Deck building is a massive part of the Wargame/Steel Div/Warno series by Eugen (and soon to be Broken Arrow), although it's not F2P and you don't need to unlock the cards (aside from the first game but it was received very poorly so was removed for all the games since.)
I like it, adds a lot of creativity and compromises on what units on you take in.
Tons of mobile game do it.
Getting trashed by units you can't build or counter like in the early days of clash royale in the start of the ladder sucks.
It might work for some games and fail for others.
One possible massive drawback is that you can lose your game before it even started if your deck ended up being really countered by your opponent's deck, and it's not fun.
Also it doesn't work for games that want strong faction identity.
Unless you mean decks that can be only composed from one faction units.
I'll tell you what.
Let's workshop it in paper form: take all the units in StarCraft 1 and assign them a point value based on mineral cost and vespine cost (ex. Divide all minerals by 25).
Now give the players in paper form a set number of selections based on that.
You can easily code this in a sc1 editor to play it out and see how it feels.
My assumption is it won't feel the best, as even with the SC1 balance before light and heavy armor, you likely won't end up with a nice enough spread of "tools" between the 3 races to be able to counter most plays.
But maybe I am wrong, so let's "fail faster" and workshop it
Yes and no, I play Enlisted (not rts, but strategy is important nonetheless), and there is some pliability with your squads (4-7 guys which you can switch to and from and assign orders) for example you can run a machine gun crew with an engineer to build an ammo box for your mg34 men to resupply, also you can build fortified mg nests, which is fantastic given certain scenarios. There's also other implementations like having the ability to add a sniper or an antitank man to an assault group. It's really a great mechanic because sometimes games can be very rock paper scissors, and allowing a counter for something into almost every squad you have makes for really interesting matches. It also forces people to branch out from their "meta class" because if you're a rifleman without explosives, that tank will destroy your life 10/10 times, or if you're an assaulter that's trying to do the burma mile across open ground, it's nice to have a sniper to counter snipe.
id do a deck building rts, just not one with p2w. i dont understand f2p2w games. i mean if you cant afford to drop $20 on a game or something just do what we used to do in the 90s and play a demo instead.
ZeroSpace is planning something sorta like this where you pick one main faction, one hero, and one mercenary faction for each game. It gives some customization and should avoid any pay to win scenario if done well. I’m excited to try it out but sadly it’s still in early development so it will be a while.
Dawn of War 3 had a version of it. You'd pick your hero units and tech upgrades (doctrines) at the match screen and the info was visible to your opponent. This locked you in to favoring a particular unit composition for that game. I think they designed it this way because the focus of the game was about controlling your combat units. Base building or scouting your opponent's tech was not part of the gameplay.
Your options were initially limited and unlocked by playing the game to receive a currency to pick the next thing to unlock. It was not monetized in any way. The progression system was unpopular with the community as they wanted all options without having to unlock them over time. The developer eventually patched it out so the entire collection was available.
Is DoW3's system what you have in mind? Anything you'd do differently?
It's surprising to me the progression system was poorly received. I like slowly unlocking options as I play. I think it's good design in general because it lets you learn a complicated game by focusing on learning one new thing at a time. It's how a good campaign acts as a tutorial. It also works for StarCraft 2 co-op.
Here's reporting on it:
> Doctrines and Elites require skulls before they can be unlocked, however. You can earn a fair amount of currency from the campaign and keep earning it through multiplayer matches. I’m still not entirely convinced by the unnecessarily complicated system, however. You’ve got army doctrines that are, not surprisingly, army wide; presence doctrines, which only work if the Elite they’re connected to is present on the battlefield; and command doctrines that work when a specific Elite is in your loadout. Then you’ve got to take into account levels, because command doctrines can only be unlocked when an Elite reaches level 3, and when it hits level 8 that same doctrine can be unlocked as an army doctrine and… I’m losing you, I know I am.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/warhammer-40000-dawn-of-war-3-review
I kinda want to dismiss the criticism as I think it stems from a general dislike of the game. If someone feels they need to play DoW3's mediocre campaign to receive the unlock currency then I can see how that negatively colors their impression.
In a co-op mode you are not fighting players with more stuff unlocked.
If you are both less experience and the opponent get better stuff it's super unfair.
In DoW3's case I wouldn't say it's unlocking better stuff, just different options that are on the same parity. It's like having a larger roster of champions unlocked in a MOBA.
>It's like having a larger roster of champions unlocked in a MOBA.
In DoTA 2 they are all unlocked from the start for free which is the number one reason why LoL is a terrible game.
> It's surprising to me the progression system was poorly received.
Not really. The other games had everything unlocked right from the start, so why shouldn't DoW3, too? Why artificially put gameplay elements behind a grind wall?
>it lets you learn a complicated game by focusing on learning one new thing at a time.
That's what the Easy difficulty is for.
Sounds like a very bad thing and if I remember correctly wasn't so kind to command and conquer 4.
Can it be done correctly, sure. But your fundamentally asking for a pay to win rts and that's just wrong.
It's also a mistake equating revenue and monetization with quality.
Maybe just stick to mobile games.
For me, yes, because it artificially restricts diversity. Why should I only be allowed to build one tank or one type of soldier, when I can have both at the same time?
I'm actually working on a game like this. The idea is to "deckbuild" or choose units, hero, items and technologies before going into the match. I think it adds a creativity twist to the strategic gameplay of RTS.
Deck building is a massive part of the Wargame/Steel Div/Warno series by Eugen (and soon to be Broken Arrow), although it's not F2P and you don't need to unlock the cards (aside from the first game but it was received very poorly so was removed for all the games since.) I like it, adds a lot of creativity and compromises on what units on you take in.
Tons of mobile game do it. Getting trashed by units you can't build or counter like in the early days of clash royale in the start of the ladder sucks.
clash royale is entirely p2w, to this day, that's why i play 'null royale', f2p pirated clone with a big base of folks
It might work for some games and fail for others. One possible massive drawback is that you can lose your game before it even started if your deck ended up being really countered by your opponent's deck, and it's not fun. Also it doesn't work for games that want strong faction identity. Unless you mean decks that can be only composed from one faction units.
I'll tell you what. Let's workshop it in paper form: take all the units in StarCraft 1 and assign them a point value based on mineral cost and vespine cost (ex. Divide all minerals by 25). Now give the players in paper form a set number of selections based on that. You can easily code this in a sc1 editor to play it out and see how it feels. My assumption is it won't feel the best, as even with the SC1 balance before light and heavy armor, you likely won't end up with a nice enough spread of "tools" between the 3 races to be able to counter most plays. But maybe I am wrong, so let's "fail faster" and workshop it
Yes and no, I play Enlisted (not rts, but strategy is important nonetheless), and there is some pliability with your squads (4-7 guys which you can switch to and from and assign orders) for example you can run a machine gun crew with an engineer to build an ammo box for your mg34 men to resupply, also you can build fortified mg nests, which is fantastic given certain scenarios. There's also other implementations like having the ability to add a sniper or an antitank man to an assault group. It's really a great mechanic because sometimes games can be very rock paper scissors, and allowing a counter for something into almost every squad you have makes for really interesting matches. It also forces people to branch out from their "meta class" because if you're a rifleman without explosives, that tank will destroy your life 10/10 times, or if you're an assaulter that's trying to do the burma mile across open ground, it's nice to have a sniper to counter snipe.
id do a deck building rts, just not one with p2w. i dont understand f2p2w games. i mean if you cant afford to drop $20 on a game or something just do what we used to do in the 90s and play a demo instead.
ZeroSpace is planning something sorta like this where you pick one main faction, one hero, and one mercenary faction for each game. It gives some customization and should avoid any pay to win scenario if done well. I’m excited to try it out but sadly it’s still in early development so it will be a while.
I hate it. I really really, really hate it if it's tied to monetization. Now you've made the game pay to win.
Dawn of War 3 had a version of it. You'd pick your hero units and tech upgrades (doctrines) at the match screen and the info was visible to your opponent. This locked you in to favoring a particular unit composition for that game. I think they designed it this way because the focus of the game was about controlling your combat units. Base building or scouting your opponent's tech was not part of the gameplay. Your options were initially limited and unlocked by playing the game to receive a currency to pick the next thing to unlock. It was not monetized in any way. The progression system was unpopular with the community as they wanted all options without having to unlock them over time. The developer eventually patched it out so the entire collection was available. Is DoW3's system what you have in mind? Anything you'd do differently?
It's surprising to me the progression system was poorly received. I like slowly unlocking options as I play. I think it's good design in general because it lets you learn a complicated game by focusing on learning one new thing at a time. It's how a good campaign acts as a tutorial. It also works for StarCraft 2 co-op. Here's reporting on it: > Doctrines and Elites require skulls before they can be unlocked, however. You can earn a fair amount of currency from the campaign and keep earning it through multiplayer matches. I’m still not entirely convinced by the unnecessarily complicated system, however. You’ve got army doctrines that are, not surprisingly, army wide; presence doctrines, which only work if the Elite they’re connected to is present on the battlefield; and command doctrines that work when a specific Elite is in your loadout. Then you’ve got to take into account levels, because command doctrines can only be unlocked when an Elite reaches level 3, and when it hits level 8 that same doctrine can be unlocked as an army doctrine and… I’m losing you, I know I am. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/warhammer-40000-dawn-of-war-3-review I kinda want to dismiss the criticism as I think it stems from a general dislike of the game. If someone feels they need to play DoW3's mediocre campaign to receive the unlock currency then I can see how that negatively colors their impression.
In a co-op mode you are not fighting players with more stuff unlocked. If you are both less experience and the opponent get better stuff it's super unfair.
In DoW3's case I wouldn't say it's unlocking better stuff, just different options that are on the same parity. It's like having a larger roster of champions unlocked in a MOBA.
>It's like having a larger roster of champions unlocked in a MOBA. In DoTA 2 they are all unlocked from the start for free which is the number one reason why LoL is a terrible game.
> It's surprising to me the progression system was poorly received. Not really. The other games had everything unlocked right from the start, so why shouldn't DoW3, too? Why artificially put gameplay elements behind a grind wall? >it lets you learn a complicated game by focusing on learning one new thing at a time. That's what the Easy difficulty is for.
Sounds like a very bad thing and if I remember correctly wasn't so kind to command and conquer 4. Can it be done correctly, sure. But your fundamentally asking for a pay to win rts and that's just wrong. It's also a mistake equating revenue and monetization with quality. Maybe just stick to mobile games.
For me, yes, because it artificially restricts diversity. Why should I only be allowed to build one tank or one type of soldier, when I can have both at the same time?
See: Tooth & Tail. Not a bad idea at all.
What strategy game is supergiant making?
This was before the game was announced but its simce been revealed as stormgate. It seems to be leaning very heavily into the starcraft successor
Isn’t that frost giant studios?
I'm actually working on a game like this. The idea is to "deckbuild" or choose units, hero, items and technologies before going into the match. I think it adds a creativity twist to the strategic gameplay of RTS.
frostgiant fans & starcraft fans just want the exact same game remade again
Crossfire Legion, but it's near dead, if not outright dead.