Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
End of Nations: MMORTS 101: The Class System
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
School is back in session this week with Trion Worlds' and Petroglyph Games' latest developer journal, MMORTS 101: The Class System. The article takes a look at the three Commander classes: The Armor Commander, the Artillery Commander and the Assault Commander. Get your pens out to take notes, class, and keep reading.
In some ways, Commander Classes are like character classes in an RPG. As you gain experience, your commander will gain new abilities and bonuses to bolster their war effort against the dominant Order of Nations. But commander classes also function like factions in an RTS. The Armor commander class, for example, specializes in strong, slow units, while the Artillery commander focuses on long-distance barrages.
Read MMORTS 101: The Class System.
Comments
Forgive me, but this sounds pretty bizarre from a wargame perspective:
1) No Infantry? It's one of the core arms in combined arms combat.
2) Artillery goes last? That sounds reversed from what it should be... typicaly Artillery is first to soften up a target in preperation for an attack.
3) What is Assault supposed to be representing? Ground Support Aircraft? Assault Guns? Shock Troops?...Not really understanding what you are trying to represent with them. When described as a class...one would kind of think of think of the classic 2 fire-team elements of an infantry squad.... A Fire Support Element to fix the enemy in position and a manuver/assault element to flank, close and destroy... though that doesn't really seem to match what you are describing.
4) Equating Armors role to that of a "tank" in an MMORPG seems pretty simplistic and not neccesarly reflective of how it often is utilized. Armor certainly can provide protection for soft targets (as well as Direct Fire Support....and of course engaging and killing enemy armor) but it's was as much utilzed for breakthrough and exploitation.
What about Recon, Air Supperiority, Anti-Air, etc?
I'm sorry if I sound overly critical, but the standard holy trinity MMORP mechanics really don't fit very well into a wargame (IMO).... and shoe-horning them in sounds like it would make for a pretty crappy wargame.
@grumpymel2
In my personal opininon all combat breaks down into the holy trinity model...how that trinity gets distributed is the only question. It can all be on one character/vehicle or it can be on multiple units in a variety of configurations.
Combat mechanics always boil down to Armor/Defense(MMO Tank class), DPS and Healer/Control(repairs/stuns/smoke). In many cases the Defense role can be combined with the healer type role in the form of damage mitigation.
Trying to move away from this simply means removing one critical element in a combat system. I personally dont see any point in that just to do it just because...
I think overall your just going to have to wait untill a beta/release comes out to find out exactly what they are talking about and if its good for you.
For me the explanation was pretty straightforward. Armor has well Armor and as a result moves a bit slower than other units. Assault has DPS and is probably able to move really fast(jump troops/motorcyle units etc). Artillery is long range with special ammo types in addition to just exploding dmg shells. They might have smoke screens/EM devices/shrapnell who knows.
Obviously this blogger knows nothing about warfare if he has artillery going last. You would think someone designing a military shooter would have some actual experience in how it works.
Still think this game has zip to do with MMO's it is just another RTS game with a bit of specialization added in to the players.
I take it you guys never played Command & Conquer: Generals?
Also note, the classes are not for units, the classes are for you, the player, and your style of play, they define your bonuses and abilities, and however you are not limited to it. This article seems to attempt to explain the general’s concept to RPG players.
I have no idea where you guys are getting order or "going last" or any of the above from.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Maelkor,
That strikes me as a very bizzare statement. MMORPGS (and FRPGS) are the only types of games that use the Trinity system to model combat. None of the wargames that I've played use it...nor do FPS for that matter.
Have you played any wargames like? Combat Mission, TOAW, Command Decision, Advanced Tactics WWII, Steel Panthers, Close Combat series, War in Russia, War in the Pacific, Squad Leader, etc?
What about FPS games like? Battlefield series, Brothers in Arms, Ghost Recon, WWII Online, etc
I don't see how the Trinity System is modeled in any of them. If you think so then explain how something like an M8-Greyound or a 40 MM Bofors Gun or STUG III or an Airborne Infantry Squad or Combat Engineers fit into it?
Heck how does infantry (the most common type of combat unit) fit into a Trinity system?
Wargames, at least ones that deal with modern combat tend to break things down very differently. Units may indeed have specific roles or functions but they don't really resemble much the Trinity system. Typicaly a unit might be expressed in terms of it's properties that might include things like movement type and speed over different terrains. Defense against different TYPES of attacks. Ability to take advantage of different types of terrain, spotting and being spotted. Effective fire range for different types of weapons. Different types of attacks, etc.
So for instance Infantry (as modeled in a typical wargame on modern combat) is slow unless mounted on something. Can move through all sorts of difficult terrain that other types of units would have problems with. Can be difficult to spot but has good spotting ability. Isn't much effected by AP fire but is very vulnerable to HE or Small Arms. Is very vulnerable when moving in open terrain but can be very hard to kill when deployed in good cover, especialy when dug in. Can be transported aboard vehicles. Doesn't have much AP fire ability (unless equiped with AT weapons) but has decent to good (depending on armament) small arms fire ability. Has moderate range for it's main weapons but also has the ability to use other weapons (like grenades, satchel charges, sticky bombs, etc) which have different combat properties.
How the heck would you translate/model something like that in the Holy Trinity System? It just doesn't fit.
From this part of the article
"The Artillery commander will jump in last, reducing the foe’s effectiveness with stunning effects and smoke before dishing out tremendous damage."
No I haven't played the Command & Conquer series in particular, but I don't see what that has to do with the discussion. The Wiki article didn't seem to describe that game in terms of the Holy Trinity nor did it seem (on cursory glance) to make too many references that would seem bizzare from a wargaming perspective. Although it did describe "self-healing" abilities for units which don't really make much sense for a game representing modern combat on a tactical scale....but I can kinda accept it as a cheesy beer and pretzels convention that some wargames might use.
Looks like would be a good game, too bad dont go for MMORTS genre. Though those A-10s in the first picture make me realllllly wish for an updated verison of WW2 online. Would definately pay 15 dollars a month to fly an A-10 and drop cluster bombs and use the minigun to shred tanks.
well its in de future so... everything is hightech so why not have self healing tank i mean look at the apocalypse in red alert 2 it's healing it self too
How about Company of heroes, or Dawn of war series? The concept they are proposing isn’t the foreign, you seem like you are somewhat unfamiliar with some of the recent RTS games, and are getting hung up on things that are, quite frankly just misunderstood by yourself.
Commanders have classes; they gain abilities, and special units in some cases. This game uses a point resource system, some units cost one point, some cost a lot, you have a set amount you can spend on units to bring to an encounter. The classes do not mean you get X unit, and X unit only it means you have more abilities or, they themselves have more abilities than someone who choose a different class. Mainly, I think you are confusing the individuial units with the classes of commanders.
The games I list are relevant because they use similar systems. The people (individuals) making this title defined the RTS genre, I think they may know what they are doing.
Mabye the videos will help you understand having not played the titles:
End of Nations Developer Diary #1
End of Nations Trailer
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Now this is interesting, Commander classes that effect your RTS firepower performance. Previously I have only seen players picking certain units or tech lines to form an unstoppable army. It gives players a very clear definition of their place on the battlefield and you as another member of the team a better handle on who is controlling what in the army.
Bloodworth,
I have no problem understanding the CONCEPT...I'm a wargamer and I've played a fair share of RTS games as well. The concept is perfectly fine...in fact I think it's pretty cool.... it's thier specific IMPLIMENTATION that seems whacked. To translate it into FRPG terms, the article reads like this:
Our game features 3 classes. Those classes are Warriors, Wizards and CHAOTIC GOOD. WIZARDS most often employ a strategy of engaging thier foes at close range with melee weapons to defeat them, they are the front line defense of a party. Warriors specialize in WEARING SPIKED HELMETS and Carrying Shields.
Phrases in capitals put there on purpose. Thier particular implimentation doesn't make any sense to some-one that understands the genre.... and seems all turned around..... that's why I called it bizarre. It doesn't fit the paradigm that one would expect from the genre....and seems designed vy some-one completely unfamiliar with it.
Like a guy who wrote a resume by picking computer software at random off a shelf at a store, but had no actual experience in what that software actualy does (not saying this is the case with them...but it's the way this description of the game reads to me).
I think you need to read about the games I mentioned, and read up on this title. This article was not the best discription of it.
You are very hung up on the line about the artillery, that I think you read wrong.
"In many encounters, the Armor commander will charge in first, choosing the moment of attack and getting the enemy’s attention while the Assault commander zips in to eliminate the enemy’s most vital forces and pick off stragglers and runners. The Artillery commander will jump in last, reducing the foe’s effectiveness with stunning effects and smoke before dishing out tremendous damage."
Armor tanks, assault picks at the edges and dispersed, artillery lays the distant smack down. All can do everything in-between if they choose to spend points on units for the encounter, or they can go pure if working in a group. This is not, I repeat, not a game where each players has thousands of units and is controial all branches of a milltiary, its more in the vein of CoH/Dawn of war, small squad based allotments of units depending on the task.
The difference is, with 51 other players on the map, others (using teamwork) can fill in the gaps ETC... It’s truly not as you have interpreted it, nor is it as simplistic as you are trying to make it. IIRCC there are literally thousands of units you can use earn and bring into an encounter if you have the deployment points.There also has not been mention of infantry or lack of infantry, there very well could be and you could be controialing an entire squad as one single unit, we dont know yet.
You seem to be extremely familiar with old, simulation titles (Most are turn based hex games), and not RTS games. This is a futuristic RTS game using high futuristic technogily.
From the main site:
Classes
The End of Nations class system lets you choose the type of Commander you want to be on the battlefield.
Classes are a familiar concept to any MMORPG player, and in End of Nations they're based on different unit archetypes and associated strategies. Whether you like dealing damage from afar, getting into the thick of the fight, or performing hit-and-run maneuvers, there is a Commander class that lets you personalize your combat experience.
The class you choose grants your army distinct combat abilities that develop and evolve as you advance, but you're never limited to any one type of unit. Leveling up your Commander also unlocks new role-defining abilities.
The Order of Nations is a powerful enemy and may be too great for any one Commander, but not necessarily for groups of Commanders whose complementary classes create a balanced and effective fighting force.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
I really hate the formatting on this site.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
No I get the concept, the concept is fine....it's the implimentation that seems whacked....and I've played plenty of newer titles too HOI series, Total War, Dawn of War, Officers, All the Civs, etc.
It's the implimentation. Specificaly....
1) Breaking it down as Armor, Assault, Artillery is a very odd choice.
Armor, Artillery and Infantry are the classic branches of ground based Arms. Those would seem to make for the natural break down of classes. Probably would want to include Air if it was a modern game as well due to it's importance. Assault isn't a branch, it's a specific activity. Namely advancing on a specific defended objective, attacking it at close range and capturing it.
2) Assault as is commonly understood doesn't seem to fit the type of activities the article is ascribing to it in the game.
It describes "Assault" as zipping around the battlefield picking off important targets and stragglers or runners. That's not at all what "Assault" means to anyone who is familiar with wargaming or milltary tactics. Assault means advancing upon a particular objective (often well defended and fortified) to within close range, eliminating the defence (often with specialized close range weapons like grenades, satchel charges, flamethrowers, shotguns, etc) and capturing the objective.
The closest term to the type of activity the article attributed to "Assault" might be "Exploitation" or possibly "Interdiction".
3) Armor is described verry narrowly and it's role is described very narrowly for a game with such a small number of classes.
It's described as being slow, charging in first and grabbing the enemies attention, while it gets shot at and presumably providing protection for other units. That DOES sound alot like what "Tanks" in MMORPG terminology do.... but not all that much like what Tanks in the real world or wargaming genre do...... or more accurately it sounds like one very specific implimentation of a subset of Armor (that's not even in common use anymore) does. What he is basicaly describing is the role that French and British milltaries during the Interwar period ascribed to INFANTRY TANKS (i.e. R35, Matilda, Char B1 bis). That's only one tiny portion of what Armor does...and even they had other types of tanks/afvs for other purposes (Cavalry/Cruiser tanks, etc). With only 3 classes it's very bizarre that they would ascribe such a narrowly defined (and rather archaic) specific function as the core definition of what such a broad category as "Armor" would imply. Hence the analogy I used of describing a Warrior as some-one who "Wears a spikey helmet and carries a shield." Yeah, 1 in 10 warriors might actually do that...but it's not really what defines them as a class.
4) When describing Artillery functions in a "typical" encounter when working with the other specializations. He got the part about longe range powerfull attacks (indirect fire support) and other special assistance (presumably Smoke, Flares, ECM, etc) right...but claimed it came LAST in the order of operations. This is exactly the opposite of how artillery is typicaly employed in other war games or in real life millitary operations. Usualy it comes FIRST in preperation for the attack.
In reading the article, I can only come to one of two conclusions.... Either the author is unfamiliar with the game-play of the game and made some fundemental mistakes when desribing it ... OR the authors description was accurate and the developers don't have the first clue about millitary tactics & strategy or wargaming in general.
I get that they understand the concept of RTS..... but they don't seem to understand the subject matter that RTS and the wargaming genre deal with.
Again, it's like some-one understanding that FRPG's have classes and monsters and spells and magic and all that.... but not understanding that Chaotic Good really is generaly understood to be an alignment not a class.... and that Wizards are the ones who cast spells not swing swords.... and that there is alot more to Warriors then just wearing Spiked Helmets.
I think you may be thinking to literally he was being very very broad in his discriptions.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
To be honest I was really hoping the MMO experience would have been more of a "Eve Online" style sovereignty map.
So people could team up and form as commanders for a specifically player driven corp, guild, or entity. Thats what has made Eve Online so sustaining over the years and what has caused it to have increasing subscribers.
An example as such is the Eve Sov Map:
http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/Verite/influence.png
A person could have a fear that one entity would take over the whole "world", but then everybody bands together to defeat them is kinda cool. Anyways thats my take at what they could do to make this game an MMO with a RTS.
Ok, I did a breif check of thier Forums and from what I was able to read my worst suspecions were pretty much confirmed...
- No Infantry in game
- Apparently no cover system
- No enterable buildings (no reason to without foot units)
- No stealth/recon/spotting system
- Sounds like a non-destructable environment except for special circumstances.
- Gigantic Land Battleships as the "Boss" opponents in PVE.
- No answer as to whether Air Support/ Air Units would be in game.
Didn't even bother to check out the rest after that.....
Makes this game pretty much a joke (IMO).
I'm all for the concept of an MMORTS ....and for companies trying to innovate and do new things.
I'm NOT for stupid designs....no matter how novel the concept they are trying to pitch.
Game looks pretty...but I really wouldn't call it a "Strategy" game at this point.
Note: Apparently they have vehicles they label as "APC's"...but no infantry....it boggles the mind.
You are living up to your name GrumpyMel2!
Even for games where they don't have the archetypal unit types strategies evolve.
I remember playing as Stratos in a game called Sacrifice (made by Shiny) - where the cheapest offense units you could make were very fast assault units and lots of strategies were developed around using them, and defending against them.
I see where GrumpyMel is coming from but what he says is not a priority for one reason. There are not a zillion RTS MMO’s out there. If there was then what he said would be far more of a concern.
Check the game list at MMORTS.com, many of which are not really persistent anyway:
http://www.mmortsgamers.com/Game-List.html
So I give the game some slack for mistakes. Using the word ‘Assault’ inappropriately is a bit lame mind you, sounds more like ‘Recon in Force’ to me.
Problem with a MMORTS definition, none of them really have persistent worlds, which is a necessary requirement in my view for anything to be a MMO.
When you get down to it, having a persistent world in a RTS becomes a huge handicap for the player, they have to sleep sometime. I know, I was playing one of those silly facebook games and faction members were organizing 24/7 coverage of our territories. That soon become very unfun.
So I will stick by my guns and deny this game is a MMO in any shape or form.
Scott, thanks for seeing my perspective at least.
I'll give them credit for trying something diffierent but.....
Speaking personaly, the MMO portion of a game really doesn't mean squat to me...if the implimentation of the letters that follow it isn't appealing... that holds true whether those letters are RTS or RPG what have you.
I'd much rather play an off-line (or non-persistant) RTS or RPG that was good then play an MMORPG or MMORTS that I felt wasn't delivering on the basic RPG or RTS play...no matter how well they executed the MMO aspect.
I realize that other people might have different priorties..... but that's what it boils down to for me..... and when a developer is (IMO) dropping the ball on the RPG or RTS aspects of play...I don't really feel shy about pointing it out.
I mean honestly are these forums about selling games...or about discussing game play by gamers?
They haven't dropped the ball, you just want this to be a different game.You have a bunch of check points that are not by any means "Standard" in RTS games. Also, Air is usually a commander ability. As for the map and persistence, they haven't released it yet, however its the whole world according to them, and yes, its persistent, but includes PvP and PvE areas.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Reminds me kind of World in Conflict in play style.
GumpyMel, youre looking for a real RTS with MMO elements, they have toned down on some RTS elements to make it more MMO, so what youre looking for is a totally different game.