Forged Alliance Forever

Re: What would you put in a new RTS

2014-01-07T04:11:12+02:00

A lot of interesting ideas in this thread. A lot of them could be built today (without requiring nextgen hardware).

Statistics: Posted by nine2 — 07 Jan 2014, 04:11

Re: What would you put in a new RTS

2014-01-06T10:41:42+02:00

My vision for a new RTS would be to make it less like a video game and more like a simulation of a real war.

I'd design the game in 2 layers (just like SupCom and PA, but more so) - Simulation and UI.

The simulation layer would be more secure and hide information more strongly than SupCom's. It will probably be a seperate server program, with the UI being a client program.

So, the simulation layer will contain more physics (at least that's relevant to the game) and the properties of all the units, etc. I'd like more physics for things outside of projectiles too (or at least abstractions of such physics). So warhead vs. armour physics, weather, terrain/mud/sand/etc, vehicle handling, aircraft handling etc.

-----------

So then the job of the UI layer is to ask the simulation layer for information about the world, and then send commands to the units inside the simulation layer. The simulation layer is locked down for competitive play, but the UI layer is totally open for modding or even rewriting, without any restrictions.

Why is this seperation important? Because I'd like to see UI design as part of the strategy of the game. What is the most efficient and ergonomic design UI, that gives a commander the ultimate edge in combat? I want people to think of this like a real-life military problem - you have a war to fight (ie. the simulation layer, or real life, or whatever), and a tool to command and manage your armies (ie. the UI layer). You can't change the realities of the war, but you can develop any UI you want.

I'd also make it so that official competition UIs *must* be uploaded and shared with the community to be allowed. This makes the winner a bit less dependent on programming skills - if you can use someone else's UI more skillfully than them, then you deserve to win.

-----------

So yeah, it'd be really interesting to see how the top players/teams play such a game. Would they use a UI that gives them the most direct access to their units, and win by extreme APM skills? Or would they use a UI that automates almost everything, and win by careful strategy and managing their AI programs?

Would a single player controlling an army be the most effective? Or would a big team of players controlling an army together be stronger? Maybe the top player isn't a human at all, but just an AI bot?

etc etc.

I'd consider my game a big success if the UI technology modders come up with get adopted by real life organisations that need to manage lots of information. (militaries, emergency rescue, sports, etc.)

Statistics: Posted by AdmiralZeech — 06 Jan 2014, 10:41

Re: What would you put in a new RTS

2013-12-09T17:24:25+02:00

rootbeer23 wrote:
if you could simply design order queues without units that would already cut down on the micromanagement:
for example spy plane routes that you can use later when you build more spy planes.
or save your build order for specific maps, more time to micromanage tanks.

Its a good point! One way that would prevent clustering of orders is making waypoint layers:
- everything works as before
- you can enter a special layer where only specific waypoints are highlighter (or created) <- these should be able to be saved as templates in the UI, so you can practice specific, coordinated type of moves (imagine preparing a drop layer, where you only have to select particular units and let them ferry; due to how you've organized the waypoints, you would have a coordinated attack)
- naturally the waypoints in the particular layer can be adjusted on the fly (with an option of overwriting the template).
- could also be nice to manage eco: only use one (or several) layer for engy movement, so that it doesn't interfere with your forces waypoints, which can get pesky when relying on a lot of patrol commands

Statistics: Posted by Szakalot — 09 Dec 2013, 17:24

Re: What would you put in a new RTS

2013-12-07T21:12:11+02:00

if you could simply design order queues without units that would already cut down on the micromanagement:
for example spy plane routes that you can use later when you build more spy planes.
or save your build order for specific maps, more time to micromanage tanks.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 07 Dec 2013, 21:12

Re: What would you put in a new RTS

2013-12-07T20:46:36+02:00

Szakalot wrote:
I would like to see a stronger reliance on the unit AI: different AI 'protocols' for different strategic behaviour: retreat under fire based on the enemy forces, perform flanking attacks, regroup, scatter; dodge, kite, prioritize certain targets, etc. with heavy potential for modification, for anyone to make their own battle patterns.

Naturally, direct orders from the player would overwrite these patterns (I don't like an RTS where you don't control your units absolutely)

I imagine that this would allow for larger upscaling of the battle still - total supreme commander? : )

Agree 100% here.

Statistics: Posted by Veta — 07 Dec 2013, 20:46

Re: What would you put in a new RTS

2013-12-03T13:53:54+02:00

FireMessiah wrote:
Gerfand wrote:LOL, I will make a RTS, f2p and will be like FA, but will never get close(I think but I will make everthing to make it be close to FA)

If you have gaming development skills, you should dedicate them to FAF.
Gerfand wrote:
P.S. PA is at Beta now, but they will add a lot of units, and will have something like a 81x81 map:
I don't think that will be beat FA, but can get close when the game release.

weve been hearing how things will be added, for months.
your already bored of PA, which is why your checking out FAF forums
just saying, PA will have a short term appeal. I doubt youll be playing it in 1 years time (if its even completed by then), and youll be back to FAF, the greatest RTS ever.

I don't have Gaming dev skills... and if I make this RTS, of course I will make some Merchan of FAF(like the ones that Notch make)
and I will play both PA and FA... I not bored of PA, I don't even played this yet...

Statistics: Posted by Gerfand — 03 Dec 2013, 13:53

Re: What would you put in a new RTS

2013-12-03T12:46:37+02:00

The Mak wrote:
Water platforms to build things on

I absolutely love that idea!
sort of like building a dock, or extending the land mass.
is that possible to code in FAF?

Gerfand wrote:
LOL, I will make a RTS, f2p and will be like FA, but will never get close(I think but I will make everthing to make it be close to FA)

If you have gaming development skills, you should dedicate them to FAF.

Gerfand wrote:
P.S. PA is at Beta now, but they will add a lot of units, and will have something like a 81x81 map:
I don't think that will be beat FA, but can get close when the game release.

weve been hearing how things will be added, for months.
your already bored of PA, which is why your checking out FAF forums
just saying, PA will have a short term appeal. I doubt youll be playing it in 1 years time (if its even completed by then), and youll be back to FAF, the greatest RTS ever.

Statistics: Posted by FireMessiah — 03 Dec 2013, 12:46

Re: What would you put in a new RTS

2013-12-03T10:22:24+02:00

To be fair to Mr. Taylor and his crew, the title of his games do fit what the actual game is about.

Total Annihilation: we indeed annihilate everything
Supreme Commander: we are commanding an army of supreme size

StarCraft: are we making celestial stars? movie/pop stars? Christmas ornament?
WarCraft: we do make war, but do you really think Orcs and Human?

Back on topic:
Naval, Ground, and Air Transports
Ability to build and destroy bridges
Water platforms to build things on

M.A.X. (1996) a game that was just before TA (1997) had all of the above, but was turn-based. Although a RTS version came in M.A.X. 2, two years later (1998).

EDIT:
Building on the platform idea, units that you can put other units on and/or build on them. Similar to the StarCraft 2 Arcade game Warships.

Statistics: Posted by The Mak — 03 Dec 2013, 10:22

Re: What would you put in a new RTS

2013-12-03T04:09:54+02:00

I would give it a different set of initials from other RTS games. *gives a disappointing look to Chris Taylor*

Statistics: Posted by Swkoll — 03 Dec 2013, 04:09

Re: What would you put in a new RTS

2013-12-02T12:33:05+02:00

Szakalot wrote:
I don't understand this SC2 (or 1) bashing. SC is a great game. Surely made with passion, as years were spent just to balance the races that are hugely diverse compared to FA and you can't deny that. I feel like a lot of the FAF community bashes SC because of the insane APM it demands, I don't think you can deny the depth of SC strategy at pro level. I admit that FA skill ceiling is higher, but who cares, since no one reached either one, anyways.

So you have small scale, with no more than dozens of units winning it for you in SC? Its a game! its not a war-simulation, the units are no more symbolic than any other of the hundred of RTS games that didn't have hundreds of units. Even FA can't keep up with any major conflict: 1k units? That's cool, but you'd need a million to start simulating the REALLY large scale wars of the 20th century, not to mention how hugely bigger the wars of the futuristic one thousand years long conflict should be.

While I hold no love for starcraft (mostly because it's a game of buildorders and clicking, no strategy) he's actually referring to the other SC2, Supreme Commander 2, which we can agree was made to appeal more to general people rather than... well, us.

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 02 Dec 2013, 12:33

Re: What would you put in a new RTS

2013-12-02T09:45:11+02:00

FireMessiah wrote:
SC/FA was made with a passion, SC2 was a money grabbing rip-off.

Long Live FAF!

I don't understand this SC2 (or 1) bashing. SC is a great game. Surely made with passion, as years were spent just to balance the races that are hugely diverse compared to FA and you can't deny that. I feel like a lot of the FAF community bashes SC because of the insane APM it demands, I don't think you can deny the depth of SC strategy at pro level. I admit that FA skill ceiling is higher, but who cares, since no one reached either one, anyways.

So you have small scale, with no more than dozens of units winning it for you in SC? Its a game! its not a war-simulation, the units are no more symbolic than any other of the hundred of RTS games that didn't have hundreds of units. Even FA can't keep up with any major conflict: 1k units? That's cool, but you'd need a million to start simulating the REALLY large scale wars of the 20th century, not to mention how hugely bigger the wars of the futuristic one thousand years long conflict should be.

Statistics: Posted by Szakalot — 02 Dec 2013, 09:45

Re: What would you put in a new RTS

2013-12-02T05:31:30+02:00

these are some of my ideas. some of them have already been mentioned above:

- strategic zoom is a must. i do not play games without it anymore!

- the unit style of FA is great. keep the (realistic) futuristic robot style. i hate units in supcom2 which look like animals (e.g. dinosaurs). i do not like the very simple and toy-ish looking units of PA.

- the unit behavior of PA is crap. when you select multiple units, they move in a line or a bunch. they actually should always move in formations (which you could select and/or create yourself). that would be cool.

- in supcom2 was a feature: select a group of units and draw with the mouse on the target area. the drawing could be done like in paint. this was great!

- put more units in as in FA (mines on land and under water; a unit canon as in supcom2; etc.), but make them as diverse as FA units (e.g. make all t1 artilleries from different factions different as well). increase the faction diversity.

- in PA are no maps/planets with an area you are safe in. the planet/map is a sphere. this means you can get attacked anytime from any direction. this can be funny, but there should be other maps as well!

- multiple battlefronts (as in multiple planets) are fine. sometimes, i like a game of sins of a solar empire. you can have different battles on different planets there as well. this is not a big problem.

- spheres as maps are crap. make it (almost) flat. you can introduce multiple portals, which "beam" units from one end of the map to the other. that is fine. the effect is the same (your units are vulnerable from all directions). keeping the overview on flat maps is WAY easier.

-please use colors in your game! supcom2 and PA never use extreme colors (like a real red, blue, and green). supcom2 and PA use washed out colors (their red is a light red or redish, but not real red, etc.). most modern games do that. i hate that!

-simulate EVERYTHING (like ground units in FA), including the air units and navy.

-let air units use the entire air space and do not let them move on a single plain. they could use primarily a specific hight, but they should really dogfight in 3D.

-terra-formable and de-formable terrain (change water level (when the water level decreases your shipyards are not in the water anymore), convert earth to mud (by rain), create rivers, create/move mountains, create valleys/cracks, create hurricanes, create waves on the water, which influence ships and ship battles, explosions leave craters, engineers can flatten the land before constructing a factory, ...)

-a lot more units and fluent multiplayer games (maybe up to 8v8).

-using tesselation (or the openGL equivalent) on all units. make the graphics that you can zoom into the eye of an ACU and you still see no blurry textures and/or sharp (unwanted) edges.

-begin the game by showing yourself (in a first person view) walking towards and getting in your huge ACU cockpit, getting a couple of sentences mission briefing as radio chat and "driving" the ACU into the jump gate...

-make it easy to create fair maps, by mirroring a part of the map easily.

-make the AI to learn from human players. let the AI watch/analyze games from the best players of the season and the most crazy games and make it learn from them. this way, the AI keeps changing and improving.

-connect all maps to a gigantic battlefield/map (like the maps in planetside 2 with a lot of small and big bases (these would be the maps of 1v1 up to 8v8 integrated in one gigantic map) and let all ACUs fight simultaneous on one large battle front. when somebody loses his match, the front line gets moved.
this is meta game similar to galactic war, but on one giant map rather than planets in space. but integrating galactic war into your game (you could zoom out to see other planets with other games on them while playing your game) would be nice as well.

-make the game more complex (e.g. introduce transmitter stations for energy/mass).

-make the commander better in late games. make it much harder to snipe (bomber, kamikaze airplanes (aeon t2), or tele-laser). e.g. it could build a underground bunker for itself.

-make the game 100% open source software. this way modders (a.k.a. mod makers) could change EVERYTHING and add everything they wanted. it would have a long life as well (imagine to be able to re-compile the engine of FA or making it support multi-threaded calculations). there should be easy access for modders as well.
extended/big new features could be funded by kickstarter. if that does not work, new improvements could get sold (as closed source code) to players for one year (after that time, the code becomes open source and available to everybody).

Statistics: Posted by eXcalibur — 02 Dec 2013, 05:31

Re: What would you put in a new RTS

2013-12-02T03:23:08+02:00

FireMessiah wrote:
for me, nothing else even comes close to FA's complexity in strategy.
the fact that there are so many different ways to kill an opponent, and almost none of them ever turn out the same.

Im still amazed by amount of things you can do with one single unit, and the huge amount of micro orders you can give it, in a game which can have thousands of unit on the screen at one time.
take a transport unit, in most games its just a transport, just think of how many roles or ways you can use a transport in FA.

more importantly, scale.
every other RTS I play, I feel like im fighting on a football pitch, not something that feels like an entire battlefield.
the strategic zoom for example, imo EVERY game should use SC's ability to zoom right out.

FA with better gfx and running on multi-core is all I want, not all the MOBA rubbish out there atm.
sometimes when i look at how RTS are moving forward, for me it feels like backwards.
if we could manage 8000 units 7 years ago, i want 50,000 by now.... not 8.

too many games get "dumbed down" so they can be marketed to the masses, i really think a complex game like FA is an increasingly rare-breed.
SC/FA was made with a passion, SC2 was a money grabbing rip-off.

Long Live FAF!
---
ps, PA is "supposed" to be years on from FA, it looks ancient and feels limited already.
less factions, less units, less strategy, smaller maps, worse models and gfx.
blowing up a few rocks, will not still be keeping you entertained 7 years on.

LOL, I will make a RTS, f2p and will be like FA, but will never get close(I think but I will make everthing to make it be close to FA)

P.S. PA is at Beta now, but they will add a lot of units, and will have something like a 81x81 map:

I don't think that will be beat FA, but can get close when the game release.

Statistics: Posted by Gerfand — 02 Dec 2013, 03:23

Re: What would you put in a new RTS

2013-12-02T02:33:40+02:00

for me, nothing else even comes close to FA's complexity in strategy.
the fact that there are so many different ways to kill an opponent, and almost none of them ever turn out the same.

Im still amazed by amount of things you can do with one single unit, and the huge amount of micro orders you can give it, in a game which can have thousands of unit on the screen at one time.
take a transport unit, in most games its just a transport, just think of how many roles or ways you can use a transport in FA.

more importantly, scale.
every other RTS I play, I feel like im fighting on a football pitch, not something that feels like an entire battlefield.
the strategic zoom for example, imo EVERY game should use SC's ability to zoom right out.

FA with better gfx and running on multi-core is all I want, not all the MOBA rubbish out there atm.
sometimes when i look at how RTS are moving forward, for me it feels like backwards.
if we could manage 8000 units 7 years ago, i want 50,000 by now.... not 8.

too many games get "dumbed down" so they can be marketed to the masses, i really think a complex game like FA is an increasingly rare-breed.
SC/FA was made with a passion, SC2 was a money grabbing rip-off.

Long Live FAF!
---
ps, PA is "supposed" to be years on from FA, it looks ancient and feels limited already.
less factions, less units, less strategy, smaller maps, worse models and gfx.
blowing up a few rocks, will not still be keeping you entertained 7 years on.

Statistics: Posted by FireMessiah — 02 Dec 2013, 02:33

Re: What would you put in a new RTS

2013-12-01T23:40:47+02:00

Well I did like where PA was headed, but I think they did a lot wrong in that game. The Spherical maps are I think a great idea but they need to be so much bigger or the terrain and units need to be so much smaller than in PA. Also just a single planet and a moon or two would be good. I also don't like the look of the units, wish they looked more like FA then TA.

We could just keep flat maps too. If that's what we do in the future then I wish for the bigger maps to become more viable to play more often. Maybe the units move around the map faster or something.

partytime wrote:
deformable terrain where explosions cause real craters and crash down cliffs forming ramps ... engineers can build walls and ramps and dam up rivers, and undam them, causing a flood to smash through enemy lines.

I like this idea a lot.

Statistics: Posted by Reaper Zwei — 01 Dec 2013, 23:40