Game Forum / Action Games / Halo/Halo 2 / September 2005
Halo as FPS -- AND -- RTS
|
|
Thread rating:  |
A Man, Just Like Other Men - 16 Aug 2005 06:06 GMT Gamespot had a 'rumor control' article addressing some rumored discussions of adding Real Time Strategy elements to the Halo universe. My mind was working tonight while trying to sleep so I thought I'd type out some thoughts on just how this could work and be very cool, especially on-line.
We are seeing some games with different 'classes', not all super-soldier types: medics who are needed to heal, engineers who are needed to set explosives, etc. So in my version of "Halo RTS" you get on-line and pick a 'campaign'. A campaign will be a series of battles on a pre-determined map. Somehow 'units' for each campaign will be determined. A unit will be a collection of soldiers and vehicles: a squadron of banshees, scorpions, or ghost-supported infantry for example.
When you sign on to the campaign you pick whether you want to be a 'general', 'soldier', or even both. The general will be able to move his units across the terrain -- thus the RTS portion -- to take control of strategic locations depending on the main objectives of the campaign. For example, you could use your scorpion unit to secure a strategic bridge (king of the hill), or send your infantry in to blow up a fuel depot (assault), or even execute a SAR (Search And Rescue) of a valuable prisoner (capture the flag). The soldier could be of specific classes if you like (sniper, scorpion driver, etc.).
Once one or more of the general's units need to go into battle against enemy units, that hex becomes a 'map' like coagulation, mid-ship, etc. The servers go 'recruit' soldiers for the battle on that map, much like matchmaking in the playlists. So if you sign on as a soldier you'll have access to all the battles that are seeking recruits. You can sign on based on the type of unit you want to be a part of: banshees, scorpions, a sniper unit, etc, or by the map. One cool aspect is you won't necessarily know what you're going up against, just the unit you'll be in. You could be way outmatched but defending a high-value prisoner, or you could be in a scorpion unit assaulting an infantry position -- it depends on how good your general was in moving units across the terrain.
If the general wants to jump into one of the battles he just set-up, then he'll be able to no problem. Each 'turn' of the RTS portion could have a time limit and if enough soldiers can't be found for all the battles needed that turn then the server can roll the dice in the background to determine the outcome, just like today's RTS games, so there's no loss there. But of course when enough soldiers are found, we now have a great mix of RTS and FPS elements; both working together, both skills needed to complete the campaign. Each battle would take between 5 and 15 minutes like today's Halo2 battles, so the RTS portion could still move along fairly quickly; also helped by the fact that the servers can recruit for multiple battles going on simultaneously across the board, and units not involved with a battle can still be moved across the board to other strategic objectives. Bots could be used for un-filled slots in the unit or even for quitters.
And "Halo RTS" will add a sense of reality to RTS games because the outcomes of each battle won't just be dice rolls -- they'll be played out by real soldiers. If you wanted to throw some light Roll Playing elements in you could do so easily by keeping 'rankings' like today's Halo2 Playlists, and as you gain ranks you can level up your character's skills, or cross train. Also, battles can be composed of similarly ranked soldiers, just like today's playlists.
Time for bed, and time for "Halo RTS". Thank you for your time.
Doug Jacobs - 17 Aug 2005 01:37 GMT In alt.games.video.xbox A Man, Just Like Other Men <Nada2Spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Gamespot had a 'rumor control' article addressing some rumored discussions > of adding Real Time Strategy elements to the Halo universe. My mind was > working tonight while trying to sleep so I thought I'd type out some > thoughts on just how this could work and be very cool, especially on-line. RTS's traditionally consist mainly of building your forces and the infrastructure (buildings, economy) to support them. What you describe below is basically a more elaborate team-based FPS - not that that would be a bad thing, mind you, I just wonder about the logistics of having enough players to actually play a decent game.
Traditional RTS games haven't done well on consoles since their controllers aren't really suited to that sort of game. Besides, to make it more interesting you'd need to have more than just 2 different races/armies represented... A 2 sided RTS is so C&C. ;)
babanoosh - 17 Aug 2005 02:01 GMT > In alt.games.video.xbox A Man, Just Like Other Men <Nada2Spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > it more interesting you'd need to have more than just 2 different > races/armies represented... A 2 sided RTS is so C&C. I love C&C so much. I can spend endless hours playing that game, even to this day. Have you tried Act of War?
A Man, Just Like Other Men - 17 Aug 2005 05:34 GMT > In alt.games.video.xbox A Man, Just Like Other Men <Nada2Spam@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > be a bad thing, mind you, I just wonder about the logistics of having > enough players to actually play a decent game. The beauty is the FPS part is implemented almost the exact same as H2 is now. When I sign on XBL to be a soldier, instead of going into a randomly generated game based on the playlist I choose, I get put in a randomly generated game based on the playlist I choose (though the options of playlists can include specific campaigns). The difference is my battle affects someone else's campaign -- the General's campaign that I may or may not know. If I care to track all the battles of the campaign I can, but if I just want to do the slayer-thing, then I just do the slayer thing. The General will benefit or suffer loss based on my performance, just like he would with randomly generated outcomes, but the game is more meaningful when it's real people duking it out in each of the battles across the board. If my team fails to plant the bomb in the supply depot, then my General's enemies will still be able to resupply, but if we do get the bomb planted, he can outrun his enemy to the capital.
> Traditional RTS games haven't done well on consoles since their > controllers aren't really suited to that sort of game. Besides, to make > it more interesting you'd need to have more than just 2 different > races/armies represented... A 2 sided RTS is so C&C. ;) Dai Senryaku is awesome, and I can picture the intersection between it and Halo2. I can move my units around and decide where and when to engage enemy units, and have real people execute those battles, and even jump into some myself.
From a marketing standpoint you are taking the Halo universe and trying to bring in strategy gamers by offering them the chance to direct the battles that all us Halo on-line players are playing anyway. Us online soldiers are like real soldiers in that we may not necessarily have insight into the master game plan. All we know is our immediate objective and we do our best to execute.
Doug Jacobs - 19 Aug 2005 03:06 GMT In alt.games.video.xbox A Man, Just Like Other Men <Nada2Spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The beauty is the FPS part is implemented almost the exact same as H2 is > now. When I sign on XBL to be a soldier, instead of going into a randomly [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > enemies will still be able to resupply, but if we do get the bomb planted, > he can outrun his enemy to the capital. It'd be neat if there was a system where Generals would be the hosts of the game, and then they could recruit soliders, based on who signs up for the game. As a solider, you'd gain points based on what sort of actions you took. For instance, if you made a lot of kills with the sniper rifle, your sniping score would be higher - marking you as a sniper expert. This way, generals could assemble a better team based on available resources. I'd foresee making a team from 5-7 different positions. Scoring would be linked to your position. So, if you played the Medic, but grabbed a sniper rifle and just went after the enemy instead of healing your buddies, your score would reflect that you suck as a medic. ;)
There could also be a handicapping system in place so that an experienced general might not have access to more experienced soliders. This could be a benefit to everyone since the more experienced soliders could help counteract a bad decision by the general, meanwhile, a good general would try to use his resources more intelligently. At least with XBox Live, at least you wouldn't have to worry about "sharks" - that is, people pretending to be newbies, when they're actually aces.
> Halo2. I can move my units around and decide where and when to engage enemy > units, and have real people execute those battles, and even jump into some > myself. I'll have to check this game out. I've heard good things about it.
Ameilius - 19 Aug 2005 06:06 GMT i just cant get into it my brother plays it constantly...
A Man, Just Like Other Men - 09 Sep 2005 15:56 GMT > On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:06:48 GMT, "A Man, Just Like Other Men" > <Nada2Spam@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > creating a realistic battlefield would draw enough players willing to > put in the time. But that's the beauty of the system I tried to describe as Halo RTS. If you want to keep doing the playlist thing, that's all you have to do. It's just that the outcome of your battle may or may not affect someone else's "campaign". Plus, slayer works great -- well, team slayer, at least. In fact, most battles on a battlefield probably look more like team slayer then CTF.
Basically what I propose is that the RTS portion be a wrapper program, say a $20 add-on. The target would be strategy gamers. They get to do their campaigns but with the very unique quality being that real people fight the individual battles. The wrapper program can stand alone easily enough, but since the infrastructure is already in place for today's Halo2 online playlists, Halo RTS just has to tie into these servers -- basically send battle requests So let's say my campaign has 3 battles going on this turn. One may be a hostage rescue from an enemy command center so Halo RTS requests a CTF on Coagulation. Another of my battles may be a team slayer with my scorpion unit engaging a unit of ghost-supported infantry. Here Halo RTS requests a battle from a playlist that would match this scenario (maybe one of the team slayer psuedo-random game types now includes vehicles). The third battle has one of my infantry units trying to demolish an enemy fuel depot, so the request goes out for an Assault game on Zanzibar.
Today's Halo2 servers get these requests from Halo RTS and picks some of its games THAT ARE GOING TO BE PLAYED ANYWAY in say the next 3 minutes. When those matches are over Halo2 reports the results to Halo RTS, which in turn incorporates the outcome of those battles into my campaign. Maybe the CTF game ended in a 1-1 tie, so Halo RTS says it was unsuccessful (in other words my 'unit' would have to win in the Halo2 playlist game in order for my campaign to have a victory). However, my assault game from Halo2 came out 2-1 in my favor. Bye-bye enemy fuel depot, which makes it more difficult for my enemy in my campaign to resupply. And in the team slayer match my team won 50-45 which means the enemy unit is either eliminated from my campaign map or severely weakened, and my unit moves on.
I was sharing these thoughts with a friend and came up with another angle. As a "general" running a campaign, my goal is to out-flank, out-match, and out-gun my enemy. If I am successful I will be bringing say three units to bear against one enemy unit, and some of my units may even be artillery. These scenarios could be an opportunity to expand today's Halo2 playlists. Have a playlist titled something that gets across the idea that you are going in outmanned and outgunned. This playlist would draw all the tough-guys who think they rule everyone -- it would test them beyond their normal skillz. Plus, even if Halo2 picks a game that ends up having lots of quitters, the worst case scenario is that Halo RTS determines the outcome of my battle randomly, just like all strategy games to today.
|
|
|