quote:Original post by Sta7ic Having the agents talk when events occur -- enemy killed, enemy seen, bored, whatever -- tends to help a game. Consider the enemy NPC lines in Deus Ex.
I think I understand what your saying. To use a Tribes reference (can you tell I like that game?) it would be like sending the message "I have the enemy flag." That type of thing. As opposed to a classic Quake match where you really don''t hear anything, you just run around. I definately agree there.
quote:Original post by Sta7ic The potential problem with a FP RTS and waypoints would be setting them, not spotting them.
Why would that be? You would be setting the waypoint from a top-down RTS style map, from the commander''s game. The FPS players wouldn''t be the ones to set the waypoints. That way, all they have to concentrate on is following the orders and completing them.
Always remember, you''''re unique. Just like everyone else.
Always remember, you''re unique. Just like everyone else.Greven
quote:Original post by Sta7ic Yeah, but hen you aren''t playing it as a FPRTS, unless you''re manipulating an object.
-Sta7ic
No, I think you missed the point. It''s not a PFRTS, it''s a FPS and an RTS. You would have two different style of games to choose from when you connect. You can play a top-down RTS style game where you are telling people where to go, and what to do. Or you can play a FPS game where you are being told where to go and what to destroy/capture/whatever. It would be played more like "real" war. You wouldn''t be running around in a FPS trying to set waypoints for people and stuff... Make sense now?
Always remember, you''''re unique. Just like everyone else.
Always remember, you''re unique. Just like everyone else.Greven
quote:Original post by PSWind I still suggest looking at Planetside.
Ok, I did a search for it and found it. It looks like it is the FPS side of my idea to a t. However, they completely lack the RTS general''s side of my idea. But I do like how they have the FPS side layed out. Very nice, and very much like this idea. But at the same time, with the way it reads, I think it will be a lot like a continuous-ongoing Tribes 2. Without the strategy side of it, it will just be a very large death match. Without orders and guidence, that''s what I see happening.
Always remember, you''''re unique. Just like everyone else.
Always remember, you''re unique. Just like everyone else.Greven
I''ve often thought of similar concepts; combining RTS with real-time war type games, such as FPS, etc. However, I would take it to the next level.
The generals would command troops, tanks, airsupport, etc. Participating players could be troops, tank commanders, airplane pilots, helicopter pilots, etc.
Of course, the bandwidth required for this type of engagement is ridiculous.
Hey, I got your point. I was thinking the same thing. Look, I imagine an sci-fi game, this make easy way to waypoints. The FPS soldiers use high tech armors with displays in the helmet wich shows an map, distances and the aim system. Voice comunication probably. On the RTS side, could exist representations from each soldier, the "General" select a soldier or a group and assign the task specifing the type (assault, recognize, stealth and others) and the point, which will glow in the helmet map with a message about the task. Everything in real time. The design in two game types give the chance to role two lines of ranking (action rank: soldier, captain, commander; and strategy rank: information, assistant, commander). The RTS commander could be highest rank of the game. So, did I get your point?
