Mining into problems - Too many alternatives?

[Stratego (dev)]

i read an article (link) about RTS games and some points are really true for our AO* TBS games.

eg this:

Genre Inelasticity: As an addition to the top point it means that once players have really settled into an RTS they aren’t moving to another because their current RTS is what they have invested time into, where their friends are and what they know which leads to the RTS genre being rather inelastic. Someone who has 1000+ hours in one RTS isn’t going to buy another RTS unless their preferred RTS is dying. That means that even if there are a couple of big games in the genre those fans are already taken, any new big RTS is basically going to have to make their own fans. This turns developers and publishers off of the genre.

this one if about many similar games on market - i can translate this in our case to our own "separate" alternatives - they all maybe steal each other palyerbase?

Question: should we stop making more alternatives?

[DreJaDe]

Yeah, we are definitely dividing the player base with many alternatives but on the other hand... You are also keeping the players from quitting after finding out that there might be an alternative that they actually like better.

There's also my case where I switched multiple times... Instead of quitting then going back, I can now just switch AO games. There are also cases of ideas mixing into the others making the the other alternatives much better.

Also, this maybe just me but how do you say about making a total war style game? Where we can choose cards (units) we can set on a map and have an overall open battle.

[b2198]

I don't think I have much to contribute to this discussion, as I basically only play AoS, but I agree with Drejade's points. It's a complicated matter, and having many/few alternatives both have their benefits and downsides. I honestly have no clue which way is better, nor if there is an optimal middleground for that, much less where that would be.

Also, this maybe just me but how do you say about making a total war style game? Where we can choose cards (units) we can set on a map and have an overall open battle.

This also seems fun, and maybe creating alternatives with more difference in game rules could help alleviate the downsides of this matter, but maybe would also reduce a bit some of the benefits too (for instance: it's harder to mix the ideas of one alternative into another if their rules are vastly different), so I'm also not sure about this option. Personally I think I'd like to play that.

[Stratego (dev)]

thanks!

Also, this maybe just me but how do you say about making a total war style game? Where we can choose cards (units) we can set on a map and have an overall open battle.

you mean mixing alternative units?
or you mean this within a single alternative?

[DreJaDe]

thanks!

Also, this maybe just me but how do you say about making a total war style game? Where we can choose cards (units) we can set on a map and have an overall open battle.

you mean mixing alternative units?
or you mean this within a single alternative?

Just single alternatives...
Choosing your units and positioning them then battling it out. Not sure how this would work since examples of this are all real time gameplays

This is like the concept of Fire and Maneuver which is a tbs game that is played in real time.

[Stratego (dev)]

it can work.
i think like his:
- you can chose about sum 50 turn cost units to start with
- you can place them within a section of a map
and launch the game.

did u mean that?

[DreJaDe]

it can work.
i think like his:
- you can chose about sum 50 turn cost units to start with
- you can place them within a section of a map
and launch the game.

did u mean that?

Yes
But both of you will need to set and pick your units in game... There's also the border where you can only position the unit or else... It would be chaotic.

... I guess it can work
I mean, I'm kinda already doing that with the map editor.

[TntAttack]

it can work.
i think like his:
- you can chose about sum 50 turn cost units to start with
- you can place them within a section of a map
and launch the game.

did u mean that?

This idea is definitely ideal for the pre game boredom thread.

New ingame option. Starting Sum: 0, 50, 100

Things the player can buy should be basically everything. For a price, they should be able to build walls and castles, change the terrain, etc.

Of course, to restrict players from spamming or abusing certain unit/buildings, some units may be limited. Players should be able to start e.g. with a castle, walls and a catapult. Not 10 catapults...

[b2198]

New ingame option. Starting Sum: 0, 50, 100

What about TCs though? Maybe there should also be an option to set the amount of TCs to 0 if this option is above 0?

Of course, to restrict players from spamming or abusing certain unit/buildings, some units may be limited. Players should be able to start e.g. with a castle, walls and a catapult. Not 10 catapults...

I think any unit spammed can be easily countered if the opponent knows about it. Also, 10 catapults would be quite costly, and wouldn't hold on their own against 10 fire archers, which are 50 cost cheaper, and even with workers supporting them, very likely wouldn't hold against 26 fire archers, or against 20 axe throwers + 10 wagons, and definitely not against 13 trebuchets.

[Stratego (dev)]

but catapult also would need to buy ballistics and a siege workshop and other techs and if upgraded catapult than its upgrade tech - so the 50 turncost would be reduced by these - so a little less catapults you can get.

but you can not win with only catapult imho

[Lucifer]

I think instead of Alternative games, we should focus our effort on alternate game modes at this point.
So if someone grows bored of the standard "Kill the enemy before they kill you" gameplay, they can try something else in the app instead of abandoning it completely.

For example, a capital building mode. Each player has a 10x10 "Capital", with a standard design. For example, 10x10 with 4 TCs in the middle.
A player can launch this map and play for 10 (some fixed number) turns, building and amassing units as they will. There is no enemy on this map, the player simply gets 10 number of turns to develop.

Afterwards, a player can "attack" the capital of another player. Similar to multiplayer, but in this mode: the map is the 10x10 capital of one player, a neutral/random 50x10 land in the middle, and then 10x10 capital of the other player. Ie, a dynamically created map. That might be technically challenging, so I'll help with the development if I can.

This game mode, for example, can be applied to all AO games, giving them all way more variety, instead of a player's only option being to try another app.

This is just an example, I'm sure we can think of many other modes. Focus on the concept, rather than the example.

[Stratego (dev)]

instead of Alternative games

ok, but many people wanting to make alternatives - shall i make them not to? eg. Age of Alder is almost ready to publish and other 3-4 are in progress (some are stalling tough..)

on alternate game modes

sure i will be able to make those after unity version is ready - will ahve time tom make more map types - HOWEVER! most of these possible "ALTERNATE GAMe MODE"s are already doable using triggers!

[Lucifer]

I don't think you should stop development on nearly finished games. It'll be wasted effort otherwise, and it'll be discouraging for the designers.

Ultimately, its up to you as the dev to decide what games fits your vision of the AO universe. People will always have ideas, people will always volunteer to *start* working on those ideas, but at the end of the day only a finished game counts. If someone has a great idea but there's not enough people working towards it, or if the idea doesn't fit your vision, its better to shelf it and focus on something achievable.

[makazuwr32]

My point of view:
Alternatives are not that bad but only as long as they do not interfere with each other themes.

For example as for me Age of World Wars and Age of Modern Wars mostly are sharing same theme and thus they divide community for these games into parts.

Another example is Age of Galaxy and Star Wars Strategy (if it would be continued). Ultimately they both share same sci-fi theme.

[Stratego (dev)]

I don't think you should stop development on nearly finished games. It'll be wasted effort otherwise, and it'll be discouraging for the designers.

Ultimately, its up to you as the dev to decide what games fits your vision of the AO universe. People will always have ideas, people will always volunteer to *start* working on those ideas, but at the end of the day only a finished game counts. If someone has a great idea but there's not enough people working towards it, or if the idea doesn't fit your vision, its better to shelf it and focus on something achievable.

naturally i would never stop tha work, i just asked in theory, also asked for newer ideas - if someone comes with "i want to make a XY variant" cases.

[Stratego (dev)]

My point of view:
Alternatives are not that bad but only as long as they do not interfere with each other themes.

For example as for me Age of World Wars and Age of Modern Wars mostly are sharing same theme and thus they divide community for these games into parts.

Another example is Age of Galaxy and Star Wars Strategy (if it would be continued). Ultimately they both share same sci-fi theme.

these are not so problem, as those must be really diffferent alterantives - you can not "balance" a WW2 to a Post WW2 technology - or very hard.
also starwars: must not be mixed with anything else - as would lose being "star wars"

but from your examples the ww2-AOMW is a maybe, "maybe" could be one game.

[makazuwr32]

One other example that is much more fitting but also much worse:
Age of Fantasy and Age of Rise (or something like that).
They both have same fantasy setting (overall), both have warfell, undeads, elves, dwarves and so on.

[Stratego (dev)]

yes, that is not good. but no problem that is stopped already.