the RTS idea with massive replayability
by Daniel Nalbach · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 10/10/2001 (4:17 pm) · 9 replies
Here it is, a simple idea that's almost original, and has the proven elements of replayability in other genres.
Idea
--------
An RTS game of any kind that has randomly generated units/creatures/buildings of varying rarity. The content of the game would have randomly generated combinations of statistics and capabilities with more rare content having more powerful statistics and capabilities, but produced less often.
--------
The element that made the original Diablo so extremely replayable according to all the people I ever talked to about it was the random content generation. The weapons and armor were randomly generated from a library of combination elements. During every game new combinations were generated. A lot of people I knew played the game for a long time to get better and better stuff generated during different games.
By doing random content generation you remove the boring usual routine of RTS games where you have predefined ABC content that you get by doing XYZ. The game is more exciting because you never know what you'll get next, and requires much more strategy because you'll have to play every game with new and different content.
Depending on how saving is handled you could even have a nice collectability angle to the game. Allowing people to save content generated from one game for use in another game would make players prize the better content they recieve, and the developer could even provide an online trading facility for players if desired.
Opinions? This idea or any variation of it is free without credit to anyone that wants it. I just thought I'd write it out before it became another lost thought in my head.
Idea
--------
An RTS game of any kind that has randomly generated units/creatures/buildings of varying rarity. The content of the game would have randomly generated combinations of statistics and capabilities with more rare content having more powerful statistics and capabilities, but produced less often.
--------
The element that made the original Diablo so extremely replayable according to all the people I ever talked to about it was the random content generation. The weapons and armor were randomly generated from a library of combination elements. During every game new combinations were generated. A lot of people I knew played the game for a long time to get better and better stuff generated during different games.
By doing random content generation you remove the boring usual routine of RTS games where you have predefined ABC content that you get by doing XYZ. The game is more exciting because you never know what you'll get next, and requires much more strategy because you'll have to play every game with new and different content.
Depending on how saving is handled you could even have a nice collectability angle to the game. Allowing people to save content generated from one game for use in another game would make players prize the better content they recieve, and the developer could even provide an online trading facility for players if desired.
Opinions? This idea or any variation of it is free without credit to anyone that wants it. I just thought I'd write it out before it became another lost thought in my head.
About the author
#2
I was a card games (many types) player for years, and the most important aspect of the game is that you never know what you're going to draw. You just have to do the best you can with what you have. Think about it. Card games have been popular for centuries, and are more popular today than ever. And all card games that I know of have unlimited replayability because the draw is random.
So forget balance. If someone wants balanced games there are hundreds out there to choose from already. How about one that really is random, and forces you to think about how to maximize whatever you end up with. No picking the best units, no upgrading to the best upgrades, and no memorizing preset tactics. Just a new concept where you never know what you're getting next.
10/10/2001 (9:46 pm)
Actually, the idea totally trashes the normal concept of "balance" that dominates everything. The exact focus of the idea is to make it totally random, with no preset anything for either side.I was a card games (many types) player for years, and the most important aspect of the game is that you never know what you're going to draw. You just have to do the best you can with what you have. Think about it. Card games have been popular for centuries, and are more popular today than ever. And all card games that I know of have unlimited replayability because the draw is random.
So forget balance. If someone wants balanced games there are hundreds out there to choose from already. How about one that really is random, and forces you to think about how to maximize whatever you end up with. No picking the best units, no upgrading to the best upgrades, and no memorizing preset tactics. Just a new concept where you never know what you're getting next.
#3
10/10/2001 (10:00 pm)
A space RPG like this would be very cool. Random life forms with random planets and cities. You would have a virtually endless universe to explore (dependant on HD space i guess) :)
#4
Card games can have the same problems. A group of friends of mine analysed a card game to the point that they would know the end score (with a 5% margin of error) halfway through the game. It was only fluke or incredible tactics that changed this. Another friend and I became so skilled at duelling in another game that we knew who would win about a third of the way through the game, random draws or not. Sure, one of us could get incredibly lucky, but that's not what made the game fun.
I rolled some dice, and you ended up with five rifle infantry vs my machine gun platoon. Will this be a fun engagement?
Randomness screws up balance, which screws up competition.
But maybe you have some thoughts about how unbalanced forces can still produce a fair fight? I'd love to hear them :)
Entr0py: Agreed - if done very carefully. Daggerfall was a fantasy-RPG with random dungeons, quests, etc, and generally worked ok, except for the times when dungeons would be populated with monsters that you just could not kill with your current weapons and skills. And quests had time limits, so you didn't have time to amass the money/skill points to defeat those monsters. And failed quests could ruin your reputation. It became a neccessity to save before accepting a quest.
Randomness can be a lot of fun, but it has to be done with great care or it will be the scourge of the player.
10/10/2001 (10:55 pm)
Daniel: Without balance, there is no multiplay. Multiplayer relies on sides having no advantage. The more popular multiplayer maps are often symmetrical for this reason. The balance concept doesn't only apply to RTS either - imagine Doom with randomly placed health packs - what if they were all dumped at the end of a level? (Assuming you're not one of those Doom players who can play blindfolded or quicksaves every five seconds.) (Yeah I know Doom's an old game, but it jumped to mind :)Card games can have the same problems. A group of friends of mine analysed a card game to the point that they would know the end score (with a 5% margin of error) halfway through the game. It was only fluke or incredible tactics that changed this. Another friend and I became so skilled at duelling in another game that we knew who would win about a third of the way through the game, random draws or not. Sure, one of us could get incredibly lucky, but that's not what made the game fun.
I rolled some dice, and you ended up with five rifle infantry vs my machine gun platoon. Will this be a fun engagement?
Randomness screws up balance, which screws up competition.
But maybe you have some thoughts about how unbalanced forces can still produce a fair fight? I'd love to hear them :)
Entr0py: Agreed - if done very carefully. Daggerfall was a fantasy-RPG with random dungeons, quests, etc, and generally worked ok, except for the times when dungeons would be populated with monsters that you just could not kill with your current weapons and skills. And quests had time limits, so you didn't have time to amass the money/skill points to defeat those monsters. And failed quests could ruin your reputation. It became a neccessity to save before accepting a quest.
Randomness can be a lot of fun, but it has to be done with great care or it will be the scourge of the player.
#5
Anyway, I can see you're a numbers guy. To analyze things to the degree you and your friends have seems extreme to me, and I can't imagine how you find anything entertaining if it's going to be picked apart to that degree. If you're going to revert to chaos theory or something in relation to random card draws or dice rolls, then that's really something outside the scope of gaming in general. The average gamer just isn't a statistical mathematician, nor do they want to be.
Like I said before, there are tons of games with carefully balanced systems. I liked the random nature of Diablo, Magic: The Gathering, 10six, and other games of varying types that I've played over the years. I'm the exact opposite of you Grant. I think it would be cool if someone made a game without balance, that was totally random. Why not do something different for a change instead of following a formula?
Now just for fun I'd like to use your example. Say Player1 is given a 5 man infantry squad and Player 2 is given an MG bunker. That doesn't mean Player1 has to charge the bunker with his units. He can use strategy to utilitize their capabilities. Maybe he decides to explore instead. Maybe he goes around behind the MG bunker out of it's range and attacks something else instead.
The point is to be creative, not mathematical. ;)
10/11/2001 (12:27 am)
There is plenty of multiplay without balance. Actually, if you have no balance at all then you have a different form of fairness. Everyone is equal, because anyone could get anything. I played Magic: The Gathering for the first couple years after it released. People's decks were never perfectly balanced against each other. They were often quite unbalanced, and the unpredictability of the draw made every game different. So every game isn't fair. So what, at least they're all interesting. I've played pen and paper RPGs for over a decade and every encounter isn't always balanced or fair. Sometimes they start out balanced and a dice roll changes everything. That's what keeps it interesting. Not knowing what's going to happen next is what keeps the average person's attention span.Anyway, I can see you're a numbers guy. To analyze things to the degree you and your friends have seems extreme to me, and I can't imagine how you find anything entertaining if it's going to be picked apart to that degree. If you're going to revert to chaos theory or something in relation to random card draws or dice rolls, then that's really something outside the scope of gaming in general. The average gamer just isn't a statistical mathematician, nor do they want to be.
Like I said before, there are tons of games with carefully balanced systems. I liked the random nature of Diablo, Magic: The Gathering, 10six, and other games of varying types that I've played over the years. I'm the exact opposite of you Grant. I think it would be cool if someone made a game without balance, that was totally random. Why not do something different for a change instead of following a formula?
Now just for fun I'd like to use your example. Say Player1 is given a 5 man infantry squad and Player 2 is given an MG bunker. That doesn't mean Player1 has to charge the bunker with his units. He can use strategy to utilitize their capabilities. Maybe he decides to explore instead. Maybe he goes around behind the MG bunker out of it's range and attacks something else instead.
The point is to be creative, not mathematical. ;)
#6
An Sci-Fi RPG which I used to play called Traveller (or some such) had the ability to randomly generate planets and systems. A strategy module called Striker allowed players to construct units from a complex engineering like system using money as a resource - and had a great command structured way of playing (units could loose commanders or radio contact, as well as moral).
Such systems have not been sufficiently explored by computer games, although MechCommander allows some freedom to create units.
By putting together such a system, you could choose to make your own units or have the computer generate them as you describe.
Have fun!!!
Doug. EnkiSoftware Limited
10/11/2001 (2:56 am)
'Random' does not require homogeneity, the lack of, or anisotropy. Thus a game could be both balanced and clustered in an orderly way (ie multiplaye could be fair and health packs distributed sensibly).An Sci-Fi RPG which I used to play called Traveller (or some such) had the ability to randomly generate planets and systems. A strategy module called Striker allowed players to construct units from a complex engineering like system using money as a resource - and had a great command structured way of playing (units could loose commanders or radio contact, as well as moral).
Such systems have not been sufficiently explored by computer games, although MechCommander allows some freedom to create units.
By putting together such a system, you could choose to make your own units or have the computer generate them as you describe.
Have fun!!!
Doug. EnkiSoftware Limited
#7
10/22/2001 (11:39 am)
I like the idea of laying out the interior of your ship to affect its statistics, and actually having to go out and hire crewmembers in cities. Maybe even being able to "create" technology and mix and match different object modules to get a better affect would be interesting too. "The Sims" in space.
#8
I find one of the interesting parts of collectable card games is the preplanning (deck construction) combined with never knowing exactly what path your deck will take once the game starts. It might be interesting to combine some of those elements into an RTS style game.
I've seen a couple of games that sort of tried to incorporate the preplanning (force construction) parts of Collectable card games. Ground control and Cyberstorm both allowed you to set up your units. However, you always deployed your whole force and there was never any variance between your planned force and your deployed force. The newest Civilization (CIV III) makes you control specialized resources before you can construct some units.
My idea is to combine the force preconstruction and resource deployement ideas from collectable card games with an RTS style game. Imagine a game where you set up a force of mixed units and the resources needed to make those units effective (fuel, ammo, personel, etc). As the game starts you have deployment access to 15% of your total forces and resources. Every so often you gain access to more of your potential force. (randomly determined)
You now have a game with both tactics and strategy. You need to deploy an ammo dump or you can't fight, but if you put it to close to the front, it can get taken and you double screwwed. Tanks are great, but they require fuel and ammo. Planes are another step up, but require ammo, fuel, and operational support resoures (IE airports).
In the end you would try to balance it so that you could use all sorts of tactics, from rush attacks with light troops, to all out bombardments with long range artillery and missiles. Commanders would need to adjust their troop deployment based on their overall strategy, what resources they received in the first draw, and the tactics of their opponent. (How dare you rush me, I'm trying to set up an airforce! I guess I'll have to deploy some ground troops to slow you down until I get my landing strips built.)
Anyway, just my two cents.
10/23/2001 (10:43 am)
Just thought I would throw in my two cents.I find one of the interesting parts of collectable card games is the preplanning (deck construction) combined with never knowing exactly what path your deck will take once the game starts. It might be interesting to combine some of those elements into an RTS style game.
I've seen a couple of games that sort of tried to incorporate the preplanning (force construction) parts of Collectable card games. Ground control and Cyberstorm both allowed you to set up your units. However, you always deployed your whole force and there was never any variance between your planned force and your deployed force. The newest Civilization (CIV III) makes you control specialized resources before you can construct some units.
My idea is to combine the force preconstruction and resource deployement ideas from collectable card games with an RTS style game. Imagine a game where you set up a force of mixed units and the resources needed to make those units effective (fuel, ammo, personel, etc). As the game starts you have deployment access to 15% of your total forces and resources. Every so often you gain access to more of your potential force. (randomly determined)
You now have a game with both tactics and strategy. You need to deploy an ammo dump or you can't fight, but if you put it to close to the front, it can get taken and you double screwwed. Tanks are great, but they require fuel and ammo. Planes are another step up, but require ammo, fuel, and operational support resoures (IE airports).
In the end you would try to balance it so that you could use all sorts of tactics, from rush attacks with light troops, to all out bombardments with long range artillery and missiles. Commanders would need to adjust their troop deployment based on their overall strategy, what resources they received in the first draw, and the tactics of their opponent. (How dare you rush me, I'm trying to set up an airforce! I guess I'll have to deploy some ground troops to slow you down until I get my landing strips built.)
Anyway, just my two cents.
#9
1. Remember after about six months of playing Starcraft everyone used the same damn tactics? The goal of every Protoss player was to get arbiters, hide 11 carriers, 12 dragoons, and as many zealots as possible underneath it and swarm the enemy base. Every Zerg player would rush 12 zerglings into the enemy base as fast as possibe. Every terran player did his best to get siege tanks. It was all the same after a while. (I know you could debate what I just said for a very long time, but I am only making a generalization)
With random units, strange strategies arise.
2. Unreal Tournament. Okay, it isn't a strategy game, but whatever. Every game I have played has mass numbers of people with sniper rifles. I know what they are doing too, they have the zoom at 1.1x to get the really good crosshair.
With random weapons, a player has to make due with what (s)he has.
What if the units were random but balanced? Let's say that you have a maximum Threat Value per size (sizes would be something like Infantry (grunts), Heavy Infantry (powersuits or commando), Light Armor (jeeps, APC's), Heavy Armor (big tanks, warwalkers, etc).) and the randomness would come from the "features" installed on those units. A given light tank could carry a light cannon, and have a decent amount of armor, or another light tank could be carrying a rail driver and have less armor. The units have the same threat value, but different abilities. In another example, one warwalker could have mounted jump-jets while another has an advanced radar system for increased view distance or line of sight.
All the units are balanced, but not equal.
10/25/2001 (2:18 pm)
I really like the idea of random units, heres why:1. Remember after about six months of playing Starcraft everyone used the same damn tactics? The goal of every Protoss player was to get arbiters, hide 11 carriers, 12 dragoons, and as many zealots as possible underneath it and swarm the enemy base. Every Zerg player would rush 12 zerglings into the enemy base as fast as possibe. Every terran player did his best to get siege tanks. It was all the same after a while. (I know you could debate what I just said for a very long time, but I am only making a generalization)
With random units, strange strategies arise.
2. Unreal Tournament. Okay, it isn't a strategy game, but whatever. Every game I have played has mass numbers of people with sniper rifles. I know what they are doing too, they have the zoom at 1.1x to get the really good crosshair.
With random weapons, a player has to make due with what (s)he has.
What if the units were random but balanced? Let's say that you have a maximum Threat Value per size (sizes would be something like Infantry (grunts), Heavy Infantry (powersuits or commando), Light Armor (jeeps, APC's), Heavy Armor (big tanks, warwalkers, etc).) and the randomness would come from the "features" installed on those units. A given light tank could carry a light cannon, and have a decent amount of armor, or another light tank could be carrying a rail driver and have less armor. The units have the same threat value, but different abilities. In another example, one warwalker could have mounted jump-jets while another has an advanced radar system for increased view distance or line of sight.
All the units are balanced, but not equal.
Grant
RTS makers traditionally have to spend AGES tweaking the units for balance. Red Alert and StarCraft both made adjustments in a series of patches. A randomly created bunch has little chance of being nicely balanced.
Edit: Added this paragraph:
The randomness factor in Diablo actually annoyed me more than anything. I played once and couldn't pass the first major badguy (the butcher? cleaver? ahh sommat like that) due to unlucky randomness, started over, and smashed that badguy without a blink. It felt unprofessional. I (generally!) prefer well-placed and designed static options rather than scattered random ones.
But I agree, the random generator idea is a good one, if it can be made to work :) My game will (eventually) have random characters and scenarios... with a parser to make sure everything will work together and present enough options. It'll be a challenge.
The collectability idea is awesome :D