Quote:

Original post by sunandshadow Usually I find buildings that generate resources to be really boring, it's more interesting to see little workers scurrying around like ants carrying loot home.

You know, this brings up a good point. I, too, like the visual of sending out units and seeing them haul back resources, but then I thought a little more about how I employ this in RTS games. If I have "peon" units to do my harvesting from a central node, I will always build up their numbers until I have a steady stream of income. The period before that is a tedious process of building peons the moment I have the resources for them. Once I reach the magic number I leave them alone and never look back.

So really, what you may want to shoot for is a nice "busy" visual with resource buildings. Perhaps when you build a resource-generating facility, it spawns little non-critical peon units that consistently maneuver between your central base and their building, essentially all for show? This would eliminate the tedium of micromanaging the units that are really just there for infrastructure purposes.

Quote:

Original post by BCullis Perhaps when you build a resource-generating facility, it spawns little non-critical peon units that consistently maneuver between your central base and their building, essentially all for show? This would eliminate the tedium of micromanaging the units that are really just there for infrastructure purposes.

Hey this is a neat idea. It might help another weakness of the TA resource system in that you can plop down buildings far away, a strategy that feels more like viral infection than controlling space and defending certain lines of approach. You could easily make them unkillable drones or magically protected wraiths or whatever fits the theme. They'd have the added bonus that although you can still do the viral infection thing, you can't use the fog of war as easily to hide the fact that you've got a resource gathering site in the middle of nowhere.

But, if you know the animation doesn't convey any information, won't you just ignore it? I pay attention to the peons to make sure none of them are standing around uselessly or being killed by wandering enemies.

Quote:

Original post by sunandshadow But, if you know the animation doesn't convey any information, won't you just ignore it?

Then make sure it does provide useful information, such as a visual indication of resource production rate and resource depletion.

Quote:

I pay attention to the peons to make sure none of them are standing around uselessly

I can't help but feel that this is a failing of the game, rather than a valid occupation for the player - if I wanted to micromanage worker drones, i would be playing Sim Ant.

Quote:

Original post by sunandshadow ...I pay attention to the peons to make sure none of them are standing around uselessly...

Just wait until they form a union! Then your productivity will really drop.

my apologies but...

Quote:

"Keep 'special' functions for units to a minimum and make their usage as easy as possible. In the middle of a battle I don't want to have to click on each of my "Super Units of Doom if you use this one function!" to fire it off, and then be scrambling around trying to find one with enough energy to fire it! If there are any special functions/attacks, make them 'smart'. Have a single button that you use and then Click on the target, flag the target as something to use 'special features' on, and the game should be smart enough to figure out what kind of special function you on it (And these should be simple enough to have no ambiguity.) If a unit is in range and has a special power to use, then it fires it off."

indeed, one of the things that annoys me most... I think button-based single unit abilities have become obsolete with the famous autocast choices. A divine solution from blizzard partly used by other rts developpers... but there are OTHER ways still to be discovered...

Quote:

"Biggest thing to keep in mind while designing an RTS is that the S is suppose to stand for Strategy, and there are very, very few games that come even close to involving real strategy, and are instead low level reactive tactics."

I like to think of starcraft as an example. It does not focus on economical power for massive unit rushes (against what a begginner might think). It is all about choosing the when and how to build units, and exactly what to bring the enemy`s way. Taking over the enemy's expansion or main base? Attack workers or buildings? This game is so balanced it actually brings about some element of strategy. Though I must admit Gamasutra's article on global strategy is a good read.

I think micro-management is a must, but we need to bear in mind micro-management tends to make the game harder to approach by the masses. Only a select few individuals master these elements and it can lead to games where the one who knows his keyboard's shortcuts best will always triumph because of the time gained. Well developped AIs can never replace good micro-management, but they should at least offer some kind of resistance so that the player with no micro skills can still pose a threat to the micro guy based on his OTHER skills (macro for example).

Quote:

"You cite that you have played StarCraft, but playing StarCraft is very different from playing it at a competitive level. I would advocate watching a few of the high-profile competition matches on YouTube - the guy who wins isn't the guy who builds the most BattleCruisers, or the guy who reaches the top of the tech-tree fastest. Instead, it is the guy who sits there popping a single Reaver in-and-out of a single transport over-and-over for twenty minutes, just to whittle down his enemy's resource gathering operation."

I have played pro. What you describe is sub-pro sadly. The famous reaver drops, siege drops or cannon drops are viable strategy in noob to tier 2 players, but in tier 3, players rarely get PWNED that way. I, for once, repel these attacks admirably well most of the time. It usually costs a lot to the other player to pull it off early in-game, leaving them vulnerable to early kill. Think again sherlock, and play some real pro gaming...
On the other hand, the comment is deserving, as games are not solely made for the pro-elite level. Most players will be noobs/tier2 players. Such strategies need to be avoided as much as possible.

Quote:

"Personally I am interested in the single player campaign, not so much the multiplayer, especially not at a highly competitive level."

I think there needs some idea of fairness in both cases, and thus, balance, otherwise the player feels cheated whether he be fighting a player or an AI. The level design specifics would alter everything else greatly, but the core mechanics need to be as fair as though the game went multiplayer nonetheless.

Quote:

"I think variety is very important in a good single player game. Not just "expand base, wipe out enemy" kind of things (for example, protect this asset, find this object, escort this cargo, etc). I also liked how, in some of the C&C games, a couple of missions would be played on the same map (possibly expanded). So in the next mission, you've got the same base layout, but there's some new objective to achieve."

I totally agree there. I think you are even "soft" in your examples. RTS objectives need to be radically thought over. Even regicide in AOE gets old, and all you need to do is kill one guy, but it feels long and repetitive. There is a large focus on attrition that, although is a good part of war, isn't the whole. C&C had the occasional shining idea here and there, but they are not the best examples.

Quote:

"The problem with most RTS is the less efficiency of higher tier units make player spam the low tier units. On the other hand, if you get higher tier units stronger, the player whom reach the higher tier first will always win, so either it is a game to race up tiers, or it is a game to reach the most units. Meta game does not tell you the correct balance of the game because it is not "Perfect Game." Perfect Game is the solution to a game. All game has a solution to it, but not many players reach this level of game play. Solution is the result of a game at the highest level through Perfect Information, etc.... Good RTS will not have tiers that will cause units to become redundant. Units in the higher tier must be equally efficient to lower tech units or else the higher efficient units are preferred. That's why some game have infantry spamming. Spamming comes from the higher efficiency of lower tier units. In Supreme Commander, if you can set up your tech 1 units so that you build at the same rate that your units die, you can out flood any other players, and maintain your units at unit cap. If you want the game to run faster, upgrade your units to tech 2, and later to tech 3 when all of your mobile units are tech 2. Once at tech 3, the game should end or stay in a stalemate. That's the basis against low quality players, but a different strategy is needed against stronger players."

I think the solution for this has always been present, just not used by everyone. Crowd control units (area of effect) was a solution, partly borrowed from tower defense games (yes, there is a lot to learn from these crappy games lol). Recently, the solutions have been focussing on larger units (i like sc2's solution of using an incremental damage rate based on exposure, pretty ingenious to be honest). Balancing the game isn't impossible, it is just a hard work. If it isn't done, however, the game won't be very fun. By the time the player has found the optimal strategy, the game would no longer be fun... so there needs to be some research behind each of the player's moves.

Quote:

"I often dream of RTS games (while sleeping), and they all have 2 important features: flexibility, and survival. So the game can take many directions: all your bases are being destroyed, but still have a few surviving units, which can win the game, or rebuild a base. (Warcraft II, Beyond the Dark Portal, is a bit like this, and that is my all-time favorite of RTS games.) Flexibility is a feature of some RTS games, but I'm talking about non guided flexibility (when there aren't any 'optional quest' to take out a power supply, for example)."

The latter idea is neat. It could be a secondary objective in one mission, and once the player is shown that it can be done, it is never shown as an objective again, but it is present in the games: there are always ways to affect the outcome of things from exploring or performing these actions in other scenarios.

The idea of a fixed area around which things evolve also comes to mind here.

Quote:

"2) Adaptation, I know you haven't really got time for it in an RTS to be changing all of the little details but perhaps in between games you can change to match the map or enemy. "

Fact: Customization sells. People want to make the game theirs. I'm not a big fan, but numbers speak, and if one is to make a game to appeal to masses, customization is a must...

Quote:

"1. I would vouch for a tree-like mission system, something done in the original "Dune II": depending on which route you choose to take as you conquer across your map, different missions open and close, with different parameters based on what's already been accomplished. If Mission 1 has three possible locations to pursue, then Mission 2 may close off one of the two you didn't choose, and open others down a specific path."

Dawn of War's last expansion offered such a mode. It was a lot more developped though. The obvious point was to take over all territories, but much like Star Wars Battlefront, you could get attacked by the enemy in territories where you main army wasn't... A very good expansion, it actually got me playing longer than the original game... WOW. But, how would it be possible to expand upon that in an original way? Rise of Legends? lol... no way.

Quote:

"An example from StarCraft: Loading a Reaver into a Shuttle, dropping him near the opponent's harvesting and then rushing it back into the shuttle to run away after a shot or two. A seemingly valid tactic, but honestly it does little except piss off your opponent because he has no solid mechanics to defend against such an attack. A squad of marines strong enough to take down the shuttle does not have the range to guard against such an attack if placed in any single spot, and thus requires the defender to pull his focus away from the real battle to swat a fly and command the marines himself./

I'm a big protoss player myself, and dragoon is just about the best way to avoid being dropped-on :) Goliath does work well against reavers too if you must be terran. I think we should not confuse design mistake with lack of training though...

Quote:

"Honestly I would consider getting rid of resource gathering mechanics all together. Have them slowly trickle in to each player at an even rate, and be able to capture resources from the other side. Maybe add a few control points scattered around maps that could give a minor boost, but as much as 90% of resources should be fixed."

I disagree, and on several levels:
1 - People like to gather stuff. They just don't want to have to micro-manage it. There is a large difference between removing resources, and removing micromanagement from resource gathering
2 - Control points is the weakest mechanic of the dawn of war series. Rather than expand on physical resource fields (where one who controls more would potentially win) it becomes a matter of covering the map... This isn't as much an improvement as a regression in that regard.
3 - War isn't fair. One always seeks to gain the upper hand in one hand or the other. While it isn't fun to win by outnumbering the opponent, the process through which one acquires the means to outnumber the opponent is relevant. In any regard, this can be achieved through resource gathering and/or management. Having "fair" resources does remove an interesting vector of gameplay.

With that said however, I think resource gathering/management is envisioned in perhaps a too narrow point of view: it isn't always about stone, wood, etc. Though I'm not a fan of Requisition (because it demands to cover ground, which things your forces for no real landscape-related reasons) it is an option. Energy, also, isn't gathered, but resource extends much further than even that.

[Edited by - Orymus on February 24, 2010 6:29:28 AM]

, it's your friend.

[edit]
, it's your friend.

[Edited by - Hodgman on February 24, 2010 5:52:33 AM]

ya, but the msg took so long to type, i got logged off in the process so i edited on wordpad and I wasn't sure what tag this forum used so... indeed, it does look chaotic :S

edit: done.

[Edited by - Orymus on February 24, 2010 6:47:03 AM]

Regarding resource management, I also favor the TA/SupCom model over the StarCraft/C&C model. To me, the TA/SupCom model is more realistic, because it allows more explicit planning for the future. Players can queue up units and structures without needing the resources to build them right away.

One way to make the TA/SupCom model more realistic is to add explicit supply lines. In addition to worrying about how many resources are being generated per unit time, the player now has to worry also about whether those resources are reaching the things that need them. Of course, I imagine this wasn't included in TA/SupCom for reasons of simplicity. Depend on the kind of RTS you want to make, this might make things too complex for the average player.

Regarding strategy vs. tactics, here's a quote from Wikipedia:

Quote:

Strategy is distinct from tactics. In military terms, tactics is concerned with the conduct of an engagement while strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked. In other words, how a battle is fought is a matter of tactics: the terms that it is fought on and whether it should be fought at all is a matter of strategy. Military strategy is the overarching, long-term plan of operations that will achieve the political objectives of the nation. It is part of the four levels of warfare: political goals, strategy, operations, and tactics.

With these definitions of "strategy" and "tactics", it seems clear to me that most RTS games do have some amount of strategy to them. Choices are typically available to the player about e.g. how quickly to expand their base(s) and when to attack the enemy or enemies. The idea is to make those choices not boil down to "as quickly/soon as possible" -- at least not in all cases.

Just my $0.42 for now.

I tend not to bother about the whole strategy/tactics issue myself. I know its an important distinction in the real world, but there is no point diverging from the type of game you want to make because of a word in the genre description.

One of the key issues I've found with strategy games is unit balance. This needs to be absolutlely spot-on and can probably only be achieved through testing.

A point no-one seems to have made yet is how the units interact in combat. There tend to be two models here. The first is that units have a quantifiable value on their own which could (theoretically) be calculated from their offensive capabilities, toughness and speed. When two groups of units come into combat, the group of units with the highest total value wins.

In the second type, the value of a unit depends on the units it is being used against, and how it is being used. For example cavalry would be much more effective charging archers from the flank than charging spearmen from the front.

The focus in the first type of game is generally to amass a larger, more advanced force than the enemy can repel faster than he can develop a force to attack you. The focus in the second type of game is to use the units you have more effectively than the enemy uses his.

Obviously, these are extreeme examples and most RTS games fall somewhere in the middle. The C&C series tend to focus on the first type, whereas the Total War series (its real-time battles at least) focuses more on the latter.

Neither approach is right or wrong, but it helps to know about them.