Xbox Live - Halo as FPS -- AND -- RTS

Author

Halo as FPS -- AND -- RTS

A Man, Just Like Other Men

2005-08-16, 3:30 am

Gamespot had a 'rumor control' article addressing some rumored discussions
of adding Real Time Strategy elements to the Halo universe. My mind was
working tonight while trying to sleep so I thought I'd type out some
thoughts on just how this could work and be very cool, especially on-line.

We are seeing some games with different 'classes', not all super-soldier
types: medics who are needed to heal, engineers who are needed to set
explosives, etc. So in my version of "Halo RTS" you get on-line and pick a
'campaign'. A campaign will be a series of battles on a pre-determined map.
Somehow 'units' for each campaign will be determined. A unit will be a
collection of soldiers and vehicles: a squadron of banshees, scorpions, or
ghost-supported infantry for example.

When you sign on to the campaign you pick whether you want to be a
'general', 'soldier', or even both. The general will be able to move his
units across the terrain -- thus the RTS portion -- to take control of
strategic locations depending on the main objectives of the campaign. For
example, you could use your scorpion unit to secure a strategic bridge (king
of the hill), or send your infantry in to blow up a fuel depot (assault), or
even execute a SAR (Search And Rescue) of a valuable prisoner (capture the
flag). The soldier could be of specific classes if you like (sniper,
scorpion driver, etc.).

Once one or more of the general's units need to go into battle against enemy
units, that hex becomes a 'map' like coagulation, mid-ship, etc. The
servers go 'recruit' soldiers for the battle on that map, much like
matchmaking in the playlists. So if you sign on as a soldier you'll have
access to all the battles that are seeking recruits. You can sign on based
on the type of unit you want to be a part of: banshees, scorpions, a sniper
unit, etc, or by the map. One cool aspect is you won't necessarily know
what you're going up against, just the unit you'll be in. You could be way
outmatched but defending a high-value prisoner, or you could be in a
scorpion unit assaulting an infantry position -- it depends on how good your
general was in moving units across the terrain.

If the general wants to jump into one of the battles he just set-up, then
he'll be able to no problem. Each 'turn' of the RTS portion could have a
time limit and if enough soldiers can't be found for all the battles needed
that turn then the server can roll the dice in the background to determine
the outcome, just like today's RTS games, so there's no loss there. But of
course when enough soldiers are found, we now have a great mix of RTS and
FPS elements; both working together, both skills needed to complete the
campaign. Each battle would take between 5 and 15 minutes like today's
Halo2 battles, so the RTS portion could still move along fairly quickly;
also helped by the fact that the servers can recruit for multiple battles
going on simultaneously across the board, and units not involved with a
battle can still be moved across the board to other strategic objectives.
Bots could be used for un-filled slots in the unit or even for quitters.

And "Halo RTS" will add a sense of reality to RTS games because the outcomes
of each battle won't just be dice rolls -- they'll be played out by real
soldiers. If you wanted to throw some light Roll Playing elements in you
could do so easily by keeping 'rankings' like today's Halo2 Playlists, and
as you gain ranks you can level up your character's skills, or cross train.
Also, battles can be composed of similarly ranked soldiers, just like
today's playlists.

Time for bed, and time for "Halo RTS". Thank you for your time.

Doug Jacobs

2005-08-17, 12:32 am

In alt.games.video.xbox A Man, Just Like Other Men <Nada2Spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

quote:

> Gamespot had a 'rumor control' article addressing some rumored discussions
> of adding Real Time Strategy elements to the Halo universe. My mind was
> working tonight while trying to sleep so I thought I'd type out some
> thoughts on just how this could work and be very cool, especially on-line.

RTS's traditionally consist mainly of building your forces and the
infrastructure (buildings, economy) to support them. What you describe
below is basically a more elaborate team-based FPS - not that that would
be a bad thing, mind you, I just wonder about the logistics of having
enough players to actually play a decent game.

Traditional RTS games haven't done well on consoles since their
controllers aren't really suited to that sort of game. Besides, to make
it more interesting you'd need to have more than just 2 different
races/armies represented... A 2 sided RTS is so C&C. ;)

babanoosh

2005-08-17, 12:32 am

Doug Jacobs wrote:

quote:

> In alt.games.video.xbox A Man, Just Like Other Men <Nada2Spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> RTS's traditionally consist mainly of building your forces and the
> infrastructure (buildings, economy) to support them. What you describe
> below is basically a more elaborate team-based FPS - not that that would
> be a bad thing, mind you, I just wonder about the logistics of having
> enough players to actually play a decent game.
>
> Traditional RTS games haven't done well on consoles since their
> controllers aren't really suited to that sort of game. Besides, to make
> it more interesting you'd need to have more than just 2 different
> races/armies represented... A 2 sided RTS is so C&C.

I love C&C so much. I can spend endless hours playing that game, even to
this day. Have you tried Act of War?

A Man, Just Like Other Men

2005-08-17, 3:31 am

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:11g51mupejrc745@corp.supernews.com...

quote:

> In alt.games.video.xbox A Man, Just Like Other Men <Nada2Spam@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> RTS's traditionally consist mainly of building your forces and the
> infrastructure (buildings, economy) to support them. What you describe
> below is basically a more elaborate team-based FPS - not that that would
> be a bad thing, mind you, I just wonder about the logistics of having
> enough players to actually play a decent game.

The beauty is the FPS part is implemented almost the exact same as H2 is
now. When I sign on XBL to be a soldier, instead of going into a randomly
generated game based on the playlist I choose, I get put in a randomly
generated game based on the playlist I choose (though the options of
playlists can include specific campaigns). The difference is my battle
affects someone else's campaign -- the General's campaign that I may or may
not know. If I care to track all the battles of the campaign I can, but if
I just want to do the slayer-thing, then I just do the slayer thing. The
General will benefit or suffer loss based on my performance, just like he
would with randomly generated outcomes, but the game is more meaningful when
it's real people duking it out in each of the battles across the board. If
my team fails to plant the bomb in the supply depot, then my General's
enemies will still be able to resupply, but if we do get the bomb planted,
he can outrun his enemy to the capital.

quote:

> Traditional RTS games haven't done well on consoles since their
> controllers aren't really suited to that sort of game. Besides, to make
> it more interesting you'd need to have more than just 2 different
> races/armies represented... A 2 sided RTS is so C&C. ;)

Dai Senryaku is awesome, and I can picture the intersection between it and
Halo2. I can move my units around and decide where and when to engage enemy
units, and have real people execute those battles, and even jump into some
myself.

From a marketing standpoint you are taking the Halo universe and trying to
bring in strategy gamers by offering them the chance to direct the battles
that all us Halo on-line players are playing anyway. Us online soldiers are
like real soldiers in that we may not necessarily have insight into the
master game plan. All we know is our immediate objective and we do our best
to execute.

Doug Jacobs

2005-08-19, 12:30 am

In alt.games.video.xbox A Man, Just Like Other Men <Nada2Spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

quote:

> The beauty is the FPS part is implemented almost the exact same as H2 is
> now. When I sign on XBL to be a soldier, instead of going into a randomly
> generated game based on the playlist I choose, I get put in a randomly
> generated game based on the playlist I choose (though the options of
> playlists can include specific campaigns). The difference is my battle
> affects someone else's campaign -- the General's campaign that I may or may
> not know. If I care to track all the battles of the campaign I can, but if
> I just want to do the slayer-thing, then I just do the slayer thing. The
> General will benefit or suffer loss based on my performance, just like he
> would with randomly generated outcomes, but the game is more meaningful when
> it's real people duking it out in each of the battles across the board. If
> my team fails to plant the bomb in the supply depot, then my General's
> enemies will still be able to resupply, but if we do get the bomb planted,
> he can outrun his enemy to the capital.

It'd be neat if there was a system where Generals would be the hosts of
the game, and then they could recruit soliders, based on who signs up for
the game. As a solider, you'd gain points based on what sort of actions
you took. For instance, if you made a lot of kills with the sniper rifle,
your sniping score would be higher - marking you as a sniper expert. This
way, generals could assemble a better team based on available resources.
I'd foresee making a team from 5-7 different positions. Scoring would be
linked to your position. So, if you played the Medic, but grabbed a
sniper rifle and just went after the enemy instead of healing your
buddies, your score would reflect that you suck as a medic. ;)

There could also be a handicapping system in place so that an experienced
general might not have access to more experienced soliders. This could be
a benefit to everyone since the more experienced soliders could help
counteract a bad decision by the general, meanwhile, a good general would
try to use his resources more intelligently. At least with XBox Live,
at least you wouldn't have to worry about "sharks" - that is, people
pretending to be newbies, when they're actually aces.

quote:

> Halo2. I can move my units around and decide where and when to engage enemy
> units, and have real people execute those battles, and even jump into some
> myself.

I'll have to check this game out. I've heard good things about it.

Ameilius

2005-08-19, 3:30 am

i just cant get into it
my brother plays it constantly...

Joe Humble

2005-09-09, 3:30 am

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:06:48 GMT, "A Man, Just Like Other Men"
<Nada2Spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

quote:

>Time for bed, and time for "Halo RTS". Thank you for your time.
>

Interesting ideas and I've had some similar. I think that what bungee
was shooting for was really the most simple setup they could have.
You're all soldiers and you all have the same perspective.

What you're talking about is taking things to the next level to make
it all feel like a more realistic battlefield; complete with command
and control and more fine-tuned roles. However, my impression is that
the bulk of Halo 2 online action comes in the form of slayer because
that is what people like to play most. I'm not sure the effort of
creating a realistic battlefield would draw enough players willing to
put in the time.

--
Is this thing on?

A Man, Just Like Other Men

2005-09-09, 8:31 pm

"Joe Humble" <joehumble@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vbb2i11afurbdr3v0lrt98dn6n4615tncv@4ax.com...

quote:

> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:06:48 GMT, "A Man, Just Like Other Men"
> <Nada2Spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Interesting ideas and I've had some similar. I think that what bungee
> was shooting for was really the most simple setup they could have.
> You're all soldiers and you all have the same perspective.
>
> What you're talking about is taking things to the next level to make
> it all feel like a more realistic battlefield; complete with command
> and control and more fine-tuned roles. However, my impression is that
> the bulk of Halo 2 online action comes in the form of slayer because
> that is what people like to play most. I'm not sure the effort of
> creating a realistic battlefield would draw enough players willing to
> put in the time.

But that's the beauty of the system I tried to describe as Halo RTS. If you
want to keep doing the playlist thing, that's all you have to do. It's just
that the outcome of your battle may or may not affect someone else's
"campaign". Plus, slayer works great -- well, team slayer, at least. In
fact, most battles on a battlefield probably look more like team slayer then
CTF.

Basically what I propose is that the RTS portion be a wrapper program, say a
$20 add-on. The target would be strategy gamers. They get to do their
campaigns but with the very unique quality being that real people fight the
individual battles. The wrapper program can stand alone easily enough, but
since the infrastructure is already in place for today's Halo2 online
playlists, Halo RTS just has to tie into these servers -- basically send
battle requests So let's say my campaign has 3 battles going on this turn.
One may be a hostage rescue from an enemy command center so Halo RTS
requests a CTF on Coagulation. Another of my battles may be a team slayer
with my scorpion unit engaging a unit of ghost-supported infantry. Here
Halo RTS requests a battle from a playlist that would match this scenario
(maybe one of the team slayer psuedo-random game types now includes
vehicles). The third battle has one of my infantry units trying to demolish
an enemy fuel depot, so the request goes out for an Assault game on
Zanzibar.

Today's Halo2 servers get these requests from Halo RTS and picks some of its
games THAT ARE GOING TO BE PLAYED ANYWAY in say the next 3 minutes. When
those matches are over Halo2 reports the results to Halo RTS, which in turn
incorporates the outcome of those battles into my campaign. Maybe the CTF
game ended in a 1-1 tie, so Halo RTS says it was unsuccessful (in other
words my 'unit' would have to win in the Halo2 playlist game in order for my
campaign to have a victory). However, my assault game from Halo2 came out
2-1 in my favor. Bye-bye enemy fuel depot, which makes it more difficult
for my enemy in my campaign to resupply. And in the team slayer match my
team won 50-45 which means the enemy unit is either eliminated from my
campaign map or severely weakened, and my unit moves on.

I was sharing these thoughts with a friend and came up with another angle.
As a "general" running a campaign, my goal is to out-flank, out-match, and
out-gun my enemy. If I am successful I will be bringing say three units to
bear against one enemy unit, and some of my units may even be artillery.
These scenarios could be an opportunity to expand today's Halo2 playlists.
Have a playlist titled something that gets across the idea that you are
going in outmanned and outgunned. This playlist would draw all the
tough-guys who think they rule everyone -- it would test them beyond their
normal skillz. Plus, even if Halo2 picks a game that ends up having lots of
quitters, the worst case scenario is that Halo RTS determines the outcome of
my battle randomly, just like all strategy games to today.