Chris Discussion

Discussion in 'Game Play' started by spellman23, Nov 5, 2009.

  1. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If it wasn't an FPS/RTS hybrid it would likely be far more polished and well balanced.

    The RTS/FPS element seriously gets in the way of the fun, the polish, and the balance.

    Unless you have an idea to make it balanced without removing or changing any of the RTS/FPS features heavily, you are going to need to remove or change some in order to balance it and make it fun for the majority of people.

    As I've said before, I like that buildings make the game different each time, and I like working with squads and teamwork and whatnot, but when buildings often don't get placed, research doesn't get done, and squads very rarely get used for teamwork, we have to change the game so that buildings always get placed, research always gets done (and unlocks more stuff so we can actually customise tanks) and so that the game doesn't require teamwork in order to be fun, because you certainly can't force people to develop a team mentality, they'll just leave.

    That's why I keep suggesting player driven research, player placed refineries, and also the idea of players being able to buy buildings.

    Having a guy in the chair telling people what to do isn't a problem, but having him be the only one able to operate the fundamental mechanics of the game is, because if he doesn't do it perfectly it's like bullets suddenly stop doing damage, or gravity disappears. Buildings and tech progression are fundamental elements of a successful empires round, just as the basic movement controls are, you need some way of ensuring they occur.

    I don't think that buildings and tech progression are improved any by coming from another player, having buildings and having tech progression are fundamental concepts of empires, you wouldn't have empires if you didn't have them, but players are also not perfect, and those things need to work perfectly, so logically you cannot put them in the hands of a player, if we had infinite budget I would suggest developing an AI to do the placement which could do it more reliably, but since we don't, I suggest giving them to ALL players because it is unlikely that nobody on the team will lack the knowledge of how to place them. Combine that with incentives to place them where they are needed (which I outlined in my last megapost) and you keep the changing gameplay that makes empires empires without the high rate of failure that currently also makes empires empires.

    The idea of having it be very easy to command would probably help, but you still have the issue of nobody wanting to command, which I don't think is related to the difficulty as much as it is the boredom, people want to play the game, not spectate it, and you can't add more things for the commander to do without making it too complex to do well again.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2009
  2. Empty

    Empty Member

    Messages:
    14,912
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Queuing research would be a good feature to prevent research halting

    Removing resource cost from research would be a smart move too, help with the slippery slope and such
     
  3. Metal Smith

    Metal Smith Member

    Messages:
    4,520
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tl;dr

    Empires can't become what it should be with the engine limitations. Too small. If there were more room to develop maps, it would be fun. But there just isn't enough room and too many mapping limitations.
     
  4. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Making maps bigger would hardly help, it would make quite a few problems even worse.

    It might let you do a few more things but you'd still need to address a lot more problems.
     
  5. blizzerd

    blizzerd Member

    Messages:
    10,552
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    in theory, yes

    in practise, 75% of your "team" wants to shoot the bad guys, and collectively ignore any other game mechanic there is, unless they "feel like" doing the 10 minutes of teamwork per game they are willing to do (build a ref or something like that, if you smear it in there faces)
     
  6. Ikalx

    Ikalx Member

    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The only issue I ever really have with Chris is that he sees the game from a counter point of view with regards to teamwork than I do. Other than that, most of it makes sense, however it usually requires a complete overhaul of how Empires is currently handled to make it player-friendly.

    The alternative is to make sure that everyone knows the basics of commanding, and therefore you will always have a semi-competent commander.

    You've been saying a lot of this for a long time Chris, and i've come to the conclusion that the reason it's not usually taken notice of is because you state everything at once that needs to be changed rather than doing it by stages.

    To really see these changes coming into affect, you're going to have to make a thread about each of these ideas and get the community to vote on them, preferable some months apart.

    For instance - making refineries player placed. You should have a thread that proposes that and then explains (briefly!) the mechanism behind it to get it working in-game (e.g. res cost? - maybe the refinery costs Zero res to place, but does not give any resources until 100res has been generated). You should also outline the incentive(s) for doing so other than the obvious (lol, we win if I puts this) as you are looking from a (fairly unique in this community) non-teamwork viewpoint.
     
  7. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually I don't say it all at once, the stuff I've posted is not everything I think needs doing.

    As most of it does't make sense out of context I have to post it at once so that it's understandable, if people are too retarded to read it all and understand it then they're also to retarded to implement it properly.
     
  8. aaaaaa50

    aaaaaa50 Member

    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Every helpful suggestion that has ever been made for empires is, surprisingly, still on these forums. Most of the better ideas either recur once in a while or disappear entirely. If you want details, then you will find one and a half detailed explanations for everything with the search function. What Chris0132' (the most consistently intelligent poster on these forums) does sometimes is take a broader view of things. Seeing as how nothing gets done anyways, it's nice to know that a better Empires game is actually possible.

    Provided you do things exactly to the letter and stop questioning me! You are all unintelligent monkeys who have made the game too complicated for yourselves! :veryangry:

    If I had to choose one person to be head dictator of Empires Mod, it would be Chris.

    P.S. Best map idea ever
     
  9. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually that idea has a lot of issues in it, at least it probably does, as it was made a long time ago and therefore it would not take into account any of the more recent theories about empires gameplay.

    After rereading it, having a lot of bases to go around capturing would probably result in fairly crappy gameplay because you'd get people moving from one to the other and then the enemy takes the abandoned base, more or less like the flags on fogtown. You'd have to cut the numbers a bit, and designing the bases would be difficult, although it's not too bad I suppose.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2009
  10. flasche

    flasche Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    13,299
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    0
    make it then, i remember reading this before and your mapping skills are undoubtably very well developed. just playtest a bit more often - even if it at that state doesnt fit your high standards :D

    id really love to play that map (especially if you somehow manage to fit a commander in all this)
     
  11. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm rather busy at the moment, I have university work, and I don't want to make another map until I can also make a whole set of good looking props and textures to go in it. Indeed I would probably need a new set of props in order to be able to make that map.
     
  12. Ikalx

    Ikalx Member

    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, I know. The point is to suggest things that can and will be done, manageable bites, so to speak. Chris as lead dev isn't quite ideal seeing as he's a bit too cynical and would probably cut a fair amount of the teamplay element in favour of a game that is easier to pick up and play.
     
  13. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No I wouldn't, I would leave players perfectly free to play as teams and make efforts to streamline the existing features and add new ones as required, I would simply not make them required in order to play the game.

    I am not averse to teamplay. I like teamplay, I just know for a fact you cannot rely on it and probably won't get it a lot of the time.
     
  14. Ikalx

    Ikalx Member

    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know what you're saying and I respect your position, however, I would say that CSS has a free teamwork element - you can work to win, but it's not required. Very seldomly do you see teamwork in CSS for this reason.

    What you're saying isn't dumb, however I do get to see teamwork 7 out of 8 times that I play Empires, which, as you've expressed time and time again, is not your experience. Most of the reason I even play Empires is because of the teamwork I see in it...but it seems like that's a whole lot more than yourself and some other people see it.

    A lot of people stay with Empires because they are impressed with how imbedded teamwork is within the game. It is far from perfect, but I don't usually see you making a suggestion that would remove the reliance on teamwork without removing the element of it (in that quantity) - it is usually greatly reduced. But if i'm wrong, I freely apologise because I would very much like to see that.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2009
  15. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Assume empires lost its reliance on commanders, but kept provision for them, assume it automatically created raxes at the front when needed, but the commander or another lead player could still do them if he needed to. Assume the squad interface still exists but joining and leaving them is automatic and based on who is nearby and who is working together so you always have a squad, but people can manually join if they want to, assume research always progresses but a particular tactic can be organised by a group of players if they want to.

    None of this precludes the occurence of any of the existing empires tactics and easily does a lot to encourage them and bring new players into them, and it all helps to make the game not fuck up half the time, so you get more players, servers, games, popularity, attention, developers on the team, and subsequently more progress.

    Once you have that, you can start adding more optional teamwork systems, like squad commanders, the ability of squad leaders to hop in an APC and issue orders and direct squad powers using a commander interface, or optional resource pooling for your squad leader to buy a remote structure drop or something.

    The only reason you'd have less teamwork is because there'd be more average players who might not be interested in it, but all the players who currently work together should still be there, and if the choice is between making it mandatory for them to play together, and having a successful, non-stagnating game, I don't see how that is a choice.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2009
  16. Sandbag

    Sandbag Member

    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I really disagree. I massively disagree. Actually I think most of the things that I'd like to see are things that are equally as demanding on the engine as what is already there. A different layout of research tree. Different pricing for refs.

    ------------------------------------------

    I want to point out that I don't want to remove commanding. I want the commander to be good because he actually commands, not is fast with a bunch of different micromanagements to remember (which research, how to get to it, give targets quickly and frequently, place refs the moment the player arrives). These are things that give a team an advantage over a team that doesn't have that for reasons OTHER than "the commander had the better strategy and co-ordination with the team". That should be the exclusive reason that a commander is a good commander. Because he out-thought the other one.

    People thought that TF2 would be tactically, strategically worse than TFC with the bunnyhopping, grenades, knowing where to shoot (not the crosshair) when conc'd. Surely the skill ceiling is decreased? Instead, the players are now defined by a whole different set of rules, less arbitrary and silly.
     
  17. Wolf Marine

    Wolf Marine Member

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Barracks requires points, and if the computer is automatically placing them around, it will eat up res. That and you're already claiming the commander "doesn't do much" so you're making a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Players already organize themselves into squads as they please. Players do not need auto-squads to help us organize and attack or defend. I've been able to get squadmates who I never worked with before listen to my instructions and then carry them out, often with myself taking the lead.

    At this point this appears to be like you are trying to tell us we're all incompetent at multitasking rts and fps.

    We might get better chance for new players if A) People knew Empires existed and B) Somebody makes an ingame tutorial, even if it has to be a map made by a player to get the job done. Point A is the big one. I came across this game completely by chance, randomly scrolling around for mods to play. People simply won't play the game if they can't find it or don't know it exists. This is like trying to open a new business without advertising yourself beforehand. You're wondering where everyone is on your grand opening because nobody can find you.

    Using squad points to build a structure sounds inviting, but a squad leader is like a lieutenant. Lieutenants tend to have the highest casualty rate among officers in the army because they are leading their troops at the front lines, often with little battle experience themselves. Sitting back and looking through an interface is the job of the team's commander, not the squad leader.

    They have a choice to go back and play CSS or C&C. If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.
     
  18. Ikalx

    Ikalx Member

    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Alright, so how do we get barracks to spawn automatically when needed? Do we use flag capture on each sector or each set of sectors? How does research always progress? Do you have a vote at the beginning of the round and that decides what tree you get into? (I'll assume that the tech trees are completely remade.) Soft squads is something I myself have suggested before so i'm fully down with that one.

    The point is, how do you get there? It's fine having a goal, but you need a road to follow too, or it's just a dream. The changes you have mentioned make it look like actually there wouldn't be much for a commander to do, and while that's fine in and of itself, if you delegate the role to squad leaders, you end up with a squad-based game. Maybe that's going a little too far, but I can see that's where this direction would go. You might say that there's little difference between commanders and squad leaders, but we both know that's not true.

    I'm not trying to be obtuse here, because I agree with you in principle, but I can't really see how those things actually remove the need for teamwork and make it a choice. A squad might be able to win a game themselves (as it is now), but most of the times teamwork is forced upon people is when they just can't do it alone, or with one squad. The only difference is, currently you need to work in conjunction with your commander too, whereas in your scenario you'd be autonomous within your squad or going solo.

    I don't know, it just seems like the commander will become a mechanism not unlike the current squad leader - it'd be nice and add a few perks if you had one, but it's hardly necessary. And indeed, while that sounds somewhat attractive, doesn't it change the game a whole heck of a lot?

    --- tl;dr ---

    I suppose I should have paid more attention to the "throwing away bad game mechanics" part of your post, and you also mention BF2 there...tell me (because I haven't played it), in what way would Empires be different from BF2 after implementing these changes? If buildings take care of themselves, research is on an automated timer and squads are...fixed (that one I can definately live with), wouldn't it be much the same as if they weren't there at all? - Could they all just be replaced with flag capture? A forward spawn, an increase in resources and a subsequent increase in technological advantage would all be tied to territory control...leaving it as...capture the flag (debatably no different from now).

    Or is it that once you get that down as a basic mechanism, you can start expanding gameplay in other ways, and you have still preserved the freedom to build a barracks next to the enemy base, an armoury on a random hill and getting fission engines with HE MG?
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2009
  19. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BF2 doesn't have buildings, research, or customisable tanks, it's also a lot slower than empires in general.

    There's a few possible ways you could do it, I have suggested putting in vehicles which people can buy, and then drive somewhere and unpack into a building, they then get money for people using the building (everyone has their own money pool) so it's like an investment for getting more money later, so people have an incentive to do it but placing many of the buildings will be a poor investment, so there is no incentive to spam them, you'd be better off placing one somewhere else where there isn't one rather than spamming them in the same place. This is 'automatic' because someone is always going to do it, there is going to be someone on the team who buys at least one of these things and takes it with them to the front line. All you have to work out is the specific balancing for the incentive, how much money do you get, how much does that make a difference? How hard is it to move these things to the place where you want them? Can they have armament to give people an incentive to sit in them and wait for a deployment opportunity? That sort of thing.

    Of course on top of this you can still keep some sort of commander based building deployment, possibly using a team resource system to drop them anywhere but it would be more expensive and occur less often, or as I said, squad leaders could drop it with their money using the squad command interface for again, an additional cost.

    Research can be personal, so everyone can choose their own unlock path, which means it always occurs (I would suggest making it free but still time limited, I don't think it needs to have cost, although if you have personal money it's not much of a problem to have it cost money) because people are always doing it, but you can still have a coherent strategy because you just need to get some people to research the same thing, if you have a good team working together that shouldn't be a problem, although I realise not everyone will do that on any given team.

    A lot of these ideas revolve around distributing the workload to the entire team, so everyone can (and most importantly, has incentive to) pick up the slack of everyone else. It makes all the things we need doing doable by anybody and ensures that they want to do them. If you can make them transparent enough so that people also understand how to do them well, I don't think you can get more reliable than that.

    It would reduce the amount of stuff for commanders to do but I don't see that as a bad thing, there is still a commander role (five of them on a big server, in fact) in the form of squad leaders. And you can still have a global commander (I would suggest getting rid of the CV though and just make it reliant on buildings, if you blow up all buildings you've essentially lost, you don't need a CV to add into the mix, you can make the comm accessable from any VF or radar or something). The global commander would simply be a more optional thing, you can use it to give global direction and limited support to your team, but all the important bits like targets and research and buildings (targets can use the listening post idea except maybe have it stuck on the armory or something and give the radar a bigger one) are done automatically (or by players). Commanders can be a more drop-in thing, you command for a bit and then maybe fight a bit, or you can command all game if you have a team which desires constant direction and you want to give it, or you can pick a squad command role and do both at the same time.

    If squad leaders get a command interface and the ability to use it to direct structure drops and squad powers, it's a pretty similar thing to commanding if you ask me, it's smaller scale but far more fun for the people involved, the squad commander can spend all his time microing his squad and doesn't have to keep stopping to shore up the game mechanics using the research tree or targets for everyone. He can also focus specifically on his area of the map, and use squad powers pretty constantly (I'd suggest adding more of them and maybe changing the system a bit so that each one has a recharge which good performance improves, but they regen on their own and each one can only be used again after a certain time, but you can vary them a lot, to prevent arty spam and maybe make some of the less valuable ones more valuable by making them not in direct competition with the others). The squad leader is also responsible for the team's spawn and can drive his APC around to provide support that way, seamlessly meshing combat and commanding. Players on the other hand get to feel like someone is really looking out for them and are far more likely to get what they ask for because their commander only has to watch out for five people in a smaller area.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2009
  20. Ikalx

    Ikalx Member

    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Some of that sounds nice, but it also sounds like a completely different game. It sounds like you wouldn't have a commander much, which is one of the things that makes Empires a little different. I would also say that commanding is quite different from squad leading, maybe in the way that being the general is different from (in your words) being a lieutenant. It's a difference in scale, but also of immediacy of action.

    There are some changes i've definately agreed with for a long time - soft squads and personal resources/money are a couple that I would really like to see. Because you're not wrong, and there does need to be less of a reliance on commanders, however, in your version I find it kinda hard to see how a commander would make a difference really. Would having a commander around give you an edge over a leaderless enemy - even if they had decent squad leaders?

    Having personal research seems to me a lot like skills in the current Empires - if it's a self-buff in a specific area, what's the difference between a weapon upgrade based on rank for instance (ala Neotokyo style) except that it applies to vehicles instead?

    I think you'd be sleepwalking over a cliff here - if you make squads self contained like you're suggesting, there's the question about whether people will just play as individual squads and not really care about the rest of the players, you'd eventually just get clan squads going around by themselves being not really that interested in what ever else the team is doing. I think by removing/largely reducing the need for a commander you greatly risk downsizing the team size from 20 or so, to 5. It's no longer large and (sigh) epic, but it's rather about a few squads going about the map, and then blaming another squad for when things go bad or just about the individual squads completing their objectives properly when things go well. There is no larger team communication outside of the squad, except when someone decides that actually, there are other people playing.

    The reasoning for doing this is because the individuals don't work together as a team and achieve victory as much as they should, but simply because they are individuals means they need to reach out to the next person for a hand. When you make the game more squad orientated, you end up with the squad being the team and planning their own goals and tactics without any coordination/help from the outside.

    While I understand that the commander role right now isn't great as it hingepins a lot of the game on one person, I've gotta admit, when I play most of the team does like to work together to defeat the enemy. What we need is a way to turn the game around from 5% individual 95% commander to 25% individual, 75% commander. I think personal resources would do that, at least freeing infantry from the restrictions that other players place on their access to vehicles, and thus allowing them to play a larger role in the fight.

    Kinda tailed off there, but I think I pointed out my main concerns.
     

Share This Page