Collapse
No announcement yet.
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Game Feature Faction/Subfaction-specific mechanics

    #1
    Subject
    Different Gameplay Mechanics for Each Faction/Subfaction

    Description
    This idea takes factional diversity to its logical extreme, to the point that different factions, or even different subfactions of a single faction, have fundamentally different gameplay mechanics.

    Let us take GDI and Nod as examples. Nod's main forces might use a tradition "Harvester+Refinery" combo for their income. Conversely, GDI, more focused on reclaiming the Earth from Tiberium, would use "Reclamation Towers," which provide income by inhibiting nearby Tiberium growth (the resources that would have gone into growing more Tiberium instead go into GDI's coffers).

    Expanding on this, GDI might have a "High Mobility Strike Force" subfaction that is less focused on base building, building most of its units at the Command Center/Construction Yard (making the War Factory a Tier 2 or Tier 3 structure), and gathering resources by way of "MURV" (Mammoth Unarmed Reclamation Vehicle).

    Nod, conversely, might have a "Spirit Hand of Kane" subfaction that is based around stealth, to the point were they use a variant of the C&C4 Crawler system to remain completely mobile (their crawler is stealth, as are most of their units). Although the subfaction has a population cap, it can be exceeded at the cost of most/all units "decloaking."

    At the other end of the "base development" spectrum might be GDI's "Airborne Corp. of Engineers" subfaction that is focused on sending out airstrikes and capital ships from behind fortified walls and gaining income from Drop Zones like the USA in Generals.

    For Nod, the "Black Hand" might follow the Starcraft tradition of having a different tech structure (or rather shrine/temple/cathedral) for nearly each type of unit (modified, of course, to take C&C's different counter system into account) and collects resources by having surplus power.

    In any case, these were just general suggestions to illustrate the point

    Pros
    Allows a great deal of factional diversity, which makes the game more interesting
    Allows the developers to try new things while keeping the fan favorites

    Cons
    Hard to come up with unique ideas for the factions/subfactions
    Hard to balance
    Tags: None
  • #2
    It sounds interesting enough to me, but I would keep diversity in faction mechanics to being on par w/ RA3's diversity. All factions and their subsequent subfactions should stick to the same faction mechanics, hence making them unique in the first place.

    Instead, have factions that differ in some basic mechanics, but keep some of the major components, like resource collection and things of that sort, the same.

    For example, have a faction with a traditional MCV, then have a faction with nano-cores, or a faction that uses 'Dozers, and maybe another faction with a crawler-like unit that still can build certain structures like refineries and static defenses, ect.

    Balancing would still be a horrendous task, but that way players can choose what type of mechanic best suits their game play style, while still adhering to the basic RTS formula.

    Comment

    • #3
      I very much agree wit this, and I hope the Devs can do it, if they can't hope we can do it in our mod.

      Walking the line between creativity and balance is the key.

      Comment

      • #4
        This would work well with Global Conquest .What about different victory conditions ? Different objectives for factions to accomplish.
        Last edited by wombat789; 12-08-2011, 12:34 PM.

        Comment

        • #5
          I like this idea, and the cons does prove challenging to work on.

          Comment

          • #6
            The factions in RA3 were well developed and had plenty of diversity compared to the others. One focusing on land, the other sea, and the other air. Also each having there own way to build their structures.

            Comment

            • #7
              Originally posted by WeedWhacker92 View Post
              It sounds interesting enough to me, but I would keep diversity in faction mechanics to being on par w/ RA3's diversity. All factions and their subsequent subfactions should stick to the same faction mechanics, hence making them unique in the first place.
              I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I had been thinking that, rather than being united with the main faction through gameplay mechanics, the subfactions could instead be linked mostly through combat philosophy, aesthetics, etc. In other words, each "subfaction" would be, in a sense, its own faction, using some element of the main faction's combat philosophy as a launching point.

              In other words, the subfactions have different gameplay mechanics than their parent faction in order to help focus on that aspect of the parent faction's combat philosophy embodied in the subfaction. For example, a faction that focuses on having smaller numbers of higher quality units, such as GDI or the USA, could have a "Special Forces" subfaction that emphasizes that point by having even stronger units but also having a population cap. Conversely, a faction that focuses on having large numbers of weak units, like the GLA or China, could have a "Propaganda" subfaction that has far more expensive production structures and weaker units, but get the units for free (somewhat like with the Reinforcement Pad in Generals).

              In any case, that was sort of what I was thinking, but I can also see your point.


              Originally posted by WeedWhacker92 View Post
              Instead, have factions that differ in some basic mechanics, but keep some of the major components, like resource collection and things of that sort, the same.

              For example, have a faction with a traditional MCV, then have a faction with nano-cores, or a faction that uses 'Dozers, and maybe another faction with a crawler-like unit that still can build certain structures like refineries and static defenses, ect.
              Part of the reason that I gave each subfaction a different resourcing method was underline their different combat philosophies.

              For example, GDI's "High Mobility Task Force" uses a MARV-variant because they are supposed to be constantly on the attack; they fairly rapidly gobble up their main base's Tiberium Field and so have to move to other fields (to keep them from getting a sudden rush of cash in the early game, the MURV might work like a mobile Refinery/Harvester combo: the MURV fills up its Tiberium stores and then slowly converts it into cash). The "Airborne Corp. of Engineers," on the other hand, is supposed to bunker down behind the walls of its base, expanding to new bases only when it needs more building room for airfields and such, so Supply Drops make far more sense for them.

              Nevertheless, I do see your point that this may be too cumbersome.

              Comment

              • #8
                Well, it's on;y as cumbersome as the time to balance.

                Balance would be the key factor here.

                But if we assume balancing and creativity of the developers aren't limited, then this is the way to go.

                I would assert if we are balancing diverse build mechanics and play styles, why not go ahead and diversify resource collection? Economy and potentially power mechanics.

                Although I acknowledge Ra3 went in the right direction, I don't think they went as far as they could have in diversifying the factions' core mechanics.

                We can have both.

                So the primary factions would all have totally different economies, build mechanics and play styles, power management. And their sub factions could all have the same core mechanics, with specific sub faction focus.

                But the issue here is primarily creativity, then comes balance. Guess we can't ignore balance after all.

                My point is, 1st be as creative as possible, develop all the diverse mechanics. Then balance it as seen fit.

                If Any Developer can pull off at least 3 totally diverse fictions in the aforementioned criteria, then they will be cruelly innovating the genre.

                Comment

                • #9
                  I agree with balance. Making the resource gathering and military tactics for each faction differ is fine as long as there isn't any one dominant faction.

                  Comment

                  X