Hi all, I''ve been a lurker for a couple of months, but now I need some opinions. I''ve been working on a game for a while now. I''ve got a design on paper (well in MSWord actually) and I''ve done a lot of the preliminary coding work such as graphics engine (2d using SDL and opengl), a widget library and a lot of test code. I''m now to the point where I need to code up my design, but I''ve lost confidence in how fun the idea might be. I''m hoping for some opinions on the game concept. Here it is: - It is a space based RTS. It will be multiplayer first. Single player modes will be added after the initial test release. - At the beginning of each round the players are allotted some amount of "tons". The players build fleets of starships using this tonnage. The player will allocate the tonnage any way they wish. They may build a small number of big ships loaded with weapons or maybe a large number of small/fast ships with limited weapons. The player starts by choosing the hull size, then outfits the hull with weapon systems, drives, and defenses. (There is much more to ship building than this, but I have to move on) - Once all the players have built their fleets, the round begins. The players then maneuver for the best positions and formations and engage in battle. - The playfield will be 2d. While I believe a 3d battlefield would make a more realistic simulation, I don''t think it can be done while remaining fun for a game. I don''t think there exists an adequate 2d tactical user interface to a 3d world. - The playfield will have "natural" and "man-made" obstacles to work around. I purposely left out resource management, in favor of each player starting with a fully outfitted fleet. I''ve coded up some of the path finding and obstacle avoidance stuff, but that is it really. Oh yeah; It will be an open Client/Server system much like the quake series. There will not be anything like Battle net, just people putting up servers to play on. The game''s network protocol will be nothing like quake though. It will be more like any other current RTS, using a type of lock-step algorithm. Single player mode will be a series a missions. Standard stuff. Just like St*rCr*ft or R*dAl*rt as well as skirmish mode. Well... What do you folks think? Could it be fun? Thanks for looking, and I wecome your thoughts. Sabbac

I think its a great idea myself. You''ll need to make sure its nicely balanced. If theres one sure fire technique (build one mega huge ship stcked with guns for instance) that always wins, then the strategy goes out. If you can set it up more like command and conquer where for every strategy, theres a counter strategy (stealthy ships can get inside huge ships shields?) then it would be awesome. Takes away the mad rush for resources and concentrate on strategy and tactics.

I presume you get a starting grace period to build your ships? Rather than rely on the person who can click fastest getting their ships out first, have an "all-done" button that when all players click the game begins with the ships built?

Anyway, sounds solid to me. Get it done .

- Ben Scott
Just starting out

quote: Original post by ShonTsu
-- snip --

I presume you get a starting grace period to build your ships? Rather than rely on the person who can click fastest getting their ships out first, have an "all-done" button that when all players click the game begins with the ships built?

Anyway, sounds solid to me. Get it done .

- Ben Scott
Just starting out

Yes there will definately be an "all-done" button. Also I plan on having some pre-defined fleets for each tonnage class for the players to start with.

Thanks for your input!

remember. . . it''s not the concept. It''s the implementation. That''s why Blizzard, id, Epic, etc. stand out from the rest. They''re not doing anything all that new, compared to say, Ion Storm or (RIP) Looking Glass, but their implementation of established concepts is what makes people keep coming for more.
Your Idea sounds great, building on established concepts. Anything you feel makes the game less fun you can simply overhaul later. Good Luck.

About the 3D vs. 2D thing. There is probably a good 3D tactical interface, it would just be very difficult for you (or anyone) to come up with it. There haven''t been many 3D RTS games (Homeworld, Orb, maybe a few more), didn''t Homeworld have a good interface, or am I mistaken?

Because your game is in space, it''s kind of weird to have obstacles completely stop ships. It would be cool if they could fly over and under obstacles with the risk of crashing if they don''t slow down. You could incorporate some interesting asteroid field battles complete with ships crashing into asteroids and fighters trying to outmanuever each other.

The game sounds like it could be cool, but like Al Gorithm said, it really depends on the implementation in this case. Nothing you suggested is really new or innovative, it seems pretty much like a standard RTS.

Are you kidding! That sounds like a fantastic game! Of course I'm saying this because, well, I'm making one just like it(and from your post I do mean *just like it*).

As of this moment I'm adding features to the widgets in order to make a nifty ship editor.

Several things I thought about dealing with large ships gameplay wise
1) don't overdue it, large ships are difficult to deal with, period,
2) make the shield regeneration rate(if you have it) scale inversely according to the maximum shield size, the factor is your own
3) just thought of this, put a limit on the size of ships that you can start with, if someone wants a death star, make'em build it and make sure it is vulnerable before completion

aaron_ogden_2000@yahoo.com



another great game that made great use of #3(except the limit on size) was a collectible card game by Wizards of the Coast called Battletech, the game came down to deciding which of your opponents resources you should attack, it was marvelous, never could find anyone to play and I think it died though

I know most strategy/tactical games boil down to picking which resources to hit and with what, but this game was direct about it, nearly everything was a resource. From the packs I bought though it would have made a horrible game for using decks built on the spot.

edit--added asterisk

[edited by - RolandofGilead on February 24, 2003 10:49:07 PM]

I play alot of RTS online and that idea sounds like a snore. What if one guy takes 4 mins to build ships while another takes 20 mins? Is someone willing to sit all that time and wait for the other person? What would encourage people to play it more than once? Different combos of ship size and weapons but where''s the variability or the FUN? This game would singlehandedly turn fun RTS into a slow boring drawn out sequence of events. No replayability no purpose and if there''s more than 2 people in a game get ready to wait hours for everyone to be ready. Plus how fun is it to preset things send them out and fight. That''s not strategy. Strategy is more like make troops gather resources control the map and react in your unit production with the opponent. For example he has air I get anti-air and so on. Change it from RTS to Action-schlock worthless game price it for 4 dollars and you have a winner.

I''d probably play a demo of it to try it out. It could be an interesting game if the implementation is done right.
Just remember that a 2d game can win out against 3d games in it''s own genre if it''s done well.

-This is where the world drops off
-ryan@lecherousjester.com

I think the basic idea is good, and as others have said, what will make the game fun will be the details - how many ships (or groups of ships) will the player control? how fast to the ships move relative to the size of the map? that sort of thing. So if you code up your first playable version of the engine, and it somehow doesn''t feel right, don''t throw the project away - start tweaking the gameplay variables. Get other people to play the game and listen to what they say. Personally, I think not going 3D is a good idea. You can always take on that extra complexity in your next version of the game, start simple.

quote: Original post by stinkypants
I play alot of RTS online and that idea sounds like a snore. What if one guy takes 4 mins to build ships while another takes 20 mins? Is someone willing to sit all that time and wait for the other person? What would encourage people to play it more than once? Different combos of ship size and weapons but where''s the variability or the FUN? This game would singlehandedly turn fun RTS into a slow boring drawn out sequence of events. No replayability no purpose and if there''s more than 2 people in a game get ready to wait hours for everyone to be ready. Plus how fun is it to preset things send them out and fight. That''s not strategy. Strategy is more like make troops gather resources control the map and react in your unit production with the opponent. For example he has air I get anti-air and so on. Change it from RTS to Action-schlock worthless game price it for 4 dollars and you have a winner.

I''m pretty sure ship design is to be done offline(and if it can''t be, well, that is stupid, even in sealed deck card game tournaments you are given ample time, and with ships as variable as this his game is essentially like any deck-building game), and that''s where part of the strategy goes. You design your ships to fit a plan, and once in the action you respond the best you can with the choices(and ships) you made. That IS strategy. What is not strategy is Rock-Paper-Scissors balancing and sending waves of units into the fray.

Let me guess, you once took speed and thought to yourself ''Damnit I gotta try crack; this stuff isn''t making me move fast enough!'' You should seriously relax and get some therapy so you are no longer an andrenaline junkie.

Now for the insult: you are one of the people making games lose any sense of depth. Do us all a favor and stay away. Twitch gamers have a place but that''s because reaction times aren''t good enough, precision and accuracy are needed and that takes actual skill. Read some posts, your style is what most of us are trying to get away from.