Combining RTS and FPS gameplay

Game Play & Game Design
#21

About that Big Leader comment and the other will be idle, I don’t agree.

You can use the same argument for every other team multiplayer game out there, there are always newbie players that don’t have a clue what to do, so they just run somewhere and die, complain and quit. I really need to show you how BZ2 plays like, it’s all hardcore action from first minute…a very competitive and difficult game. You’re not hiding somewhere and play it safe, the enemy will secure all the resources, build tons of units quickly and destroy your base…and win.

#22

The others won’t stand idle. They will ignore your orders.

Same argument? Yes, indeed. And I do :slight_smile:
In most team-oriented multiplayer games, 50% of the players in your team will not play as part of the team, they’ll just do whatever they feel like, and this is not limited to newbie players. In fact, veteran players are far more likely to think they know better.

I think you have to start a cooperative multiplayer game from the assumption that 50% of the players will, in fact, not cooperate. And I believe the game will never be successfull if it doesn’t ALLOW those 50% to be insubordinate.

I must admit, though, I’m basing my opinion on observations in FPS games. MMORPG games will probably see a much higher level of cooperation.

#23

In BZ2 we have this gameplay, and there are maximum 4 players on each team, so 8 players in total (including commanders). Since the community that plays this game is so small we (the veterans) know everyone and their skill level. So teams are always balanced, and there are never any players that don’t have a clue, or don’t cooperate. Game starts when the session if full, and the same players play it throughout the game. Games can last for maybe 15-50 minutes (most of the time), 1-2 hours some times, and rarely 2-3 hours.

I wouldn’t want to play in a game session that had 30 or 50 players, it would be impossible to balance teams since you don’t know everyone, and impossible to coordinate. 8-12 players max, 4-5-6 players on each team, any more and the commander won’t be able to cope with the stress of giving everyone new units and logistical support.

#24

Aha, ok, now I’m with you ;D
You’re talking about a typical LAN game (even if it is played over internet). I guess I was thinking more about massive multiplayer games.
I agree; if the game is smaller-scale, players will be able to pick their crowd better, so you can demand more cooperation.

#25

The only game combining RTS and FPS that I played was Natural Selection, an amazing Half-Life mod. I really enjoy the game.

#26

I rember battle zone and how it didn’t work, the interface wasn’t as bad as what we would expected at the time I remember your own ship beeing a tad overpowered which was needed cause as with any RTS most managing is done at the front line and well it’s hot over there… you get the point.

I’ve seen plenty of RTS which didn’t require stratagie that versus FPS which required strategy to survive, same goes for teamwork. and no a FPS doesn’t need to be slow like CS to involve teamplay, actualy I found CS to be lacking it, but I’m getting to much into my personal opion now. Renegate did feature blowing up buildings if I remember correctly, building stuff has beeing around in FPS for quite some time, I remember a mod of UT 99 but I’m sure there games before that, first ones mostly incorparated building a turret, Farcry (I think) featured some more turrets, walls and complete bunkers. On the other side RTS seem to involve more and more fast clicking everyday with the hero super unit thing RTS flirts with FPS as much. Altough FPS way is more evident.

but you see the same problem popping up: RTS game is a full time thing FPS is a fulltime thing. take Warcraft 3 I simply pump up my Hero to a godlike status or build some funky army but I never get around to do both. Same with BF2 a commander can do some shooing, but not fly a plane well that has todo with the way the game is but the whole BF2 bit is still simplistic inmagine if you take the full scala of managing an army.

about incoperating both tis difficuld, difficult as in I don’t see an option, some wonderfull visionairy might. there is ofcourse room for stonger hybirds, blends but you are gonna have to drop some elements a person only has so much time.

#27

I play a BF42 mod called Forgotten Hope and they are working on the followup for BF2 called FH2.
A mod more geared twards realism.
I also played the crap out of DoD, a HL squad-based tactical mod (at least before Valve got their hands on it)
And in the FH forums many of us are actually hoping for RTS/FPS kind of gameplay.
Although stuff like building placement is not possible, other things are.
Ever played Codename: Panzers? Many of us would like to see a mixture of CP and a tactical FPS.
People in FH do not have a problem following orders and work together to accomplish the greater goal.

Some of the stuff we would like to have are not possible with the BF2 engine.
In order to give players incentives to fulfiling goals there have been quite a lot of ideas.
F.i. if you tell a unit to go somewhere, you do so via the command hud and you can set a marker.
You could code it so that people only get points for doing the job assigned at those markers.
Even if it does not mean getting frags, doing your job gets you rewards.
A lonely tanker guarding the right flank might not get lots of frags but he would get the same amount of points because he is doing the job the commander assigned him and thus beyond his knowlage perhaps helping his team by covering their flank.