Fallout from the Reddit Discussion

A few days ago I posted an overview of a discussion I had on reddit.  The question was simple:  what's wrong with RTS games and what can we do to fix it?
There were many long and well thought-out comments, which boil down to two things.

1. Many people like the design principles of Project Orbit
2. People are finding it difficult to get an exact idea of what our gamplay will be like.

This second point is entirely our fault.  It's hard to build on shifting ground, and we've spent a lot of time criticizing games and considering alternatives rather than explaining exactly what we plan to do.

Let's fix that, Q & A style.

Q:  What is the main design goal of project orbit?

A:  The main goal is to make a real-time strategy game that prioritizes informed, intelligent, cooperative and creative tactical thinking.

Q:  That sounds like much ado about nothing.  What does that mean?

A:  Those words are carefully selected.  Let's review them one by one.

Informed means that we want players to view battlefield intelligence as a requisite resource.  In many RTS games, the ability to see what your enemy is doing before making contact is a perk -- something you don't need, but is still useful.  Players spend most of their time in ignorance and seclusion.  We want our players to almost always be in some sort of precarious contact, constantly scoping each other out, circling in the ring, looking for weakness...

Intelligent means that the consequence of actions should vary with context.  The correct thing to do in case A is not necessarily the correct thing to do in case B.  Players should have analyze a situation and the environment in which it takes place.

Cooperative means that there should be a clear advantage to working with an ally.  This implies more than simply allowing cooperation or even encouraging it informally.  Team that cooperates should have an enormous advantage over the one that does not, and this advantage should be part of the game's fundamental design.  It also means that we will have to give the player tools and an interface to make cooperation fluid and natural.  This interface design will be a major focus of Project Orbit.

Creative means that several solutions should exist for a given problem.  This prevents an opponent from being predictable.  Unpredictable opponents imply intelligence gathering...

Q:  How will these design goals be implemented?

A:  Aha!  Now you want a feature list.  So be it, but bear in mind that these may still change in their details.

Informed Gameplay:

• Large maps with relatively small unit caps to force exploration and patrolling
• Terrain-sensitive radar with blind spots and other limitations
• Specialized and limited static defenses to promote specialized and planned attacks
• Need for resupply on many important units to encourage players to seek out and destroy enemy forward outposts.

Intelligent Gameplay:

• Complex unit interactions to promote varied, but planned squad composition
• Squad level tactics
• Specialization bonuses in the form of a tech tree that is unlocked from XP earned in game.  This will encourage use of specialized tactics and unit.
• Modern interface to facilitate micromanagement and maximize understanding of unit interactions.  In other words, a low click-per-second rate.

Cooperative Gameplay:

• Shared tactical map interface with planning overlay to draft plans
• VOIP communication tools
• Specialization bonuses encourage players to select complementary roles
• Economic and XP bonuses for cooperative play
• Complex semi-scriptable interactions between friendly patrols, i.e. killboxes, artillery spotting and combat air patrols.

Creative Gameplay:

• Micromanagement interface will abstract away excessive clicking.  This will free cognitive resources for planning and reaction
• Contextual sensitivity of units will be clear and predictable to allow for valid reasoning
• Communication and planning interface will allow for sharing of wisdom and experience
• Rock-Paper-Scissors organization of unit types will allow for fine-tuned tactics.

Updated Caer Model: Head

Brian pushed his latest update for the caer concept onto our shared dropbox folder a few days ago.  It's really shaping up!


We still need to tweak the posture a bit, and probably thoracic proportions also.  For now we've actually decided to work on something else, because we don't want to overwork this model and end up killing it with our zeal.  Sometimes it's best to just let things marinate.

In any case, share your thoughts in the comments and stay tuned for the next model.

What's Missing from RTS Games?

I managed to work through a couple of animation bugs this evening.  The odd thing about a bug-squashing streak is that it makes the next frustrating bug much, much more frustrating.


Instead of banging my head against the only QWERTY keyboard in all of France and running the risk of having to type on the abomination that is the AZERTY keyboard, I decided to do some brainstorming on the GameDev subreddit.  The result is this post where I ask the following question:  what are your biggest gripes in RTS gaming?


I won't lie, I was sort of hoping to be praised as a visionary, but the tough love I got from a few redditors was both useful and insightful.  The following points, in no particular order, were made:

• Build orders are not the enemy.  Don't hate them.
• Unit responsiveness is of capital importance
• It sucks when RTS games go on and on forever
• On the other hand, it sucks when you win by running the clock
• Don't use units as cannon fodder
• UIs need some serious innovation
• Cover systems suck

The last one was quite an eye opener.  I had actually enjoyed the cover system in Company of Heros, but the point was made that it restricted a player's use of the terrain.  Since Project Orbit will rely heavily on terrain influence, cover systems may be more of a bug than a feature.

Food for thought, as they say...

Concept Art for the Caer Race

Sigmoid Studios' newest member, Brian Baumann, has been hard at work on both the concept art and the 3D models for the first of two alien races in Project Orbit.


This race, which we decided to spell caer, is still the subject of some debate in terms of pronunciation.  I'm in favor of pronouncing it /sah - air/, whereas Kacey has suggested /say - eer/. While the two of us are studiously examining the literary implications of each pronunciation ( lol ), Brian has turned the vague design ideas we threw at him into something more concrete.  The results are quite exciting!


Overview


Here's what we gave him to work with:

• Alien
• Intelligent
• Expressive
• Non-insectoid
• Non-humanoid

The first four points are no problem, but the last one is still giving us a bit of trouble.  Brian started from a humanoid figure, which is good for creating something naturally expressive, but bad if you don't want your alien to look human.


The upright stance is certainly reminiscent of human posture, but this is perhaps easily remedied. One option is to give the caer two postures -- an offensive posture in which he is on his two feet, rifle in hand, and a fast-movement posture in which he is sprinting on all fours.


In order to make the two positions seem more natural for the creature, the four-legged configuration will still have the torso in a partial upward incline, much like a gorilla.  The legs will provide most of the power and the arms will assist in balance and maneuvering.


The upright configuration can be modified in the following way to make it seem less human:

The red lines represent the major axes of the caer skeleton.  The rest should be fairly self-explanatory.  Adding in some thoracic and/or lumbar curvature will probably make it seem more natural too, but I'd like to avoid anything gorilla-esque.  That particular problem may be best avoided by changing some of the thoracic proportions.  Maybe he needs a smaller chest and narrower hips?  A shorter back, perhaps?

Legs

I asked Brian to draw some inspiration from a chicken leg, and even went into some detail explaining that chickens do not, in fact, have a rear-facing knee.  This isn't at all what I had in mind, but I think it's brilliant.

As mentioned before, we're considering giving the caer two postures.  These postures are not simple aesthetic choices, however.  The intent is for these to reflect a gameplay feature.

I'll leave the storytelling to Kacey, but the caer owe their existence to a unique capacity for hit-and-run, harassment and stealth tactics.  The idea is for the player to be able to switch between the speed stance and the offensive stance.  The offensive stance allows the caer to directly attack using primary weapons -- business as usual.  The speed stance would unlock a number of interesting features including:

• Sprint:  The caer can cover large distances much faster.  This would be useful for breaking contact with enemy troops and conducting quick raids on isolated targets.
• Leap:  The caer can use their large, powerful legs to leap over very large distances.  This would be useful for ambushing targets, hopping over defensive lines, breaking contact, or clearing terrain obstacles.
• Defensive Bonus:  Caer in the speed-stance have a probability-based chance of avoiding attacks.  In other words, a certain percentage of bullets will miss them.

Head

The head will most definitely change.  Despite the removal or deformation of certain facial features, caer heads still have a distinctly human quality about them.  The replacement of the mouth with a few tracheal openings is a good idea, but why then does the creature have a jawline?  What purpose does the point on its head serve?

These are the things that hard scifi demands answers for...

I suggested to Brian that he replace the ear lobes with holes, that he remove the jaw altogether, shrink the head, and try to mount the eyes on the side of the skull (but still facing forward).

Concept art is tough.  Having a prototype of a concept is rewarding in that we can get a clearer picture of how the game will look and be played.  It's also frustrating because we can't model something without having knowing what we want.

For now, we'll just tackle this one modification at a time, Brian willing!  Any suggestions can be posted to the comments.  We're curious to know what people think!

"About" Page Updated

We are pleased to announce that the About the Project page has been updated.  It now has a clearer, more concise summary of the project design goals.


Comments about the new update can be left below this post.

Where does Project Orbit Fit In?

Company of Heroes
features a company skill
tree.  Players can choose
between three company types
that offer various in-game skills.

It's hard to be concrete in pre-alpha stages of development, but we believe Project Orbit has a niche. Many games implement one particular aspect of the "ideal" RTS, but none manage to avoid becoming repetitive over time.
We think we have a basic formula that should make this the idea RTS game in terms of immersion and strategic interest:

• Large scale with appropriate zooming tools and powerful UI at all scales
• A relatively low unit cap, which should make micromanagement easier
• In order to encourage detailed interaction, units perform precise roles and multi-role units suffer serious drawbacks
• Diverse economy
• Multiple win conditions
• Dynamic and real-time unit-unit and group interactions

We also have a few ideas we’re toying with:

• Micro-level cover system where units can take cover behind terrain features
• Non-static sight radius of units: units line-of-sight is decreased by certain features (dense trees, ambient fog, day/night, smoke and particulate debris,...)
• A skill tree whereby in-game achievements and combat is converted into points which can be used to purchase specialized skills and bonuses for that match.  This should encourage synergistic cooperative play in large multiplayer games.

What do you think? Any games that deserve honorable mention? Any problems with our analysis? Any suggestions?

Let us know in the comments!

Criticism of Other RTS Games

Contrary to what South Korea would have people think, there are other strategy games besides Starcraft.  Many of them manage to address the problems of a basic RTS gameplay model quite well.  

Take for instance Age of Empires II, which does several things quite well:

Does this look manageable?

• Age of Empires II has one of the most well-developed economic systems of any RTS game I've ever played.  The variety of resources is greater than in *craft, which incites players to weigh the value of creating outposts to collect resources against the value of specializing in specific units.    

• The age system allows for tech-related advantages to be (mostly) transient.  In other words, there is a small window of opportunity for attack when you have just moved to a new age and your opponent has not.

• Another interesting feature is the concept of the trade cart, which can be used to build an economy based largely on trading.  Of course, trade carts can be attacked, which offers another venue for economic strangulation.

Flank formation

• Players can build wonders, which, if left standing for a certain time, lead to a victory.  The construction of a wonder almost always upsets an opponent's plan and serves to force contact between otherwise defensive players.

Where Age of Empires II fails is in its highly limited micromanagement.  It is so cheap to produce units that a player is inevitably left with an unmanageable army.  The only way to approach combat is to send a hoard towards a specific target or general area.

Formations, although interesting in principle, do relatively little to alter the course of a battle.  This is (again) because of static unit properties.  Interaction between units on a team is essentially limmited to covering weaknesses, i.e.:  cavalry needs protection from pikemen.

Supreme Commander (and the Forged Alliance expansion) was a particularly clever approach to RTS gaming that ultimately fell short.  Supreme Commander did two things particularly well:

Large-scale view of the battlefield

• The huge scale along with zooming capabilities allowed the player to get a comprehensive view of the battlefield. Zooming out gives a good impression of where the battle lines are, where defenses are strong, and where defenses are failing. It allows for a continuous transition between micro and macromanagement.

• The large maps meant that intelligence had to be actively gathered, either by building radar stations at key points or by deploying spy planes.  In both cases, this implies that battlefield intel is a resource which must be protected.  Also, radar can only provide specific information about a contact at a fairly close range, making accurate intel a commodity to be pursued.
• A hierarchy of ballistic missle systems, artillery platforms, and various countermeasures meant that directly attacking a base could be difficult.  It also meant that outposts could be used offensively.
• An intuitive system for setting up waypoints and patrols made the management of enormous armies easy and effective.



SupCom's waypoint/queueing interface

• Real-time calculation of projectile physics (read:  bombs, artillery shells, bullets, etc...) means that terrain and unit velocity truly matters.

On the flip-side, the devs over at Gas Powered Games missed a huge opportunity to capitalize on their real-time projectile physics by neglecting to implement group formations.  When units are being bombarded from afar, it is advantageous to spread out.  When trying to sneak through gaps in radar coverage, it's essential to tighten up formation, and when engaging enemies, it may be interesting to flank around static defenses while stronger units draw fire.  In short, micromanagement is clumsy in SupCom games.

Criticism of Traditional Micromanagement

Earlier I argued that Blizzard-style micromanagement is not fundamentally different from macromanagement, which may have raised a few eyebrows.  The distinction between macro and micro differs only in the physical and temporal scale.  It does not differ in nature.

I'll repeat that, for posterity.  In Starcraft, macroing and microing both have you repeating the same operations.  The only difference is that one is big and slow and the other is small and fast.  In both cases, the player is travelling through a tech tree and spending resources in a specific build order. Whether you're spending minerals on marines or energy on a ghost's lockdown ability, the process is the same.

As such, the criticisms of traditional macromanagement apply here as well.  On top of that, the fast pace of micromanagement and the higher precision required to accurately click a moving enemy (as opposed to a static mineral patch) turns an aspiring strategy game into a game of skill.  You have to click small moving targets relatively quickly.

Perhaps some people enjoy skill games. This is very probable, but Project Orbit has taken the decision to push the limits of real-time-strategy, and as such, the goal is to produce a game where tactics matter more than dexterity.

Introducing Project Orbit!

Hello, World ... and welcome to the Project Orbit developer's blog!  If you have no idea who we are or why you came here, that's okay.  Please stick around!

Project Orbit is the code name for our first game, which is quickly ripening in the design and pre-alpha stages.  To be clear, Project Orbit will not be the name under which our game will be released.  We will have a title in time for the first beta release.

"Right," you say, "but what the hell is Project Orbit?”

If you want the most concise possible answer, here it is:  Project Orbit is a real-time strategy (RTS) video game that will be released under Windows/Linux.  Its gameplay design is centered around the idea that a good strategy game goes beyond collecting resources and destroying an enemy base; a good strategy game is about relationships, complex interactions between units and players, and mutual support.

To borrow a phrase from Gestalt psychology, the whole should be greater than the sum of its parts.

Consider Blizzard's Starcraft and its expansion, Brood War.  This game came out in 1998 and is still one of the most popular RTS games in circulation.  It should be noted that this game and its brethren (Starcraft II, the entire Warcraft series...) didn't do much in terms of innovation, but still managed to sell millions of copies with a very basic RTS formula.  As such, these criticisms apply to the vast majority of games in the real-time strategy genre.

There are two problems with Starcraft.  The first is that macromanagement of the game is centered around build orders.  The second is that micromanagement is not fundamentally different from macromanagement, and that it often becomes a frustrating physical exercise rather than a cognitive puzzle.


Details to follow in (hopefully) regular updates. At the very least, I'll be clarifying my criticism of traditional RTS games.


Over the next couple of weeks, we'll introduce the team, talk game design, and start sharing our progress with the whole wide internet!