Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

maxd gaming

MMORTS???

Recommended Posts

JTippetts    12950
Hmmm... boy, that WOULD be tricky. Not only would you have to keep track of hundreds of players, you''d have to juggle each of their hundreds of units. The logistics of something like that is WAY beyond my poor mental capabilities.


Josh
vertexnormal AT linuxmail DOT org

Check out Golem at:
My cheapass website

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeltaVee    138
It has been done and is (for and Indy) wildly succesful.

Shattered Galaxy.

http://www.sgalaxy.com/

I have not played so I can't tell you what the game play is like.


[edited by - DeltaVee on August 14, 2003 1:58:05 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ratman    181
Could you make a MMO game that focuses on strategy in real time situations? Yes.

Could you make a MMO game that is based off of the concepts and fundamentals of current popular RTS games (Warcraft III, starcraft, AOK, C&C Generals, etc)? I really dont think so.

You''d have to mangle the most basic concepts of an RTS game to get it to work in an MMO setting. Economy/Resources would have to be totally reworked, unit producing would have to be drastically changed, etc. I mean thats not to say you cant build a strategy game in real time in a MMO environement, but its cant be an "RTS" game so to speak.

Ratman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maxd gaming    100
nice...im downloading Shattered Galaxy right now...looks really good...see I was thinking about making a MMORTS (NO FLAMING) I do realize the problems and complications but I''m very good at problem solving and I have a team of 4 VERY GOOD C++ Programmers...If you are interested in joining the team email me at

fallenkatana AT netscape DOT net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JTippetts    12950
I think you''d probably have to take into consideration whether or not you want it persistent, as well. You could make a MM RTS non-persistent and still follow traditional (ie, StarCraftian) principles. Just lots more players, and lots more units; lots more fighting, and lots more glory to be the last man standing when the game ends. Not to mention, lots more bandwidth and processing requirements.

A persistent world RTS would have to "mangle the most basic concepts", just as Ratman said. You''d have to deal with resource depletion, players who join late and at a disadvantage to players that have been sitting like spiders in their monstrous web of units and buildings for the last seven and a half days, etc... You can''t just drop some poor schmuck with a town center, 4 peasants, and a light cavalry scout into the middle of a boiling war involving hand cannoneers, upgraded mangonels, and upgraded stone walls--not and expect that poor schmuck to last more than about a minute and a half.

There are games out there already that involve a great deal of real-time strategy; most are wrapped up in an FPS wrapper. Back when I still played games (too busy, now ) I was often embroiled in some pretty crafty strategery playing Tribes 2, involving actual battle plans, coordinated strikes, and everything. It could be argued, then, that these are RTS, and go from there.

Sorta depends, then, on what your definition of RTS is. I dunno, maybe I''m just rambling here...

Josh
vertexnormal AT linuxmail DOT org


Check out Golem at:
My cheapass website

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeltaVee    138
Just found this as well

http://www.s2games.com/savage/index.html

I agree with the points being made about persistence. You could end up with a single player dominating the whole server.

What about a God/demi-God/immortal/mortal approach? Once you reach a certain level of proficiency/power/size/strength you would then ''transcend'' to a higher plane, leaving the lower level players behind.

Actually this would solve a number of problems that are inherent in MMOG''s.

Everyone would rise (and fall) to their level. That way you would never have 1 player/clan dominate a whole server or sector.

When you get too big for a level you advance to the next one bringing a all/part of your resources with you. If you get to small (i.e. repeated losses/destruction) you drop down a level with your remaining resources. This will give players something to literaly rise to.

As far as resources go, they could continously shift/migrate so you wouldn''t just dump a mine somplace to mine for weeks on end, you would have to moive it from time to time.

This is an extremely rough concept so feel flee to slam it. I have already found some problems with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5010    122
A version of this has been done for many years in MUDs. The ones I''m familiar with were RPG, allowing players of various classes to have "pets". For example, a necromancer could animate undead and command them to attack other characters (player or non) or their pets.

But the games typically had rules about over-crowding. You couldn''t put more than a certain number of pets in one area. I think the rules are partly about balancing the pet-using-classes with non-pet-using classes and partly to prevent bandwidth congestion.

You don''t want persistence if someone can conquer the world. It''ll be like everyone is stuck at the end of the game! How boring is that?

Instead, limit the number of units or only allow players to occupy a certain maximum space. What''s the point then? Maybe there are certain highly prized locations. The player''s forces or allied groups then try to hold the positions as long as they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maxd gaming    100
Well...i was thinking persistance yet still SIMILAR to starcraft...the balancing would be the hardest part....i was thinking training and stuff would be really slow....I dunno im working on aa design document...Ill have it done when I get back from Alberta at the end of this week then ill post it somewhere for you all to read...with the one player domination, that wouldnt happen because of my balancing techniques...if you are just starting you get a speed boost everything goes faster and is easyer...also you cant be attacked in your "area" during the first x days. Plus if we have the problem of domination we will have multiple servers depending on your ranking....maybe 1-1000 "score" is in the first server...then when you get to 1000 your base blows up and you have to start on the next server...

[edited by - maxd gaming on August 15, 2003 4:54:19 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maxd gaming    100
besides there would be a server reset every month or whatever...we would wipe the servers maybe install better ones.... I dunno I thought it sounded like a good idea....i was also thinking it wouldnt be exactly like SC cause you would need economy (SimCity Style) and war (StarCraft style)....making the game alot more difficult....Im working on genneral plans for this game...im quite serious about making it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grusifixi    122
I have similiar idea for a RTS(maybe not MMO, but for 50+ players). A WW2 RTS where every player commands players below him in CoC(Chain-of-Command). At the lowest level in CoC, AI would control soldiers. Players would control squad leaders, platoon leaders,generals etc. Player could control "himself" directly(keyboard+mouse) and soldiers via Command-menu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erkki    122
I''m not much into strategy games currently (not really good at them), but I also had this idea some time ago. Also, maybe not massive multiplayer and not persistent, but the concept was similar to Grusifixi''s. You could play as in FPS mode, but if you chose (or were promoted to) a higher rank, you get a different interface and you can command troops.

Have you tried PlanetSide? It''s a MMO FPS, I personally didn''t like it very much, but it''s good. The battles that go on there are cool and involve strategy. But the strategy is done by chatting.
A strategy game interface could work well on top of that. If a player got promoted to a high rank (for what?), he could start making plans and giving orders to those below him. But it would be up to the "smaller" players to follow those plans. The strategist would of course be able to view the action from high above. Maybe your promotion would depend on whether you followed your orders or not.
In a persistant world, you could start as a peasant and end up as king.
But this idea has many problems that need to be solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saxxon    122
A game called 10-6 (Ten-Six). Its was a sci-fi MMORTS. I did not play it, but a few members of my gaming clan did.

And realistically, the latter offerings of MMORPGs are combining RTS elements. Shadowbane, Star Wars Galaxies etc. Resource gathering, object creation and ownership, NPC hirelings that function as warriors.

The game design I am working on is based on a MMORPG/RTS concept.

Some others offered additional examples above, from what I see in the trenches playing these games, a good portion of the MMORPG market would move this way given a properly made game.

Shoving garbage out the door won't cut it, and if you launch a game unfit for the public, they are loathe to return once bitten. This is something I hope is sinking in with the advent of games like AO, WWII Online & Shadowbane.

Bad launch, game is sunk. Preventable by; more testing, not cutting obviously useful and often needed features for players to handle your complex game properly (slider bars not working for guild management interfaces in Shadowbane...), not restricting your game's appeal to a narrow market segment, not "dev griefing" your customers (making counter productive occurences regularly happen creates frustrated players that cancel accounts).

On persistence, if it is reset every so often, or like most RTS that the game lasts a few hours at most, I wouildn't see as many players sticking to it for many months on end like PW world players. Certainly the issue of established players dominating becomes one of the largest concerns. If you make it PW, possible solutions are having a safe zone where players can get a grubstake base up & working to then challenge the established ones, alliances, territorial "shrink" (like in retail loss factor, the more territory you control the more costly your supply lines etc, thus putting a practical limit on how much real estate a player could control as you adjust the cost curve to create a negative gain after reaching X size in area controlled).

[edited by - Saxxon on August 17, 2003 8:42:53 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TreizeSG    134
quote:
Original post by maxd gaming
nice...im downloading Shattered Galaxy right now...looks really good...see I was thinking about making a MMORTS (NO FLAMING) I do realize the problems and complications but I''m very good at problem solving and I have a team of 4 VERY GOOD C++ Programmers...If you are interested in joining the team email me at

fallenkatana AT netscape DOT net


Shattered Galaxy... the game is extremely good. All things considered, Nexon USA did a great job putting it together. They were in beta for 2 years I believe(I joined @ the end of P4). Yes, an MMORTS is possible, but I think it would require more work than most other projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster   
Guest Anonymous Poster
How about a command hierarchy? (Forgive the following example, but I''ve been playing alotta SC during the last week..) The first time you play, you could start with the normal 4 workers, town hall, etc. In order to "save" your game, you should be able to retreat to a home base or something, and make sure that no enemies are following you, like a retreating army in real life. Then, next time you log in, you start off with the army that you had "saved" last time. When you reach a certain level, instead of commanding all your units individually, you could enlist other players to join your army, and have them be generals, and command parts of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ravuya    135
I don''t think a stereotypical RTS would be a good fit; however, something like xconq done over the Internet with persistent worlds and troop placement would be great (of course, only if your troops can fight very well for you when you are not present!!!).

Most RTS''es are maxed out at eight teams; what''s to stop a new player from being completely crushed by the biggest dogs? Alliances?

So basically you''d need to come up with a new and dynamic way for players to join the game without being completely overwhelmed (like they were in 10six), a revised interface, and genius artificial intelligence (or a buncha neat defenses) for when the player isn''t there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grusifixi    122
quote:
Original post by Ravuya
I don't think a stereotypical RTS would be a good fit; however, something like xconq done over the Internet with persistent worlds and troop placement would be great (of course, only if your troops can fight very well for you when you are not present!!!).

Most RTS'es are maxed out at eight teams; what's to stop a new player from being completely crushed by the biggest dogs? Alliances?

So basically you'd need to come up with a new and dynamic way for players to join the game without being completely overwhelmed (like they were in 10six), a revised interface, and genius artificial intelligence (or a buncha neat defenses) for when the player isn't there.


I've been thinking these questions in my "version" of MMORTS.
There should be only 2-4 teams and every new player would join team at the lowest level of CoC. One player would control only one team and anyone above him could have priority over his units. So that general could control soldiers if he has time.

[edited by - Grusifixi on August 19, 2003 7:42:57 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maxd gaming    100
quote:

So basically you''d need to come up with a new and dynamic way for players to join the game without being completely overwhelmed (like they were in 10six), a revised interface, and genius artificial intelligence (or a buncha neat defenses) for when the player isn''t there.




Already got that covered...A configureable AI that can be set to do what you tell it in the event of an attack (example Send half units if low on units train more, Send all units if low on units train more, Ignore, Open chat and say help at "cooredinates", Do This then do that). When your gone the AI is activated it will continue gathering resources and train more villagers if needed make sure there is enough food for your soliders etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gn0m3    124
quote:
Original post by Saxxon
A game called 10-6 (Ten-Six). Its was a sci-fi MMORTS. I did not play it, but a few members of my gaming clan did.



It's actually called Project Visitor now, Sega shut it down and some hardcore fans have revived it. You'd have to pay to play it now, there aren't any trials or anything. It's an interesting concept, but a ton of things have gone/are wrong with the game and there's only one guy working to try and fix them.

Link if anyone is interested...this game seems to be comeing up a lot lately...

[edited by - gn0m3 on August 21, 2003 8:16:19 PM]

[edited by - gn0m3 on August 21, 2003 8:16:35 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pext    122
command and conquer - every1 controlled a single unit; 50 players on one map ^^

this game was sucky as hell :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites