Some of my thoughts

Post any feedback you have about the game here.
Post Reply
Akele
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:26 am UTC

Some of my thoughts

Post by Akele »

Hey everyone, so I've put some thought about the gameplay of Unvanquished and hopefully these ideas could be of use and/or inspire other ideas or discussions.

I'd like to start off with the basis that Unvanquished is a unique game; it merges the genre of FPS shooter with elements of strategy. With the inclusion of resources in the development of the gameplay, I definitely think that it is heading in the right direction. However, I believe that this alone will not stand Unvanquished out of the crowd of all the other FPS shooters out there. I want to emphasize that the strategy half of the game IS what makes Unvanquished different, and development on this sector may stir more interest.

While I am not professional game designer, I consider my self a avid gamer who has had some hands on experience. From what I have seen on strategy sides of games, from the popular MOBA games such as Dota and League of Legends, to the typical RTS games such as Starcraft, and some more classical examples such as battlegrounds in World of Warcraft, there are a few fundamentals that I believe could be adopted or considered for Unvanquished.

I believe that a common grounds that exists in most, if not all of these strategy games is that teamwork is key. While there are elements of teamwork in FPS shooter games, and also especially in Unvanquished, it is none the likes of strategy games. In a strategy game, a good leader and group could be key to success. In other words, a team of entirely average players who listen and work together may still be likely to achieve success despite disadvantages in skill or anything else. On the other hand, it can be often seen in first person shooter games that a team with one or two "pro" gamers may be able to carry the entire team, and usually if not entirely revolves around the skill of the individual player than the colloquial effort.

While a game like Unvanquished compared to other FPS games such as COD does attempt to alleviate this factor, it is still not uncommon to see one team of highly skilled players owning the other team (with or without the other team full of newer players "feeding") and then going in for the win after the advantage taken form the first wave of "owning"; imagine ATCS with the aliens all either a dretch or granger, and the opposing human team in battle suits with lucifer cannons rushing and destroying everything in its path, immediately winning the game; or one skilled alien player Mara hopping the human base instantly after a series of kills and dealing substantial damage on the human base primarily through his own efforts. In my opinion, these carrying rushes is not the most enjoyable way to play a game.

The resource system implemented in Unvanquished is definitely a step to solving this problem, however, so far (correct me if I'm wrong), it does not receive as much prominence as it should. Imagine a game where builders continuously expands the human base, or the alien creep spreading across the map as the offensive classes keep pushing fronts while defending their expansions. This would allow for so much more thinking, be it team work or tactics. But currently, this cannot be achieved by the mechanics of what we have right now.

<Sorry for long introduction, this is where the suggestions begin>

For firsts, the game seems to runs with too much "versatility". Players seem to run all over the map, and if you've played the game, you would know expansion bases are practically impossible - defending the expansion would cause a flank and destruction to the main base, and vice versa. Therefore, I believe that a series of changes could prevent this from happening.

In terms of game mechanics, buildings could be made stronger initially, despite how strong some buildings may be currently. I don't think that a dragoon should be able to pounce and chomp a turret to destroy it (at least not yet). Look at Dota, you don't see a hero destroying towers by him/herself within minutes into the game. Possibly up the defense to reduce the damage taken, or increase the health of the buildings to make them more sturdy, and then substantially become weaker (possibly through resource farming of the opponent team), allowing for the base to finally be destroyed.

Of course, balances will be made to compensate. Damage of defense structures could be reduced, repairs could be harder to be made, longer build times, and possibly the buildings being weak while constructed (to prevent early game being just a building game). This will allow for constant harassments to be made to expansions, and allowing a prominence on defense and etc.

In addition to game mechanics, I believe that mappers should also have a more prominent position on gameplay. So far, maps seem to be random environments with again, great "versatility". There are many flanks currently, especially in the larger maps, and the idea of moving fronts and expanding of the base will prove challenging. So firstly, I would like to suggest that mappers should adopt a more "linear" design to the game. This does not mean the game will be confined in tight corridors, but rather, designed so it is played in certain ways. Something that I've noticed from other strategy games is that different maps consist of a set of different tactics. In Starcraft, we would look at the map and say something like, "Oh I need to up my defense on this map because it is prone to rush," or, "I will go for an air harassment build because the map is _____." I believe that Unvanquished would really make up a really interesting game if this element of different maps requiring different tactics were apparent, as traditional FPS games usually does not incorporate this element, and games end up the same way very rarely depending on the map.

So back to this idea of "linear" game play on maps, I believe that mappers can work together with game designers and "designate" regions of higher resource yield to set locations that will be more contested for. If any of you played the mobile game Swords and Soldiers, it would be similar to the towers where you can build your buildings on for procs, and of course, in Unvanquished, it will not be limited to it (as you can build resource towers anywhere still, just yield [significantly] lower amounts of resources).

If you put this all together, I believe that this will allow for an interesting game play where sets of tactics and teamwork is really necessary to achieve success in the game. Of course, I have considered that this idea is a little radical (not unrealistic I would say), and may only sell to a niche market, but hopefully it could stir discussion and ideas as I would like to hear from the opinions of others.

User avatar
Viech
Project Head
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:50 pm UTC
Location: Berlin

Re: Some of my thoughts

Post by Viech »

Thank you for input!

I agree that the strategy part of the game should be stressed. The current resource system could force expansion even more than it currently does, but we made some bad experience with giving it too much importance (instable games, as temporary map control lead to a slippery slope for the other team).

The idea to have fixed resource sites was pushed back since we knew it would most likely work but felt that giving the players the option to freely place their mining forwards and define their strategy would lead to more interesting matches. Increasing the resource gain in a specific area is doable, but it has to be clearly visible to the players. I think having neutral, pre-placed "structures" that increase yield in their range would be doable, fun and not really harm the idea of maximum freedom in base/forward placement.

The question would arise whether we should make those mapper-placable. As a mapper I have to say that it is already very complicated to build a balanced map and it is close to impossible to predict the balance impact of an area. Furthermore, whenever a mapper tries to improve balance by adjusting the parameters of the core gameplay, this makes it significantly harder for the game developers to get the code right since tests on this map are biased. With the above approach, the first issue could be mitigated (since the resource boosts are optional and can therefor even support the process of balancing a map) but the second issue remains unresolved.

Random placement of resource boosters would be possible and diversify matches but fairness can hardly be guaranteed, even if the algorithm for placement takes default base locations into consideration.

Right now I think allowing mappers to place them is the better approach, but their power over the parameters of the resource system has to be limited as much as possible. I think it might work if the sum of the gain of all boosters is fixed and the indiviudal values don't differ. (So a single spot on the map is more fruitful than one out of many.)

When we increase the strategy part of the game we should be careful not to remove the fun that lies in improving and using your personal skill. If good players rely on their teammates too much, public games will be less fun for them and players will generally blame each other for losing a match. I guess getting rid of stage-feeding was a step in the right direction though, as individual players will still get stronger when killing a lot of enemies but they can't pull their team on a higher stage that way anymore.

Responsible for: Arch Linux package & torrent distribution, Parpax (map), Chameleon (map texture editor), Sloth (material file generator), gameplay design & programming, artistic direction

Post Reply