Endgame

how about the winner gets lots of nukes and nuke the whole map

quote:

---

I''d like to have tools at my disposal which can prevent the game from becoming a tedious game of hide and seek.

---

Something like the Hunter-Seeker Drones from Tiberian Sun offers a good solution to this, as it automatically seeks out an enemy unit and destroys it, saving vast ammounts of effort and boredom during the ''mop-up'' phase of a game. The drawbacks in this case however are that the Hunter-seeker chooses its target automatically and cannot be controlled by the player in any way, and that only 1 can be possesed, and can only be used every few minutes. Perhaps somthing similar, but not quite so powerful (ie. something that doesnt instakill any target), but which is more readily available and/or can be controlled more could help to improve endgame for the winning player somewhat, at least in the area of having to hunt down remaining units.

Some other things that can help in the same vein include units or structures that can locate enemy units for you, fast mopup units which may not be so helpful in the heat of major battle, and of course if applicable, victory conditions that make a player defeated once they lose all structures, so that miscellaneous units dont have to be hunted down.

I''m not really sure about giving the losing player a boost once they are defeated for sure... for one thing, how do you judge when thats happened, and whats a suitable way of providing such a boost? Increased firepower, rate-of-fire, armour, or speed for thier units are a possibility, as are some reinforcements, but these things could turn a sure defeat into a victory, and that''d change the whole dynamic of the game - especially in situations where both players are almost dead, and battle it out with thier last few units and/or structures (it happens sometimes), it would be very difficult to judge when and how to implement this.

The reaction of opponents depends on the period of time when the battle is fought. In historical time, the reaction of generals depends on the way they make war: they plan before attacking and then commit their units according to their plan. During battle, either they can amend their plan to counter the enemy or they prefer to retreat to save their fighting value. Still you can use some tricks to balance out your armies at the end:
- Renaissance period: the armies recruited many mercenaries (even generals). A mercenary unit may defect to the highest bidder during battle, break into fleeing due to lower morale, or decide not to fight.
- Ancient period: the army was composed of units of people from the same cities (greek armies) or of auxiliaries from the country where the battles takes place (roman auxiliaries). Some units may defect to the other side or refuse to fight an allies fighting for the opponents.

You can add unforeseen reinforcements (due to poor scouting) or ambushes (hindering your deployment and giving to your opponent some advantages).

Still, we are stuck with the fact that the player fully controls all his armies elements. You could also let the player give orders and calculate the probability for each order to be rightly executed according to each corp general characteristics (e.g: an ancient army has 4 corps, middle, left and right wing plus reserve. The player would directly control the reserve and give orders to the rest of the three corps. These orders may be rightly or wrongly interpreted/executed). Thus, for your end of battle, you could decrease a little the probabilities for orders to be correctly interpreted (dued to pursuit anticipation, enemy bagage looting perspective, or loss of general, ...).

Last but not least, you could add weather elements that hinder your army (e.g. rain turns fields to mud and hinder your cavalry progression) or that makes you need to finish off quickly your opponent (in ancient time like in middle age, battles were fought during the day only and would stop at sunset. If you are only 10 minutes until sunset, you will need to get a quick victory lest the opponent succeeds to flee away during the night).

All of this can be transcripted to fantasy periods or Science fiction period.

Hope that helps.


Ghostly yours,
Red.

Z Steel Soldiers: the game ends when the heavily defended enemy base is conquered - by definition, the end is not anticlimactic. The game starts with a rush, and continues with a very tense, on the edge mid-game fight. Since in Z production is proportional to the _square_ of the amount of controlled teritory, a rather small advantage at the beggining of the end-game translates into a much larger inbalance between the two players, and the inbalance grows fast into a victory march against the enemy base.

I suppose AI that either goes for a final rush or concentrates for a last stand when it loses hope could help (as opposed to AI that runs away into hiding when it can''t fight head on anymore).

Requiring the player to kill all submarines, airplanes and other elusive specialist units is incredibly stupid.

Kazgoroth''s hunter-seeker drones sound perfect, just have a weak version of them wandering around who would usually be useless when the enemy is strong, but when they can no longer fight back properly the hunter seekers could waste them

quote:

---

Original post by Kazgoroth
I''m not really sure about giving the losing player a boost once they are defeated for sure... for one thing, how do you judge when thats happened, and whats a suitable way of providing such a boost?

---

How you judge is a good question. I think that it''s something that can be built into the game design.

In the design I have in mind (RTS) the goal of the game is to capture a number of objectives (usually buildings of some sort). Whenever one player/team has 100% of the objectives, the endgame comes into play.

The losing player would then get an extra wave of reinforcements with which to attempt to get back into the game. The winning player on the other hand, gets no more reinforcements than usual, but some of the more powerful units and weapons will be unlocked - which will enable him to flush the enemy out if he chooses to hide.

The injection of troops should not be enough to dramatically turn the game around - but it could be enough to enable the losing player to recapture one of the objectives and thus get back into the game... at least for a while. The loser should feel that there is still something left to fight for.

However, what I don''t want is for the losing player to just hunker down and wait for the winning player to come and get him. Thus the winning player will have access to weapons like orbital strikes which can be used to wipe out everything on a large portion of the map, with lots of noise and flashy explosions. Obviously though, the player doesn''t want to use these too close to his own forces, so the only way the losing player can be safe from them, is to get closer to his enemy...

Note that the motivation here is not necessarily just to avoid a long end game - but to provide a exciting and fun endgame. The players should finish the game having had a final hard fought battle, or else having witnessed the pyrotechnics of one side being utterly obliterated by powerful weaponry, or some other suitably exciting ending. The more possible ways it can end, the better, so long as they''re all exciting - and climactic.

The problem is that the winning player is still trying to build up his stuff at the end of the game. He''s trying to kill off the remnants of the enemy force, and there''s no way the enemy can really win at that point, but he''s still building granaries and barracks, because that''s what he''s programmed to do, or because he gets more points if he wins with eight command posts.

Why not have a button that liquidates all your assets and sends every marines, archer, engineer and sorcerer running across the battlefield with a spear to swamp the other guys? If you really think you''ve got it in the bag, just push the "Armageddon" button and see if you were right. For the sake of decency, lock that feature until ten minutes in or so, and have it reduce your combat effectiveness by 50%, so it won''t work if it''s even slightly close. If the bad guy has a few planes left, or a few tanks, or a means by which to defend himself from your horde, then you might lose, but if it really is a mop-up situation, then by all means mop-up.

I loved the endings in an very old Populous like god game. The Armageddon spell will cause all buildings to be destroyed and all people to storm against each other - it all ends in seconds with a blast. The player that starts the Armageddon only wins if he enjoys a large numerical advantage. (btw, anyone remembers the name of this game?)

[edited by - Diodor on April 29, 2004 11:15:59 AM]

Well, the ORIGINAL Populous for the SNES worked like that... I still have that game, but I have never played the 3D Populous.

--------------------------------------
I am the master of stories.....
If only I could just write them down...

quote:

---

Original post by Diodor
I loved the endings in an very old Populous like god game. The Armageddon spell will cause all buildings to be destroyed and all people to storm against each other - it all ends in seconds with a blast. The player that starts the Armageddon only wins if he enjoys a large numerical advantage. (btw, anyone remembers the name of this game?)

---

I think your talking about Powermonger, right?

While the idea of an climatic ending sounds great, I''d hate it if my opponent is allowed to come back into the game by cheating. Because that''s what granting him free units actually is, giving one player an unfair advantage. I think what you really should do is make the game so, that a player can come back even when he lost a major battle. That, combined with intelligent game goals (not required to kill all enemy units!) should lead to a behavior close to what you have in mind, don''t you think?


------------------------------
There are only 10 kinds of people: those that understand binary and those that don''t.

Bad Entertainment

quote:

---

Original post by Diodor
I loved the endings in an very old Populous like god game. The Armageddon spell will cause all buildings to be destroyed and all people to storm against each other - it all ends in seconds with a blast. The player that starts the Armageddon only wins if he enjoys a large numerical advantage. (btw, anyone remembers the name of this game?)

---

That sounds like the right sort of idea. While I don''t think an armageddon spell really works for my design, it definitely sounds like a fun way to resolve the game.

quote:

---

While the idea of an climatic ending sounds great, I''d hate it if my opponent is allowed to come back into the game by cheating. Because that''s what granting him free units actually is, giving one player an unfair advantage.

---

I don''t see it as cheating, or even an advantage. The scale of the reinforcements should be enough to provide a good last minute fight, rather than an overwhelming force that will stomp the winning player''s forces. By the time the endgame comes around, the winning player should outnumber, outclass and have better strategic positioning than his opponent, and will nearly always win the game... the only exceptions being if he suddenly starts playing like a cabbage and his opponent starts playing really well. I think it would be fun to offer the losing player that last faint glimmer of hope, and offer the winning player something to test out all the cool new high powered weaponry on.

quote:

---

Original post by Sandman
I don''t see it as cheating, or even an advantage. The scale of the reinforcements should be enough to provide a good last minute fight, rather than an overwhelming force that will stomp the winning player''s forces. By the time the endgame comes around, the winning player should outnumber, outclass and have better strategic positioning than his opponent, and will nearly always win the game... the only exceptions being if he suddenly starts playing like a cabbage and his opponent starts playing really well. I think it would be fun to offer the losing player that last faint glimmer of hope, and offer the winning player something to test out all the cool new high powered weaponry on.

---

As I see it, two thing might happen that I would not like:

1. By giving the weaker player additional units you prolong the losing battle. This is not fun, for either the winner or the loser. The winner has to fight longer againsta for he would have already defeated, and the loser fights a battle he can (should) not win.


2. Or the weaker player will be strengthened enough that he can take on his opponent and overpower him. In that case winning means nothing, or at least dominating the opponent becomes meaningless, since a weaker player will always be helped by the game.

I don''t think there is a middle way. Either you help the weaker player too much or you just prolong the endgame, without changing the outcome. Either would not be fun to play, at least for me.




------------------------------
There are only 10 kinds of people: those that understand binary and those that don''t.

Bad Entertainment

I think first off, you need to boil things down to single battle. If you want a climactic battle, it''s got to be something that determines the fate of the game.

I''d suggest having a stronghold for this, possibly one that can attack back, like towers. Make it so that taking out the stronghold wins the game, but make it strong enough so a unit can''t just zip past enemy line to take it out. Losing the game because an enemy used a sneak attack would be frustrating, though It would even things out a bit.

Try adding in a "last stand" event. Age of Empires has been good about this. In AoE 2, you could call all your villager into the townhall when you where attacked, allowing them to serve as archers. Also, your units would recover while inside the town hall. This made it easier to do a last ditch defense.
In Age of Mythology, there was a ragnarok power that turned all your villagers into warriors. This wreaked havoc on your economy, but provided extra troops if you were really desperate. Since power can only be used once in that game, it was hard to really abuse it.

Of course, you could try adding some "spells" that help more the weaker you are. To really push the issue, give them a long term cost. For example:
Death Toll: All your living units die. For every unit you''ve lost over the course of the game, you get a wraith unit, up to your unit maximum. The units are created around your stronghold. These wraith units are fairly strong and move quickly. However, they slowly loose hp over time, as the underworld calls them back. This spell can only be cast once per game.

The problem is that by the time you reach endgame all the major battles have already been fought, the enemy''s armada lies in ruin and all that is left is one final attack to end things for good.

Perhaps desperation moves could be included. When a player reaches endgame they get the opportunity release their secret weapon the last ditch effort that will decide their fate. The player only gets one desperation move and if they waste it then that’s to bad. The explanation for the special device could be an alien black box artifact, ancient magic spell whatever. The player can choose from a list of desperation moves or you could choose one randomly. Depending on the game they could be things like.

Uncontrolled fission cascade - Causes all nuclear power plants and weapons on the map to explode.

They should be things that are so risky and dangerous that they would only be used as a last resort.


-----------------------------------------------------
"Fate and Destiny only give you the opportunity the rest you have to do on your own."
Current Design project: Ambitions Slave

quote:

---

Original post by Sandman
In short, I''m proposing giving the losing player a bit of a boost once certain victory conditions have been met. Enough of a boost to get some decent carnage going on, but not so much that every game yo-yos between the players endlessly. Any thoughts/suggestions?

---

Wow, I missed that completely. Earlier I noted that Z did the exact reverse of what you proposed and it works greatly.

Generally I disagree with your approach - ideally the game should end very soon after the point of no return when victory is _sure_. Having the winning player toy with the losing one a bit more wouldn''t solve the real problem of pointless end-games.

Perhaps this could be made to work if the help for the weaker player is very large (making him the dominant player even - trading _all_ buildings for units is an idea) but the winning conditions are changed against him even more (say a time limit for destroying the enemy base). The end game would have the weaker player launch a desperate last all-out attack (somewhere near the end of the mid-game). Of course, after the weaker player takes the plunge, the bigger player wouldn''t be allowed to trade his buildings for units too. It is important that the game is designed so that the winning player doesn''t usually _want_ to use this option.

The ideas I'm seeing here sound interesting. In a game with more than 2 players it would be great to have last resort options that would end my game but have a chance to ruin one of my opponent's game; sort of like a self destruct or collision course kind of thing. That way I can at least go out with a bang.

[edited by - biscotti on April 29, 2004 5:47:36 PM]

How about this: Both players begin to get "Apocolypse" units at their main base. Once the main base is destroyed, all of these units instantly appear, and you can call all of the units who are able to come. The only way to lose is if all of your Apocolypse units are destroyed.

Like others have said, it would also be nice to have a doomsday trigger. Once pressed, all of your unused superweapons are droped on the area of your choice, but you won''t be able to build anymore WMD. It could also be used as a last line of defense against your opponent.

quote:

---

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
Why not have a button that liquidates all your assets and sends every marines, archer, engineer and sorcerer running across the battlefield with a spear to swamp the other guys? If you really think you''ve got it in the bag, just push the "Armageddon" button and see if you were right. For the sake of decency, lock that feature until ten minutes in or so, and have it reduce your combat effectiveness by 50%, so it won''t work if it''s even slightly close. If the bad guy has a few planes left, or a few tanks, or a means by which to defend himself from your horde, then you might lose, but if it really is a mop-up situation, then by all means mop-up.

---

This is an awesome concept. It''s essentially self-balancing. If you Armageddon when you''re NOT assured of a victory, you lose. In the end game of any RTS, the winning player ALWAYS has building and units which are no longer of any use, as long as he is assured of a victory, so there''s no harm in losing them. It could also be used as a suicide tactic by a losing player, rather than just quitting the game. Very cool idea.

quote:

---

I don''t see it as cheating, or even an advantage. The scale of the reinforcements should be enough to provide a good last minute fight, rather than an overwhelming force that will stomp the winning player''s forces. By the time the endgame comes around, the winning player should outnumber, outclass and have better strategic positioning than his opponent, and will nearly always win the game... the only exceptions being if he suddenly starts playing like a cabbage and his opponent starts playing really well. I think it would be fun to offer the losing player that last faint glimmer of hope, and offer the winning player something to test out all the cool new high powered weaponry on.

---

I dont mean any offense at all by this, but this sounds like the thoughts of someone who plays using cheap rush and/or massive outnumbering forces. What about those players who are actually good enough to be using strategy instead of just massive numerical sureriority. Quite often playing in this way involves having just enough units for your attack, with only a few spares (requires good judgement of what you need to win). In this case a small group of reinforcements could eliminate that perfectly sized attack force. People complain all the time about RTS games not actually requiring strategy, and this idea if implemented incorrectly, could actually discourage strategic playing from those who bother to use it. Of course people in this way should already be constructing a backup force while the attack is occuring an should be able to recover, but still, it''d be rather annoying.