This morning while reading my gaming news I felt the need to once again voice my opinion on the subject of “MMO” and “RTS” games being merged. First, I think it’s a wonderful idea. Having a big game world where all players exist together at once and claim/defend/attack other players all in a real time strategy environment akin to Age of Empires of Warcraft would be fantastic. It would be like those browser games like Travian where you literally do everything in real time with other people. Building up an empire, having to defend what you claim, and playing in a persistent RTS world in the same style of RTS as AoE/WC3/SC/C&C has not yet been done.
It’s not a “MMO” “Real time” Strategy game unless everyone exists live in the world at the same time capable of fighting anyone at any time and not separated by instances. Attempts are being made to create RTS games that have a global chat channel where people can arrange battles or sell things, but that’s not any more “MMO” than battle.net. You can give someone a persistent town to look at that can be edited a bit while waiting for battles to begin, with NPC’s offering quests, but that’s really no different from a lobby and there is almost nothing real time strategy about looking at your kingdom sit there — especially when you start from scratch when entering a new battle against someone every time with the only persistence being your town-lobby when you exit the game.
Very few people truly want a real MMORTS. You would be vulnerable while offline. You would be subject to falling behind the curve when others upgrade, expand territory, gather new resources, and play the game while you are offline. That sounds fun to me, but I think most people want something that reflects today’s “give me quests and a hub” approach as the defining characteristic of MMO’s.
Be warned, all of the upcoming attempts at “MMORTS” games are no more massively multiplayer real-time than StarCraft.
But I don’t mind this as a “Start”. I don’t ever have a problem with folks trying something new. So they can “instance” it a bit with the thought that maybe later on it can turn into an real MMORTS…which sounds good to me.
I see what you’re saying, but if you really think about it this is almost no different than what has been done with RTS games for more than a decade.
There’s trickery afoot here in how these companies are using “massively multiplayer”. A global chat channel and quests do not a MMO make.
Even the persistent lobby-town you get to look at between battles is single player.
I would agree whole heartedly that simply combining elements of an MMO experience with an RTS platform is not the same as actually crafting an MMORTS. The most recent “attempt” that I could think of was Battleswarm (and that certainly was an attempt), but I am curious as to what these “upcoming attempts” are. Defining more tangible criteria for the genre could be a great exploratory piece.
@DrShure: Examples would be Age of Empires Online and Golden Age.
Someone should create a proper MMORTS that has an AI that learns based off your actions so when you log out this AI can take over furthering the progress of your little empire. This is the best solution I can think of. Maybe give the AI stat bonuses or something to make up for the fact that an AI controlled army won’t be nearly as effective as a human one. Other than that the only problem I could think of is figuring out how to show hundreds maybe thousands of troops in a real time environment without crashing the server.
I think developers are just putting in “enough” features to slap on the MMO label in an effort to charge a monthly fee or have a cash shop.
“Building up an empire, having to defend what you claim, and playing in a persistent RTS world in the same style of RTS as AoE/WC3/SC/C&C has not yet been done.”
Ballerium tried it. Went out of business.
The “true” MMORTS model you are talking about suffers from a huge first mover advantage – those first able to lay down ownership over parts of the world restrict everyone else, so that players who come in later are never able to catch up (or: have to defeat the entrenched players to gain access to the resources).
@Abaddon
That would be great, except actual AI isn’t real as of yet.
They can make a script that would “play” your town for you, but the best you could expect would be the average play level you see in a single player skirmish vs the computer.
Which is to say not that great.
another solution to the vulnerability of being offline could be solved if u take a page out of eve’s handbook. If you log out your ship leaves the server. so could your kingdom (in a sense. maybe a ‘force bubble’)
another solution(s) to the problem of people claiming alot of land would be that: A) actual server caps based on land mass
B) land caps for players under X levels) c) this may not be able to be done but a persistant, randomly generated map program that adds more land the more players are on the server. (think of an area around the size of your fog of war when you start a game, with X amount of distance from other players.
The “problem” is self-created.
Or more precisely, We, as gamers, are expecting the wrong thing, and designers, are quite frankly not approaching the concept in an innovative way. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that most games are made through major corporate publishers, and anything that sounds different in a pitch [something hard to make a bet on] doesn’t make it through.
First, Let’s approach the “problem” on the gamer’s part, and forget about ole’ Corporate;
The problem on our part begins with an understanding of the typical RTS model that we all know and love,
Dune 2000:
//-Start with base
//-Collect resources
//-Build buildings
//-Build army
//-Destroy things
This model is so fundamental to most of what we expect in the RTS genre that it’s no wonder we have problems moving this to a persistent world that thousands of people log on to and compete in.
We have to change our expectations,
We have to change what we’re asking the developers for!
We don’t WANT C&C [A la Dune2000],
We don’t WANT AoE,
We don’t WANT SC.
We want an MMORTS!
We need to think hard about what that means.
I think MY ideal MMORTS would start you out with one player [like a villager for a town, from the third person] and put you out in to a completely player-controlled world, from the management of the town to the country, to every business around, all player based.
You would have a “task designer” that would let you design macros for various units in an intelligent way, for example one could create tasks like “Get laid”, or “Where is my god-damn wallet anyway?”, Or less-humourously “Chop trees” which would read instructions like: “Find nearest tree, approach(0m[[Distance from object to stop at]]), chop, find nearest market, sell” and once a unit [or group] was set to a task it would operate endlessly, One could also design micro-scale military tactics for individual units to do based on what units are in front of them, etc] Automation is the key to the sort of scale I imagine a proper MMO to have.
Now you’d have a guy chopping wood and hauling it to market and selling it, [likely taxed by whichever player owned the area]But wait, this isn’t your typical RTS, You’re putting that wood on the market, The scale, I think, should be Supreme Commander like in zoom, You zoom out from your peasant and take a look at the whole of the city where you’re selling your wood, Icons for the individually player designated markets pop-up, you hover your mouse over the one your peasant’s been slaving his life away to, and market information appears, The Daily production, the Daily sales, Daily leftovers, price per unit, etc. You look over and see another player-designed, built, and managed government structure..You hover your mouse over it and view the details of how the local city [player] government is run, who the top dogs are, what the city assets are, etc, The main two ways to expand your empire would be to find the opposite sex [who you can mutually expand your unit pop with, at the expense of one unit’s time], or to hire other players’s units to perform your tasks for you.
Or maybe I’m just crazy.
Just a few thoughts,
Hiturunk
“Very few people truly want a real MMORTS. You would be vulnerable while offline” … ah, but here you are thinking as a solo player in an MMO world. Do we really want to build an MMO where you can solo your whole way?
I’d prefer an MMORTS where I was one of many responsible for my village/clan/city, and when I log off I can rest assured there would be others there to defend. Not a god’s eye view of the world, but somewhere lower on the totem pole.
Perhaps we should think about making a new type completely, and calling it an RTGS. We can tack MMO onto that. Real-Time Guild Strategy.
Going off of Garumoo’s idea, it would basically be an RTS that had each city or “faction” run by a guild. It would have to be on a scale that could encompass everything comfortably, but I don’t think it would be outside the realm of possibility.
@Garumoo: How is what I said a solo experience? It leaves you in the world vulnerable to OTHER PEOPLE. Are you saying that your empire logging out with you is more multiplayer?
What you want is not an RTS game. You want something like Savage, but persistent. That could be cool, but it would not be an RTS.
@Rawblin: As I pointed out above, that’s really what Savage/Savage 2 is all about but on a smaller less persistent scale.
There is currently still this game that was released in 2001 call Shattered Galaxy. (www.sgalaxy.com)
Your character have stats points that affect how many units you control on the battle field and how each unit is being equipped. It is played in a persistent world with 3 faction and various provinces/maps. Control over these provinces are fought in the RTS model.
Each player only control a squad of up to 12 units (base on your tactic stats). The gameplay is like dawn of war but with more people on each side of the battlefield. The winning faction ether wins by controlling all the POC (point of contention) or running down victory points ala Dawn of war according to the different maps.
Do you consider this a MMORTS ?
Yea, that thought goes along the lines of Savage as you said, Keen. But can we really expect an RTS to ever be MMO worthy, with RTS designed how they are?
The essence of RTS is that all enemies start with the minimal, and then build from there while hoarding resources. If you make your base permanent, as in you simply own a small piece of say, a world… the moment you log off you are going to be destroyed by anyone that comes along. And likewise for them.
I don’t see any reason or benefits to making an RTS permanent, when it is simply one person’s city/faction/whatever they would be called.
The only real way to give it meaning is to have the work, and the rewards, be shared by many, ala a Guild. The minor mechanics can of course be hashed out as needed, but I really don’t believe an MMORTS is possible without a large number of people controlling one said faction or city or whatnot. Whether that makes it play like Savage, or something else we haven’t even seen yet, is to be decided. I’d prefer something brand new.
@Garumoo:
“I’d prefer an MMORTS where I was one of many responsible for my village/clan/city, and when I log off I can rest assured there would be others there to defend. Not a god’s eye view of the world, but somewhere lower on the totem pole.”
This would make recruitment for guilds a nightmare. You would have to make sure every single time zone is covered by multiple players, not to mention you would become a slave to the game.
What you describe sounds more like guard duties in the army than a fun multiplayer game to enjoy.
@Keen: Solo, as in not requiring any team mates to achieve your goals (sure, the enemies you smash are player driven instead of dumb AI, but it’s pretty much just you smashing them).
Consider instead if you could delegate command duties to a number of officers in your guild .. now, while you sleep someone else could be protecting your empire.
@Garumoo: I still think you’re describing a variation on Savage’s model. The standard RTS model adapted for MMO play could easily involve alliances with other kingdoms, and it’s no more single player than any game where your character is yours and not shared with others.
@Merovingian: is one guild responsible for all of Stormwind or Orgrimmar? Or is it more a matter that there is a critical mass of players, with cooperation and coverage arising as an emergent effect rather than a deliberate recruitment plan.
@Keen: well, I did say solo play, not single player =P
Thanks for the pointer to Savage though – I’m having a closer read of it but until I get a chance to play some things are still vague. For example, when they say “your team” are they referring to multiple players, or the units that you, the player, get to order around?
@Stormc: Shattered Galaxy sounds closer to an MMORTS than Savage does… players control multiple units and resource points, and multiple players are mixed in together on the battlefield.
In Savage you are one unit following the orders of a commander.
Wasnt shattered galaxy pretty close? I mean, you had lots of units and counters to choose from and fought for strategic positions on the map and for your faction with 100’s of other players.
@Garumoo: very bad comparison. WoW is not a MMORTS, and Stormwind/Orgrimmar can’t be destroyed overnight while you are sleeping or when you are at work.
Good article, and as others have pointed out there have been *real* MMORTS’s released, but they’ve never done very well (Time of Defiance, Picaroon …).
I think maybe, as you imply, the true RTS as we know it just isn’t suitable for MMO land and needs to be revised to become something fun as an MMO – but then it is no longer an RTS. Ho hum.
@merovingian: Ah, but why can’t Stormwind/Orgrimmar be destroyed overnight? The obvious (and boring) answer is that the game mechanics doesn’t even include city destruction as a concept, because WoW is not an MMORTS.
The more interesting answer is that they are centers of player activity, where at any time of day you’re likely to find numerous defenders. These defenders are not all under the control of the one player, or even members of the same guild/tribe/[player-social-group].
See, I referred to Stormwind/Orgrimmar as a short-hand for a place where you’d find a mass of like minded but not officially grouped players. I could have referred to Edialeda or Yendys instead, except you would have no idea whether they were a large city, a guild keep, or some isolated hamlet.
If a true MMORTS is a world that accommodates lots (definition?) of players interacting where everything can be built up by gathering resources and then destroyed – well at present Picaroon (in open beta) provides such a world, try the Classic game! But the game lasts for a set period and the winners are judged on reputation scores which provide ranking points. The game is pretty full on pvp but to avoid players being completely wiped out there are protection states: beginner’s protection to gain a foothold in the world and last chance protection so that you cannot be completely wiped out.
Alliances are free form at the moment (but we are thinking of creating a more forced Faction structure above) so alliance members can protect each other’s assets.
We are also creating a truly persistent Picaroon game where players can get wiped out and then would have to regain a foothold into this world – we’ll see how testers react soon! We have also thought about experimenting with time zoning or limited interactions to save tasty combat gameplay for when more people are online – but others have suggested just time zoning combat. Many choices and decisions to make.