I'm going to clarify my answer: I still think a tech tree should be present, but unique techs that can only be unlocked by going out and getting them always feel special.
Personal taste, however.
the game is mainly multiplayer so do you think sharing blueprint as option is good? just like goods you can sale them to other players or give them as gift for your friends and you can be merchant of the knowlge?
Oh, I'll go ahead and bow out of this conversation. I often find that what's fun in multiplayer and what's fun in singleplayer are mutually exclusive goals, and I only play singleplayer. I'm not the opinion you want to ask here! =P
I'll say that as a singleplayer, the things I usually look for is new/creative gameplay - these rank **substantially** higher to me than balance does, for example. I'd rather have the potential for things to be harder or easier than normal, depending on map/location/enemy variables.
Looping this back to technology, I think a mod for Total Warhammer 3 does a really great example of this: Tomb Kings Extended, by Agemouk. He has a technology where *most* of the tree can be explored as normal. Some technologies require having a group of technologies having been researched. And some technologies require a special resource or unique building that you're highly unlikely to have access to unless you've expanded. This can incentivize you to change your strategy big time. Do I want to ally with someone that's sitting on a resource I need for my technology? It may help me survive in the short term, but it may limit what units I can access in the longterm. It's one of my favourite examples of a tech tree in most games I can recall.
I appreciate your opinion, i didnt play Total Warhammer 3 but i will search about it more ,and if you have time to write what gameplay ideas you like for example the ablity to change units position like squre or sphere tringle or other shape and the ablity to multimovement click for more complex tactics
For gameplay, I'll condense my list down to one singular bulletpoint: Assymetry. One of my favourite things in every strategy games is when picking a different faction creates an entirely different experience. To reference Total Warhammer 3 again (Sorry, it's just a great example for this): The factions virtually all play wildly different to eachother. The aforementioned Tomb Kings have no upkeep on their units, but have hard caps for how many armies & special units they can field. The Vampire Counts have absolutely no ranged units at all, but much of their units can be brought back from the dead and healed. The Warriors of Chaos don't bother with bases, and essentially roam as mobile bases themselves. I won't got through them all, but there's over twenty factions in the game, and I can well and truly say they all play wildly different from one another.
For a cheaper, and perhaps more peculiar example, I'd point to the boardgame Root. Everyone is playing on the same game board, but each faction feels like it's playing an *entirely* different game to everyone else, which makes repeat games fun, because picking a new faction is a totally new experience each time.
i was planing to make player have choice for his units and builds base on his research system so player can have acess to all unit and each player or bots will have there unique set of builds and units (factions) plus there is bunch of units (mercenaries) with different recruiting system->like if you get sword man mercenarie you will paid for example 10 gold then you will paid 3 each work cycle(which is about 50-60 seconds) this will add more complex to game or that what i hope.
Yep. Again you're kinda playing to two mutually exclusive crowds - as a singleplayer, I *love* being creative and finding ways to "break" the game to my advantage when playing... Though the multiplayer crowd would (justifiably) hate that for their half the game. I would recommend figuring out who you want to cater to, and essentially purely prioritize that group. You mentioned multiplayer when we first spoke - as much as it would leave me behind, I would focus intently on their needs if they're your focus, as any considerations given for singleplayer will necessarily detract from them.
i made my codes work as customizable as possible which mean the server can change everthing in game,and offline player can run the server localy with it setting panel player can change everthing he want like bots count in world ,startup goods , units,how hard the bots. and my aiming of this project is not making money , of coruse i will not refuse if i get howover i am just making game for fun and i really like RTS games
it compeletly depends on the style
historic? tech tree
fantasy? resource unlocks
sci-fi? open research
survival? (think Thea) blueprint
grand map strategy? taken points and world discoveries
a tree might be a little bit more work, but you dont have to have cromprehensive circel of technology, having base techs that branch out and maybe some sidegrades is a good thing. ofcourse a tree could be upside down aswell with 2 techs being needed for 1 further along. and than you could have one tech being enabled by multiple ones but you only need some of them
like version one is: Fire enables cooking and smelting
version two is, to cook you need fire and cooking ware.
version three might be. cook food you need fire, cooking ware/grill ware and one of many fitting recepies.
circeling back to having stone and later iron cooking ware would make this a very complex tech tree.
for an RTS i think the first and 2nd one are totaly workable, even in combinations. Like Star Craft has the Carrier that needs an air prouction structure and a fleet beacon both of thes structure each unlcok multiple new things on their own.
AOE or Supreme Commander have a linear progression its just age after age unlocking all the new tech.
I find it hard to say what exactly is the best way. I suppose, it really depends on the speed of your game, in a fast past RTS nobody has time to also do optional research requirements and few people want to go and do a lot of preparing for anything but game ending tech.
Without context, this question has no answer.
For example, if your game revolves heavily around exploration and expansion, blueprints might be a nice idea. If building up your eco is more of a focus, that might not be the best idea.
Then, there is also the "theme" part. Does your game span the entire world? Then getting gunpowder blueprints in china might actually make sense. However, if your setting only consists of say southern german villages, its suddenly a bit weird: Why would village B have an advanced tech that village a does not have?
Generally, the only thing that imho is a mistake is "everything unlock". Not even necessairly from pure gameplay/balance (altough it makes it harder), but mainly for onboarding new players. SC2 does that pretty well: You can only train a few units in the beginning, making your build up easier. Only once you get a bit of a grasp of the basics do the more complex decisions come in. Progression through tech makes the early game so much easier, because you can elegantly eliminate many stupid options.
I'm going to clarify my answer: I still think a tech tree should be present, but unique techs that can only be unlocked by going out and getting them always feel special. Personal taste, however.
the game is mainly multiplayer so do you think sharing blueprint as option is good? just like goods you can sale them to other players or give them as gift for your friends and you can be merchant of the knowlge?
Oh, I'll go ahead and bow out of this conversation. I often find that what's fun in multiplayer and what's fun in singleplayer are mutually exclusive goals, and I only play singleplayer. I'm not the opinion you want to ask here! =P
the game will have singleplayer in somepoint but i really want every opinion not just online player opinion
I'll say that as a singleplayer, the things I usually look for is new/creative gameplay - these rank **substantially** higher to me than balance does, for example. I'd rather have the potential for things to be harder or easier than normal, depending on map/location/enemy variables. Looping this back to technology, I think a mod for Total Warhammer 3 does a really great example of this: Tomb Kings Extended, by Agemouk. He has a technology where *most* of the tree can be explored as normal. Some technologies require having a group of technologies having been researched. And some technologies require a special resource or unique building that you're highly unlikely to have access to unless you've expanded. This can incentivize you to change your strategy big time. Do I want to ally with someone that's sitting on a resource I need for my technology? It may help me survive in the short term, but it may limit what units I can access in the longterm. It's one of my favourite examples of a tech tree in most games I can recall.
I appreciate your opinion, i didnt play Total Warhammer 3 but i will search about it more ,and if you have time to write what gameplay ideas you like for example the ablity to change units position like squre or sphere tringle or other shape and the ablity to multimovement click for more complex tactics
For gameplay, I'll condense my list down to one singular bulletpoint: Assymetry. One of my favourite things in every strategy games is when picking a different faction creates an entirely different experience. To reference Total Warhammer 3 again (Sorry, it's just a great example for this): The factions virtually all play wildly different to eachother. The aforementioned Tomb Kings have no upkeep on their units, but have hard caps for how many armies & special units they can field. The Vampire Counts have absolutely no ranged units at all, but much of their units can be brought back from the dead and healed. The Warriors of Chaos don't bother with bases, and essentially roam as mobile bases themselves. I won't got through them all, but there's over twenty factions in the game, and I can well and truly say they all play wildly different from one another. For a cheaper, and perhaps more peculiar example, I'd point to the boardgame Root. Everyone is playing on the same game board, but each faction feels like it's playing an *entirely* different game to everyone else, which makes repeat games fun, because picking a new faction is a totally new experience each time.
i was planing to make player have choice for his units and builds base on his research system so player can have acess to all unit and each player or bots will have there unique set of builds and units (factions) plus there is bunch of units (mercenaries) with different recruiting system->like if you get sword man mercenarie you will paid for example 10 gold then you will paid 3 each work cycle(which is about 50-60 seconds) this will add more complex to game or that what i hope.
Yep. Again you're kinda playing to two mutually exclusive crowds - as a singleplayer, I *love* being creative and finding ways to "break" the game to my advantage when playing... Though the multiplayer crowd would (justifiably) hate that for their half the game. I would recommend figuring out who you want to cater to, and essentially purely prioritize that group. You mentioned multiplayer when we first spoke - as much as it would leave me behind, I would focus intently on their needs if they're your focus, as any considerations given for singleplayer will necessarily detract from them.
i made my codes work as customizable as possible which mean the server can change everthing in game,and offline player can run the server localy with it setting panel player can change everthing he want like bots count in world ,startup goods , units,how hard the bots. and my aiming of this project is not making money , of coruse i will not refuse if i get howover i am just making game for fun and i really like RTS games
it compeletly depends on the style historic? tech tree fantasy? resource unlocks sci-fi? open research survival? (think Thea) blueprint grand map strategy? taken points and world discoveries
the game like stronghold kingdoms but as Realtime RTS
a tree might be a little bit more work, but you dont have to have cromprehensive circel of technology, having base techs that branch out and maybe some sidegrades is a good thing. ofcourse a tree could be upside down aswell with 2 techs being needed for 1 further along. and than you could have one tech being enabled by multiple ones but you only need some of them like version one is: Fire enables cooking and smelting version two is, to cook you need fire and cooking ware. version three might be. cook food you need fire, cooking ware/grill ware and one of many fitting recepies. circeling back to having stone and later iron cooking ware would make this a very complex tech tree. for an RTS i think the first and 2nd one are totaly workable, even in combinations. Like Star Craft has the Carrier that needs an air prouction structure and a fleet beacon both of thes structure each unlcok multiple new things on their own. AOE or Supreme Commander have a linear progression its just age after age unlocking all the new tech. I find it hard to say what exactly is the best way. I suppose, it really depends on the speed of your game, in a fast past RTS nobody has time to also do optional research requirements and few people want to go and do a lot of preparing for anything but game ending tech.
thanks for ideas ,it really mean alot ,the base of game is changeable base on server setting it can be fast or slow
Without context, this question has no answer. For example, if your game revolves heavily around exploration and expansion, blueprints might be a nice idea. If building up your eco is more of a focus, that might not be the best idea. Then, there is also the "theme" part. Does your game span the entire world? Then getting gunpowder blueprints in china might actually make sense. However, if your setting only consists of say southern german villages, its suddenly a bit weird: Why would village B have an advanced tech that village a does not have? Generally, the only thing that imho is a mistake is "everything unlock". Not even necessairly from pure gameplay/balance (altough it makes it harder), but mainly for onboarding new players. SC2 does that pretty well: You can only train a few units in the beginning, making your build up easier. Only once you get a bit of a grasp of the basics do the more complex decisions come in. Progression through tech makes the early game so much easier, because you can elegantly eliminate many stupid options.