Pic unrelated? Because it's not 'Massive Multiplayer' unless there are hundreds of active participants at least. That would be closer to those awful browser games where you keep upgrading a village and raid other people's villages. It's a pretty lame idea.
Deserts of Kharak but with the desert being actually massive. Players scattered around a barren wasteland and migrating between oases, which are garrisoned by hostile but dumb NPCs. Fighting them is relatively simple but devious players could always be on the prowl to ambush you.
AoE Online did it correctly and well. The problem is both the way microtransactions worked and it being too ahead of it's time. I think such a thing would be a huge hit if it came out today.
having played shattered galaxy back in the day was neat, definitely felt like your bogstandard rts but with territorial control, no real resource gathering just a lineup of persistent dudes and you went back to your capitol to refresh the dead. Also the center of the world map was a controllable facility that let you refresh troops there to encourage people to capture it if they want to grind the meat. They let players do alot of goofy counter strats but generally the strategy comes down to starting certain fights with the intention of pushing their length out or cutting them short, either stalling a capture or preventing a full upset that ejects the invading force immediately. it reminded me alot of planetside 2 without as much zerging.
I think the primary flaw of the MMO RTS concept is making it PvP. A proper implementation should be a massive comp stomp. Hundreds of players against an all-powerful AI. However, it would be interesting if they introduced corruption. Is a player powerful and going really well? Have the AI send it a personal message offering a ton of resources if that player wipes out another player. I think there is much more interesting potential in this experience than trying to scale up a giant PvP match.
>Starcraft 1 had 7 players against an AI
And that didn't become the default format for a reason. >Why can't we have 700?
Because executive agency is then split up between 700 goobers who sorted themselves into a great big compstomp brigade. No room for macro plays, no room for micro optimizations, and no room for variation in approach.
Anyone with talent would be out playing an RvR mode.
Games like WoW, which are unquestionably MMOs, have 30-player raids, but go as few as 5. We can have smaller experiences in which players experience more agency, just as a large operation is made up of many smaller battles and skirmishes. At other times, players are happy to just be part of a larger effort, as with giant ship battles in EvE in which the spectacle is the enjoyment.
And the issue is that this completely bastardizes anything it touches. The "RPG" aspects of WoW disappear entirely in raid environments, beyond collecting X bear asses as a guild.
For RTS, it's worse. How do you retain the dynamic of a guy aging up a minute early for a xbow-mangonel push against a guy with a developed farm eco massing scouts during an age-up to raid upon hitting castle?
4 months ago
Anonymous
Yes it's a good point that decisions need to be meaningful. As I understand, this is achieved in MMORPGs through the "Trinity" of damage-tank-heal. The meaningful decisions being each player helping to maintain balance.
Translated to RTS, this would be coordinating to achieve a plan. One player ages up a minute early for that push against the AI (damage). This gives breathing room for another player to develop their eco (healing), which in turn they contribute to another player defending against a massive AI push (tank). Smaller moments feeding into a larger picture.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>As I understand, this is achieved in MMORPGs through the "Trinity" of damage-tank-heal.
It isn't. >Translated to RTS, this would be coordinating to achieve a plan. One player ages up a minute early for that push against the AI (damage).
Divided among 700 players, that's not making much of a difference. Even 4 players struggle to take advantage of this. >This gives breathing room for another player to develop their eco (healing)
Eco is the game's long-term potential magnifier. It's not a return to the status quo like in RPG games. >which in turn they contribute to another player defending against a massive AI push (tank).
The AI will attack the most vulnerable player(s) and position(s). You can't force the AI to focus on you unless you proxy rush it.
More importantly: RTS games can afford immense depth because aggression comes with a built-in opportunity cost. You can design civs like Berbers and Magyars, whose basic advantages are slow to roll out, because RTS games have much more nuanced advantage and disadvantage states than games centered on DPS.
You'd have to design the game first as an RTS game.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>It isn't.
Please explain, as I understand games like Wow heavily rely upon exactly this
>Divided among 700 players, that's not making much of a difference.
please refer back to
Games like WoW, which are unquestionably MMOs, have 30-player raids, but go as few as 5. We can have smaller experiences in which players experience more agency, just as a large operation is made up of many smaller battles and skirmishes. At other times, players are happy to just be part of a larger effort, as with giant ship battles in EvE in which the spectacle is the enjoyment.
>Games like WoW, which are unquestionably MMOs, have 30-player raids, but go as few as 5.
In which group effort is possible without every single member of the faction being present in a round
>You can't force the AI to focus on you
"defend the objective", simple
>You can design civs like Berbers and Magyars, whose basic advantages are slow to roll out
Just think of starcraft co-op and the variety there in PvE focused gameplay
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Please explain, as I understand games like Wow heavily rely upon exactly this
WoW doesn't bother with meaningful decisions in raid environements. The trinity model is just filler. >please refer back to
Doesn't answer anything. You have 700 people participating, but not in the context of RPG gameplay. It's just meter management. >In which group effort is possible without every single member of the faction being present in a round
Yes? >"defend the objective", simple
The "objective" in an RTS game is your base and eco. >Just think of starcraft co-op and the variety there in PvE focused gameplay
Starcraft Co-op doesn't have to be balanced or account for group dynamics. It's made as a feel-good experience, not a truly social one.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Frontline/Logistics/Support/SpecOps
Frontline would be your typical RTS gameplay.
Logistics would be your base builder / turtlegay whose main objective is harvesting the area and delivering reinforcements to Frontline players
Support would be your arty / airforce gays, respectively caring about firing angle (need tall terrain features everywhere) or safe aerial path.
SpecOps would be the guy leading a few "hero" unit with meh combat stats but a frickton of abilities.
Pretty sure that would cover all major form of RTS autism.
There you got your MMORTS Holy Quadrinity.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Frontline would be your typical RTS gameplay.
That means Logistics and Support are redundant.
4 months ago
Anonymous
By typical I mean the part where you actually move troops, scout, micro units, etc, which is supposed to be the meat of the genre.
4 months ago
Anonymous
The meat of the genre is in the macro game. The micro is just an exciting topping, and groups will break down with bloody murder in the chat if the guy playing frontline does poorly with Logistics' units.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>and groups will break down with bloody murder in the chat if the guy playing frontline does poorly with Logistics' units.
Just like when a DPS decide to stand in the big "do not stand in" red area.
If the objective is to emulate the holy trinity but RTS-style, you are bound to get the same ups and downs.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Just like when a DPS decide to stand in the big "do not stand in" red area.
It's on a completely different scale. That's one guy fricking things up for himself. This is more like you handing a guy control of multiple raid-wide buffs and him immediately dying. >If the objective is to emulate the holy trinity but RTS-style
The point is that it shouldn't be. Trinity RPG mechanics don't align with RTS mechanics at any point.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Fair opinion, but how would (you) organize an MMORTS then?
'cause that was the topic of that discussion chain.
4 months ago
Anonymous
See
A good MMORTS would play like AoE2 does now, using a matchmaking lobby for 1v1s and team games.
Maybe an EU4-like FFA mode?
4 months ago
Anonymous
I recall a fairly recent game where one teammate would do all the fighting and the other would mine resources underground so there was obviously a big emphasis on coordinated teamwork.
I think something similar to the way Anno 2070 handled its factions and events, with greater depth and impact on gameplay, is as close as you could come without making a bad game. The hard thing about it is making bases attackable without requiring both players to happen to be available simultaneously. Trusting teammates or AI is an option but not a good one. Anything that isn't just skirmishes with extras on top doesn't seem viable to me.
I would be immensely impressed with the emergent gameplay of just showing up im am area to find a battle in progress and hiring yourself out as a mercenary, supplying resources, or salvaging destroyed vehicles, but it doesn't seem like it would work well.
Depends on your definition of MMO and technically even RTS.
If you want frick huge battles with a smart enough coder that knows how the multithread and can make his own engine you can probably have 100 ish people commanding units on a map with todays technology.
If you want to have just servers and instances ala WoW clones. It hasn't been done before but it's not that hard to implement.
If you want the fake MMOs like Total War arena or AoE online we already had those.
To be frank RTS is already an autistic genre filled with buthurt gays. The last thing I want is to de fully dependent for my game on the dogshit communities these sorts of games garner.
Is gud as long they dont put a lot of dlc and lock basic content behind a paywall when ms was in charge of it. Also dont forget sp modes.
Pic unrelated? Because it's not 'Massive Multiplayer' unless there are hundreds of active participants at least. That would be closer to those awful browser games where you keep upgrading a village and raid other people's villages. It's a pretty lame idea.
Maybe with a large ass map and limited to small bases?
Deserts of Kharak but with the desert being actually massive. Players scattered around a barren wasteland and migrating between oases, which are garrisoned by hostile but dumb NPCs. Fighting them is relatively simple but devious players could always be on the prowl to ambush you.
Basically Sea of Thieves but as an RTS (or RTT).
AoE Online did it correctly and well. The problem is both the way microtransactions worked and it being too ahead of it's time. I think such a thing would be a huge hit if it came out today.
mmos are pay to win garbage
having played shattered galaxy back in the day was neat, definitely felt like your bogstandard rts but with territorial control, no real resource gathering just a lineup of persistent dudes and you went back to your capitol to refresh the dead. Also the center of the world map was a controllable facility that let you refresh troops there to encourage people to capture it if they want to grind the meat. They let players do alot of goofy counter strats but generally the strategy comes down to starting certain fights with the intention of pushing their length out or cutting them short, either stalling a capture or preventing a full upset that ejects the invading force immediately. it reminded me alot of planetside 2 without as much zerging.
A good MMORTS would play like AoE2 does now, using a matchmaking lobby for 1v1s and team games.
Maybe an EU4-like FFA mode?
I think the primary flaw of the MMO RTS concept is making it PvP. A proper implementation should be a massive comp stomp. Hundreds of players against an all-powerful AI. However, it would be interesting if they introduced corruption. Is a player powerful and going really well? Have the AI send it a personal message offering a ton of resources if that player wipes out another player. I think there is much more interesting potential in this experience than trying to scale up a giant PvP match.
Not at all compatible with RTS. That's just an MMO with an isometric view.
Starcraft 1 had 7 players against an AI
Why can't we have 700?
>Starcraft 1 had 7 players against an AI
And that didn't become the default format for a reason.
>Why can't we have 700?
Because executive agency is then split up between 700 goobers who sorted themselves into a great big compstomp brigade. No room for macro plays, no room for micro optimizations, and no room for variation in approach.
Anyone with talent would be out playing an RvR mode.
Games like WoW, which are unquestionably MMOs, have 30-player raids, but go as few as 5. We can have smaller experiences in which players experience more agency, just as a large operation is made up of many smaller battles and skirmishes. At other times, players are happy to just be part of a larger effort, as with giant ship battles in EvE in which the spectacle is the enjoyment.
And the issue is that this completely bastardizes anything it touches. The "RPG" aspects of WoW disappear entirely in raid environments, beyond collecting X bear asses as a guild.
For RTS, it's worse. How do you retain the dynamic of a guy aging up a minute early for a xbow-mangonel push against a guy with a developed farm eco massing scouts during an age-up to raid upon hitting castle?
Yes it's a good point that decisions need to be meaningful. As I understand, this is achieved in MMORPGs through the "Trinity" of damage-tank-heal. The meaningful decisions being each player helping to maintain balance.
Translated to RTS, this would be coordinating to achieve a plan. One player ages up a minute early for that push against the AI (damage). This gives breathing room for another player to develop their eco (healing), which in turn they contribute to another player defending against a massive AI push (tank). Smaller moments feeding into a larger picture.
>As I understand, this is achieved in MMORPGs through the "Trinity" of damage-tank-heal.
It isn't.
>Translated to RTS, this would be coordinating to achieve a plan. One player ages up a minute early for that push against the AI (damage).
Divided among 700 players, that's not making much of a difference. Even 4 players struggle to take advantage of this.
>This gives breathing room for another player to develop their eco (healing)
Eco is the game's long-term potential magnifier. It's not a return to the status quo like in RPG games.
>which in turn they contribute to another player defending against a massive AI push (tank).
The AI will attack the most vulnerable player(s) and position(s). You can't force the AI to focus on you unless you proxy rush it.
More importantly: RTS games can afford immense depth because aggression comes with a built-in opportunity cost. You can design civs like Berbers and Magyars, whose basic advantages are slow to roll out, because RTS games have much more nuanced advantage and disadvantage states than games centered on DPS.
You'd have to design the game first as an RTS game.
>It isn't.
Please explain, as I understand games like Wow heavily rely upon exactly this
>Divided among 700 players, that's not making much of a difference.
please refer back to
>Games like WoW, which are unquestionably MMOs, have 30-player raids, but go as few as 5.
In which group effort is possible without every single member of the faction being present in a round
>You can't force the AI to focus on you
"defend the objective", simple
>You can design civs like Berbers and Magyars, whose basic advantages are slow to roll out
Just think of starcraft co-op and the variety there in PvE focused gameplay
>Please explain, as I understand games like Wow heavily rely upon exactly this
WoW doesn't bother with meaningful decisions in raid environements. The trinity model is just filler.
>please refer back to
Doesn't answer anything. You have 700 people participating, but not in the context of RPG gameplay. It's just meter management.
>In which group effort is possible without every single member of the faction being present in a round
Yes?
>"defend the objective", simple
The "objective" in an RTS game is your base and eco.
>Just think of starcraft co-op and the variety there in PvE focused gameplay
Starcraft Co-op doesn't have to be balanced or account for group dynamics. It's made as a feel-good experience, not a truly social one.
Frontline/Logistics/Support/SpecOps
Frontline would be your typical RTS gameplay.
Logistics would be your base builder / turtlegay whose main objective is harvesting the area and delivering reinforcements to Frontline players
Support would be your arty / airforce gays, respectively caring about firing angle (need tall terrain features everywhere) or safe aerial path.
SpecOps would be the guy leading a few "hero" unit with meh combat stats but a frickton of abilities.
Pretty sure that would cover all major form of RTS autism.
There you got your MMORTS Holy Quadrinity.
>Frontline would be your typical RTS gameplay.
That means Logistics and Support are redundant.
By typical I mean the part where you actually move troops, scout, micro units, etc, which is supposed to be the meat of the genre.
The meat of the genre is in the macro game. The micro is just an exciting topping, and groups will break down with bloody murder in the chat if the guy playing frontline does poorly with Logistics' units.
>and groups will break down with bloody murder in the chat if the guy playing frontline does poorly with Logistics' units.
Just like when a DPS decide to stand in the big "do not stand in" red area.
If the objective is to emulate the holy trinity but RTS-style, you are bound to get the same ups and downs.
>Just like when a DPS decide to stand in the big "do not stand in" red area.
It's on a completely different scale. That's one guy fricking things up for himself. This is more like you handing a guy control of multiple raid-wide buffs and him immediately dying.
>If the objective is to emulate the holy trinity but RTS-style
The point is that it shouldn't be. Trinity RPG mechanics don't align with RTS mechanics at any point.
Fair opinion, but how would (you) organize an MMORTS then?
'cause that was the topic of that discussion chain.
See
I recall a fairly recent game where one teammate would do all the fighting and the other would mine resources underground so there was obviously a big emphasis on coordinated teamwork.
I think something similar to the way Anno 2070 handled its factions and events, with greater depth and impact on gameplay, is as close as you could come without making a bad game. The hard thing about it is making bases attackable without requiring both players to happen to be available simultaneously. Trusting teammates or AI is an option but not a good one. Anything that isn't just skirmishes with extras on top doesn't seem viable to me.
I would be immensely impressed with the emergent gameplay of just showing up im am area to find a battle in progress and hiring yourself out as a mercenary, supplying resources, or salvaging destroyed vehicles, but it doesn't seem like it would work well.
Depends on your definition of MMO and technically even RTS.
If you want frick huge battles with a smart enough coder that knows how the multithread and can make his own engine you can probably have 100 ish people commanding units on a map with todays technology.
If you want to have just servers and instances ala WoW clones. It hasn't been done before but it's not that hard to implement.
If you want the fake MMOs like Total War arena or AoE online we already had those.
To be frank RTS is already an autistic genre filled with buthurt gays. The last thing I want is to de fully dependent for my game on the dogshit communities these sorts of games garner.