Art of War - Part 40 - Game Modes

[Myll Erik]

Welcome to our new series where we will be taking a look at various RTS game-play mechanics and examining what makes certain things work. We will also be discussing various other aspects of the RTS genre, so keep checking back for new topics! Now for some ground rules :

• Stay on Topic
• Keep things as general as possible - this is not a bashing thread! We are now adding in an End of Nations spin!
• This is to encourage thought - therefore well thought out ideas are encouraged!
• Healthy Debate is also encouraged, but flaming/spamming will be dealt with swiftly.

Art of War - Part 40 RTS Game Modes

Traditionally RTS has been all about the base versus base mentality of spending time building up a base, then marching your army around the map to destroy your enemy. Over the last couple of years there have been a couple of spin off's from the traditional concept that have created multiple new ways to play RTS. In this Art of War we'll explore some of those options and see if it's a good route for the genre.

First off, lets name a few of the new ways to play RTS - there's the more casual MOBA experience where games are quick and the action is constant yet less demanding. We have multiple RTS games using the point hold/point capture mode that forces action to take place on certain points or areas. There are also RTS games where you are are back with the traditional Base vs Base idea - but with some twists thrown in such as some RPG elements.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the quicker style of gameplay. I grew up playing RTS games that would routinely last over an hour, and while it was fun and I thoroughly enjoyed it I just don't feel like I have the time for a long game like that nor do I want to spend an hour on just one game. I'd much rather play a couple of quicker games and get more bang for my time than devote an hour or more in to one game.

There have also been strides in the RTS world to make games that offer multiple modes or maps that give flexibility in play style. This is something I'm a huge fan of as it keeps the game fresh and encourages multiple types of tactics to be successful. My history was all about rushing and using basically the same tactic every game to be successful and while I did enjoy that - it did get boring at times. By having multiple maps and modes and encouraging more than one tactic I think this is really the way of the future and the way for a long lasting game.

This week - I want to hear your opinions about :

1. What do you think of different modes within one RTS?

2. Would you prefer a game that focused on one type of mode or tactic?

3. Toward End of Nations - are there any game modes that your are looking forward to?

4. Toward End of Nations - is there a game mode you are worried about or have concerns about?

[Cyber]

I really like the idea of different game modes in any type of game, RTS included. Not only does it allow players to explore different types of gameplay, and therefore find one or two they prefer, but it also helps to break up the monotony of doing the same thing over and over (i.e. reduces the boredom factor somewhat).

I myself have always enjoyed attack and defend type modes in any game I play, both from the attacking side and the defending side. I can't say why for sure that that is the case for me, but for some reason that type of gameplay and the tactics inherent involved in such have appealyed to me. I guess I just like storming the beach (anyone ever play that multiplayer map on Medal of Honour where one side had to storm the Normandy beach?).

[BrodlRodl]

1. What do you think of different modes within one RTS?

I really like it, and like the creativity you ppl are putting into different game modes in EoN. Unfortunatly this is comming with a downside. Especially with those 2, quite different factions, balancing towards so many different modes, and sizes of games, is a bloody hard work - mby even impossible...


2. Would you prefer a game that focused on one type of mode or tactic?

Hmmm, while i wouldnt prefer it, there will be a "major-mode" turning out over time. Thats the mode, most tournaments and clan-battles would be fought, aswell as the one with the most maps created over time. Yet, i couldnt tell, what mode this would be... very likely domination, or base assault, since i have seen most vids showing these maps.


3. Toward End of Nations - are there any game modes that your are looking forward to?

A huge sized "MOBA-map" would be awsome... (dont know the name of IceBreakers game mode).


4. Toward End of Nations - is there a game mode you are worried about or have concerns about?

Not yet - mby BaseAssault could create problems, since stuff like Arti and such (mby even some unit-skills) would be way stronger, than in every other game mode. I dont know, how this will turn out...

[DevilsMMO]

1. What do you think of different modes within one RTS?

Absolutely. I don't think every gamer expects the same from an RTS game. While some players prefer more Strategy, the others want to take advantage of their real-time abilities. Different modes will not only bring in more players, it will also bring in different types of players. It's more entertaining to be in a match with players with different styles. It's not only about the game modes that keeps the game fresh, it's also about the variety of gamers (and styles).that the game brings in.

[Korwulf]

I am a huge fan of multiple game modes being brought to bear in a single game, it makes the game more accesible to more people. If I want a shorter game I can do that, If I want a longer game I can do that, If I don't want to play a specfic type of game (CTF for example) I can simply choose not to play that map, instead of not playing or outright avoiding what conceptually is a cool game, that has many features my friends and I have been wishing for in an RTS for years (not having to manage a base/traditional economy immediatly comes to mind, I'm just not that good or that fast).

Personally I am a big big fan of the attack & defend game type (Similar to what I have seen of Blue Water, or Strand of the Ancients in WoW). I realize with the meta-overlay it won't neccesarly be the beat our time type attack and defend, more likely the attack today, defend tomrrow type. Having a timer to show the best time of this particular occupation period, or best overall conquring time would be a pretty cool concept, also you could have a territory that "never comes under occupation" and thus flips daily or hourly because it is so strategic you could never push your enimies off for long.

I also love the posses and hold flag gametype (think Fang of Regulos in Rift) where you pick up the flag / orb whatever, cannot drop it, and the flag continually does damage to you until you are no longer healable, and eventually die due to some much damage from the flag you cannot be healed, I dont think this would translate to full company game of EoN very well, but possibly a "Heroic Map" where only hero's are in (again I question its viability as most hero's are ment to compliment a company)

On to concerns, I have heard in interviews that CTF is a gametype but havn't heard anything since, I have concerns about this type of game in EoN but as I have not seen or heard anything since I will reserve judgement for the future and see what come of it, In general I have been less of a fan of traditional (2-flag) ctf and more of a smash and grab type style (1-flag) espcially when compined with a damning effect on the flag so people cant go hide it to prolong the game. I am unsure how either of those would translate to EoN.

On the whole level my biggest concerns lay with battle grouping & elo pairings, but this is not the place for those. What I have managed to find, see, and study looks very fun, accesible, and enjoyable to me. I look forward to getting my hands on this game in the near future, and so do several of my friends.

[Myll Erik]

As mentioned - balance will be difficult with different game modes, but it's something we're well aware of and something we will continually be working on!

[Original Luke]

1. What do you think of different modes within one RTS?
I think this is a brilliant idea personally. Most RTS games that I've played often devolve into pure custom games, or just aren't played very much due to a lack of variety. Having different game modes makes the game feel much better, and gives players more of a reason to keep playing. Things don't get boring. Every map looks like a dynamic mission, but they seem to maintain similar mechanics throughout, so nothing gets too confusing.

2. Would you prefer a game that focused on one type of mode or tactic?
It depends on how it is done. In a game like EoN I would probably like for there to be different modes, because wars are traditionally never fought the same way twice. Every battle has it's own flow depending on where each side is relative to their home, the strong tactical points on the map, and what both sides are trying to accomplish.

3. Toward End of Nations - are there any game modes that your are looking forward to?
I'm looking forward to some of the smaller game-modes, the 4-man modes mainly. (Like the one Total Biscuit showed.) I like working with small groups of friends, so I hope there are a lot of these smaller maps, and maybe enough to always be able to play with only friends? ie. 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, 5v5, etc.

4. Toward End of Nations - is there a game mode you are worried about or have concerns about?
I'm really worried about the larger game modes. While a 56 player game sounds epic, they can usually turn to chaos really fast, and just be no fun. Players might not all load, some players might just be there to grief, some players might be too serious, etc. While it's cool to capture the chaos of big wars like this, I really hope EoN does it right. I'd like to see a general guideline of what to do, or some control in the form of squads, or a map leader telling people what to do. I'm really worried about these game modes, but at the same time, I can't wait to try them out.

[Reportforduty]

1. Different modes keep a game fresh and keep the players from getting bored with the limited maps by changing scenarios.
2. Hell no, variety is the spice of life.
3. I am a fan of the longer modes like base defense as it becomes less about rush rush rush and more about money management and keeping proper scouts on the field to see what the enemy is building / doing.
4. Tad worried about how you tweak certain maps choke points (on one hand you will have arty spammers if you make too few, and on the other you will have flankers if you make too many)

[CukieMonstar]

1. What do you think of different modes within one RTS?
I think a game will be more interesting if it's verry diversified because it doesn't get the player bored of playing the same map, mod etc, and also with bring more players.

2. Would you prefer a game that focused on one type of mode or tactic?
It depends on how well the type of mode or tactic is made. If it's great mode then players will play because that, but after a will they will get bored and they won't play as much as before.

3. Toward End of Nations - are there any game modes that your are looking forward to?
Since a so the trailer i'm still thinking about an 28vs28 match, i think it will be awesome to played and chaotic, but also a smaller game like 2v2, 3v3, 5v5 that i will play with my friends.

4. Toward End of Nations - is there a game mode you are worried about or have concerns about?
I think is the co-op mode that worries my because there will be a lot of players that won't know many things about the game and failed to help there teammates.

[thewaywardone]

Personally, I'm a big fan of the quicker style of gameplay. I grew up playing RTS games that would routinely last over an hour, and while it was fun and I thoroughly enjoyed it I just don't feel like I have the time for a long game like that nor do I want to spend an hour on just one game. I'd much rather play a couple of quicker games and get more bang for my time than devote an hour or more in to one game.

There have also been strides in the RTS world to make games that offer multiple modes or maps that give flexibility in play style. This is something I'm a huge fan of as it keeps the game fresh and encourages multiple types of tactics to be successful. My history was all about rushing and using basically the same tactic every game to be successful and while I did enjoy that - it did get boring at times. By having multiple maps and modes and encouraging more than one tactic I think this is really the way of the future and the way for a long lasting game.

This week - I want to hear your opinions about :

1. What do you think of different modes within one RTS?

2. Would you prefer a game that focused on one type of mode or tactic?

3. Toward End of Nations - are there any game modes that your are looking forward to?

4. Toward End of Nations - is there a game mode you are worried about or have concerns about?

1. I love it. I am a huge fan of objective-based multiplayer. Point capture, capture the flag, king of the hill, that sort of thing is a lot more interesting to me than the traditional FPS/RTS of "kill the most dudes" or "build up a base and army and destroy your opponent." Games like Dawn of War 2 or Command and Conquer 4 get you right into the action, and include fighting all over the map from the first minutes of the game.

2. I'm not 100% sure I'm understanding this question correctly, but no. I have been waiting a long time for an RTS game that provides a framework for multiple victory conditions beyond the standard RTS fare. This is one of the most exciting things about End of Nations to me... You all are building a game that is designed to be added onto: new mods, new heroes, new game modes... Unlike the traditional RTS game, EON looks designed to be added to and evolved over time.

3. Despite what I said about traditional win conditions, Icebreaker (your 2v2 base assault map) looks like a lot of fun. It looks like constant action all over the map all the time, and the 2v2 format seems to promise to really reward both individual player skill and team coordination. Also, Full Boar looks awesome.

What I'd really want to see, though, is a PvP map that combines Resource Hog and Full Boar. 2 factions competing to control victory points, while SIMULTANEOUSLY fighting off Order of Nations forces. Wild. Would also be cool if the AI faction (Order of Nations) could actually win the map instead of either player faction.

4. Well, despite really liking the idea of an RTS with multiple competitive game modes, it seems like it has the potential to muddle the whole meta-game. Games like League of Legends and SC2, and even Dawn of War 2, feature 1 single victory condition and a very specifically chosen map set. SC2's map designs have been a constant source of hot debate in the community as certain map types promote certain play styles and how map design evolves game dynamics in conjunction with top player experimentation.

League of Legends and other MOBA games have very small map selections, with LoL having, what? 2 or 3 or 4 at most? These games evolve based on new heroes being added more than game modes being added.

I think the potential exists for End of Nations to confuse players with its game modes, or for the game modes to get too gimmicky. Something that forces too strict a play style is bad, since it reduces the effects of player skill and creativity. Any game mode should not cater too specifically to a specific style of play or unit composition. I believe this is called "emergent gameplay" or "evolving metagame" where players, and not game maps or play gimmicks, drive the shape of competitive play.

MOBA games like LoL and DOTA2 and SC2 are great examples of games that reward player knowledge and allow for player skill and creativity to shine, and not trap people with bad mechanics.