next »

what kind of build system would you like to see in the game? I'd like to see a system which uses construction units to put buildings on custom positions, but not anywhere on the map like in bfme 2, so just within a certain range of the base. i'd also like to do like in age of empires where you can have multiple (or no) workers working on a building

as for resources, i'd like to have a gather system in the early game, but later on (as resources run out) offer resource generating alternatives. i'm not sure if we should do multiple resource types or not

Since it's open source, the engine will need to support every established resource and build system.  I think the official game should probably reflect this by allowing different factions different resource and building characteristics.  One faction might place down a primary plot, then build on preset locations that are produced radially.  Others might begin with a central "command center" and have to expand outwards from it by interconnecting structures (think early C&C with the MCV), and still others might have the tried and true build anywhere.

The same principle should apply to resources; to each a different method of extraction to show the versitility of the engine.

true but we're not talking about the engine, we're talking about the game

The game SHOULD showcase the full power of the engine, however.  That's my point.  I actually think using the different approaches to resource collection and base building as the foundation for faction differences might be an interesting way to design the game.

i see. yeah that's definitely interesting and original

Hmm... never would have thought of such an approach, I like it

Solinx

Well, to summarize the build system and resources from my faction suggestions in the other thread:

"attached" buildings:
- all settlements start with a citadel
- a new structure must be attached to an existing structure
- if a structure is ever "cut off" from the citadel (that is, the chain of structures connecting to it) is destroyed, you lose control of it until you re-establish connection.
- lots of connections with walls, gates
- 3D architecture with archways and, overpasses, and gates

build anywhere
- place down a building "blueprint" anywhere
- workers will automatically be dispatched from a work yard to complete the job
- nice low management implementation of the classic build anywhere

build plots
- place down a town center, and build plots will appear around it
- upgrade the town center for more build plots appearing radially outwards
- civilian buildings automatically appear around your individual structures, adding a life-like settlement feel to your base, as well as enhancing the structure's function and acting as fodder in an invasion.


Resource-wise, I suggested three resources:

Raw Materials - extracted from nodes about the map.  Nodes have a limited amount of resources.  Once fully extracted, they can still be used, but will only return a fraction of their original income (like vespene from starcraft).  These are usually used by building some sort of extractor overtop of them.  Some require workers, others function automatically.

Food - build a farm, it makes food over time.  All units (including workers) eat food.  Balance your production against your usage.  You can only store so much food at a given time, so you must be especially cautious about this resource; running out can really be sudden.

Building Supplies - extracted usually from chopping lumber of quarrying stone, these are used to build structures.  Building supplies can be manufactured using appropriate structures manned with workers, but this is a labour intensive process.


Every faction I suggested also has a unique resource:

trade goods: obtained from AoE styled trade carts; can be used in place of any other resource

Currency: obtained from taxing workers; used to support military and buy useful items

refined metal: use labour to upgrade raw metal to refined metal for use in military units

Each one gives its faction a different flair; they're not groundbreaking resources (how could they be?) but they offer a different spin to each economy and strategies thereof.  You can see the faction ideas thread for more details, I just thought a synopsis of the building/resource ideas I put forward there belonged here.

attached buildings? where did you get that idea? i've never seen it before, but it's interesting.

i'm not sure about the metal stuff. for instance, what is the use of raw metal? and will the difference between raw metal and refined metal not make the game too complex?

Attached buildings began with me thinking about the old C&C build systems with the MCV.  I combined this with the idea of treating an entire base as one interconnected structure, and presto, what I call the "attached" build system.  Everything must be attached to an existing cluster, and maintaining the attachment is necessary for continued operation.  I thought it also fit well with the dwarven design, which to me should really feel claustrophobic and right, every structure a part of the greater fortress.  I also thought a limited degree of 3D architecture was fitting for them (partially because moving through such a tight base would be hell otherwise).

As for refined metal, that exists only for a single faction.  Regular metal is still used for building siege weapons and other economic related constructs.  Part of the reason I implemented this was because Nisyr has a small army, but a very robust worker system, so the refined metal idea is supposed to be a bottleneck for their economy.  As for management, I'd like to remind you that one of the pretenses I've developed is a "zero management" economy and labour system, where the management of individual workers is done for you; you just give the order once and it gets done.

i see. i can totally picture a small but very tall dwarven castle with bridges and connections between them

A connected base... MAX, an old Interplay game, had something like what you describe. It was one of the good points of the game, as well as the detailed customisation of your units, but that's another story.

Solinx

never heard of it 

Well, it wasn't to good on other points. The interface was pretty annoying, as well as the repeating sounds. Those two broke the game. Ahh, and it had a tendency to crash pretty often, but that was probably more the fault of the PC we had it running on

We can really learn from older games, the ones that didn't make it because they lacked too much on a few points, but were otherwise very promissing. MAX was such a game.

Of course, we can (and should) also learn from more succesful game, such as Total Annihilation. That game has never been matched in the RTS genre. Sadly, I don't own the game, but from what I heard, it has good features that are still missing from today's games. These are the features we are after, these and the features forgotten because the rest of the game sucked.

Question to Darvin: Which factions are going to use which build style? A few are noted in the faction topic, but not all.

Solinx

Nisyrra uses build anywhere, dwarves used the "attached" style, and Tharwain uses plots.  I think I'm going to make Caeluin use roads in a warcraft I style build system, and Varnost... not sure about them.  I need to spend more time refining them so they don't end up being too similar to Tharwain.

ok thanks for the answer.

Still looking forward to the completion of the faction descriptions

Solinx

It would be interesting if one faction, like one added later as an "expansion pack" built a unit, maybe called the Task Master for now. The unit can place a build plot for a cost. Then, the build plot can spawn some builders and become a new building. It would be like Thrall Masters for Angmar, but with buildings! Of course, this would make for awesome offensive towering...

Varnost works somewhat like that.  Their warriors can establish camps and defensive posts.  These camps may then attract squatters who build up a jury-rigged community.  Left unattended, these settlements will quickly expand into squalor infested slums through which the restless hordes of Varnost can be rallied.  Varnost's weakness is that it's unorganized population devours all the resources in its path, leaving the land bare and forcing them to stay on the offensive.  Their camps, which can go up very quickly and be assembled by warriors, allow for offensive staging posts to pop up anywhere without notice.

Interesting, I like it. Varnost definantly sounds like an aggressive faction, though I can't see how they could be described as anything other than Zerg. They aren't exactly evil, but they don't seem all that nice either. They also swamp people with large swarms to boot.

One of the key factors to Varnost is that they aren't unified.  They're lead by disorganized warlords and clan hierarchies with little or no loyalty to each other.  In this essence, they're not like the zerg.  In terms of gameplay, one of the key differences will be that unlike zerg, Varnost grows uncontrollably.  They will have a tremendous potential, and you must somehow need to harness that.

Varnost isn't exactly evil; in fact, their one and only goal is to live.  They've emerged from dark times in their own land (which I'm intentionally leaving ambiguous) and are searching for somewhere to settle.  The problem is, their population is many times that of Tharwain's, which already relies on food shipments from river provinces for survival. 

Essentially, we're left with a moral conundrum where neither side is good nor evil.  Can Varnost be expected to turn away and return to a land that has only death in store for them?  Of course not, with or without Tharwain's permission, they will encroach.  Alternately, can Tharwain be expected to accept the encroachment when there is barely enough food to go around as it is?  Of course not.  Both sides regard themselves as the victim, and there is nothing they can do but fight for their own survival.

That's a very compelling storyline, I must admit. Differnces though there may be, Varnost still has the "zerg" mentality of "Quantity over quality", making them the aggressive attack faction favored by aggressive attacking players.

do keep in mind that there will be technical limits to the number of units

I think if we can manage something of the scope of Total War sized armies (we don't need the same level of graphics, however), that would be great.  Of course, we'll need to tweak the designs as the engine comes along to accommodate it.

That's a bit of a high bar for an ordinary RTS; one of the reasons it works so well for TW is because you don't have bases and resource managing going on at the same time as a massive battle.

I'm hoping to balance base management against army management.  I don't think for an instant that we'll have the same micromanagement as the TW games (those are VERY intensive, requiring pauses even for an experienced RTS gamer like myself to micromanage adequately), and I also don't think that base construction will be so much perpetual as sporadic.  I feel that players will lay down blueprints ahead of time, and these will slowly be upgraded.

I want to see player settlements "cap out" eventually, reaching a stable equilibrium.  I want to see natural resources flowing quickly at the start, but as the non-renewable types are exhausted, players must conserve carefully.  While there will still be perpetual resource sources, players will no longer be able to sustain growth, and battles of attrician will eventually resolve in this late game setting.

I'm aiming for 20-30 minutes being average, with rare games ending in the 10-20 range, and in the 30-60 range.  Only very uncommon matches or those on very large maps should go for longer than an hour.  The "full swing" economy should just peak out around the 30 minute mark, and then start declining as resources are exhausted.  Of course, things will vary based on player style and factions (Balkurn will be very good at establishing a long-term sustainable economy, but has trouble holding lots of resource points; Varnost squanders resources quickly, but is good at scavenging map control)

The problem here, as far as I see it, comes from actually getting a suitable rendition of the game squeezed into 30 or so minutes on average. With such a constraint, armies would need to produce at a very quick pace.

If the scale (as you say in another topic) were to reach Supreme Commander levels, than the corresponding time frame for games would increase to reach it. Not saying it is impossible, mind you; simply pointing out that it will not be easy in any way.

With such a constraint, armies would need to produce at a very quick pace.

Precisely; early game armies will need to be produced extremely quickly.  Aggressive battles for resources will be the defining aspect of the early game.

I'm aware of the difficulty in matching the scale with time, and it may require compromise to reach it.  However, I'm confident that a happy medium of game length and map size can be achieved.

Indeed. I think a big scale will be a good thing; we really haven't seen a very large Fantasy themed RTS in a long time, not since BFME2 at least, and that was more akin to CNC with Elves and Orcs.

on a slightly related subject: i think our camera must be able to zoom in very far for action shots (with custom angles), but also zoom out very far or a big overview (possibly putting icons on units). developers often say this is not doable with a reasonable performance, but i think that's crap, as it's just a matter of replacing the models with low-detail versions 

I think we can take a cue from SupCom there. The massively zoomable camera becomes the "mini-map" of sorts.

I agree, we just need to show less detail as we zoom out.  In fact, that also makes it easy to support a wide range of graphics settings, simply by adjusting the graphics level for each level of zoom.

Certainly. Perhaps it would work like M2TW in it's lower settings, where farther away soldiers turn into uglier models (though, most people would be hard pressed to notice this). Or, maybe it just replaces the unit with an icon, and the model disappears altogether.

well, if you have played empire earth series. you could level/rank/what ever you faction and get more technolegy and i find that very intresting and you show alot ofpeople what u can handle: a big database with alot of units/buildings, alot of action going on without/less lag:). and more like that. and for resource systems? hmm you could make an option to show how much different things are possible...? like one with AOE style. one C&C style? and such... that would be cool. and i reccomand makeing a few expansion packs for the engine wich add different new things. to just show what is possible?

wel those are my ideas..

happy brain storming ~ Bruce "GodSun333" van Duyn