MMORTS

[1v0ry_k1ng]

How do you convert a 1-hour match in a defined map to an endless world?

greenfields_v2 - 80x80, no wind, no metal, no nukes, no t3, no air

[nightcold]

20-30, if the armies were deliberately kept small via pop caps or other things, is doable. After all, people play 8v8 games on a regular basis. Not hundreds of units, though- maybe 3 dozen or so. A small StarCraft base and a rush force, basically, or maybe something like DoTA, where the players control a hero and the game controls the grunts.

hummmmm sort of like the small army feel of wc3???but even smaller???
...unit caps, lots of health....

well i once read somewhere that blizzard originally wanted to totaty remove the economy system & buildings from the wc3 & have the game be centered around moving your peeps around and getting points.....at the end they chickened out and just took wc2 and added heroes and stuff

i rlly can't see how that can be fun.....or strategical, or too tactical......sort of point less ,imo

........someone add formations to spring!!!!!!!!!!

[SinbadEV]

........someone add formations to spring!!!!!!!!!!

Already done in a few Games... (both True Formations via widgets and "units that are actually multiple units" like in Gundam and in the base engine when you click a move order while holding ctrl and it causes the units to attempt to maintain their current formation)

[KaiserJ]

we're already playing a mmo. spring players play different mods as the individual battles, then contact and interact via the lobby and forum to play a larger metagame.

skills and stats are "levelled up" not as numbers but as real measurable increases in strategy quality and battle awareness.

[SinbadEV]

yeah... the whole MMO and heck RPGs in general (even most IRL D&D style RPGs) basically all suffer from the same "rewarding persistence" flaw... You basically get better equipment and skills by playing more which is dichotomous to the RTS mentality that rewards people for playing better... as such marrying PersistentRPG with RTS necessitates adding the "rewarding persistence" to RTS... making the game "easier" as time goes on for the player instead of expecting the player to get better at playing the game...

A True MMORTS would simply be huge number players on a freaking huge map with a game lasting however long it takes for a winner to be determined and no way for new players to join unless they find a player who was willing to share them a con etc.

[knorke]

A True MMORTS would simply be huge number players on a freaking huge map with a game lasting however long it takes for a winner to be determined

Who would want to play this?
Alone managing bases would be a fun killer.

www.netpanzer.org does MMO RTS the right way imo.
well, more tactic than strategy maybe. Start with 9 tanks, capture outposts that produce more tanks. (scout tanks, missle launchers, arti tanks, heavy tanks etc.) If all your tanks are dead, you get 9 new ones.
I played this with ~30 players on a server with people joining and leaving etc when it was more popular. It was more like deathmatch though, because it was impossible to get all outposts.

[Pxtl]

NetPanzer is a cool concept, but last time I played it the unit AI was painfully moronic. 90% of the game was ordering the units to do things that Spring units do automatically (lead-the-target and fire-while-moving). That and people only built the largest tank - the long list of units was ignored.

Still the decentralized Z-like FFA concept was very cool.

[knorke]

well, auto leadfiring targets would make it boring imo. Its kind of an important design feature of the game. Especially with the multi missle launchers.
Only making the largest tank is not worth it, they build so long. I think "Drake Artillery" or something was the best compromise.
You would also have to watch out what outposts might be under attack at the moment and then conquer it when everybody died. With the heavy tanks you would just never arrive in time...the scouttanks would be usefull here.


Something like Globulation might work too: Only indirectly controll the units. Like place a defend-flag and warriors gather there.
http://globulation2.org/wiki/Main_Page (tested years ago, was buggy but playable. music is best and gfx style is just cool)

[AF]

Supremacy 1914?

Empires have problems in that they are limited in hwo far they can expand in any direction by the speed of communication.

So any territory is limited by about 6 months of communication distance.

Add to that the problem that an MMORTS would have attention issues with large empires, and you start to see very real and problematic management issues keeping control of gigantic empires. You simply dont have the time, or limbs to control everything in realtime

add in communication relays and delays, and you quickly introduce the problems of not being weaker at the edges, and prone to invasions by weaker players with faster reflexes

[Spawn_Retard]

thread = derailed.

Dont like to back seat or anything but can we take this to a new topic maybeh.

[knorke]

imo those posts are perfect answers to the original question "would a persistent MMORTS work?" providing examples what works and what doesnt in mmorts?

[Masure]

Why not using the web based games scheme differently ?

Instead of multiplayer spring games with a web part, you could have a single player vs AI. All players would play against a massive chicken invasion accross the planets.

With this kind of game, you have tons of pros :

- spring multiplayer is hard for new players and beginners cause it's an elite game. Focusing the game on global coop against AI is fun and accessible

- Sync : PvP multiplayer is hard cause you must have human players online together. Playing against AI doesn't require the payers to be online at the same time. You can fight single Human vs AI or Human team vs AI.

- All against computer : human vs human implies competition and we can notice most of spring players doesn't like pure competition that much. All together vs evil AI is a fun experience

- Auto adaptative : launching different game configuration is easy against an AI. When you play with humans, balance is an hard part and can lead with bad game experience if not set properly. All against AI game system gives more flexibility to manage balance issues. Moreover, you can balance the game on the long term, across the several games. The closer alien zone the harder the games come to make the war tome longer !

- Map interactivity : using AI opponents offers great possibilities. The game system can plan AI attacking parts of the map automaticaly (rss feeds to keep in tough with the war news). Then, as AI doesn't require sync, you can see AI trying to conquer the map and fight against WHEN THE PLAYER DECIDE TO. You also can define a max time to fight in the zone unless the AI conquer it without need to fight.

- More flexibility : game system can have admins to make tweaks or special moves and interaction with the AI. Special events, critical attacks, special weapons could be introduce for a reduced amount of time for AIs with mod update.

- Even more flexilibty : AIs attack zone could have level of difficulties with some restrictions for players to be able to fight in. eg :min number of player, min experience level, min tech level, ... This idea allows players of all level to have fun.

- Single player campaign system integration : integration of CA campaign project could gives different kinds of game. Wiping all enemies won't be the only mission :
. Killing special uberdefended building or unit
. Defend for 2 hours a map zone or for 2 weeks with several games
. Make ubereco on a desert aera with no opponents (special noob mission :D)
. Capture a building or unit

- Lobby integration : with current lobby abilities, awesomeness of Alien War is right under the click. You can interact with the website in the lobby and Alien War auto hosts. In-Lobby alien attack alerts makes fun and all the engaged players can join to fight (dedicated channel OR MAIN FOR MORE FUN)


Ok this just another idea but all that appeared to me sooo nice and totally feasible with spring and the tools people already have done.

What do you all think about that ?

[Tribulex]

How do you convert a 1-hour match in a defined map to an endless world?

greenfields_v2 - 80x80, no wind, no metal, no nukes, no t3, no air

Genious. Just invite 64 players to sign away a week of their life, and put them in comshare pairs, so that one can sleep and eat while the other plays. This is definitely possible with current technology! I support this!

[Soul]

How do you convert a 1-hour match in a defined map to an endless world?

greenfields_v2 - 80x80, no wind, no metal, no nukes, no t3, no air

Genious. Just invite 64 players to sign away a week of their life, and put them in comshare pairs, so that one can sleep and eat while the other plays. This is definitely possible with current technology! I support this!

This needs more roleplay to be doable.

Okay! Im the Core mastermind-judge and we have sentenced Regret to once again have his brain transfered into the OS of a ARM windgenerator.

[AF]

Did you say wind generator?

[oksnoop2]

Did you say wind generator?

I really enjoyed that video. I thought the score really matched up with the video.

Would it be feasible to play on large maps and if say you want to sleep or go on with normal life you can sub in an AI to play the match in your absence. Then once you are ready to resume playing, you can take over again?

[Tribulex]

snoop did you read my post at all? you comshare, and play in shifts.