Appealing to RTS players without the isometric view.

[tbigness]

Thanks for clearing it up......

[TwentySicks]

What is RTS, Explain.......

Wow, what rock have you been living under? :P

[Maple]

AI-controlled minions that are self-directed yet help the player (creeps in MOBAs; pets in MMORPGs) seem to be becoming to be (augh - that grammar!) mainstream in the gaming-industry.

[Sin]

This ideas ams dildos. Just sayins.

[Doc Holliday]

I believe a system for commanding mass amounts of troops is conceivable. Something simple like players signing up for the army, and then categorizing themselves. So they can put themselves into archers, horsemen, infantry etc. Then the commander of this army can give each group little messages on what to do and where to go. So, he right clicks the archer subcategory in his army, and then selects send message to all archers. And says something like "Open Fire" a little dialogue box shows up for each archer with the commanders input. And they can react accordingly. As far as NPC armies go, I don't personally fancy the idea. I'm all for player only armies :P

[Zenroe]

I believe a system for commanding mass amounts of troops is conceivable. Something simple like players signing up for the army, and then categorizing themselves. So they can put themselves into archers, horsemen, infantry etc. Then the commander of this army can give each group little messages on what to do and where to go. So, he right clicks the archer subcategory in his army, and then selects send message to all archers. And says something like "Open Fire" a little dialogue box shows up for each archer with the commanders input. And they can react accordingly. As far as NPC armies go, I don't personally fancy the idea. I'm all for player only armies :P

Ja. We could do something even more medieval and go as far as saying you would need runners to deliver this "Open Fire!!" message, or the commander be present near the archers. OR have an archer captain that answers to the battlefield commander. The archer captain would get messages like (fire when our infantry reach point X), from a runner and act accordingly. This would allow battles to play out according to commanding skill rather than how fast you can type. You would also need a cavalry captain and an infantry captain (the commander would lead one). This allows for promotions in the army and such.

[DarthPies]

Ja. We could do something even more medieval and go as far as saying you would need runners to deliver this "Open Fire!!" message, or the commander be present near the archers. OR have an archer captain that answers to the battlefield commander. The archer captain would get messages like (fire when our infantry reach point X), from a runner and act accordingly. This would allow battles to play out according to commanding skill rather than how fast you can type. You would also need a cavalry captain and an infantry captain (the commander would lead one). This allows for promotions in the army and such.

Problem with this is the same problem that plagues so many possible immersive features regarding communications - external third party programs. Hardcore groups will use voip like vent, teamspeak and mumble to communicate instantly to all their allies, and if their enemies stick to whatever system the game has in place then they have an advantage.

[Doc Holliday]

Problem with this is the same problem that plagues so many possible immersive features regarding communications - external third party programs. Hardcore groups will use voip like vent, teamspeak and mumble to communicate instantly to all their allies, and if their enemies stick to whatever system the game has in place then they have an advantage.

Exactly, either that or nobody ends up using these systems at all and just sticks to third party. That's why its best to give the groups without an organized third party chat a way of communicating with the same level of effectiveness in-game.

[Nefastus]

Nowadays I wouldn't expect to see a larger joint group of players that wouldn't at least use one of million of public VoIP servers.

[Doc Holliday]

Nowadays I wouldn't expect to see a larger joint group of players that wouldn't at least use one of million of public VoIP servers.

A most likely true assumption, but you cant really assume in game development. Its always good to cater to the possibility of groups of players without 3rd party options. For instance if mercenaries sign up for a lords army and they dont want to get really involved, buy still want to recieve orders. An in game system could be handy.