RTS innovations

[Darth Wong]

I suppose [immersive play] is what the other people in the thread wants out of their RTS.

I suppose you never noticed that "immersive play" is cited as an important aspect of gameplay by game reviewers and players all over the world. It's pretty sad that you think the point of a game is to show off your totally useless overspecialized skill, rather than to actually entertain or create an immersive experience.

[SirNitram]

For me, the fun in the game is learning how to win it. Once that is done it becomes pointless, or at least pointless after running though the campiagn once.

And clearly, any game where the means to win is not mindless rote-memorization of a build order followed by clicking like a spastic eight year old is beyond your meagre skills.

[Darth Wong]

Maybe he suffers from some kind of psychological disorder. One of the symptoms of a surprisingly large array of psychological disorders is a neurotic desire for predictability and routines. The style of RTS that PIGWANG favours is completely dominated by predictability and routines; nothing genuinely surprising can ever happen because it's a simple matter of following the same build order every time, doing the same basic things every time, and competing solely on the basis of how often you've practiced this sequence and how quick you are at executing it.

[SirNitram]

Maybe he suffers from some kind of psychological disorder. One of the symptoms of a surprisingly large array of psychological disorders is a neurotic desire for predictability and routines. The style of RTS that PIGWANG favours is completely dominated by predictability and routines; nothing genuinely surprising can ever happen because it's a simple matter of following the same build order every time, doing the same basic things every time, and competing solely on the basis of how often you've practiced this sequence and how quick you are at executing it.

I'm autistic, and thus, I am neurotically in need for predictability and routines. I still find clickfests boring as shit. So, from the horses mouth: No, psychological issues causing a need for routine do not make you like that kind of thing. It may make you good at it, but it won't make you like it.

[petesampras]

Even if micro management 'click fest' elements in RTS games don't directly require strategic thought, they do still indirectly bring in new strategic aspects.

No matter how good your 'micro' you can't micro manage everything all the time. Thus you need to make decisions about what, when and where to devote your micro-management. This is, essentially, a kind of resource management and does require a fair bit of thought and strategy. Furthermore, micro-management heavy games bring in strategies of messing up your opponents micro - e.g. harrassment.

I'd quite like to see an RTS where you have competant A.I. controllers for everything, but obviously not as good as a skilled human. You would then have a limited capacity to override the A.I. with direct micro-management - either a fixed number of commands can be issued per min, or some small cost to issue commands or something like that. This would enable, in my opinion, to give a best of both worlds - keeping the above mentioned strats brought in by micro-management without making the game a click-fest.

[Darth Wong]

It seems a bit pointless to say that unit AI should not be as good as a smart human being, since it doesn't seem like that will be possible any time soon anyway. All we're asking for is units that aren't complete idiots.

[petesampras]

It seems a bit pointless to say that unit AI should not be as good as a smart human being, since it doesn't seem like that will be possible any time soon anyway. All we're asking for is units that aren't complete idiots.

The thing is, the A.I. will need to be considerably better than 'not complete idiots' to ultimately stop RTS's degenerating into click fests. If there is an advantage to be gained by controling troops individually, rather than as groups, you will get players (the ones who with the silly high actions per minute) who will still gain significant advantage from click-festing. Even if groupings of troops act somewhat intelligently, a skilled human will still control them better. The game still becomes a click-fest to beat better players.

I really think a MOO3 (or what was supposed to have happened in MOO3) 'control points' system is the way to stop the click fests. Make over-riding the A.I. have some cost associated with it. Obviously, this requires competant A.I. to begin with.

[Edward Yee]

I'm autistic, and thus, I am neurotically in need for predictability and routines. I still find clickfests boring as shit.

I second this, although I've only been said to have shown characteristics (consistent?) with Asperger's. (I don't know if you've had diagnoses further along the autism spectrum.)

In regards to the AI competence, would it be too unbalancing to open a new field of tech researches/abilities dealing with the AI competence of units? (i.e. a RTS having a special "Hallucination" ability that instead of its StarCraft effect "dumbs down" an enemy AI.)

[Qwerty 42]

I'm only a passing RTS player, but I think it would be interesting if units didn't simply have "experience" or "intelligence," but specializations thereof. For instance, a bomber with a long career of artillery fighting would be effective against those units, but its gunners would be comparatively ineffective against fighters.

[Edward Yee]

I'm only a passing RTS player, but I think it would be interesting if units didn't simply have "experience" or "intelligence," but specializations thereof. For instance, a bomber with a long career of artillery fighting would be effective against those units, but its gunners would be comparatively ineffective against fighters.

Wouldn't "long career" specify experience? Unit specializations/differing effectiveness is already existing in strategy games.

[D.Turtle]

The thing is, the A.I. will need to be considerably better than 'not complete idiots' to ultimately stop RTS's degenerating into click fests. If there is an advantage to be gained by controling troops individually, rather than as groups, you will get players (the ones who with the silly high actions per minute) who will still gain significant advantage from click-festing. Even if groupings of troops act somewhat intelligently, a skilled human will still control them better. The game still becomes a click-fest to beat better players.

If the massive click-fest only comes into play at the highest skill levels, that wouldn't be a problem. The AI controlling the micro/fine-tuning of your units being at the level of computer AIs available right now (try playing against an Insane computer player in Warcraft 3 for example) would be more than enough, as the level of control shown there is already better than most players. You would 'only' have to develop a good game concept utilizing that level of AI control, implement an easy, intuitive control scheme to tell the AI what to do or how to react and you would be (relatively) finished.
It doesn't matter if the top 1-5% players worldwide can get better results with their massive APMs, as the normal player will never play against them anyhow.

[Medic]

9 pages and ... no HoS?

I just read Ender's Shadow and excerpt seems quite apt for this thread. David did beat Goliath, but how many times did that actually happen throughout history? Not much -- most of the time, Goliath, the bigger Army, just slaughtered the weaker one.

Click-festing basically allows a few playaholic-losers to be Goliaths every game through ridiculous macromanagement (economy, expansion and building, edit, macro ) and David when it counts with ridiculous micromanagement. (lockdown over 6 Battlecruisers in <2 seconds)

So "intelligent unit AI reducing micromanagement and strategy," (to quote SAMAS) would ... just level the playing field. Imagine that. History and life aren't fair, but a game that isn't isn't much of a game.

Maybe the Super Bowl underdog should just start the game down 13 points, cause you know, the other team has better athletes, rite guyz? You know it's smart.

[Pu-239]

Perhaps to reduce micro clickfests, in addition to combat initiative, penalize units that are overly micromanaged? Eg, in the case of infantry, fatigue, or artillery, set up and targetting time.

[Beowulf]

Perhaps to reduce micro clickfests, in addition to combat initiative, penalize units that are overly micromanaged? Eg, in the case of infantry, fatigue, or artillery, set up and targetting time.

Just introduce a bit of lag after orders are given. You can give any number of orders to a unit to execute sequentially, but if you then countermand those orders, it takes a little while for the unit to respond. Think that would work, maybe? Need more intelligent units though.

[GuppyShark]

Rome/Medieval have order lag, it seems to work but I've never seen it played multiplayer.

[SAMAS]

Perhaps to reduce micro clickfests, in addition to combat initiative, penalize units that are overly micromanaged? Eg, in the case of infantry, fatigue, or artillery, set up and targetting time.

Just introduce a bit of lag after orders are given. You can give any number of orders to a unit to execute sequentially, but if you then countermand those orders, it takes a little while for the unit to respond. Think that would work, maybe? Need more intelligent units though.

Not sure if that's a good thing for all RTS games to try, but it would be interesting to see how it works out.

Or, on a similar note, giving certain units "Personalities". Some units reacting differently to certain orders and/or situations. For example, a unit of Khorne Berserkers in Dawn of War done this way would more eagerly rush into combat when ordered(or for that matter, the second an enemy enters their line of sight), but will actually refuse any orders to disengage from combat once it's started.

[Fire Fly]

Well, I was looking around the internet to see what some possible trends are of RTS games and to see what made some games so good and I found this little blurb (a little old though):

The Future?

As computers and graphics abilities continue to increase in power, real-time strategy game designers will have more freedom to design larger, more-elaborate games. The nature of real-time strategy, however, is such that at some point simple constraints, like the interface, limit how much players can do and how fast they can do it. Sacrifice pushed the interface envelope just about as far as it could go, and one of the main reasons for the huge success of Age of Empires II is that it gave players the ability to execute better strategies because of units' increased intelligence in following orders. Sacrifice wasn't a top seller, while Age of Empires II and its expansion were monster hits. For now, real-time gamers are content to see developers fine-tune the RTS model so that it comes closer and closer to the ideal that early games like Dune II and Warcraft strove for but couldn't approach due to the technical limitations of the time. Yet once every possible game aspect has been polished, where will designers go?

Link

Judging by the latest game reviews (Link) the trend for RTS games is indeed for more unit intelligence, less micromanagement, a level of immersion, bigger battles, and a game that demands strategic thinking. Many of these elements are definitely feasible and do exist, but there hasn't been any game which has successfully incorporated all of these elements into one game.

I was reading a review for Supreme Commander by a gamer who tends not to like RTS games and his quick view is the following (Link):

While this is one of the genre of games I really dislike I was sure to grade it with a curve for that reason. No reason a game should be called sucky simply because I don't like the genre. So that being said I give it average marks overall. If you love RTS you will love this game and it may even topple Rise of Nations for you, though it won't be making you forget the grand pappy starcraft. If you dislike RTS you won't like this. It doesn't do anything extremely different to numb the pain of crappy resource management and the need for speed in the race to have the biggest army. Peon Peon Peon, Gather Gather Gather, Building, Building, Unit Unit Unit, infinite... Yawn. If you happen to be on the fence, check it out; it may turn you into a fan of the genre or it may just bore you. Hell even people who don't like RTS should check it out for it's novelty. It is well done and executed even if it is an RTS. Graphically it is stunning and no unit other than the commander has a signifigant advantage over any other unit. Completely balanced. The sound and music isn't bad either, and fits what they are doing. Once again though if your not a fan of RTS it won't matter. One Thumb Up, cause it has enough to just keep me interested long enough and is well done. It just misses the 2 thumbs up because it didn't do enough of stuff I haven't seen before. The map system is by far the most ingenuity it holds, but the style is repetitive as usual. Yes the repeat function on the building of units is nice, but why not just make the building produce the current selection anyways unless you tell it to stop?

So why do I dislike RTS? 2 reasons. A) I suck at them, I always lose. I have about as much skill at this as an alcholoic surgeon after a night on the town. Which is one reason why I couldn't give this game two thumbs up. I owned at it once I got the skill down. The AI presented no challenge. B) I don't see the fun in the style of play. Click the fastest to gather what you need to build an army faster and overpower the competition. I don't see any room for thought. Maybe a paticualr foe will make you change the order you build things but the end result is the same. Build the bigger army fastest. Ewww. Give me a game that makes me think anyday.

In the end though, this game has a lot of potential. My personal dislikes aside, this game has a lot of fun in it if in the right hands.. If I was skilled at it, I would love to play people multiplayer, assuming there was less repition. EVERYONE should play this demo, because the game is in fact REALLY GOOD and may even convince you to rethink your opinion on RTS if you already dislike it.

Micromanagement will always be a part of RTS and I think without it, games might not be successful, for better or worse. But what definitely needs to change is the level of micromanagement, preferably less of it. What needs to change even more is to break the mould of attrition warfare and the so called "Three Xs" and to include more elements of real modern warfare (that is NOT to say a completely realistic game for some who may not understand simple words) and better unit/AI intelligence. RTS games are all relatively stagnant, in terms of their gameplay formula, with the major changes usually coming in the form of graphics. When advances are made, they tend to be small changes only. If one takes a look at GameSpy's list of the top 10 RTS games, it is easy to see how many of those games follows the Three Xs formula (7/10 games for the lazy)

[Edward Yee]

Would this be in conjunction with AI-reaction toggles for specific commands, SAMAS? (Such as my proposed ROE toggle for Move commands.)

[Stark]

PIGWANG's Goliath example simply shows that he doesn't understand what anyone is saying.

It is common in RTSs that an attack (of planes, say) will be attacked on detection by defences (SAMs and AA, say). However, there is no intelligence or coordination between defences - they simply target the closest unit and fire. Thus, you get many missiles/bullets flying at the same couple of front units, and the rear units get through unscathed. What PIGWANG doesn't understand is that the sort of autonomous AI we're discussing would allow the defences in this example to distribute their fire efficiently and spread it around all targets, instead of firing eight missiles at one target and none at others. I'd even like to see slow-loading weapons like SAMs hold fire entirely if all targets have missiles on their way, to better respond to other attacks.

[Xon]

I'd even like to see slow-loading weapons like SAMs hold fire entirely if all targets have missiles on their way, to better respond to other attacks.

Supreme Commander units try todo this, and given the modability (virtually everything about the units, and thier behaviour is written in Lua and is nice & modable) hopefully we will see some advanced unit AI mods.

[SAMAS]

Would this be in conjunction with AI-reaction toggles for specific commands, SAMAS? (Such as my proposed ROE toggle for Move commands.)

I suppose it might very from game to game.

For example, in a game like Warcraft or Dawn of War, certain units already have well-defined personalities, so those might be better pre-set.

But in a game like TA or SupCom, being able to set personalities would probably fit better.

[Hawkwings]

I want an option where you can set a group of units, then set their attack profile. Either they fire on the closest thing, or they all fire on the same thing, or they all fire on different things. Maybe even have a group damage calculator, where thye'll move on to the next target if the shots already in flight are going to kill the target.

I also want more groups. Say, 100 groups possible. So, you hit "1" for group 1, then there's 10 sub-groups you can select with another number. So, "11" might be my ground attack units, while "13" are my AA trucks, and "10" are my artillery pieces. Then "21" selects my interceptors, "64" selects my subs, etc.

[Uraniun235]

I also want more groups. Say, 100 groups possible. So, you hit "1" for group 1, then there's 10 sub-groups you can select with another number. So, "11" might be my ground attack units, while "13" are my AA trucks, and "10" are my artillery pieces. Then "21" selects my interceptors, "64" selects my subs, etc.

I always thought it'd be cool to use the F-keys for groups of groups; you could arrange it anyway you wanted, but I'd have something like F1 and F2 for ground units, then F3 for navy, etc. Additionally, there would ideally also be an option to select all the control groups in an F-group; so if you created a whole naval fleet under F5, for example, and you wanted them all to head for a given spot, you could double-tap F5 to select them all and give them all orders.

(And by using the F-keys in concert with the number keys, you could have up to 120 groups possible. )

[The Jester]

(And by using the F-keys in concert with the number keys, you could have up to 120 groups possible. )

What's the point? Effectively using 10 groups simultaneously is already quite a challenge and people usually rely on some sort of mnemonic to keep things sorted and manageable. I like CoH's system of have buildings hotkeyed to the F-keys though.

[Zor]

Howabout Terrain having a bigger effect on units, mud slows down soldiers, tanks can't move through a forest and being in a forest sugnifigantly reduces the LOS, Tanks and APCs can move over rivers that most infantry can't, swimming scuba infantry that can submerge themselves underwater as a sort of stealth move, big ships can't go into shallow water that riverboats can, going uphill is slower and downhill is faster, infantry wounded in swampland run a risk of catching a disease and the list goes on.

Zor