Always happy to helpIn return, sign me up for any beta!
Hehe, i sure will! :-)
Online MMORTS guidlines and help
Author
Hehe, i sure will! :-)
Author
Hi Guys,
I need a second answer on a thing I ran into. :-) I'm thinking about resources for the game, don't know why I'm starting there, but I am.
It's a sci-fi "theme" so I've come up with these 2 resources: Metal and Food. The buildings will use power, so I was thinking a third resource could be Crystal wich could be one way to gain power, besides solarpower.
The problem is, that in real life it's impossible to create power from crystals, so I thought of Deuterium wich is used to generate power in fussion powerplants. But is it okay to use Crystals or what is your opinion?
I need a second answer on a thing I ran into. :-) I'm thinking about resources for the game, don't know why I'm starting there, but I am.
It's a sci-fi "theme" so I've come up with these 2 resources: Metal and Food. The buildings will use power, so I was thinking a third resource could be Crystal wich could be one way to gain power, besides solarpower.
The problem is, that in real life it's impossible to create power from crystals, so I thought of Deuterium wich is used to generate power in fussion powerplants. But is it okay to use Crystals or what is your opinion?
This is your game. It is the furute. People could generate power from thin air as far as I'm concerned. Let the crystals emit a magnetic field, and lets say that two crystals that constantly orbit around each other generate power. Or that these crystals inherently have a charge, and melt away as they are used. Use your imagination and don't let stereotypes strangle you 
Also, while you are at the resources, think carefully what you will exactly need - food will go into millions, and the numbers will vary wildly from turn to turn (or by the minute) - keeping track of such a boring resource that is used all the time can be troublesome. And what if the population is robots? Do they feed on food too, or maybe they can sustain themselves? Does having food will force the player to build farms and waste the precious minerals and time? Justify each feature to make it entertaining, not just complex - complexity is good, as long as the learning curve doesn't change into a wall.
Again, this is just some view of a gamer that spent some time with the MMORTS genre
Feel free to do as you wish, as it is YOUR game
Also, while you are at the resources, think carefully what you will exactly need - food will go into millions, and the numbers will vary wildly from turn to turn (or by the minute) - keeping track of such a boring resource that is used all the time can be troublesome. And what if the population is robots? Do they feed on food too, or maybe they can sustain themselves? Does having food will force the player to build farms and waste the precious minerals and time? Justify each feature to make it entertaining, not just complex - complexity is good, as long as the learning curve doesn't change into a wall.
Again, this is just some view of a gamer that spent some time with the MMORTS genre
Feel free to do as you wish, as it is YOUR game
Author
This is your game. It is the furute. People could generate power from thin air as far as I'm concerned. Let the crystals emit a magnetic field, and lets say that two crystals that constantly orbit around each other generate power. Or that these crystals inherently have a charge, and melt away as they are used. Use your imagination and don't let stereotypes strangle you
Thanks! :-) haven't really thought of it that way, even though it's just straight forward and obvious
When designing resources, don't decide on the names and then try to work out what they could be used for, you first decide on what the player will need resources for, then work out how many you need to fulfill those needs and finally you can name them and work out what their in game theme is (eg: crystal, food, etc).
As you said that it is sci-fi, then you might want to learn a bit about post scarcity economic. This is an economic system where the price of an good is not dependent on how hard it is to get hold of. This might be sci-fi but it is certainly grounded in real economics and also in real technologies. Have a look at the RepRap project, this is an open-source project to make a 3D printer (it is currently around $600, where as a commercial 3D printer can cost upwards of $10,000).
Part of what makes the RepRap interesting is that the printer is designed to be able to make most of itself. This is what makes the cost so cheap, but it also means that once you get a critical amount of them (and as the number can increase exponentially this can happen quickly), the cost of scarcity with them drops to near $0 (but this does not mean that it becomes free).
If everybody had such machines (although more advanced and could print in metal and place electronic components - again, not sci-fi as there are 3D printers that do these things too), then the scarcity cost of these goods also drops to $0 (and it is $0 for anyone that has them). It is not inconceivable that space based ones in the future could build everything from mobile phones to complete space ships (I would say that within 30 years we could have this technology for real).
Extend this idea to a full production line. Raw materials go in one end and finished products exit from the other. All that is needed is someone to tell the machines what to do. It is also possible for these 3D printers to print in biological cells (this has already been done in real life - so not all that sci-fi).
Also, scientists have been able to transmute one substance into another (iirc it was lead into gold) as alchemists use to attempt. The problem is that the process costs more than the gold is worth so they can't really do this economically at the moment. But, as your game is sci-fi, you can do some hand waving and make it economically feasible. Thus one resource can be converted into another form.
So really the only two resources you need at energy and mater (if you want you can have different forms of matter but allow them to be converted at the cost of energy and time). As you are planning an MMORTS, then this conversion could take place in the time the player is off-line.
Just some thoughts to think about.
As you said that it is sci-fi, then you might want to learn a bit about post scarcity economic. This is an economic system where the price of an good is not dependent on how hard it is to get hold of. This might be sci-fi but it is certainly grounded in real economics and also in real technologies. Have a look at the RepRap project, this is an open-source project to make a 3D printer (it is currently around $600, where as a commercial 3D printer can cost upwards of $10,000).
Part of what makes the RepRap interesting is that the printer is designed to be able to make most of itself. This is what makes the cost so cheap, but it also means that once you get a critical amount of them (and as the number can increase exponentially this can happen quickly), the cost of scarcity with them drops to near $0 (but this does not mean that it becomes free).
If everybody had such machines (although more advanced and could print in metal and place electronic components - again, not sci-fi as there are 3D printers that do these things too), then the scarcity cost of these goods also drops to $0 (and it is $0 for anyone that has them). It is not inconceivable that space based ones in the future could build everything from mobile phones to complete space ships (I would say that within 30 years we could have this technology for real).
Extend this idea to a full production line. Raw materials go in one end and finished products exit from the other. All that is needed is someone to tell the machines what to do. It is also possible for these 3D printers to print in biological cells (this has already been done in real life - so not all that sci-fi).
Also, scientists have been able to transmute one substance into another (iirc it was lead into gold) as alchemists use to attempt. The problem is that the process costs more than the gold is worth so they can't really do this economically at the moment. But, as your game is sci-fi, you can do some hand waving and make it economically feasible. Thus one resource can be converted into another form.
So really the only two resources you need at energy and mater (if you want you can have different forms of matter but allow them to be converted at the cost of energy and time). As you are planning an MMORTS, then this conversion could take place in the time the player is off-line.
Just some thoughts to think about.
I think nobody's made a good online mmorts yet. There's company of heroes online, that allows players to level up by playing normal 1v1 multiplayer matches in a standard rts format to upgrade their army units while playing similar-level players. This is like halfway there.....but maybe persistent bases is a key thing, something about allowing players to change and build the world as players is a key. Also a key problem is that players cannot play 24/7, they must play infrequently, randomly, be able to quit randomly, and also be able to play a lot.
One solution might be making it totally instanced. This could be made more easily in console/text mode, or about as easily in C# or visual basic with microsoft web express (free) assuming multiplayer....single player console with AI would be easiest, but if you can get the db working with the free ms sql express integrated into web, multiplayer in a slow-format web site base (not even flash, just dynamically generated text&button pages with a db works good and is almost as easy as console, about as easy as C# winforms...note c# is easier than C++ or java, and is also well supported, extremely fast in 3D running as an .exe under windows, and also very c-like and powerful with modern features....c# works really good for web sites especially, and it almost seems to render models faster and better than C++ under ms directx sdk 11...didn't test it hard though, but those functions are so high level and c++ is so old and bloated....I keep looking back at C++ and C, and c# seems to be better in every real way, visual basic is also a solid option these days, as all the windows calls had to be high level and break ultrafast old c++ to make windows not crash randomly with 3rd party software running)...also c# works good on xbox marketplace with the xna c# option, I think vb works on xbox too, so you can make a pc game for free and get users to test it and love it and talk about it, then get it on xbox and make enough to keep making games and get your friends in on it too....or random online people telecommuting over skype works okay too, since code shares fast globally and foreign people should learn english and translators work.
Anyways my game idea is that each user has their own home base. This is where they start, although there might be a 'raiding only pirate' option that is different and only allows half the game. The user then builds up their base like a normal RTS base, first placing a town hall/center...probably with the buildings based on real stuff or whatever. Time would be modeled oddly to compensate for logging vs. reality 24/7, so a new player would have a bunch of resources to build a starter base quickly that can produce units. Most games have a bunch of military group units and only one civil unit, however both exist, and it might be neat to be able to build buildings that can make war kill defense units, or civil units like miners, smiths, researchers, beauracrats (organization & coordination), farmers, and more. These units could be placed around the map for defense, and this part could be a single player game too where the player builds up a city, and could be modeled simply with only 2 units (war & civil, each with a tech level that can be more advanced with advanced #'d buildings, so each higher # building might require more resources and all the previous ones plus a number of high level civil units. These units could level up by staying alive, being with other units that are like them, and doing things that are their profession (for most of that specific xp) and also similar and random other things are helpful too. Players would also have a 'leave the area' option, where they could pick a bunch of units and send them virtually 'scouting' to nearby non-rendered areas past barriers, where they might find other players eventually. You could then chat with the other players, establish trade, attack & rob them, etc, with a bookmark on their location after your units find them, possibly a fast 'scout' unit with a bonus to find players, and I should note you can only ever find online players so you are both there for the talk/fight. Some buildings generate resources, modeled abstractly as a single "cash" number or more specifically as detailed as possible, that can be generated by virtual humans and buildings, and might produce more resources at regular intervals while the player is playing and/or in real time. If a player gets attacked and the server options aren't 'hardcore', it would be good to save the city at the start of each interaction, and allow reverting and bookmark erasure under some sort of 'surrender' label, that reverts your city to before they robbed it and gives a cosmetic or points or other penalty to the surrendering player and a bonus to the other player...
One solution might be making it totally instanced. This could be made more easily in console/text mode, or about as easily in C# or visual basic with microsoft web express (free) assuming multiplayer....single player console with AI would be easiest, but if you can get the db working with the free ms sql express integrated into web, multiplayer in a slow-format web site base (not even flash, just dynamically generated text&button pages with a db works good and is almost as easy as console, about as easy as C# winforms...note c# is easier than C++ or java, and is also well supported, extremely fast in 3D running as an .exe under windows, and also very c-like and powerful with modern features....c# works really good for web sites especially, and it almost seems to render models faster and better than C++ under ms directx sdk 11...didn't test it hard though, but those functions are so high level and c++ is so old and bloated....I keep looking back at C++ and C, and c# seems to be better in every real way, visual basic is also a solid option these days, as all the windows calls had to be high level and break ultrafast old c++ to make windows not crash randomly with 3rd party software running)...also c# works good on xbox marketplace with the xna c# option, I think vb works on xbox too, so you can make a pc game for free and get users to test it and love it and talk about it, then get it on xbox and make enough to keep making games and get your friends in on it too....or random online people telecommuting over skype works okay too, since code shares fast globally and foreign people should learn english and translators work.
Anyways my game idea is that each user has their own home base. This is where they start, although there might be a 'raiding only pirate' option that is different and only allows half the game. The user then builds up their base like a normal RTS base, first placing a town hall/center...probably with the buildings based on real stuff or whatever. Time would be modeled oddly to compensate for logging vs. reality 24/7, so a new player would have a bunch of resources to build a starter base quickly that can produce units. Most games have a bunch of military group units and only one civil unit, however both exist, and it might be neat to be able to build buildings that can make war kill defense units, or civil units like miners, smiths, researchers, beauracrats (organization & coordination), farmers, and more. These units could be placed around the map for defense, and this part could be a single player game too where the player builds up a city, and could be modeled simply with only 2 units (war & civil, each with a tech level that can be more advanced with advanced #'d buildings, so each higher # building might require more resources and all the previous ones plus a number of high level civil units. These units could level up by staying alive, being with other units that are like them, and doing things that are their profession (for most of that specific xp) and also similar and random other things are helpful too. Players would also have a 'leave the area' option, where they could pick a bunch of units and send them virtually 'scouting' to nearby non-rendered areas past barriers, where they might find other players eventually. You could then chat with the other players, establish trade, attack & rob them, etc, with a bookmark on their location after your units find them, possibly a fast 'scout' unit with a bonus to find players, and I should note you can only ever find online players so you are both there for the talk/fight. Some buildings generate resources, modeled abstractly as a single "cash" number or more specifically as detailed as possible, that can be generated by virtual humans and buildings, and might produce more resources at regular intervals while the player is playing and/or in real time. If a player gets attacked and the server options aren't 'hardcore', it would be good to save the city at the start of each interaction, and allow reverting and bookmark erasure under some sort of 'surrender' label, that reverts your city to before they robbed it and gives a cosmetic or points or other penalty to the surrendering player and a bonus to the other player...
Part of the problem of RTS games being converted into MMO is that RTS games generally have a strong Positive Feedback loop in them. In RTS games, this is important because it brings a swift conclusion to the game when one player gets the upper hand. However, in an MMO, there is no "swift conclusion" as the world is persistent and just because one player does well, it should cause the end of the game.
What is needed is a Negative Feedback loop that makes good players have to work harder and harder the more of a lead they want. This kind of change would completely change the dynamic of the game and the risk here is that it changes it beyond what RTS gamers want from their game.
The Positive Feedback Loop in RTS games is the: "Build Units -> Take over Resource Points using units -> Use resources to make more units" loop. This means that the better someone does, the easier it is for them to keep getting better.
One idea here is to have a limit the number of units the player can have. This can be a hard limit, or a soft limit. Hard limits have an (arbitrary) number of population points and each unit costs population points to field. Soft limits have an ongoing cost (upkeep) associated with each unit and the upkeep vs income values determine the unit limit.
The soft limit has a problem, that the player can still gain resources to increase their income and thus get around the soft limit restriction. The only way the soft limit works is to also limit the players ability to gain income.
So although I am more for a soft limit solution, it is harder to implement and you can usually get a similar end effect with a hard limit (so the hard limit is usually more practical, but I find the soft limit more aesthetically pleasing).
What is needed is a Negative Feedback loop that makes good players have to work harder and harder the more of a lead they want. This kind of change would completely change the dynamic of the game and the risk here is that it changes it beyond what RTS gamers want from their game.
The Positive Feedback Loop in RTS games is the: "Build Units -> Take over Resource Points using units -> Use resources to make more units" loop. This means that the better someone does, the easier it is for them to keep getting better.
One idea here is to have a limit the number of units the player can have. This can be a hard limit, or a soft limit. Hard limits have an (arbitrary) number of population points and each unit costs population points to field. Soft limits have an ongoing cost (upkeep) associated with each unit and the upkeep vs income values determine the unit limit.
The soft limit has a problem, that the player can still gain resources to increase their income and thus get around the soft limit restriction. The only way the soft limit works is to also limit the players ability to gain income.
So although I am more for a soft limit solution, it is harder to implement and you can usually get a similar end effect with a hard limit (so the hard limit is usually more practical, but I find the soft limit more aesthetically pleasing).
Author
Part of the problem of RTS games being converted into MMO is that RTS games generally have a strong Positive Feedback loop in them. In RTS games, this is important because it brings a swift conclusion to the game when one player gets the upper hand. However, in an MMO, there is no "swift conclusion" as the world is persistent and just because one player does well, it should cause the end of the game.
What is needed is a Negative Feedback loop that makes good players have to work harder and harder the more of a lead they want. This kind of change would completely change the dynamic of the game and the risk here is that it changes it beyond what RTS gamers want from their game.
The Positive Feedback Loop in RTS games is the: "Build Units -> Take over Resource Points using units -> Use resources to make more units" loop. This means that the better someone does, the easier it is for them to keep getting better.
One idea here is to have a limit the number of units the player can have. This can be a hard limit, or a soft limit. Hard limits have an (arbitrary) number of population points and each unit costs population points to field. Soft limits have an ongoing cost (upkeep) associated with each unit and the upkeep vs income values determine the unit limit.
The soft limit has a problem, that the player can still gain resources to increase their income and thus get around the soft limit restriction. The only way the soft limit works is to also limit the players ability to gain income.
So although I am more for a soft limit solution, it is harder to implement and you can usually get a similar end effect with a hard limit (so the hard limit is usually more practical, but I find the soft limit more aesthetically pleasing).
So say, if I choose to put food into the game, it will make a soft limit, in the way that you have to use time (building farms) to generate more food for your warriors? And then having the price for farms go up as you level them up, it would cost more and more to keep a bigger army.
But, because it's an online rts it also takes more and more of the players time the bigger his army and empire grow, so that is a kind og soft limit as well you could say?
I'm not sure if [size=2]anyone’s mentioned it and it may not be any help but i noticed on the Paradox interactive site that "Dreamlords: Resurrection" has launched. It's meant to be a Free to Play MMORTS, have not tried it yet so can't say if it's any good. The trailer does look a bit iffy but i guess i shouldn't judge a book by its cover:P. Anyway hope it helps, even if it just shows you how not to do it.
Author
I'm not sure if anyone’s mentioned it and it may not be any help but i noticed on the Paradox interactive site that "Dreamlords: Resurrection" has launched. It's meant to be a Free to Play MMORTS, have not tried it yet so can't say if it's any good. The trailer does look a bit iffy but i guess i shouldn't judge a book by its cover:P. Anyway hope it helps, even if it just shows you how not to do it.
Thanks for linking :-) Yeah, your right about it looking a bit iffy, but I definitely think the concept is great :-)
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
