RTS games, how could they be made better?

Talk about strategy games like MoO series, Civilization, Europa Universalis, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
macraig
Space Krill
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 12:18 pm
Location: northern CA

Re: RTS games, how could they be made better?

#31 Post by macraig »

gb207 wrote:
utilae wrote:What are some common problems with Real-Time-Strategy games and how could these problems be resolved?

I think from what I have seen from many people, some problems:
-Need to micromanage
-Clickfest
My list of problems with RTBS:

<wisdom snipped for brevity>
GB:

You split the dead-on arrow in the bulls-eye with another! Though I'm sure I would use different words and have a different tangent or two, those were still basically "my thoughts exactly": it's the lack of timely feedback and robust unit controls, grouping, etc. that make most so-called RTS games unbearably frustrating. There have been and are exceptions in certain specific areas; Pax Imperia: Eminent Domain and GalCiv come to mind right now for specific elements intended to fight that trend. Still, the basic trend seems to be to use the "RT" aspect as an excuse to ignore or do away with all the thoughtful design features that at one time were evolving nicely in TBS games (not that MoO II represented the culmination of that by any means, there was much room for improvement).

Ooops, I guess I more or less wound up saying it my way after all, didn't I?

[* now where's the smiley for a sheepish grin? *]
Mark

macraig
Space Krill
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 12:18 pm
Location: northern CA

#32 Post by macraig »

Moriarty wrote:Oh suppose my fave RTS would be Total Annihilation. There's no single reason, but of all the game's i've played, it's the most replayable (maybe because there are LOADS of mods for it, or maybe because there are hundreds of types of units a 'normal' game).
Heh, another TA veteran, eh? Yeah, if it weren't for the modding my interest would have vanished. I never actually created an entire TC or designed and rendered a new unit completely from scratch, but I certainly did incremental stuff and everything leading right up to those. I see now that it was my attempt to "fix" the micromanagement and other gameplay problems that led me to modding it; often even a new mega-unit could become such a "fix" (since a few mega-units are a whole lot easier to handle than a huge pack of PeeWees). Did you ever experiment with modding yourself? Personally I took a BIG liking to TA:M and its mutators, and the potential flexibility those represented.

Did I just hop the fence into off-topic pasture? Sorry!
Mark

Starrh
Space Squid
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:37 pm
Location: California

#33 Post by Starrh »

PowerCrazy wrote:My only comment on the matter. Heroes ruined WC3. Makeing any kind of "super unit" will inherently unbalance the game. And guess what the only defense is? Yep building your own hero. Talk about one-dimensional.
I have to agree up to a point I was not the biggest fan of War Craft 3 I am not sure it was ruined but it certainly changed the direction from what I enjoyed about War Craft 2. It was a beautiful game to play and pushed my old computer to its limits but I hated trying to keep track of which hero had leveled up in the last battle while I was busy trying rebuild defense and deploy troops. Anyway I am an old man and wish to play much more relaxing games now days thus E-Mail games are more and more appealing. :lol:

Decades
Space Krill
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:46 pm

PRAETORIANS

#34 Post by Decades »

i definitively think its the most cool and enjoyable, and challenging RTS game ever, specially on multiplayer game. no more worrying about collecting food and so, only about capturing towns and thinking carefully on which units yo will build, the terrain you will deploy them on and how your team works, searching where your enemy is weak. it has a lot of replayabilty, and simple rules but never ending tactic complexity.

check it out and visit gamespy praetorians lobby.

by the way, its made by eidos, an spanish small company who has also made commandos serie, and distributed by eidos interactive.

bye

Blueicus
Space Krill
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 1:41 pm
Location: Canada

re...

#35 Post by Blueicus »

Maybe I'm one of the few wackos out here in TBS land, but I have no problems enjoying both genres of games. I feel that good strategy, resource management, and analytical skills are required in these games, whether I'm playing Warcraft 3 or Civ 3. However, while it is somewhat true that RTS games typically require better reflexes, I personally believe that it's just as important for the player to keep their cool during an RTS melee; mashing buttons and vacantly sending your hordes when you are fighting an equal opponent will not help you win the war (unless it's simply a poorly designed game).
"All glory to the hypnotoad!"

User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#36 Post by skdiw »

Starrh wrote:
PowerCrazy wrote:My only comment on the matter. Heroes ruined WC3. Makeing any kind of "super unit" will inherently unbalance the game. And guess what the only defense is? Yep building your own hero. Talk about one-dimensional.
I have to agree up to a point I was not the biggest fan of War Craft 3 I am not sure it was ruined but it certainly changed the direction from what I enjoyed about War Craft 2. It was a beautiful game to play and pushed my old computer to its limits but I hated trying to keep track of which hero had leveled up in the last battle while I was busy trying rebuild defense and deploy troops. Anyway I am an old man and wish to play much more relaxing games now days thus E-Mail games are more and more appealing. :lol:
Heroes is how War3 is intended to play. Blizzard made War3 like that and they admit that it won't appeal to all audiences. If you want a amazing balance with no super unit and no obsolete units, play Starcraft. In traditional TBS like moo, instead of a super-unit, you just a whole fleet of them. Talk about one-dimensional too. Starcraft is the best balanced tech-independent rps units structure I played so far.
:mrgreen:

Satyagraha
Space Kraken
Posts: 195
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Austria

#37 Post by Satyagraha »

wc3:tft is pretty ok. the only complaint i have is that micro is actually more important than strategy, i think they should be equal at least...

anyway, dare to challenge me :twisted:
i played some Starcraft too, but I don´t have lots of experience with it. i´d also do a game of chess, although i´m noob at it :oops:

btw. will any of you be at the FMX-festival in germany this weekend? animago-award?

PowerCrazy
Creative Contributor
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
Location: Texas

#38 Post by PowerCrazy »

Starcraft is the best balanced game I have EVER played. I used to play Starcraft all the time back in the day. It is simply a great game. If FO is anywhere close to as balanced as Starcraft is I will feel like I accomplished something extraordinary.
Aquitaine is my Hero.... ;)

Daveybaby
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:07 am
Location: Hastings, UK

#39 Post by Daveybaby »

Heh, just as long as you remember how many patches it took them to get it there... :shock:
The COW Project : You have a spy in your midst.

guiguibaah
Creative Contributor
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:00 am

Speed of RTS

#40 Post by guiguibaah »

A lot of the RTS's take on a whole different aproach when you play them on their next to slowest setting. You have all the time in the world to do very coordinated hit-and-runs, etc...

The games become a clickfest when people play them on fastest (like in starcraft).

Thus the style of play changes. On fastest, you don't have time to spend coordinating your armies - your strategy is 'send them all it' and 'make more to expand'.

One when playing on slow, I defeated a group of 20+ marines with just one vulture (unminned) simply doing hit and run, hit and run. You can't do that on fastest.
There are three kinds of people in this world - those who can count, and those who can't.

Satyagraha
Space Kraken
Posts: 195
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Austria

Re: Speed of RTS

#41 Post by Satyagraha »

guiguibaah wrote:On fastest, you don't have time to spend coordinating your armies - your strategy is 'send them all it' and 'make more to expand'.
not true, as long as you are faster than the game ;) just a matter of training.

guiguibaah
Creative Contributor
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:00 am

Not Quite

#42 Post by guiguibaah »

When you play on fastest, you don't have the ability to do a lot of fine-tuning, because your time is better spent elsewhere, either by creating anewer expansion, telling your drones, SCV's, etc to build more buildings, telling your buildings to build more units, etc..

When you play on a slower setting (like slowest), you find yourself sitting around and waiting for things to get built. This allows for more micromanagement of your units. In the time that it takes a marine to walk from X to Y, I could select my group of wraiths, seperate the damage from the healthy, instruct 3 scv's to repair each, get my vulture out and do hit-and-run attacks on a pack of zerglings until they are all defeated, then zip back to my base, select the 7 undamaged wraiths and my science vessel, and bring them to bear on a pack of hydralisks from both flanks, all the while retreating the damaged ones.

If I tried that on fastest, I'd get "okay-selectallwraithsheadtobasecrapI'mgettingattackedbyzerglingsherecomesthevultureuhohhegotstucknowhe'sdeadherecomeshydralisksbettergetwraitscrapthey'redamagededherewegodamgIlostthemokpumpoutmoremarinesclickclickclikclcicklciclciciclilSENDcliclkclckclikcilcSEND"

Warcraft 3 did it a bit better by reducing the micromanagement load (spellcasters will auto cast, you can highligh several buildings of the same type) and reduced the speed settings (now slow, med and fast).

Imagine if there was a speed setting that was 3 times faster than fastest.
There are three kinds of people in this world - those who can count, and those who can't.

Satyagraha
Space Kraken
Posts: 195
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Austria

Re: Not Quite

#43 Post by Satyagraha »

guiguibaah wrote:"okay-selectallwraithsheadtobasecrapI'mgettingattackedbyzerglingsherecomesthevultureuhohhegotstucknowhe'sdeadherecomeshydralisksbettergetwraitscrapthey'redamagededherewegodamgIlostthemokpumpoutmoremarinesclickclickclikclcicklciclciciclilSENDcliclkclckclikcilcSEND"
and that´s exactly what top players can manage ;) during battle, good warcraft3 players give 400-500 commands/minute, managing up to 3 different battles at the same time. and good starcraft players tend to think wc3´s micro is "too easy" :shock: the game is balanced on those players´ skills, and what´s "way too fast" for the casusal player, is "just right" for top players... i´m not that much of a micro fan either, but it´s still kinda amazing what those guys are pulling off in top battles...

guiguibaah
Creative Contributor
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:00 am

... and that's why

#44 Post by guiguibaah »

And that's why it becomes a clickfest. By slowing the game down, you allow people who use more subtle strategies to be on-par with the "top" players.

Battles should be won by who can plot the best strategy of attack and whom has the best tactics, not by who can push CNTL-C, B,B,B Leftmouse B, CNTL-A scroll B,B.

I rarely beat my cousin on fastest because I just don't have the time to properly manage my terrans against his zergs... And to make matters worse, Terrrans require more Micromanagement. But when we play on Slow, I can beat him almost every time.

Don't get me wrong, Starcraft (and other RTS's) are quite fun when you play on really quick levels, and the games are often more enjoyable because you don't wait as long to build, etc. But for people who have become disinterested in them because they loose not because of strategy, but because they can't click fast enough, I suggest playing the game slower to even the playing field.
There are three kinds of people in this world - those who can count, and those who can't.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Not Quite

#45 Post by utilae »

Satyagraha wrote:
guiguibaah wrote:"okay-selectallwraithsheadtobasecrapI'mgettingattackedbyzerglingsherecomesthevultureuhohhegotstucknowhe'sdeadherecomeshydralisksbettergetwraitscrapthey'redamagededherewegodamgIlostthemokpumpoutmoremarinesclickclickclikclcicklciclciciclilSENDcliclkclckclikcilcSEND"
and that´s exactly what top players can manage ;) during battle, good warcraft3 players give 400-500 commands/minute, managing up to 3 different battles at the same time. and good starcraft players tend to think wc3´s micro is "too easy" :shock: the game is balanced on those players´ skills, and what´s "way too fast" for the casusal player, is "just right" for top players... i´m not that much of a micro fan either, but it´s still kinda amazing what those guys are pulling off in top battles...
Thats Nuts! They must have no lives, ha ha. :lol:

If they are that determined, then they could do similar things in any game, even games that are not real time. I doubt that we could do much to prevent them from taking advantage like that.

Post Reply