All Work and No Play, Make RTS a Dull Genre

[Sonic 296]

On his own personal blog, Cypher, has posted a new update called All Work and No Play, Make RTS a Dull Genre. He discusses thoughts on base building and resource gathering in Real Time Strategy games. The original Red Alert is mentioned in this blog. Here's part of it.

 

Anyone else get that feeling when playing any of the recent mainstream RTS games? It was novel at first. But now, it is work. When you are playing anything but "no rush 5 minutes, n00b game"s, be it single player missions or multi player matches, you are building the base because you have to. Because it is your only way to build up an army. And, for the most part, you do it in a time constraint, fearing the coming onslaught of Red Helmeted Fanatic Zerglings under strict orders from Saruman to wipe you off the face of Middle Tib Sara.

It's a chore on your way to the fight. Some might even go as far as calling it a hindrance.

It makes for some interesting reading. Click here to read the full blog.

[General Kane Nash 0]

As Cypher commented persistance and multilinear storylines is perhaps one of the most catching features of videogames from recent years, while in singleplayer this is not really much of a problem is in multiplayer where we find a massive problem implementing it, unfortunately when we go to multiplayer we find both aspects hard to implement, in the former instance most approach inevitably enter in conflict with the gameplay balance, this being the reason why producers like Blizzard and THQ decided to let any idea of levelling and unlocking new units outside the multiplayer experience, neither Starcraft 2 or DoW2 have the incredibly attractive customization posibilities earnt by executing missions and rewards, as you may imagine getting bunkers with automatic turrets or a force commander with terminator armour mean a sustancial boost in your tactics, and balancing it would be very hard.

 

Multilinear Storylines were another interesting thing to find in these games, in SC2 there were at least 2 characters whose lives depended of what you decided to do (According to doc Ariel I am a good man, and Tosh... well, bros before hoes, so you guess what I choose), similarly none of my sergeants were the traitor, the possibilities to make a change for once in the plot beyond getting some advantages and gear were great.

 

In the end this is the reason why I feel making the game more human VS AI it's so important in the RTS genre, while it's true humans have the unique quality of doing different things this eventually is lost bcs there is always a human tendency to abuse of what they find more powerful, the AI in the other hand can be programmed to tray different strategies, units and combos, making it random so you may not have any idea of what to expect next, it's easier to reprogram an AI than change human habits.

 

It's interesting to notice no one has tried to do this on RTS really much (I say really much but while I have played many RTS I cant be sure if there is one outhere which has done this) nevertheless the potential is there, to make multilinear campaigns with pesistent items, and mark it as the main feature of the multiplayer experience may actually help a lot to givenew life to the RTS genre, after all, this is a genre which has one of the strongest human vs AI potentials, at difference of FPS the RTS AI is usually better than bots to give you a nice fight.

[Gben 20]

I still liked the potential of the KW persistent gameplay. It needed some tweaking and refinement and balancing but the idea was valid. I see the Age of Empires is trying to do a persistent online rts, but it's cartoony art style is a little off putting.

 

But how do we making mining sexy?

[Silverthorn 0]

Wow, Kane Nash, a beautiful post you wrote.

 

As for me, when it comes Multilinear Storylines, I'll always prefer the classic WW C&C style version, particularly Tiberian Sun's "Theater of War", they're the awesomest ever! Though very hard to program, but let's face it, you can't resists its awesomeness on how that mode was properly constructed including how the storyline leads to different alternatives. SC2's was still quite a little linear though, the change of only Dr. Ariel, Tosh & Char 2nd final mission (That mission is the only one that offers the real ToS system) are not much for me to expect, sorry. Ok, maybe just give a little praise to it, it's still way better than what the (exec-controlled) C&C team gave to us last time.

 

Ahh yes, the AI, SC2's AI is way better than C&C3's. According to the dev interview, ever since I heard he said, "That the AI doesn't cheat! Now he must scout your base, etc.. etc.. etc.." now that is a huge leap which C&C3 AI opponents could have been done. RA3's AI was still good though.

 

Bots? Ahh yes, FPS bots, Valve's bots are usually not close to human beings, they're quite dumb. Counter Strike bots throw grenades at random, Left 4 Dead never save you properly when you're jockeyed, hunter-pounced or smokered, etc.. But Call of Duty's is what I'm expecting, especially they throw grenades well (Except the shooting, they more rely on you to shoot back).

Edited February 1, 2011 by Silverthorn

[TheRoadToDawn 0]

Before reading you should know that I only played C&C, Westwood, and Petroglyph products...

 

Going with what you said about the 2nd and 4th Red Alert missions, in Westwood's Emperor Battle For Dune, the ability was present to go back to your old bases and build them up, but you came back to a Construction Yard, Barracks, Power Plants, a Spice Refinery, and a few other structures.

 

What I am trying to point out is that I believe Westwood was on the right track to creating a new generation of RTS with EBFD's map campaign. While it was turned based between three factions, the map had territories that determined the number of reinforcements that you would receive from surrounding territories for both you and your opponent. While you could not control what you received, this ability could quickly turn the tide in combat.

 

Another unique feature is that you could see your opponent coming, but you didnt know in what strength or how many waves it would throw at you. What is better, you had your base constructed from the previous mission and the mission allowed for time to build up the right forces to defend and counterattack the enemy presence in the territory.

 

Yes Emperor didnt have the technology build in to keep you guessing and the AI was predictable, but it was a breakthrough that I had never seen before. Not to mention the giant robots. Got to love those giant robots.

 

Another unique feature was alliance building with minor factions and with that, new unique units and structures, missions that determined the fate of those factions, and which factions would come after you if you ticked them off.

 

Another feature that is important for RTS is unit upgrading. I do support the upgrade options that were made available during Generals, C&C3 TW, and (yes i know) C&C4, but my only complaint was the lack of variety offered past Generals besides the IFV vehicle and defense turret, garrisonable structures and units offered then on.

 

I do compliment EA for trying to come up with the Crawler, but it was for the wrong game. The game should have been called Sole Survivor 2 and should have NOT feature Kane's ending to the series, rather it should have told the tale between C&C3 and C&C4, but should not have done away with base building.

 

As for resource gathering, why spoil the fun. I love listening to EVA screaming "silos needed" or my unit contruction "on hold". Its what made it both aggrivating and exciting at the same time. While Oil Derricks (RA3) and Tiberian Drills (C&C3) made life easier, resource gathering keeps the player on edge and make the game less boring. Yes you might be aggrevated, but that gave you enough reason to push through or restart a level due to a bad decision...or lose to a better competent player in Multiplayer, lol.

 

Another core element to developing RTS is to "follow the Mods". C&C mods ideas should be leading today's RTS genre. While game developers sometimes think they know what is best for their babies, what they forget is that it is the people that buy their games. Like additional animations to building structures, unique textures, etc. One such example is C&C3 as EALA, no foul against them as we know of time and budget constraints, took the time to listen to the community. Despite a pro-Westwood, anti-EALA, oh how I hate how the 3 is made in the freakin title of the game, EA implemented the ideas of the fans a created what I thought was the best RTS since Emperor.

 

Another feature that should be present is a minimode called Space Combat. Featured in Star Wars Empire at War, it introduced an easy way to play with space combat by allowing a player quick access to reinforcements, superweapons, and BIG ships. While these elements have probably been shown before, the core elements that I liked about EAW are the abilitys to manage your forces throught the galaxy and manually control them when the time came to "get personal". Another unique feature is that certain missions unlocked certain technologies. Whether you snuck your spy in, or just took it over the old fashioned way, new and unique technologies could be made available by completion of certain objectives.

 

What do you think?

Edited February 1, 2011 by TheRoadToDawn

[Nyerguds 102]

But how do we making mining sexy?

Minecraft?

 

[Guest Stevie_K]

See this is the kind of news I'd like to see more of. Very interesting read

 

Shame I didn't know Cypher where running a blog a little earlier.

 

[Gben 20]

But how do we making mining sexy?

 

Minecraft?

 

ha... not quite the rts/fps hybrid I was looking for.

 

TRAD... your post pretty much sums up that all new ideas new refinement and development. Like RA3's coop AI for example. It wasn't very sexy, but it was more or less functional in-game. Could've been good...

[Golan 6]

The problem with most RTS' these days is that every match is a single, continuous sequence of decisions that build on each other. This forces the early infrastructure buildup sequence and resource gathering to be such a chore as you can't really do without it but it doesn't bring any direct feeling of success, like winning a skirmish would. With most modern RTS' offering only perhaps two, sometimes three viable overall strategies and tactics, the buildup process is dominated by dullness - there is no real variance or choice involved in the process, as even the goal of the process is already extremely limited in its possibilities.

 

I hate to admit it, but RTS' with severely reduced economic and infrastructural complexity, like CNC4 or EAW (MP space combat) simply are the better games these days in this regard. Especially EAW stands out with its fast, fluid and intuitive gameplay that circumvents much of the dull management found in other games by cutting down automatized and standardized processes to the bare minimum (mining and base management are minimized to the necessities only) and giving the player more control over the battle (the hyperspace system and hardpoints are the most obvious features here).

 

If you look at modern RTS' games, you will find that their gameplay is mostly rigid, a single solid block of gameplay mechanics interwoven into one. Unlike modern FPS', where the entire idea is that you never fight with your full or the same arsenal (sometimes even on the same map), RTS' have a set number of units/abilities that you absolutely 100% always need and a number of stuff that you will tinker with once and then never touch again. This has made RTS' less of a fluid battle of minds and transformed them more into highly theoretical and deterministic number crunching task, not crowning the skilled as winners but discarding the unfocused as losers.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Golan

[Nyerguds 102]

Well, the way you build up your base and the time you spend on building specific things to tech in a certain direction makes all the difference, so you really can't do without. It decides who will be able to attack first, and with what. Otherwise it's just "army 1 vs army 2, go slaughter each other".

[Guest Stevie_K]

Otherwise it's just "army 1 vs army 2, go slaughter each other".

 

That's actually one factor that I think is missing in modern RTS's. I'll try to explain deeper here:

 

The moment where you see the enemy army and think "I can beat that" and to your surprise you loose.

What I am talking about could be called the doubt factor:

 

In modern RTS's like StarCraft2, a fairly skilled player immediately sees whether his attack will fail or win against a certain amounts of units of various kinds.

I think that we are missing the random factor, which means that sometimes a group of this kind can kill a group of that kind, and sometimes it can't.

 

Theres a large amount of "armies clashing together" (action if you like), that is simply not happening because the player easily recognizes whether he can win or not.

 

My point: 2 armies slaughtering each other is often a lot more fun than the flee/hunt kind of combat we see in many modern RTS's.

 

[Gben 20]

Going off on a tangent, dodge and miss variables in combat would help, don't you think? Fog of war, environment/terrain/user skill all these factors should have influence on gameplay too.

 

No one likes to admit it, but luck should have a factor in war. It's been shot down before here in the forums, but I always thought it would be an interesting dynamic if Nod's experimental technology had a random chance of failing on the battlefield. For instance Nod's main battle tank had futuristic weapons that were 10% more destructive but had a 5% chance of misfiring, freezing or just plain exploding.

 

While I never played EAW against humans, I do like the game. But I think the complaint with C&C4 is that the pendulum swing, that began in RA3, went ridiculously too far in the other direction.

[Cypher 4]

Jehal, you should post that response to the Blog comments (same goes for everyone else, guys).

 

But in response to you (which I'll write there as well, if you post yours), it actually gave me an idea for a direction to think about regarding Base Building.

The clashing of the armies.

 

Just thinking out loud here, so to speak....

 

Currently, especially on large maps, there's absolutely no action going on in the bases.

The players reach the other's base either with scouts - for a second - or at the end of the game, finishing it off. Some RTS games even have the option to end the match when all units are killed, instead of having the obvious victor go hunting for the various buildings.

 

So here's the idea - close the gap.

Tighten up the maps.

 

Now, this obviously isn't the solution, just the general direction to think of one;

Find a way to make the armies clash near or in the bases.

 

....

 

K, that was the What.

I'll be back when I think of the How

 

Any of you think of How, shoot.

[Nyerguds 102]

Well, I play C&C95 online from time to time, and I barely ever see armies clashing halfway... the entire game is based on defending bases and doing probing attacks on key structures. It's always to defend/attack a base.

 

So, I guess... small maps, then?

 

Of course, in the early C&Cs, compared to other RTSes, you don't have "base+resources" as one single thing, like most newer RTS games (RA3, SC2). This adds the extra strategic factor of having to scout for resources and getting there.

 

On top of that, C&C1 doesn't allow for easy expansion ($5000 MCV), meaning you're stuck with the base you have, which again means the base is one thing, and resources are somewhere else and not easily defensible, and it adds additional risk to harvesting further away. It also means a lot less end-of-game chasing, as an enemy can't just pop out a new base unexpectedly (like in SC).

 

These factors make the base more of a central point to defend, imo, which inevitably leads to battles centered around them too. The fact most units are slower helps too in that aspect.

 

I think that we are missing the random factor, which means that sometimes a group of this kind can kill a group of that kind, and sometimes it can't.

Well I guess most game creators nowadays argue that that'd put most people off the game, because it means you can still lose even if you do everything right. People like winning by skill.

 

I do agree though, A bit of randomization can be fun though, like inaccurate projectiles, to take a simple example. But it seems the increasing focus on skill nowadays either removes that from games, or makes it too predictable.

[Guest Stevie_K]

Jehal, you should post that response to the Blog comments (same goes for everyone else, guys).

 

Done

 

But in response to you (which I'll write there as well, if you post yours), it actually gave me an idea for a direction to think about regarding Base Building.

The clashing of the armies.

 

Just thinking out loud here, so to speak....

 

Currently, especially on large maps, there's absolutely no action going on in the bases.

The players reach the other's base either with scouts - for a second - or at the end of the game, finishing it off. Some RTS games even have the option to end the match when all units are killed, instead of having the obvious victor go hunting for the various buildings.

 

So here's the idea - close the gap.

Tighten up the maps.

 

Now, this obviously isn't the solution, just the general direction to think of one;

Find a way to make the armies clash near or in the bases.

 

....

 

K, that was the What.

I'll be back when I think of the How

 

Any of you think of How, shoot.

 

I'd say a solution to this "issue" you might call it, could be to expand the way that the player use bases.

I have at most times avoided the small maps, and to this day I only plays the large ones. Why?, because I like expanding, I like to keep track of more than one base, and I especially like the feeling of being a commander in large scale battle, instead of a back and forth face to face (or should I say base to base?) scenario.

 

Why not work with headquarters, outposts and supply bases? (This is seen before and have worked quite well)

To me it seems theres a problem with having one or in rare cases two bases that does everything you need. So heres my take on a solution:

 

Having various small and tactically placed bases and outposts around a large map would in my opinion make the very gameplay more challenging and result in a very different battle each time.

I would even go as far to say that it is a great solution to the problem of "too less action going on near bases":

 

(my point) Enlarging the range of the base(s) by dividing it up in to a larger amounts of smaller bases (each with build preferences of players choice), without increasing the density, could in my opinion result in much more interesting battles, and thereby grant better opportunities to bring the battle to the bases and vice versa.

This would also encourage players to take advantage of the huge space on large maps, and encourage players to grab hold of the best spots seen from a terrain and tactical perspective.

 

EDIT:

 

In order to give an example of how it could look, I've made a quick illustration:

Simply more strategy, more building and more battles, but more fun?

 

EDIT2:

 

@ Nyerguds.

 

People like winning by skill. I personally think that no matter how skilled you are, luck represents a great deal as well (after all, our very existence is based on coincidence ). When I think of games, I also think of gambling, and in order to win you need a bit of luck as well.

That seems allright, but the feeling of winning with skill and luck, just feels 10 times better in my opinion. What I'm trying to say is that the luck factor is not at all enough present in modern RTS's.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Stevie_K

[Nmenth 291]

Supreme Commander seemed to encourage map-wide bases, but that game lacked faction uniqueness.

 

The nuclear missiles in that game could wipe out a nice chunk of even the highest tier base assuming they didn't have a nuke defense. I think super weapons that are that deadly helps motivate you to make multiple bases or die.

 

RA3 tries to encourage base expansion with their idiotic resource system (if you like RA3's resource system, I don't care, it's idiotic regardless) and naval bases, but I never enjoyed expanding in RA3. Grabbing more money in that game was a chore, and did indeed make it not fun.

 

With the easy to collect mass reserves, Supreme Commander still rewarded you for expanding, but these were not a requirement to win. I actually wasn't fond of the many mass location thrown across the map though. It was still kind of RA3-ish.

 

Needing to expand for money is a poor motivator, needing to expand because your enemy may blow your entire base out of the solar system if you don't is a good motivator.

 

The limited-to-one super weapons in C&C would enable a better balance than Supreme Commander, preventing a 12 nuclear missile instant win as I would sometimes do without needing to ever attack with an actual army.

 

Still, you couldn't just make a C&C / Supreme Commander hybrid and call it success, I do not like being forced to expand, but I like the motivation to be there.

[Cypher 4]

Another bit of direction to the How bit would be to look at the incentives a play would have to hit his opponent's base. Thinking of the comment I made on my previous Blog entry (the SC2 at #9 bit), one of the things that pops out is how a Zerg faction can have really interesting gameplay if they utilize and emphasize what they already presented in the Terran campaign - taking over other factions' buildings.

 

This is basically an evolution - in so many ways - of a C&C mainstay: Capturing by Engineers.

 

Red Alert 2 had an especially good incentive to capture enemy bases, cause that would give the player hybrid units.

 

Such a mechanic, with both Dustin Browder's experience as RA2's Lead Designer and the obvious affinity the Zerg have for such antics, would actually make the Zerg campaign and entire expansion stand out.

And, would definitely be a step towards involving the base building more in the clash and action.

 

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

Nmeth and Jehal, I feel as if you guys are striding towards a nice evolution there.

Good points all.

 

Rather, Nmeth, you've touched upon the Why.

Why expand?

Why move out?

Why preempt?

 

Jehal, you've touched on more of the What.

Having various small and tactically placed bases and outposts around a large map

Definitely.

But, translating this to How: having maps that emphasize choke points.

However, again, what would motivate the player to build up an outpost in that choke point, instead of just amassing troops there?

 

Enlarging the range of the base(s)... without increasing the density

This gives me another idea, allowing for garrison slots in the base buildings. Really, a minor change, if you think about it, but think of how well this played out in the urban maps of RA2.

 

Still, we are dancing around the highly important issue of How to make the player care for the base planning and building - on a more macro level.

 

We'll need to think more about this.

 

 

Also, guys, I'd like your permission to repost portions of your replies in my blog for the next entry. I'll try to analyze these various suggestions and comments and distill into a next chapter in this discussion.

 

[Guest Stevie_K]

But, translating this to How: having maps that emphasize choke points.

However, again, what would motivate the player to build up an outpost in that choke point, instead of just amassing troops there?

 

Back in the days where I spend countless nights playing Tiberian Sun, I had one thing in particular that encouraged me to build MCV's and start constructing outposts on large maps.

Primarily it was that each factions base defenses where very effective. I always tried to expand my area of control so that the harvesters could operate more safely.

 

This meant constructing outposts with unit production and base defenses right by important terrain spots. Those would mostly be bridges and places where the cliffs allowed passage.

 

Now to the how:

 

I believe maps should keep the density of obstacles (bridges, passages, plateaus with an overview, "tactical positions" if you like) even though they may be huge.

By perhaps having a larger amount of choke points, players won't as much feel the pressure of the enemy having an outpost right on the other side of the bridge.

 

In order to be able to encourage the players to take these moves at all, they need constructions (or something) that is designed for purpose.

The most essential that I can think of at this moment is having effective defense constructions. These need to offer something that the mobile units can't (obviously).

 

I'll see if I can continue on this tomorrow (I'm all suited up and heading to a party as I am writing this).

 

This gives me another idea, allowing for garrison slots in the base buildings. Really, a minor change, if you think about it, but think of how well this played out in the urban maps of RA2.

 

I think this worked extremely well with RA2 (apart from it being perhaps a bit too effective, well that's just balance really).

Question is, would it also be a good idea to implement this onto various player constructions (other than bunkers)?

 

Also, guys, I'd like your permission to repost portions of your replies in my blog for the next entry. I'll try to analyze these various suggestions and comments and distill into a next chapter in this discussion.

 

You have my permission