You commented that a large complaint in RTS games was the rush tactic, I presented a solution, not every solution has to solve three or four problems at one time. Personally I thought it was ok solution, it didn''t put a god behind the curtain, and it could fit into the context of the game. You said patch like it was a bad word.

In order to defeat rush tactics, I think the best bet would be to expand the tech tree. Instead of just researching a new unit, research 3 or 4 pieces of technology to obtain it. Think a Civilization / Alpha Centauri tech tree in an RTS.

Merrick

-------------------------------------------------
"Children come to us in a state of purity and perfection from the great undifferentiated absolute and then, like everything else on this planet, we fuck them up."

Sorry TearDragon if i''ve offended you, but what i was saying was probably highly opinionated like everything i say. I think of a game as an ecology. This takes a bit of thought to fully understand what i''m going on about some times

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

One anti-rush solution I liked was field of fire units like the Flakker in Total Annihilation. TA initally had a problem with players throwing dozens, and sometimes almost a 100 planes at a base. This was completely lame. So they came out with a anti-air unit that fired a field of explosive flak into the air. It wasn''t effective against a few air units, but boy could it take down a mob.

A couple of other field of fire units in other games are the firebats in Starcraft, and the EMP Cannon in Tiberium Sun. All the villagers rushing into the town hall in Age of Empires could be considered a mega field of fire unit, too, I guess.




--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

An RTS that requires you to use your available units carefully. You get given so many, and some money with which to recruit/build more, but are unable to generate more money. And whatever units and buildings you have left at the end of the level carry over to the next. So, you won''t commit all your forces to win a level if it will leave you with just a single gunner for the entire next.

Of course, you get given new funds every so often, but maybe once every two levels or each level if they are really big.

Now THAT is strategy.

Merrick

-------------------------------------------------
"Children come to us in a state of purity and perfection from the great undifferentiated absolute and then, like everything else on this planet, we fuck them up."

quote: Original post by morfe
Of course, you get given new funds every so often, but maybe once every two levels or each level if they are really big.

Now THAT is strategy.

But what about in deathmatch mode like in starcraft. When you play one on one with one person. would such a system that you just suggested work well here?

But in general i agree totally with what you're saying, and i love it. But i'm just thinking about the versitility of such a system to allow as many different ways as possible to play the game. I think that idea you had morfe would be brilliant for an online game or one player against the computer but what about one on one on a console?



I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

Edited by - Paul Cunningham on September 13, 2000 11:22:08 AM

I''m sure an RTS could be balanced well enough to allow plenty of strategic diversity while preventing the dreaded rush. AOE2 did this fairly well with its garrisoning feature and the emergency peasent cowbell as Delisk said. I don''t know if you''d really have to take it much farther than that. Inexperienced players would still be taken easily by an early attack, but those familiar with the game would know how to survive. Nevertheless there''s alot you could improve.

Rather than penalizing the player for attacking in a rush, maybe you could aid the other side if the attack failed. Peasants could loot the bodies of the attackers, providing gold/armor/weapons etc which would strengthen the survivor of a rush enough that the next wave would have an increasingly harder time of it. Depending on the level of detail you put into the game, you could have experience points (or simply boost the attributes) for surviving defenders as well, as they become veterans.

Starting the players a fair distance apart could allow you to implement penalties for long distance attacks early in the game by making it necessary to produce enough supplies to support the army in the field. Wagon trains could also be captured by the enemy increasing the danger of fielding valuable supplies without the protection of a well formed army.

Just some thoughts
Rath

____________________________________________________

"Two wrongs do not make a right; it usually takes 3 or more."

quote:
I''m sure an RTS could be balanced well enough to allow plenty of strategic diversity while preventing the dreaded rush.

Yes, i agree with that. I think we first have to work out why people use the rush tactic. I think people use it becuase it easy/obvious and works too well.


I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!