Making an RTS, what do YOU want?

[Johnny Impact]

Persistence.

I never cared for starting over each mission. No matter how much or how little you end with, you begin the next mission with no tech and a couple of builder units. I much preferred Homeworld's take on things.

Units that carry over reward smart play. Knowing units you lose won't carry over increases tension and creates smart play.

Tech that stays with you feels more like tech. It doesn't feel like progress when you have to do it all over again fifty times.

Other than that, make it slow enough for real strategy. Slower than Starcraft. As little emphasis on APM as possible. The win should go to the guy with the best strategy, not the best twitch reflex. Unique factions with unique units. No rubberstamping between factions.

 

[crypticracer]

I would love to see an RTS where each unit has individual AI. They can miss, take cover, etc. This would however add a huge RNG factor that my not be right for the game.

 

[Elidibus]

I personally like the idea of starting with just one construction unit and growing vast in the same vein as Tiberian Sun and Supreme Commander. I also like lots of unit upgrades and defenses that aren't worthless after the first five minutes of a game. Like others, I'd advise against a unit creator, but if you want to add something extra, how about a tower defense mode? Where we build nothing but structures or something. I dunno. Maybe I'm in the minority.

I will say however, that I'm tired of seeing the same old tropes in RTS. Humans are always average. Religious nut jobs are nut jobs them and then there's the "other" faction. Let's mix it up a little bit. How about humans as the religious nutjobs? Or a faction that relies on getting hit to grow. Like each unit absorbs energy or matter from a projectile weapon and sends it back to the "collective" where they use it for construction. That'd be interesting.

Kinda gives me a few ideas, actually...

 

[BeerTent]

Hello everyone!

I am making an RTS game. And I am trying to find out what features people love and hate.
Currently I am making the very core. Which is a lot of programming haha.

The game takes place in the (near) future.

I have a basic idea of the main factions. More factions are possible (note: these are NOT their names, but basic descriptions):
- (Normal) Humans
- Religious mass murdering acolytes
- Stealthy rogue AI-implemented bad guys

I have some ideas myself. Please let me know what you think of these.
- A Research tree (faction orientated, minimal "common-type" research)
- A Unit-Creator (Create your own unit to throw into the fight)

More information is coming, but this is a free-time project.So I work on it when I have the time.

I would love to know what you people would like to see in an RTS. Or better yet, what you do not want to see. So I know what to work on and what to drop. Any feedback is welcome!


____________
I am new here, so if I made a (fatal) error in some way. Please do not throw tomatoes at me! Please?

I'm a bit of a turtle player, so I tend to like a lot of base-building, an an option for Co-op, because, hey... I like playing with my friends a lot. I like to be the big force that holds the line, while my friends soup up the big armies.

One thing concerns me though, your idea of a unit creator. I've noticed that StarDrive tried this a while back. Like with Mutant said, this might be something that is less suited for "Real Time" depending on how you implement it.

That being said... Here's my suggestions.

Paper! PAPER! PAPER! Plan everything out first. Get your basic prototype off the ground, and make sure your engine works the way you want it before you get into the technicalities and balancing. You want a system where you, yourself can easily code units into the game and adjust any variables, before you deal with a lot of what you're worrying about.

Plan it out, how you're going to do it. Logic diagrams, understanding how time flows in your simulation, all of this stuff needs to hit paper before you type your first semicolon.

Also, play a lot of games. I know, it sounds fucking stupid, but trust me on this. The more games you play that pertains to your genre, the more you know about what ideas work, and what ideas don't. If I'm making a turn based squad management game, will X-Com's cover system work better? Or will a system similar to Front Mission 3 work better? Shadowrun had a cover system for a 2D battlefield, how did that work for them? What am I looking to achieve? What can I possibly innovate? Maybe having characters similar to that of Peggle, with their own abilities will work in a Tetris style game?

Second, make sure your engine is capable of what you want it to do. How are you coding the game? can it handle this? I done goofed with a game idea when I chose an engine that I couldn't make a proper link-list with. All of the time I had spent... Total waste.

Get a prototype going for your engine, and then show it to your friends. You're not working on anything until you have something to show for it. There is a psychological reason for this. Do not question it. Unless someone can install something on their computer and see some super basic functionality such as moving units around, you're not working on a RTS unless you're asking for help integrating a function, or resource. Trust me.

Once you've got your prototype, now's the time to work on a story, and a set of factions that will complement what your engine can do. Don't think about the cloaking abilities of your Faction 3 cyber-sniper unless you're coding a cloak/detection function for your units Mechanical work first, cool stuff after.

Don't work hard, work smart. Get in the habit of spending a few hours a day, and think everything through. And don't forget... This is a big project. But you can do it. Trust me, you got dis.

 

[SHW]

Persistence.

I never cared for starting over each mission. No matter how much or how little you end with, you begin the next mission with no tech and a couple of builder units. I much preferred Homeworld's take on things.

Units that carry over reward smart play. Knowing units you lose won't carry over increases tension and creates smart play.

Tech that stays with you feels more like tech. It doesn't feel like progress when you have to do it all over again fifty times.

Other than that, make it slow enough for real strategy. Slower than Starcraft. As little emphasis on APM as possible. The win should go to the guy with the best strategy, not the best twitch reflex. Unique factions with unique units. No rubberstamping between factions.

Yes, Homeworld did well with keeping all units you made in the previous mission. It keeps things going. I will certainly try to implement this mechanic.

My personal pet peeve with some RTS games out there is that they seem to place too much emphasis on time and resource efficiency rather than combat tactics and strategy. If everything can be reduced to a few rigidly over-optimised orders of operations which must be performed as fast as possible for the best results, then any competitive play gets too heavily weighted towards the fastest players who use the predetermined 'best' strategy templates figured out by the community, rather than someone who can adapt to the unfolding situation using their own initiative.

Something I think might help with the over-optimisation problem would be procedurally generated maps that require scouting to discover the layout of the area, unlike something like Starcraft where you know the layout of the map from the start (and most of the accepted competitive multiplayer maps are variations on the same old template every time anyway). Some of these generated maps might favour certain unit compositions over others based on the terrain and the available resources (and indeed different parts of single maps might be advantageous or not for different units also), thus encouraging adaptability based on the available information. Giving the environment a bigger role in the mechanics would be an interesting way to add depth to the strategic elements of an RTS I think.

Time and Resource Management will play some role, but nothing major. Also, as much as I agree on your opinion on "fastest player - Best results", I believe it is also the player style. Eventually someone finds some successful strategy and uses it all the time.

Generated maps will be a pain. And I might just stick with Pre-made maps for now. That is because Generated maps suck up a (relatively) huge amount of power from the System. Maybe I add it in some update as a option, but will not be on the priority list.



I want to thank all of you for giving me advice Maybe I put you guys into the credits haha
Even if I don't respond to all of your advice, I most certainly read it and take it with me in development!

And of course, keep giving feedback! The more feedback I get, the better I can make the game!

 

[Old Father Eternity]

Regarding tech and unit retention.
That wouldn't work entirely on all types of games. While the tech part would make sense in campaign missions (having access to requisite resources and facilities should still be a thing though), the unit retention would not always make sense. Of course it all depends on what sort of strategy game it will be and how is the in game tech and logistics handled lore wise.
From personal experience there a few good examples.
The 'Conquest' mode in C&C Kanes Wrath, the bases and 'main' unit groups are persistent and upgradable.
Warhammer 40k Dark Crusade and Soulstorm have the Honour guard, slightly tougher versions of regular units that you can use from the get go once you've acquired them, the bases you build in different regions are retained with you only needing redo the upgrades every time a battle occurs and there are unique benefits you gain from holding the regions.

About procedural/random maps, which would only fit skirmish mode, it doesn't have to be the only way to handle maps, like it was in C&C Red Alert 2 and Tiberian Sun. You had a bunch of premade maps and you had a tool, so to speak, which generated random maps based on criteria you assigned (amount of players, resource abundance, type of area, day/night, teamplay vs free for all, etc).
Sins of a Solar Empire did it quite nicely as well, you have the premade maps, you have a map creator which allows you to personally set up every aspect of a map and map generator which generates them based on the criteria you assigned. Of course things differ again depending on what sort of game it's going to be, something like C&C/SC or Homeworld/SoaSE

As a side note regarding an earlier post about SoaSE, there are tutorials, granted they're not the best but they give you a basic understanding, as for everything else, there is the AI skrimish mode.

Regarding AI skirmish mode however, or rather the entire single player aspect, if there is going to be one, it better be done fully. You could also have a fully online/co-op game, however if you plan on having both aspects and do one part well and kinda neglect the other part, fans of either side are going to be at your neck. (Partially the reason why C&C Generals 2 got canned, or put on hold or something)

 

[Lazy Kitty]

I'd like to see an evil campaign with lots of evil humor that will make me laugh in an evil manner.
(Example from Overlord:
Ghost elf after the player made elves go extinct: "What is the world without elves?"
Minion: "A better place!")

Research tree is a pretty standard thing, isn't it?
As for a Unit-Creator. Do you mean like in Warzone 2100? (If you don't know what I mean, it's free and open source. It's another RTS where you create your own units.)
I like that idea.

 

[Rayce Archer]

It seems like in many RTS games, rushing or turtling dominate depending on how good/cheap defenses are. I'd like to see an RTS with on-map objectives like Civ:BE or HotS, so players are encouraged to do something and conflict emerges from those goals clashing. For instance, say your AI faction has to hack and preserve computers stored in buildings around the map, but the basic human faction is tasked with demolishing them.

Garrison-able buildings, usable cover, and other ways to exploit the map are always good.

Stealth and misdirection. From hiding a carrier at the edge of the battle in Homeworld to stealth-basing as the GLA in command and conquer generals, some of my best RTS memories are of being a tricky punk.

And finally units with secondary powers. I've always liked it when your helicopter can fire a missile barrage or your riflemen can dig trenches, but I'm personally not a fan of ability-based "caster" units like in Starcraft. Heaven help me I could never get a handle on roaches and queens.

 

[Old Father Eternity]

It seems like in many RTS games, rushing or turtling dominate depending on how good/cheap defenses are. I'd like to see an RTS with on-map objectives like Civ:BE or HotS, so players are encouraged to do something and conflict emerges from those goals clashing. For instance, say your AI faction has to hack and preserve computers stored in buildings around the map, but the basic human faction is tasked with demolishing them.

Also a thing that WH 40k did quite well, having the strategic and relic points which were quite necessary if you wanted better resource income or that top tier tech, so you had to go out there on the battle field potentially risking the exploratory force, not to mention having to shift resources and defenses in order hold the points.

 

[thoughtwrangler]

Hello everyone!

I am making an RTS game. And I am trying to find out what features people love and hate.
Currently I am making the very core. Which is a lot of programming haha.

The game takes place in the (near) future.

I have a basic idea of the main factions. More factions are possible (note: these are NOT their names, but basic descriptions):
- (Normal) Humans
- Religious mass murdering acolytes
- Stealthy rogue AI-implemented bad guys

I have some ideas myself. Please let me know what you think of these.
- A Research tree (faction orientated, minimal "common-type" research)
- A Unit-Creator (Create your own unit to throw into the fight)

More information is coming, but this is a free-time project.So I work on it when I have the time.

I would love to know what you people would like to see in an RTS. Or better yet, what you do not want to see. So I know what to work on and what to drop. Any feedback is welcome!


____________
I am new here, so if I made a (fatal) error in some way. Please do not throw tomatoes at me! Please?

I'm not an RTS veteran, though I do dabble, so I may not be the target audience. But one thing that I like in RTS's is a pause feature in single player. Doesn't have to be full-on Real Time With Pause gameplay, but some sort of occasional "catch your breath" option would be nice for us filthy casuals.

 

[Mr Fixit]

The only thing I might add to all these good suggestions is possibly more than 3 playable factions. Variety is the spice of life.

 

[Bad Jim]

The only thing I might add to all these good suggestions is possibly more than 3 playable factions. Variety is the spice of life.

I disagree. Lots of factions need lots of balance testing. If there are 10 factions, there are 55 possible matchups, and all of them should be reasonably fair. Games with lots of factions usually address this issue by making them all the same except for a few special bonuses, unique units etc that are easier to test for balance.

 

[SweetShark]

Base the factions you put, I think a Cthulhu Cyberpunk World would make sense for you. Something like this:

Humans: An army of pure Humans trying to stop the Cthulhu-like believers to bring Space-Horrors to our World.

Implemented Humans: And A.I, who controls the humans who put a lot of Cyberwares to their bodies. Trying to stop the Pure Humans to complete the missions in secret [the A.I. present its army like acolytes/believers repels], so the Goverment for final solution use exclusively only Cyberware/A.I. weaponry.

Acolytes: The main reason for the end of the world. Take the minds of Humanity and show the beauty of a real paradise.

I hope my inspiration will be used in your game.

 

[Goliath100]

I got 2 ideas:
1) Make resource gathering and combat the same (See Advance Wars for How To).
2) Did you say religious mass murdering acolytes, because I heard human sacrifice, and said "run with it". Yes, I'm suggesting a sacrifice mechanic. You sacrifice units to get a special currency that can be used for temporary buffs, unit upgrades and a very expensive instant win (after a 10 minute wind up).

 

[thoughtwrangler]

While we're idea-mining, I had an idea regarding the "pause" mechanic - what if time-manipulation was a resource? Like, a gauge that fills up either from taking damage, gathering a particular resource, etc. that could be used to either pause to allow various attacks to be queued, or slow down time for the opponent while keeping your own speed intact.

Apologies if this is something that's already happened, but it sort of reminded me of the "Special" effects that the various generals could use in the Advance Wars games.

 

[SHW]

While we're idea-mining, I had an idea regarding the "pause" mechanic - what if time-manipulation was a resource? Like, a gauge that fills up either from taking damage, gathering a particular resource, etc. that could be used to either pause to allow various attacks to be queued, or slow down time for the opponent while keeping your own speed intact.

I think that time manipulation is not something I want to touch. I would also have to find someway to add it into the lore. And time is a 'wanky' subject.

Player will have a normal pause button.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Alpha Centuri is my favourite vidja gaem, because it has an amazing story dispersed between everything, I'd imitate the way SMAC drops conversation logs when you reach techs. Also mindworms, gimme them horrifying brain slugs. Also make it for WiiU?

Oh yeah, turn based.

 

[thoughtwrangler]

While we're idea-mining, I had an idea regarding the "pause" mechanic - what if time-manipulation was a resource? Like, a gauge that fills up either from taking damage, gathering a particular resource, etc. that could be used to either pause to allow various attacks to be queued, or slow down time for the opponent while keeping your own speed intact.

I think that time manipulation is not something I want to touch. I would also have to find someway to add it into the lore. And time is a 'wanky' subject.

Player will have a normal pause button.

Fair enough Pause buttons just by themselves make RTS's 100% more playable for me.

 

[Sangnz]

Building hardpoints.

Instead of having a wall of defensive turrets your normal buildings have built in turrets.
E.g. ground factories come with an AG turret by default air factories with AA.
Buildings can have multiple hardpoints, a standard factory gets 3, upgraded factory 4 where as something like a power generator gets one. Turrets can be removed/replaced depending on your defensive needs.

Specfic upgrades for specific buildings based on research/faction e.g. power gen hard point can hold one of the following:
Shield projector that takes up some power (researched)
Automated repair function that auto fixes nearby units/buildinds (researched exclusive)
Anti Air turret (baseline)
Cloaking genrator, only effects the generator (researched faction specific exclusive)

 

[Mr Fixit]

The only thing I might add to all these good suggestions is possibly more than 3 playable factions. Variety is the spice of life.

I disagree. Lots of factions need lots of balance testing. If there are 10 factions, there are 55 possible matchups, and all of them should be reasonably fair. Games with lots of factions usually address this issue by making them all the same except for a few special bonuses, unique units etc that are easier to test for balance.

10 would be a bit much, I was thinking more like 4 or 5. Just something to break from the normal 3.