How i wish for something like Stronghold or BfME, but the map is seriously continental and you may spend an hour battling your nearest foe only to find out it was just a tiny dot in a giant world that lives and breathes. You could pan the camera to far away lands to see a massive horde ravaging and eating away distant kingdoms while they move closer and closer to you. You note all the obstacles on their path and wager they will arrive to your realm in 5 hours of play, so you have enough time to build...
Also if i were to design such game I would introduce automated control of the kingdom once things get too big
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
sounds boring
unless it's fully scripted in which case you don't need an open world
Yes it's boring if you are gay
Stupid homosexual
Rope
Now!
typical third world moron having a meltdown. you type like a mentally ill person with low IQ
kys cumskin neandrthal
You will never be white.
I'm literally a pale skin, bordering on white, I'm white than most "whites"
You subhuman
Autistic troony dev, nobody will buy your homosexual game
the more you have to mention how white you are the more i'm convinced that you're a Black person.
Nice projection homosexual
You started it and now you call me a Black person
When your brain is even more moronic than that of a literal Black person
If the Black person can't comprehend the notion of future
Your brain is even more deficient than that
Black person.
There was a thread in the Dwarf Fortress forums that talked about a hypothetical future of the game where you can basically do exactly what you described, since instead of being in a site, you were in a part of the whole world, and you could go and build wherever you wanted. Genuinely one of the most kino concepts for a game, that will never be implemented because of both hardware limits and dogshit game creators.
that's literally been part of the game since it launched
You're a fricking imbecile.
Go find your binky.
So like black forest except really really big?
Sounds shit.
Yes when you immediately think of shit games, bring up shit games, think shit things and so on, you are inherently shit-brained
There's no need to be so hard on yourself anon. We all have shitty ideas. I just don't usually post them.
As a game developer, why the frick does it matter if something far away is happening? Something you can't affect whatsoever?
Why dedicate resources to a huge area instead of the playable boundaries?
>Maybe you can get caravans filled with weapons to warring states and affect politics from far away!
Yea then get some mechanics that simulate 'war happens somewhere offscreen' and you'll end up with the same gameplay of producing weapons and shipping them out.
Unironically soulless way of thinking
>Let's spend time and effort simulating useless things for the entire world at all times just so people can pretend it makes a difference
>noooo why the game runs like shit
lol
hey genius, just about every game with a world map has shit going on outside of the player's immediate vicinity
have you literally played nothing but aoe/broodwar 1v1 your whole life that this concept seems so alien to you
how can you be this clueless
4X and Grand Strategy already exist for that.
The only benefit you can get from this kind of thing in an RTS is what was already done to death with Conquer The World campaign styles where maps are divided by territory.
>there's a world map in gsg you don't need a world map in any other type of game
what kind of cuckolded mentality is this?
also it exists in real time games already too, like in mountain blade for example. or X. or starsector. the new ultimate general american revolution game will have something like this too
clueless peabrained knucklehead, stop posting immediately or at least stop having such a cuckolded mentality
The abstraction in M&B is different, M&B is more akin to Total War and exactly what I said about Conquer The World campaign maps differing from the actual RTS matches.
RTS is a GAME first, a simulation second.
Kenshi is actually the closest to get this sort of thing but it's still not a traditional RTS where you build shit.
>t. npc
what did you think your life is to me
>why the frick does it matter if something far away is happening? Something you can't affect whatsoever?
fricking moron lol
Another developer here. You’d probably have to abstract it anyway at a certain point - like the further away a terrain chunk is from the player’s view, it becomes just “purple owns this now”. Then I guess procedurally generate the chunk and its inhabitants if the player ever scrolls there.
Biggest concern would be similar to Minecraft, which is storing all that shit as the player scrolls past.
imagine being this fricking soulless
you're not a developer, you're a code mongo
NTA, but explain, without buzzwords, what do you gain from open world structure in an RTS game and how would you execute that.
I am almost certain that you can't give a reason other than "just because".
>what do you gain from having a soundtrack
>what do you gain from hiring voice actors to read the text
>what do you gain from having dynamic lighting
the answer is you get MOOD and IMMERSION you stupid soulless wienersucker. you get to feel like you're playing in a lived-in world, it makes your game more memorable.
not to mention that information about what's going on outside of your current location would affect your approach to the game.
it's astounding not just that you disagree, but that you literally cannot even FATHOM why another person would want this. people are trying to get it through to you, but your smooth brain is impenetrable. all you can conceptualize is what you want.
>>what do you gain from having a soundtrack
>>what do you gain from hiring voice actors to read the text
>>what do you gain from having dynamic lighting
audiovisuals which have no impact on the game itself. graphics don't matter after all, right?
>MOOD and IMMERSION
as I said, buzzwords. Nothing that you can't do without it.
>not to mention that information about what's going on outside of your current location would affect your approach to the game.
you can already have that without an open world structure.
i accept your concession.
it's not that they're buzzwords, it's that they're intangible concepts that your brain is too crippled to comprehend.
i'm sorry that you're autistic, i really am, but you're beyond help. i just hope i never have to play a game made by you.
>you can already have that without an open world structure.
yes you CAN. what do you think you achieve by pointing this out? does the fact that you can achieve something in some way mean that all other ways are off limits? is that how your autistic mind works?
>does the fact that you can achieve something in some way mean that all other ways are off limits?
it means that some ways are less optimal than others, it can also be reinventing the wheel for no real reason, it can also be trying to tie two incompatible things together, open world rts may be one of those
you can't defend your argument at all and resort to oddly specific insults
you have to be 18 to post here
the fact that you think "this would be so cool" is an argument only shows how autistic you are
where did i say that? and what the frick is that autism obsession?
okay let me explain to you what's happening in this thread. op is saying "i wish there was a game like this, i'd like that". and you're coming at him with shit like "no that's stupid, that would be too resource intensive, no there are different systems and different genres of game that do this differently, why do you even want what you want". so you're not engaging with op on the same level. engaging with him on the same level would be saying "no i don't think that feature would be cool, here's why". what me and a couple of other posters are trying to do is to get you understand why such a feature would be desirable for people. but you still can't understand why someone would like something you don't care about or find hard to implement. that's why i think you're autistic, because you can't understand other people's point of view. you're stuck on alternative systems and tech requirements while nobody is arguing with you on that. everyone realizes it would be more demanding but it has nothing to do with op's idea that a game like that would be cool.
and do me a favor, this is Ganker, don't be a dishonest gay and pretend autism is some oddly specific obscure medical condition you've never seen mentioned until today
He's arguing on both levels.
>It adds nothing to the set of playable, interactive elements that make up actual gameplay
>It'd be a huge resource hog
>Therefore, it's not worth adding.
Most of these "wouldn't it be cool if X" threads are best answered this way, because they all have this issue, and likely already have some solution built in (see
), or are entirely unworkable.
The argument is not "this is impossible on a technical level", the argument is "this barely belongs in an RTS AND is impossible on a technical level".
It's okay to have bad ideas, but if your only defense of that stupid idea is calling your opponent autistic, don't expect to be taken seriously.
I have nothing against open world games, they're fine. Star Sector and Warband, the games that have been mentioned here, possibly by you, are some of my favourite games. But they're not RTS.
I'll kindly explain why "open world RTS" is like trying to fit a cube into a circle shape
1. Zoom-out as massive as OP's idea suggests that the game would have no fog of war whatsoever. A single unit's vision is just not sufficient for that. Not realistically. Building posts and introducing some sort of messenger system would sound cool, but that would limit the zoom-out mechanic to certain moments.
2. Since everyone has global vision, triggering fights outside of bases becomes borderline impossible. You see that a bigger army is coming at yours? Retreat, now it's a potentially endless tag game instead of RTS. You see a massive army heading toward your base? Unless the buildings are persistent in the sense of lacking virtually any mechanics to remove them and you can't damage them by yourself, you're going full scorched earth. instantly. I know that this place is full of SP-only cowards, which would in turn just make this theoretical game a real time Total War clone, but such game would be the polar opposite of fun in MP. How do you even program the AI to deal with that much information?
3. Economy. How do you translate the scale into that? Are resources infinite? If not, how long would it take to deplete them entirely? Do I have to transport them into my town or do I just abstract things into generators? What about raiding and workforce? Can you even recover after a massacre of your workers?
>RTS is only RTS when it is exactly like dune 2
And this is why we can't have nice things.
cont.
4. Wouldn't diplomacy, both with real players and with AI, be such a massive opportunistic scramble, that it may as well not exist at all? You see that someone is doing bad, attack instantly for easy conquest. You see that someone is doing well, suck up to him so he won't attack you. This already exists on a smaller scale in GSGs, but when you can see the smallest details ranging from pinpoint troop placement to fortification level, this is no longer politics or strategy, this is just a comedy with no true challenge.
I want you to answer those questions to see for yourself if you can actually work with that idea.
I'm feeling like OP just wants a kid's dream interactive large scale spectacle, but the issue is, the interactivity of that spectacle leaves too many problems. This shall remain a spectacle and never something interactive for various reasons. This is the main problem with thinking about cool things for the pure sake of cool things and never about implementation or purpose. I remember threads about horror RTS or non-euclidean maps and even if your first thought is "that would be cool", your immediate second should be "how would that even work and do we really need it?", because it's trying to combine things that simply don't go together.
I never said that, my double-digit IQ friend. Large AoE2 maps are not what OP wants and I am aware of that. But tell me, what an open world RTS l would look like? I just can't imagine it working. And it MUST work even just on the theoretical level because otherwise we'll never get such games. Dune Spice Wars is a 4X first and foremost and it's real-time aspects are so simplistic that they're almost reduntant. The huge scale and/or open world-ish strategy concept works on turn restraints or multiple abstractions like those in browser games.
None of you have told how and why that would work. None.
i like the idea about watch towers and scouts etc. a lot, but isn't ra2 mp without fog of war? doesn't seem to be a problem. that is to say, once you uncover a spot, you have permanent vision of it
>It couldn't work
>Why
>Cause um you have to um have universal um fog of war um or no fog of war um
>Also um everyone will hide behind bases, no I don't know how to design bases to not be objectively the best place to fight
>And maybe economy hard to do, no RTS ever has simplified economy
I have a feeling all games you have been involved in had a pitch of "what if we combine X game with Y game"
that's a lot of words to say that you have no fricking idea what you're talking about
also you reek of reddit
That's less words than Xitter allows you. So on top of being talentless you are also low IQ
Literal troony hands typed this
Probably israelite too
>>what do you gain from hiring voice actors to read the text
It's a net loss usually
>why is immersion good
You are a fricking moron. If you don't get it, go play Vicky2.
the "immersion" you're going to get will be shallow as frick due to forced gamification of the scale, satisfying no one.
monkey paw. i'd rather have either a good 4x or a good rts.
You're no dev, you're just autistic as frick
Ywnbaw
Literal troon
These "developers" are the reason all games are utter shitslop now
>Errrrrrrr why have cool AI battle when it could just be le number lol lamo?
>why have cool AI battle
I'll let Sid Meier himself answer this.
>Even if we had taken the time to create more-nuanced algorithms, the truth is it wouldn’t have changed much. Highly realistic AI gets accused of cheating even more often than its dishonest brethren, because on some level, all players are unnerved by the idea that a computer could outsmart them. Part of the fun is learning the patterns of the AI and successfully predicting them, and when computers don’t act like computers, the only psychologically safe assumption is that they must have accessed information they shouldn’t have. AI isn’t allowed to gamble, or behave randomly, or get lucky—even though humans do all of these things on a daily basis—not because we can’t program it, but because experience tells us that players will get frustrated and quit. The same phenomenon doesn’t happen when both opponents are humans, because they’ve already tempered their expectations for the possibility that the other guy is crazy. Computers are too smart to be crazy, so if they start acting that way, we can’t shake the suspicion that they know something we don’t. Thus, from the designer’s perspective, brilliant AI is usually not our highest priority.
>Even the AI in Civilization, which was more involved than most, is nothing compared to what real AI can accomplish. In 2011, an MIT professor used a machine-learning algorithm to teach a computer to play Civ II without any underlying instructions. Starting with random clicks and feedback from the game on whether an action was successful, the computer eventually picked up enough patterns to win the game 46 percent of the time. Once it was provided with a text version of the manual for word association—searching for passages that contained the same words displayed on the screen, and making educated guesses about what to do next given the words surrounding them—the success rate went up to 79 percent.
>if you give the AI a fricking manual it becomes better at the game
REMOVE THE TOOLTIPS BEFORE ITS TOO LATE
>Highly realistic AI gets accused of cheating even more often than its dishonest brethren
lol cope
stfu and write the ai boomer
You're an idea guy who has no idea what goes into game development. This is a feature that would take up the vast majority of development time while only having a tangential effect on gameplay. It's a feature that's way too complex for hobbyist indie devs, yet way too unprofitable for big companies. That's why the only way it'd ever exist would be with shortcuts and simulations. It's simply not feasible.
I do believe this is what the experts call "Dwarf Fortress Syndrome".
Endlessly fapping over how supposedly deep (lol) and simulated something is, even though it doesn't affect gameplay and if it was replaced by a simple RNG, they wouldn't even notice (pretty sure Toady has done this a few times actually).
removing RNG is based, the issue with OP's idea is not that it's smaller than it seems to be, but simply that it doesn't actually introduce anything new or openly conflicts the genre, also that it would cost fricking much to properly introduce that it's barely worth it.
You are what experts call a "dumbass".
Believing something don't affect gameplay because he is too dumb to use it. Or maybe a troll if you want to pretend you aren't stupider.
Dwarf Fortress is factually deeper than average in the way it take account of far more variables in the same playable area.
I'm more of a Rimworld anon tho.
Not saying OP idea is any good, it's conceptually broken because open world typically have stable/looping environments/entities until the player interact with them.
Without that difference it's literally just a ridiculously large RTS map mixed with a colony builder.
The truth is that you aren't smart enough to get it, because you chose to be a game developer, lol.
It's just the facts on the ground; if you were good at software, you'd be making money somewhere else instead of games.
as a non developer, why is this the case? Not defendign the guy, his comment was HIV warmed up, but what would game devs be seen as inferior?
Games devs make less money, work longer hours, and overall do less skilled work, while also gaining less relevant industry experience and portfolio depth.
They are monkeys who are forced to run around doing too many things over too broad a scope, so some people think this gives them skills. Unfortunately it just means that they learn to be wrong in a much wider range than is possible otherwise.
>Yea then get some mechanics that simulate 'war happens somewhere offscreen' and you'll end up with the same gameplay of producing weapons and shipping them out.
Abstracting mechanics away with endless sliders, toggles and a dash of RNG is one of the very things making strategy gamies into pure aids. Your existence in the industry is a cancerous growth and I hope die a horrible death.
your lack of imagination is pitiful. No you do not need to simulate everything simply sampling from a couple templates and abstracting things via rates would be enough to give a convincing result. Once the player is scouting then the whole simulation kicks in but none of these aspects are new or revolutionary just simple ideas you get when you think and don't hyperventilate because your brain cannot comprehend a idea.
this idea adds virtually nothing of value or at least nothing new and is just a thing for the sake of thing where it clearly doesn't belong, it would also be extremely costly to introduce that, if that's even possible to begin with.
play rts games for once.
Not the anon but
have a nice day homosexual
U are parasite shit on this board, nobody needs you with your "gamedev opinions"
you can't handle the truth, autist. i'm not even a gamedev. livestream your suicide tomorrow.
>livestream your suicide tomorrow
don't say shit like that, it's bad for your soul, makes you lose humanity, makes you depraved
Do you know where we are?
Nevermind my post above you're just stupid
so there are game devs on vst, confirmed
why do they still make their games shitty?
It matters that the world is evolving so that you don't feel like you're alone in it
Though technically you are right, simulating everything in a world so big it takes 5 hours to cross it would be pretty taxing. But you can simplify stuff happening in the background
Factorio has the scale, though it's not quite a traditional RTS, the increasing level of automation and power allows you to continually increase the scope of your operations. The mechanics you describe are more commonly found in turn-based/grand strategy games, since the bigger the scale the more needs to be abstracted. For RTS with larger than usual scale, consider sins of a solar empire, distant worlds, or AI war.
>Factorio has the scale, though it's not quite a traditional RTS
I'm curious how hard it would be to mod factorio to make an "ai" that made turrets/tanks etc that killed bugs and you
It exists but it also lags a lot.
There are a few online games that are like this. They always end up with a coalition of Russians eating everybody.
I like the idea OP. I don’t get this thread gets all this hate. Seems like anything that differs from the trad AoE style of gameplay causes sperging. People are really becoming more dull
As much as I like RTS, no matter how much I enjoyed it, there was always this slight disappointment at the end of a game/mission, knowing that most of what I'd built won't carry on.
Thus, I like your idea, OP.
Ok, but for what purpose, other than pretending that it's something bigger than it actually is?
Massive resource waste and impact on performance. What do you gain from that other than "WOW IT'S SO COOL THAT A THING WHICH DOESN'T AFFECT GAMEPLAY AT ALL EXISTS"? The other anon is absolutely in the right.
Have there been any MMORTS games? I can't recall any. And that would be the only place where that would belong.
I can only think of browser strategies like Travian or OGame, where it still is segmented in practice.
>THING WHICH DOESN'T AFFECT GAMEPLAY AT ALL EXISTS"
Clown
Can't wait for AI to replace you homosexuals
>You could pan the camera to far away lands to see
Not going to get on you about being a turtler but no fog of war is fricking disgusting.
who needs fog when you can do vision cones instead?
sounds cool but not sure computers are good enough yet unless it's shitty. manor lords is trying to do this i think tho.
I wouldn't want something too big but yeah a stronghold style game that had like 10 AI lords or something and maybe a king would be nice.
Lands of lords is an persistent online strategy game with an enormous map. Be warned it has a very steep learning curve and building up a decent army will take months.
Lands of Lords is probably the closest to this, yeah. Shame both the dev and playerbase are moronic and huge c**ts.
do you just expect people to leave you alone when they can conquer you instead?
You're looking for a lobby 8+ player ffa match.
It seems that I am the only one who understands the situation.
You see, the Polish guy has autism so he is interested in PIE linguistics. He doesn't know much about genetics and he isn't particularly intelligent though so he has trouble understanding the reality that PIE are actually Pajeets. But he is interested in PIE because he considers them his ancestors instead of his rapists and once again he has autism.
However other people on this board are not really that interested in PIE linguistics. As a result these threads would likely die after a few posts if it were not for me. I am a true European, a native European, a Tavastian. So I dislike the PIE as they poo'd all over my continent. So I come to these threads to show IE that they are Pajeets so they would be embarrassed and ashamed as they should be.
These threads are not a discussion of linguistics as the Pole would like, and they are not a discussion of culture or whatever you seem to think it should be, it is a debate whether PIE were Pajeets or not, which they quite clearly were. And I am the one who can speak about this neutrally, as I am a Finn. A Pajeet might say that PIE were Pajeets without much fact to support him, but a European IE would obviously deny it no matter how much evidence is presented to him. A Finn will tell the truth. And the truth is that PIE were Pajeets.
>Open world RTS
Isn't that what the Northgard and "Northgard but DUNC" devs are doing in their games?
Shattered Galaxy was a thing and it was fricking kino before FRICKING NEXON killed it and pissed on it's corpse to make sure nobody ever can make something like that ever again
wouldn't call SG an open world RTS, the battle aspect was on specific regions and the scale was actually fairly small
I'd just like a game that's a bit like Fallout, but you control multiple guys and can acquire more serious equipment like tanks or attack choppers.
>open world rts
imagine the pathfinding
try settlers, its like civ lite
>Open world RTS - do they exist?
I'd say no because it is conceptually flawed.
Open-world game are games that are overall static outside of place of interest.
Nothing happen before you reach the place.
One of the main appeals of strategy is war of movement, attacking or defending forts.
Another appeal is seeing your unit fight and micromanage them for a tactical victory
One of the main mechanics is producing unit as much and as fast as you can to match the enemy.
If you can move very far and the enemy just waiting for you, it kill the whole point of a tight arm-race.
If you are expected to fight on a giant scale as enemy expend, it reduce the appeal of micromanaging troop, making either a chore of it or replacing it by statistic
And if you constantly accumulate resources, imbalance will grow exponentially as time goes on.
To get around those problem you'd have to put severe restriction
- army size restriction per area controlled
- method of transport that don't let you build forts/factory as you please or move an army of any size you want
- very limited resources or one resources that lock your total number of unit
In the end it would be no different from classic RTS with separate overworld and/or turn-based.
I'd argue most AoE2 campaigns are somewhat Open World RTS considering they're made in the extremely huge maps and sometimes can take up to 2+ hours to complete objectives that can definitely be made out of order like an open world game.
op, try "distant worlds".
it's in space, and maybe not exactly what you're expecting, but i'd say it does capture the gyst of what you're saying.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distant_Worlds_(video_game)
>Distant Worlds is a real-time grand strategy wargame developed by Code Force and published by Matrix Games.[2]
>Gameplay features up to 1,400 star systems, with up to 50,000 planets, moons and asteroids in a single game session.
which was followed by
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distant_Worlds_2
Don't know what to think about the 2nd one, the planets don't orbit the stars there anymore.
There are probably loads more, but this is kust one off the top of my head.
I feel like this would work much, much better with a more futuristic setting where the entire continent is divided by massive front lines. The player could then dip in and out of front line zones, allocate resources to certain areas, etc. Any zones not being actively managed by players would be delegated to AI that would do its best to hold the line and can be fed resources to help prop them up until a player can step in and manage it better.
sounds fun and i like it. please make
>Open world RTS
Nah. The closest thing would be any MMORTS like the online version of Stronghold or any 4X game like the Civ series.
But overall they don't exist.
The online version of stronghold would be decent if it wasn't p2w garbage
Aye. Better stick with the real Stronghold games.
yes Spellforce is an open world RTS
there was also World Shift that tried to sell itself as an MMORTS
closest you are going to get are those browser RTS games like Travian. I think they are really fun but you desperately need a group of people and a fat wallet.
Rimworld might be the closest thing, except maps are divided by tiles.
"Real Time" x4 game like Stellaris, Starsector and Sins of Solar Empire might or might not be your thing.
Rise of Nations is an old school RTS. Practically it's a Civ5 but in real time. End game techs involve ICBMs and missile defense systems, so the map simulates an entire globe (albeit with less nations)
Cossaks, Supreme Commander and Total Anahilation also have autistically huge maps.
I haven't played it yet, but I think Ymir is kinda like an open world RTS.
The game you want is Screeps. You code your own RTS AI from scratch and set it loose against everyone else's.
No, thats not what i want. I just taken 1 look at it and its the most soulless shit imaginable, maybe for lizards this game is good, but not for people
isn't that just Land of Lords?
I guess mindustry fits its kinda a rts and you zoom out to discover a bigger enemy that returns.
What happens to a permanent base/settlement when the user is offline?
obliterated, and thus OP in his rage uninstalls the game that doesn't exist but gets off to.
what do you mean
think MMORPG, but you logging off doesn't make you disappear from the game and now you're prone to unwanted, one-sided PvP.
you add a load screen or run the simulation in the background ones the players comes back. Seriously whats so fricking hard? All these problems were already solved.
Have users main base be a demi-plane that attaches to rest of the world when they play.
Then only stuff you build on the shared space is open to takeover/destruction when not logged in
Ogre Battle or Unicorn Overlord maybe? It's got some RPG elements though
checkout the demo discussion thread
even if it doesn't suit your qualifications, maybe it's a good enough game anyway to sink your teeth into
like a month til Manor Lords
A lot of red flags about this one, not sure why is this so popular.
>something like Stronghold or BfME, but the map is seriously continental and you may spend an hour battling your nearest foe only to find out it was just a tiny dot in a giant world that lives and breathes.
It's called clash of clans kek.
The model is inherently shit because if you're not online 24/7 then your empire is at the game's mercy whenever you're not playing.
but why would the game world keep running after anon is offline?
Because that's the only feasible application of OP's idea. That or GSGs. Otherwise you'd just have a large AoE2 map or something.
There is a very good reason why games like this either don't exist or don't exactly follow this formula.
wouldn't you be able to just save the state the game is in whenever you feel like taking a break and then turning the game off? then resuming it by loading the save?
...So just like GSGs or a large AoE2 map.
Stronghold already allows to save multiplayer games.
Absolutely nothing new, thus pointless.
i just don't understand where you're going with this
>you'll get fricked when you're not online
>why does the game need to keep running when he's offline
>because it has to
>why can't you save game
>because other games have a save game function so there's no point
and if it's like a big aoe2 map or whatever, what is the problem?
i really can't follow the train of thought
You either already have that function in games of actually similar scale or the games of scale of your desire AND with that function (so actually making it make sense) won't make you happy.
It's not rocket science.
https://www.travian.com/international
here, see how it works in practice. Or stick to Paradox.
sorry, maybe i'm moronic but i just cannot understand you. i don't understand why it needs to be a multiplayer or online game. i don't understand how it being online even relates to the game op describes. i don't see how the fact that it would be similar in some ways to other types of games like gsgs or big aoe2 maps is a problem
If it's similar then he can try them and see if that's what he actually wants. Once again it's not rocket science.
The online aspect is the only place where that would make sense, because that is the only real use for such gimmick. Otherwise you end up with painfully dumb AI which either cheats hard or is a brainless punching bag. Wishful thinking is, well, wishful thinking. If you don't want your enemies to be moronic then play multiplayer.
Plenty of big RTS maps, plenty of RTS games where you can save skirmish/custom maps, plenty of very large strategy games, though it's mostly GSGs or 4Xs.
The concept itself is moronic because I'm more than certain that OP doesn't realize the meaning of "open world" and why it just doesn't belong in strategy. It's like he has a movie fantasy of a spectacle and doesn't realize why that would translate really badly into a game.
I'm not responding to you again.
okay but in the posts i responded to you were shitting on this multiplayer idea, that's what's confusing
you're saying a multiplayer game like this would be a bad idea but you're also the only one saying it needs to be a multiplayer game
>but single player ai bad
and yet single player games still exist and people enjoy them. what kind of a game dev are you? a multiplayer game dev?
let me paint a picture for you, you dumb frick
imagine your really big aoe2 map. have it have fog of war exactly like aoe does, you explore the unknown and you see what your units see. have an option to go wherever you want and build cities/fortifications (like in aoe) on attractive/strategically important/defendable, depending on your intention. have your presence generate events in that area a la rimworld or some shit. as your game progresses, youre creating an empire, being a nomad (which the game can catch on to, and throw different styles of events at), or even control a single fricking dude that wanders around witnessing rts battles or basebuilding by AI/other players, maybe sharing with them your maps or techs you discovered in a meerkat hole. ultimately the open worldiness offers replay value because you never know whats going to be waiting for you out there in the beginning, and your start will influence the viable directions in gameplay. also its like playing a normal rts game, but you know it wont end in 45 minutes, but rather continue on for days or months potentially, with the option to automate your cities to defend themselves and produce and ship it to your frontiers if need be. finally, the other players are doing their thing, you could have alliances, pester their eco for no reason like a c**t, take over their cities instead of destroying them, spy on what they are doing, sell info to their rivals (actually lie to them and send them on a a wild goose chase to some remote corner of the world, wasting their time so you can enjoy your single house and boar skeleton collection. all of these things would be epic in an open world setting. fricking starting to believe in aphantasia because of posts like yours
The closest thing to what you're describing is probably Sins of a Solar Empire, big and slow RTS with 4x elements
so do you actively construct every single building or just "upgrade" abstract town locations?
if the it's the latter, you've described Mount & Blade. Something that we already have and isn't an RTS.
I agree, it can only work in single player.
Closest thing is Knights of honor and Mount & Blade, but they work through an overmap rather than constant RST. Which makes more sense as, at that scale, you are managing cities and regions which is not conducive to a straight forward RTS layout.
Desynced is a factorio-lite RTS where you program unit and building behaviors to automate operations on a large scale, it's been in early access hell for a bit but looks like it might be a decent huge-scale rts.
I got what you're looking for OP
Kenshi?
Best possible example. Except your army is a small gang. This game was too high IQ for me, I liked it but after 30 hours all I managed to do was die 60 times.
I like it
As another anon said, the problem with RTS is that you have a good time and then it finishes.
Would be cool to have it just keep going, with semi-scripted events to keep it fun. Like how in Total War you are called to a Crusade, maybe you make Allies across the map you have to go and help.
Or the map itself changes, wildfires or floods destroy old paths and make new ones.
New enemy factions pop up, new technologies emerge etc
Could do with a dose of story-like elements. Things like an enemy general you meet in battle several times, who says things like how he wants revenge, and actually references skirmishes you had with him on the map. If it's an Age of empires random map type game that last days of playtime, it may need an interjection of continuity.
These are things I would do in my head as a child but it'd be cool to have the AI and game actually make it happen for you. Imagine a rival faction you are about to destroy suddenly surrendering and agreeing to fight for you, only for it to be a ruse
You could make it battle royale in 1 of 2 ways:
Nomadic with a commander/hero and you fight pve to get resources, stuff gets randomly dropped around the map and a big circle forces engagements after a certain time has passed
More stationary where you defend your production and resource gathering. Let's say you start a supreme commander match in a 5x5km map and completely crush your opponent with a fighter/bomber snipe. At 20 minutes the map expands 5x10km to another pair that's in a stalemate with army/eco similar to your own, now it's a 3 player FFA where you took a risk with the snipe and had ~5-8 minutes to get more mass extractors on your map. After another 20 minutes map expands to 10x10 and so on so forth. I'm not sure about a lot of things: how to prevent teaming or players somehow signaling a friend on the same segment, whether economy/army should selfdestruct and leave it's mass on the wreck if you kill a commander, and if each individual 5x5 segment should be the same as the others.
Randomness can't be avoided, in all open world games there's always the issue of getting sandwiched or a 50 man party stomping solo players. The issue of raiding offline players is eliminated because the match is over in ~2 hours depending on starting amount of players
game devs i expect to see my check in the mail
Would be pretty neat to have something like Stronghold where you choose an area to settle, build up your economy based on the resources available, build defenses and trade with others.
Would be difficult to balance though. I wouldn't know where to start and how to keep things under control. Except making defenses a significant force multiplier to make sieges require a concerted effort so new players stand a chance.