The future of RTS games - Page 39
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed. | ||
MrMedic
Canada452 Posts
| ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland24435 Posts
| ||
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
I went through the thread and have collected all ideas mentioned so far. Unfiltered list of ideas in this thread:
This list is quite impressive, I must say, good work TL! You will note that most of the suggestions try to make improvements on the existing games. There have been very few posts that give us a complete idea of how a new, transforming game may look like. If there is still interest, it would be great if we could come up with some complete game descriptions. New games can be formed by combining several points from the list. But which ones are the most important? Also, I think there is still room for some radically new ideas. | ||
frajen86
168 Posts
I posted something very early on, this has less to do with the actual gameplay but more to do with viewing. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=21358738 Adjust the observer UI to allow for switching between big picture/detailed views. Picture in picture (i.e. be able to show a drop in 1 small screen while following a larger army in the other) | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland24435 Posts
Globe? I said sector of space at the very least ![]() The central idea. is essentially thus. Immerse oneself more deeply into the game by virtue of battles having actual consequences for your particular server's region and having differing fields of battle, with different scaling. For example ship-ship combat within orbit/deeper space, full-planet combat and then down probably as far as something relatively equivalent to Starcraft, perhaps even slightly smaller. You can choose to specialise as a commander based upon your own RTS skillset, and desires. The difficulty will be of course, ridiculous in making such a game functional but it would be potentially amazing (to me anyway). The meshing of how all the different fields of battle would interact, problems with chains of command and pursuing a cohesive endgame for your faction across the board would also be hard. Many technical and potential playerbase issues exist, but I'd still welcome an attempt to actually make something as ambitious as this. I realise that games exist that collate data based on individual 1v1 battles and use it to map out some kind of overall war progression, I'm talking about actually creating a full top-bottom realisation of that, with players able to interact at every level perhaps even controlling particular unique units while your superior officer controls the rest of the units in that particular battlezone. I want to be an Executor damnit! | ||
frajen86
168 Posts
This made me think of SC: Universe not sure if that project is still "active" | ||
![]()
Falling
Canada11322 Posts
Team games: have one master strategist responsible for building stuff Isn't that just Team Melee? That is a cool mode. Did that ever port over to SC2? I feel like that would be a very easy multiplayer mode to add that is inherently social, and touches on the sort of MOBA shared responsibilities. Put that front and centre along with your 2v2 and 4v4 modes. (By the way, 2v2v2v2 mode would've been better than 4v4 by default, imo.) In fact, I've seen a few Koreans play on Python (BW) with where only one can build and the other control units. Whereas in Team Melee, you can have both doing all. edit. I might even have that map on my computer somewhere. double edit. Ah yes. They're called Macro Micro maps. One person is the Maker and the other the Control. | ||
frajen86
168 Posts
On May 22 2014 04:51 Falling wrote: Isn't that just Team Melee? That is a cool mode. Did that ever port over to SC2? I feel like that would be a very easy multiplayer mode to add that is inherently social, and touches on the sort of MOBA shared responsibilities. Put that front and centre along with your 2v2 and 4v4 modes. (By the way, 2v2v2v2 mode would've been better than 4v4 by default, imo.) In fact, I've seen a few Koreans play on Fighting Spirit (BW) with where only one can build and the other control units. Whereas in Team Melee, you can have both doing all. edit. I might even have that map on my computer somewhere. No team melee in SC2. Custom maps, they haven't been notably successful. Here's one from WoL days: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/167387-team-melee Look for MacroMicro on the current Arcade, I think it's about as close to Team Melee as you can get, seems relatively popular Husky overview of MacroMicro: | ||
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
![]()
Falling
Canada11322 Posts
| ||
frajen86
168 Posts
On May 22 2014 05:49 Falling wrote: Hm. That seems kinda clunky. (Unless I'm understanding it wrong.) Macro Micro in BW auto gives units to the Control player. 'Control X' to send over is rather awkward. ...watch the whole video, or just play the game you only need to ctrl-x certain units (workers/queens/overlords I think), army units automatically get switched over : ) | ||
![]()
Falling
Canada11322 Posts
But anyways. Team Melee used to be an official game mode that could be used on any map. Put something like the above Macro Micro as a mode rather than a custom map, front and centre in SC2 and I think you got a recipe for a great casual style game for people to play with and against their friends. | ||
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
I had something divisive to say that would be forever lost in this hideous mass of uninformed opinions that I wanted to share. | ||
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
The idea is that there is a huge untapped casual player pool out there: The females! The romantic RTS This is a team player 2v2 game where one part of the team is played by a male and the other by a female. The male controls an army of men that goes to war. The female controls an army of women. The goal of the women is to "catch" men of the other team and make them fall in love with them. This can be done with Cupid's Arrows, Love Nets, Love Spells and a bunch of other esoteric methods. Once a man is fallen in love, he converts to your own team and can now be used to raise children and construct buildings. The raised children are again either male of female. So converted men are the only way to get your economy going, while normal men are part of the army. Men cannot attack other women, but have temporary defenses against the love spells. To win the game, you need to either destroy key defensive structures or convert all men of the other team. | ||
Oboeman
Canada3980 Posts
'Create a massive, large scale MMMORTS that spans the whole globe'. if i'm not mistaken, Dawn of Fantasy was a "persistent world" MMORTS certainly not for competitive play, but great for roleplay/citybuilding | ||
Spaylz
Japan1743 Posts
On May 22 2014 15:51 urboss wrote: I was asking for radically new ideas but didn't really come up with any myself. So here we go: The idea is that there is a huge untapped casual player pool out there: The females! The romantic RTS This is a team player 2v2 game where one part of the team is played by a male and the other by a female. The male controls an army of men that goes to war. The female controls an army of women. The goal of the women is to "catch" men of the other team and make them fall in love with them. This can be done with Cupid's Arrows, Love Nets, Love Spells and a bunch of other esoteric methods. Once a man is fallen in love, it converts to your own team and can now be used to raise children and construct buildings. The raised children are again either male of female. So converted men are the only way to get your economy going, while normal men are part of the army. Men cannot attack other women, but have temporary defenses against the love spells. To win the game, you need to either destroy key defensive structures or convert all men of the other team. Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen once the LGBT crowd hears about it. | ||
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
On May 22 2014 15:57 Spaylz wrote: Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen once the LGBT crowd hears about it. Sure, you cannot please all people all the time. You need to piss off somebody from time to time to be successful. That said, there is a ton of heterosexual software out there that is super popular. Also, there is no reason why the females couldn't be controlled by gay people and the males be controlled by feminists; it's just a matter of the correct wording. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Players forge their own races from predetermined rules. Of course, as you say, the whole game would have to be built around such a thing from scratch, but same has been done around Starcraft maps and races. E.g. Choose one from each category Basic Infantry: Infantry, Attack Dog, Support Infantry: Medic, Flamethrower, Rocket Trooper Tank: Attack Tank, Siege Tank Light Vehicle: cheetah tank, okto gunner, transporter Artillery: Mortar Trooper, Howitzer Air Support: Heavy Bomber, Top Dog Fighter Special Troops: Commando, Vehicle-X, Dropship Defenses: Flaming Betty, Multifunction Tower, Rocket Station And then this game could introduce more and more units to the categories and monetize this modell similar to how LoL works. So with a free account you get some (somewhat balanced) predetermined constellation of units and then you can unlock/buy more units and every week and you can test 1-2 other units. And like with the MOBAs, it wouldn't matter too much if you had the one or other unit that isn't used too much in proplay, as you could just get a looooot of units that also somewhat overlap in roles (especially in the same categories, what I posted are rather the extremes that you build upon but don't strecht further). And for balance purposes, so that "your deck" doesn't get countered too hard by "his deck" from the beginning, you could do a "choose deck/use deck" before the game actually starts, and then sideboard one unit in and another out, after you have seen his basic constellation. E.g. "Oh, he is using an aggressive infantry build, I guess I should play with a Flamthrower instead of the Rocket Trooper here". Also the amount of factions/races should be kept to a minimum with such a system (for balance purposes). 1-2 should be enough. More about Units, Economy and Production + Show Spoiler + I like the idea of 2resources, it introduces depth without making the game really complicated. However I think the base scaling and constant worker building is not something easy to keep, I rather like concepts like the automining Vespene Refinery from the campaign or how Ore is being mined in RA3. Set and forget is the concept. Also resource locations should be very small, so that they do not limit your mapping. This makes it possible to have 1v1 maps played in 2v2 by simply spawning more resources at (shared) spawn locations. The production cost of units is straight forward: 1 production building uses all resources of 1 mining location. This can either mean you get 1 infantry unit every 20seconds from a barracks - so a total of 3per minute - or 1 tank every minute if you build a factory. Since there is two resources, but not every unit costs both resources, there are two types of expansions. The "mineral only" type and the "mixed gas+mineral" type. There are 3-4 different buildings for about 8 buildable units and regardless of which units you choose, there is always at least 1 unit on that building. This unit is a "mineral only unit", all others are "mineral+gas" units. Two units from the same slot - e.g. Infantry and Attack Dog - always have the exact same costs and production time, and somewhat share roles - e.g. excel against infantry. However they can be on different production buildings - e.g. Howitzer and Mortar Team which makes for some "natural" deck combinations (like infantry heavy or mechanical heavy play). Other costs like Power or Supply are not in the game, apart from a maximum Unit cap. There are no commandable workers in the game, the resources are either mined by uncommandable bots that slowly autorebuild when they are being destroyed by harassment or just by the mining building, which when damage starts burning and mines less efficiently while autorepairing. The construction of buildings is achieved by going into "Construction Mode" via pressing of an important hotkey like Space. In Construction Mode, all Units are being deselected and in place of the Unit Interface there is an overview of all buildings. From that you select buildings and put it down anywhere on the map which, once you have the required money for the buildining, causes an uncommandable/indestructable Construction Drone to leave your Headquarter, fly to the building location and start construction. Additionally in Construction Mode there is a complete queue list of everything that is being produced currently. >ou could influence the priority of anything that hasn't been started yet by drag and drop: ![]() Anything on autobuild (yellow) always stays on the bottom of the list unless ordered otherwise. Anything you queue yourself like a building or a specific unit you want to build one of goes to the bottom of the red list. The construction of units can be done both via the construction, as well as via the control mode. Either by clicking the production building or directly giving the orders in the basic Interface. Interface + Show Spoiler + The Interface could look something like Starcrafts with a few adaptions. E.g. - swap the Command Interface with the Minimap so that its screenposition matches your left hand's hotkey position. - the resources are being shown right above the Command Interface - additional autobuild unit buttons - buttons unnecessary for controlling the game (such as allies, chat log, firendlist) go to the menu, but can still be directly opened with hotkeys. (makes it less confusing for a new player imo; at least I'm often overwhelmed by such stuff in a new RTS game, just to find out that I have no ingame use for a lot of stuff that is on the screen) + Show Spoiler + Fog of War and Maps + Show Spoiler + Resource nodes taking up little space and getting rid of a lot of spaceeating buildings should provide extra space (comparitively to Starcraft) so that a 1v1 map can be played in 2v2 as well, spawing extra resources and extra players at the 1v1 spawning locations. Similarily, starcraftlike 4spawn maps may be played in 4v4 as well. This gives a more convinient way to produce "one mappool to play them all". Fog of War works differently than in current games. Instead of having a Fog of War everywhere and a visionrange to scout into it, Fog of War is being produced around a players buildings, once finished. The fogged area is not a radius but a suiting area created by the mapmaker (e.g. the whole highground of a mainbase). The rest of the map is alltime revealed, unless specific fogcreating tools are being used. Of course there could be naturally fogged areas as well like swamps, but the basic idea is to have huge parts of the map alltime revealed. This prevents excessive proxying and completely hidden army movement, especially in the early game. There is less emphasis on the defender to scout something hidden, but rather the aggressor needs to find ways to hide something (e.g. by using cloaked units, crawling units, burrow moving units...). It should also prevent that less mobile unit constellations have to sit back in fear and give the complete mapcontrol to more mobile ones. Unit Designs and Controls + Show Spoiler + With the macro aspect of the game tuned down like described in the steps above, there is a lot of attention that can be paid to controlling units. For that, every unit must be very deep. At the end of the day, this comes down to unit design. A few ways to achieve interesting unit designs: - Characteristic abilities: Similar types of units (e.g. infantry units) share some basic skills (similar to how stim is being shared). This could be run or crawl abilities for infantry, pull or push abilities for vehicles and certain maneuvers like loopings for air units. - Multiple layers of height for airplay. E.g. one "standard" air layer and one "highflying" one that makes air units safe from ground attacks and vision and vis verca. Air maneuvers (which e.g. could be used to avoid missile attacks) could be controlled that way, e.g. sending an airplane up and immidiatly down again causes it to fly a looping or down+down could make it perform a combat roll. - units that don't necessary need some mobility drawback should have hardly any damage point - unit attacks should usually be more interesting than the hitguaranteeing SC2 projectiles and insta-damage attacks. They should rather come in the form of skillshots, splash attacks, sucide attacks, linedamage, first-obstacle-colliding projectiles and so on, to provide hit and dodge micro. | ||
SnuggleZhenya
596 Posts
The thing that sets the RTS genre aside from every other competitive genre, in my opinion, is multi-tasking. By it's very nature you have to do a lot at once. That's hard, takes a lot of effort o learn and practice, and isn't easily accessible. It takes a lot of effort to play an RTS game "right" and most people simply don't want to put that much sustained effort into something that is their way of blowing off steam/relaxing. That's what makes something like DOTA and the spinoffs so popular, it essentially removes the multitasking from the RTS genre while keeping more or less the general arc (build up, big fights, kill the enemy base). | ||
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
There was the suggestion to slow down the game to emphasize tactics. Here is an interesting upcoming game that demonstrates this quite beautifully: Custom units This concept was implemented before by the Earth series and Alpha Centauri. The idea is to be able to design your own units by choosing from different parts. ![]() 3 Dimensions While 2D platformers and 2D RPG games are an almost extinct species, the RTS genre has kept the isometric view alive. Universum: Warfront is an interesting deviation from that formula: Evolution (Species) This concept was implemented before by Spore (2008). The idea is to allow a player to control the development of a species from its beginnings as a microscopic organism, through development as an intelligent creature, to interstellar exploration. I was always curious why this was never implemented in other games. ![]() | ||
| ||