Moving troops from your main city to garrison territories is done in the keep. The rest of the map is instanced very similar to Guild Wars. The world map AKA quest map which can be seen in the temple has various quests. As your nation gains levels more quests will open. Once you defeat a quest it turns silver and becomes harder but the loot gets better, Defeat it again and it turns gold the final quest level, harder still but even better loot. Clicking on any quest will allow you to accept the quest and you will be instantly teleported there.
An RTS world that is not instanced quickly runs out of room, similar to Ultima Online. When you allow players to build on the map eventually every spot is filled and new players are discouraged from joining.
I would love to figure out a way to have a seamless world that didn’t seem so large that traveling became tedious yet was large enough to house players. Until that day an instanced world seems best.
MMORTS End Game
Re: Connected world doesn't mean seamless world
By connected I mainly meant that a graph exists that dictates which location is adjacent to which location. I didn't mean that the world is one big piece of continuous map.
For example, what I wanted to know is whether there is a situation such as:
Suppose you are at A, and the enemy is at E. Then this map dictates that your troop must travel to location B, then D, before you could attack E. This is different from a system where you just select E from a drop down menu and gets teleported to E's front door.
This has a lot to do with strategy because now the players need to think about where the enemy plans to attack so that they could allocate the troops accordingly. In addition to using resources as incentives for a player to take control of a location, the game also provides strategic reasons (i.e. Enemy could think: If I can control and defend B and D, then my nation is safe from A.)
The root of an RTS is on troop movement and placement, not really tactics during a battle. Being able to equip the troops and to hire 100 different unit types is a good detail, but that is not the essence of strategy.
The essence is in looking at the world map, and to imagine/predict how the enemy is going to attack you based on where they have positioned their troops. You decide where you could afford to defend, where not to defend and where to attack.
As far as selection goes you could still use a dropdown list, but the options would be limited to the adjacent locations. (I suppose that is how location selection in your quests and campaigns would work.)
Re: Hierarchical Map, from Village to Nation
In each location of the map above, you could zoom in to see additional locations that are at smaller scope. For example, the outskirt of B could have three villages that are connected to one another and each is connected to B:
In the arrangement above, I am trying to show that V1, V2, V3 are all connected to B, but there is no path from A directly to V1. To get from A to V1, a solider must first get to B. On the other hand, there is a back road that connects V4 and V3, although V4 is really in region D.
The size of the troop determines what path they could take. The rank of the player determines what type of location the player must use as a home base.
In terms of rank, this structure would support an MMORPG/RTS mix, such that the player starts as a peasant (not a general of any kind), then enlists to a faction and must climbs up the ladder before he could command troops. But the following assumes that the only gameplay is RTS and the player starts as a low rank general with options to build its force and/or territory to build structures.
If the player starts as a general, the player might get to choose where to start, and whether to have land. Suppose the player chooses to have land and start in region B, the game would create a new village under B. This village is connected to all other villages in B. B is a gateway to all of the villages that the player should help defend, if it is attacked and conquered, the invader can subsequently takeover (destroy) all of the other villages one by one.
The amount of resource that a village could get is inversely proportional to the number of villages in the region. A fixed percentage of the natural resource is given to the WarLord that controls the region. At any moment, the player can choose to "revolt" and stop letting the WarLord from collecting the tax. When this happens, the WarLord has the right to invade the village and destroy it. Other villages that are still paying tax can also invade your village. But you cannot invade the other villages. You can only attack the regional castle.
When the castle is captured by a player, the player becomes the Warlord of the region. There are only a limited number of player on the map that could be Warlord. A Warlord gets all of its troops from the villages. For example, if one of the villages has specialized and became a magic acadamy, that is the place where the Warlord will get the mages, wizards to fill its personal army (unless the Warlord's home village also had a magic academy). However, in general, each village can only have a few types of production structure. So if you started as a village that trains melee warriors, then once you become a Warlord, you are definitely relying on other villages to supply you other units.
The Warlord will also decide how to set the tax and how to distribute the money. For example, when the Warlord determines that siege weapons are needed, the Warlord can pay a village to turn into a siege workshop just to build siege weapons.
Commissioning is the process where a Warlord prepares an army for battle. A Warlord can maintain a personal army, and ... (** Post is too long! Bad! **)
[Edited by - Wai on June 6, 2009 6:52:30 PM]
By connected I mainly meant that a graph exists that dictates which location is adjacent to which location. I didn't mean that the world is one big piece of continuous map.
For example, what I wanted to know is whether there is a situation such as:
C /A - B F \ / D - E - G Suppose you are at A, and the enemy is at E. Then this map dictates that your troop must travel to location B, then D, before you could attack E. This is different from a system where you just select E from a drop down menu and gets teleported to E's front door.
This has a lot to do with strategy because now the players need to think about where the enemy plans to attack so that they could allocate the troops accordingly. In addition to using resources as incentives for a player to take control of a location, the game also provides strategic reasons (i.e. Enemy could think: If I can control and defend B and D, then my nation is safe from A.)
The root of an RTS is on troop movement and placement, not really tactics during a battle. Being able to equip the troops and to hire 100 different unit types is a good detail, but that is not the essence of strategy.
The essence is in looking at the world map, and to imagine/predict how the enemy is going to attack you based on where they have positioned their troops. You decide where you could afford to defend, where not to defend and where to attack.
As far as selection goes you could still use a dropdown list, but the options would be limited to the adjacent locations. (I suppose that is how location selection in your quests and campaigns would work.)
Re: Hierarchical Map, from Village to Nation
In each location of the map above, you could zoom in to see additional locations that are at smaller scope. For example, the outskirt of B could have three villages that are connected to one another and each is connected to B:
.--------C | V1--|--V2 | \|/ | A---------B---------D | | / | '--V3--------V4In the arrangement above, I am trying to show that V1, V2, V3 are all connected to B, but there is no path from A directly to V1. To get from A to V1, a solider must first get to B. On the other hand, there is a back road that connects V4 and V3, although V4 is really in region D.
The size of the troop determines what path they could take. The rank of the player determines what type of location the player must use as a home base.
In terms of rank, this structure would support an MMORPG/RTS mix, such that the player starts as a peasant (not a general of any kind), then enlists to a faction and must climbs up the ladder before he could command troops. But the following assumes that the only gameplay is RTS and the player starts as a low rank general with options to build its force and/or territory to build structures.
If the player starts as a general, the player might get to choose where to start, and whether to have land. Suppose the player chooses to have land and start in region B, the game would create a new village under B. This village is connected to all other villages in B. B is a gateway to all of the villages that the player should help defend, if it is attacked and conquered, the invader can subsequently takeover (destroy) all of the other villages one by one.
The amount of resource that a village could get is inversely proportional to the number of villages in the region. A fixed percentage of the natural resource is given to the WarLord that controls the region. At any moment, the player can choose to "revolt" and stop letting the WarLord from collecting the tax. When this happens, the WarLord has the right to invade the village and destroy it. Other villages that are still paying tax can also invade your village. But you cannot invade the other villages. You can only attack the regional castle.
When the castle is captured by a player, the player becomes the Warlord of the region. There are only a limited number of player on the map that could be Warlord. A Warlord gets all of its troops from the villages. For example, if one of the villages has specialized and became a magic acadamy, that is the place where the Warlord will get the mages, wizards to fill its personal army (unless the Warlord's home village also had a magic academy). However, in general, each village can only have a few types of production structure. So if you started as a village that trains melee warriors, then once you become a Warlord, you are definitely relying on other villages to supply you other units.
The Warlord will also decide how to set the tax and how to distribute the money. For example, when the Warlord determines that siege weapons are needed, the Warlord can pay a village to turn into a siege workshop just to build siege weapons.
Commissioning is the process where a Warlord prepares an army for battle. A Warlord can maintain a personal army, and ... (** Post is too long! Bad! **)
[Edited by - Wai on June 6, 2009 6:52:30 PM]
I am sorry but you are talking about a turn based strategy game not an RTS game. I have played many WWII simulations where troop position is important. A fun RTS game allows you to blow the crap out of your opponents by maneuvering your troops on a battle map and using their abilities.
The game you are describing may be fun for you and your friends but if you hope to enter the larger market you need to give up that concept.
To answer your question; no, the concept of position does not exist in Saga by design. You want players to be able to jump into a battle and have some fun, not sit there worrying about the global picture. That is not RTS.
The game you are describing may be fun for you and your friends but if you hope to enter the larger market you need to give up that concept.
To answer your question; no, the concept of position does not exist in Saga by design. You want players to be able to jump into a battle and have some fun, not sit there worrying about the global picture. That is not RTS.
Re: RTS
I am talking about RTS. In my description, there is a front line that is visible on a global map. Players that want to fight real time battle can go there. It would include all the movement Saga would have during a battle.
Example player involvement: able to send soldiers from one side of a castle to another side of the castle while the battle is taking place to help your other soldiers that are defending the gate, able to select when to use special attacks of soldiers, etc...
I actually call the above level of involvement 'tactics'. Tactics are what you do during a battle, it is able what you tell your troops to do during battle.
Strategy would be about what battles you choose to fight. Warcraft has strategy because you could have two, both know where the other is but are not fighting. But once their armies meet, the player is actually playing tactics.
Saga has strategy in the sense that the player chooses what to build and what territory to fight. But not in the sense that it has strategy during the battles. That is tactics. Tactics is something you can execute from a grove often times. Strategy is the part that requires more thoughts into the future states the world.
My impression is that Saga does not have an actual frontline other than the contested areas that can be attacked by anyone.
What do you mean when you say troop positioning is not important? In Saga, suppose you own three territories:
T1 - Your home world that cannot be attacked unless you want to be attacked
T2 - A contested (invadable territory)
T3 - Another contested territory
Suppose someone attacks your T2, and you are online, do you get to teleport everyone from T1 to T2? If not, then you did prepare some troops at T2 in anticipation of someone's attack. The only difference between Saga and a Connected map is that there is no notion of order that the enemies must go to invade your territories. But you still have to think about where to put your troops.
(I know that we are talking about two kinds of positioning: 1) The physicaly location of a territory and its adjacent territories; 2) Where the player assign the troops.)
[Edited by - Wai on June 6, 2009 7:14:22 PM]
I am talking about RTS. In my description, there is a front line that is visible on a global map. Players that want to fight real time battle can go there. It would include all the movement Saga would have during a battle.
Example player involvement: able to send soldiers from one side of a castle to another side of the castle while the battle is taking place to help your other soldiers that are defending the gate, able to select when to use special attacks of soldiers, etc...
I actually call the above level of involvement 'tactics'. Tactics are what you do during a battle, it is able what you tell your troops to do during battle.
Strategy would be about what battles you choose to fight. Warcraft has strategy because you could have two, both know where the other is but are not fighting. But once their armies meet, the player is actually playing tactics.
Saga has strategy in the sense that the player chooses what to build and what territory to fight. But not in the sense that it has strategy during the battles. That is tactics. Tactics is something you can execute from a grove often times. Strategy is the part that requires more thoughts into the future states the world.
My impression is that Saga does not have an actual frontline other than the contested areas that can be attacked by anyone.
What do you mean when you say troop positioning is not important? In Saga, suppose you own three territories:
T1 - Your home world that cannot be attacked unless you want to be attacked
T2 - A contested (invadable territory)
T3 - Another contested territory
Suppose someone attacks your T2, and you are online, do you get to teleport everyone from T1 to T2? If not, then you did prepare some troops at T2 in anticipation of someone's attack. The only difference between Saga and a Connected map is that there is no notion of order that the enemies must go to invade your territories. But you still have to think about where to put your troops.
(I know that we are talking about two kinds of positioning: 1) The physicaly location of a territory and its adjacent territories; 2) Where the player assign the troops.)
[Edited by - Wai on June 6, 2009 7:14:22 PM]
I am saying there are some things you need to be ready to give up when designing a mass market game. Anything that gives a player an advantage for being online 24/7 is BAD IMO because it then gives the perception of disadvantage for those who can not be on as long. The number of players who can't play all day or even every day far outnumbers those who can. So sure you can make a nitch game that allows you to defend in real time, but make sure you do not create one with any type of illusion that it will be a mass market success.
In Saga when you are attacked the AI takes over and defends, when you lose you dont actually lose THAT much, so you can't be too upset at the AI. Sure there is room for design to allow some player interaction but it needs to be minimal and not discourage play by those who can't be online 24/7
In Saga when you are attacked the AI takes over and defends, when you lose you dont actually lose THAT much, so you can't be too upset at the AI. Sure there is room for design to allow some player interaction but it needs to be minimal and not discourage play by those who can't be online 24/7
I am not saying above that the SAGA design is the only way to do things, or even that its the best. What I am saying is that you can not scare players away especially casual ones. Yes it's true the industry is catering the to "care bears" these days, but I would rather be accused of selling out then laying down.
Perhaps a better way to do things would be to only allow your PvP territories to be attacked when you are online, however that creates other problems. People really enjoy questing. It’s a fact that many more people enjoy questing than enjoy PvP. So what happens if your on a quest and you get attacked? Do you have to leave your quest? Do you have to log in and just not quest?
You see there are many problems and few solutions. We chose the one we thought worked best for us, but it’s not necessarily the best one. We are constantly listening to our players for feedback in hopes that better suggestions present themselves.
Perhaps a better way to do things would be to only allow your PvP territories to be attacked when you are online, however that creates other problems. People really enjoy questing. It’s a fact that many more people enjoy questing than enjoy PvP. So what happens if your on a quest and you get attacked? Do you have to leave your quest? Do you have to log in and just not quest?
You see there are many problems and few solutions. We chose the one we thought worked best for us, but it’s not necessarily the best one. We are constantly listening to our players for feedback in hopes that better suggestions present themselves.
Yeah no one has come up with a killer MMORTS design yet, one which has broad enough appeal like the MMORPGs. Though there are several things you can learn from MMORPGs which could be useful.
1)social component of a MMO is necessary, that is you must facilitate coordinated activities among users to build a strong social support which in turn furthers gameplay addictiveness.
2)player persistence is necessary in some form. Even though RTS avoid having customized units due to balancing issues, you'll have to add that somehow, so players feel invested in it, which again furthers addictiveness.
3)PvP isn't preferred mode of gameplay for most people. As anyone, most non-pvp servers outnumber pvp servers by factor of 5:1 where both are offered. Make any game where pvp is the sole mode of gameplay and you've already alienated most of your audience, unless you only want pvp players, which then it better be superbly balanced. Problem is RTS roots is all pvp, so it's difficult to break out of this mode of gameplay.
4)Loot is a critical component to the game, ie the finding/harvesting/stealing of treasure. Yep its simple reinforcement learning, players perform monotonous tasks and get reward randomly, that random reward creates an addictive feedback loop which has been hardwired into us by nature (it's the same thing gamblers get off on). Again traditional RTS shy away from such random elements in what is a strategic chess game, but to create an addictive gameplay you'll need to integrate this somehow.
Good Luck!
-ddn
1)social component of a MMO is necessary, that is you must facilitate coordinated activities among users to build a strong social support which in turn furthers gameplay addictiveness.
2)player persistence is necessary in some form. Even though RTS avoid having customized units due to balancing issues, you'll have to add that somehow, so players feel invested in it, which again furthers addictiveness.
3)PvP isn't preferred mode of gameplay for most people. As anyone, most non-pvp servers outnumber pvp servers by factor of 5:1 where both are offered. Make any game where pvp is the sole mode of gameplay and you've already alienated most of your audience, unless you only want pvp players, which then it better be superbly balanced. Problem is RTS roots is all pvp, so it's difficult to break out of this mode of gameplay.
4)Loot is a critical component to the game, ie the finding/harvesting/stealing of treasure. Yep its simple reinforcement learning, players perform monotonous tasks and get reward randomly, that random reward creates an addictive feedback loop which has been hardwired into us by nature (it's the same thing gamblers get off on). Again traditional RTS shy away from such random elements in what is a strategic chess game, but to create an addictive gameplay you'll need to integrate this somehow.
Good Luck!
-ddn
Re: PvP
Depending on how you do your statistics, PvP is and has always been the dominant mode of gameplay. It is obvious within the the genre of RTS. To say that PvP is not dominant would be to say that most people who got StarCraft got the game to play single player campaigns.
Other forms of game that are PvP:
o Tag
o Paper-rock-scissors
o Monopoly
o Table tennis
o Racing
o Scrable
o Poker
o Mahjong
o Football
o Soccer
o Tug of war
o Professional Wrestling
o Survivor
o Boxing
Professional Wrestling is an interesting entry because most of its participants are spectators. It is interesting because it tells you that it is possible to design a game that is fun to watch, and that along could give you a market share. If the result is an MMORTS, it would be a design with enough strategic depth such that there are pure spectators of the event in addition to the players.
At the moment, normal RTS could not break this barrier because they are too repetitive and insignificant.
FFXI is MMORPG and had a video streaming of locations in servers. In the MMORTS I have been describing, there would be a War Map that is viewable by the general public. Someone who clicks on a location can see the composition and condition of the troops. A pure spectators would get be invited to predict the results of a battle, or to predict the next move of a commander. If they want to participant, they can join and contribute to the outcome.
Overall, the design is done such that when a person first see the game from a browser, the first thing that captures them is the existing of a world map. When they see it they should have an immediate concept of the state of the game world. They might recognize an imminent battle, a city under siege, and villages asking for help. It is up to the player to decide what role they want to play in the world.
That is an additional attraction of the game, where the viewer realizes that this is not just another instanced game where players doing some tug-of-war that has no lasting effect. The player wants to see that if they were to join the game, they are part of something that can make significant changes. This gives a game world that actually changes over time, based on the collective impacts of the players actions.
Players will not need to be on 24/7 to enjoy the game, but I think the game will be interesting enough for them to read updates from browser. To some extend a player could predict when a battle will occur. When a battle occurs, it will occur at a set time, or last at least one day to allow players in different timezones to play and affect the outcome.
Depending on how you do your statistics, PvP is and has always been the dominant mode of gameplay. It is obvious within the the genre of RTS. To say that PvP is not dominant would be to say that most people who got StarCraft got the game to play single player campaigns.
Other forms of game that are PvP:
o Tag
o Paper-rock-scissors
o Monopoly
o Table tennis
o Racing
o Scrable
o Poker
o Mahjong
o Football
o Soccer
o Tug of war
o Professional Wrestling
o Survivor
o Boxing
Professional Wrestling is an interesting entry because most of its participants are spectators. It is interesting because it tells you that it is possible to design a game that is fun to watch, and that along could give you a market share. If the result is an MMORTS, it would be a design with enough strategic depth such that there are pure spectators of the event in addition to the players.
At the moment, normal RTS could not break this barrier because they are too repetitive and insignificant.
FFXI is MMORPG and had a video streaming of locations in servers. In the MMORTS I have been describing, there would be a War Map that is viewable by the general public. Someone who clicks on a location can see the composition and condition of the troops. A pure spectators would get be invited to predict the results of a battle, or to predict the next move of a commander. If they want to participant, they can join and contribute to the outcome.
Overall, the design is done such that when a person first see the game from a browser, the first thing that captures them is the existing of a world map. When they see it they should have an immediate concept of the state of the game world. They might recognize an imminent battle, a city under siege, and villages asking for help. It is up to the player to decide what role they want to play in the world.
That is an additional attraction of the game, where the viewer realizes that this is not just another instanced game where players doing some tug-of-war that has no lasting effect. The player wants to see that if they were to join the game, they are part of something that can make significant changes. This gives a game world that actually changes over time, based on the collective impacts of the players actions.
Players will not need to be on 24/7 to enjoy the game, but I think the game will be interesting enough for them to read updates from browser. To some extend a player could predict when a battle will occur. When a battle occurs, it will occur at a set time, or last at least one day to allow players in different timezones to play and affect the outcome.
This is true PvP is very common in single player or group play experience in both traditional and video games, however MMOs are a whole new breed of games catering not to a group(16+) but a population (100k+) of players. This opens up new dynamics both social and game play. Any PvP experience has to balance out the playfield for various players otherwise you'll get the disgruntled players who will not play your game again.
Good Luck on your game!
-ddn
Good Luck on your game!
-ddn
I ahve been giving this some more thought, and have come up with another model type for an MMORTS.
Basically it is a drip in prop out model.
In World of Warcraft, when you join you join on of two factions: Hoard or Alliance. A similar idea would also occur for this MMORTS game.
As a player, you join on of several factions, and in each Faction they have different basic styles (races). This defines the units you can use and the "quests" (missions) that you undertake.
In the game as you succeed in your missions, you gain ranks (levels) and this gives you access to new types of units, and high unit caps.
All the time there will be "mob" battles, where you can play single player and grind for ranks.
However, there will also be Boss battles where you and a few other players allied with you (that is on the same faction) have to work together to defeat a harder battle. These Boss battles, might even be against real people from another faction.
Then there are the set piece battles. These are territory control battles. In these groups from any faction strive to control that area. These areas have resource, not in supply, but in unique units available for the faction that controls it (call it alien tech, magical well springs or whatever). These units are balanced with the other unit available, but they have unique and interesting combat abilities (like the leader unit in most RTS games).
These can be killed like any other unit, but they can only be replaced if your faction controls the required territory.
To encourage fighting mobs and minor missions, each territory can revert to a neutral status if missions go ignored for too long.
In a contested territory, the fact that there is constant battle going on between factions is enough to fulfil the requirements for a territory not to revert to neutral status, but in territories that are secured, this created areas where new players can grind up levels.
Missions are not limited by the level of the players, but by the number of units you can bring on them. SO even a high level player can play a miner mission, they just can't bring their entire army along with them. This also means that new players can benefit from playing alongside experienced players.
You might include some way for a player to loose ranks, most likely this would be through trying to grief other players for example. This way it gives the developers a way to police bad behaviour without complete bans.
Basically it is a drip in prop out model.
In World of Warcraft, when you join you join on of two factions: Hoard or Alliance. A similar idea would also occur for this MMORTS game.
As a player, you join on of several factions, and in each Faction they have different basic styles (races). This defines the units you can use and the "quests" (missions) that you undertake.
In the game as you succeed in your missions, you gain ranks (levels) and this gives you access to new types of units, and high unit caps.
All the time there will be "mob" battles, where you can play single player and grind for ranks.
However, there will also be Boss battles where you and a few other players allied with you (that is on the same faction) have to work together to defeat a harder battle. These Boss battles, might even be against real people from another faction.
Then there are the set piece battles. These are territory control battles. In these groups from any faction strive to control that area. These areas have resource, not in supply, but in unique units available for the faction that controls it (call it alien tech, magical well springs or whatever). These units are balanced with the other unit available, but they have unique and interesting combat abilities (like the leader unit in most RTS games).
These can be killed like any other unit, but they can only be replaced if your faction controls the required territory.
To encourage fighting mobs and minor missions, each territory can revert to a neutral status if missions go ignored for too long.
In a contested territory, the fact that there is constant battle going on between factions is enough to fulfil the requirements for a territory not to revert to neutral status, but in territories that are secured, this created areas where new players can grind up levels.
Missions are not limited by the level of the players, but by the number of units you can bring on them. SO even a high level player can play a miner mission, they just can't bring their entire army along with them. This also means that new players can benefit from playing alongside experienced players.
You might include some way for a player to loose ranks, most likely this would be through trying to grief other players for example. This way it gives the developers a way to police bad behaviour without complete bans.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement