The idea of a mmorts seems stupid to me. I mean It's hard to even take team matches in normal RTSes seriously. There's never going to be anything resembling a 1v1 match actually measuring the skill of two good players against each other in such a setting, so why bother? And are you going to be able to log in and build tanks 24/7 in a persistant world? haha, is all I can say. The whole MMMORPG idea at least makes sense, addiction by slow pointless progress crap. MMOXXX tough... now we're talking...
To be fair, the numbers only massive online "strategy game" kind of works.
MMOXXXs
Moderator: Moderators
The only MMORTS thing I could see working would be something useing the Sacrfice modle of gameplay.
But no one really plays Sacrfice anymore, except for like...five people that still use the Gamespy servers. Now that was surreal.
What's the Sacrfice modle of gameplay, some may cry?
Basically it's a third person RTS, wherein you run you wizard around the battlefeild, summoning creatures and casting spells. You defeat an enemy wizard by desecreating their alter, banishing them to the Etherial relm. The resourses are mana and souls. You steal souls by killing an enemy's creature. So the battles are all about stealing souls, manuvering units and using spells. Add to that a really neato plot and that's a fine game.
So imagine taking this, making a HUGE, open ended world, and wage constant wars between the five gods of the world. I'll work for Charnal, god of Death. Everyone loves Charnal!
But no one really plays Sacrfice anymore, except for like...five people that still use the Gamespy servers. Now that was surreal.
What's the Sacrfice modle of gameplay, some may cry?
Basically it's a third person RTS, wherein you run you wizard around the battlefeild, summoning creatures and casting spells. You defeat an enemy wizard by desecreating their alter, banishing them to the Etherial relm. The resourses are mana and souls. You steal souls by killing an enemy's creature. So the battles are all about stealing souls, manuvering units and using spells. Add to that a really neato plot and that's a fine game.
So imagine taking this, making a HUGE, open ended world, and wage constant wars between the five gods of the world. I'll work for Charnal, god of Death. Everyone loves Charnal!
First, 1v1s don't really measure skill anymore than team games. Second, MMORPGs are terrible.Zpock wrote:The idea of a mmorts seems stupid to me. I mean It's hard to even take team matches in normal RTSes seriously. There's never going to be anything resembling a 1v1 match actually measuring the skill of two good players against each other in such a setting, so why bother? And are you going to be able to log in and build tanks 24/7 in a persistant world? haha, is all I can say. The whole MMMORPG idea at least makes sense, addiction by slow pointless progress crap. MMOXXX tough... now we're talking...
To be fair, the numbers only massive online "strategy game" kind of works.
-
KingRaptor
- Zero-K Developer
- Posts: 838
- Joined: 14 Mar 2007, 03:44
-
KingRaptor
- Zero-K Developer
- Posts: 838
- Joined: 14 Mar 2007, 03:44
-
Runecrafter
- Posts: 148
- Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 00:23
WoW for about a year. I get hooked on the "constant little breadcrump prizes" mode that mmorpgs use. It really taps into my perfectionism. Just...one...more...level...
Eventually I realized I was wasting too much time, and too much money, and that the class balance was actually pretty bad for an mmo. Now I play Guild Wars, because you can play it like a single player game most of the time (Sign on and off when you want, walk away from the computer when you need to get a drink, answer the phone, or whatever.) and only go multiplayer when you want too, and no monthly fees. It's a lot more socially conscious to me.
I don't play much, just jump on and try to work my way through the missions slowly but surely every now and then. I've beaten most of Prophecies and about half of Factions.
Eventually I realized I was wasting too much time, and too much money, and that the class balance was actually pretty bad for an mmo. Now I play Guild Wars, because you can play it like a single player game most of the time (Sign on and off when you want, walk away from the computer when you need to get a drink, answer the phone, or whatever.) and only go multiplayer when you want too, and no monthly fees. It's a lot more socially conscious to me.
I don't play much, just jump on and try to work my way through the missions slowly but surely every now and then. I've beaten most of Prophecies and about half of Factions.
Well, tbh, I think there should be like 100-1000 "fronts" which are maps, and when you are a commander, you are chosen to fight on a random front. This front is going to be a place that has enemy on one side and ally on another, its you versus him, if he wins, he caps it, if you win, you cap it for your team.Zpock wrote:The idea of a mmorts seems stupid to me. I mean It's hard to even take team matches in normal RTSes seriously. There's never going to be anything resembling a 1v1 match actually measuring the skill of two good players against each other in such a setting, so why bother? And are you going to be able to log in and build tanks 24/7 in a persistant world? haha, is all I can say. The whole MMMORPG idea at least makes sense, addiction by slow pointless progress crap. MMOXXX tough... now we're talking...
To be fair, the numbers only massive online "strategy game" kind of works.
Depending on the size of a front, you can call a friend or an ally to help, or you will be randomly chosen to go. If all of the players are busy, you may have to play an extra large map against two enemies.
If you're cut off, you lose any kinds of special support or troops, basically speaking, if the enemy passes and you are the last commander holding the front, you lose all your special tech and weaponry.
The farther away you are from your command post or main province makes the cost increase due to shipping and handling of units and infantry. 1/10 provinces or so could have the right requirements to hold a factory or two, thus decreasing the price because you can get tanks from the back to the front faster.
So, in general, and loosely concepted, this is what I think an MMORTS should be like.
-
LathanStanley
- Posts: 1429
- Joined: 20 Jun 2005, 05:16
Hmm, something like the old boneryards is a good idea, with playing as a regular RTS but with the result tied in to a big map, you try to expand your factions ownership of the map. This idea is very awesome.Snipawolf wrote: Well, tbh, I think there should be like 100-1000 "fronts" which are maps, and when you are a commander, you are chosen to fight on a random front. This front is going to be a place that has enemy on one side and ally on another, its you versus him, if he wins, he caps it, if you win, you cap it for your team.
Depending on the size of a front, you can call a friend or an ally to help, or you will be randomly chosen to go. If all of the players are busy, you may have to play an extra large map against two enemies.
If you're cut off, you lose any kinds of special support or troops, basically speaking, if the enemy passes and you are the last commander holding the front, you lose all your special tech and weaponry.
The farther away you are from your command post or main province makes the cost increase due to shipping and handling of units and infantry. 1/10 provinces or so could have the right requirements to hold a factory or two, thus decreasing the price because you can get tanks from the back to the front faster.
So, in general, and loosely concepted, this is what I think an MMORTS should be like.
I concurr.pintle wrote:Never a truer wordKDR_11k wrote:I hate MMOs. Most have the content of the average singleplayer game but stretched out over months of playtime instead of 10 hours.
And have you ever worked in a development group trying to make one? Misery - everybody sees it as such, and you can't break out of the limitations because nobody is willing to raise the stakes.
-
LathanStanley
- Posts: 1429
- Joined: 20 Jun 2005, 05:16