When responding to posts like this, I just have my answers bolded within the quote. Makes it easier for us both. lol ^_^

Quote:

Original post by Wai Re: Aspirer Have you played something like this in an actual game? Nope, which is why I actually want to make a game like this. Something totally untouched, where I'm free to try and break-grounds. It's always easier to set a standard than it is to live up to "the last great hit," you understand? I think a potental issue is that a typical FPS player and RTS player have a different time frame for gaming. So a game where an RTS player considers "short" could be "too long" for the FPS player. This is what I gave a lot of consideration to before taking a serious look at what I had here... I think you might misunderstand a bit though... RTS stands for "real-time," ya know. :-P RTS fans like the intensity of using strategy on-the-go. We don't like building bases and staring at our own pace in C&C. We like the rush of producing tanks, setting up our infantry, sending strikes at critical units and upkeeping our defenses, all at the same time. Besides, by giving enough of the power into the FPS players hands, we're also eliminating the "sit-and-wait" element of RTS. Consider it actual REAL, real-time simulation. Other probable issues: o The FPS players don't want to shoot at bots. They want to shoot at players. Which is why I want to have 10-player minimum sessions, eventually. And, I believe FPS'ers would be fine with bots, too, if it were large-enough scale. Halo is a great example, I know people who love the scenario as much as multi-player? But, do you think this could be countered by a well-enough developed AI? o The FPS players often want to play in terms of scenarios, where they can replay the same setting over and over. Would different maps and "goal" oriented play, and especially a single-player mode, be enough to satisfy this need? I have the rough-designs of the back-story and so forth that a single-player mode could possibly be crafted from? o The FPS players, when playing an scenario, is always already at the height of the conflict, they don't need to wait for an interesting situation to arise through RTS. I'm intending to put enough FPS-element into the game that it will start in conflict. For example, have you played Unreal Tournament 3? Specifically, Warfare mode? Where you start at a base, with weapon pick-ups, etc., but have to hit certain check-points along your path to destroy the enemy base? These give you new pick-ups and access to more vehicles, etc. Well, my idea is somewhat BUILDING these check-points in strategic locations, rather than just be the first to reach it. Quote: [The RTS player] would be in charge of managing resources, structures, droid production, etc. If all of these are going on like an actual RTS, the FPS players would be bored to death. You could stretch out the RTS session across multiple FPS sessions, but an FPS player would only want to play the parts where things are ready to go. The FPS players would rather play preset scenarios that are guaranteed exciting than to sit in a game hoping something exciting would happen. It might make more sense if the RTS player just controls a set of pre-determined equipment. The equipment could be jointed decided by the team. During the game, every team member can command the equipment, but given that it could be distracting to do both FPS and RTS at the same time, a player may dedicate himself just to command the equipment.

I think you underestimate how much power sits in the hands of the FPS player, perhaps? As far as managing resources, yes, the RTS would be in charge of most of that. But, venturing out to get the resources and returning them to specific locations, that's the FPS players responsibility. These resources would be placed in locations guaranteed to be centers of conflict between teams. Most of the buildings BUILT by the RTS player, would be used totally by the FPS player. For instance, I considered and probably will go ahead and have the Commander build the Android Manufactory, but the Soldier (FPS) will be able to decide whether he wants to go to the base and deposit it for building stronger equipment, or if he wants to hit the Android Manufactory and spend what he has collected on building androids to add more members to his squadron. The Commander would build Re-Supply Stations, but the FPS'er would visit to load up on his favorite weapon before heading to the main conflict areas.

Plus, the ultimate goal is to destroy your enemies Command Center, which would be totally up to the Soldiers. If they wanted a quick round, then hurry and rush into it, and start pounding on the Command Center. All the quile, the RTS player is building Re-Supply Stations and Droid Manufactories, etc. and making the combat even more intense.

Quote:

Original post by klefebz I've heard about the idea of the commander before, don't know if anyone got to really make it. I see problems in it, first, inconsistency on gameplay, the two vertients are way to different. Second, how will the commander communicate with the soldiers? would he/she point in the map and the soldiers see the mark and go there if they want? they would have to trust the commander a lot. Also, if the commader is in the headquarters as you said, if it is destroyed, its game over. That is overfucusing in one building, what about a player building hidden bases by enlarging the expansions?

There would be chat, voice chat, and potentially the marker idea you suggested.

And yea, they would have to trust the commander... then again, if the commander led them astray, he's losing too. I could send you on a suicide run, and all I'd accomplish is making it easier to kill me.

And yes, the head-quarters is the key to winning/losing the game. Again, I use the Unreal Tournament 3, Warfare mode as a key example... The main goal is to destroy the enemies Core--a single "structure", but this requires a LOT of firepower... You're not going to kill it in one attack. You're going to attack, be killed by players, bots, defensive structures, and have to assault it for a while before it succumbs. But yes, that's how I thought of it.

Re: Aspirer

To make the posts short, I just reply to what I consider the most relevant branch:

Quote:

I think you underestimate how much power sits in the hands of the FPS player, perhaps?

Actually this was what I thought about your design at first. It is probably easier to consider the case where the RTS player does not even exist, and concentrate on creating an FPS game, but give tools for the players to modify the environment.

I don't play FPS because I get motion sickness, the closest thing I know that is similar to your concept is Defense of the Ancient in Warcraft. In that game you control one Hero to support soldiers spawned by your team to destroy the enemy base. In that game, the main thing to do is not to kill the enemy soldiers, but to kill the enemy Heros and buildings that spawn the soldiers. In that game the Heros get exp and gold to upgrade themselves. In your game the players would get resources and upgrade themselves and the team structures.

Because there is no separate RTS player, you don't get a situation where the RTS player is waiting for the FPS players to return resources, or that the FPS players are waiting for the RTS to build stuff. The FPS players do all: gather, attack, tactics, strategy, so the intensity is always maxed out.

This is the very essence of game design. You're actually designing a game, not cloning one off the shelf and tweaking it. Even if something like this already exists.

I have a friend who was talking about making a game similar to this, but I haven't talked to him in a while so I don't know if he ever got on with it.

I do suggest you get on with it, though. Make sure to consider how you manage this project, how implementable your design is, and so on.

By the way, this alters some key considerations. If there are players as actual units, you need to come up with decisions for them to make, and the equipment choices would be great. If you had a variety of weapons and gizmos, and the commander tells a team "go do X" and they can equip themselves for the mission, that makes things more engaging for them.

You might consider fluffing the game with some weaker, AI units that can keep the RTS player occupied.

You could actually represent this by making the human players control human charcaters, and the "RTS player" is a guy in an armored vehicle commanding some androids and guiding the situation and monitoring from an airborne drone.

If the androids can actually conduct some kind of battle engineering tasks and other support roles, that'd be cool. Maybe.

This is a bit ambitious.

Try to flesh out a focused design document, then get to work on planning how your going to produce this beast.

By the way, Wai's user rating is "1337". Splendiferous!

Quote:

Original post by Wai concentrate on creating an FPS game, but give tools for the players to modify the environment.

I see what you're saying, but I think it takes away from the strategic and tactical edge of the game that you have when you someone that can oversee everything. An RTS player has the advantage of seeing incoming attacks (where there's no fog-of-war), of being able to see where all his weak-points are at once, of being able to see "Okay, Team A is advancing, but Team B is losing and letting some of the enemy through... Send 2 people from Team A over to the Bridge and help Team B fight off the wave of incoming androids".

I think, and I admit I could very well be wrong, but I don't think an FPS player could manage battle from a strategic point, the way an RTS player could.

Quote:

Original post by JoeCooper This is the very essence of game design. You're actually designing a game, not cloning one off the shelf and tweaking it. Even if something like this already exists. That's something that means a lot to me, and I really appreciate a compliment like that. Thank you. I have a friend who was talking about making a game similar to this, but I haven't talked to him in a while so I don't know if he ever got on with it. If he's seriously interested, I'd be happy to talk to him; and if not, I wish him the best of luck if he wishes to pursue it too! I do suggest you get on with it, though. Make sure to consider how you manage this project, how implementable your design is, and so on. I'm doing my best! lol By the way, this alters some key considerations. If there are players as actual units, you need to come up with decisions for them to make, and the equipment choices would be great. If you had a variety of weapons and gizmos, and the commander tells a team "go do X" and they can equip themselves for the mission, that makes things more engaging for them. I agree totally. I'm debating on whether to have a few base classes for FPS units, or to have weapons, armor, items and all that do the majority of the "customizing" for players. I think both would be a bit more complexity than an FPSer really wants. I also think having all the bonuses and disadvantages applied by weapons and armor would be better, as it'd keep them from having a niche character. They could be a shotgun-toting maniac this battle, then a sniper next round, then a heavy armored resource gatherer after that... You might consider fluffing the game with some weaker, AI units that can keep the RTS player occupied. Could you elaborate on this a bit..? You mean RTS player controlled units? You could actually represent this by making the human players control human charcaters, and the "RTS player" is a guy in an armored vehicle commanding some androids and guiding the situation and monitoring from an airborne drone. What about having RTS control "special attacks" similar to Command & Conquers Ion Cannon and Air Strike type moves? Give them the ability to directly effect combat in small (but crucial) amounts? If the androids can actually conduct some kind of battle engineering tasks and other support roles, that'd be cool. Maybe. I had planned on them basically being just fighting units, with some that do a bit of healing, some doing a bit of other support tasks. What do you mean by battle engineering tasks? This is a bit ambitious. Try to flesh out a focused design document, then get to work on planning how your going to produce this beast. By the way, Wai's user rating is "1337". Splendiferous!

I'm definitely aware of how crazily ambitious this is. haha, and just how much work I'm setting myself up for. But, I figure if I'm going for something like this, I may as well make it huge! :-)

Also, what exactly do you mena by focused design document? I assume you mean down to the exact detail?

Re: Aspirer

By tools I meant give the FPS players the visibility. So each FPS player can see the overall map through a HUD or GUI that gives them all the options that you would have given an RTS player. The reason is that it is more flexible and fluid. You could still have a player that is concentrated in the commanding aspect sitting in an armored car (i.e. JoeCooper's example), but also think about how this commander would want to communicate with the fellow players:

Commander: Hey guys go to point A
Guy: Where is point A?

So here you see that the commander wants that everyone can see the map. There are additional situations where the commander needs to give information. The case when the other player seek information. Now it won't be very fun if their requests all cog up the commander's channel, such that now you don't just have a commander, but a command center just to handle the communication bandwidth as in real life. It also won't be very fun if the players just have to trust the commander without asking too many question. If they can't ask, how do they decide what they should make on the field? If they don't ask, they have to just trust the commander, and the relation shifts less toward teammates but that of master and slaves. If you allow the FPS to have enough information to make decisions, they can also replace the role of the commander.

An alternative, is to let any player (all FPS based) to serve as the commander as the need arises. All of them have the same information, so that they don't need to waste talk time just to pass information, but to discuss strategy. When one of them suggests a tactic, or a strategy, everyone understands the situation. I think this is better for teamwork because it streamlines communication overhead, and allows everyone to be thinking about the big picture and the strategy.

By "focus", I just mean elegant, an "if in doubt, cut it out" approach. The essentials.

By the fluffing, I mean, that you have your team. Let's say five players. One is the RTS overlord and then there are four fighters with an first person perspective.

But there are things to do that the human players probably don't care to, and may be too busy to do. Things with resources. Building thing. Digging foxholes, moving things, gathering things.

A character digging a foxhole - if that is in your game - goes like this; someone makes a decision to build a foxhole, then the game entity can do nothing but dig and nobody is controlling it during the digging. A human player would have to sit there are watch his character dig. A bot, however, is great for this task. The RTS player makes the decision, and the mindless drone occupies itself with the gruntwork.

So you throw in some bots, which the RTS player has command over, to do these things.

This might not be necessary, I mainly brought it up because another poster (Wai?) mentioned the RTS player having to sit around and wait for things to happen.

Quote:

What about having RTS control "special attacks" similar to Command & Conquers Ion Cannon and Air Strike type moves? Give them the ability to directly effect combat in small (but crucial) amounts?

I had the impression that the RTS player ordered the FPS players around.

If we say that there is a drone in the sky, than the RTS player has a bird's eye view of the situation and can think about things and play an active part by guiding the FPS players with information they don't have time to think about.

Having a player who's mind, time and interface are committed to thinking on this level could be crucial to the battle.

I mention interface there. The FPS player may already have a lot to think about and a lot of information to deal with from his perspective. He probably doesn't also want a map to deal with.

If there are air strikes in the game, than the RTS player ought to be responsible for calling them. An FPS player may say "hey I need an airstrike", but the RTS player's user interface is perfect for actually conducting this operation.

You could say he has some missiles on that drone.

If he has more direct control over some bot grunts described above, those grunts could have limited combat capability.

IRL, androids (e.g. ASIMO) are weaker, slower, dumber, flimsier than humans. But if we imagine one advanced enough to conduct tasks like digging, they could also handle light arms, without making the human players redundant.

Quote:

I'm debating on whether to have a few base classes for FPS units, or to have weapons, armor, items and all that do the majority of the "customizing" for players.

Personally, I would do the following:

1) RTS player has a map view of the situation. Of course he can't see inside buildings, we're imagining he has an actual drone in the sky. But his mind is occupied thinking tactically and strategically and guiding the players. Both sides have such a player and drone.

2) Human players are of one type. I'd have them carry around a few standardish weapons and let them make some decisions about that. Sniper rifle, machine gun, maybe something bigger.

3) A possible secondary type is the android grunts which are literally AI controlled and do things like dig holes, trenches, build things, anything involving resources if you've involved that in your game. I'd give them a single weapon of some kind and throw a bunch in.

But that's something I'd iterate on and they might not be present at all in the first iteration.

4) I would declare healing to be beyond the scope of the game. Nobody heals in 20 minutes. I would have it possible to be injured in such a way that you can bleed out, but first aid can stem the bleeding so you don't die during the battle.

But that's the sim-player in me.

Re: Air strike:

Quote:

What about having RTS control "special attacks" similar to Command & Conquers Ion Cannon and Air Strike type moves? Give them the ability to directly effect combat in small (but crucial) amounts?

In some FPS, this is an ability of the FPS player. For example, if you are the "sniper", not only are you shooting people with a sniping rifle, you can also order air strike or artillery shots. To do that it might be similar to the Ghost in starcraft, you need to look at the target with binocular until the target is locked. If you get killed before the target is locked the attack is cancelled.

Have you played Battlefield 2142? In that game the commander player can see the map with a satellite view and point out enemy players to his side, move the Titan, call in airstrikes and run around participating in the normal game too. I know you want to do more, but this shows a lot of what you want to do already.