Reverie World Studios Forums

Reverie World Studios Forums (http://www.reverieworld.com/forums/index.php)
-   Public Suggestions and Proposals (http://www.reverieworld.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Diversity to gameplay, to game objectives + Troops prod AI (http://www.reverieworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244)

Ovocean 04-14-2008 05:52 PM

Diversity to gameplay, to game objectives + Troops prod AI
 
Greetings,

I'm, all in all, very interested by this game !
Never have I been a great lover of strategy games - especially in multiplayer - for a few but important reasons. These, fortunately, seem to all be destined to be by-passed by DoF.

Just as I was starting to read a first piece of information about the latter, I was dreaming of a strategy game similar to an MMO wich would let me play in LAN, with friends, extensively long games on a huge map, where we would be able to develop kingdoms, extend and fight for territories. The main idea was to avoid the repetitive gameplay of classical RTS on skirmish maps, and have a real evolution of the game environment and style of play over days.
Then I read about the half-MMO mode for DoF and I was delighted. :) So we go for my first suggestion (rather a request) : Please, oh please, implement the "MMO" mode in LAN games !

Another problem I have with multiplayer RTS games are that I'm unable to manage economics and battles at the same time. When a fight begins, I dive into it, only to discover a few minutes later that all my buildings have stopped production, my fields are out of crop, and I've taken a great backwardness in my progression tree.
But here again, DoF claims it will let us choose to leave the micro management of the stronghold to an AI, yay !
Though... I don't know how far it goes, so here's another suggestion : An activatable (during play) option would let the AI manage production of troops ; the player would first choose among a few build presets, then would go take care of his ennemy easy in he/she's mind, knowing that reinforcement will be ready in time.

The last annoying thing for me is simply that I hate to lose a deathmatch game, watching my beloved city being destroyed piece after piece by a fervent opponent until my last peasant hits the ground yelling. I end up full of hatred towards irl friends, wich I hate. There are solutions to this, playing in coop against computer ennemies is a possibility offered by most current RTS games, and DoF. So that's fine. I've also read about a PvE mode ?
Anyway, what I would really like to see is some variety in game objectives :
- Assault maps where one player has to defend something against the opponent ;
- Maps with economic goals, needing collection of multiple ressources that the players will have to fight for ;
- And other things you can think of that don't require total destruction of the opponents, but encourages interaction between players. And, if possible, that encourages assistance between allies.
- Some excellent board games offer the players the choice between various (but balanced) objectives at the beginning of the game (or even halfway through it), impacting the way to play a lot. That's something I would appreciate to see in an RTS pc game like DoF.

That's it for this first post, I think I would better split my suggestions in multiple topics so other people can comment each...

And... actually I suppose that it's a bit late for you - devs - to implement most suggestions, right ?

frankein_fish 04-15-2008 04:14 AM

Some nice bunch of question there, but to answear one of them there will be some kind of quest in the MMO mode plus event's.
And i gues there will probably be some in battle objectives.

Ovocean 04-15-2008 05:30 AM

Thanks.
And from what I've read, my concern about encouraging support and assistance between allies will be fulfilled by the strong gameplay differences between subraces. Cheers !
Now I just hope that the skirmish mode will not be all devoted to deathmatch.

The Witch King of Angmar 04-15-2008 05:16 PM

I don't think that'll be the case. There may still be alliances and such in it.

Puppeteer 04-16-2008 12:40 PM

Not sure how popular the economic objectives will be, but if any objective map is to be implemented above all else it should be a freebuild mode. Though, actually, thinking about it, is that really such a good thing as this game's fortress building revolves around build plots (for the conventional humans, and elves, at least).

Joseph Visscher 04-16-2008 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ovocean (Post 5047)

So we go for my first suggestion (rather a request) : Please, oh please, implement the "MMO" mode in LAN games !

I am 90% sure there will be, having a online muti-player gameplay is most likely way the hell harder to put into a game then a LAN game. which is almost the same thing. the LAN games will most likely come right along side the mutiplayer online games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ovocean (Post 5047)

Another problem I have with multiplayer RTS games are that I'm unable to manage economics and battles at the same time. When a fight begins, I dive into it, only to discover a few minutes later that all my buildings have stopped production, my fields are out of crop, and I've taken a great backwardness in my progression tree.
But here again, DoF claims it will let us choose to leave the micro management of the stronghold to an AI, yay !
Though... I don't know how far it goes, so here's another suggestion : An activatable (during play) option would let the AI manage production of troops ; the player would first choose among a few build presets, then would go take care of his ennemy easy in he/she's mind, knowing that reinforcement will be ready in time.

I disagree with that concept and hopefuly will never be added to the game.

This is a R.eal T.ime S.trategy game and muti-tasking is what separates the pros from the noobs and is the back bone of the RTS Genre. If you can manage your resources and your army at the exact same time and the other player cant, you will have the upper hand in defeating his army, or defeating his economy. In any other RTS you will see this, and if you don’t, trust me it will get boring very quickly.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ovocean (Post 5047)
The last annoying thing for me is simply that I hate to lose a deathmatch game, watching my beloved city being destroyed piece after piece by a fervent opponent until my last peasant hits the ground yelling. I end up full of hatred towards irl friends, wich I hate. There are solutions to this, playing in coop against computer ennemies is a possibility offered by most current RTS games, and DoF. So that's fine. I've also read about a PvE mode ?
Anyway, what I would really like to see is some variety in game objectives :

Losing and Winning is apart of all RTSs, if you don’t lose a few you wont win a few either, so what’s a point of playing a game if you can only win? Your suppose to have a challenge, if you don’t, how would it be fun or even worth playing?
Maybe this is why you haven’t liked RTS games, because you don’t know how to play them inwhich I mean, if you don’t have a challenge for you to defeat and get better, what’s the point? Get what I mean.

Having a 'comp stomp' or co-op, humans vs AI is a most likely yes, not fully sure.


Whats PvE? Player Vs Environment? like creeps? little quests, kill all these human banits and save some slave mine workers?
I think we may have something like that in online. :)


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ovocean (Post 5047)
- Assault maps where one player has to defend something against the opponent ;

We most likely will have this online, we do already offline in skrimishes.

iceblast 04-16-2008 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Visscher (Post 5129)
This is a R.eal T.ime S.trategy game and muti-tasking is what separates the pros from the noobs and is the back bone of the RTS Genre. If you can manage your resources and your army at the exact same time and the other player cant, you will have the upper hand in defeating his army, or defeating his economy. In any other RTS you will see this, and if you don’t, trust me it will get boring very quickly.

i agree getting the ai to do the economics is been a big ***** and not playing the game properly.

Ovocean 04-16-2008 04:59 PM

Thanks for the answer and all the good news Joseph!


Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Visscher
I disagree with that concept and hopefuly will never be added to the game.

This is a R.eal T.ime S.trategy game and muti-tasking is what separates the pros from the noobs and is the back bone of the RTS Genre. If you can manage your resources and your army at the exact same time and the other player cant, you will have the upper hand in defeating his army, or defeating his economy. In any other RTS you will see this, and if you don’t, trust me it will get boring very quickly.

I don't think the concept wouldn't ruin anything. Think of car races: you can try to drive an automatic car, but you will only be able to reach the best speeds if you drive a not-automatic car (hand gear car, I don't know how you call it).
Same thing here: the newbs (like me) and lazy people (like me) will go the easy way with the presets of troops, but if they want to really master the game (like I'll do after a certain amount of time) and be relevant against pros, they'll have to learn to manage everything simultaneously.

As for your last argument, no it won't be boring. Since Ground Control, there has been plenty of strategy games where there's no base building and economics at all, and it's not boring.

What is boring to me is if I have to manage so many things that I don't have a single second to think of good and complex strategies during the game.

But yes, I understand that it would perhaps modify a lot the way we play the game, and if it's not appealing to the devs, well... too bad for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Visscher
Losing and Winning is apart of all RTSs, if you don’t lose a few you wont win a few either, so what’s a point of playing a game if you can only win?

Sure, I was only speaking of the particular way of loosing when I know 15m before the end of the game that I'll be defeated and I can only contemplate my city being destroyed piece by piece. This I can't stand and I do prefer playing some more peaceful games than living this. Well, maybe I've grown up, maybe I can now... But it's human nature...
Though, I have no problem with losing in other conditions. So that's only a suggestion: diversity in LAN modes. It can only be a good thing, right?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppeteer
Not sure how popular the economic objectives will be, but if any objective map is to be implemented above all else it should be a freebuild mode. Though, actually, thinking about it, is that really such a good thing as this game's fortress building revolves around build plots (for the conventional humans, and elves, at least).

Yep, the economic objective is not a good idea. It was an example too quickly thought up.

Ovocean 04-17-2008 05:40 AM

Oh, an idea! What if we could be two players controlling the same civ? It's then up to the players to decide who takes care of what. With a Voice over IP software - or in LAN of course - I think it could be easily manageable.
This could also be a way to have more than eight players on a map. I can imagine duo partners tournaments. :)

Aye, I suppose it could be boring in the beginning of a game. But one could take care of sending explorers around the map and capture wild animals, and give orders to peasants, for example, while the other places the buildings and takes care of the economy.

PS: Sorry for I should have edited the previous post.

Puppeteer 04-17-2008 10:47 AM

RTS is a Real-Time Strategy. The Strategy aspect is almost certainly implemented into all 'RTS's, but I don't know what your interpretation of the Real-Time part is. For me, that tells me it simulates the theme of a game with detail but not being overly complex. Micromanagement is a key aspect and basic fundamental of all 'RTS's, and thus handing it over to an AI this game should, by my definition, be called only a Strategic game. Unlike 'FPS's where it is accuracy, and reflex which rule the day Strategy is (supposed to be) about being able to think quickly and come up with tactical decisions whilst managing the necessities. Allowing AI to take over either unit production or the economy really means at the end of the day you've had help. Good balance between micromanagement and strategy makes the pros, the pros. Not some AI doing half the work...


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2001-2011 Reverie World Studios INC. All Rights Reserved.