DaJoostMan:

I think what they are looking for is not an RPG, but a game that plays like a table top wargame in realtime.

The emphasis in such a game is tactics . In most RTS games at the moment, tactics is an underdeveloped area of the game - economy management, overall strategy, and interunit relations are the dominating factor - in most cases tactics only become an issue when the other things are equal - good tactics makes too little difference to be a gamewinner otherwise.

Lets use an example from AoK, since that is your game of choice. Lets say I have 100 archers. We will say that you have only 25 archers. We'll also say there are no resources on this map, and there is no way for either of us to create more archers.

Now lets say I just send my archers around the map - Ill just attack-move them around the map in one big group, more or less at random, and use no tactics at all. You are allowed to use all the cunning you can. In real life, even a woefully outnumbered force should be able to defeat a big, but congenitally stupid force. Can you do it in the game?

I think this is what people are talking about when they complain about the lack of tactics in RTS games. The tactics are there, but they are not strongly defined enough to compensate for large differences in forces. Furthermore, it is often very difficult to employ these tactics due to the interface - for this reason, tactical considerations are only really available to the better players. For everyone else, the key to winning is getting the better economy, and thus being able to swamp your opponent with a mindless rush. There is a bigger payoff for learning to manage your economy than there is for learning to use tactics.

quote:
p.s. Any rts game without rps will result in pumping only the most cost effective unit, regardless of morale, area bonuses/penalties etc. If u dont have a rps system 1 unit will be superior to the rest so u need but 1 unit in the game.

Not if the game is designed properly. Using a role based system for unit design, you can ensure that even if there is a 'most powerful' unit, the other units are still essential. As I already mentioned, I think SC uses a role based approach.

Lets compare at some protoss units - carriers and reavers.

Carriers:
Moderately powerful attack against any target.
Fighters confuse the AI, meaning your opponent has to micromanage any defence against them for that defence to be effective.
Mineral cost of fighters, although fighters are tough enough to last many attacks, so this cost is usually a one off.
Flying units, don't care about terrain.
Medium range attack.

Reavers:
Extremely powerful attack vs ground units.
Requires micromanagement to keep building scarabs - also mineral cost associated with every shot.
Ground units, very slow, has to navigate through terrain
Long range attack.

Carriers look a lot better than Reavers don't they? But Reavers specialize in a role which the carrier doesn't - it is so effective against buildings and ground units, just dropping a couple into an enemy base can inflict huge damage in a very short space of time. They are also excellent in a ground defence role, one shot can wipe out a whole load of enemies, while the Carrier would be picking them off one at a time.

Edited by - Sandman on February 18, 2002 9:23:50 AM

DAJOOSTMAN wrote

quote: First u dont seem to want any economy -> rpg has none

I think just about every RPG has economy issues. It just happens to be one of the biggest problems in most MMORPGs (flawed economy). Indeed, on an individual level the economy issue is much smaller than it is in AoE type RTS games. As a fighter I''ll have to buy weapons, armor, maybe even some food and water. But this economy part and the actual combat part are separated enough. If we draw the AoE type RTS game economy style to an MMORPG like Everquest... My fighter would have a merchant standing right next to him while he''s doing combat, ready to sell him the latest weapon in order to vanquish his foe.

quote: U want a random army to battle with so u have to adapt ur strategy to how good/bad ur army is, yet u also want a little control over the content of ur army -> rpg makes characters by rolling dice however u choose classes and stuff.

This just happens to be one of my biggest qualms with current MMORPGS: every character ends up looking alike. Sure, there are several different classes and several different races, but in the end, you''ll see the same type of characters walk around. But yes, I do like the random effect, because it at least attempts to simulate actual combat on an individual level. Sure, if I have to roll for ten attempts and my chance of success is 50%, I might as well just count myself 5 successes and not roll, but by rolling the dice, I can be lucky and get in 10 hits, or extremely unlucky and get in no hits at all.
So... yes, part of what I want in my RTS is already used on a smaller level in RPG games. But saying that I should then just go play those games is like saying you should just go play C&C instead of AoE because it has just about every element of AoE.

quote: U want morale leadership etc -> uhm rpg

? I don''t think in all the time I player Everquest I''ve ever came across morale and leadership, except to determine if an enemy NPC would run away during combat. There''s no real tactics in RPGS. A game like Everquest even has an ''auto attack'' button for melee combat.

quote: I think all of u will like the Baldur''s Gate series

Actually, I didn''t like the Baldur''s Gate series. Just like I think RTS games have established into a certain design method, so have RPG games. Both are the way they are because of what I think were technical limitations in the past, and perhaps not just yet, but certainly somewhere in the future, both genres should change dramatically to provide ME with what I want to get out of it. Personally, I think RTS games are first in line, because we CAN develop a decent AI for units, but we simply cannot yet (will we ever?) develope true roleplaying for a computer.

U guys are not talking about rts games anymore, it looks more like an rpg now, only with larger armies.

Sandman''s answer ("I think what they are looking for is not an RPG, but a game that plays like a table top wargame in realtime") is correct. We don''t want an rpg game, we want an RTS game that uses the capabilities of the computer to give us the opportunity to let us play the tabletop wargames in real-time.
If that game has certain RPG elements so be it. But if the goal is to create a strategy game that plays in real-time, why wouldn''t it be called an RTS? Perhaps because it doesn''t look like AoE type of RTS games?

quote: So let''s call our ideas rts games and ur games rpg games and let''s stop comparing apples and oranges, because thats what we are doing.

No, you''re saying that since a Golden Delicious is an apple, a Roman apple can''t possibly be an apple, because it doesn''t taste like a Golden Delicious. (AoE = RTS, game without RPS as described in thread != AoE, thus ''game without RPS'' != RTS)

quote: Any rts game without rps will result in pumping only the most cost effective unit, regardless of morale, area bonuses/penalties etc. If u dont have a rps system 1 unit will be superior to the rest so u need but 1 unit in the game.

Again, this is EXACTLY what we''re trying to say in this thread:

Perhaps RTS do without RPS. Perhaps RPS isn''t the answer to every problem. Perhaps RPS even creates a problem of its own in certain designs.

quote: I still dont see how rps results in pumping only one unit

It doesn''t. But it restricts the units within the global design to fit within the precariously created balance. It doesn''t allow for a unit to be what it is. It can only be what it is told to be. It''s not so much that RPS does something bad, it''s just that it possibly (depends on game design) keeps something good/better from developing.

-------------------------------------------------

I think the main problem is that players and designers alike are getting comfortable with the labels that have been set. We start to think of RTS as ''C&C/AoE'' and of RPG as ''UO/EQ''. The mindset is so narrow that new games will almost always take what is, try to improve a little according to hip new ideas, then deliver a product that is almost identical to existing games, but screams that it has more this, more that, better this, better that. If the games are mostly similar, quantity is what is going to sell.

If you can have 100 units instead of 10, if you can have 100 classes and races instead of 10, gamers will probably choose your game. As more units/classes/races are used, more balancing needs to be done. And as the graphics/sound/gameplay etc all need improvements as well, designers do not have time to spend days/weeks trying to create a unique balancing system. Instead they revert to proven methods. Those methods might''ve worked in the past, and might work perfectly for a new design, but there might be methods left unused that could''ve functioned better within the game design.

Just like for some games 2D works better than 3D and just like for some games an isometric view works better than a first-person view, just so cuold RPS work better for some games while ''insert another system of balancing'' might work better for some games.

Ok reading all ur replies i''m trying to visualize how the game will play.

As in most multiplayer games ur opponent will be someone around ur level of gameplay. Anything else is not fun for either player.

Both players get/choose an army and prepare for battle. During the battle 1 player will see himself losing so he will retreat. Believing his now much smaller army can still win he''ll run away/hide untill he finds an opportunity in which he thinks he has enough of an advantage to attack and defeat the other players larger army. The other player however who is just as good as the other player is smart enough not to let his army get caught in such a bad position and if he does get caught he will in turn retreat and do the same.

Another scenario. 1 player finds this huge hill which is open on all sides so he thinks ''Lets stand up there, i can see him coming and i''ll have a huge advantage fighting him downhill'' The other player however scouted him and saw him standing on his nice hill. He''ll be a damn fool if he attacks him so he''ll just hide in the forests ready to ambush him if he comes nearby.

Pls tell me how u are going to make sure these kind of things wont happen.

quote: Original posts by DaJoostMan
i think all those 'i dont want rps' people should be playing role playing games. Let me explain.

Please do...

First u dont seem to want any economy

I never said that.

U want strategic battles with random elements

I never said that either.

U want a random army to battle with so u have to adapt ur strategy to how good/bad ur army is, yet u also want a little control over the content of ur army

I didn't say anything remotely resembling that.

U want morale leadership etc -> uhm rpg

Sounds good. But I like seeing things get blown up too. Does that mean I'm actually talking about a first person shooter?

quote: U guys are not talking about rts games anymore, it looks more like an rpg now, only with larger armies. So let's call our ideas rts games and ur games rpg games and let's stop comparing apples and oranges, because thats what we are doing.

No, we are looking at something in between. You know, crosspollination to create interesting ideas.

quote: p.s. Any rts game without rps will result in pumping only the most cost effective unit, regardless of morale, area bonuses/penalties etc.

*Bangs head repeatedly against table in frustration*
No it won't. Given several environmental and tactical factors, there isn't necessarily a 'most cost effective unit'. This comes partly down to the role-driven unit concept discussed elsewhere by others, and partly down to the tactical considerations I like to talk about, such as terrain, orientation, formation, and so on.

quote: Pls tell me how u are going to make sure these kind of things wont happen.

There is nothing wrong with those scenarios you mentioned.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]

Edited by - Kylotan on February 18, 2002 12:16:31 PM

DAJOOSTMAN wrote

quote: As in most multiplayer games ur opponent will be someone around ur level of gameplay. Anything else is not fun for either player.

Not necessarily. I think part of the thrill is not knowing if the player that is controlling the other army is weaker, stronger or equal to you. But yes, the game design should be such that on average both sides should be somewhat equal.

quote: During the battle 1 player will see himself losing so he will retreat. Believing his now much smaller army can still win he''ll run away/hide untill he finds an opportunity in which he thinks he has enough of an advantage to attack and defeat the other players larger army.

I''m actually creating my game design so that a retreating army will most likely do a full retreat. Whatever it was that the player tried to achieve by doing battle will be lost.

quote: 1 player finds this huge hill which is open on all sides so he thinks ''Lets stand up there, i can see him coming and i''ll have a huge advantage fighting him downhill'' The other player however scouted him and saw him standing on his nice hill. He''ll be a damn fool if he attacks him so he''ll just hide in the forests ready to ambush him if he comes nearby.

Very good point. There has to be something to gain from the battle in order to get two sides to fight. One side has to defend something that the other player wants. Otherwise, nobody is going to take the initiative (since a defensive position usually gives an advantage)

quote: Pls tell me how u are going to make sure these kind of things wont happen.

Even though I have slimmer than slim hopes of ever being able to create the game that''s stuck in my head, I want to keep even that sliver of hope alive by not revealing my design too much. Let me just say that I have found an adequate solution to the stalemate situation you described in the second scenario (both sides waiting for the other player to make the first move)

quote: Original post by DaJoostMan
Both players get/choose an army and prepare for battle. During the battle 1 player will see himself losing so he will retreat. Believing his now much smaller army can still win he''ll run away/hide untill he finds an opportunity in which he thinks he has enough of an advantage to attack and defeat the other players larger army. The other player however who is just as good as the other player is smart enough not to let his army get caught in such a bad position and if he does get caught he will in turn retreat and do the same.

This isn''t necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps the winning player should press his attack, perhaps he shouldn''t. It depends a lot on the terrain, the units involved etc.

quote:
Another scenario. 1 player finds this huge hill which is open on all sides so he thinks ''Lets stand up there, i can see him coming and i''ll have a huge advantage fighting him downhill'' The other player however scouted him and saw him standing on his nice hill. He''ll be a damn fool if he attacks him so he''ll just hide in the forests ready to ambush him if he comes nearby.

Player 1 will obviously have to do something about player 2''s artillery, which would otherwise smash his forces into little pieces. His own artillery would be less efficient, since Player 2''s forces are more evenly and widely distributed. Just sticking everything on a hill is not a good tactic - high ground is only really desirable for units that benefit from the extended view distance. Short ranged troops positioned on his hill are needlessly exposed.

quote: Original post by Kylotan
There is nothing wrong with those scenarios you mentioned.

I was with you until this. IMO, there''s DEFINITELY something wrong with the hill scenario, IF the normal objective (complete obliteration of opponent) is maintained - the game suddenly becomes a stalemate. Strategically interesting, yes, but in terms of a game, it really sucks the fun out of playing; in addition, the factors which would historically force this scenario to come to a peak aren''t going to come into play without extensive reworking of the global campaign system. That in itself is something worth talking about, but in the context of this thread, I''ll try to deal with it another way.

I realize that perhaps GW''s Epic isn''t the gold standard of tabletop, but it''s what I have to work with so bear with me momentarily:

If the hill scenario came to pass in a game of Epic, the quandary would be solved just about instantaneously via objectives. Once the hilltop force started turtling, the other force would simply send detachments out to grab board objectives, thus winning the scenario with no blood drawn. Since I play with a couple of fairly hardcore RTS players using modified NetEpic rules, we''ve changed the rules so that objectives only affect unit morale - but this still has a major effect on the game. In this scenario, some of the hilltop guys will break and run, and either the hilltop force will go with them to try and keep force concentrated OR the broken detachments will die and/or run clear off the board.
----
As to why Starcraft, well, there are a couple of RPS offenders in there, Firebats (zealot-stoppers) and Scourges (Carrier-killers) being by far the worst. Moreover, there really isn''t any consideration beyond unit combos driving gameplay - even if the balance is exquisite, the units still get stacked up against one another unit-to-unit, and carriers/battlecruisers almost always win.

Even C&C''s dogs "evolved", and in RA2 they are THE BOMB versus a concentrated force of infantry, for example. It''s just that in C&C games, the unit balance is much less exquisite. Funny. I just realized that the use of buildings in combat in RA2 is exactly the kind of strategic nuance that has been called for in a number of posts on this thread.

ld

time to dip my hand in here once more.

Is RPS wrong? No. Is RPS not fun? Not neccesarily. But I find it very limited. It''s kind of like having the option of driving a moped or driving a car. they both get you from point A to B, but which would you rather have?

Someone brought up Chess. Look at chess, no unit is designed to beat anyone other unit. The lowly pawn can kill a queen if played right. And that''s my whole point. why do people feel the need to create a unit which is designed to defeat another unit? In some ways, I have no qualms against this IF this is all they do. Look at this loop as an example:

UnitA beats UnitB
UnitB beats UnitC
UnitC beats UnitD
UnitD beats UnitB

See where the loop breaks? UnitA is specialized to defeat B, but it can beat nothing else. Many examples of this exist in the real world, though even here, such a simplistic determination has problems.

Now, as for those that think that this is "too realistic", okay, why don''t you guys go back and play 2d games in 8bit color? Realism and playability are not mutually exclusive, and to think otherwise is to neglect how certain design considerations can factor these complexities in transparently to the player (though the player should still be conscious of them). Yes, I''m a huge proponent of realism, because I think it can improve the quality of games rather than keep with same-o same-o design paradigms. To all the naysayers, how would you like it if we had never evolved, never made things more realistic and immersive? Are RPS systems good enough? Sure, just like 2d games were good enough and enjoyable, but it''s time to use a different methodolgy (some already have thankfully).


So, let''s get to balancing, since people seem to have diffuculty understanding how it''s possible to balance without RPS. Balancing is judged in no way shape or form on the "effectiveness" of a unit. "effectiveness" is an incredibly volatile, dynamic, and contextually bound trait. A better system of balance is engineering, resource, and training factors. These are relatively fixed, though there is the possibility of some modification, notably through technological advancement.

To have a system like this though, you have to have some kind of, "engineering design book". For example, given the technology, it would be impossible to make a destroyer that can move as fast as a fast frigate but with the firepower of a battleship. It is not a "game balance" issue that prevents, it''s plain and simple technology. Take a look at games like battleTech, Heavy Gear, DirtsideII, or even Car Wars for examples of board games that have such design rules for creating new units. The balancing has already been factored into the unit creation. The danger here is finding "loopholes" that players can use to exploit unit design rules, but I find this danger better than arbitray, and therefore inconsistent RPS systems.

quote: Original post by liquiddark
IMO, there''s DEFINITELY something wrong with the hill scenario, IF the normal objective (complete obliteration of opponent) is maintained - the game suddenly becomes a stalemate. Strategically interesting, yes, but in terms of a game, it really sucks the fun out of playing; in addition, the factors which would historically force this scenario to come to a peak aren''t going to come into play without extensive reworking of the global campaign system. That in itself is something worth talking about, but in the context of this thread, I''ll try to deal with it another way.

Let me address this from another point of view: how is this scenario at all different when played with units boasting RPS balancing as opposed to role-based or use-based balancing?

If the scenario is bad, it''s because the scenario is bad for the game, not because the way we do the units is bad when used with the scenario. The degree of boredom afforded by giving someone the potential to hole up forever is there in pretty much all games already.

You can''t defend your base if it''s not on that hill. You can''t mine resources if they''re not on the hill. You can''t capture artifacts if they''re not on the hill. And so on. This is an issue with your victory conditions and your map, not the units. Hence me saying that I don''t see what the problem is, with regards to unit balancing.

Command and Conquer usually started you off with nothing, versus an enemy with a fully defended base. (See the parallel?) By cutting off their supply lines, gathering your own resources, and a process of attrition, you can get into their base. The same goes for a hill.

If, of course, this was a strictly military game, with no resource gathering or tech advances, you need to have more interesting factors than a single terrain feature, so the problem here is with the map, not the units.

quote: I realize that perhaps GW''s Epic isn''t the gold standard of tabletop, but it''s what I have to work with so bear with me momentarily:

I have an army of Tzeench and Slaanesh units gathering dust in a box around here somewhere...

quote: Once the hilltop force started turtling, the other force would simply send detachments out to grab board objectives, thus winning the scenario with no blood drawn.

Yep. A single objective can result in deadlock, so they provide multiple objectives. Nice system, but barely relevant to how your combat system or unit balancing works.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]

quote: Original post by Kylotan
Let me address this from another point of view: how is this scenario at all different when played with units boasting RPS balancing as opposed to role-based or use-based balancing?

I think you can answer this yourself: The player on the hill isn''t going to be able to conceal his force, hence in an RPS system, the attacking player can build a neutralizer force specifically tailored to the problem, so the hilltop player isn''t in a good spot to begin with. Artillery, as has been pointed out, can have much the same effect in role-driven design. Artillery, however, comes with its own problems.

quote: Yep. A single objective can result in deadlock, so they provide multiple objectives. Nice system, but barely relevant to how your combat system or unit balancing works.

I''d sort of gotten the impression the thread''s context had been expanded to include "interesting factors discouraged in RPS games" - objectives are very much a part of this set. I try not to be irrelevant :p

ld