What makes an RTS

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[pqumsieh]

Synopsis

This article explores one of the key elements to making a strong RTS game; underlying the importance of designing a well thought out meta-game.

Defining Key Terms

Meta-game – refers to the highest layer of gameplay. A system layered upon another system. In rock-paper-scissors, the meta-game is the predictions made by each player regarding the other player’s next move – the process of evaluating the other opponent’s moves. This definition of a meta-game is exclusive to the RTS genre.

Why a Meta-Game is Key

A meta-game provides an RTS with depth. Depth adds a layer of gameplay that enhances the overall value of the game both within a competitive environment and within it self. In today’s market, one of the key elements that make a successful RTS game is its competitive factor. Starcraft II being at the edge of this market.

Meaningful Choice

My personal experience working on Europe in Ruins, a community mod for Company of Heroes, has given me some perspective on how to establish a meta-game. Let’s explore the meta-game inherent within rock-paper-scissors. As noted in the definition above, the meta-game is the thought processes of each player in their attempt to predict the other’s move.

The first component that is necessary to a meta-game is choice. If there are no choices, then there is no need to predict what the other player will do. Gameplay would become static and dull.

The next component to creating a meta-game is developing meaningful choice. In rock-paper-scissors each choice is equally meaningful; there is no initial advantage to choosing rock, paper, or scissors. However, there are degrees of freedom you can create in between the value of each choice. This freedom is dependent on the number of choices available to the player.

In rock-paper-scissors, the degree of freedom is very close to zero; increasing the value of one of the three choices would significantly hamper the game’s balance. If more choices are introduced to the player, than some variance in the value of each choice can occur. I believe this comes down to the psychology of games and the way we process choice. Most players evaluate choice coarsely – with advanced players breaking down the choices to find their true values. Starcraft II is a great example of this behavior. One of the key differences between an advanced SC player and a beginner SC player is their understanding of the choices.

A player who understands the choices before them will be better able to predict and react to the choices of the other player. In contrast, a player who does not understand the value of the choices within the game will play in a fairly linier manner.

Conclusion

In today’s market, a strong RTS must have a well thought out meta-game. The key to creating a strong meta-game is meaningful choice. The more meaningful choices available to the player, the greater the degrees of freedom between the value of each choice can be. The final step boils down to carefully constructing the choices available to the player and ensuring a number of meaningful choices are available at each point in your game. When a player runs out of meaningful choices the meta-game has either broken down and or the player has lost.

[Demon767]

[hans]

(demon stfo and leave this serious thread noob)

good work pq +1

[hans]

Want a tissue? grow the fuck up and read.

what a poor counter mister noob

[smurfORnot]

yea,arguing on internet,rly well spent time 

[Mysthalin]

Well, somebody's read the beginner's guide to game theory

[Nug]

I won't go into a lot of fancy words and keep it simple.



I don't consider EIR an rts. It's a war game.
It does not have base building and resource gathering like typical rtses, we don't even have capture points - and that is good, because a 'war game' can be considered as a different genre than rts.
Other games that could fit a 'war game' theme are for example close combat, combat mission, wargame ee etc etc.
IMO a rock-paper-scissors approach should be done in a rts, but not in a war game because in a rts having constantly buildable overpowered units would affect the gameplay in one favor.
In a wargame however a better unit will NOT win a game by itself, it's the number of units that will win the game. So the balance in EIR should be created in launcher, the number of units that one is able to field of a kind and not necessarily in-game (not saying that units should be OP or UP).

Current Tiger is one of the examples. Alone it's underperforming because his in-game balance is not so good, but the launcher balance is ok because players usualy cannot have more than 1 on the field.
Other example is panther, he does well in-game and also is balanced well in launcher, probably the most efficient to cost unit in eir currently, that's why its so much loved.


In short there should be 2 separate balance issues in eir, 1 steaming from launcher (how much units of the kind you are able to field depending on what they do - 'mainline infantry' 'elite infantry' etc etc) and 2nd in-game balance on how unit performs alone and how they perform in numbers of the same units (checking for possible spam).

If these conditions are met, companies would auto-balance themself by having companies with different units that work alone and in tandem with units of different category resulting in a more enjoyable gameplay with less spam.

[Sachaztan]

EIR is a real time tactical game.

Anyway wtf did you make this thread op?

[AmPM]

To have meaningful choices, you must have a balanced game.

That last part is what is lacking.

[DarkSoldierX]

I won't go into a lot of fancy words and keep it simple.

I don't consider EIR an rts. It's a war game.

Sir, theres a actual well used name for the term. Its called RTT. Real time tactics. But when warmap is implemented im sure RTS would be a better term for EiR in the whole. But anyways, its sort of arguing semantics. Just because you dont have a base doesn't mean your not using the S from RTS.


Pretty good read pqumsieh

[Groundfire]

To have meaningful choices, you must have a balanced game.

That last part is what is lacking.

The last part is subjective and reliant on having the same individuals that can change things in the same positions long enough to form a consensus that is acceptable for the community.

We cant do any of that tbfh.

[Spartan_Marine88]

To be honest PQ, you still don't have a clue.

Starcraft 2 goes beyond understanding your choices, and at the speeds that its played its not really thinking at the point but muscle memory and reflexes.  There is also social pressure behind Starcraft that has escalated it far beyond the basic rts it really is.

It sounds like you read the basic textbook, and its sweet but it seems like you really are missing the point.

A game is sold before it hits the shelves, and it has nothing to do with game play.

A good dev understands that he cannot predict things like Meta due to the randomness of human nature, and a bad one tries to dictate it leaving people feeling forced to play a certain way, instead of finding them playing a certain way.

Gaming has come along way in the past while, the big name textbook ways are dieing, you can't compete with SC and between MOW and COH there genre is pretty locked down, to pave a way in the market today you need to be different and imaginative its why indie is starting to take hold.

[Nug]

to form a consensus that is acceptable for the community.

Balance is balance,,,, if balance is good in terms of gameplay but the community does not like it they should deal with it.

[Spartan_Marine88]

BTW, if you really want to sell a million copies of a game ill give you a simple hint.

Zombie + russians = sales.

[Ahnungsloser]

BTW, if you really want to sell a million copies of a game ill give you a simple hint.

Zombie + russians = sales.

Look at Call Of Duty - One titel is a copy of a older one but the people still love it and paying a shitload of money for it.

[tank130]

[nikomas]

I don't think you are right at all to be honest, I've never once thought that the "Metagame" is what makes an RTS good.

[Falcon333]

Having a metagame defines multiplayer games, not RTSs.

[pqumsieh]

Thanks forthe feedback guys,

No this isn't from reading a game theory textbook; I was having a conversation with some colleagues and mentors the other day and we came across the question of what makes an RTS great.

@Spartan; I wouldn't be so quick to say someone doesn't have a clue. Sounds to me like your the one without a clue. When you've shipped a couple of AAA titles than you get to say someone doesn't have a clue. Do you know why Starcraft took so long to make? This is exactly what they try to do. Hey spend millions of dollars having their games play tested to achieve the goals they set out.

You might not agree with my perspective, but I know a number of reputable industry leaders do. So maybe take that stick out of your ass and take it for what it is.

[pqumsieh]

Just at the last two posts; that is why a metagame is ONE of the key elements. Clearly there are many more.

Any RTS worth it's salt will have a multiplayer mode. Hence the importance of a metagame.