Myself and company are developing an RTS game -- we want to know what the community wants from an RTS game akin to Starcraft or Total War. What do you hate in RTS games? What do you love? What do we HAVE to have? Be blunt or be descriptive. Thank you!

Blunt and descriptive you say, eh...

For me the most immersive experience has been Warzone 2100 because of its inhereant ability to drag you in and on with the story: the gradually revealed zone maps, the immense non-repetitive tech tree and the ability to design my own units all factor in as crucial. And then there's the epic battles. Additionally, the game, despite its few flaws (such as imperfect pathfinding) was neither too simple nor too hard. Perfection. Might try out the publicly developed version now that you brought it up :)

Next up is Starcraft for obvious reasons (balance, the Zerg and great story).

I think in the end, nothing is able to top balance for me. And Starcraft is the game that immediately comes to mind for that. I love complaining about some unit or tactic that a different race uses. But then if I go play as that race, I find something to complain about from the original race.

Story is also a very engaging part for me. But that offers a lot of leeway. I was engrossed in stories back in the 90s Command and Conquer games about the GDI vs the NOD. Thought the sci-fi story of Starcraft and its take on creation was amazing. And I thought the stories of Warcraft 2 were much more simplistic or straight-forward (felt like real-life military interactions) but I still enjoyed the game enough to want to see what was gonna happen next.

So I'd give it to balance then story then solid design and implementation (build queues if that feels appropriate to the game, good pathfinding, resource management feeling involved but not overwhelming).

I like persistent worlds or story line. Winning over side objectives and taking time to develop solid bases should provide rewards long term.

I really hate crappy floaty health bars; get an imagination.....

sunandshadow has a thread on this topic over in the Game Design forum. Check out some of the ideas there.

Go read the Supreme Commander 2 forum and look at what their players want. It's amazing the difference of opinions between RTS game economies. Some prefer uberly complex while most people prefer simplistic systems like Starcraft. (Basically fans of SupCom 1 raged since they've really dumbed down the economy in SupCom 2 to the level of Starcraft).

I like complicated economies with adjacency bonuses and assisting. But I prefer limited assisting to one unit and adjacency bonuses that make sense. (Power plants next to shields kind of stuff for bonuses). I prefer huge research trees and choices and would prefer 1 or 2 resources then maybe a rare resource.

I also prefer special units like heroes or epic units that are stronger than normal grunt units. Giving them special abilities like one or two abilities is nice since it's often easy to micro a few units.

Not sure if you've played the Earth series but I love the idea of customizing units for battle. Starting with a basic chassis then adding weapons and such or building units up by adding special things. (Being able to save those units for later on helps too).

Also something else I find fun is the ability to turtle small area with shields or some ability. I find it fun to be able to protect small areas against attack for a limited amount of time. Going along with that I love long range strategic things like artillery and nukes or something similar. The ability to destroy slow moving things from afar that aren't protected is fun. I remember in SupCom 1 I'd sit around and build 4 artillery and make them hold their fire then when I found a target unleash a volley of shells on the target before they saw it coming.

Lastly I'd really prefer an RTS game on a sphere. The concept of a map without borders intrigues me and I think it would add a lot of strategy to gameplay.

[Edited by - Sirisian on February 27, 2010 10:18:28 PM]

Quote: Original post by Sirisian
Lastly I'd really prefer an RTS game on a sphere. The concept of a map without borders intrigues me and I think it would add a lot of strategy to gameplay.

That's the game I'm working on... on and off anyway (currently off [wink])

i hate constant micro management.
The AI should take care of resources but I can step in if I want to make some changes.

E.g.

I want to maintain an perimeter with a mix of infantry and tanks
I want to gather resources in this area and maintain a secure transport route with 3 stealth tanks.
etc.

I am upper management and I want to delegate.

Reduce emphasis on build orders and memorising counters etc. It has nothing to do with strategy. Balance is key. Fluidity is good too, deformable maps, cover etc.

Asymmetric warfare is something not done enough too. Attack and defend, campaignlike scenarios. I remeber a D-Day MP map for company of heroes. Pure win.