the same turn. Thankfully, CO powers are difficult to abuse, as they often take between three and eight turns to recharge, depending on how many cities you capture or how many enemy units you destroy in the meantime."
It´s kinda crazy/scary how most of those ideas are in my game -in the design document, that is- in one way or another, adapted to RTS of course -Advance Was is turn-based. Thanks 41d3n!!
|
I was actually talking about how most AW maps have neutral cities (income), factories (land units), air ports (air units), and sea ports (sea units) that you can capture and use - which is a large part of the game. I take it you haven't played an AW games (based on you having to read up on it). I recommend you do - especially the original and AW2 (both for the Gameboy Advance).
|
I would NOT look at AW unless you are afraid of being inadvertently redundant. Originality is a false grail if you ask me, though. Most game mechanics are abstractly interchangeable anyway, and they are always camouflaged by the packaging.
I think the low number of units lends itself well to bonuses for leveling up. Individual units already stand out in a low units environment, but it adds more depth, a sort of investment trade-off, if you are not just micro'ing as usual but making sure to preserve a certain guy to level it up for later use. You will have to be very precise about what sort of bonus you get to make sure there are diverse and balanced strategies.
Multiple victory conditions will be perceived as unnecessary complexity unless there is good tension between them. Imagine if SC2 had a few different victory conditions analogous to what you described. Most games of SC2 wouldn't look that different, because the way to win at starcraft is to put yourself in a position of unstoppable advantage. The built-in victory condition of building elimination is more of a formality. You could add other ones that would be similarly extraneous to the "gg moment". What I'm trying to say is that you need to create attainable goals in distinct but interactive wings of the mechanics. Another way to put it is that it's never entirely clear who has the upper hand. Otherwise one player is already ahead and the way they win doesn't matter.
It's an interesting situation for a strategy game, because the point of them is to provide different routes to victory, different strategies. It's sort of equivalent to multiple distinct victory conditions anyway. You could, for example, provide ways to convert the different goals into things that win the game, like more / better units. But it's more exciting probably to have them be literal victory conditions. From the description so far, I think it's a good choice.
|
41d3n: I know you were referring to the diverse neutral buildings hehe. I was planning on having all neutral units trainable at one building type though; it´s interesting to think about the alternative way similar to how AW does it.
EatThePath: thanks for the detailed feedback. Another way to look at the victory conditions issue is that, if it´s never entirely clear who has the upper hand, a player would just pursue his victory condition without trying to stop the enemy from achieving his. It´s hard to get a proper view of how it would play out though. It is apparent, though, that it is a very subtle / hard to balance issue which is probably why most games stick to one victory condition.
I am quite impressed at the responses in the thread. Should I explain the game in more detail? Perhaps in a new thread sort of presenting it?
|
|
|
On March 15 2011 22:37 adso wrote:
yes you should showcase (when ready with lots of stats/eye candy and such)
yes you should create a separate thread
Second. I'd especially like to know, in greater detail, what the mechanics would entail. Whether you are focusing more on the worth of individual units or are simply trying to change how armies are built and games won.
|
I am just starting with the editor and predict that it will still take me 3-4 months to have something playable, so I´d rather wait a bit more to present it in a new thread -so I don´t put more pressure on myself to get it done; I have a normal job and can´t put as much time in as I would like.
But make no mistake, I will get it done. I want this game to be extremely dynamic. Players have to be able to win ala Starcraft -groups of units with upgrades overwhelming a less numerous army-, ala Warcraft -taking special care of individual units within a group-, and something in between -a small group of high ranked units.
Now, that sounds like wishful thinking...ultimately most players would end up trying to babysit units to the limit, trying to save them at all costs, which would turn the game into a micro-fest. I want games to be decided via higher-level decisions as well, so I have placed some rules to keep micro-fests in check:
- units will move slower as they get closer to dying.
- units that are standing still will take a slight time to get to full move speed (acceleration). This affects ranged units´ hit and run the most.
- limited / slow methods to heal units.
This way, aggressive players will still be able to compete with the overprotective ones. It lets me give significant bonuses to units as they go up in rank. Also note that units will get most of the experience points by being alive -only a few points for killing enemies. Hiding units -sort of an investment- will be a possible strategy, waiting for them to go up in rank before using them to fight. Weaker units will take less experience to go up in ranks, so aiming for a group of low-tier, high-rank units will be a viable strategy.
Moreover, terrain will play a part. Air units will be scarce, so most units´ move speed will be affected depending on where they are standing. A "jungle" type of terrain will block LOS, meaning that melee units can hide and jump on enemies.
Stats of units will change dynamically through buffs and permanent bonuses. Couple this with the different ranks, and it won´t be as simple as "5 marines beat 2 zealots".
Moreover, there will be a unit-type limit, which means that only X amount of units of a certain type can be on the map at the same type; if player A has X-1 of them, and player B has 0, then only 1 more unit of that type can be created between them until other units of that type die. This is most controversial, but I am looking forward to seeing how it affects games.
All this stuff about units is not the core of the game, however. I want to put special emphasis on the early game. Players will get out and fight for buildings from the get-go, and many options have to be viable. The concept of optimal build order will not exist, or at the very least it will require a lot of effort to "come up" with it.
Players will start with an Engineer -a type of unit that can go up in ranks- which can instantly capture a neutral building -the engineer disappear from the map upon doing so-, a few fighting units, and a "leader" unit. Leader units cannot be trained, revive upon dying, and cannot go up in rank. They are more support-oriented, although their main function is that they can convert neutral buildings after channeling near them for 15-20 seconds. They also have a "Fast Convert Building" ability, which can be used only 2 times, which converts a neutral building after just a couple seconds channeling. This kick-starts the early game and represent a hard decision for players: should I use the ability asap on an unclaimed neutral building, or save it to convert a neutral building claimed by an enemy? Not only this, but neutral buildings can be upgraded to offer greater bonuses; however, these upgrades stay if the enemy converts the building.
Also, players can build an "add-on" upon succesfully claiming a neutral building, so that the enemy must first destroy the add-on before capturing or converting the neutral building. This is to give players more hard decisions to make, and to keep in check the usual problem of constant hit and run.
Hopefully, this post offers greater insight of the game I have in mind. It´s intricate, and it will be a nightmare to balance, but I am positive it can compete with the best custom maps in the future.
|
ill play your map give me a download
|
I would use iterations for such a huge project. Make the core first, test it out and when it works you can build on it. You have many experimental concepts for reaching your design goals and throwing them in all at once will just be messy to handle, from a design and balance perspective.
The idea with limit to unit types is interresting - locically it's like the units are not trained but rather hired and there is only that many available to hire. Gameplay-wise I can see how it leads to a greater variation in army, than it would otherwise (asuming you won't have 3 distinct playable races as sc2 does). It would force players to customize their army further than the unit composition. A downside might be that players will be able to predict what army the opponent has. I woudl limit thsi in some way, such as having most unit types hireable from a neutral building that players has to fight over.
I don't see why you'll want experience reward over time for just being alive - why make hiding units a valid strategy? It's the oposite of what wc3 achieves with heroes gaining XP on kills. Victory point control may have the same effect, though and make hiding units invalid, since you'll need all units on the field.
|
Thanks for reading the wall of text and giving feedback, Meltage.
Actually, I think you are completely right, there´s so much I can do at a theoretical design level with such a project with so many experimental concepts. Once that point is reached I should organize tests regularly and make tweaks to the the concepts as necessary.
On the unit-type limit, it will be exactly as you mention: the factions here will have 3 unique unit-types they can train, and then there´s a neutral building that can train another 11 unit-types for all players/factions. For the unique units there´s also a unit-type limit, else players would just mass their unique units.
With the experience for units I am not trying to simulate WC3 though. I am using it more as a way to dynamically upgrade units -I dislike how every unit of a certain type is always the same in Starcraft and most RTS-, and less as a hero system of sorts. Units have to be able to gain xp by being alive, it will streamline the system and help later in balancing. In WC3, a losing player can overcome a bad loss in a fight by quickly gaining xp killing creeps, but in this game a player who wins a battle could run away with the game all too easily if units could only gather xp via killing. We´ll see anyhow.
Gaining xp by being alive might be odd, I´ll give you that. Note that, as you say, a unit that is BOTH fighting and being alive is helping a lot more, so I don´t predict "hiding" units will be the name of the game. I think it is an strategical decision though, making sure a unit does not die so after a while you have access to a special ability. I think this offers another option to players and makes it more dynamic -as in, making comebacks possible, surprising opponents, appearing weaker than you really are, etc. I just love the mind games! I´d just like to see where this all leads!
Another high-level decision for which I could use feedback
Given that, as I have repeated in this thread, the game should cater also to ladder players, and given that I can´t compete with 1v1 SC2 melee, I was wondering if I should focus on delivering the best experience possible for the 2v2 format. This is, approaching the design of the map and its size, number of neutral buildings, etc, with 2v2 games in mind. I can imagine melee players taking a break to play this game 2v2 with a friend, but maybe not so much 1v1. What do you guys think? Is melee 2v2 played a lot? is there a niche I can fill by focusing on 2v2?
|
i think both 1v1 and 2v2 are valid targets...
Layout is the only drawback/difficulty if you want 1 map to cater to both at once.
I'd say the mod could be good for 1v1 "ladder relaxation"
and
if it gets players...
it will be even better for 2v2...
(getting 3 players for a 4 game is more difficult than finding 1 player)
Waiting in a lobby is awful (bratchannel is compulsory)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
