Instead of a leveling platform, you build up resources to determine your strength in the game, thus who you can/can't compete with in PVP. Your resources can also provide- based on specification- you with specific build types.
For instance, you have a limit on the amount of attackers you can have first and foremost. You have 150 food resources, 100 wood, and 50 metal.
You are required to have 1 metal resource per weapon made, 20 wood per building made, and 1 food per member summoned. These rates would vary depending on the class of weapon, building, and member; thus requiring you to build more resources as you go along. Food provides with Healing. Wood or Stone would provide with Defense. And metal obviously provides with Attack. A combination of some of these elements could benefit for an increase in attack or defense or maybe even healing (metal for alchemy?).
Possible resources:
Food- Heals and determines the amount of members you can have.
Water (use for dmg or for fire dmg removal)
Metal- Used to craft weapons, armor, and alchemy
Wood- Provides with alchemy and/or structures
Stone- Provides with structural defense and alchemy
I think the most important piece is already well developed in many mmo's, the pet function. your armies would be nothing more than many pets. You could group you pets or control them individually. My idea would be a hybrid rpg/rts. where you do your resource gathering in the real world by having your workers attend to that, then enter a realm / virtual reality ( or whatever) where the war is happening. you could only draw on so many resources to start then as you gain ground you can draw on more powerful resources. it would function much like entering a bg in wow. you could also have buttons to manipulate what your workers are gathering to suppliment what your doing in the battle. the whole game would be persistant and strategic, the fighting would be the pvp aspect. also you could allow for players to attack resource settlements in the "real world" side of it. The ai would defend its self with whatever they can. maybe depending on resources you could hire more powerful protectors. level restrictions would have to apply, so that some one extremely powerful couldn't run around wiping out new settlements. I use the word level loosely here as there would be no level but maybe more of a power ranking.
This genre really opens itself up to sci fi as well so lets not assume a highfantasy midievil elf and dwarf fun fest.
Does somebody here have played the single player campaign of Dawn of War II ?
Why i ask? because in that game, you have a strategic map of a planet where you can choose a region to drop your forces and in some of those regions you can capture strategic assets that provide you benefits in battle. And of course, the game itself has leveling and loot, so the RPG aspect is included.
I think a good MMORTS could repeat that experience but with thousands of player dropping in several planets with several regions (ofc every region having a limit of troops deployed), the troops could be squads like in DoW II with a hero character as commander and the quality of weapons and special attacks (like artillery) should depend on the overall performance of your faction and the territories it controls.
I don't know but i think a game like that could be interesting...
I've thought about this a lot and finally settled on one "working" concept.
It would have to be set in space.
To put it in terms of other games, imagine EVE Online mixed with Spore, Rise of Nations, Homeworld, Sins of a Solar Empire, Star Wars: Empire at War and the Total War series.
"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space." Spore (kinda) proved that it is possible to dynamically generate content on a truly cosmic scale. When you can never run out of space, you don't have to worry about how many players you have per server, and since space is empty, you don't have to render more content than you need at any given moment. Each player could conceivably be managing a single planet or dozens simultaneously without instancing.
Traditional Real-Time Strategy tech tree advancement would function extremely well in conjunction with EVE Online's real-time skill advancement system. Throw in a dose of Empire: Total War's technologies and you're golden. Essentially, new technologies would be developed in real time, while the number of technologies you could research simultaneous would depend on how many planets (schools) you control. Add to the mix agents (think Total War's gentlemen, rakes, priests, diplomats, etc...) who could augment your technologies and production or sabotage your enemies.
Combat could take place both in space and on planets and resemble Sins of a Solar Empire and Empire: Total War's real-time battles. Except everything would be in real time. Zoom out to manage your empire, zoom in to manage your fleet/army. This would not be a fast-paced game. You would be notified far in advance if an enemy fleet is approaching your space (barring advanced enemy technologies of course) so you could respond appropriately. Warfare would be slow, intellectual, and absolutely epic in scale.
Diplomacy would be extremely important. Forming alliances, protectorates, and trade agreements with your friends while intimidating, sabotaging, and extorting your enemies. Having good relations with your neighbors would ensure help in the event of an invasion. Betraying an ally would ruin your reputation and possibly spell your doom. Because you have to live with the consequences of your actions, maintaining relationships would be a meta-game unto itself.
Resources would NOT be a ever growing number like in most strategy games. Instead, your available resources would be the sum total of how much exploitable material exists within the space you control. Basically, you start rich and get richer the more planets, moons, asteroid fields, etc, that you control, but that number is static. If you spend all the resources available on a planet, it's gone forever and the planet becomes a barren husk. This forces you to spend resources wisely, expand your empire, and maintain trade relationships to offset environmental damage. You would manage consumption through a control panel for each object in space that you control. Want to preserve a planet? Turn down consumption. Want to strip a moon of all resources? Build mines and lay waste.
The universe would be persistent. However, when a player logs off, his planets and possessions become non-interactive. You can't target their ships to attack, diplomatic offers get put in a queue, etc... Additionally, non-allied ships that enter an offline player's territory would be subject some form of "attrition" to prevent camping. Meanwhile, the orders you issued keep working - ships build, planets develop, technologies get researched, trade goes on, etc... When you log in, you have a grace period to take stock of affairs before other players can interact with you. You also get a list of notifications telling you what happened while you were gone.
Creating your "character" would be analogous to most MMORPGs. You would select a race (or design one), a class (again, or design one), and customize your civilization according to taste. Are you a highly militaristic empire? More oriented towards trade and diplomacy? Extremely intelligent? Democratic or totalitarian? Your choices would tweak the advantages, disadvantages, game play focus, and aesthetic style. This particular feature would require a lot of balancing and attention to get right during development. There are several ways to approach this and I am not entirely sure which is best. For example, it may be better to have a limited number of prefabricated races that serve to naturally ally new players to each other for protection while they develop and expand their empire. Letting everyone design their own race, join the game, and fend for themself may be a little too hardcore for most players.
The first game I ever played online was an MMORTS. It was called Artifact and was created by Samugames. It is relatively unknown as it had a few flaws it had to overcome. The principle idea was you would build a city and every so often there would be a "population tick" where your population grows. You can use your population to work farms, quarries and mills to gain raw materials. You then used these raw materials to expand your empire and even build mulitple cities with walls. Then you would build roads and military units. After 24 hours of gametime the "artifacts" would appear, all 8 of them representing a different element such as fire, bone, water, earth etc and gave different bonuses.
The object was to capture the artifacts and hold them for 8 hours to win the game.
Then there is the issue "what if I'm not online?" Well that is an issue since you can't be at your computer all day. Often the best players were on all the time. People would keep their game online while they were away so they looked as if they were online. Alliances could also be given permission to control your units and build your city up while you are away. While you were at work, someone on your team would be watching your units and perhaps even using them.
It was a fun, very little known game! Also the MMORTS genre is dominated by browser games like Tribal Wars. If that isn't a popular MMORTS then I'm not sure what is.
Theres also games like Shattered Galaxy and DotA which use the elements of MMO's and RTS in a good blend.
I believe squad-based RTS gameplay similar to Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2 could be translated into an MMO form with relative ease. Gameplay could consist of using your squad to capture strategic areas or accomplis missions in hostile territory, defended either by AI-controlled baddies (PvE content) or enemy players (PvP content). These type of conflicts could work in open as well as instanced settings.
Squad management would be an important aspect of the game. Acquiring new weapons, armour and tools for your squad, taking care of injured squad members, replacing dead ones and protecting the more powerful squad members, as well as specailising the individuals to form either a well-rounded, or highly specialised, squad (perhaps the guy with the really good aim should be specialised to being a sniper, and getting the best sniper rifles around?).
The writer explains quite succinctly why RTS has never taken of in a MMO then wonders why. He has answered his own question.
I do realise these concepts need to be sold to MMO companies as much as players. But repeatedly using the reason that a MMORTS will help companies battle piracy hardly warms a players heart. We want to hear how a RTS will be made more exciting online for players, not how the company will be able to pocket more dosh. But I am sure should a MMO company step up and take this on that increased profits will never be mentioned. It will all be about player choice and so on, like RMT’s and all the other exciting developments they have in store for us.
Well i think were a long way off from seeing a mmo-rts, we have yet to even see an rts with the complexity of a turn-based-strategy game
This seems to be the dominant reply here - noone appears to have actually played a MMORTS for anything like the time required to actually review it properly - quite shocking. And the poster saying how graphics sucked etc - seriously think of the logistics involved here, the opening up of the game to those with low end spec machines and connections and you will see why the graphics take second place to GAMEPLAY. Also you can adjust the settings but, tbh, going by most posts here I will assume that option didnt occur...
I am disgusted that a bunch of gamers who dont run games or create content for the MMO market should post here saying no MMORTS exist and its a 'nice' idea. How insulting to those producing MMORTS games for the last 11 years. How arrogant of many here to assume they know anything about this. If you havent immersed yourself in a MMORTS for over a month AT LEAST you dont know anything. Sorry but thats just fact. The background issues are awesome and make mmorpg rubbish appear trite and lightweight...oooo he owns a whole 30 objects .....wow... gosh. The gameplay has suffered with the bland repetative psuedo RPG MMO's we see now - with no scope for real roleplay with consequences. The sole reason for most folk walking away from MMORTS games is largely based on the experience of playing one without the large numbers. Retention is an issue and developer support/activity also. Both are highly unusual within this genre compared to any other. And the impact if its not right can be crippling for a game that relies on live prey.
Eve is cited as a MMORTS - this is untrue but we cover it on our site down, purely, to the player orientated and defined narrative. For this is as close as MMOrpg comes to MMORTS. Shattered Galaxy is more MMORTT or even comparable to the recent wave of online RTS with persistent avatar objects/cards/rank/medals. But the lack of persistence on the field of play relegates it to RTT imo.
I am constantly suprised how easy folk post from ignorance. I refuse to post many of my opinions and thoughts as they are half formed or I consider them lacking in evidence sufficient to impose them on others. Some of you have no such restraint I see lol.
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc ( Make My Day Punk) http://www.mmortsgamers.com TIP OF THE DAY If you're being chased by a police dog, try not to go through a tunnel, then on to a little seesaw, then jump through a hoop of fire. They're trained for that.
Like the Yetti and the Loch Ness Monster, a great MMORTS is hard to find. This week, Dana returns to his weekly column and looks at an approach that might actually finally bring one into the mainstream. There are four main obstacles that stand in the way of the MMORTS genre: The first problem is in the mindset of an RTS player. The whole genre is far more like a board game than a video game. MMOs are meant to be long, enduring, near-on endless marathons. RTS games are short and the table is cleared once a winner is crowned. The biggest hurdle for an MMORTS designer is translating a relatively short game into a long one. The second issue an MMORTS faces is the spoiled nature of the MMORPG audience. You cannot “lose” in most MMOs. Sure you can die, sometimes you even get an XP penalty, but largely these games encourage everyone to win. That’s not necessarily wrong. RPGs wouldn’t be much fun if people couldn’t get to the end. Nonetheless, it’s a different mindset. The bulk of the MMO audience is not used to losing, while RTS games are far more competitive by design.
Im a long time RTS fans playing everything from starcraft to Total Annihilation. What I get from reading this "interview" is the fact that the person writing clearly cannot be a RTS fan. The gameplan sounds more like a badly structured RPG with RTS features.
A good RTS doesnt have to be massive as Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander or Age of Empires but it do need good core. It need res. collection, it needs player building (only game Ive played that were any good without player building was Ground Control) and then a strategy to fight?! Not to trade, not to meddle or trying to be social but to wage war. Sure there are management games that do trades and carebaer fluffy things but cmon thats not a real RTS.
Fighting an opponent that has an instanced base thats impossible to kill/destroy will be a serious hussle, there needs to be control points to capture in order for a gameplan as this would be to succeed unless you wanna go carebear full out and go "only pve with instanced pvp" at that time the game would be stone cold.
To sum it up a good RTS is not a RPG with lots of units and sky-view, its about strategy, planning and executing, its not about quests or fighting versus some random computerized mob. Its about player(s) versus player(s) in a war were there really can be only one victor.
Maybe, just maybe the majority of us say there is mmorts is because the games released that claim to be mmorts fail to live up to our expectations. It may be true that the majority of us havent played the current titles under the name long enough to 'review them properly', but that speaks more about the titles themselves, rather than those playing them. If i dont like it im not gonna stick to it for another month, if the game doesnt have the ability to catch users on the first impression, then somone has failed at somepoint along the line.
Tho i have tried a few titles, I played saga in beta but the whole card thing was a big turn off, especially after they made the only way of getting units via micro-transactions. I also tried beyond protocol, which admittedly i would have liked somewhat if the ui werent an utter pile of garbage, im an eve player and used to shitty ui, but I couldnt stand that for over a week.
Maybe the wording was a bit off, but the point still stands. - We have yet to see a successful mmorts title, and its doubtful we will see one for some time.
Also, Eve is not a rts, but at the larger scale it has many elements people would desire out of an mmorts (territory control, unit coordination, etc). And the upcoming planetary interaction seems like it will be a pseudo-rts within the game itself, which would be awesome if emulated in a game solely designed to be an mmorts.
Like the Yetti and the Loch Ness Monster, a great MMORTS is hard to find. This week, Dana returns to his weekly column and looks at an approach that might actually finally bring one into the mainstream. There are four main obstacles that stand in the way of the MMORTS genre: The first problem is in the mindset of an RTS player. The whole genre is far more like a board game than a video game. MMOs are meant to be long, enduring, near-on endless marathons. RTS games are short and the table is cleared once a winner is crowned. The biggest hurdle for an MMORTS designer is translating a relatively short game into a long one. The second issue an MMORTS faces is the spoiled nature of the MMORPG audience. You cannot “lose” in most MMOs. Sure you can die, sometimes you even get an XP penalty, but largely these games encourage everyone to win. That’s not necessarily wrong. RPGs wouldn’t be much fun if people couldn’t get to the end. Nonetheless, it’s a different mindset. The bulk of the MMO audience is not used to losing, while RTS games are far more competitive by design.
Im a long time RTS fans playing everything from starcraft to Total Annihilation. What I get from reading this "interview" is the fact that the person writing clearly cannot be a RTS fan. The gameplan sounds more like a badly structured RPG with RTS features.
A good RTS doesnt have to be massive as Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander or Age of Empires but it do need good core. It need res. collection, it needs player building (only game Ive played that were any good without player building was Ground Control) and then a strategy to fight?! Not to trade, not to meddle or trying to be social but to wage war. Sure there are management games that do trades and carebaer fluffy things but cmon thats not a real RTS.
Fighting an opponent that has an instanced base thats impossible to kill/destroy will be a serious hussle, there needs to be control points to capture in order for a gameplan as this would be to succeed unless you wanna go carebear full out and go "only pve with instanced pvp" at that time the game would be stone cold.
To sum it up a good RTS is not a RPG with lots of units and sky-view, its about strategy, planning and executing, its not about quests or fighting versus some random computerized mob. Its about player(s) versus player(s) in a war were there really can be only one victor.
Being as this is MMORPG, a raw RTS type discussion wouldn't be all that appropriate. Instead, the article is structured to provide cross-over between RTS and RPG style games.
"A good RTS..." depends on who you talk to just like a good RPG depends on who you talk to. Complex/overly complex UI's, queuing of moves (which queuing didn't exist in earlier ones), etc... Some think the queuing is "cheap" and takes "skill" away from the play, others find it essential and so on... and so on... "You just can't handle doing it "real-time" so need those cheap tools to make it possible for you? pft... where's the skill in stacking up moves like that!" Yeah, I remember some of the arguments about that stuff and it's been a LONG time for me...
As another poster put it with the picture of a round peg in a square hole -- RTS doesn't fit the MMO format well. Not the way it's currently implemented. Then again, RPG's are different than their predecessors in many respects but it might be possible to bring aspects across though the play would need to change a bit and that's what the discussions here are looking at. Not a "purist" view of it but a cross-over view.
Like the Yetti and the Loch Ness Monster, a great MMORTS is hard to find. This week, Dana returns to his weekly column and looks at an approach that might actually finally bring one into the mainstream. There are four main obstacles that stand in the way of the MMORTS genre: The first problem is in the mindset of an RTS player. The whole genre is far more like a board game than a video game. MMOs are meant to be long, enduring, near-on endless marathons. RTS games are short and the table is cleared once a winner is crowned. The biggest hurdle for an MMORTS designer is translating a relatively short game into a long one. The second issue an MMORTS faces is the spoiled nature of the MMORPG audience. You cannot “lose” in most MMOs. Sure you can die, sometimes you even get an XP penalty, but largely these games encourage everyone to win. That’s not necessarily wrong. RPGs wouldn’t be much fun if people couldn’t get to the end. Nonetheless, it’s a different mindset. The bulk of the MMO audience is not used to losing, while RTS games are far more competitive by design.
Im a long time RTS fans playing everything from starcraft to Total Annihilation. What I get from reading this "interview" is the fact that the person writing clearly cannot be a RTS fan. The gameplan sounds more like a badly structured RPG with RTS features.
A good RTS doesnt have to be massive as Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander or Age of Empires but it do need good core. It need res. collection, it needs player building (only game Ive played that were any good without player building was Ground Control) and then a strategy to fight?! Not to trade, not to meddle or trying to be social but to wage war. Sure there are management games that do trades and carebaer fluffy things but cmon thats not a real RTS.
Fighting an opponent that has an instanced base thats impossible to kill/destroy will be a serious hussle, there needs to be control points to capture in order for a gameplan as this would be to succeed unless you wanna go carebear full out and go "only pve with instanced pvp" at that time the game would be stone cold.
To sum it up a good RTS is not a RPG with lots of units and sky-view, its about strategy, planning and executing, its not about quests or fighting versus some random computerized mob. Its about player(s) versus player(s) in a war were there really can be only one victor.
Being as this is MMORPG, a raw RTS type discussion wouldn't be all that appropriate. Instead, the article is structured to provide cross-over between RTS and RPG style games.
"A good RTS..." depends on who you talk to just like a good RPG depends on who you talk to. Complex/overly complex UI's, queuing of moves (which queuing didn't exist in earlier ones), etc... Some think the queuing is "cheap" and takes "skill" away from the play, others find it essential and so on... and so on... "You just can't handle doing it "real-time" so need those cheap tools to make it possible for you? pft... where's the skill in stacking up moves like that!" Yeah, I remember some of the arguments about that stuff and it's been a LONG time for me...
Sure Il agree to that somewhat but again its like saying all people like different games in all genres, we dont. Sure we dont all like the same games but there are a few titles that stand out from the crowd so you might say a good RTS would be one that most/many players would be considered to be a good game (which they play *points at ex SWG drama queens*). Take a couple of the largest titles in the RTS genre, Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Age of Empires, Company of heroes,Total annihilation etc. They all follow a certain path and whats that well for one theyr all PvP exclusivly, secondly they all focus on build up time and "player building".
As another poster put it with the picture of a round peg in a square hole -- RTS doesn't fit the MMO format well. Not the way it's currently implemented. Then again, RPG's are different than their predecessors in many respects but it might be possible to bring aspects across though the play would need to change a bit and that's what the discussions here are looking at. Not a "purist" view of it but a cross-over view.
RTS doesnt fit the MMO format at all, you wont be able to do a truely MMORTS without constricting players to a rather small amounts of units or using stacks with a max number. It will simply become a RPG with RTS features it just doesnt work. RTS players dont generely want to play versus computers so PvE content would be considered farming at best, this may sound very sterotypical but if one wants to raid a dungeon, kill computerised mobs etc then those players prefer playing RPGs aside their RTS games. I just see this entire idea to be too hard to get right and perhaps even harder to get RTS fans to play it.
I think a MMORTS could be done, but they would have to keep fights at a respectable length and home bases would have to sacrosanct. Can't have others sneaking into your base in the middle of the night.
The first thing that comes to mind when someone complains about graphics is they are a console player moved over to MMO's. The vast majority of MMO players are far more concerned about gameplay than anything else. So, soon as you start whining about graphics it just dates you as being very new to MMO's and not very versed in the genre.
Curious why no one is talking about Evony, does no one like it? From what I can tell it's really popular and seriously is an mmorts. You gather resources, build things and it is definitly in real time.
Originally posted by Eleazaros Being as this is MMORPG, a raw RTS type discussion wouldn't be all that appropriate. Instead, the article is structured to provide cross-over between RTS and RPG style games. "A good RTS..." depends on who you talk to just like a good RPG depends on who you talk to. Complex/overly complex UI's, queuing of moves (which queuing didn't exist in earlier ones), etc... Some think the queuing is "cheap" and takes "skill" away from the play, others find it essential and so on... and so on... "You just can't handle doing it "real-time" so need those cheap tools to make it possible for you? pft... where's the skill in stacking up moves like that!" Yeah, I remember some of the arguments about that stuff and it's been a LONG time for me... Sure Il agree to that somewhat but again its like saying all people like different games in all genres, we dont. Sure we dont all like the same games but there are a few titles that stand out from the crowd so you might say a good RTS would be one that most/many players would be considered to be a good game (which they play *points at ex SWG drama queens*). Take a couple of the largest titles in the RTS genre, Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Age of Empires, Company of heroes,Total annihilation etc. They all follow a certain path and whats that well for one theyr all PvP exclusivly, secondly they all focus on build up time and "player building". As another poster put it with the picture of a round peg in a square hole -- RTS doesn't fit the MMO format well. Not the way it's currently implemented. Then again, RPG's are different than their predecessors in many respects but it might be possible to bring aspects across though the play would need to change a bit and that's what the discussions here are looking at. Not a "purist" view of it but a cross-over view. RTS doesnt fit the MMO format at all, you wont be able to do a truely MMORTS without constricting players to a rather small amounts of units or using stacks with a max number. It will simply become a RPG with RTS features it just doesnt work. RTS players dont generely want to play versus computers so PvE content would be considered farming at best, this may sound very sterotypical but if one wants to raid a dungeon, kill computerised mobs etc then those players prefer playing RPGs aside their RTS games. I just see this entire idea to be too hard to get right and perhaps even harder to get RTS fans to play it.
Actually, if you recall on Starcraft and Warcraft 3 (2 of the ones you list that I've played), they start PvE and go PvP. You play against the world long before you join the online communities to play them. Then you queue up and join a scenario for a session of play so claiming "all PvP" doesn't work and the time limits on them also don't fit an MMO style environment.
RTS players don't generally "play well with others" no matter what. The current format for the play is me vs anyone/everyone else on the map -- be that AI controlled or player controlled. The very nature of the current incarnations is counter to any MMO setting you can come up with unless it is redefined away from the "I am GOD!" style of play that the current RTS community is attached to.
By shifting to a team oriented approach, where many contribute their pool of resources to a common goal, you could -- with fair ease -- incorporate the overall strategy elements to it and "real-time" -- well, that's what most popular MMO's are about right now.
So do I think it could be done along these lines? Yes. Do I think you could do a conversion "in tact" of what players are used to in RTS games? Hell no. No more so than you can have the save/restore of a standalone PC game like Witcher in an MMO game like WoW where you save, try, fail so restore and try again -- *VERY* common when learning RTS games as you do the same scenario over and over until you "get it right".
There are several obstacles in terms of mechanics which are conventions of RTS games which stand in the way of making an MMORTS because of the technical limitations.
First lets talk resources in terms of the players who come to play RTS games.
Game length problems
Players in a typical RTS settting, come for a game which lasts 15, 30 or at most 90 minutes. Beyond 90 minutes players lose attention span and the need of the brain to do something else triggers and interest or enjoyment in the game is lost. This is especially true when playing something for the 100th time.
Most players prefer games which can be decided by a win or loss in about 30 minutes because there are numerous distractions which prevent players from focusing on the game beyond this amount of time. Phone, work, family, etc.
The ideal game length is about 15 minutes because if the satisfaction of a victory can be condensed into this amount of time it is likely that there will be no interruption and focus can easily be maintained for the amount of time. If a loss the next game can be quickly jumped into and played.
Existing MMORTS games stretch out resource accumulation and unit deployment over much longer periods in order to prevent any single player from becoming too powerful.
Conventional Design
Most RTS games are built on a map which is much too small for the size of which an MMORTS would need to take place on if it were a continous space. Reason being the speed with which units move, relative to the total map space. There are technical ways around this, example, a jump gate type of structure that lets your units go anywhere on the map. However the counters to this are not well developed because there are very few games which to base design on. One of the most expansive map sized games is called Time of Defiance which is a true MMORTS. It is also much more like a turn based game, because of the length of time that is required to develop and execute strategy. It also doesn't play well. Because the distances take hours to traverse, and the time required to develop units takes days.
What is needed
RTS needs to evolve iteself. The RTS games are really RTT games and in general the only employment of strategy is identifying which strategy your opponent is using and how will you counter it. Once the best series of strategies are identified in a particular RTS game they show up over and over again and the game becomes about choosing the best matchup in terms of my set of units verus your set of units. Conventional games rely on units which values do not change from game to game. That is a mechanic which needs to be changed in order for MMORTS to be truely RTS versus RTT.
The way to make this happen is to create technology which is usable in real time. The way to make that happen is to keep it absolutely as simple as possible. Decisions on which tech to utilize and how to augment your forces because the strategy which is where it belongs, and you do this based on whoever you are battling with at present, you will also need to change your strategy based on the their changes and when you encounter new opponents.
Strategy made easy and smart
Each player gets 4 research centers, to research from 4 branches. The research centers cannot be upgraded to allow more research, and you cannot research more than 4 projects at once, so the limiting resource is how fast you can make make your choices and keep the research going. You can research any branch with more than one center so If your fall behind in a particular area you can catch up fast.
Each research branch gives you only two options and with very simple attribute buffs, % improvements of a characteristic of your forces this enables a decision in less than 3 seconds for each branch keeping the focus on the tactical situation. Each research takes 180 seconds.
Trade
Research centers should be able to queue 4 total technology choices so you can make these choices in some free time. Economics should be very simple but also very flexible, trading should be allowed with a market, and executed quickly. Resources should be kept to a minimum. Player focus in RTS should be on the battles and in an MMORTS their forces should be what they spend 75% of their time on, scouting, attacking, defending, which is what players enjoy doing and what makes a game worth playing.
Like the Yetti and the Loch Ness Monster, a great MMORTS is hard to find. This week, Dana returns to his weekly column and looks at an approach that might actually finally bring one into the mainstream. There are four main obstacles that stand in the way of the MMORTS genre: The first problem is in the mindset of an RTS player. The whole genre is far more like a board game than a video game. MMOs are meant to be long, enduring, near-on endless marathons. RTS games are short and the table is cleared once a winner is crowned. The biggest hurdle for an MMORTS designer is translating a relatively short game into a long one. The second issue an MMORTS faces is the spoiled nature of the MMORPG audience. You cannot “lose” in most MMOs. Sure you can die, sometimes you even get an XP penalty, but largely these games encourage everyone to win. That’s not necessarily wrong. RPGs wouldn’t be much fun if people couldn’t get to the end. Nonetheless, it’s a different mindset. The bulk of the MMO audience is not used to losing, while RTS games are far more competitive by design.
Great article. The "Robin Hood Warband" is a good example of how this approach might work. Imo it definitly has a better chance to appeal to a larger audience than what we've seen so far in mmorts. I hope some developer will give it a try soon - lots of potential for innovation there.
The only decent MMORTS out so far is SAGA. Which isn't bad, but it wasn't what I expected of it. Dawn Of Fantasy (which didn't even make it to your list?) is the only MMORTS that I got hopes for atm. And believe me, I've been looking for a decent MMORTS for a long time.
You know it, the best way to realize your dreams is waking up and start moving, never lose hope and always keep up.
The only decent MMORTS out so far is SAGA. Which isn't bad, but it wasn't what I expected of it. Dawn Of Fantasy (which didn't even make it to your list?) is the only MMORTS that I got hopes for atm. And believe me, I've been looking for a decent MMORTS for a long time.
Dawn of Fantasy is just another example that shows that empire building doesn't really work. The MMO features were continually cut down and meanwhile it sounds more like a game with an enhanced skirmish mode.
I never got the fuzz with Saga, either. Played it for a few hours, then got bored. Where is the persistant world? All i got to see was a bunch regular RTS-maps. I never met another player, either. What makes Saga a true MMORTS and not just another RTS with some enhanched Multiplayer-features?
Unlike most games, in Beyond Protocol you can fight to earn a place on the senate and, as long as you provide a decent example, you could easily get UI aspects changed. Things are improving all the time through this. This senate idea was a fixed feature years before Eve's stellar council and was implemented in alpha.
I will state that I prefer gameplay over fluff and graphics, kinda implicit in the strategy aspect. Like UT3, all the gubbins clutters the view and distracts periphery vision response and gameplay suffers - though it becomes easier for those with less skill as everyone is equally handicapped with this. In MMORTS this 'fluff' really has an impact on a one universe server with hundreds of players with thousands of units.
There are a number of things inhibiting this genres mass appeal and many attempts have been tried to resolve this. The TCG aspect was to appeal to the RPGers who need daily achivements recognised and bolster revenue imo - but doesnt appeal to me, my real RPG days are well over (not mmo role play gaming but roleplay gaming). Microtansactions are becoming more popular with devs but I am not convinced they lend themselves to MMORTS well - they affect balance too much. Subscription models still seem successful though.
Whilst i have great hopes for beyond protocol and enjoy the game, the jury is out on its ability to make a success of the one universe player defined narrative as it has just started, in the scheme of things, and the universe is still settling after a somewhat confusing start (I felt the devs felt it should begin traditionally and expand outwards but maybe a more managed last days of beta would have kicked the economy off better) and the player base/ guild assets arent settled enough to snapshot the soon to be expected gameplay fairly. Eve was not regarded as anything but niche intially and many expected it to fail through lack of direction/purpose etc but it built up core communities who developed in game assets that made the game more attractive for new players and the casual alike. The economic boom also helped lol.
Other games within the genre all have specific issues and these are fully spelt out in the forums by the community and argued fully there. I have yet to see any ideas down here that havent already been tried n dismissed by previous games.
And why discuss MMORTS when you want a MMORPG with some mass effect structure - I would give your genre a go if you could design and place structures that then form part of the narrative - the wizards tower or a small castle. This hasnt been worked with any success either yet would, imo, define a MMORPG proper - where u dont play slot in roles but define your own role with activity and your choices. Atitd or eve are the closest to this, maybe second life. Thats MMORPG - the present batch seem to be social gaming with instances.
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc ( Make My Day Punk) http://www.mmortsgamers.com TIP OF THE DAY If you're being chased by a police dog, try not to go through a tunnel, then on to a little seesaw, then jump through a hoop of fire. They're trained for that.
Comments
Tactical Commanders (Shattered Galaxy) FTW!!
MMORTS:
Instead of a leveling platform, you build up resources to determine your strength in the game, thus who you can/can't compete with in PVP. Your resources can also provide- based on specification- you with specific build types.
For instance, you have a limit on the amount of attackers you can have first and foremost. You have 150 food resources, 100 wood, and 50 metal.
You are required to have 1 metal resource per weapon made, 20 wood per building made, and 1 food per member summoned. These rates would vary depending on the class of weapon, building, and member; thus requiring you to build more resources as you go along. Food provides with Healing. Wood or Stone would provide with Defense. And metal obviously provides with Attack. A combination of some of these elements could benefit for an increase in attack or defense or maybe even healing (metal for alchemy?).
Possible resources:
That's all I have for now...
Rooster Nash
THE Rooster Nash
completely agree great game and ppl still play it today.
I think the most important piece is already well developed in many mmo's, the pet function. your armies would be nothing more than many pets. You could group you pets or control them individually. My idea would be a hybrid rpg/rts. where you do your resource gathering in the real world by having your workers attend to that, then enter a realm / virtual reality ( or whatever) where the war is happening. you could only draw on so many resources to start then as you gain ground you can draw on more powerful resources. it would function much like entering a bg in wow. you could also have buttons to manipulate what your workers are gathering to suppliment what your doing in the battle. the whole game would be persistant and strategic, the fighting would be the pvp aspect. also you could allow for players to attack resource settlements in the "real world" side of it. The ai would defend its self with whatever they can. maybe depending on resources you could hire more powerful protectors. level restrictions would have to apply, so that some one extremely powerful couldn't run around wiping out new settlements. I use the word level loosely here as there would be no level but maybe more of a power ranking.
This genre really opens itself up to sci fi as well so lets not assume a highfantasy midievil elf and dwarf fun fest.
Does somebody here have played the single player campaign of Dawn of War II ?
Why i ask? because in that game, you have a strategic map of a planet where you can choose a region to drop your forces and in some of those regions you can capture strategic assets that provide you benefits in battle. And of course, the game itself has leveling and loot, so the RPG aspect is included.
I think a good MMORTS could repeat that experience but with thousands of player dropping in several planets with several regions (ofc every region having a limit of troops deployed), the troops could be squads like in DoW II with a hero character as commander and the quality of weapons and special attacks (like artillery) should depend on the overall performance of your faction and the territories it controls.
I don't know but i think a game like that could be interesting...
(sorry for my english)
Well i think were a long way off from seeing a mmo-rts, we have yet to even see an rts with the complexity of a turn-based-strategy game
I've thought about this a lot and finally settled on one "working" concept.
It would have to be set in space.
To put it in terms of other games, imagine EVE Online mixed with Spore, Rise of Nations, Homeworld, Sins of a Solar Empire, Star Wars: Empire at War and the Total War series.
Thoughts?
How do you kill that which has no life?
The first game I ever played online was an MMORTS. It was called Artifact and was created by Samugames. It is relatively unknown as it had a few flaws it had to overcome. The principle idea was you would build a city and every so often there would be a "population tick" where your population grows. You can use your population to work farms, quarries and mills to gain raw materials. You then used these raw materials to expand your empire and even build mulitple cities with walls. Then you would build roads and military units. After 24 hours of gametime the "artifacts" would appear, all 8 of them representing a different element such as fire, bone, water, earth etc and gave different bonuses.
The object was to capture the artifacts and hold them for 8 hours to win the game.
Then there is the issue "what if I'm not online?" Well that is an issue since you can't be at your computer all day. Often the best players were on all the time. People would keep their game online while they were away so they looked as if they were online. Alliances could also be given permission to control your units and build your city up while you are away. While you were at work, someone on your team would be watching your units and perhaps even using them.
It was a fun, very little known game! Also the MMORTS genre is dominated by browser games like Tribal Wars. If that isn't a popular MMORTS then I'm not sure what is.
Theres also games like Shattered Galaxy and DotA which use the elements of MMO's and RTS in a good blend.
Hmm, I wonder why there are none....
I believe squad-based RTS gameplay similar to Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2 could be translated into an MMO form with relative ease. Gameplay could consist of using your squad to capture strategic areas or accomplis missions in hostile territory, defended either by AI-controlled baddies (PvE content) or enemy players (PvP content). These type of conflicts could work in open as well as instanced settings.
Squad management would be an important aspect of the game. Acquiring new weapons, armour and tools for your squad, taking care of injured squad members, replacing dead ones and protecting the more powerful squad members, as well as specailising the individuals to form either a well-rounded, or highly specialised, squad (perhaps the guy with the really good aim should be specialised to being a sniper, and getting the best sniper rifles around?).
The writer explains quite succinctly why RTS has never taken of in a MMO then wonders why. He has answered his own question.
I do realise these concepts need to be sold to MMO companies as much as players. But repeatedly using the reason that a MMORTS will help companies battle piracy hardly warms a players heart. We want to hear how a RTS will be made more exciting online for players, not how the company will be able to pocket more dosh. But I am sure should a MMO company step up and take this on that increased profits will never be mentioned. It will all be about player choice and so on, like RMT’s and all the other exciting developments they have in store for us.
most of what people are saying these MMORTS should be or would be they sound like MMORPGs
This seems to be the dominant reply here - noone appears to have actually played a MMORTS for anything like the time required to actually review it properly - quite shocking. And the poster saying how graphics sucked etc - seriously think of the logistics involved here, the opening up of the game to those with low end spec machines and connections and you will see why the graphics take second place to GAMEPLAY. Also you can adjust the settings but, tbh, going by most posts here I will assume that option didnt occur...
I am disgusted that a bunch of gamers who dont run games or create content for the MMO market should post here saying no MMORTS exist and its a 'nice' idea. How insulting to those producing MMORTS games for the last 11 years. How arrogant of many here to assume they know anything about this. If you havent immersed yourself in a MMORTS for over a month AT LEAST you dont know anything. Sorry but thats just fact. The background issues are awesome and make mmorpg rubbish appear trite and lightweight...oooo he owns a whole 30 objects .....wow... gosh. The gameplay has suffered with the bland repetative psuedo RPG MMO's we see now - with no scope for real roleplay with consequences. The sole reason for most folk walking away from MMORTS games is largely based on the experience of playing one without the large numbers. Retention is an issue and developer support/activity also. Both are highly unusual within this genre compared to any other. And the impact if its not right can be crippling for a game that relies on live prey.
Eve is cited as a MMORTS - this is untrue but we cover it on our site down, purely, to the player orientated and defined narrative. For this is as close as MMOrpg comes to MMORTS. Shattered Galaxy is more MMORTT or even comparable to the recent wave of online RTS with persistent avatar objects/cards/rank/medals. But the lack of persistence on the field of play relegates it to RTT imo.
I am constantly suprised how easy folk post from ignorance. I refuse to post many of my opinions and thoughts as they are half formed or I consider them lacking in evidence sufficient to impose them on others. Some of you have no such restraint I see lol.
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc
( Make My Day Punk)
http://www.mmortsgamers.com
TIP OF THE DAY If you're being chased by a police dog, try not to go through a tunnel, then on to a little seesaw, then jump through a hoop of fire. They're trained for that.
Read it all here.
Im a long time RTS fans playing everything from starcraft to Total Annihilation. What I get from reading this "interview" is the fact that the person writing clearly cannot be a RTS fan. The gameplan sounds more like a badly structured RPG with RTS features.
A good RTS doesnt have to be massive as Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander or Age of Empires but it do need good core. It need res. collection, it needs player building (only game Ive played that were any good without player building was Ground Control) and then a strategy to fight?! Not to trade, not to meddle or trying to be social but to wage war. Sure there are management games that do trades and carebaer fluffy things but cmon thats not a real RTS.
Fighting an opponent that has an instanced base thats impossible to kill/destroy will be a serious hussle, there needs to be control points to capture in order for a gameplan as this would be to succeed unless you wanna go carebear full out and go "only pve with instanced pvp" at that time the game would be stone cold.
To sum it up a good RTS is not a RPG with lots of units and sky-view, its about strategy, planning and executing, its not about quests or fighting versus some random computerized mob. Its about player(s) versus player(s) in a war were there really can be only one victor.
Maybe, just maybe the majority of us say there is mmorts is because the games released that claim to be mmorts fail to live up to our expectations. It may be true that the majority of us havent played the current titles under the name long enough to 'review them properly', but that speaks more about the titles themselves, rather than those playing them. If i dont like it im not gonna stick to it for another month, if the game doesnt have the ability to catch users on the first impression, then somone has failed at somepoint along the line.
Tho i have tried a few titles, I played saga in beta but the whole card thing was a big turn off, especially after they made the only way of getting units via micro-transactions. I also tried beyond protocol, which admittedly i would have liked somewhat if the ui werent an utter pile of garbage, im an eve player and used to shitty ui, but I couldnt stand that for over a week.
Maybe the wording was a bit off, but the point still stands. - We have yet to see a successful mmorts title, and its doubtful we will see one for some time.
Also, Eve is not a rts, but at the larger scale it has many elements people would desire out of an mmorts (territory control, unit coordination, etc). And the upcoming planetary interaction seems like it will be a pseudo-rts within the game itself, which would be awesome if emulated in a game solely designed to be an mmorts.
Read it all here.
Im a long time RTS fans playing everything from starcraft to Total Annihilation. What I get from reading this "interview" is the fact that the person writing clearly cannot be a RTS fan. The gameplan sounds more like a badly structured RPG with RTS features.
A good RTS doesnt have to be massive as Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander or Age of Empires but it do need good core. It need res. collection, it needs player building (only game Ive played that were any good without player building was Ground Control) and then a strategy to fight?! Not to trade, not to meddle or trying to be social but to wage war. Sure there are management games that do trades and carebaer fluffy things but cmon thats not a real RTS.
Fighting an opponent that has an instanced base thats impossible to kill/destroy will be a serious hussle, there needs to be control points to capture in order for a gameplan as this would be to succeed unless you wanna go carebear full out and go "only pve with instanced pvp" at that time the game would be stone cold.
To sum it up a good RTS is not a RPG with lots of units and sky-view, its about strategy, planning and executing, its not about quests or fighting versus some random computerized mob. Its about player(s) versus player(s) in a war were there really can be only one victor.
Being as this is MMORPG, a raw RTS type discussion wouldn't be all that appropriate. Instead, the article is structured to provide cross-over between RTS and RPG style games.
"A good RTS..." depends on who you talk to just like a good RPG depends on who you talk to. Complex/overly complex UI's, queuing of moves (which queuing didn't exist in earlier ones), etc... Some think the queuing is "cheap" and takes "skill" away from the play, others find it essential and so on... and so on... "You just can't handle doing it "real-time" so need those cheap tools to make it possible for you? pft... where's the skill in stacking up moves like that!" Yeah, I remember some of the arguments about that stuff and it's been a LONG time for me...
As another poster put it with the picture of a round peg in a square hole -- RTS doesn't fit the MMO format well. Not the way it's currently implemented. Then again, RPG's are different than their predecessors in many respects but it might be possible to bring aspects across though the play would need to change a bit and that's what the discussions here are looking at. Not a "purist" view of it but a cross-over view.
Read it all here.
Im a long time RTS fans playing everything from starcraft to Total Annihilation. What I get from reading this "interview" is the fact that the person writing clearly cannot be a RTS fan. The gameplan sounds more like a badly structured RPG with RTS features.
A good RTS doesnt have to be massive as Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander or Age of Empires but it do need good core. It need res. collection, it needs player building (only game Ive played that were any good without player building was Ground Control) and then a strategy to fight?! Not to trade, not to meddle or trying to be social but to wage war. Sure there are management games that do trades and carebaer fluffy things but cmon thats not a real RTS.
Fighting an opponent that has an instanced base thats impossible to kill/destroy will be a serious hussle, there needs to be control points to capture in order for a gameplan as this would be to succeed unless you wanna go carebear full out and go "only pve with instanced pvp" at that time the game would be stone cold.
To sum it up a good RTS is not a RPG with lots of units and sky-view, its about strategy, planning and executing, its not about quests or fighting versus some random computerized mob. Its about player(s) versus player(s) in a war were there really can be only one victor.
Being as this is MMORPG, a raw RTS type discussion wouldn't be all that appropriate. Instead, the article is structured to provide cross-over between RTS and RPG style games.
"A good RTS..." depends on who you talk to just like a good RPG depends on who you talk to. Complex/overly complex UI's, queuing of moves (which queuing didn't exist in earlier ones), etc... Some think the queuing is "cheap" and takes "skill" away from the play, others find it essential and so on... and so on... "You just can't handle doing it "real-time" so need those cheap tools to make it possible for you? pft... where's the skill in stacking up moves like that!" Yeah, I remember some of the arguments about that stuff and it's been a LONG time for me...
Sure Il agree to that somewhat but again its like saying all people like different games in all genres, we dont. Sure we dont all like the same games but there are a few titles that stand out from the crowd so you might say a good RTS would be one that most/many players would be considered to be a good game (which they play *points at ex SWG drama queens*). Take a couple of the largest titles in the RTS genre, Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Age of Empires, Company of heroes,Total annihilation etc. They all follow a certain path and whats that well for one theyr all PvP exclusivly, secondly they all focus on build up time and "player building".
As another poster put it with the picture of a round peg in a square hole -- RTS doesn't fit the MMO format well. Not the way it's currently implemented. Then again, RPG's are different than their predecessors in many respects but it might be possible to bring aspects across though the play would need to change a bit and that's what the discussions here are looking at. Not a "purist" view of it but a cross-over view.
RTS doesnt fit the MMO format at all, you wont be able to do a truely MMORTS without constricting players to a rather small amounts of units or using stacks with a max number. It will simply become a RPG with RTS features it just doesnt work. RTS players dont generely want to play versus computers so PvE content would be considered farming at best, this may sound very sterotypical but if one wants to raid a dungeon, kill computerised mobs etc then those players prefer playing RPGs aside their RTS games. I just see this entire idea to be too hard to get right and perhaps even harder to get RTS fans to play it.
I think a MMORTS could be done, but they would have to keep fights at a respectable length and home bases would have to sacrosanct. Can't have others sneaking into your base in the middle of the night.
The first thing that comes to mind when someone complains about graphics is they are a console player moved over to MMO's. The vast majority of MMO players are far more concerned about gameplay than anything else. So, soon as you start whining about graphics it just dates you as being very new to MMO's and not very versed in the genre.
Curious why no one is talking about Evony, does no one like it? From what I can tell it's really popular and seriously is an mmorts. You gather resources, build things and it is definitly in real time.
Actually, if you recall on Starcraft and Warcraft 3 (2 of the ones you list that I've played), they start PvE and go PvP. You play against the world long before you join the online communities to play them. Then you queue up and join a scenario for a session of play so claiming "all PvP" doesn't work and the time limits on them also don't fit an MMO style environment.
RTS players don't generally "play well with others" no matter what. The current format for the play is me vs anyone/everyone else on the map -- be that AI controlled or player controlled. The very nature of the current incarnations is counter to any MMO setting you can come up with unless it is redefined away from the "I am GOD!" style of play that the current RTS community is attached to.
By shifting to a team oriented approach, where many contribute their pool of resources to a common goal, you could -- with fair ease -- incorporate the overall strategy elements to it and "real-time" -- well, that's what most popular MMO's are about right now.
So do I think it could be done along these lines? Yes. Do I think you could do a conversion "in tact" of what players are used to in RTS games? Hell no. No more so than you can have the save/restore of a standalone PC game like Witcher in an MMO game like WoW where you save, try, fail so restore and try again -- *VERY* common when learning RTS games as you do the same scenario over and over until you "get it right".
There are several obstacles in terms of mechanics which are conventions of RTS games which stand in the way of making an MMORTS because of the technical limitations.
First lets talk resources in terms of the players who come to play RTS games.
Game length problems
Players in a typical RTS settting, come for a game which lasts 15, 30 or at most 90 minutes. Beyond 90 minutes players lose attention span and the need of the brain to do something else triggers and interest or enjoyment in the game is lost. This is especially true when playing something for the 100th time.
Most players prefer games which can be decided by a win or loss in about 30 minutes because there are numerous distractions which prevent players from focusing on the game beyond this amount of time. Phone, work, family, etc.
The ideal game length is about 15 minutes because if the satisfaction of a victory can be condensed into this amount of time it is likely that there will be no interruption and focus can easily be maintained for the amount of time. If a loss the next game can be quickly jumped into and played.
Existing MMORTS games stretch out resource accumulation and unit deployment over much longer periods in order to prevent any single player from becoming too powerful.
Conventional Design
Most RTS games are built on a map which is much too small for the size of which an MMORTS would need to take place on if it were a continous space. Reason being the speed with which units move, relative to the total map space. There are technical ways around this, example, a jump gate type of structure that lets your units go anywhere on the map. However the counters to this are not well developed because there are very few games which to base design on. One of the most expansive map sized games is called Time of Defiance which is a true MMORTS. It is also much more like a turn based game, because of the length of time that is required to develop and execute strategy. It also doesn't play well. Because the distances take hours to traverse, and the time required to develop units takes days.
What is needed
RTS needs to evolve iteself. The RTS games are really RTT games and in general the only employment of strategy is identifying which strategy your opponent is using and how will you counter it. Once the best series of strategies are identified in a particular RTS game they show up over and over again and the game becomes about choosing the best matchup in terms of my set of units verus your set of units. Conventional games rely on units which values do not change from game to game. That is a mechanic which needs to be changed in order for MMORTS to be truely RTS versus RTT.
The way to make this happen is to create technology which is usable in real time. The way to make that happen is to keep it absolutely as simple as possible. Decisions on which tech to utilize and how to augment your forces because the strategy which is where it belongs, and you do this based on whoever you are battling with at present, you will also need to change your strategy based on the their changes and when you encounter new opponents.
Strategy made easy and smart
Each player gets 4 research centers, to research from 4 branches. The research centers cannot be upgraded to allow more research, and you cannot research more than 4 projects at once, so the limiting resource is how fast you can make make your choices and keep the research going. You can research any branch with more than one center so If your fall behind in a particular area you can catch up fast.
Each research branch gives you only two options and with very simple attribute buffs, % improvements of a characteristic of your forces this enables a decision in less than 3 seconds for each branch keeping the focus on the tactical situation. Each research takes 180 seconds.
Trade
Research centers should be able to queue 4 total technology choices so you can make these choices in some free time. Economics should be very simple but also very flexible, trading should be allowed with a market, and executed quickly. Resources should be kept to a minimum. Player focus in RTS should be on the battles and in an MMORTS their forces should be what they spend 75% of their time on, scouting, attacking, defending, which is what players enjoy doing and what makes a game worth playing.
Read it all here.
Great article. The "Robin Hood Warband" is a good example of how this approach might work. Imo it definitly has a better chance to appeal to a larger audience than what we've seen so far in mmorts. I hope some developer will give it a try soon - lots of potential for innovation there.
Hype train -> Reality
The only decent MMORTS out so far is SAGA. Which isn't bad, but it wasn't what I expected of it. Dawn Of Fantasy (which didn't even make it to your list?) is the only MMORTS that I got hopes for atm. And believe me, I've been looking for a decent MMORTS for a long time.
You know it, the best way to realize your dreams is waking up and start moving, never lose hope and always keep up.
Dawn of Fantasy is just another example that shows that empire building doesn't really work. The MMO features were continually cut down and meanwhile it sounds more like a game with an enhanced skirmish mode.
I never got the fuzz with Saga, either. Played it for a few hours, then got bored. Where is the persistant world? All i got to see was a bunch regular RTS-maps. I never met another player, either. What makes Saga a true MMORTS and not just another RTS with some enhanched Multiplayer-features?
Hype train -> Reality
Unlike most games, in Beyond Protocol you can fight to earn a place on the senate and, as long as you provide a decent example, you could easily get UI aspects changed. Things are improving all the time through this. This senate idea was a fixed feature years before Eve's stellar council and was implemented in alpha.
I will state that I prefer gameplay over fluff and graphics, kinda implicit in the strategy aspect. Like UT3, all the gubbins clutters the view and distracts periphery vision response and gameplay suffers - though it becomes easier for those with less skill as everyone is equally handicapped with this. In MMORTS this 'fluff' really has an impact on a one universe server with hundreds of players with thousands of units.
There are a number of things inhibiting this genres mass appeal and many attempts have been tried to resolve this. The TCG aspect was to appeal to the RPGers who need daily achivements recognised and bolster revenue imo - but doesnt appeal to me, my real RPG days are well over (not mmo role play gaming but roleplay gaming). Microtansactions are becoming more popular with devs but I am not convinced they lend themselves to MMORTS well - they affect balance too much. Subscription models still seem successful though.
Whilst i have great hopes for beyond protocol and enjoy the game, the jury is out on its ability to make a success of the one universe player defined narrative as it has just started, in the scheme of things, and the universe is still settling after a somewhat confusing start (I felt the devs felt it should begin traditionally and expand outwards but maybe a more managed last days of beta would have kicked the economy off better) and the player base/ guild assets arent settled enough to snapshot the soon to be expected gameplay fairly. Eve was not regarded as anything but niche intially and many expected it to fail through lack of direction/purpose etc but it built up core communities who developed in game assets that made the game more attractive for new players and the casual alike. The economic boom also helped lol.
Other games within the genre all have specific issues and these are fully spelt out in the forums by the community and argued fully there. I have yet to see any ideas down here that havent already been tried n dismissed by previous games.
And why discuss MMORTS when you want a MMORPG with some mass effect structure - I would give your genre a go if you could design and place structures that then form part of the narrative - the wizards tower or a small castle. This hasnt been worked with any success either yet would, imo, define a MMORPG proper - where u dont play slot in roles but define your own role with activity and your choices. Atitd or eve are the closest to this, maybe second life. Thats MMORPG - the present batch seem to be social gaming with instances.
Fabricati Diem, Pvnc
( Make My Day Punk)
http://www.mmortsgamers.com
TIP OF THE DAY If you're being chased by a police dog, try not to go through a tunnel, then on to a little seesaw, then jump through a hoop of fire. They're trained for that.