Having listened to the gripes that Jeff and Ryan have with modern Real Time Strategy game, I'm wondering if anyone has ever done a co-op mode, where one person concentrates on resource collecting/infrastructure building, and the other person focuses purely on managing the troops. Obviously the two would be talking to each other throughout, so that the resource guy wouldn't pump out all the wrong units, but it would make things a lot more manageable. I don't like to micromanage to extent you need to in StarCraft, in order to be competitive, and switching back and forth from unit micro management to base/resource micromanagement doesn't make sense. Majesty is a neat idea, but it's only half of a game when compared to the complexity of hardcore RTS games. It would be brilliant to have two people, one acting as a civic planner/engineer, the other as a general of an army, working in unison.
Does this game mode exist somewhere, because I'd really like to try something like that.
Co-op RTS
"I think it could work with voice chat. Hell, it'd feel like an authentic war that way.I haven't ever heard of anything like that being done. Its a neat idea but it sounds like it could get complicated.
"
You can do that in Starcraft 1 in fact. You can put people on teams where they would control one army. So, you can set up 3 players vs 3 players, but with only 2 armies on the battlefield.
I believe the game mode in SC1 was simply Team Melee, or Team (gametype here)
"Well, take Starcraft 2, don't allow one player to control millitary units, don't allow the other to control buildings/resource vehicles. It's like half the complication, unless you're thinking of something on the technical side.I haven't ever heard of anything like that being done. Its a neat idea but it sounds like it could get complicated.
"
" You can do that in Starcraft 1 in fact. You can put people on teams where they would control one army. So, you can set up 3 players vs 3 players, but with only 2 armies on the battlefield. I believe the game mode in SC1 was simply Team Melee, or Team (gametype here) "Really? I've only just bought the game (it keeps crashing on me when I finish map 7 of the first campaign now), but that would make my day... especially if it carried over into the next game.
" @Tactical_Kill said:"Well, take Starcraft 2, don't allow one player to control millitary units, don't allow the other to control buildings/resource vehicles. It's like half the complication, unless you're thinking of something on the technical side. "I haven't ever heard of anything like that being done. Its a neat idea but it sounds like it could get complicated.
"
What I meant was that I could see the two players arguing about what to do. Say the guy controlling the military units wants a specific unit. If the resource/ buildings builder thinks he should do something else he may not build that building and could screw up the military guy's strategy. Or he could build something and use up resources the military guy wants for more units. Unless they work perfect together I can just see it going badly.
So, I looked up Team Melee, and unfortunately no servers really support it, and it's just a total free-for-all. It'd be neat if one person was restricted to defensive things, and the other to offense, though. You would absolutely need voicechat to coordinate, but it could be pretty intense, since strategy could get a lot more creative with less multitasking residing on one person.
" @Fbomb said:Sure, that could absolutely happen, but I don't think too many people would play with absolute strangers. It has the potential to be pretty effective if the two people align tot a good strategy from the outset." @Tactical_Kill said:What I meant was that I could see the two players arguing about what to do. Say the guy controlling the military units wants a specific unit. If the resource/ buildings builder thinks he should do something else he may not build that building and could screw up the military guy's strategy. Or he could build something and use up resources the military guy wants for more units. Unless they work perfect together I can just see it going badly. ""Well, take Starcraft 2, don't allow one player to control millitary units, don't allow the other to control buildings/resource vehicles. It's like half the complication, unless you're thinking of something on the technical side. "I haven't ever heard of anything like that being done. Its a neat idea but it sounds like it could get complicated.
"
Red Alert 3 did a full co-op campaign but that was just having two players. What alot the RTSes of the world have done is just remove the base building aspect almost entirely. (Dawn of War 2, C&C 4, ect)
" @nukesniper said:Yeah, it doesn't force people into certain jobs, but you could do it that way if you wanted." You can do that in Starcraft 1 in fact. You can put people on teams where they would control one army. So, you can set up 3 players vs 3 players, but with only 2 armies on the battlefield. I believe the game mode in SC1 was simply Team Melee, or Team (gametype here) "Really? I've only just bought the game (it keeps crashing on me when I finish map 7 of the first campaign now), but that would make my day... especially if it carried over into the next game. "
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment