FtD is a poor RTS, that's not a bad thing

[bricox01]

Due to how the physics, AI, collisions, and issuing live commands on the fly work in FtD, it's a bad RTS. That doesn't make it a bad game. It just needs re-tooling to be a better something else.

FtD is an amazing building game, physics sandbox, and third-person action game. Actually, in most of those it is totally amazing. I get to build cool stuff and blow up other stuff with it in an environment that is predictable and feels realistic without being unforgivingly realistic.

I propose embracing the aspects that FtD is good at without throwing out the things it's not so good at.

The first thing that needs improvement is support for full analogue controls, such as game pads and joysticks. Adding support for mouse-based steering where the keyboard is used for throttle and strafing would be the absolute minimum for flying craft and submarines. Oddly enough, the control scheme for ships is pretty good, the view and movement zones (WASD and UHJK) simply need to be reversed so as to be in line with expectations when coming from other games. Leave the build mode untouched. It's great.

A sort of quick action battle mode, that pits the player in command of his chosen creation, against a random assortment of increasingly difficult opponents, is also a great addition. It gives the player a good look at the strength and endurance of his creation.

Oddly enough, many aspects of an RTS would be great at making FtD into a better not-RTS. A quick custom skirmish mode for single or multi-player would be a must. The player (or host) would set the factions, teams, victory conditions, etc. Instead of a grand battle spent commanding units, the player merely commands his own vehicle.

The map editor would need a bit of tweaking to allow players to design maps quickly and easily and then assign start positions, place resource rings, and assign things like weather, time of day, etc. Use nice, simple buttons to do those quickly and while making them obvious to a new player.

These aren't digs at FtD. I love the game. I have over 3000 hours in the game. None of those hours are spent playing it as an RTS. The game pretty much screams "I am not an RTS" at me. It is a masterful building game. The physics seem to work very well and feel consistent and things behave roughly as I expect they would. It is glorious fun to build a new creation and then sail or fly it around and even venture around inside it.

It is, however, frustrating that some simple additions and tweaks are being ignored due to the dev team being on the myopic side and a significant portion of the vocal fan base being on the sycophantic and toxic side. I strongly suspect I will get flamed and attacked for expressing my opinion. But I intend to state it anyway. I highly doubt I will ever get any audience with the dev team with actual back and forth exchange of thoughts and ideas. But I am still putting my thoughts and ideas out there.

[SunaLova]

A review of an notable aspect is not a bad thing....

There is a lingering item where this writing's goal is leaning to a thorough suggestion:
The way the RTS system is represented here is open to interpretation. Given, as barebones as both the Tactical and Strategic Views are (along with the new Resource Allotting), they exist. And a diligent player will compensate because of the open ended nature for the game loop

[bricox01]

A player should not have to be fighting with a lacking interface design. That shows bad design. That’s part of what makes FtD a bad RTS. In an RTS, the player needs to have fairly complete control over his units. Diligence comes into play, yes. But the onus needs to be on the developers, not the players for ensuring that the proper interface and tools are properly implemented. This is where FtD has a problem.

To be an effective RTS, a focus must be placed on the ability to command and control units, individually or in groups, and to be able to trust that a unit will not randomly smash itself into the side of a mountain because the player needed to direct another unit elsewhere. This is an area where FtD has a serious issue as an RTS.

More effective tools exist within FtD to make it an ideal action and adventure game. The ability to switch between first and third person views is extremely useful for that genre, but fairly useless for an RTS. The physics and collisions are fine for action and adventure, but are anathema to RTS where pathfinding is typically questionable at best.

All things considered, FtD is already well set up to be an action adventure game and should, in my opinion, add more tools and features to further its entry into that genre as opposed to continuing as a lackluster RTS.

[Sedrido]

idk personally i just use it as splodey ship lego game in designer like a filthy casual

[bricox01]

That’s where I spend better than 99% of my time too. My point is that it’s kind of a shame given that a few tweaks would make FtD so much better.

[Weyrling]

Originally posted by bricox01:

A player should not have to be fighting with a lacking interface design. That shows bad design. That’s part of what makes FtD a bad RTS. In an RTS, the player needs to have fairly complete control over his units. Diligence comes into play, yes. But the onus needs to be on the developers, not the players for ensuring that the proper interface and tools are properly implemented. This is where FtD has a problem.

It's primarily a building game, absolute control lies in the ability to program the behavior of your units.
You're designing a robot army, you aren't necessarily supposed to also be the admiral and the captain and the pilot and the gunner. The name of the game isn't micromanagement.

The learning curve for setting up proper AI systems could be a lot better though, no doubt.

Edit: Better actual controls is always a plus though, and more game modes would be great.

[bricox01]

Originally posted by Weyrling:

Originally posted by bricox01:

A player should not have to be fighting with a lacking interface design. That shows bad design. That’s part of what makes FtD a bad RTS. In an RTS, the player needs to have fairly complete control over his units. Diligence comes into play, yes. But the onus needs to be on the developers, not the players for ensuring that the proper interface and tools are properly implemented. This is where FtD has a problem.

It's primarily a building game, absolute control lies in the ability to program the behavior of your units.
You're designing a robot army, you aren't necessarily supposed to also be the admiral and the captain and the pilot and the gunner. The name of the game isn't micromanagement.

The learning curve for setting up proper AI systems could be a lot better though, no doubt.

Edit: Better actual controls is always a plus though, and more game modes would be great.

Part of my issue with your argument (but moreso with the design of the campaign and non-building portion of the game) is, why have an avatar that can control vehicles at all then? By putting the avatar in and making that the default way the player enters even build mode, they’re confusing the players on the type of game FtD is intended to be.

If it’s meant to be a RTS, then remove the ability to exert direct control, get rid of the avatar, and go with a physics and collision model that is better suited to an RTS.

I’m not saying FtD is a bad game. I’m saying it’s bad at being an RTS. I’m saying that the devs should embrace that and turn it into something that the engine is better at doing.

FtD would be an outstanding action-adventure-exploration game where you, the player, get to design the machine you use to explore said world. Re-tool the campaign mode to be set up more along the lines of that goal. AI craft would become your support fleet or wingmen.

The AI is really stupid though. Due to it’s penchant for colliding with friendly craft and pretty much failing to operate in proper formations in even simple conditions, it really isn’t suitable for use in an RTS.

As I said in the subject, none of that is a bad thing or a failure. It just means that they ended up with a cult classic comedy as opposed to a scary horror movie. Oh wait, that’s Evil Dead. But they pretty much ended up with a similar result here. FtD could have ended up as a ho-hum RTS, but has ended up as a great action-building-sandbox. Embrace that. Unlike a movie where you really can’t change it after release, you can easily adjust a game.

[Terpsitur]

I have to disagree with you here, the RTS-aspect of FTD is actually pretty good, it works and it is quite fun.

And they made some clever design choices to make it work, too:

- The Out-of-Play feature is superb and allows multiple, custom build vehicles to work on the map without breaking your computer. It also allows battles to take place while the rest of the world is paused, so your computer can focus all its processing power on the complex battle / damage calculations

- The Blockade-mechanic is also a neat feature and allows the whole game to work as a RTS: It is obvious that two out of play forces should not be able to battle it out "off screen", as that would be boring and defeat the whole point of custom made crafts. Thus, the blockade mechanic freezes two opposing fleets that come into contact and forces a timer on you, after which the fight has to start

- The capture-territory mechanic is also nice and gives both the player as well as the computer opponents something to do and focus while you wait for ressource income and build up your forces.

And finally to address "too much micro-management"-complaints: The RTS-game in FTD has actually very little micro-managment compared to basically every other "real" RTS game out there. Look at Starcraft, Age of Empires, Command and Conquer, Supreme Commander, whatever, all those games are full of macro, all the time. Keep in mind those are the games that measure success in "Actions per Minute".

FTD on the other hand is super relaxing to play: You usually have fewer units on the map than in any other RTS-game, you play one engagement after the other, while the gameworld patiently waits for every battle to finish and you also have a PAUSE BUTTON which allows you to give battleorders in all the time you ever need.

Thus, I think there is a lot of thought behind the RTS-part of FTD and all its elements work together, and the result is actually a very unique RTS-game on its own.

And while I completely understand any complaint regarding the user interface, and in particular regarding the ressource overview and management, this alone does not justify to completely pan the entire RTS-part of the game.

Yes the interface is clunky, that is true, but it still works, and so does the overall RTS-part of the game. It works.


What does NOT work however, and you are correct in pointing that out, is pathfinding and general AI stupidity, like crashing into mountains and other craft.

Those are still issues to this day, and while some can be corrected by fiddling with the many ways of influencing the AI on the craft (ACBs, PIDs, behaviour cards, breadbords), there are still AI issues that persist no matter what.

However, and this is important, those AI issues would plague the game no matter which direction you would take it. So even if FTD would be more adventure-like, as you suggested, the AI would impact your experience just as negatively as it would with its current more RTS-focused development.

Thus, my main point is simply this:

The AI is the real issue imo, not the RTS-focused development.

[bricox01]

It looks like we only agree that the AI is a moron here. Fixing the physics and collision mechanics to be more forgiving would actually do more to alleviate this that fixing the AI. If you look at most RTS games, they are not using any sort of complex physics or collision models. I suspect AI and pathfinding are a large part of why that is.

The presentation as an RTS is quite poor due to the initial viewpoint being that of a first-person in the avatar. I think removing that presentation would better portray the game as an RTS. A better and more obvious set of tutorials would also have also been in place before release.

The in and out of play feature is more of a requirement, but smaller battles are frequently easier for a newer player to manage. The blockade aspect will tend to be punishing for newer players. It definitely needs to be fully covered by a tutorial.

As far as resources go, FtD is far too stingy. However, a single resource system is actually much easier to balance and manage from both a game design and gameplay perspective.

Even if the current RTS aspect is maintained, I feel there would be no harm in tweaking the RTS aspect while also adding an action-adventure aspect.

The interface is very kludged together. It is something that would benefit from an overhaul. Maybe FtD2?

[Terpsitur]

Originally posted by bricox01:

It looks like we only agree that the AI is a moron here. Fixing the physics and collision mechanics to be more forgiving would actually do more to alleviate this that fixing the AI. If you look at most RTS games, they are not using any sort of complex physics or collision models. I suspect AI and pathfinding are a large part of why that is.

The issue here is that the physics and the collision are an integral part of the combat system. You are allowed to ram opponents with your craft and damage is calculated accordingly. You could maybe add the option to disable physics for "friendly fire", when two of your own vehicles collide, but then again, that would also sort of distort the combat system. Also there are rubber blocks that negate collision damage, so you can thus literally build around the whole issue.

Originally posted by bricox01:

The presentation as an RTS is quite poor due to the initial viewpoint being that of a first-person in the avatar. I think removing that presentation would better portray the game as an RTS. A better and more obvious set of tutorials would also have also been in place before release.

There are a few RTS systems with a first person aspect to them, e.g. Battlezone, so it is not a completely alien addition to the genre. However, both the map overview as well as the unit overview allow for your typical top-down-perspective in strategy games, and giving an order to a unit is exactly as easy as in any other RTS game, so I really do not see an issue with also having an avatar available on top of that. Some players may be confused by this, sure, but those then have seen nothing yet, because as you know, FTD is a very complex game. I thus do not really see this as the main issue for new players.

Originally posted by bricox01:

The in and out of play feature is more of a requirement, but smaller battles are frequently easier for a newer player to manage. The blockade aspect will tend to be punishing for newer players. It definitely needs to be fully covered by a tutorial.

I do not know if there is not already a tutorial in the game right now that covers this issue. If not, sure, the blockade-mechanic should be explained.

One problem (or feature) that the game has however is that it is very, very complex. And while I agree that tutorials are always needed, sometimes I think we are at the level with FTD that you could call it its own science. There are so many mechanics and little tricks in this game that it seems to be impossible to adequately teach them all.

So in the case of FTD I really think at some point you simply have to let the player figure things out themselves...

Originally posted by bricox01:

The interface is very kludged together. It is something that would benefit from an overhaul. Maybe FtD2?

No FTD2 needed imo, just a better looking interface for some of the menues would be nice. However, keep in mind that what we currently have is at least working, so it should not be the highest priority for the devs to focus on.


Finally, coming back to your adventure-focused idea:

I feel that at least part of your ideas are already present in the Adventure Mode of the game. Here, it is just you and the craft you gradually build, and you have to hold against random encounters with enemies. How do you feel about this mode?

[Weyrling]

Originally posted by bricox01:

I think removing that presentation would better portray the game as an RTS. A better and more obvious set of tutorials would also have also been in place before release.
...
Even if the current RTS aspect is maintained, I feel there would be no harm in tweaking the RTS aspect while also adding an action-adventure aspect.

Better tutorials are always nice, a more informative interface would be good, and more game modes and an expanded adventure system would be great, but I'm very against actually removing any of the RTS aspects.
They don't constitute the straightforward macro/micro intensive cookie cutter RTSs of the day, but frankly those are boring and predictable.

[bricox01]

The current adventure mode is the most un-forgiving, un-fun, and poorly named mode the game has at present. It *should* be called survival mode. That’s what it is: a survival game.

A proper adventure mode would place the player in a vehicle of their choosing (built-in or something the player made) and spawn small (as in only 1-3 NPC vehicles at a time to keep performance fair to good) random encounters starting a fair distance away as the player cruises around. Focus on exploration, not survival would be a better and more proper adventure mode.

I would say simply rename adventure mode as it is to survival mode and leave it in there. It’s a good challenge for advanced players and masochists.

I think that FtD would simply benefit from more modes of play when it comes right down to it.

[Terpsitur]

Originally posted by bricox01:

I would say simply rename adventure mode as it is to survival mode and leave it in there. It’s a good challenge for advanced players and masochists.

I think that FtD would simply benefit from more modes of play when it comes right down to it.

That is a fair change.

Originally posted by Weyrling:

[...]more game modes and an expanded adventure system would be great, but I'm very against actually removing any of the RTS aspects.

I, too, would like a proper adventure mode, and the addition of controller support would also be fine, even though I will never use it.

But as Weyrling said, removing the RTS would be a bad move and as I tried to outline above, I really think you were a bit harsh in your criticism of the RTS part.

The RTS mode could however also deserve a bit more attention, now that e.g. fuel logistics are no longer a thing and producing ressources is very straight forward. I would like a bit more complexity in this mode, but I don't know what you could add without having to rebalance every single item again.

[bricox01]

As far as the RTS element goes, the devs took a big risk in going with a totally new and different paradigm. I’m all in favour of taking risks. The AAA gaming titles never take risks and are really starting to stagnate as a result. But there are elements of the standard RTS paradigm that would have really served them well.

Defaulting to the strategic view in campaign mode would be a great start. I’m all for allowing the first person view that is the current default. However, by starting in the strategic view (E key, not M), you help set a reasonable expectation from the player, especially a new player.

Having traditional select and click to issue orders is something that will greatly benefit the campaign. A very good model for setting unit behaviours in FtD would be Total Annihilation. If you’re unfamiliar with it, I can expand on the aspect I think would fit well.

With design mode now put very front and center, I think many new players will fail to see FtD as an RTS.

It’s not that I believe FtD *can’t* be a good RTS. I believe that it is presently far better as a few other genres and it would take a not unsubstantial amount of retooling to make it a good RTS.

[Terpsitur]

Originally posted by bricox01:

With design mode now put very front and center, I think many new players will fail to see FtD as an RTS.

I believe you are generalizing too much. I think that a lot of players inform themselves quite substantially before actually buying a game, e.g. by watching let's plays or streams. I for one did buy FTD precisely for the combination of "build your own craft from blocks" and "fight other craft in a strategic campaign", and that was years ago.

Originally posted by bricox01:

It’s not that I believe FtD *can’t* be a good RTS. I believe that it is presently far better as a few other genres and it would take a not unsubstantial amount of retooling to make it a good RTS.

Well, as I have argued, it actually already is a pretty decent RTS. Sure it would be nice if they would increase the complexity a bit, e.g. the diplomacy system needs work (and the devs know that and are working on it), some interfaces definietly could be better, etc., but even all that would not take "a not unsubstantial amount of retooling". The foundations of the RTS-mode are solid enough to simply expand it, imo.

Setting up a new adventure-gamemode on the other hand? With its own story and challenges? That would take definitely more effort in my opinion.

But then what do I know, I guess we just have to agree to disagree here.

edit: tried to correct my typos, but then made a mess and even doubleposted by accident, sorry... :(

[bricox01]

Well, you nailed it on the head. It’s just two people’s respective opinions. Mine’s no more valid than yours. However, I somewhat suspect that Beansmith, not you or I, represents the majority of players. They just see a make Lego go ‘slodey ship game and rarely leave designer. Probably why design mode is on the first menu tab when the game loads.