Like the Yetti and the Loch Ness Monster, a great MMORTS is hard to find. This week, Dana returns to his weekly column and looks at an approach that might actually finally bring one into the mainstream.

There are four main obstacles that stand in the way of the MMORTS genre:

The first problem is in the mindset of an RTS player. The whole genre is far more like a board game than a video game. MMOs are meant to be long, enduring, near-on endless marathons. RTS games are short and the table is cleared once a winner is crowned. The biggest hurdle for an MMORTS designer is translating a relatively short game into a long one.

The second issue an MMORTS faces is the spoiled nature of the MMORPG audience. You cannot “lose” in most MMOs. Sure you can die, sometimes you even get an XP penalty, but largely these games encourage everyone to win. That’s not necessarily wrong. RPGs wouldn’t be much fun if people couldn’t get to the end. Nonetheless, it’s a different mindset. The bulk of the MMO audience is not used to losing, while RTS games are far more competitive by design.

Read it all here.

Maybe this is what I need, an MMORTS. I use to like MMORPG until WoW came along and made everything super casual and everybody a winner. Now every game is following suit.

In my opinion Mankind nailed it pretty well...

Mankind Wikipedia entry

I have been thinking about MMORTSs lately, and yes, I think a good one IS possible and would be fairly popular.

Good article.

I think its due to lack of interest. Its never really been a popular genre, when compared to  others. I know I have never been that interested in them. I have even tried a few times to get in to MMORTS' and offline RTS', but it was never the type of game play I was looking for. Plus its called Real-Time Strategy, but its anything but Real-Time. Its almost as bad as Turn-based games.

Originally posted by purewitz

I think its due to lack of interest. Its never really been a popular genre, when compared to  others. I know I have never been that interested in them. I have even tried a few times to get in to MMORTS' and offline RTS', but it was never the type of game play I was looking for. Plus its called Real-Time Strategy, but its anything but Real-Time. Its almost as bad as Turn-based games.

Uh, wrong.

Originally posted by purewitz

I think its due to lack of interest. Its never really been a popular genre, when compared to  others. I know I have never been that interested in them. I have even tried a few times to get in to MMORTS' and offline RTS', but it was never the type of game play I was looking for. Plus its called Real-Time Strategy, but its anything but Real-Time. Its almost as bad as Turn-based games.

Just because you have'nt been interested in them  doesnt mean no one else is. RTS is a very popular genre. I am curious what MMORTS you tried seeing as how there is very very very limited selection of them.

Gotta love these kids who think since they dont like something that it is some unerversial law that no one else will like them.

Originally posted by toddze

Originally posted by purewitz

I think its due to lack of interest. Its never really been a popular genre, when compared to  others. I know I have never been that interested in them. I have even tried a few times to get in to MMORTS' and offline RTS', but it was never the type of game play I was looking for. Plus its called Real-Time Strategy, but its anything but Real-Time. Its almost as bad as Turn-based games.

 

Just because you have'nt been interested in them  doesnt mean no one else is. RTS is a very popular genre. I am curious what MMORTS you tried seeing as how there is very very very limited selection of them.

Gotta love these kids who think since they dont like something that it is some unerversial law that no one else will like them.

Online BattleForge, Dreamlords, and Saga, offline Age of Empires, Civilizations, and Star Wars: Empire at War.

I've been gaming since I was 5 years old, back in 1983. That's when I got my first console, the Atari 2600. I also did some gaming on the Commodore 64 home PC.  So watch who your calling kid. I just happen to prefer FPS, TPS, RPGs among other types of games. Maybe I should have worded my statement differently, but I know other people who aren't in to RTS. Plus you don't  see too many people bring them up on the forums either. It was just my two cents and now I'm done.

Here is the only way I can envision an MMORTS working: (It would not work anyway, we don't have technology to permit this)

How about 5,000 on 5,000 battle servers, where there is pretty much a constant war going on.  Lore would be developed through actual gameplay such as losing or winning key battles.  As factions keep losing, their advantages should increase so that it evens out.  The battles could last for weeks, easily.  When the battles are won or lost, there could also be cities that serve as lobbies for individual events, such as 1v1 and guild tournaments.  Also, there should be some money dropped during the big battles so that you can buy upgrades.  There could be multiple factions with a faction leader, and a council in each faction.  Factions should be able to go to war with each other or make alliances and agreements.  Factions would have a certain amount of window time in between each massive battle in order to schedule in-faction guild tournaments.

There could also be interfactional guild tournaments, where the best groups of players square off for the title of the #1 guild in the world.  Honestly, this is a pretty sweet idea.

Originally posted by purewitz

 

Online BattleForge, Dreamlords, and Saga, offline Age of Empires, Civilizations, and Star Wars: Empire at War.

I've been gaming since I was 5 years old, back in 1983. That's when I got my first console, the Atari 2600. I also did some gaming on the Commodore 64 home PC.  So watch who your calling kid. I just happen to prefer FPS, TPS, RPGs among other types of games. Maybe I should have worded my statement differently, but I know other people who aren't in to RTS. Plus you don't hear to many people bring them up on the forums either.

This is not an RTS forum, of course you don't see much of it. Only thing you see much of here that is not an MMOrpg is maybe an MMOFPS  and that is still very limited. Go to a forum dedicated to RTS and youll see much more conversation.

Yes you should have worded your statement different. I can agree there are a group of people who do not like RTS, theres a lot of people who dont like FPS or RPG's. All the major genre's have a strong following and are very popular.

Originally posted by purewitz

 

Online BattleForge, Dreamlords, and Saga, offline Age of Empires, Civilizations, and Star Wars: Empire at War.

I've been gaming since I was 5 years old, back in 1983. That's when I got my first console, the Atari 2600. I also did some gaming on the Commodore 64 home PC.  So watch who your calling kid. I just happen to prefer FPS, TPS, RPGs among other types of games. Maybe I should have worded my statement differently, but I know other people who aren't in to RTS. Plus you don't  see too many people bring them up on the forums either. It was just my two cents and now I'm done.

It's a separate community that tends to stay out of the limelight. There is actually a few splits in the genre though. There is  the build and conquer detailed type RTS and the more action oriented RTS. No MMORTS I've seen so far is very action oriented and most of what you've played doesn't seem to be. More action oriented would be Warcraft 3, Command and Conquer, and Starcraft. It's not as popular as the MMORPG or FPS games but there are quite a few followers. I've always wanted a Dungeon Keeper MMO myself.

i think we have a few hints here and there. Look at Guild Wars, or Atlantica Online. You have your main gang, some NPCs you recruit and basicly have a RPG "party" per person. RTS would jsut expand on that. Maybe make it easier by bying "generals" who control npc foootsoloders and you only give direct orders to your generals

Ad instanced personal teritories and you can even have seiges (you cant seige the camp of you enemy when he is offline and thus the instance is off)

But i think the key is starting small, let me have my own Fellowship of the Ring and slow build up my Army of Rohan

I think Shattered Galaxy got it perfectly.

It's a shame that it isn't updated or supported anymore, it's just hosted.

Originally posted by Scythy

I think Shattered Galaxy got it perfectly.

It's a shame that it isn't updated or supported anymore, it's just hosted.

Yup I used to play the crap out of Shattered Galaxy and had a blast, but finally got bored of it since they hadn't added anything new to it for years.

It was also ahead of it's time, it had the free world where you could only get up to a certain level and since level was tied to what units you could get you couldn't use all the units. So you subscribed to get to the other worlds where you could max out, run the politics etc. It also gave you a bonus for maxing out a character and rerolling him to give a reason for people to keep getting involved in the low levels.

If someone made a modern day Shattered Galaxy with 3D graphics and more options it would probably do very very well.

 Supreme Commander was really fun.  I'm not a huge fan of the genre but occaisionally I'll buy one to check them out. I loved warcraft but more from the easter eggs and lore type stuff like clicking on the same ship a bunch of times and hearing my goblins puke. 

Originally posted by purewitz

Originally posted by toddze

Originally posted by purewitz

I think its due to lack of interest. Its never really been a popular genre, when compared to  others. I know I have never been that interested in them. I have even tried a few times to get in to MMORTS' and offline RTS', but it was never the type of game play I was looking for. Plus its called Real-Time Strategy, but its anything but Real-Time. Its almost as bad as Turn-based games.

 

Just because you have'nt been interested in them  doesnt mean no one else is. RTS is a very popular genre. I am curious what MMORTS you tried seeing as how there is very very very limited selection of them.

Gotta love these kids who think since they dont like something that it is some unerversial law that no one else will like them.

 

Online BattleForge, Dreamlords, and Saga, offline Age of Empires, Civilizations, and Star Wars: Empire at War.

I've been gaming since I was 5 years old, back in 1983. That's when I got my first console, the Atari 2600. I also did some gaming on the Commodore 64 home PC.  So watch who your calling kid. I just happen to prefer FPS, TPS, RPGs among other types of games. Maybe I should have worded my statement differently, but I know other people who aren't in to RTS. Plus you don't  see too many people bring them up on the forums either. It was just my two cents and now I'm done.

Hey, calm down, kid.  He was just making a valid point, with a bit of snark added onto the end of it.  Once again, you're assuming just because your group doesn't like something, it's not popular.  I don't much care for Yugioh cards or 4.0 D&D, but I accept that they have damned fine followings....except that Yugioh is still shit.  You don't hear about them on the forums here much, because this site is mmorpg.com, and while there is an off topic board, this isn't exactly the first place gamers would flock to discuss RTS games.

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Originally posted by Scythy

I think Shattered Galaxy got it perfectly.

It's a shame that it isn't updated or supported anymore, it's just hosted.

 

Yup I used to play the crap out of Shattered Galaxy and had a blast, but finally got bored of it since they hadn't added anything new to it for years.

 

It was also ahead of it's time, it had the free world where you could only get up to a certain level and since level was tied to what units you could get you couldn't use all the units. So you subscribed to get to the other worlds where you could max out, run the politics etc. It also gave you a bonus for maxing out a character and rerolling him to give a reason for people to keep getting involved in the low levels.

 

If someone made a modern day Shattered Galaxy with 3D graphics and more options it would probably do very very well.

I used to play the hell out of it, too.  I played the free part anyway, was pretty broke during that time period.  I gotta agree with the need for an updated SG...hell, even just a spiritual successor.

I remember when i bought my 1st pc just so i can play dune...

Originally posted by babac

I remember when i bought my 1st pc just so i can play dune...

I played that on the Genesis.  Painful to play now, but it was so much fun.

I dont know how this happens so often but folks love to talk up a MMORTS but NEVER seem to google 'mmorts'. You would immed find two key genre sites - one very active(mine) and one much less so (think he found life somewhere out there..). On both is a simple list with many examples (ok many by my book as a mmorts player for 10 years) of actual MMORTS. A lot of this discussion is RTS - a different beast not just by name but almost exclusively PvE with PvP purely multiplayer. A new blend has arrived with online RTS - but these are basically simulating battlenet but better. We also have TCG blends like Saga n Battleforge etc as well as the more rounded trad MMORTS games like mankind and beyond protocol. We have quite a few short term semi persistent MMORTS titles and those that are player defined narratives and fully persistent.

Every time i see a thread like this im screaming GOOGLE within 2 posts - and I usually give up after that. Cmon folks - most of the discussion about what makes a mmorts etc is reinventing the wheel - tried that and got griefed offline etc. We have some serious debates going on but they occur in thegame forums by folks who actually play the damn games - not starcraft experts etc.

Come to www.mmortsgamers.com and check us out :)

[quote]

The third is the simple fact that an RTS is “real-time.” The core conceit of the genre is that people build permanent structures and either defend them or destroy their enemies. Logging off mid-game ruins that, and being online 24/7 just isn’t practical.

[/quote]

There are a couple things you could do.

1) AI while offline.

Yeah, everyone knows that AI isn't as good as a player...or is it? its really easy to pump out statistics at the end of an RTS game. How many structures built/destroyed, how many units created/lost and what type, etc etc.  EVERY RTS does this. SO. Heres what you do with AI. The AI tracks your stats and then plays your style while offline...except only in defense mode.

While offline, your structures will rebuild slowly (using up your resources - perhaps you could set a limit on many resources your AI could use before conceding the territory).

You DO NOT want AI building up huge armies while you're offline. That just sucks.  Remember Sim City? All you had to do to cheat was build a tiny city and let it run over night. Unless you screwed up royally, you would have millions by morning. You don't want AI that is gathering resources or building giant armies.  Maintain a reasonable defense of your structures while offline? Sure. Leave the castle to go defend your watch post? OK.  But NO army/resource building!  K, dead horse is beat.

2) Coop

You are one of the many people of your kingdom. While you are offline, your guild mates or faction mates have permission sets to control your resources. Perhaps your wife or brother IRL can have FULL CONTROL of your units in game...even while you're logged in  :D  THen guild mates have limited control. They can request help and your home base(s) can send out a reasonable amount of aid...to be fair, this would need to drain your resources, even if you're offline. Again, permissions could solve this. How much aid will you give comrads while offline?

In coop style play, your territory would be protected, reasonably, by your friends and allies.

You could do both 1 and 2.

3) Offline/Browser interface.

While you are at work or on your ipod, get an email that says your allied faction is under attack! Send reinforcements? yes or no. If so, how much? Many people play games online that are completely browser based and have no graphics. Imagine if those games were an inerface to an actual RTS going on with full 3d graphics.

4) ARCHETYPAL progress trees.

This poses some issue because, in an RTS you start off with nothing researched...and neither does your opponent.  Part of playing an RTS is balancing research vs building units vs building defense structures.

I don't see a good solution for the TECH trees issue. *shrug*  

WARNING LONG SUMMARY

Anyway, if developers were willing to take a risk (I know, they do...and get bit for it all the time) then they could develop this. If its fun, people will play.  I like RTS but I don't like the sid myers CIV games (turn based). I like age of empires and empire earth...but not AGE of EMPIRES 3...dunno why. Wasn't fun for me.  

Trouble with developers is they see something like WoW and say, I gotta make one of THOSE! Except...its been done! I invested years and got my wife sucked into that one. I cannot convince myself to play another one...too much time invested in a character to 'level up' and such. too much grind, etc.

with MMORTS you can get RPG elements, storyline (GM's controlling events, big baddies or what not) even a hero character... plus you can start 4 years after game launch and join the guild your friend started 4 years ago...and already be on par because you're part of that faction...gt help/resources from them. You can immediately play with/against the guy who started 4 years ago. Expect to lose, but there is always a learning curve...not a giant level gap.

5) (last thing, i promise) World size would have to be pretty huge. If you can log off and expect your land to stay, and explore and establish kingdoms in new virgin territory, then the world has to be huge.  Resources would have to respawn...or salvaged from fallen enemies. Can't build too far away, or you won't level your hero or your military's fighting skills.  Anyway...this is easily solved too.  Randomly generated world technology is already here. OR you can take satellite images of earth.

Originally posted by babac

I remember when i bought my 1st pc just so i can play dune...

Actually dune 2, 1 wasn't RTS :p  j/k

Anyway i think that beside those 4 factors there is the technical one. Its one thing for a server to handle 5k players at once its another one to process 5k ppl holding 1k units each...so just the expenses for the hardware might be quite a lot higher then for normal mmos. As for us "clients" there are enough RTS games the start moving slowly once everywhere you'd throw a rock you'd hit at least one unit. Multiply that by a "raid factor" or large scale pvp and you can imagine that you might need a very high end machine. To prevent that to a degree they could tone down the graphics, still there will be quite a wokload on the CPU but still, and the come the 10 year old kids screeming "boo this is so 90s graphics"...doesnt matter that they never played a game from back then:)

Well I would never site the pathetic trainwreck that is Beyond Protocol as a "successful MMORTS"...it is certainly out there, as are many others - as a previous poster said.

The biggest single hurdle, that none of them have really addressed successfully imo, is that whole online/offline debate. One of the key elements of an MMO has always been that more time played generally = more success/power. That causes enough forum wars and contention in the MMORPG community in what are basically cooperative games. In a competitive environment, how do you make it so that Joe (who can play 21 hrs a day/7 days a week) doesn't just get to crush Bob (who can only play 5 nights a week, for 3 hours after the kids go to bed)?

Offline AIs don't work for the same reason everyone bitches about AIs in PvE games, they suck and can be gamed/exploited. Start implementing "activity" limits and it quickly becomes like a turn-based game and not "RT" at all. 

I think the author has a very good point and a new take on it is needed - I think an MMORTS based on warbands - like Necromunda or Mordheim could work very very well.  

Surprised no one mentioned Savage/Savage2. In my opinion, a true MMORTS should try to do what they did, but on a grander scale. I for one would play in a heart beat as I love Savage 2.

Yes.  There is more than one way to meld MMORPGS and RTS.  One is where every player controls an army, and its basically a rts free for all.  The other idea is that each player is a unit of the army that a RTS player might control. 

I have been thinking along the latter lines myself.  Though i've been thinking more along the tower defense line.  Where each town is under attack and needs to be defended.  The players can make a real change in the world.