Username:    Password:    Remember Me?         

Reverie World Studios Forums - View Single Post - Diversity to gameplay, to game objectives + Troops prod AI
View Single Post
Old 04-16-2008, 02:24 PM
Joseph Visscher's Avatar
Joseph Visscher Joseph Visscher is offline
Reverie World Studios - Lead Level Designer, Senior Gameplay Programmer, 3D Animator, 3D-2D Artist.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Canada B.C.
Posts: 1,279
Joseph Visscher has extremely good reputationJoseph Visscher has extremely good reputationJoseph Visscher has extremely good reputationJoseph Visscher has extremely good reputation

Originally Posted by Ovocean View Post

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.

Originally Posted by Ovocean View Post

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.

Originally Posted by Ovocean View Post
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.

Originally Posted by Ovocean View Post
- 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.
Joseph B. Visscher - JBV3737

Bugs aren't the problem, figuring out how to fix them is.

Last edited by Joseph Visscher : 04-16-2008 at 02:27 PM.
Reply With Quote