real

Of the Tabletop, and other, lesser varieties.

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

usuario18013
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:31 am UTC

real

Postby usuario18013 » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:15 pm UTC

Trash
Last edited by usuario18013 on Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:49 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26121
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: real RTS decision-based idea

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:51 am UTC

So something like the Gratuitous series? Gratuitous Space Battles, where you set your fleet up, give the ship's priority weights for targeting classes, then watch them fight?

I've not played the Tank one, but I believe it's similar.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

DavidSh
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:09 pm UTC

Re: real RTS decision-based idea

Postby DavidSh » Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:14 pm UTC

A real "real time strategy" game that involves construction of buildings should take months to play out, if construction workers around here are representative. Maybe the Sea-Bees can work faster.

I've only seen one real-time video game where you can send out orders one day, then next day start up the game and see how they were carried out. But it was in Japanese, and my language skills were insufficient.

usuario18013
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:31 am UTC

Re: real RTS decision-based idea

Postby usuario18013 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:43 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:So something like the Gratuitous series? Gratuitous Space Battles, where you set your fleet up, give the ship's priority weights for targeting classes, then watch them fight?

I've not played the Tank one, but I believe it's similar.


Hi, thanks for your answer!

Well, I have look at the game you told me. Gratuitous Space Battles 2 seems well, but there's not construction or resources, and you gives orders just one time... so it leaves an static game... based just in war.

Gratuitous Tank Battles is just another tower defense game, and there's no base, no resources. That's not like my idea.

But, Gratuitous Space Battles would be like a way to start a game, you will construct or already start with some troops, and you will be able to give orders before starting, but also during the play.

I think my idea is a lot more ambitious at all. It could be a mix of Age of Empires and C&C, and you can add the way Gratuitous Space Battles makes to send trops to fight, but dinamicaly to be able to modify the way they react.

What do you think?

DavidSh wrote:A real "real time strategy" game that involves construction of buildings should take months to play out, if construction workers around here are representative. Maybe the Sea-Bees can work faster.

I've only seen one real-time video game where you can send out orders one day, then next day start up the game and see how they were carried out. But it was in Japanese, and my language skills were insufficient.


Hi, thank you for your answer.

When you play any StarCraft game, or AoE or C&C it don't takes months to play. Same a game with Settlers siege that is slowers, it can take just some hours...

I am meaning like. You goes on playing a C&C game, and it will take how many time for you like in a 3 players game in a medium or huge map? It will almost take the same time with the decision-based mode. It depends on you the time the game will go on. Building, collecting resources and attacking will be almost the same, but intead of clicking all the way to control everything, you will decide how it would be have to be done.

It wouldn't be a tower defense game, its just an RTS game, but with real strategy decisions, more real, because think about one thing: in real life, a city/base and a war is not controlled by every unit/building that you are clicking, they are really controlled by a master, or a colonel, that gives more general orders, he is not in the place to say in every moment what to do (like we do in actual RTS games by clicking everytime...)

For me it's a very interesting idea, because it will foce you to take more important decisions, at the same time that you leave the game go on looking how good/bad are your decisions.

What do you think?

Thanks

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4518
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: real RTS decision-based idea

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:10 pm UTC

I think the genre of games you're talking about are often called "god games", with the canonical example being the Populous series--basically, an RTS where all of the individual units are AI controlled, and you give them high-level objectives to complete in whatever way they feel makes sense, or try to influence their behaviour by causing natural disasters or whatever.

User avatar
Koa
Posts: 531
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:20 am UTC

Re: real RTS decision-based idea

Postby Koa » Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:24 am UTC

I think I've considered this idea before, way back when I had very few RTS hours. It's a natural thought over the normal inability or unwillingness to manage a base or army, and maybe it would be interesting as a sort of idle game. But damn does it take out all the magic out of RTS for me. Gratuitous Space Battles is a good microcosm of how it would probably play. In the beginning it seems neat and the pretty effects are dazzling, but by the time I was trying to complete challenges I spent most of the time minimized and my interest rapidly disappeared. While in GSB there is zero input to do during a battle and you could argue that with this game there would be a constant potential need to move a bunch of esoteric sliders, I think the result would end up roughly the same. A game that collapses when it presents challenge.

The real 100% decision-based RTS game could maybe be a neat framework for exposing other systems like complex diplomacy or trade, or even a MOBA metal gear thing, but by itself I don't think it sounds interesting at all as a game to play. I'm not sure that I will ever find AI vs AI actually fun to play no matter how much I'm given the illusion of control. Well, maybe there is a point where I would be satisfied with the illusion of control but I have never come close to experiencing it yet.

usuario18013
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:31 am UTC

Re: real RTS decision-based idea

Postby usuario18013 » Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:01 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:I think the genre of games you're talking about are often called "god games", with the canonical example being the Populous series--basically, an RTS where all of the individual units are AI controlled, and you give them high-level objectives to complete in whatever way they feel makes sense, or try to influence their behaviour by causing natural disasters or whatever.


Hi, thanks for your anwer.

I have to surrender a little in your post...

I have to say that I am one of the lovers of Settlers siege, I can say that I love Settlers 2, and smoth playing... Sorry.
But this game is one that makes me thing, in Settlers you have just to build, and sent your trops to fight, you don't control them, neither your workers, you just give them priorities.

This idea of playing is totally compatible with other games like StarCraft, obviously a game like StarCraft will give him a higher speed, seen that Settlers was pretty slow to play...

A game running with my idea don't have to be boring, you won't be all the way clicking, but you will hace to take a lot of important decisions that can make you win or lose.

Koa wrote:I think I've considered this idea before, way back when I had very few RTS hours. It's a natural thought over the normal inability or unwillingness to manage a base or army, and maybe it would be interesting as a sort of idle game. But damn does it take out all the magic out of RTS for me. Gratuitous Space Battles is a good microcosm of how it would probably play. In the beginning it seems neat and the pretty effects are dazzling, but by the time I was trying to complete challenges I spent most of the time minimized and my interest rapidly disappeared. While in GSB there is zero input to do during a battle and you could argue that with this game there would be a constant potential need to move a bunch of esoteric sliders, I think the result would end up roughly the same. A game that collapses when it presents challenge.

The real 100% decision-based RTS game could maybe be a neat framework for exposing other systems like complex diplomacy or trade, or even a MOBA metal gear thing, but by itself I don't think it sounds interesting at all as a game to play. I'm not sure that I will ever find AI vs AI actually fun to play no matter how much I'm given the illusion of control. Well, maybe there is a point where I would be satisfied with the illusion of control but I have never come close to experiencing it yet.


Hi, thanks for you answer.
I have to disagree with you about that it's about inability or unwillingness...
Why? because the game will allways be dynamic, and the idle time will be just the time you want. Also, I repeat that there are allways the option to controll what you want, so you can leave your base and resources for the IA, and take care of fighting with your troops, for example.

Also, I am talking about a huger idea, all I have said is just a sketch. I am talking about not only decisions, also by creating attack strategies or defense, by showing your troops how to do it, to afer, send them to the action.

How many times have you thought about how boring is creating your base or defending it constructing a wall around? When it can be the IA who can manage it for you according to your willings.
Or by clicking all the time to create and create one and another troop, when you already know how many troops of each you want to have. What about just setting the kind of army you want or how many of each you want?

For example, if you let the IA do this two things, base construction and creating the army, you will just have to care about clicking your troops to fight with them.

Imagine the opposite, you don't care about fighting. But you want to go on with researching of new upgrades, by creating your base and collecting resources specially for just giving your troops special shields.

You are talking to about diplomacy and trading, it's a huge idea, and more complex, but it can be done to (also that two options all we know that are almost decisions-based, and IA controlled yet, basically we chose if we want allies or not, and with trading it´s just chosing what goods and with who we want to trade)

Thanks all for your answers.
Last edited by usuario18013 on Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:22 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Koa
Posts: 531
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:20 am UTC

Re: real RTS decision-based idea

Postby Koa » Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:00 pm UTC

usuario18013 wrote:Also, I repeat that there are allways the option to controll what you want, so you can leave your base and resources for the IA, and take care of fighting with your troops, for example.


When challenge is introduced there's a conflict. Either controlling troops manually is ideal and so you should do it all the time, or the AI does it at least just as well which makes manual control unnecessary. Very difficult to intentionally strike a balance. I feel like the idea is an RTS simulator which can't possess any challenge as-is, which is fine I guess but it's an important thing to note.

I also don't think I've been bored building a base and I would guess it's because I feel like I am making decisions. It's mainly because of the 'real time' part in RTS. A lot of people do play RTS kind of funny, getting every building and researching everything, building unnecessary defenses, essentially playing the game on their own time. I can see how someone would find that boring to do over and over again, even though they still like the idea of playing a RTS, so they might consider automation. I used to play that way myself though I don't see the appeal of it anymore, and it's because I find it much more interesting to play on the game's time.

The first few seconds of the game are the most important, because every subsequent second is built upon them. If you don't build a villager in AoE in the first second of the game, you're delaying your whole economy with every moment. The same concept applies to buildings. The faster you build it the quicker the investment will pay off and the more likely it will be successful at its deliberate intention. I'm always looking forward to affording the next thing I want or need and eagerly getting it, and it ceases to be boring in that way. There are often ways to split hairs for time if I really feel like it.

I think time is more important to RTS than strategy. I think strategy can't be defined as anything other than a plan set out for an intended result. People who would find strategy to be more important than time are the only people who will sometimes declare whether some action is or isn't strategic in RTS, because they treat strategy as if it were some aethereal golden idea rather than how it has always been throughout history: incredibly messy and defined by the rules of the environment.

usuario18013
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:31 am UTC

Re: real RTS decision-based idea

Postby usuario18013 » Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:35 pm UTC

Koa wrote:
usuario18013 wrote:Also, I repeat that there are allways the option to controll what you want, so you can leave your base and resources for the IA, and take care of fighting with your troops, for example.


When challenge is introduced there's a conflict. Either controlling troops manually is ideal and so you should do it all the time, or the AI does it at least just as well which makes manual control unnecessary. Very difficult to intentionally strike a balance. I feel like the idea is an RTS simulator which can't possess any challenge as-is, which is fine I guess but it's an important thing to note.

I also don't think I've been bored building a base and I would guess it's because I feel like I am making decisions. It's mainly because of the 'real time' part in RTS. A lot of people do play RTS kind of funny, getting every building and researching everything, building unnecessary defenses, essentially playing the game on their own time. I can see how someone would find that boring to do over and over again, even though they still like the idea of playing a RTS, so they might consider automation. I used to play that way myself though I don't see the appeal of it anymore, and it's because I find it much more interesting to play on the game's time.

The first few seconds of the game are the most important, because every subsequent second is built upon them. If you don't build a villager in AoE in the first second of the game, you're delaying your whole economy with every moment. The same concept applies to buildings. The faster you build it the quicker the investment will pay off and the more likely it will be successful at its deliberate intention. I'm always looking forward to affording the next thing I want or need and eagerly getting it, and it ceases to be boring in that way. There are often ways to split hairs for time if I really feel like it.

I think time is more important to RTS than strategy. I think strategy can't be defined as anything other than a plan set out for an intended result. People who would find strategy to be more important than time are the only people who will sometimes declare whether some action is or isn't strategic in RTS, because they treat strategy as if it were some aethereal golden idea rather than how it has always been throughout history: incredibly messy and defined by the rules of the environment.


Yes, you can't define ir better. It's because you love have everything under control, like almost all RTS games, and that's the real base of all.

Well, but, in an way what I am proposing is the same you are talking about, but differently controlled, I still thinking that it can run for some kind of RTS gamers, but, I think that it would be more oriented to people like have loved Settlers for example, games that are slower to play, not like StarCraft, that are full of action. Anyway I think that the way I would like to play like my words, can handle to some expectations.

Thanks all for your opinions. Happy for sharing my words with you.


Return to “Gaming”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests