you still can do that, just order your units to follow you and hop into the rifleman-hero unit - or order them to guard/attack an area and wander off to cause havoc elsewhere or flank the enemy. i used wc3 because though it was an RTS it focused mainly around the heroes*. in 1on1 league games you see players mainly controlling their heros and they quit the instant their hero goes down (bc you gain no xp and lack behind and probably will lose in the long run). but thats high tier play, in pub games you have all sorts of players. but in general, heros are very important and the main focus of you and your enemy. in wc3 the heros could be FPS controlled aswell - infact the better players precicely controll their path and orientation for a huge portion of the game ... also the amount of RTS style macro you need is only dependend on how smart the AI actually is -> fe. new built units that idle till they get an order from the player vs units that aquire orders themselfs unless they get overridden by players. if for example your miners would automatically go to the next goldmine the amount of RTS macro you need is reduced and you can concentrate more on combat micro which in our case means hop into your footsoldier, tank, plane, arty or whatever and do your business ... *also because wc3 was a quite innovative and very popular game
I like the idea, only thing is open world RTS/FPS is going to be hard to achieve. Especially if its a MMO. What engine are you planning on using?
Well, he already stated that it's going to be a scenario type of game instead of open/consistent world like WWII Online. Which would've been awesome, but admittedly is an incredible workload.
Ofcourse the lessons from Empires have had a huge effect on my designs for 10kB. I intend for 1v1 games to be possible and fun, but up to 8v8 being much more enjoyable. The General (Commander) will be too busy to jump into a unit for run-n-gun but I am looking at having that ability for players commanding their own squad. For the General, 10kB will play like a pure RTS while other players will be able to play like a modern FPS. Players won’t have classes to learn, and we won’t need engineers to build buildings. If you want to command you can be the General or spawn your own squad, if you want to just kill things then there will be plenty of targets. Hero status will be something that happens on the battlefield if a player performs really well in combat. The new Hero will get some special abilities and nearby AI units will automatically follow him, disobeying the General. The hero must continue to perform or they will lose their status and return to being a normal player.
So similar to Star Wars: Battlefront 2, except with more AI and a general? The combat portion of the game that is.
and if in a 1vs1 situation if one player chose to play RTS the other FPS will this work out? im in doubt ... even if an AI takes over the other part it will be predictable soon and players will abuse this to their advantage. when i first played wc3 i played an "extended demo" version and wasnt able to beat the AI on even easy. today, even if i didnt play for a while, ill probably wont have much trouble with hard. though i didnt play much against ai anymore after bought the game ... but it could turn out really cool aswell. im just sceptical ...
No no no, you must have at a human player for General on each side. RTS AI programming is a massive undertaking. Even with funding I don't see that happening. I never played SWBF2, is it good?
The way I see it, take Starcraft 2, take it into the right time period, and then have extra people join AT THE START OF THE MATCH as FPS players. So there's no "join mid-game" bullshit, people do what they are supposed to, and they enjoy it. Because seriously what I hate about Empires commanding is that people in pubs are retarded and don't do what they are supposed to. Really really fun FPS.
yeah but why dont turn it into a complete, yet less complex then wc3, RTS for everyone? if someone only wants to play a squad and his hero, let them do that with intelligent resource sharing, but dont deny him features of the game. also you will need a somewhat robust RTS ai anyway if you have commander controlled units or player squads.
What if we had the map of china with the warlords occupying territory. Battles will be set up using this map and generate a list of games. The game will remain open until a general has joined for each side. The outcome of the game determines what happens on the map. The players with the highest ranking command score for each faction get to decide which province to attack at the end of the day. Highest rank wins, so if a rank 2 says Faction A will attack Faction B, but before the end of the day, a rank 4 decides that Faction A will attack Faction C, then that order will be carried out. In this way, we could also carry over weapons from one battle to the next so they can be used or sold on the Market. OFcourse I can see problems there with n00b Generals selling good weapons because they don't know any better so perhaps we should just automatically sell back a portion of the weaponry from each side when the round ends. I am hesitant to lock games so that you can not join during a round. For hugely popular, and fast, games like Counterstrike its easy to find an open server or just to be a spectator for a couple mins but a 10kb round could potentially last much longer and players will not want to wait for the round to end. With the amount of control the General has in 10kB, however, griefing should be kept to a minimum.
Honestly if it's 4v4 then it's 8 people per server. To sustain a population this game would need plenty of people and matchmaking shouldn't be hard, but still joining mid-game can really screw you over. I'd say, sit where you are instead of hopping from game to game trying to find nubs to pubstomp.
Probably one of the greatest FPS games to play on a console. It was kind of like Battlefield but in space. What you could do is make it so that there could be multiple players controlling their units on the battlefield, sort of like Shattered Galaxy, which was an old MMORTS, and have one main player - the general - controlling the main forces. If, for example, the servers could host 128 players, 126 players would be able to go between an RTS view and FPS view of their units, and the other 2 would be Generals. Then if the general has to leave or wishes to relinquish command, the server could send request to players in order of highest to lowest rank whether they want to be promoted or not. I'm saying this because if the General has stuff to do he should be able to leave the game without jeopardizing his entire faction.
dont make the same mistake as empires did, do not totally split RTS and FPS (even if you can control a squad as FPS), especially not in a 1:restofplayers ratio. if people really would want to split up what genre they play, they still could if you have a way to share/trade resources if all options are available to everyone.
Hmm actually I like the empires solution, since you can hop out of the cv and even drive it around anytime you want, yet it would be great if you could also enter the commander hud without the cv next to you at certain points on the map ... beind able to use the hud everywhere without risking f.e. the cv wouldn't be great as hiding and stuff like that gets hindered much by it, but idk ...
thats a matter of what you can archieve as FPS player actually. if you can slaughter bots at a ratio of 20:1 your impact is high enough to go fight at the front rather then camp in RTS mode. or if you gain 20 times the experience when you kill out of FPS mode, thats a huge incentive to stay in FPS as much as possible. i think the "RTS-macro" stuff should only mean, switch out of player, go to map position, do macro stuff as build something or research, and switch back to FPS. if there is resource gatherers they should be mainly automatical with the option to override their current gather location to apply to less RTS affine players. game target should be no rax + player dead.
It should be support like a 5% max boost to income from a village, or 5% increase in firepower in a radius. Or less %.
yeah well its moot to discuss actual values for imaginative gameplay. also the way you create an incentive to stay in FPS and fight at the frontlines can (and probably should) be various. very similar to warcraft 3 heroes, so buff-auras deffinately are options.
Yeah yeah different area effects that are useful but aren't needed to win, basically very slight optimising of the whole process. So that RTS > FPS. And you definitely can't have much ammo and strong weapons, so you only stick to handguns and stuff, because anything strong will just turn into a slaughterfest against the AI.
nono, i want you to slaughter AI. much like in a moba just that its more like what mobas emerged from -> RTS (or well wc3) i envision it like lets this: assume 104 units meeting, 8 of them being players (4vs4 everyone brings like 12units). ai is mainly used to block players, keep AI busy and create danger zones, while the 8 players dig it out against eachother in the battle they created. ofc it shouldnt be possible to survive just standing around surrounded by a group of 12 enemy AI units either, but you should be more frightend by a single player unit (ofc dependend on what kind of units both player and ai are) i seem to cant stop repeating this, think about it similar to wc3 which is mainly hero vs hero with support of normal units (as meatwall/distraction or ability carriers - apart from a few you dont use normal units as damage dealers to heroes) since i want you to mainly play a FPS it ofc would need an elaborate order system. but i think with a bit thinking its easily manageable with unitgroups and hotkeys.
