Suggestion for gameplay ideal

General Discussions
User avatar
Fairin
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 69

Suggestion for gameplay ideal

Post by Fairin »

sure the scope of multiplayer is out, but what about Co-op controlling the same civ?

hopefully someones played age of empires and has done that before and know how much fun it is =)

- and no one else .. does it anymore.. just sayin
=(^.-.^)=

" A person can look for their one true love and find them, but could they look like the one true love for the person they find. " - Fairin

User avatar
Zaimat
Dev. Team
Dev. Team
Posts: 1425
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for gameplay ideal

Post by Zaimat »

I was unaware of this type of co-op mode, you've got me very curious.. I have played age of empires 3 for a little while in single-player mode. The closest would be playing Rise of Nations in multiplayer 2v2, it was a lot of fun but hard to arrange (it was during Christmas holiday).

On a certain level I think co-op mode may work better than competing multi-player for Turn based strategy games.

As for Horizon, the initial release will only focus on the single-player experience.
Horizon - Lead Designer | a.k.a. Raf

User avatar
Fairin
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 69

Re: Suggestion for gameplay ideal

Post by Fairin »

locate a copy of age of empires one and play it lan and have people pick the same colors =)

you basically share everything, includeing your first town hall and villagers. can order all units equally (even conflicting orders hehe) one player could focus on resources / economy, while the other waged war on say.. several hardest level comps while defending the economy =)

thats what me and my brother did forever till we got bored of the AI and its even whilecheating ways couldnt topple our combination =P
=(^.-.^)=

" A person can look for their one true love and find them, but could they look like the one true love for the person they find. " - Fairin

User avatar
Fairin
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 69

Re: Suggestion for gameplay ideal

Post by Fairin »

i wanted to add in another thought of mine, no idea how difficult it would be to impliment but imagine playing the game in a small universe you conquer it. and given the choice to keep playing with an expanded universe. map size increases to medium and more oppoents are introduced (with varying degrees of conquering their own sectors?)

now that i mention it. reminds me fondly of spore...
=(^.-.^)=

" A person can look for their one true love and find them, but could they look like the one true love for the person they find. " - Fairin

User avatar
Saracen
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 10

Re: Suggestion for gameplay ideal

Post by Saracen »

Fairin wrote:no idea how difficult it would be to impliment but imagine playing the game in a small universe you conquer it. and given the choice to keep playing with an expanded universe. map size increases to medium and more oppoents are introduced (with varying degrees of conquering their own sectors?)
A progressive campaign such as this wouldn't be difficult to implement. Map expansion mechanics in RTS have been around for an awful long time, and I believe many a turn based game has done it in the past as well. It works well primarily in campaign scenarios, but the issue with a game like this (especially in a sandbox environment) is balance.

Armada 2526 and MoO for example used a scouting restriction mechanic which meant players couldn't expand or scout beyond their empire's influence. This actually worked incredibly well as you were introduced to races gradually instead of being overwhelmed by a huge amount of diplomatic juggling. It gave you more turns to consider the balance of your fleet and take appropriate action accordingly.

In some ways it can be considered an essential 4X mechanic. Although GalCiv2 for example managed it well by balancing out the research and allowing more than just the factor of influence decide when you're going to be friends or enemies with the numerous races that appeared on a Starmap.

User avatar
Zaimat
Dev. Team
Dev. Team
Posts: 1425
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for gameplay ideal

Post by Zaimat »

It's an interesting idea. I see the dynamic expansion (size of galaxy) as potentially "a new level of the game". You fight and expand in your little corner of the galaxy and once you 'win' you then move on to the next level. Almost like an rpg (start in the local town dungeon) then move on to different areas progressively more complex/hard.

The more typical scouting mechanism used in MOO effectively does the same thing though I agree. We took a slightly different approach. In Horizon your ships can be directed to move anywhere but there are other restrictions such as communication range and supplies range. Ships out of communication range can't be reached in 'real-time' so orders can't be given to them immediately in transit and you can't take manual control or view those ships in combat. Supplies affect their movement speed and other things like ship repairs (need parts!) and weapon refills, crew replacements, etc.

It's still subject to change based on further gameplay testing but I think it's working well so far and I think it also adds to 'realism'.
Horizon - Lead Designer | a.k.a. Raf

User avatar
Saracen
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 10

Re: Suggestion for gameplay ideal

Post by Saracen »

Zaimat wrote:In Horizon your ships can be directed to move anywhere but there are other restrictions such as communication range and supplies range. Ships out of communication range can't be reached in 'real-time' so orders can't be given to them immediately in transit and you can't take manual control or view those ships in combat. Supplies affect their movement speed and other things like ship repairs (need parts!) and weapon refills, crew replacements, etc.
This sounds like great and unique spin on a familiar mechanic. This is why I love indie development. What I can see this does, and very cleverly if I perceive it correctly, is add a strategic layer of depth that really is needed in turn based 4X games.

Do you scout further to gain essential intelligence? Do you sacrifice a fleet to wear down the enemy before they can attack? Do you colonise that planet/system of abundance that's so far out of reach, but could turn the tide of battle if you get to it before they do? Do you sneak in an enemy task force just out of range to knock out their scanners just in time for yours to increase and press home an attack on an enemy colony?

These sorts of questions will be asked of the player constantly as they seek to explore, expand and exploit to their advantage, or disadvantage. It's sounds like the sort of tactical risk/reward mechanic that so many strategy titles miss.

If you set the mechanic in Stone, I'd love to see a developer diary (text with screenshots or a video) on this mechanic and it's advantages, disadvantages. It'd be fascinating to see what this brings to the table that other strategy titles across the board are missing.

Martok
Vanguard
Vanguard
Posts: 64

Re: Suggestion for gameplay ideal

Post by Martok »

Zaimat wrote:The more typical scouting mechanism used in MOO effectively does the same thing though I agree. We took a slightly different approach. In Horizon your ships can be directed to move anywhere but there are other restrictions such as communication range and supplies range. Ships out of communication range can't be reached in 'real-time' so orders can't be given to them immediately in transit and you can't take manual control or view those ships in combat. Supplies affect their movement speed and other things like ship repairs (need parts!) and weapon refills, crew replacements, etc.

Very cool, Zaimat. I like the sound of this.
"Evil is easy, and has infinite forms." -- Pascal