RTS/FPS blending
by Matt Fairfax · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 04/04/2001 (8:42 am) · 18 replies
Many a rts fan has wished that someone would blend their favorite rts and fps games so that they could go down and control individual units in battle. But, for some reason the few games that have done this have never been terribly successful. What usually seems to happen is that the player has fun with the fps view for a while but once the novelty has worn off they rarely use the fps mode anymore and stick with the rts view. There is usually a few reasons for this. First, while they are in fps mode their bases and troops are being neglected and very often in rts games, the side that builds the fastest is the side that wins. Also, most rts troops are idiots and without you controlling them they will often lose battles unless they are much stronger than their opponents. You could switch between the rts and fps view to direct the battle but constantly being yanked out of the fps view repeatedly isn't fun. The second reason that people usually abandon the fps view is b/c in most rts games a single unit, no matter how masterfully piloted, rarely makes a difference. When you are playing in fps you want to be important. You want to play a key role in your fight against the enemy (just look at Tribes2 =). The third reason is that a rts player is more concerned about the overall strategy of the war rather than individual fights. Switching to fps becomes inconvenient b/c it pulls them away from the war.
So how would one go about creating a successful rts/fps blend? Here are a few ideas I have had and others have made to me about this topic:
-While you are in fps mode, the player must still have access to the overall picture and must still be able to direct troops. This can be accomplished a number of ways (Sacrifice started down the right path). Including a very verstaile minimap in the HUD would go a long way. It needs to have very good zooming and scrolling abilities so that you can effectively control your troops and bases. Another thing that would help is a good command menu similar to that seen in UT where you could issue orders to your units quickly and easily. The player needs to be able to quickly tell its aircraft plant to switch from one type of plane to another w/o ever leaving the fps mode.
-In fps mode keep to conventional fps controls. Don't put a mouse cursor on the screen. This turns the fps view into a limited rts view and the player might as well exit out to the full rts view. Do things like having the minimap being controlled by the numpad so that you never interrupt the fps mouselook.
-Have smaller troops. The player needs to feel that he is making a difference in the battle. If he is controlling a mech in an army of hundreds then realistically anything he does won't make a difference.
-When in rts view then traditional rts ai will suffice to control the units but when in fps view the units need to have more advanced ai like what is seen in conventional fps games (Q3 and UT). When you are playing a rts game you tend to not mind having idiots for units as much as you would playing a very dumb bot who keeps getting stuck in the corners.
-Have the player develop a couple of units that he favors going into fps mode in. Make these units tougher so they won't be killed as often. This will cause the player to care more about these units and wnat to play as them. This is kinda an extension of the Hero concept that will be in Warcraft III except the Hero can be controlled by the player. This can also add an rpg element to your game.
These are just some general ideas for blending rts/fps. If nothing else maybe they will help to make you think more as you design your rts/fps. Most people just build a rts where the player can jump in and control any unit and this type of gameplay hasn't done well. Maybe some of these ideas could help to enhance your game.
Another interesting line of thought is to think about a massive multiplayer rts/fps game. Verant's Planetside is somewhat doing this in that you are fighting for a faction and capturing stategic points all in a fps view. There is an overall picture/stategy that will appeal to the rts fan while having the fps gameplay us deathmatchers like so much =) I think there are a couple fo ways that a game like this could be extended to make it appeal even more to the rts fan. Obviously you can't have a rts controller completely directing the troops since the soldiers will all be controlled by human players and would quickly resent the orders and may choose to not carry them out. However you could pull back further and allow the rts player to control the overall stategy of the war by letting them dictacte where troops for their side will be deployed next. As far as the fps players are concerned they will be dropped onto a battlefield and given a general directive and it is completely up to them how they carry out the mission. They can receive info from the rts player like where the enemy troops are at and other overview info that the fps player might not have access to but once the battle starts the rts player will be in a passive information supplying mode and not be able to issue orders. If the fps players decide the rts player is an idiot or whatever they can go off on their own or request to be pulled out (teleporters?) or generally do whatever. How does one control who is the rts players and the fps players? Anyone can be a fps player. You could include the whole rank and prestige system that Planetside will have so that other players will know who to trust. When someone wishes to be a rts player though they will have a separate experience rating that will determine how many fps players they can direct. As they gain experience they get more slots of people they can direct. How would it be determined what rts player controls what fps players? Simple- have it be a volunteer system. The rts player sets up a mission (allow joint missions between multiple rts players for bigger campaigns) and then the fps players will review the missions and choose the ones they want to participate in. If the rts player sets up a mission and doesn't get any volunteers then of course the mission wouldn't be done. And if you allow the players to switch between rts and fps at will then they could volunteer for their own missions. This would allow some players to become awesome leaders who design brilliant missions and then leads them from the front. As the rts player gains experience and reputation, people will be more eager to volunteer for their missions. And the rts players could also bid for the more impressive fps players with whatever currency is in the game. That way if you are a really skilled fps player you could make a lot of good money.
Whew! What a long post! Well, these are some thoughts and ideas I have had on blending rts and fps games. I hope that someone finds them useful.
So how would one go about creating a successful rts/fps blend? Here are a few ideas I have had and others have made to me about this topic:
-While you are in fps mode, the player must still have access to the overall picture and must still be able to direct troops. This can be accomplished a number of ways (Sacrifice started down the right path). Including a very verstaile minimap in the HUD would go a long way. It needs to have very good zooming and scrolling abilities so that you can effectively control your troops and bases. Another thing that would help is a good command menu similar to that seen in UT where you could issue orders to your units quickly and easily. The player needs to be able to quickly tell its aircraft plant to switch from one type of plane to another w/o ever leaving the fps mode.
-In fps mode keep to conventional fps controls. Don't put a mouse cursor on the screen. This turns the fps view into a limited rts view and the player might as well exit out to the full rts view. Do things like having the minimap being controlled by the numpad so that you never interrupt the fps mouselook.
-Have smaller troops. The player needs to feel that he is making a difference in the battle. If he is controlling a mech in an army of hundreds then realistically anything he does won't make a difference.
-When in rts view then traditional rts ai will suffice to control the units but when in fps view the units need to have more advanced ai like what is seen in conventional fps games (Q3 and UT). When you are playing a rts game you tend to not mind having idiots for units as much as you would playing a very dumb bot who keeps getting stuck in the corners.
-Have the player develop a couple of units that he favors going into fps mode in. Make these units tougher so they won't be killed as often. This will cause the player to care more about these units and wnat to play as them. This is kinda an extension of the Hero concept that will be in Warcraft III except the Hero can be controlled by the player. This can also add an rpg element to your game.
These are just some general ideas for blending rts/fps. If nothing else maybe they will help to make you think more as you design your rts/fps. Most people just build a rts where the player can jump in and control any unit and this type of gameplay hasn't done well. Maybe some of these ideas could help to enhance your game.
Another interesting line of thought is to think about a massive multiplayer rts/fps game. Verant's Planetside is somewhat doing this in that you are fighting for a faction and capturing stategic points all in a fps view. There is an overall picture/stategy that will appeal to the rts fan while having the fps gameplay us deathmatchers like so much =) I think there are a couple fo ways that a game like this could be extended to make it appeal even more to the rts fan. Obviously you can't have a rts controller completely directing the troops since the soldiers will all be controlled by human players and would quickly resent the orders and may choose to not carry them out. However you could pull back further and allow the rts player to control the overall stategy of the war by letting them dictacte where troops for their side will be deployed next. As far as the fps players are concerned they will be dropped onto a battlefield and given a general directive and it is completely up to them how they carry out the mission. They can receive info from the rts player like where the enemy troops are at and other overview info that the fps player might not have access to but once the battle starts the rts player will be in a passive information supplying mode and not be able to issue orders. If the fps players decide the rts player is an idiot or whatever they can go off on their own or request to be pulled out (teleporters?) or generally do whatever. How does one control who is the rts players and the fps players? Anyone can be a fps player. You could include the whole rank and prestige system that Planetside will have so that other players will know who to trust. When someone wishes to be a rts player though they will have a separate experience rating that will determine how many fps players they can direct. As they gain experience they get more slots of people they can direct. How would it be determined what rts player controls what fps players? Simple- have it be a volunteer system. The rts player sets up a mission (allow joint missions between multiple rts players for bigger campaigns) and then the fps players will review the missions and choose the ones they want to participate in. If the rts player sets up a mission and doesn't get any volunteers then of course the mission wouldn't be done. And if you allow the players to switch between rts and fps at will then they could volunteer for their own missions. This would allow some players to become awesome leaders who design brilliant missions and then leads them from the front. As the rts player gains experience and reputation, people will be more eager to volunteer for their missions. And the rts players could also bid for the more impressive fps players with whatever currency is in the game. That way if you are a really skilled fps player you could make a lot of good money.
Whew! What a long post! Well, these are some thoughts and ideas I have had on blending rts and fps games. I hope that someone finds them useful.
About the author
I am a Game Designer at PopCap who has worked on PvZ Adventures, PvZ2, Peggle Blast, and Bejeweled Skies. I am an ex-GarageGames employee who helped ship TGE, TGEA, Torque 3D, and Constructor.
#2
sounds like it could be fun. but it gets confusing. complex. some people will like it but many will not.
as an example which was mentioned here battlezone. well, it was a flop. i personally hated the game but im not biased. They tried and went on the angle of give the player total control over others and himself.
That's complex, bogs people down, and is generally frustrating.
But hey, maybe it will work. You really never know till you try it.
But I do agree that a mix of the 2 can be done and ive had some ideas as well. It's coming from a different angle.
It's primarily multiplayer.
Now, you have a base. Its space. You get to choose from several different classes of characters. Lets say that are mechs. light fast mech, heavy slow mech, a medium mech that's not good at anything, and an engineer mech.
Now the light, med, and heavy mechs have an enemy. The enemy has a base a mile or so away. It's sparse too. Just like yours.
Now the light, med, and heavy mechs have a choice. Defend their base or attack the other. Hopefully that would promote teamwork to an extent.
Now there is the engineer mech. he doesn't attack but his job is to build, maintain, and expand his base with structures that benefited the players.
A repair/rearm facility
A factory so respawns is faster
A research station to research new weapon and armor
A bunker complex or turrets for defense
And finally a resource processing station that sends out a little rover to gather resources that are transferred into credits, which are used for mech repairs, buildings, rearming ECT.
Its not really an RTS in the traditional since but stragedy is a big part of the overall theme as the mechs need the base to continue fighting and the base and its engineer needs the mechs to defend it or attack the other base slowing their production down ect ect.
Everyone feeds off of each other. it all comes down to credits.
04/04/2001 (3:07 pm)
id like to offer a few opinions myself.sounds like it could be fun. but it gets confusing. complex. some people will like it but many will not.
as an example which was mentioned here battlezone. well, it was a flop. i personally hated the game but im not biased. They tried and went on the angle of give the player total control over others and himself.
That's complex, bogs people down, and is generally frustrating.
But hey, maybe it will work. You really never know till you try it.
But I do agree that a mix of the 2 can be done and ive had some ideas as well. It's coming from a different angle.
It's primarily multiplayer.
Now, you have a base. Its space. You get to choose from several different classes of characters. Lets say that are mechs. light fast mech, heavy slow mech, a medium mech that's not good at anything, and an engineer mech.
Now the light, med, and heavy mechs have an enemy. The enemy has a base a mile or so away. It's sparse too. Just like yours.
Now the light, med, and heavy mechs have a choice. Defend their base or attack the other. Hopefully that would promote teamwork to an extent.
Now there is the engineer mech. he doesn't attack but his job is to build, maintain, and expand his base with structures that benefited the players.
A repair/rearm facility
A factory so respawns is faster
A research station to research new weapon and armor
A bunker complex or turrets for defense
And finally a resource processing station that sends out a little rover to gather resources that are transferred into credits, which are used for mech repairs, buildings, rearming ECT.
Its not really an RTS in the traditional since but stragedy is a big part of the overall theme as the mechs need the base to continue fighting and the base and its engineer needs the mechs to defend it or attack the other base slowing their production down ect ect.
Everyone feeds off of each other. it all comes down to credits.
#3
04/04/2001 (3:18 pm)
Along those lines, I have felt that Giants multiplayer did something very similar to that. And playing the Mecc vs. Mecc game is a total blast in my opinion. They don't use credits, but the resources are in the form of the smarties and the vimps (builders and builder food). Then there is base building as well. The game is a blast, and if anyone out there has a fast enough computer for the graphics, I highly recommend it. You don't control anybody else except for yourself, but you won't get very far in the game when your base is all smashed up to bits...
#4
Battlezone and Battlezone II rocked. :cool:
RTS/FPS (Straction, to some) games are nice, although difficult to make.
05/05/2001 (6:40 pm)
Quote:. I think that Battlezone did the mix the best so far and I believe that their HUD had a lot to do with it.
Battlezone and Battlezone II rocked. :cool:
RTS/FPS (Straction, to some) games are nice, although difficult to make.
#5
10SIX failed to actualy deliver a world at your disposal, and instead, the strong got stronger as the unexperienced just up and left the game. It has potential for being a great FPS/RTS game, yet it's very time consuming, which ruined the experience for me. Of course there were tons of bugs, too, but the idea is still good, just needs improving.
I think the posts here are all great ideas, it's just finding the balance between the two genres that we should be looking for.
Things that are manditory for one genre conflict with the other, but it can be worked out...
FPS:
People want the fragging carnage that this brings, it's the competition, and also team work, that drive the players into the game. It's also the fact that controling your own view of the fight makes it that much more interesting.
RTS:
The idea here for most is to get tons of kills by out building, out smarting, and out planning the enemy's forces, and making your's stronger as the game goes on. You rely on all your units to follow orders/plans in order to come through undefeated in battle.
Let's face it, we all know how different people enjoy the game for different reasons other than these, but this is the basic idea.
What I've come up with:
Problems with Controls -
- First off, all the controls should be customizable.
- Taking an idea that works great in UO, the use of user defined macros would save tons of frustration!
- The mouse should be completely left to the FPS portion of the control, except for in certain situations (below), and since most building is done with some type of grid system anyways, a simple 4 or 8-way control system is all you would need, along with the command controls.
- Quick switch controls should be used (like the Tab button used in UO to switch between Peace/War mode), so players not accustomed to using FPS view can switch to RTS Overhead and vise versa, allow the player to use the mouse for other controls at times (above), like when placing structures or commanding troops/units, and also for controling the maps and selecting targets, etc.
- Above all, a skill setting should be used, not to limit a player, but to set the game more to their liking. The player could select the amount of FPS and RTS skill they generaly have, and building options and units, as well as how they go about fighting others in the game, can be determined and set up just for their style, but with freedom to move the settings in any direction during the game.
**Example:
user224 sets FPS Skills to 80 and RTS Skills to 40. This sets his units to above average skill while at the same time automates building of certain structures and also limits his cash flow/resources (balancing it out evenly). He is allowed to choose from a greater variety of advanced units with distinct characteristics (Machine Gunner with attack skills, Snipers with good aim, Spies with the ability to steal info, etc). Basic control commands are assigned for on-the-fly commanding directly from his viewpoint by choosing a few simple options. In the game, he can select a quick, random group of units within his map and set basic commands for them while they join him in taking on the enemy. His building is limited to what type of unit, what it's carrying, and what it is assigned to after being built. Upgrading takes more time and cash, but his spies can help out. He can always change his settings, which will effect how much he want's to control, at any time.
Sound good?
I'll post more later, but think of how this would work out for now, and let me hear any comments of course.
Next up - How the command system could work for FPS players with lots of units!
05/07/2001 (10:25 pm)
I'd like to honestly point out a game that quickly came to mind, HEAT.net's 10SIX. The game actualy had a good idea going, but it kinda went in the wrong direction. If anyone here has played it besides myself, offer some feedback.10SIX failed to actualy deliver a world at your disposal, and instead, the strong got stronger as the unexperienced just up and left the game. It has potential for being a great FPS/RTS game, yet it's very time consuming, which ruined the experience for me. Of course there were tons of bugs, too, but the idea is still good, just needs improving.
I think the posts here are all great ideas, it's just finding the balance between the two genres that we should be looking for.
Things that are manditory for one genre conflict with the other, but it can be worked out...
FPS:
People want the fragging carnage that this brings, it's the competition, and also team work, that drive the players into the game. It's also the fact that controling your own view of the fight makes it that much more interesting.
RTS:
The idea here for most is to get tons of kills by out building, out smarting, and out planning the enemy's forces, and making your's stronger as the game goes on. You rely on all your units to follow orders/plans in order to come through undefeated in battle.
Let's face it, we all know how different people enjoy the game for different reasons other than these, but this is the basic idea.
What I've come up with:
Problems with Controls -
- First off, all the controls should be customizable.
- Taking an idea that works great in UO, the use of user defined macros would save tons of frustration!
- The mouse should be completely left to the FPS portion of the control, except for in certain situations (below), and since most building is done with some type of grid system anyways, a simple 4 or 8-way control system is all you would need, along with the command controls.
- Quick switch controls should be used (like the Tab button used in UO to switch between Peace/War mode), so players not accustomed to using FPS view can switch to RTS Overhead and vise versa, allow the player to use the mouse for other controls at times (above), like when placing structures or commanding troops/units, and also for controling the maps and selecting targets, etc.
- Above all, a skill setting should be used, not to limit a player, but to set the game more to their liking. The player could select the amount of FPS and RTS skill they generaly have, and building options and units, as well as how they go about fighting others in the game, can be determined and set up just for their style, but with freedom to move the settings in any direction during the game.
**Example:
user224 sets FPS Skills to 80 and RTS Skills to 40. This sets his units to above average skill while at the same time automates building of certain structures and also limits his cash flow/resources (balancing it out evenly). He is allowed to choose from a greater variety of advanced units with distinct characteristics (Machine Gunner with attack skills, Snipers with good aim, Spies with the ability to steal info, etc). Basic control commands are assigned for on-the-fly commanding directly from his viewpoint by choosing a few simple options. In the game, he can select a quick, random group of units within his map and set basic commands for them while they join him in taking on the enemy. His building is limited to what type of unit, what it's carrying, and what it is assigned to after being built. Upgrading takes more time and cash, but his spies can help out. He can always change his settings, which will effect how much he want's to control, at any time.
Sound good?
I'll post more later, but think of how this would work out for now, and let me hear any comments of course.
Next up - How the command system could work for FPS players with lots of units!
#6
Commander class. They get an overhead view and RTS controls. Perhaps you limit this to only one. But with more you could micromanage battles while others manage resources. The Commander class controls would be straight out of C&C or Starcraft. Select units and click where you want them to go. Selecting a unit and clicking on an objective points would also be similar. I.e. click on flag and it gives a "capture this point" command. Fog of war type display limiting would probably be best, but having none would also be interesting!
On the player's end, you receive waypoints via a minimap. Semi-transparent floating 3D lines would also be nice. If you are given a specific command, like "defend flag" or "hold this position" a transparent HUD icon would light up. Of course you don't have to follow orders.
AI would be particularly nice to have, too. Actually the AI could be pretty dumb because it doesn't need to worry about high level tasks. Pathfinding, firing, and a bit of strafing would be all that is needed. Forgot objective acquisition. That's why you have a commander. :)
This is a pretty general format. This could be retrofitted to Tribes 2, Q3 CTF, you name it.
Imagine playing Command and Conquer RTS/FPS. One or two people get the exact same view as the normal game as commanders. People join up, and wait for the barracks and factories to pop up. The Commander assigns people to a build queue (or they're assigned automatically, first in line, etc.) when he starts producing units. The Commander decides to rush because he knows he has really good FPS players. 5 infantry pop out and are commanded to start scouting. They run of and split up. One finds the enemy base but is torn up by a sentry gun. He gets warped into another dumby/AI infantry (the commander can ask a player to warp, they accept/ignore, or the player can pick to warp into any AI controlled unit). The human controlled infantry units converge to take on the enemy base. Using cover and terrain more intelligently than the AI, they can take out the sentry guns out quickly. Those that die warp into the reinforcements that the Commander has already sent. The defending base commander desparately tries to pump out units and new sentry guns, but in vain. The defending units even though human controlled, are taken out one by one as they exit.
Ohhh... It could be SOOOO cool. C&C is probably a bad example, because you'd probably want to balance it more to an FPS. Human players should be equally well spent on driving individual units as they would be commanding. But it'd be interesting to see different strategies develop of using 1 commander with 7 human units vs. 4 commands and 4 human units. Lots of balance issues obviously. It's a difficult problem to tackle, but I think whoever can do it right will make lots of money.
05/08/2001 (2:50 am)
My ideal RTS/FPS blend would be something like how I have interpreted the TF2 commander class.Commander class. They get an overhead view and RTS controls. Perhaps you limit this to only one. But with more you could micromanage battles while others manage resources. The Commander class controls would be straight out of C&C or Starcraft. Select units and click where you want them to go. Selecting a unit and clicking on an objective points would also be similar. I.e. click on flag and it gives a "capture this point" command. Fog of war type display limiting would probably be best, but having none would also be interesting!
On the player's end, you receive waypoints via a minimap. Semi-transparent floating 3D lines would also be nice. If you are given a specific command, like "defend flag" or "hold this position" a transparent HUD icon would light up. Of course you don't have to follow orders.
AI would be particularly nice to have, too. Actually the AI could be pretty dumb because it doesn't need to worry about high level tasks. Pathfinding, firing, and a bit of strafing would be all that is needed. Forgot objective acquisition. That's why you have a commander. :)
This is a pretty general format. This could be retrofitted to Tribes 2, Q3 CTF, you name it.
Imagine playing Command and Conquer RTS/FPS. One or two people get the exact same view as the normal game as commanders. People join up, and wait for the barracks and factories to pop up. The Commander assigns people to a build queue (or they're assigned automatically, first in line, etc.) when he starts producing units. The Commander decides to rush because he knows he has really good FPS players. 5 infantry pop out and are commanded to start scouting. They run of and split up. One finds the enemy base but is torn up by a sentry gun. He gets warped into another dumby/AI infantry (the commander can ask a player to warp, they accept/ignore, or the player can pick to warp into any AI controlled unit). The human controlled infantry units converge to take on the enemy base. Using cover and terrain more intelligently than the AI, they can take out the sentry guns out quickly. Those that die warp into the reinforcements that the Commander has already sent. The defending base commander desparately tries to pump out units and new sentry guns, but in vain. The defending units even though human controlled, are taken out one by one as they exit.
Ohhh... It could be SOOOO cool. C&C is probably a bad example, because you'd probably want to balance it more to an FPS. Human players should be equally well spent on driving individual units as they would be commanding. But it'd be interesting to see different strategies develop of using 1 commander with 7 human units vs. 4 commands and 4 human units. Lots of balance issues obviously. It's a difficult problem to tackle, but I think whoever can do it right will make lots of money.
#7
Too bad I don't have the time to read all that. =(
Any plans on making it?
05/08/2001 (5:07 am)
This is one of the most worthy of development ideas I have seen so far...Too bad I don't have the time to read all that. =(
Any plans on making it?
#8
here goes:
The basic idea is to force both play types (FPS/RTS) to depend on each other...that is if the FPS players disreguard orders then their team may very well lose the battle...and if the RTS player doesn't just order the FPS players around but also fails to reward them, the team could lose just as easily...
The goal of the game is to simply destroy the other sides "brain"
Eash side (or team) is comprised of 1 "brain" (the RTS player) and a number of "units" (the FPS players)...the only "resource" in the game (a staple of RTS games) are "points" which are used in the following manner:
for the "brain" he can purchase "tech upgrades" (see "tech" below) or "power-ups" to be placed on the map...as well as convert points into "health" to restore himself
for the "units"...they can only use "points" when they respawn after dying...that is they are given choices for up-grades basied on the teams current technology tree (deturmined by purchases the "brain" player makes)...if they no longer have enough points to enter back into the game it's basicly "game over" for them
How points are accumulated:
When each of the "units" kill an opposing side's "unit" or "brain" only they (the unit performing the kill) will get 3 points...however if the correct conditions are met there can be a number of modifiers added to that...
If the "unit" is within his "waypoint"(more on this later) he will get a X3 multiplyer (or 9 points) AND his teams "brain" will recive this also (this is the only way the "brain" recieves points..if the "unit" is within the waypoint)...
If the "unit" is withing his "waypoint" and the enemy "unit" destroyied had the "target" status (more on this later)...there will be an additional X3 multiplyer...so both the "unit" and "brain" will recive 27 points...
"waypoints" and "target" status:
These are set by the "brain" player dynamicly within the game...basicly the "brain" will select a "unit" from his same team and then click the location on the map he wishes the "unit" to move to (just like a RTS)...this location then becomes the selected "unit" waypoint (the "brain" can select more then one unit at a time and then each of those units will be given the same waypoint location)...basicly the waypoint acts as a sphere (the HUD of the individual "unit" will display the waypoint location as well as inform them if they are within the waypoint boundries)...the "target" is simply a chosen enemy "unit" (it can NOT be the enemy brain)...the brain sets the "target" simply by clicking on the enemy unit...note there is only one "target" at any given time per team...that is when a "unit" is selected for "target" status, the previously "targeted" unit is now "normal"...
This basicly forces the players to work as a team...the "unit" players get points for each kill...but by being inside thier "waypoint" they get even more, in addition to the "brain" recieveing points....and if the brain doesn't get any points then the units can never advance thier "tech" standing
Tech:
This is baised on "rock, paper, scissors"..that is there are three areas that the brain can develop the tech along (I'll call then Red, Blue, and Green for now)...this next bit is key...Red will always beat Blue yet loses to Green...Blue beats Green but loses to Red...and Green beats red but loses to blue...This is important because it needs to be very clear for the brain to figure out what areas he is weak in...anymore then these three color coded areas and it would become very difficult to figure out where the team stands (am I even?, am I behind?, am I ahead?)...
That said, to advance a tech level the "brain" simply choses one of the three colors...the cost depends on the current level standing...only a increase of one level can be done at a time...so to increase Red from say level 7 to level 8 will cost the "brain" 8 points...to go from level 32 to 33 costs 33 points, etc..
How this effects the units is that at respawn the units can purchase (useing thier points) the upgrades to be applied baised on the current team tech standings (the levels of Red, Green and Blue) and place them into three "slots"...weapon, armor, and manuverability...each of these "slots" contains a Red, Green and Blue catagory...and the weapon, armor, and manuverability will change accordingly (I don't have this part worked out completely)...that is, if a player choses to allocate a bunch of points on increaseing the red componet of his weapon...but then fires on an enemy unit with a high level of green in its armor rateing (useing the above rock paper scissors aproch) the weapon will yield very little damage...and thus a change may need to be made by the brain to increase the team blue tech level to gain an advantage...the idea is to both allow the unit players to chose what advancements they may need (again given the team tech level standings) and somewhat "hide" the tech level standings from the enemy brain (by fooling the enemy to think that your team is strongest in green (by allocateing a lot of green to each "slot") but in reality the brain is advanceing the blue level the most...if that makes any sense)
There are some other things involved (picking up and carrying the "brain" around, power-ups, etc).....but the goal for me was to design a very fast playing game, with a simple rule structure
Well thats a basic description, what do you think?
05/09/2001 (1:59 am)
I've been thinking about this too...and think I've got a pretty decent game idea for it...But be warned, this isn't modeled on anything that could be considered "realistic"...i.e. no tanks a such...here goes:
The basic idea is to force both play types (FPS/RTS) to depend on each other...that is if the FPS players disreguard orders then their team may very well lose the battle...and if the RTS player doesn't just order the FPS players around but also fails to reward them, the team could lose just as easily...
The goal of the game is to simply destroy the other sides "brain"
Eash side (or team) is comprised of 1 "brain" (the RTS player) and a number of "units" (the FPS players)...the only "resource" in the game (a staple of RTS games) are "points" which are used in the following manner:
for the "brain" he can purchase "tech upgrades" (see "tech" below) or "power-ups" to be placed on the map...as well as convert points into "health" to restore himself
for the "units"...they can only use "points" when they respawn after dying...that is they are given choices for up-grades basied on the teams current technology tree (deturmined by purchases the "brain" player makes)...if they no longer have enough points to enter back into the game it's basicly "game over" for them
How points are accumulated:
When each of the "units" kill an opposing side's "unit" or "brain" only they (the unit performing the kill) will get 3 points...however if the correct conditions are met there can be a number of modifiers added to that...
If the "unit" is within his "waypoint"(more on this later) he will get a X3 multiplyer (or 9 points) AND his teams "brain" will recive this also (this is the only way the "brain" recieves points..if the "unit" is within the waypoint)...
If the "unit" is withing his "waypoint" and the enemy "unit" destroyied had the "target" status (more on this later)...there will be an additional X3 multiplyer...so both the "unit" and "brain" will recive 27 points...
"waypoints" and "target" status:
These are set by the "brain" player dynamicly within the game...basicly the "brain" will select a "unit" from his same team and then click the location on the map he wishes the "unit" to move to (just like a RTS)...this location then becomes the selected "unit" waypoint (the "brain" can select more then one unit at a time and then each of those units will be given the same waypoint location)...basicly the waypoint acts as a sphere (the HUD of the individual "unit" will display the waypoint location as well as inform them if they are within the waypoint boundries)...the "target" is simply a chosen enemy "unit" (it can NOT be the enemy brain)...the brain sets the "target" simply by clicking on the enemy unit...note there is only one "target" at any given time per team...that is when a "unit" is selected for "target" status, the previously "targeted" unit is now "normal"...
This basicly forces the players to work as a team...the "unit" players get points for each kill...but by being inside thier "waypoint" they get even more, in addition to the "brain" recieveing points....and if the brain doesn't get any points then the units can never advance thier "tech" standing
Tech:
This is baised on "rock, paper, scissors"..that is there are three areas that the brain can develop the tech along (I'll call then Red, Blue, and Green for now)...this next bit is key...Red will always beat Blue yet loses to Green...Blue beats Green but loses to Red...and Green beats red but loses to blue...This is important because it needs to be very clear for the brain to figure out what areas he is weak in...anymore then these three color coded areas and it would become very difficult to figure out where the team stands (am I even?, am I behind?, am I ahead?)...
That said, to advance a tech level the "brain" simply choses one of the three colors...the cost depends on the current level standing...only a increase of one level can be done at a time...so to increase Red from say level 7 to level 8 will cost the "brain" 8 points...to go from level 32 to 33 costs 33 points, etc..
How this effects the units is that at respawn the units can purchase (useing thier points) the upgrades to be applied baised on the current team tech standings (the levels of Red, Green and Blue) and place them into three "slots"...weapon, armor, and manuverability...each of these "slots" contains a Red, Green and Blue catagory...and the weapon, armor, and manuverability will change accordingly (I don't have this part worked out completely)...that is, if a player choses to allocate a bunch of points on increaseing the red componet of his weapon...but then fires on an enemy unit with a high level of green in its armor rateing (useing the above rock paper scissors aproch) the weapon will yield very little damage...and thus a change may need to be made by the brain to increase the team blue tech level to gain an advantage...the idea is to both allow the unit players to chose what advancements they may need (again given the team tech level standings) and somewhat "hide" the tech level standings from the enemy brain (by fooling the enemy to think that your team is strongest in green (by allocateing a lot of green to each "slot") but in reality the brain is advanceing the blue level the most...if that makes any sense)
There are some other things involved (picking up and carrying the "brain" around, power-ups, etc).....but the goal for me was to design a very fast playing game, with a simple rule structure
Well thats a basic description, what do you think?
#9
the premise is this at the begining of each players turn they are in your standard strategy screen. If combat is initiated both sides "spawn" inside the vehicles and battle it out fps style. you have two options for handling the fps portion
1. till death
2. specified time
till death means you have to destroy the unit or be destroyed and the winner remains on the board
specified time means you have a certain amount of time to deal as much damage as possible to the other unit.
the units would have to be tailored for this system(i.e. no ranged units) but it would prove interesting IMO
also would take out that "unit a against unit b always wins" formula so many RTS games have since a its a matter of skill on who wins the skirmish
05/09/2001 (2:22 am)
Here is an idea i thought i'd throw out. instead of a rts/fps make it a tbs/fps (turn based strategy)the premise is this at the begining of each players turn they are in your standard strategy screen. If combat is initiated both sides "spawn" inside the vehicles and battle it out fps style. you have two options for handling the fps portion
1. till death
2. specified time
till death means you have to destroy the unit or be destroyed and the winner remains on the board
specified time means you have a certain amount of time to deal as much damage as possible to the other unit.
the units would have to be tailored for this system(i.e. no ranged units) but it would prove interesting IMO
also would take out that "unit a against unit b always wins" formula so many RTS games have since a its a matter of skill on who wins the skirmish
#10
My own views on the topic. For the interface, I was thinking that there could be translucent overlays, fully customizable by the player. They could set up new windows, position/size them on the screen, and then assign them a camera view, fixed, or they could hook it to a squad or something. The overlays could also be used for information deisplays, or unit/building production etc. Switching your cursur to the overlay level should just be the press of a key, so that the player can see both views, and switch controll between them quickly so that they can switch back to deal with enemy units if they see them through the overlays.
Someone mentioned that in making a single player blend of RTS and FPS, the AI would need improvement. Obviously having every AI at bot capabilities would be too large a load, but instead you could keep unit's AI at standard RTS level. When you are fighting in FPS, you want to be sure that the units are going to look after them-selves, to why not have a few AI commanders, with the same capabilities as you for RTS control. Having just a few good AI's would not take too many resources, but they could effectivly take care of construction, and unit management in the same manner as you.
05/09/2001 (5:50 am)
@MSW: I loved that idea, it sounds really good, and original. I really think that it could make a great game, problem being implementing the multiplayer, I mean getting as host and that.My own views on the topic. For the interface, I was thinking that there could be translucent overlays, fully customizable by the player. They could set up new windows, position/size them on the screen, and then assign them a camera view, fixed, or they could hook it to a squad or something. The overlays could also be used for information deisplays, or unit/building production etc. Switching your cursur to the overlay level should just be the press of a key, so that the player can see both views, and switch controll between them quickly so that they can switch back to deal with enemy units if they see them through the overlays.
Someone mentioned that in making a single player blend of RTS and FPS, the AI would need improvement. Obviously having every AI at bot capabilities would be too large a load, but instead you could keep unit's AI at standard RTS level. When you are fighting in FPS, you want to be sure that the units are going to look after them-selves, to why not have a few AI commanders, with the same capabilities as you for RTS control. Having just a few good AI's would not take too many resources, but they could effectivly take care of construction, and unit management in the same manner as you.
#11
I think it would really be something to see....
05/09/2001 (5:50 am)
I like that idea a lot MSW.I think it would really be something to see....
#12
Even if it was done in so, with player's controlling a unit each in iso, or even if it was only single player. It really is an idea that I would like to see implemented.
And you'd better be quick about it - if u don't do it then I will ;)
(well.... maybe... if I had the time... oh well
05/09/2001 (1:53 pm)
Seriously MSW, get yer coding cap on and chain yourself to a PC... That idea really is worth taking the time to implement.Even if it was done in so, with player's controlling a unit each in iso, or even if it was only single player. It really is an idea that I would like to see implemented.
And you'd better be quick about it - if u don't do it then I will ;)
(well.... maybe... if I had the time... oh well
#13
Actually I only thought up this idea over the course of a day...I wasn't a "sudden revelation" or anything like that...I just "de-constructed" the two genres down to thier basic gameplay componets, seen what was compatable, and worked out the details...I'm an "old school" arcade gamer at heart...so most of my ideas originate from that...
05/09/2001 (10:01 pm)
Cool!...You folks liked it :D...I'll try to program up a prototype or something (I'm a DOS programmer..and haven't worked my way up to Windows yet :P)...But if you guys feel up to it...by all meens give it a go!Actually I only thought up this idea over the course of a day...I wasn't a "sudden revelation" or anything like that...I just "de-constructed" the two genres down to thier basic gameplay componets, seen what was compatable, and worked out the details...I'm an "old school" arcade gamer at heart...so most of my ideas originate from that...
#14
But yeah, even a 2D, single player version would be a break from the norm for RTS, definitely worth prototyping (even if it IS in dos....ughhh). If you did do it in dos (no...must...resist..urge..to...comment) then it could be a nifty wee title, ideal for a modem download :) Anyway, the reason I like it so much, is that even though it's based on a tied and true genre, the idea comes accross as being remarkably original.
PS. I'm not really a DOS hater, used to love it. But you just can't get hi-res, accelerated graphics. Now, mix the stability of dos, with the graphics capabilities of DirectX, that would be an idea...
05/10/2001 (5:29 pm)
I would love to give it a go myself, but unfortunatly, I have not nearly enough time on my hand. Nor the money to make it a big multi-player. If (big if mind...) I ever do get the time to try something along those lines, then it would be cool, but it would have to be single player, and just LAN play or something.But yeah, even a 2D, single player version would be a break from the norm for RTS, definitely worth prototyping (even if it IS in dos....ughhh). If you did do it in dos (no...must...resist..urge..to...comment) then it could be a nifty wee title, ideal for a modem download :) Anyway, the reason I like it so much, is that even though it's based on a tied and true genre, the idea comes accross as being remarkably original.
PS. I'm not really a DOS hater, used to love it. But you just can't get hi-res, accelerated graphics. Now, mix the stability of dos, with the graphics capabilities of DirectX, that would be an idea...
#15
I was thinking of a team-based 3D shooter in witch two teams (red and blue) fight one against the other. You also had "Brains" (controllers) and "units" (grunts). The diffrence was that the controller didn't have the ability to command each specific unit. I also tought of a third unit type, the "field commander" or "sergeant", witch will be a kind of squad leader for a small number of grunts (i.e. 3-4). The controller could manage squad rosters (decide witch unit goes in witch squad) and squad "specializations". Here comes the shibby part: each "tacunit" (or suqad) can have diffrent specializations: assault, infiltration, demolitions, sniper, ... and depending on the squad's current specializtion, the equipment which witch the units within the squad spawn and the number of squad members differ. This is also based on the "paper, stone and scissors" game as, for example, snipers could take out enemy infantry from a long distance, but can do nothing against a "vehicle crew" squad, which drives an APC (more on ths later). The controller could be able to make specific upgrades for each team, like targeting equipments, and suqd members should go to an upgrade facility within their base to get the specific upgrades. Upgrade points are recieved soley on a territory-control basis (like in Bitmap Brother's Z and Z2), and are spent on equipment for the grunts and technology upgrades. This means that a team which controls more territory but whose members can't shoot right may as well have less points than the other, witch has good shooters. Besides tech upgrades and equipment, the controller can choose to buy a limited number of vehicles (APCs, hoverbikes and even light tanks), witch can make a diffrence on the battlefield.
As I said before, the controller doesn't have the ability to give orders to specific units and he can only order tacsquads. He could give an order like 'strom sector 7' or 'aid tecsquad 3' and so on and if the grunts meet their objective goals (on assault objectives) or are in the assigned area (for area objectives), they give their team extra points. There are no per-unit bonuses (but I'm thinking of a high-scores screen, but rather for squads than for grunts).
Another nice idea would be to keep the tacsquads separated. This is, only the controller has the ability to speak to a certain tacsquad, tacsquads can't speak with each other unless they are in radio-distance (I mean, messages can't be sent, I'm not talkin about voice communications). So, if a joint operation has to be done, and the units which will take part are at at a great distance from each other, they must relay on the controller to coordinate them.
That's about all. Right now I'm working on a diffrent kind of project, but maybe one day I'll try to put this thingie to work.
05/19/2001 (1:29 am)
MSW: I had a very similar idea for a year now, too bad I don't think I'll ever manage to code it.I was thinking of a team-based 3D shooter in witch two teams (red and blue) fight one against the other. You also had "Brains" (controllers) and "units" (grunts). The diffrence was that the controller didn't have the ability to command each specific unit. I also tought of a third unit type, the "field commander" or "sergeant", witch will be a kind of squad leader for a small number of grunts (i.e. 3-4). The controller could manage squad rosters (decide witch unit goes in witch squad) and squad "specializations". Here comes the shibby part: each "tacunit" (or suqad) can have diffrent specializations: assault, infiltration, demolitions, sniper, ... and depending on the squad's current specializtion, the equipment which witch the units within the squad spawn and the number of squad members differ. This is also based on the "paper, stone and scissors" game as, for example, snipers could take out enemy infantry from a long distance, but can do nothing against a "vehicle crew" squad, which drives an APC (more on ths later). The controller could be able to make specific upgrades for each team, like targeting equipments, and suqd members should go to an upgrade facility within their base to get the specific upgrades. Upgrade points are recieved soley on a territory-control basis (like in Bitmap Brother's Z and Z2), and are spent on equipment for the grunts and technology upgrades. This means that a team which controls more territory but whose members can't shoot right may as well have less points than the other, witch has good shooters. Besides tech upgrades and equipment, the controller can choose to buy a limited number of vehicles (APCs, hoverbikes and even light tanks), witch can make a diffrence on the battlefield.
As I said before, the controller doesn't have the ability to give orders to specific units and he can only order tacsquads. He could give an order like 'strom sector 7' or 'aid tecsquad 3' and so on and if the grunts meet their objective goals (on assault objectives) or are in the assigned area (for area objectives), they give their team extra points. There are no per-unit bonuses (but I'm thinking of a high-scores screen, but rather for squads than for grunts).
Another nice idea would be to keep the tacsquads separated. This is, only the controller has the ability to speak to a certain tacsquad, tacsquads can't speak with each other unless they are in radio-distance (I mean, messages can't be sent, I'm not talkin about voice communications). So, if a joint operation has to be done, and the units which will take part are at at a great distance from each other, they must relay on the controller to coordinate them.
That's about all. Right now I'm working on a diffrent kind of project, but maybe one day I'll try to put this thingie to work.
#16
05/19/2001 (12:07 pm)
MSW, I think you've really started something. I'm primarily a FPS/3rd person player. The only RTS I really got into (and loved) was HomeWorld. I think the reason is mainly not having the patience to learn RTS controls and strategies. However, with your idea I'd get the best of both worlds. Go for it!:)
#17
What most people want is a layered system where "commanders" can control other troops via a "tactical" interface.
I'm just not sure its possible to structure this properly for a game to work.
Multiple layers of gameplay is one of the holy grails of games I still think hasnt been done (i.e. someone commands the larger scale battle as a strategic commander, then individual units are battling it out on a landscape in a FPS environment).
Maybe planetside will do that.
Well, anyway, I'm going to be working on RTS's professionally, and FPS's personally :)))
Phil.
05/19/2001 (12:52 pm)
I'm a big fan of FPS and RTS games in general, but I would point out that there ARE some other views of the FPS battlefield in tribes (in the command turrets).What most people want is a layered system where "commanders" can control other troops via a "tactical" interface.
I'm just not sure its possible to structure this properly for a game to work.
Multiple layers of gameplay is one of the holy grails of games I still think hasnt been done (i.e. someone commands the larger scale battle as a strategic commander, then individual units are battling it out on a landscape in a FPS environment).
Maybe planetside will do that.
Well, anyway, I'm going to be working on RTS's professionally, and FPS's personally :)))
Phil.
#18
Actually I'm not much of a fan of either RTS or FPS...There are TONS of things about both game genres that bug the crap out of me...
With that in mind...This game (if I develop it that far) will be very, very different...I've been toying with the idea of useing a 3RD person perspective instead of 1ST person view for the FPS aspects of it...the entire landscape could be "deformed" on the fly (just useing a simple landscape rendering system and "hight" map)...and instead of baseing the "units" and "brain" on the normal military type theme...base the design more on nature...animals VS plants?...winter VS summer?...Or more likely (useing the deformable map for a bit of extra stratigy) land VS sea...
But thats just me...:)
05/19/2001 (10:42 pm)
Thanks for the comments, guys! :)Actually I'm not much of a fan of either RTS or FPS...There are TONS of things about both game genres that bug the crap out of me...
With that in mind...This game (if I develop it that far) will be very, very different...I've been toying with the idea of useing a 3RD person perspective instead of 1ST person view for the FPS aspects of it...the entire landscape could be "deformed" on the fly (just useing a simple landscape rendering system and "hight" map)...and instead of baseing the "units" and "brain" on the normal military type theme...base the design more on nature...animals VS plants?...winter VS summer?...Or more likely (useing the deformable map for a bit of extra stratigy) land VS sea...
But thats just me...:)
Torque 3D Owner Jim Rowley
Overall I feel you have some pretty good points. I would like to point out my opinions on a couple of things. I am a very big fan of the mixed rts/fps genre. I think that Battlezone did the mix the best so far and I believe that their HUD had a lot to do with it. Targeting was a function of the fps aspect in that game, but it was very simple to target whichever unit you would like to give orders to. The quick command keys made all the difference here as well in my opinion. I disagree with not putting a cursor on the screen for these reasons. The interface is fairly well done in Sacrifice, and that game is actually one of my favorite games to play right now. They also have a neat xmenu feature in sacrifice where you can drag the mouse to select different commands through a popup menu that works rather nicely when you get used to it.
The AI issue is one that seems to require further thought. You are spot on here as far as I have noticed. It seems that if you get too many intelligent 3D bots going in any first person game it brings almost any machine to its knees pretty easily. Even in Tribes2 I cannot play a skirmish botmatch with over 8 bots or so on my P3-700... After that it gets a bit laggy due to AI calculations I suppose. I'm not exactly sure how to handle this. I don't really agree with the idea of changing AI when you are in different modes; something better needs to be worked out here. I believe that solutions for this should be available ... it seems to me that smart bots should not be so resource consuming if well written. This is an area where I would like to do more coding research myself... Perhaps gamewriters have overlooked the importance of taking AI out of slower scripts and putting the majority of the code into C++ or assembly functions. If anybody has comments on this, please add them to this forum! What do we need, some AI accelerator cards? How can we put larger quantities of more intelligent characters into our games?
I believe that the primary reason that the mixed genre hasn't done so well is because of the different mindsets of the fans of each genre. Most first person game lovers do not really enjoy thinking too much. They are much happier learning how to be quick and accurate in a deathmatch. RTS lovers enjoy the strategy elements but the complexity of unit selection, etc. tends to bring them back to the more traditional interfaces from a top-down or isometric vantage point. This is my perspective from watching people in the communities.
I am currently considering some different ideas in mixing the genre in a slightly different manner. You could have a commander/commanders who works primarily from an isometric viewpoint and you could have individual units working from the first person perspective. As was mentioned in the earlier post ... people would rather not take commands ... they seem to enjoy freedom over tactics in the first person perspective. To target this concern I am considering game-types that would reward people for sticking to the commands given them by a commander. My current thought here would be a ranking where those that perform most appropriately could advance in command status :)
Any more thoughts on these issues would be appreciated!
I am considering putting these ideas into a mod for Tribes2. If anyone out there is interested in the idea and helping out, please contact me.
Jim Rowley
mailto:jimmyrowley@yahoo.com