🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
IDEAS??
Author
hey i am almost done with the design for my RTS game. I still need some cool elements to add. Just a couple of questions i would like some feedback on.
1> What are your favorite features in your favorite RTS
2> What are the most annoying features of your favorite RTS
3> What are some things you would love to see in your favorite RTS.
This question is irrelivant to those who hate RTS games.
Thanxs
This is a very hard question.. but if a rts should be involving then it would be great if it had a good story.
1. My favorite feature of all time is the massive armies that you can build with the zergling in Starcraft. I just love to them crawl all over the screen when launching an attack. (Of course they usually die pretty fast, but that''s another story 
)
2. What I find most annoying with multiplayer RTS is that usually everyone just sits around building on their bases. Only when the resources run out will they crawl out of their holes and attack each other. (I''m not saying that I don''t do the same, but if it were prevented somehow there would be more fun playing the game.)
3. Heroes are always good, especially if you get to know them and their personality, during several missions while the story goes on. (I''m thinking Starcraft or Tiberian Sun here)
)2. What I find most annoying with multiplayer RTS is that usually everyone just sits around building on their bases. Only when the resources run out will they crawl out of their holes and attack each other. (I''m not saying that I don''t do the same, but if it were prevented somehow there would be more fun playing the game.)
3. Heroes are always good, especially if you get to know them and their personality, during several missions while the story goes on. (I''m thinking Starcraft or Tiberian Sun here)
I''m always really torn on RTSs. The genre itself is, if you ask me, a little overcrowded and a number of issues are coming to light.
In general I couldn''t care less about the game''s appearance if its fun - although a nice look certainly helps with the instant appeal of a game. Dominion looked great, though - and sucked whole grapefruit!
The interface of an RTS is a tricky one, too. Starcraft et al. really don''t have the easiest interface in the world, but once you''ve learned it its pretty much the same throughout that genre - so programmers are left with following what is becoming a de facto standard (eg. ctrl+function key for grouping, etc.) or coming up with something better that won''t instantly appeal to the entrenched RTS crowd. I think popup menus would be a nice addition. I''d also like to be able to select an entire group of units at the same time with just one click - maybe with button 2 or 3 (so as to still be able to micromanage).
AI is also a double edged sword. I would love to see games with better and better AI coming out. TA did a lot in this respect but also exposed the problem with improving it - as the AI gets better, it leaves me hungry for more (and more angry at the times it acts stupid) than if the computer is just obviously moronic. Its also harder to make the game balanced, accessible to all skill levels and FUN as AI improves - if your armies can actually win battles on their own, the user is irrelevent. If the other side is so good (without cheating) that it trounces the human newbie every time, there is a problem there, too. Something that sorely needs to happen, though, is that computer AI in RTSs needs to be less predictable. Its better than it was, but most games can be won convincingly against AI opponents if you fortify some obvious approaches - the silly computer then wastes unit after unit in trickle attacks.
It occurred to me a while ago that RTS AI doesn''t really need to be as real time as you might think, so there is less excuse for this. A layered approach seems like a good idea - much like modern militaries employ. Inidividuals would have a "doctrine" layer, telling them when to attack what and with which weapon. It should also include a note that they have teammates (whom they wish to protect) and a leader (whom they obey). When to retreat would be a good doctrinal aspect to include, too. A higher level is the tactical level - tactics are the theoretical aspect of doctrine and deal with squad/company level engagements. This doesn''t mean the computer is thinking about the whole battlefield - rather, its looking at some sort of cohesion amongst each group of troops. This could be abstracted down to unit and company leaders making choices based on certain recogniseable patterns - and doesn''t need to be calculated anywhere near as frequently as doctrinal stuff. The upper level would be the operational level - covering the entire engagement. This just entails the computer keeping an eye on the big picture and ordering its smaller blocks into appropriate positions. This is really quite low granularity stuff. I actually got so interested in this idea a while ago that I sketched out a message passing system for this, but I never got around to actually writing it - other projects, etc. Strategic, grand strategic and political levels are probably not that relevant to an RTS, although they make great background material.
My biggest dislike in many RTSs is that units are utterly expendable. You lose a tank - who cares, build another one. Or two. Or five, etc. There is no reward for clever tactical play that involves winning with a small force - its much easier to fill the entire screen with hydralisks and blast the stupid humans off the map!
I do really like RTSs with good stories that engage me and keep me hooked throughout the whole campaign. Even if the game is mediocre, an engaging storyline will keep me wondering "what happens after this?" - so I keep playing.
Just my $0.02, albeit quite a long post!
In general I couldn''t care less about the game''s appearance if its fun - although a nice look certainly helps with the instant appeal of a game. Dominion looked great, though - and sucked whole grapefruit!
The interface of an RTS is a tricky one, too. Starcraft et al. really don''t have the easiest interface in the world, but once you''ve learned it its pretty much the same throughout that genre - so programmers are left with following what is becoming a de facto standard (eg. ctrl+function key for grouping, etc.) or coming up with something better that won''t instantly appeal to the entrenched RTS crowd. I think popup menus would be a nice addition. I''d also like to be able to select an entire group of units at the same time with just one click - maybe with button 2 or 3 (so as to still be able to micromanage).
AI is also a double edged sword. I would love to see games with better and better AI coming out. TA did a lot in this respect but also exposed the problem with improving it - as the AI gets better, it leaves me hungry for more (and more angry at the times it acts stupid) than if the computer is just obviously moronic. Its also harder to make the game balanced, accessible to all skill levels and FUN as AI improves - if your armies can actually win battles on their own, the user is irrelevent. If the other side is so good (without cheating) that it trounces the human newbie every time, there is a problem there, too. Something that sorely needs to happen, though, is that computer AI in RTSs needs to be less predictable. Its better than it was, but most games can be won convincingly against AI opponents if you fortify some obvious approaches - the silly computer then wastes unit after unit in trickle attacks.
It occurred to me a while ago that RTS AI doesn''t really need to be as real time as you might think, so there is less excuse for this. A layered approach seems like a good idea - much like modern militaries employ. Inidividuals would have a "doctrine" layer, telling them when to attack what and with which weapon. It should also include a note that they have teammates (whom they wish to protect) and a leader (whom they obey). When to retreat would be a good doctrinal aspect to include, too. A higher level is the tactical level - tactics are the theoretical aspect of doctrine and deal with squad/company level engagements. This doesn''t mean the computer is thinking about the whole battlefield - rather, its looking at some sort of cohesion amongst each group of troops. This could be abstracted down to unit and company leaders making choices based on certain recogniseable patterns - and doesn''t need to be calculated anywhere near as frequently as doctrinal stuff. The upper level would be the operational level - covering the entire engagement. This just entails the computer keeping an eye on the big picture and ordering its smaller blocks into appropriate positions. This is really quite low granularity stuff. I actually got so interested in this idea a while ago that I sketched out a message passing system for this, but I never got around to actually writing it - other projects, etc. Strategic, grand strategic and political levels are probably not that relevant to an RTS, although they make great background material.
My biggest dislike in many RTSs is that units are utterly expendable. You lose a tank - who cares, build another one. Or two. Or five, etc. There is no reward for clever tactical play that involves winning with a small force - its much easier to fill the entire screen with hydralisks and blast the stupid humans off the map!
I do really like RTSs with good stories that engage me and keep me hooked throughout the whole campaign. Even if the game is mediocre, an engaging storyline will keep me wondering "what happens after this?" - so I keep playing.
Just my $0.02, albeit quite a long post!
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
