(Disclaimer: I''m not claiming this is new or original; just that it''s interesting.) "RTS" in this context can be anything from combat-only such as Myth to largely economics-based such as Age Of Empires. It''s based roughly on an idea in another thread where someone suggested that players could have different goals. It is not exactly what that poster had in mind, but perhaps an interesting idea nonetheless. Imagine a game played on a random map (ie. arbitrarily chosen or generated) with 3 or more players. Before the game starts, each player is assigned one of the other players as an enemy. To win the game, they have to eliminate their enemy, rather than all enemies. However, these assignments are hidden: you only get told who your target is. You don''t know who is after you, and you don''t know who the others are after. What does this add to a traditional multi-player skirmish? a) Shorter game time. For people who find the "kill everyone" games to take too long, this is an alternative, as it should be quicker to complete. b) Diplomacy. In games with 4 or more players, it may be feasible for 2 players to group together to defend against other players in order to mutually benefit each other. (One example where this might happen is when 2 weak players placed adjacent to each other need to repel a single strong player in order to have a chance to develop.) Ideally this would be supported by game mechanics that allow your units to not attack another player''s units when you have them set to ''Ally'' status. c) Self-balancing. 2 players may work together to prevent a 3rd player from winning, if that 3rd player is on the brink of victory (usually over a 4th player). This means that whenever 1 player starts to get on top, it is in the interests of all the others to collaborate against this player, keeping the difference between the current leader and the current loser smaller. (As opposed to the "kill everyone" scenario, where you might let the leader kill another player, and then pick them off afterwards when they are weaker.) d) Bluffing. Perhaps this is really just an extension of the diplomacy issue. There''s nothing to stop a player attacking another player who isn''t their target. This may fool that player into attacking you (in perceived self-defence), thus leaving them more susceptible to other opponents. Anyone like this idea? Or have seen it in a computer game? What problems do you see with it? All comments welcomed. [ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]

Sound great, except for one little problem: who wins?

quote: Original post by Kylotan
b) Diplomacy.

Can I break my alliances and stab my "allies" in the back? can I be a low-down, low-life, thieving, backstabbing scum?

If not, I wont play it.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM | STL | Google ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

That is an excellent idea not necessarily restricted to RTS games - I think it would work well in squad-based FPS games as well.

The only thing it triggers memories of is some of those old movies like that van Damme (sp?) film where he doesn''t know who his ''protector'' is (the guy supposed to keep him on the island). Or the movie that one ripped off where everyone had a collar around their necks and was connected to one other or something (Fortress?).

quote:
Original post by Oluseyi

Can I break my alliances and stab my "allies" in the back? can I be a low-down, low-life, thieving, backstabbing scum?

If not, I wont play it.

I'll second that.

quote:
Original post by Argus

That is an excellent idea not necessarily restricted to RTS games - I think it would work well in squad-based FPS games as well.

The only thing it triggers memories of is some of those old movies like that van Damme (sp?) film where he doesn't know who his 'protector' is (the guy supposed to keep him on the island). Or the movie that one ripped off where everyone had a collar around their necks and was connected to one other or something (Fortress?).

Hmm, it sounds too complicated for a FPS. The most important gameplay element in a FPS must be shooting, not thinking or diplomacy. Anything that takes focus of the shooting part will make the game less fun.

Edited by - Diodor on January 26, 2002 2:05:19 AM

I think it''s a perfect idea. It reminds of the game Assassination, where each player is assigned a target they have to shoot with a watergun, but they don''t know who''s after them.

In terms of game length, though, I''d think you''d have to be careful about momentum, as you touch on with item c. If the game see-saws everytime a player starts to get on top, then games might drag on interminably.

quote: Original post by Diodor

Hmm, it sounds too complicated for a FPS. The most important gameplay element in a FPS must be shooting, not thinking or diplomacy. Anything that takes focus of the shooting part will make the game less fun.

I don''t know. Assassination is quintessentially an "FPS" in that you have to hunt other people down, but don''t know who''s hunting you. But people can bargain, misdirect, and cajole other people into doing things that cause them to spare them or attack someone else.

For diplomacy, you''d need some kind of currency that could be used as leverage. Maybe in game objects players could give each other to pursuade them to do one thing or another.

You''d definitely need a voice-over-IP comm system, though. Once you get smooth conversation, diplomacy becomes much easier for all types of games.



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote:
Original post by Wavinator

I don''t know. Assassination is quintessentially an "FPS" in that you have to hunt other people down, but don''t know who''s hunting you. But people can bargain, misdirect, and cajole other people into doing things that cause them to spare them or attack someone else.

For diplomacy, you''d need some kind of currency that could be used as leverage. Maybe in game objects players could give each other to pursuade them to do one thing or another.

You''d definitely need a voice-over-IP comm system, though. Once you get smooth conversation, diplomacy becomes much easier for all types of games.

Sounds more like a RPG than a FPS. But who gets to be the winner in Assassination?

Diodor: the winner is whoever destroys their target first, simple as that.

Oluseyi: I envisage the "ally" thing to be a little checkbox in your interface for each of the other players. While it is checked, your units won''t attack that player. Uncheck it whenever you like.

Wavinator: you''re right in that the self-balancing aspect will make the game take a little longer, but as I mentioned at the start, I believe that only having to destroy one opponent should still make the game quicker than the "last one standing wins" situation. I''d have to see how it works in practice, though.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]

Nice idea - i would make the following changes though:
1) The allience thing should not be controlled by the game itself - that would make bluffing, or as Oluseyi puts it, backstabbing harder than it should be.
2) The winning thing should''nt be that the first one killin his target wins - that would make the game too short, and resulting in the experienced gamers winning a lot, and the less experienced never getting close enough to take a shot.
I think, that the game should continue if someone is killed - the only one that should be relocated on the map should be the dead one, the ''frag'' count (like CS) should be adjusted and the killer gets a new target.
This makes it a longer game, but it could be set to end, when the first player reaches 10 kills or something like that.

-------------
E-)mil
"Who the fuck forgot the spoon?!"
- Programmer for Matrix inc.

quote:
Original post by Kylotan

Diodor: the winner is whoever destroys their target first, simple as that.

Well, this doesn't work well with the classic RTSs (Starcraft &co). If I build a base and an army only for someone to win by tank rushing a newb I'll sure be mad. Also, the game can be unbalanced because a player may start closer to his target than another.

First, fog of war must go. If I am to lose because a player beats another, at least I want to have known about the attack.

Second the game's pace should allow the players to move over the map in time to affect a battle on the other side of the map. My solution to this would be to decrease the damage rate, thus increasing a battle's time. Creating fortifications would also help.


I am fairly sure there was a RISK game mode just like you describe though.

Edited by - Diodor on January 26, 2002 11:52:34 AM