Dawn of War 2 is an RTS. Hack'n'Slash games are a completely different genre.

Why not set up a MMORTS set up like Mech Commander in the Battle Tech Universe.  You could set the time period up before or after the Clan invasion.  

There could be a few "Home Worlds" in each "House" that are basically off limits from invasion.  That is where you could group up with other commanders and then hop on a jump ship to a specific world and then the RTS begins.  As you take more worlds and complete more objectives you grow in rank and then are able to aquire new technology, mechs, Drop ships, resources, abilities...  That way if you log out you do not lose anything specific other than the world that you were fighting for. When you relog you start back at the "Home World" where with a quick jump you can move back to the front lines.  The worlds can have a max number of players, a "Commander and Chief", someone who assigns the starting locations and objectives to the other commanders as well as bonuses for the owners the deeper you are into enemy territory.

If you wanted to include mercenaries this would be a great way to have the ability to go and fight who you want when you want.  Just pick up the next contract either from a player or from a npc.  Mercenaries would have their own "Home World" as well so they can group sell and buy the supplies that they may need for the next mission.

If you put the time period during the Clan invasion, specifically the early years, you could have players be part of the Clans.  Players then would build their invasion forces outside of the realm and then compete with other players through the course of bidding for the amount of resources that they plan on using in order to invade a given planet.  The House planets could be either other players or be non-players.  If you included the scenario with the mercenaries and Houses from you then would have three factions at the same time.

I personally would prefer the pre-Clan invasion time period.  The possibilities are endless imo.  Drop ships = spawn points; Missions like raids, recons, frontal assaults, siege of cities.... Optional Careers like resource gathers and salvage crews....

The only reason why they do not build a MMORTS is because for the most part developers like the masses of people are sheep and pretty much follow the herd (again imo).

I was a developer on Ballerium, and want to add my two cents.

First problem is: it's not mainstream. This has several effects:

- It's harder to get started programming an MMORTS. There are a lot more free and inexpensive engines for RPG and MMORPG than for RTS, and I don't know if there are any for MMORTS. There's also more discussion because more people are interested in writing them.

- It's hard to get money. A game is one of the more complex programming tasks, and takes time and people. Without a proven market for MMORTS it's hard to keep development going. Without a lot of people paying for the game it's hard to continue to add content. Chicken and egg.

Second problem: It's technically more difficult. The large number of units causes a burden on everything: graphics, AI, networking... It's a burden on the server as well as the client. Things like creating a seamless world, which many MMORPG's don't even do, are a lot harder when each player has many units. One of the main ideas originally behind Ballerium was to have an "infinite" world. It wasn't until we gave that up that the game got anywhere. The amount of time spent trying to get a seamless huge world with many players was too large.

Last issue is, MMORTS games as people talk about them here only appeal to the PvP crowd. MMORPG games try to cater for both PvE and PvP crowds, and PvE has a pretty big following. Another feature in Ballerium that got dropped was quests. I'm a PvE fan, and the quests, simple as they were, were the only thing that made me play the game for some hours at a time.

Originally posted by Eleazaros

Actually, if you recall on Starcraft and Warcraft 3 (2 of the ones you list that I've played), they start PvE and go PvP.  You play against the world long before you join the online communities to play them.  Then you queue up and join a scenario for a session of play so claiming "all PvP" doesn't work and the time limits on them also don't fit an MMO style environment.

Ive played Starcraft for a couple of months and Ive played Warcraft 3 for 6 years, this is inaccurate. The campaigns available are pretty good but takes only a day or so to complete after that its all about online gameplay. As for PvE well I guess there are lots of stuff like that but what I meant by saying PvE was in the common sense of an MMO. PvE in custom games are basicly nothing more then a couple lines of script. Ex TDs "go here then here" and so on.

Players play mostly custom so there are no ques and if you wanted to play "melee" the que is mostly about 30sec...

If this however was a MMO there would be no custom made maps, there would be no player made content. Therefor it would focus on only one thing in particular.. thats right PvP and if there were PvE it would be merely thought of as farming or grinding

 

RTS players don't generally "play well with others" no matter what.  The current format for the play is me vs anyone/everyone else on the map -No just no, its not one player FFA frenzy most of these games are played in teams.- be that AI controlled or player controlled.  The very nature of the current incarnations is counter to any MMO setting you can come up with unless it is redefined away from the "I am GOD!" style of play that the current RTS community is attached to.

dont really get what your aiming at

By shifting to a team oriented approach, where many contribute their pool of resources to a common goal, you could -- with fair ease -- incorporate the overall strategy elements to it and "real-time" -- well, that's what most popular MMO's are about right now.

like I said earlier most RTS games are played in teams, not solo but in teams of 2 to 4 sometimes as many as 6 players, sure there are ways that you can play 1v1 but cmon.. Have you really played SC/WC3 as you claim?

As for a grander scheme with 30ish players... well I`l just see a giant "fail sign" its hard enough cordinating with 6 players in Company of heroes ex imagine trying with 10,12, 30... madness...

So do I think it could be done along these lines?  Yes.  Do I think you could do a conversion "in tact" of what players are used to in RTS games?  Hell no.  No more so than you can have the save/restore of a standalone PC game like Witcher in an MMO game like WoW where you save, try, fail so restore and try again -- *VERY* common when learning RTS games as you do the same scenario over and over until you "get it right".

But what would the point be of making a badly thought of RTS. If it wouldnt have a good foundation you couldnt pull the fans from their other RTS games because they wouldnt accept trash, well maybe if it was free to play but for RTS fans to pay each month it has to be dam good especially since most of the players that I talk to rescent the "pay per month" rule that MMOs have

I just dont see this as a good idea, I think it sounds cool but in reality it would be crap. I would be loved to be proven wrong but I think atleast for now MMOs should be RPG exclusive

There’s tons of MMORTS around, some of them even came out this year. The issue of MMORTS is mostly due to sites like this one completely neglects the genre. Therefore, no one really knows about it here. There is an MMORTS community and as I keep saying in so many posts, Mankind Online is among the first MMOs and one of best MMORTS ever made. Shattered Galaxy is great as well.

What’s really good about Shattered Galaxy is that it’s very balanced. One cannot win by simply using Zerg Tactics. You need to be smart and about each moves and attacks.

Mankind was also very anti zerg. Sure you could do a lot of damage but a well placed dread to counter a fleet of tiny ship was more then enough.

EVE is not an RTS but then again… if you’ve been in fleet battles where it’s 400 versus 400 players, then yes.. the Fleet commanders are basicaly playing an RTS.

Originally posted by RoonMian

In my opinion Mankind nailed it pretty well...

 

Mankind Wikipedia entry

Indeed.  Mankind was the first MMO I played, in 1999.  I investigated UO only after I'd seen Mankind and realized the persistent-world genre was becoming viable.  Sadly, it seems many people here "looking' for an MMORTS have never heard of Mankind.

Anyone who enjoys games such as Master of Orion, Galactic Empires, Space Empires V, and similar products will appreciate Mankind, but it is much more RTS (War/Starcraft, etc) than turn-based strategy.  Mankind had addressed most of the general "problems" of the MMORTS paradigm quite effectively before the turn of the millennium.  Based on reports that its graphics have been modernized, it may be well worth checking out even now.

I'm more of a Turn Based Strategy gane fan then an RTS fan....and I haven't really tried out any of the exisiting MMORTS attempts. However I'll dive in and offer my opinion, just like everyone else here.

I think the way to do something like this would be to offer a hybrid command/control based system. You'd have elements that "belonged" to individual players and elements that "belonged" to factions (think Horde & Alliance in WOW, but you'd probably want maybe a dozen or more factions available to keep it interesting) but that could be controled by individual players for a time (when they were logged in).

What would "belong" to individual players would be thier own individual character and a small core of units attached to them (think a sort of personal guard). These could gain experience/abilities through game-play.... and while they could be destroyed (though perhaps not the players main character)... they would NOT persist when the player logged off and could not be commanded by any other player.... thus if the player lost them, it would be soley through thier own gameplay actions. Of course, the player could recruit new core units to replace those destroyed and engage in the process of building them back up in experience and equipment.

Territories, resources, and "pooled units" would belong to the Faction...not individual players. However, these objects would be "controled" by whatever players of that Faction happaned to be logged in at the present time. Basicaly,  you could use a ranking/bidding system within the game to determine which logged in player of the appropriate faction controled which particular resource.  Ranks could be earned by individual players through game-play (just like Prestiege/Fame/Reputation/Etc is gained in some MMO's today). What faction resources were available (or perhaps the cost to purchase/build new ones) would be determined by how the Faction as a whole was doing in the game (example... if a faction controled 20 resource areas the cost to build a "pooled" infantry squad could be 5 points of rank....if they only controled 10 it would cost 10 points to build the same unit).

This would encourage cooperative play...since the better the Faction as a whole was doing....the easier time any individual member of that faction would have in controling objects. Since there is a Rank based limit on the number of objects any individual player could control at one time (and probably a practical one as well)..... it would also encourage delegation of resources/objects rather then hording. Doing things that increased the Factions position as a whole (like building in game structures or capturing resources, etc) could be one of the methods for increasing an individual players rank. Thus you are further incentivized to do/build things personaly, that may pass out of your control but that help your faction as a whole....because it builds your personal characters abilities/standing as well.

If there were insufficient players of appropriate rank to control a factions permanent (on map) resources...then the AI would control those. Not an ideal situation....but it should encourage players to help build-up thier fellow faction players.... since this would reduce the things needed to be controled by the AI and help the faction as a whole (and by extension the individual player belonging to that faction).

Possibly the Game might need to have a Campaign End or Game Reset.... to allow for the possibility of Conquest and to insure that a faction which was loosing would not be perpetualy on the short end of the stick.... but this need not neccesarly be done on a short cycle....and certain things (such as objects belonging to the individual players, not the faction) could be persisted through such resets.

ELUSIVE MMORTS

www.shatteredgalaxy.com

Shattered Galaxy.  It's old school and is past its hayday but it was once so saweeeeeeeeet

As i saw a developer mention here, rts games can get messy messy server load wise.

A very good example of this is Celetania, its a 'relativly' modern RTS in space, with similar setup system to eve, modules and such, and can feature some really HUGE battles, with no restrictions on players engaged or otherwise.

Problem, well the server could not handle even 50 x 50 battles, so when we hit the frontlines with over 300+ ships it went lagtastic, sort of reminicient of EVE. I haven't played it for a while now, so I don't know where it is upgrade wise, but I admire the effort.

Janster

 Interesting article and concepts.   There was one sentence, however, that demonstrates a common misperception I see so often in the MMORPG community.

"no one has had even a modicum of the success of a more traditional MMORPG or even a single player RTS."

Or even a single player RTS??   Successful single player RTS games have FAR outsold those successful 'traditional' MMORPGs like EQ and UO.   Command and Conquer alone sold 30 MILLION copies.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_&_Conquer

Those numbers outshine even WoW which redefined the MMORPG audience and can hardly be called 'traditional' in that respect.

Many from the 'traditional' MMORPG community constantly forget or overlook that  'traditional' MMORPGs were jokes as far as the gaming industry was concerned.   Before WoW, MMORPGs were considered a niche market, unable to appeal to the vast number of gamers who bought RTS, FPS, RPGs, 4X, Sports, Racing, Simulation and all the other genres of games whose successes were selling millions while 'successful' MMORPGs floundered with fractions of those numbers for a decade.

Keep things in perspective here.   That theoretical MMORTS would be a miserable failure if it only gathered the numbers of a 'traditional' MMORPG and it would be considered very successful if it could be 'even' a quarter as good as success RTS. 

There are several issues with MMORTS that I think were failed to mention.  The first being how to deal with progression.  In a standard MMO the player progresses in two way.  First by building up their character in levels and second by progressing through the world.  The problem with this in a RTS setting is the later.  If you are building structures and u aren't really moving through the world as you are spreading through it, expanding from a central point.  That means players are competing for land area to expand upon.  Which is fine, but there sheer size that this game would have to expand to would be huge.  The second issue is with the introduction of new players.  How do they compete?  They are small don't have the resouorces, the expanse, ganking them would insanely easy.

I think it would be great, but it would also be almost infinitely complex with finite set limited end.  In the end only so many players would be able to dominate a single server.  However, that isn't to say it is impossible.  Making the game a Realt time game, but incorporating elements more from Civilization and Imperial Conflict in a vast setting, I imagine the depths of space, would be plausible.  Having to fight your own expanse and progression as a civilation while competing with other players over resources in the vastness of space would provide an almost perfect sandbox environment.  Using a forced tutorial to have starting players develop the basics of their civilzation from priitive to space faring, as well as uniting and maintaning their homeworld.

Originally posted by ET3D

I was a developer on Ballerium, and want to add my two cents.

Last issue is, MMORTS games as people talk about them here only appeal to the PvP crowd. MMORPG games try to cater for both PvE and PvP crowds, and PvE has a pretty big following. Another feature in Ballerium that got dropped was quests. I'm a PvE fan, and the quests, simple as they were, were the only thing that made me play the game for some hours at a time.

Is there any chance that Ballerium will get a relaunch? Or maybe make it open source? I never really got to try it... The one time i played it the lack of PvE content was a bummer for me as well, i had a hard time getting into it. I decided to give it another try later on when there are more tutorials and quests - then, the servers went down -.-

Originally posted by Alienovrlord

"no one has had even a modicum of the success of a more traditional MMORPG or even a single player RTS."

Or even a single player RTS??   Successful single player RTS games have FAR outsold those successful 'traditional' MMORPGs like EQ and UO.   Command and Conquer alone sold 30 MILLION copies.  

he means that MMORTS aren't nearly as sucessfull as regular RTS, while being much harder to pull off.

I feel like the one topic people are not talking more about is the main reason why some people avoid MMORTS..

Time away from the PC… having to check into the game at lest a few times a day.. not being able to sit down and play for a long period of time without waiting…

What happens when my internet goes down during a match?...

Sure you could use an AI, but wouldn’t that be a unfair advantage, I mean what if you truly stink at playing an RTS, so you unplug your internet and hope you win?

The only way I can see an MMORTS is to have about five different play styles….

Home-city/planet Vrs Outposts… you could have a Home-Area that would be more PvE, and only limit a few PvP actions, and outposts that could be destroyed and not as customizable as the home-area, your home-area would give you the default amount of resources, and let you fully customize it. And the outposts would have a limited “city” buildings and more of a defense area, which could help you boost your resources.. (you could even go as much as having a tiered level of places… Realm level, Guild level, Home-Area, Outposts… (that way you could interact with different places of the world))

Quest/Missions, this would be co-op or single player missions you play, these could even be long missions you could pause and play later, maybe set a time limit of two days or a few hours for the Quest/Missions

PvP, these matches would be more of battle for control of an area, would be more fast pace, and the winner gets more resources, maybe even items.

PvE, this would be more co-op, maybe a battle over a city, where people could capture a large resource for their Realm or Guild.

Free-Play, this would be parts of the world that you could build on, and if an army happens to find it, they can destroy it. What is great about these types of areas would be unlimited amounts of resources, so if you can somehow keep your city/outpost here the longest the more resources you get.

The only way I can truly seeing this system to work correctly would be for a Space/Si-Fi type game…

Maybe have the story of “space laws” where you couldn’t attack a person’s home world unless they are a hardcore player..
Depending on your (level), depends on how big of an army you can move to a different planet

You could have planets that you could just explore on with an army, or planets you could build on

Each planet would have different rules and maybe different areas to explore

Get rid of “wait for 8 hours to travel to that planet” (like ogame) to make it more instant action… the point of an mmorpg would be the people who play a lot would have an advantage and the people who can’t play a lot aren’t lost in the dust.

Expansion packs would open up new types of planets and units

You would be paying for being able to customize your army/race/buildings..
 

I would agree with the four reasons you list, but I think that there is a counter to each of them, that if applied correctly would not only invalidate that reason, but bring players in from other genres.

First, the mindset of short v.s long play, in my opinion should be tackled from a different angle. I feel that for a MMORTS to be done properly the game must be developed with a "Tiered Play" approach. There will always be star players, and players that are average, and so on. As a result, there will be players that are not capable of leading and must follow. Start each player out as an individual in something akin to a MMORPG/FPS approach. Use a renown/leadership stat that increases with achieved accomplishments and the like, and use that stat as a mechanism (one of many) to attract followers. These followers grow with renown, and their levels of loyalty to the player waxes and wanes depending upon the actions of the player. Once a player gains X followers, allow a game mechanism to trigger the player being able to take on other players as followers, and so on. Those who want to follow, will do so, those that want to lead will refuse an invitation to be led and therein creates the PVP mechanic. The other leader will raise an army in contention with the first player for renown, followers, and the like.

Second, the issue of someone losing is the nature of an RTS. Its just the way it is. As you said, MMO's tackle this with respawns and xp penalties and the like. If a similar system is implemented for RTS...but how, a dead character is a dead character, a fallen army is a fallen army? All these are correct from the perspective of current rewards systems available in MMO's of today. You have to transcend that paradigm and move to a more "Tiered Play" approach, as I mentioned earlier. Reward leaders for leading and reward followers for following. If a leader decides to take an action that doesn't necessarily benefit all of the populace, the opportunity is there for one of his disenfranchised "loyal" player followers to try to garner the loyalty of a percentage of the leaders kingdom. Create political espionage, create factions within factions, create political and civil unrest. These things all contribute to an atmosphere where a follower with a strong and loyal support base can stage a coup and overthrow the current system. Force the king into exile where he must rebuild a loyal base of followers, and above all reward all minor successes to keep motivation high...greed, power, and revenge are all powerful tools to wield and are a great source of motivation.

Third, the RTS and logging off aspect is one I see as a huge hurdle to overcome; however, its not an impossible. For it to work, the first thing that would have to be implemented is that there are no resets, no time outs, and that everything that happens within the world is persistent. The changes that players effect are permanent and lasting. Razed castles do not respawn, they must be rebuilt through player action or direction. Burned fields do not regrow with out some assistance and direction from a player. Followers killed in the process are gone forever, and the player must earn more renown/leadership to attract new followers (or conquer more territories and force fealty). Another great implementation would be a sleep mode or auto-pilot AI feature for your account, where you can dictate tactics and actions to take in the event that your holdings are attacked while you are logged out. I would say that there should not be an attack mode for when you are logged out, but a defense mode that you can enable and will take advantage of your specific holdings and resources. One other option to explore would be allowing you to put your second in command (possibly another player "loyal" to you) in charge of defenses, as in defenses only, no having your friend win wars for you. The first two ideas I threw out will both help with and, at the same time, complicate that. The old adage applies here, "While the cats away, the mice shall play." The question is whether they are playing for your team or against you, or even playing your own team against you. Oh, the fun this will create.

Fourth, justification for players to spend money on your game, this is another big one, especially given that there are free games out there that already have a strong following. This is a tough one, but is easily enough answered. Blizzard is successful for one reason. Its not having the most money, as that was made after the fact. Its not having the most talent, because talent is everywhere. The clutch point for successful games to me is lore and story. A game with an empty plot is dead before development even starts. Blizzard is successful because they created a rich story with lore of incredible depth, and took that into a MMO format very very successfully. To match that success, you have to match their depth of lore and the intricacy of their plot and story arcs. You have to create something that players can get behind and stay behind. There can't be a single instance where a player asks "Why?" and the answer is "Because that is the way that it is." Players are finely tuned BS detectors. The second that happens the player sees through the fog and realizes that and then starts finding other holes in the story and the play. The story behind the game and its translation into game mechanics has to be beyond reproach.

Now I know this post (wall of text that it is) will fall prey to nay sayers and trolls and the like, but this is my two cents full of concern for something I'd love to see come to pass. Rant and /flame as you will, I am wearing Nomex Undergarments...lol.

Tom Clancy End War for the xbox 360 live sure does a great job as a MMORTS , only problem is that this console attract 3rd person shooter players ( wich dont like games where you need to think before you act )

so from there alot of people got disapointed .

it received so much bad reviews and so many friends told me the game was garbage that i decided to stay away from that title until 5 months ago i decided to rent it to check it out , due to boredom because lets put it that way xbox 360 has avout 90% of its game as shooters where the only difference between a title is one has a tabk grenade launcher and the other one gets an auto tea bag feature.

Well

End War is the most under evaluated game i have ever played , im totally hooked and all the other 360 titles can go to hell , nothing is as fun as End War on this console . Your units online gain experience and abbilities wich can really give you an edge sometimes .You feel just like a commander giving out orders and if you feel like playing dirty you can destroy and kill the units of your enemies so they need to gain experience again , , its a game where you need to think and the community feeling you get with your faction makes you hate the other 2 faction your fighting not to mention that you can share a battle 4 vs 4 , so from time to time youll find allies with wich your playstyle perfectly matches.

it has medium learning curve , but under 2-3 days youll probably learn all the options you get.

End Wars 10/10 and THE MMORTS that perfectly works.

Some of the previous posts are missing the point imo. There's that talk again about how to solve issues with huge empires, offline-time, dominated newbies, and all that stuff.

Massey already suggested the best solution imo:
DON'T DO IT.

All that stuff is already working fine in mmos based on management and TBS, like browser mmos. That's where it belongs and that's where it should stay. It certainly isn't needed in an RTS, some might even say it's out of place. Developers and players alike need to rethink their approach towards MMORTS if they want this genre to get on its feet.

MMORTS these days feel too much like browser mmos with downloadable clients, but imo the bigger ones will be similar to Atlantica Online with RTS features or League of Legends with MMO features.

 www.evony.com

is a Hugely popular online RTS.  There are more than 100 servers w/ some well over 50k players.  The interface is flash based and has almost no system requirements.  The game mechanics and graphics appear fairly simple, but the amount of intensity the game takes on through Alliances (Guilds) and PVP is purely addicting.

It has almost everything any game like Civilization has, resource building, conquering land, gaining rank, pve, hero development, and quests, etc.  The land is staggeringly humongous. There is a lack of animated soldiers, but really the game becomes so intense its simply not needed.

give it a shot, its free (Micro transaction based), ya got nothing to lose.

You got the complicating MMORTS, Beyond Protocal and Star Alliance

www.beyondprotocol.com and http://www.star-alliances.com/

But I find MMORTS's to be a bit slow, and less epic then you want them to be...  Also you can work so hard, and loose everything in a swift kick...

 Post #100?

Yeah baby!

Anyways... I've been away for a while, but on coming back I see my favorite genre being called a myth... so annoying...

I would have to say that Beyond Protocol and it's little brother Star Alliances are the best versions of MMORTS that I've seen around. However, as the OP said, somewhere, because RTS is much more like a sport than an RPG, they actually require some skill and grey matter... It just really gets me when I find people saying that it hasn't been done, or been done right. It's just because the unwashed masses can't wrap their small brains around it...

That's all I have to say for now.