Why a good MMORTS with TA-esque dynamics can't be made now.
Moderator: Moderators
Why dont we simply make games with more realistic economic growth rates? like, anyone ever heard of a country that doubles its production ever 10 minutes? :) Only problem with making production be slower is that it would make the game less fun as well...
*Possible solution: Make all resource generating stuff be on map and players have to get it.
*Possible solution: Make all resource generating stuff be on map and players have to get it.
-
Felix the Cat
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 17:30
The reason we don't do that is because nobody wants to spend 4 years just gearing up for war and not actually fighting.manored wrote:Why dont we simply make games with more realistic economic growth rates? like, anyone ever heard of a country that doubles its production ever 10 minutes? :) Only problem with making production be slower is that it would make the game less fun as well...
*Possible solution: Make all resource generating stuff be on map and players have to get it.
Everything in a game is artificial.
Maybe have the structures shared between players, so you got two sides fighting each other and the players construct stuff for their side. When one player logs off there'll be others to take care of the stuff. This makes sense, the players construct runways/landing pads/gateways (depending on mods style) for transporting their units to the battlefield, and fortifications, doesn't need to belong to one player.
You'd have this massive raging battle, instead of some typical buildup-forever style MMOR-whatever
Maybe have the structures shared between players, so you got two sides fighting each other and the players construct stuff for their side. When one player logs off there'll be others to take care of the stuff. This makes sense, the players construct runways/landing pads/gateways (depending on mods style) for transporting their units to the battlefield, and fortifications, doesn't need to belong to one player.
You'd have this massive raging battle, instead of some typical buildup-forever style MMOR-whatever
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
Personally, I have a job, and I can't afford to hire generals to play a game for me full time for 20 years.manored wrote:Why dont we simply make games with more realistic economic growth rates? like, anyone ever heard of a country that doubles its production ever 10 minutes? :) Only problem with making production be slower is that it would make the game less fun as well...
*Possible solution: Make all resource generating stuff be on map and players have to get it.
Realistically, no one want's to play "general of a stagnant boring war THE GAME V2.0!"
Real life sucks, we play games to escape it, why would we want a more realistic game when it ruins fun?
That's why there is hardly any (known) game which completely relies on realism.
In a realistic 3D shooter you'd trip fall every other minute over some random object or break your legs/crush some other vital body parts when landing on some random object. You'd rip your hands off by abusing ladders to avoid fall damage. You'd be exhausted after 5 minutes of bunny hopping and uh yeah true realism fails in computer games.
FarCry 2 (or was it Crysis?) seemed like a good compromise between realism and fun to me.
In a realistic 3D shooter you'd trip fall every other minute over some random object or break your legs/crush some other vital body parts when landing on some random object. You'd rip your hands off by abusing ladders to avoid fall damage. You'd be exhausted after 5 minutes of bunny hopping and uh yeah true realism fails in computer games.
FarCry 2 (or was it Crysis?) seemed like a good compromise between realism and fun to me.
Hum, I didnt really meant a game where you take years to make the economy grow, just a game where its hard to make it grow in comparation to making war...
I think tough that we could control economic growth by making either the economy need to be "captured" or have territory play a critical role on economy (need space for the economy). Currently in the most played mod (BA) you can get computer crashing economy with very little space...
I think tough that we could control economic growth by making either the economy need to be "captured" or have territory play a critical role on economy (need space for the economy). Currently in the most played mod (BA) you can get computer crashing economy with very little space...
EEmanored wrote:I think tough that we could control economic growth by making either the economy need to be "captured"
GUNDAMmanored wrote:or have territory play a critical role on economy (need space for the economy). Currently in the most played mod (BA) you can get computer crashing economy with very little space...
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
So just remove metal makers, moho tech, and fusions.manored wrote:Hum, I didnt really meant a game where you take years to make the economy grow, just a game where its hard to make it grow in comparation to making war...
I think tough that we could control economic growth by making either the economy need to be "captured" or have territory play a critical role on economy (need space for the economy). Currently in the most played mod (BA) you can get computer crashing economy with very little space...