Design Suggestions
by Rev. A. Bell · in General Discussion · 03/21/2002 (1:43 pm) · 28 replies
OK, there are a few threads floating around with the title "suggestions". I would like to start this new thread to track only design suggestions, NOT things that could be enhanced in the current demo (ie. spawn points, more weapons, start with weapon, etc).
Some feedback would be nice, but I really don't want this to turn into a long winded discussion on the feasibility of any one suggestion.
Ideally the designers will have a place to come and quickly view suggestions from the community.
So, shall I start?
Well, I would love to see a "Siege" mode incorporated into Realm Wars. The genre is perfect and done correctly this could prove to be extremely fun.
One team would defend their fort (human castle, orc fortress, wizard tower, etc), and of course the other team would lay siege to it.
Naturally this would lead to the incorporation of very cool siege weapons such as battering ram, catapult, etc.
And on the defenders side you could have boiling oil, a moat + draw bridge, and so on.
Fort construction could be made very modular, such that forts could be generated pre-game, built by DMs, perhaps even built by players who have earned a high enough rank. This would also allow for destructible sections of the fort so you could say, knock down a chunk of wall with your catapult and attempt to storm the place.
The attackers would have a clearly defined goal (invade the throne room and kill the king, capture the crown jewels, etc).
I'm not sure how a defender would achieve victory, perhaps based on number of kills or a time limit they must reach.
I certainly think this could lead to war on an "epic" scale. I envision leading my army toward a large foreboding castle perched high atop a hill, arrows raining down from the archers, lightening illuminating the scene, the creak of 10 catapults behind me... :)
As far as I know this hasn't yet been done well in a 3D game, though there was a little 2D DOS-based jem called "Siege: Dogs of War" that stole a good many hours of my life.
- Barry
Some feedback would be nice, but I really don't want this to turn into a long winded discussion on the feasibility of any one suggestion.
Ideally the designers will have a place to come and quickly view suggestions from the community.
So, shall I start?
Well, I would love to see a "Siege" mode incorporated into Realm Wars. The genre is perfect and done correctly this could prove to be extremely fun.
One team would defend their fort (human castle, orc fortress, wizard tower, etc), and of course the other team would lay siege to it.
Naturally this would lead to the incorporation of very cool siege weapons such as battering ram, catapult, etc.
And on the defenders side you could have boiling oil, a moat + draw bridge, and so on.
Fort construction could be made very modular, such that forts could be generated pre-game, built by DMs, perhaps even built by players who have earned a high enough rank. This would also allow for destructible sections of the fort so you could say, knock down a chunk of wall with your catapult and attempt to storm the place.
The attackers would have a clearly defined goal (invade the throne room and kill the king, capture the crown jewels, etc).
I'm not sure how a defender would achieve victory, perhaps based on number of kills or a time limit they must reach.
I certainly think this could lead to war on an "epic" scale. I envision leading my army toward a large foreboding castle perched high atop a hill, arrows raining down from the archers, lightening illuminating the scene, the creak of 10 catapults behind me... :)
As far as I know this hasn't yet been done well in a 3D game, though there was a little 2D DOS-based jem called "Siege: Dogs of War" that stole a good many hours of my life.
- Barry
About the author
#2
400 players in one area?! That's amazing. I'm going to have to check that game out.
Do you think that it would be a valid mode of play for Realm Wars? I'm sure we could learn a lot in terms of what works and what doesn't from "Dark Age of Camelot".
- Barry
03/21/2002 (7:27 pm)
Very cool,400 players in one area?! That's amazing. I'm going to have to check that game out.
Do you think that it would be a valid mode of play for Realm Wars? I'm sure we could learn a lot in terms of what works and what doesn't from "Dark Age of Camelot".
- Barry
#3
When I heard of the system before most people actually played it it sounded great. I hear right now it's either buggy or not implemented... and also I hear PvP is pretty messed too (mesmerize and stun are overkill, and levels make fighting a person a few levels higher all but impossible)
But 400 people? That sounds like an awful lot... are you just referring to close proximity (a few scaled kilometers) cause I didn't think any engine could handle that many people even at relatively close range (100 people per km) without major latency and stability problems.
03/21/2002 (7:53 pm)
Heh dunno. When I heard of the system before most people actually played it it sounded great. I hear right now it's either buggy or not implemented... and also I hear PvP is pretty messed too (mesmerize and stun are overkill, and levels make fighting a person a few levels higher all but impossible)
But 400 people? That sounds like an awful lot... are you just referring to close proximity (a few scaled kilometers) cause I didn't think any engine could handle that many people even at relatively close range (100 people per km) without major latency and stability problems.
#4
b) I really don't think it's a good idea to base design decisions around Dark Age of Camelot... that's just asking for a lawsuit - especially considering how DAoC calls their three different areas "Realms" and the entire point of the high level game is to have "Wars" between these Realms... comprende? ;)
I can say with 99% confidence that something like Siege mode will be in the game... it's just a variation on the capture the flag idea, really. Grab something and get out... infiltrate and destroy something... starting to sound a bit like Tribes :) Either way it's a fun mode to play... I loved it when it was called Return to Castle Wolfenstein heh.. I'm sure Jeff wants some really unique modes though ;)
03/21/2002 (8:45 pm)
a) If you had 400 people on your screen at once in Dark Age of Camelot, your computer would explode. DAoC can handle a lot of people on screen at once (maybe 100 on a really nice machine.. I could handle about 50 so-so on my GeForce 2/Athlon 800), but not 400, especially not when you factor in spell effects.. now if he meant 400 people in .. say... Emain Macha... thats understandable..b) I really don't think it's a good idea to base design decisions around Dark Age of Camelot... that's just asking for a lawsuit - especially considering how DAoC calls their three different areas "Realms" and the entire point of the high level game is to have "Wars" between these Realms... comprende? ;)
I can say with 99% confidence that something like Siege mode will be in the game... it's just a variation on the capture the flag idea, really. Grab something and get out... infiltrate and destroy something... starting to sound a bit like Tribes :) Either way it's a fun mode to play... I loved it when it was called Return to Castle Wolfenstein heh.. I'm sure Jeff wants some really unique modes though ;)
#6
We love the siege ideas. Many take and hold ideas. My head is about to explode. We have so many ideas for this game, and you guys are already coming up with great ideas.
Jeff Tunnell GG
03/25/2002 (9:55 pm)
Lots of unique modes eventually. However, we want to start out by simply getting some team play in the next milestone. We love the siege ideas. Many take and hold ideas. My head is about to explode. We have so many ideas for this game, and you guys are already coming up with great ideas.
Jeff Tunnell GG
#7
03/26/2002 (11:47 am)
the most important thing to me in a game like RW is combat complexity. it doesnt need to be tekken, but something beyond a slash button would be nice. maybe one button for right hand, another for left, and different moves depending on what the hands were holding - weapon, shield, magic item, etc.
#8
I know you can do the following:
moveMap.bindCmd(keyboard, "ctrl w", "commandToServer('playCel',\"wave\");", "");
or
moveMap.bind( mouse, button0, mouseFire );
Just playing around with some control ideas. I tried combining a mouse button and a keyboard button, but it didn't work - syntax could be the problem.
Should've put this in a different thread maybe, but the issue of controls came up.
03/26/2002 (11:54 am)
Anyone know how to bind a keyboard key and a mouse button together? I know you can do the following:
moveMap.bindCmd(keyboard, "ctrl w", "commandToServer('playCel',\"wave\");", "");
or
moveMap.bind( mouse, button0, mouseFire );
Just playing around with some control ideas. I tried combining a mouse button and a keyboard button, but it didn't work - syntax could be the problem.
Should've put this in a different thread maybe, but the issue of controls came up.
#9
It seems like a cop out to try and be all things. i dont think a simple selection of games is all that bad. But we could get into overkill territory.
Wonder how many of the game types in T2 actually got played?
Whats the most popular game style on the net? deathmatch? or team based deathmatch?
It just kind of waters things down the more options you give people :) give them a few GOOD skills, and hopefully the gameplay will come from them learning the skills.
I think maybe reducing the range weapons and producing some hand to hand is the first step? Right now RW feels too much like an empty deathmatch. Even with our little teamplay titbits.
Phil.
03/30/2002 (9:32 am)
Having a flexible framework for so many different types of game is going to be hard. Plus, to be honest, do we want to settle on a few GOOD gameplay styles, or try and just do them all?It seems like a cop out to try and be all things. i dont think a simple selection of games is all that bad. But we could get into overkill territory.
Wonder how many of the game types in T2 actually got played?
Whats the most popular game style on the net? deathmatch? or team based deathmatch?
It just kind of waters things down the more options you give people :) give them a few GOOD skills, and hopefully the gameplay will come from them learning the skills.
I think maybe reducing the range weapons and producing some hand to hand is the first step? Right now RW feels too much like an empty deathmatch. Even with our little teamplay titbits.
Phil.
#10
First, we implement what we absolutely know will work. That has been sketched out in the milestones. Like I said, GG is kicking in art and coding for the next milestone, and I hope this effort is buffed up by the community. It's kind of hard to show everything we are thinking until we get some type of task management system in place, but we will create the elf, the new weapons, and implement the first pass at hand to hand combat.
I hope the community can kick in some new maps, buildings, sound effects, models, and scripted play types such as the team stuff you are now doing. Indications are, this is a very consrvative expectation.
Anyway, back to the experimental part. Once we have something that is fun, i.e. team CTF with fantasy characters and hand to hand combat, there is no reason that will ever not be fun again. If we experiment in new directions, why would the fantasy team CTF be dropped? I don't think it would. So, while tens of thousands of people are playing the stable RW team CTF, we can begin to add new features. First, I would see adding in the database back end that keeps track of player's stats so we can begin to really build the community around the play that is taking place in the game. Next, we can start to add the meta-map features that give people even more of a reason to play the game.
This is the typw of iterative development that I see for this project. If new feature isn't fun and it can't be tweaked to make it fun, then it gets dropped.
Jeff Tunnell GG
03/30/2002 (9:54 am)
CTF is definitely the most popular play type in Tribes. We did simple DM just to kick things off in RW. Phil, it seems to me that you are still kind of thinking "in the box", i.e. this project needs to be finalled then put in a box and shipped. I am thinking of it as an experimental lab that goes through many phases and is ongoing. First, we implement what we absolutely know will work. That has been sketched out in the milestones. Like I said, GG is kicking in art and coding for the next milestone, and I hope this effort is buffed up by the community. It's kind of hard to show everything we are thinking until we get some type of task management system in place, but we will create the elf, the new weapons, and implement the first pass at hand to hand combat.
I hope the community can kick in some new maps, buildings, sound effects, models, and scripted play types such as the team stuff you are now doing. Indications are, this is a very consrvative expectation.
Anyway, back to the experimental part. Once we have something that is fun, i.e. team CTF with fantasy characters and hand to hand combat, there is no reason that will ever not be fun again. If we experiment in new directions, why would the fantasy team CTF be dropped? I don't think it would. So, while tens of thousands of people are playing the stable RW team CTF, we can begin to add new features. First, I would see adding in the database back end that keeps track of player's stats so we can begin to really build the community around the play that is taking place in the game. Next, we can start to add the meta-map features that give people even more of a reason to play the game.
This is the typw of iterative development that I see for this project. If new feature isn't fun and it can't be tweaked to make it fun, then it gets dropped.
Jeff Tunnell GG
#11
Of course the pitfall is that, it isn't anything new and its been done a lot before. It therefore lacks a lot of attractive "Shine" factor. That being the "shiny new object appeal" to draw players in with the idea of "Oooo, that's interesting, I've never seen that before". The lack of shine factor in CTF would mean that if GG was expecting to sell RW (which isn't the foremost goal), CTF isn't going to stand out and RW would have too rely on other design elements to carry the bulk of the teamplay appeal if they wanted to draw in the team players. Fortunately, I don't think CTF is needed for anything other then a starting foundation to teamplay in RW. As more and more commercial games are turning the gaming community on to other "shiny" game types besides CTF, players will be open to things other then CTF for teamplay.
I personally liked C&H a lot for Tribes, although its not as unstable in online play as D&D, it was more demanding on needing an intuitive consensus that "all the players on the team" are needed for good teamplay. Its not surprising that C&H didn't take root nearly as well among the Tribes community as CTF did.
03/30/2002 (2:39 pm)
CTF is the most recognizable team game type (the oldest, dating to before its use in computer games) and thus more familiar to the players. Its also a proven game type that we know is simple enough and durable enough in the environment of online FPS gaming to work. It would make sense to use it as a basic start point to build on as there are far fewer variables or wildcards to innovate and fuss with. That free's up the design effort so it can focus on and refine newer, less tried, elements in an FPS like the actual Melee combat.Of course the pitfall is that, it isn't anything new and its been done a lot before. It therefore lacks a lot of attractive "Shine" factor. That being the "shiny new object appeal" to draw players in with the idea of "Oooo, that's interesting, I've never seen that before". The lack of shine factor in CTF would mean that if GG was expecting to sell RW (which isn't the foremost goal), CTF isn't going to stand out and RW would have too rely on other design elements to carry the bulk of the teamplay appeal if they wanted to draw in the team players. Fortunately, I don't think CTF is needed for anything other then a starting foundation to teamplay in RW. As more and more commercial games are turning the gaming community on to other "shiny" game types besides CTF, players will be open to things other then CTF for teamplay.
I personally liked C&H a lot for Tribes, although its not as unstable in online play as D&D, it was more demanding on needing an intuitive consensus that "all the players on the team" are needed for good teamplay. Its not surprising that C&H didn't take root nearly as well among the Tribes community as CTF did.
#12
Ive seen this with a few games, T2 being one of those i believe. You give people choices of say 15 different game play types, but they end up playing 1 or 2.
I'm totally in favour of getting one or two game types solid and then branching out with incremental mods for those (like seige work and stuff).
I think one issue I'm still not seeing is the balance of melee and other combat.
I understand this is more of an "experiment", I totally agree, its a great idea, to play with gameplay on this level. However, i can see the situation where there are too many variants which are too similar. How are we going to control which way to take developments of new modes of play? Have a few people involved with each game play style? essentially teams of 2 or 3 modding a different game style.
Ive been into this sort of incremental development since counterstrike first went beta. Ive seen how good and bad changes were made :) its a very nice way of developing, because its not uber-high-pressure all the time. You take what parts worked, enhance those, dump the things that people didnt notice.
Which begs the question. Whats going to be THE flavour of realmwars this time next year?
Jeff, are you seeing RW moving into completely different territory than FPS? from Mark's posts, I'm getting a feel of something more persistant and exploration based.
I'm kinda seeing the big battle, forts under seige by catapults, creatures going hand to hand whilst cavalry on strider type creatures try and break through the defences sort of thing myself.
I guess what I'm seeing is kind of a hand to hand version of planetside (a verant thing). :)))
Again, as long as there's plenty of new artwork to play with, we can pretty much make any game that works with that art.
Phil.
03/31/2002 (9:19 am)
Jeff, i wasnt really thinking about shipping so much as trying to design every game in existance into one game :))Ive seen this with a few games, T2 being one of those i believe. You give people choices of say 15 different game play types, but they end up playing 1 or 2.
I'm totally in favour of getting one or two game types solid and then branching out with incremental mods for those (like seige work and stuff).
I think one issue I'm still not seeing is the balance of melee and other combat.
I understand this is more of an "experiment", I totally agree, its a great idea, to play with gameplay on this level. However, i can see the situation where there are too many variants which are too similar. How are we going to control which way to take developments of new modes of play? Have a few people involved with each game play style? essentially teams of 2 or 3 modding a different game style.
Ive been into this sort of incremental development since counterstrike first went beta. Ive seen how good and bad changes were made :) its a very nice way of developing, because its not uber-high-pressure all the time. You take what parts worked, enhance those, dump the things that people didnt notice.
Which begs the question. Whats going to be THE flavour of realmwars this time next year?
Jeff, are you seeing RW moving into completely different territory than FPS? from Mark's posts, I'm getting a feel of something more persistant and exploration based.
I'm kinda seeing the big battle, forts under seige by catapults, creatures going hand to hand whilst cavalry on strider type creatures try and break through the defences sort of thing myself.
I guess what I'm seeing is kind of a hand to hand version of planetside (a verant thing). :)))
Again, as long as there's plenty of new artwork to play with, we can pretty much make any game that works with that art.
Phil.
#13
What will make Realm Wars stand apart from Tribes 2? or Planetside as someone else mentioned? If it's basically warfare base, than what kind of warfare styles are there? People bring up Siege. Yes, it's in other games, but seems like it would fit appropriately with this one. What can be done different about it though? King of the hill, another one we have seen in other games, is another type of warfare style.
Nothing about warfare is new to games. So, it goes more to the question of how all these battles interact on that grand scale if you are doing something persistent based. Is it going to be more like a chess tournament where people (or tribes) will move up in rank to battle others? Is it going to be possesion base as if you successfully seige a piece of territory it will be yours to protect against the next seige? Will key battles be staged while smaller battles are ongoing or will they all be ongoing battles? Maybe a mix of all the above? But what kind of mix will set it apart is the key question.
03/31/2002 (11:51 am)
I see the main problem with using the Torque engine is getting into the Tribes 2 mentality of thinking about gameplay. The engine may have been designed for that very purpose, but as you can see with people building racing games and such with it, that it can be used for different styles of gameplay. With Realm Wars though, it's hard to get out of that Tribes 2 gameplay thinking box.What will make Realm Wars stand apart from Tribes 2? or Planetside as someone else mentioned? If it's basically warfare base, than what kind of warfare styles are there? People bring up Siege. Yes, it's in other games, but seems like it would fit appropriately with this one. What can be done different about it though? King of the hill, another one we have seen in other games, is another type of warfare style.
Nothing about warfare is new to games. So, it goes more to the question of how all these battles interact on that grand scale if you are doing something persistent based. Is it going to be more like a chess tournament where people (or tribes) will move up in rank to battle others? Is it going to be possesion base as if you successfully seige a piece of territory it will be yours to protect against the next seige? Will key battles be staged while smaller battles are ongoing or will they all be ongoing battles? Maybe a mix of all the above? But what kind of mix will set it apart is the key question.
#14
Realm Wars will be a FPS as well, however it will encorporate more of the MMORPG type stuff. For example, persistance. Someone's character will persist between multiple fights and will have the ability to become stronger via items and stats - although not so much so that they would be at an extremely unfair advantage against someone with more skill and less stats than them. Realm Wars will have give you the option between being a physical fight, a magic user, (and perhaps a ranged weapon fighter?) - rather than just the choice of slow slower and slowest (j/k) :)
There's lots of difference... the demo is just a demo... sure the crossbow feels a lot like a spinfusor, but that'll get overshadowed by the other different, more important features of the game as time goes by...
I agree it's important to try to break out of the Tribes mold ... and while the demo does in its current state feel a lot like tribes, it will grow and hopefully develop a 'look and feel' of its own... albeit it will still hopefully appeal to the old Tribes community =)
"How do you gain a community?" "Steal it" - Quote from a recent GDC presentation on managing an online community by Raph Koster and Rich Vogel (I think)
-noh
03/31/2002 (4:17 pm)
Tribes 2 was a futuristic FPS with a few elements you might call RPGish (as in, light medium and heavy class armors and inventories)Realm Wars will be a FPS as well, however it will encorporate more of the MMORPG type stuff. For example, persistance. Someone's character will persist between multiple fights and will have the ability to become stronger via items and stats - although not so much so that they would be at an extremely unfair advantage against someone with more skill and less stats than them. Realm Wars will have give you the option between being a physical fight, a magic user, (and perhaps a ranged weapon fighter?) - rather than just the choice of slow slower and slowest (j/k) :)
There's lots of difference... the demo is just a demo... sure the crossbow feels a lot like a spinfusor, but that'll get overshadowed by the other different, more important features of the game as time goes by...
I agree it's important to try to break out of the Tribes mold ... and while the demo does in its current state feel a lot like tribes, it will grow and hopefully develop a 'look and feel' of its own... albeit it will still hopefully appeal to the old Tribes community =)
"How do you gain a community?" "Steal it" - Quote from a recent GDC presentation on managing an online community by Raph Koster and Rich Vogel (I think)
-noh
#15
That standing, there are a host of things I'd love to gut from the basic design of Tribes 1 for use in Realm Wars.
I like the idea of a little persistance in my FPS and I love the talk of "Melee" and ranks of Armoured Knights resisting the onslaught of hordes of barbaric Orcs, but the talk of "leveling" and "RPG" and "MMORPG" and other classic "D&Dish" terminology is kind of a turn off.
04/01/2002 (10:49 am)
IMO, there's nothing wrong with a "Tribes" mentality (not saying anyone said there was :P ). In some ways, thats a good thing to me because again, IMO, I think Tribes had more of the elements and basic bits in it to be the best team based FPS then any Team based FPS out there right now. From the interface, game options and controls to the gametypes, the inventory, the potential for individual roles and qualities. Now, we could debate on whether or not Tribes ever met its true potential by the way its played today, but we'd be here an aweful long time.That standing, there are a host of things I'd love to gut from the basic design of Tribes 1 for use in Realm Wars.
I like the idea of a little persistance in my FPS and I love the talk of "Melee" and ranks of Armoured Knights resisting the onslaught of hordes of barbaric Orcs, but the talk of "leveling" and "RPG" and "MMORPG" and other classic "D&Dish" terminology is kind of a turn off.
#16
Then, if locked, a player would strafe around the target which I guess would add a little 1st person (or 3rd if in external view) fighting game flavor...
Players would ALWAYS have the choice to lock or not to lock (that would be the question.. :p ).
Just something I was pondering.
04/01/2002 (2:39 pm)
I thought it might be kind of cool if there was a Toggle-able Melee Lock system, where players can lock-on to a target to keep it in the players view center.Then, if locked, a player would strafe around the target which I guess would add a little 1st person (or 3rd if in external view) fighting game flavor...
Players would ALWAYS have the choice to lock or not to lock (that would be the question.. :p ).
Just something I was pondering.
#17
as far as balance between ranged and melee, why not take a cue from real life? was real medieval combat dominated wholly by ranged weapons? why carry those pesky spears then (dont say they threw them:)? armor can turn arrows and bolts, maybe moreso at long range? i dont see a knight in plate mail with a metal shield as TOO worried about arrows, what with those flails and two handed swords everywhere.
04/01/2002 (4:36 pm)
jeff, i had the same idea, but it keeps leading me back to a kind of threat-assessment ai. to me it would only work if the character will *instantly* respond to a more immediate threat (than the target youre locked on to). so you really want to kill this guy (maybe he killed you and you want revenge, maybe you dont like his outfit, whatever). but hes running and other enemies keep getting in the way. are you going to ignore them and keep after the first guy, are you going to deal with imminent threats first, and get him later, etc. i keep thinking that a scripted ai for reflex action might be cool. not to play for you, but to reflect the fact that reflexes are hard to simulate sometimes with the interface in the way. ie, when someone comes up to stab you in the back, and you hear them, in real life you can whirl around and defend yourself instantly. in game it takes a bit to change tack.as far as balance between ranged and melee, why not take a cue from real life? was real medieval combat dominated wholly by ranged weapons? why carry those pesky spears then (dont say they threw them:)? armor can turn arrows and bolts, maybe moreso at long range? i dont see a knight in plate mail with a metal shield as TOO worried about arrows, what with those flails and two handed swords everywhere.
#18
In that case, in addition I would implement "Select Nearest Target" and "Cycle Target left/right" keys.
Also I should have mentioned that I was envisioning the target selection via crosshair and for Melee only. Which would work much like shooting, but rather than shooting a projectile, you lock on. Forward Key = close in, Backward = Backaway, Sidestep = Strafe around, Jump = Break Lock.
Something along those lines anyway...
04/01/2002 (4:40 pm)
Good Point...In that case, in addition I would implement "Select Nearest Target" and "Cycle Target left/right" keys.
Also I should have mentioned that I was envisioning the target selection via crosshair and for Melee only. Which would work much like shooting, but rather than shooting a projectile, you lock on. Forward Key = close in, Backward = Backaway, Sidestep = Strafe around, Jump = Break Lock.
Something along those lines anyway...
#19
hmm, how about this - right mouse button is right attack, left is left. when you press either, the attack starts, but if you add a key from the board (while holding the mouse button down) you blend into a special move.
04/01/2002 (4:50 pm)
yeah, thats what i was trying to say... the rest was sort of thinking out loud. that way, when somebody takes a poke at you, you can switch to him with one key.hmm, how about this - right mouse button is right attack, left is left. when you press either, the attack starts, but if you add a key from the board (while holding the mouse button down) you blend into a special move.
#20
I have seen next targeting systems in space sims, RTS, and even MMORPGs. I just don't think they are for FPS type games. FPS games are more about skill of the player in aiming/shooting.
04/01/2002 (6:30 pm)
In my opinion, the targeting system would seem to hinder me more than help me in a FPS type game or if it was too good it would actually be doing the work for me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your targeting system. If the AI is actually moving me so I'm facing a target that it seems as the most threat, that would drive me crazy. If it just flags enemies with a name in color or by some other means, then it's really no different than most FPS unless you are really wanting to include a pointer to what the AI is considering the biggest threat. Even with the last part, I can't see it really being that useful.I have seen next targeting systems in space sims, RTS, and even MMORPGs. I just don't think they are for FPS type games. FPS games are more about skill of the player in aiming/shooting.
Torque Owner Harold "LabRat" Brown
On the server I play on we had something like 300-400 people in one area split somewhat evenly between defending and attacking, not counting NPC guards.
Weapons of choice for siege include 3 levels each of Rams, Ballista (large crossbow) and catapults (although there are issues relating to those weapons at the moment)