[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. 

besides the fact that kingdom under fire 2 will not be the rts as people usually refer to, yet its online mode could be, rumours-wise, a nice approach to the mmo side of an (action) rts

Another vouch for Shattered Galaxy. It was one the first MMOs I've ever played (in fact, it was probably one of the few MMOs around during its time since WoW hasn't come out yet, introducing the masses to MMOs). And boy was it a blast. In retrospect, as Scythy has said, it really did get a lot of things perfect. The game-play was fun, teamwork was absolutely vital, and its community was one of the best I have ever seen.

Christ, wish that the game was still alive (the state that it is currently in doesn't count).

 EVE  could this game be considered the closest succesfull mmo real time strategy?

I think a mmorts would be pretty interesting.

I think a good MMORTS will have to balance the action RTS and the strategy RTS. What if, for general questing, you had your "Gods and Heroes" setup, where you take your most trusted soldiers out into the world. Say you capped that at between 6 - 10 NPC "trusted soldiers" to take with you, that could be interchangeable. Through world questing, you collect certain upgrades for them, such as armor, weapons, and possibly a skill or two. Then, switch to "Battleforge" components for heavy story arc missions, where your trusted soldiers are the "lieutenants" that can be instantly summoned into battle, and is also completely co-op. The skills that they acquire in the general questing, persistent world can be applied here, but maybe balanced differently. Almost like a raid or something. You also have your home base that you can go to and fight RTS battles occasionally for something like money or rare crafting materials.

With something like that, you get the most important aspects of an MMO while also having RTS elements. You get character advancement, a rich, persistent world, good reasons to do the RTS battles and become good at them, while always being able to play with other people. Your characters learn new skills as they level up, and the fact that you can interchange which soldiers are your "trusted" soldiers means you can mix and match to fit different situations, and gives you a reason to level up different "lieuts". Obviously PvP would be built in as well.

Granted, that would be a monumental undertaking, but something like that could well appeal to not only the RTS crowd, but the traditional MMO crowd as well.

I've not seen one out there but I have not looked.

I imagine a MMORTS would have to be enlongated stretched so to speak. Slow down the speed of unit prodution make territories VAST and control of those territores key to continued prosperity of your force.

Defeat would have to be present for fans to come and play, but defeat does not have to be eliminaton.

A scifi option would be to have people eliminated playes required to reenter play via space drop to and under populted area and begin anew. A good deplomacy interface would be crucial and the need for a MASSIVE VAST TRACTS of territories for players to occupy and defend.

anyhow I would play a good MMORTS if one were made or exists.

 Anyone who wants a mmoRTS needs to look no farther then evony. It's fun, brutal and free. If you havn't checked it out you really should. It's probably not for everyone, but once you get your city built and can defend yourself it's really fun.

 I have to also voice my two cents for Shattered Galaxy.  I can't believe an article could be written about this without mentioning it.  Sure it's like 800X600 resolution but it was an MMO RTS. Blazed the trail in that arena in my opinion.  :) 

Still you could do something like that again and it'd sell, just not sure how well. 

A massively multiplayer online rts. I would say we already have a pretty decent one. Eve online is, at it's 'end game' level, pretty much an elaborate RTS. The leaders of 0.0 Alliances and corps decide where to move their fleets, how to engage, what 'buildings' to build where to mine what resources are there. Granted, for each individual pilot, the game is an MMORPG. But for the leaders and logistics people, it's an RTS. A very long-term, relatively slow moving, incredibly complicated RTS.

It was called Ballerium, not Bellarium. And I'd strongly argue that G&H was even close to being a MMORTS as against a MMORPG with every class having pets available. Having a small number of pets to control doesn't make a game a MMORTS.

As for "why not a MMORTS?", let's look at it this way - name an RTS with an original IP (i.e. no franchises) that has been highly successful recently. It's a pretty short list of names, if you can even think of any (and, to be honest, I'm drawing a blank - maybe Sins of A Solar Empire? Demigod?). The RTS genre isn't attracting the big development dollars anymore. Certainly there are studios who do RTSs, but they have typically built a franchise so have an existing fanbase who will buy it.

So, why not an MMORTS? Because RTS isn't a big selling genre, which makes attracting the investment required for an MMORTS so much harder. And even the titles that have gotten up - Ballerium works as an example here - have fallen over.

I do think that there probably is room for some successful MMORTSs, but it would take a company like Blizzard to bring in enough players to make such a title viable.

Originally posted by Isaak

[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.

 

 

 

There are ways to merge/meld this with an MMORPG.  You could use something based upon a melding of a few games methodologies on how this works but SWG comes to mind pretty fast with the degrees of complexity it has.

You get a char.  That char has 10 building lots they can build but need materials, etc... to build things.  Not 1 player against the world to win -- you team up with others (MMO remember?) to play and win.  The more people on your team, the more additional and advance buildings you can get.

Just use a similar method to what they have.  If you want troops -- great!  Where's their gear come from?  There's work for your crafter folks.  Ofline?  They cover that with their resources moving and with harvesters that do that for you as well as schematics that have factories to make things while you're off doing other stuff.  NPC army?  change how their cloning facilities work to produce troops, etc...  For tech advances, you'd have Research & Development as well as just flat out "Reverse Engineering" enemy stuff -- steal the technology and "re-invent" it for your own use.

A town elects a mayor.  The town decides what group to join and who to fight against, etc...  Towns pretty much being "separate entities" so they'd control access to their properties while individuals would decide upon how their personal buildings worked.

So the models on this could be put forth based upon RPG game tools just "depersonalize" them a bit more.  If you're wiped out, you simply lose all your structures, etc...  and start over with "10 buildings" you can build plus whatever savings you managed to pull out before you got thumped -- just find another planet and start up there.  If it takes more to build larger and the like, then it probably won't be too hard to find a town that is looking for more people to move in and the like.

So you wouldn't be "king of the world" unless you were the elected leader of everyone but you could have satellite towns and even whole worlds under your control.

Add in other stuff too -- "enforced" diplomacy rules via diplomatic relations. If you lose a diplomatic discussion with opponents, whatever concessions are outlined are put in place -- "won't attack for 10 weeks", etc... where your forces *CANNOT* attack them for that long and the like. (this adds another dimension to the game in that diplomatic relations gain real value vs "I changed my mind... hehe, hehe..." -- but a complex rule-set on this would make life a bit more interesting with some backstab type tactics available, just not with every diplo chat someone held and the like.)

Planetary defenses, space exploration, etc...

In other words, the models to put something like this forward have somewhat been pioneered for MMO's.  All that'd be needed is extending the rules and reducing the scope of a player from "I am *GOD* of my efforts!" to a participating member.  Thus your "I play 900 hours a week" person is just as glad to find a "I play 10 hours a MONTH" joining their community as finding another 900 hour a week player might make them...

Yeah, it'd be possible but it wouldn't be along the same lines as what most consider an RTS to be right now -- Starcraft is fun but let's see someone join a game in play 2 hours late and see if they'd think it were fun.  The mode of play and model would have to be adjusted for thousands of players instead of 2-8 on a map for a couple hours.

 I had a good time with Savage: A Tortured Soul. It isn't exactly an MMO, but it had some really cool ideas that fit right alongside this discussion. 

I strongly agree with everyone who has mentioned Shattered Galaxy so far and would love to see any developers try to make something similar.

It was perfect. Every player controlled 6-12 units that could be fully customized with equips and you could mix and match your army/specs however you wanted, though most people chose to specialize in a role--artillary, tanks, infantry, anti-air, air support, air superiority--much like the article mentions. There's no resource concerns in the battle and if all your units died you could bring in more, though usually a person only had 1-2 teams that were equipped enough to fight. The battle mechanics are pretty much the same as the recent Warhammer strategy games; that is, there are 4 or so points of interest on a territory that you must conquer and hold, usually while getting pounded by so much artillary that you can barely see the circle with pie slices that your units trying to take.

Each planet had territories split among 4 factions so there were always battles to join and if I remember correctly there could be around 20 people of each side on the map at the same time leading to some pretty epic battles and team work. Your main character had stats that influenced the equips/units you could buy, how powerful you could equip your units, how many units you could bring into a battle and something else i forgot.

Only pitfall was that there was no real overarching purpose. Fighting over the same territories over and over, and then progressing to another planet to do the same did eventually gets boring, no matter how epic the fights were.

Did anyone ever come across the game Playsaga?  they claim to be the world's first persistent online real-time strategy game.

I am surprised that the OP did not mention this game.

Originally posted by Isturi

Did anyone ever come across the game Playsaga?  they claim to be the world's first persistent online real-time strategy game.

I am surprised that the OP did not mention this game.

Saga seems rather well done. Played it about a year or so ago and still have a few unwrapped decks on my desk for when i feel like typing in strings of numbers again.

Many of the browser-based MMOs take an RTS approach and although they often capture the related "4X" gameplay nicely, they really do fall short in the strategy end of things.