Interesting idea. So the FPS player is given objectives by the RTS player?
not so much strategic objectives as much as tactical ones. Strategic objectives (like primary objectives, the ones you need to do to win the game/mission and move on) will be given by the game itself, chosen by the developers. and to spice it up we can even have those change, based on a number of factors including layout of the map (for instance, one objective could be clear an AA battery, but, if when the map is generated and the AA battery has already been destroyed, that objective wouldnt come up)
tactical objectives would be the ones given by the RTS player, like clear this LZ, clear that valley/building, escort that tank column or engineering detail, im sending pickup, i need you in a jet for air superiority etc. The RTS player can also do things of his own volition or at the request of a FPS player. For instance, if a battle is going badly, and the RTS player wants to redeploy the FPS player(s) elsewhere, he could send a helicopter to retrieve them and put them elsewhere, or return them to base, etc. also, if the FPS player is getting pinned down by a fortification or an artillery piece or armored unit, the FPS player can call in for reinforcements and the RTS player could airlift in a tank for fire support etc. FPS players can issue tactical objectives to other human AI players in their squad or platoon (or company?) as well as to any AI accompianing them (so one FPs player in a jet can tell one wingman to break off an attack that target, the other wingman to attack that Artillery piece, and the 3rd wingman to stay on the FPS players tail and help take out defending jets etc. im not sure though if tactical objectives given to AI players that are completed should reward the FPS player with points...
im still thinking about whether requests for air strikes, reinforcements or retrieval should count as a tactical objective for the RTS player... im hesitant, because if the FPS player asks for an Air Strike, but cant see the AA battery around the corner, and the RTS player denies the strike, he looses points, so idn...
Maybe the FPS player through promotions gets higher ranking and eventually becomes the RTS player: the General.
if you are playing by yourself this could work well. but if you are playing with a friend i think you should be able to assign one as the RTS player and one as FPS or both as FPS or maybe both as RTS? i think both as RTS sorta defies the point, but...
MP maps would be huge with thousands of people on a single map and epically long skirmishes. (Lag would likely be terrible though.)
sounds epic and awesome but yeah, im also very worried about lag, i was suspecting that todays technology wouldnt be able to handle it...
This would give a much more realistic portrayal of war. Rather then doing your own thing, you have superiors to obey.
that was the objective
It would suck if you had some dickhead General who sends people he doesn't like on suicide missions
yeah, thats a valid point, especially for MP games, but i was thinking that for the FPS player, if you disobey orders from the RTS player (assuming they are suicide missions), and still manage to get a strategic objective done, the FPS player gains points (rank points, exp points, whatever kind of points i havent decided yet, some ideas would be appreciated though ). Not as many points for both the RTS and FPS players as they would have gained if they had worked together, but more than failing an objective or going off mission or dying in a suicide mission.
however, if the FPS player goes off mission and does not complete any objectives in say, 10-15 minutes (its such a long time because im assuming he will be without support and probably going on foot so...) the FPS player looses points, maybe suicides and respawns back at base after a 2 minute cooldown?
in reference to the next quote/idea, the same could apply to good FPS players. if they manage to perform above expectation, especially when given bad orders, it could show up on thier records and different teams/clans whatever could try to recruit better soldiers. same for soldiers who like to go AWOL and either cause havoc with friendly fire, or just go off and do nothing...
However, bad records like this would somehow show up on the MP so people would know that this General is really hopeless or something. He can then be somehow "demoted" if he makes bad decisions or is very unpopular.
this also sounds good. as with the FPS player, good generals can be recruited (with the players consent) into new teams clans etc. and if they make poor decisions, their rank could go down.
before i forget, im just using the example of 1 FPS player and 1 RTS player. In a big game with big teams, there could be multiple RTS players commanding their own battalions or companies, and all answering to one higher ranking theatre commander RTS player, one who hands down all the directives etc. on the same note, there could be very many FPS players, having them operate as either single entities by themselves or with an AI squad, or as a squad themselves, with their own command structure (private, lance corporal, corporal, sargeant, sargeant major, captain so on and so forth)
So, i was just thinking about MP and how it would work with points, ranks and achievements/reputation
So, each player has 2 'profiles' if you will. one for their status as an RTS player, and one for their FPS status.
Each profile will have data that reflects you abilities, prowess, and style of play.
So for instance, new players will have a Rank: Private for FPS profile and Lieutenant for RTS player. This rank increases as your rank score goes up, culminating in General (Cheif of the Military) for RTS and Colonel for FPS players. you can get more of these points by killing the enemy, completing objectives (strategic and tactical) and completing bonus objectives and not loosing too many/any units ('any' could apply to all units on the battlefield, AI or otherwise or it could just apply to other online players). though, being the easiest to gain, they have little value
naturally, those with higher rank are better soldiers/generals.
then, players could have statistics like how many objectives completed out of those set, how many times the player died, how many orders the player disobeyed, how many times a general lost an FPS player due to friendly fire and how many times to enemy fire, etc etc.
also, they could have statistics like what style the player prefers or excells at. so a FPS player who operates well behind enemy lines with little or no support, causing lots of havoc and heaps of damage, would have statistics that show this, and the players talent at that style. so if a clan/team wants to recruit alot of soldiers adept at black ops, they could choose players who they know are good. alternatively, a FPS player who is a good pilot would have similar designation and talent score. also, a RTS player who has good air command ability and prefers air stirkes, or who is good with armored units and long range strikes, would have those style badges and talent ratings, again, so you can choose your team. there would be no limit to how many combat style badges you can earn, other than earning them all. badges would be earnt by doing well in a certain play style, both by completing strategic and tactical objectives and by staying alive/killing X number of enemy units. once you have the badge, though, it can be taken away if you start screwing up. dying too many times, calling in artillery on your own forces, going of mission for no reason, etc etc.
lastly, there would be a notifier denoting what kind of soldier you are: a soldier that follows order without question and fights until the objective is complete or he is dead, a soldier that will go off mission if he does not like an order, but completing an objective regardless, or a soldier that goes AWOL and accomplishes nothing of value.
same goes for what kind of commander: the kind that gives good orders (as in, ones that are obeyed and dont result in too many deaths) and backs them up with support, who keeps his units alive etc etc, a general that likes to force the breach and keep going until victory or death, regardless of casualties, or a general who tends to give bad orders and gets his troops killed for no reason.
again, those notifiers can be awarded and removed as you continue to succeed or fail. but you can only have one at a time.
i think i had more but ive forgotten so ill compile them all here
you would have two profiles, one for when you play RTS and one for when you play FPS. they would be linked so people can find you easily. you would have differing statistics in both profiles, like Rank, Ability or Talent, Playing Style or Styles, and general statistics, like kill/death ratio in different modes (each different vehicle, on foot etc) as they apply to your ability and acheivements.
this way, teams can be chosen optimally and you can decide exactly what 'hero units' (FPS players, basically) to use to win your objectives
Also, im not sure if people understand, i dont want this to be a solely MP game, there are bots and AI in the game, so if you only have 1 FPS player, an RTS player can still command battalions of tanks and squadrons of aircraft which each have their own AI and will generally micromanage themselves, and a FPS player could still have a squad of AI soldiers who he can give orders to, as well as being able to call in artillery strikes etc at certain points.
phew... sorry for the long post, i just got excited for a minute there... so sue me =P if you can make any sense of what i wrote, please comment