nihil
22nd Sep 01, 2:40 PM
ok, here's hoping (and sleepness nights praying) hw2 is to rts's as counter-strike is to first person shooters.
can it be done?
that one falls to the game's creators.
the original homeworld was and still is the best rts i have ever played, and ive played from age of empires to z steel soldiers. the homeworld game concept is awesome: 3d rts in space with cool looking ships and good gameplay, although it wasnt perfectly balanced(no rts can be a truly balanced game, as far as ive seen. btw, balanced in my opinion means you need many kinds of ships to compensate for each others weaknesses). it died on me, after several months of playing it. if hw2 goes down the tubes like so many other games, i am going to be one pissed off little camper.
i absolutley hate games that have such a good idea, but some how die in the 2nd month. example z steel soldiers; no reasourcing, just capturing territory for money. that idea is awesome (for 2d games, keep it out of hw) and it means constant fighting, no sitting back and stocking up, but the game died so fast. why? multiplayer. people lost interest. multiplayer isnt exciting enough, oh well. back to cs, i guess. rts's seem to have trouble with multiplayer. the best game (rated by several magazines, and myself) is half life and its mod counter strike. the game isnt a rts, but the mplayer concept is there: it has more people playing it at one time (any time of the day) then most rts's combined ever did. AND IT DOESNT EVEN HAVE A SINGLE PLAYER!
rts's spend so much time creating these great, complex, beautiful single player campaigns, so much time goes into them. they can be fun, like mechcommander 2 or homeworld, but then i beat them in a week, if i dont in the first couple days. after that i start multiplayer. ok, it's cool, and then i play my, say, 20th game. man, this is getting boring. the same thing happened this game as the last game... no matter how great the single player is, any person with a clew will beat it sooner or later, and when that day happens, they're going to play multiplayer.
how can you break out of this boring rts multiplayer cycle? is it possible? look at cs. there are several factors that contribute to it's fun gameplay. one, killing people, wont be able to play a big part in hw2.
however, teamplay, something that is extremely fun is possible in an rts. first, for it to work the ability to start a game with team mates is obviosly important. at least 3 to a team for my idea is a good minimum(1 would be original mplayer gameplay and 2 is possible), and 5 would be the max. the main part of making it a team effort would be this: the designated leader is in control of the production of units, and researching (resourcing should be automated like in Emperor Dune, i really liked that part of the game, but i guess the leader should have some control over it. maybe to tell it to harvest this area and then dont go to this area, etc and then leave it to complete the task). that person then "hands over" units to his team mates. example, 5 heavy corvetts are created along with a wing of bombers, the leader would hit ctrl and then the teammates number(1 in this case). then the leader tells his 1st teammate to go after a group or resourcers, while he gives control of ion frigates and other heavies to his other teamate to take out an incoming battle group. yeah, i can dream. who doesnt agree that that would be awesome? sure, you could have crazy teammates who wont listen to you, or a bad leader who doesnt asign any units to you, but that type of play would be great for people that like each other and know each other. for team play with people you dont know, give each person on a team 1 carrier all close to each other. one creates fighters only, another corvettes only, another frigates only. it could happen.... what do you guys think?
also, units would have to be more common. that means they would cost less, or resrources come in faster. they should also have more obvious weaknesses and strengths, so that groups of the same unit or lone units will not succeed. groups with many different kinds of units must be made, and a grouping system should be easier.(i dont understand why only numbers can be used to easily call up groups, why not letters that arent used. in games where it is difficult to keep track of units, it would be easier with many more group label options).
but then, im just crazy, this idea will never happen and ill just buy whatever hw2 comes out as. ill play it, most likely like it, but ill give it up after a while, just like all other games(except mechwarrior 4 and counter-strike). so no matter what relic does, they have my money, so do what you want, but those are my two cents. so what do you guys think?
can it be done?
that one falls to the game's creators.
the original homeworld was and still is the best rts i have ever played, and ive played from age of empires to z steel soldiers. the homeworld game concept is awesome: 3d rts in space with cool looking ships and good gameplay, although it wasnt perfectly balanced(no rts can be a truly balanced game, as far as ive seen. btw, balanced in my opinion means you need many kinds of ships to compensate for each others weaknesses). it died on me, after several months of playing it. if hw2 goes down the tubes like so many other games, i am going to be one pissed off little camper.
i absolutley hate games that have such a good idea, but some how die in the 2nd month. example z steel soldiers; no reasourcing, just capturing territory for money. that idea is awesome (for 2d games, keep it out of hw) and it means constant fighting, no sitting back and stocking up, but the game died so fast. why? multiplayer. people lost interest. multiplayer isnt exciting enough, oh well. back to cs, i guess. rts's seem to have trouble with multiplayer. the best game (rated by several magazines, and myself) is half life and its mod counter strike. the game isnt a rts, but the mplayer concept is there: it has more people playing it at one time (any time of the day) then most rts's combined ever did. AND IT DOESNT EVEN HAVE A SINGLE PLAYER!
rts's spend so much time creating these great, complex, beautiful single player campaigns, so much time goes into them. they can be fun, like mechcommander 2 or homeworld, but then i beat them in a week, if i dont in the first couple days. after that i start multiplayer. ok, it's cool, and then i play my, say, 20th game. man, this is getting boring. the same thing happened this game as the last game... no matter how great the single player is, any person with a clew will beat it sooner or later, and when that day happens, they're going to play multiplayer.
how can you break out of this boring rts multiplayer cycle? is it possible? look at cs. there are several factors that contribute to it's fun gameplay. one, killing people, wont be able to play a big part in hw2.
however, teamplay, something that is extremely fun is possible in an rts. first, for it to work the ability to start a game with team mates is obviosly important. at least 3 to a team for my idea is a good minimum(1 would be original mplayer gameplay and 2 is possible), and 5 would be the max. the main part of making it a team effort would be this: the designated leader is in control of the production of units, and researching (resourcing should be automated like in Emperor Dune, i really liked that part of the game, but i guess the leader should have some control over it. maybe to tell it to harvest this area and then dont go to this area, etc and then leave it to complete the task). that person then "hands over" units to his team mates. example, 5 heavy corvetts are created along with a wing of bombers, the leader would hit ctrl and then the teammates number(1 in this case). then the leader tells his 1st teammate to go after a group or resourcers, while he gives control of ion frigates and other heavies to his other teamate to take out an incoming battle group. yeah, i can dream. who doesnt agree that that would be awesome? sure, you could have crazy teammates who wont listen to you, or a bad leader who doesnt asign any units to you, but that type of play would be great for people that like each other and know each other. for team play with people you dont know, give each person on a team 1 carrier all close to each other. one creates fighters only, another corvettes only, another frigates only. it could happen.... what do you guys think?
also, units would have to be more common. that means they would cost less, or resrources come in faster. they should also have more obvious weaknesses and strengths, so that groups of the same unit or lone units will not succeed. groups with many different kinds of units must be made, and a grouping system should be easier.(i dont understand why only numbers can be used to easily call up groups, why not letters that arent used. in games where it is difficult to keep track of units, it would be easier with many more group label options).
but then, im just crazy, this idea will never happen and ill just buy whatever hw2 comes out as. ill play it, most likely like it, but ill give it up after a while, just like all other games(except mechwarrior 4 and counter-strike). so no matter what relic does, they have my money, so do what you want, but those are my two cents. so what do you guys think?