Ack! Not the dreaded MMO, right? Actually, I''m kind of interested in this idea. I''m not necessarily talking about a matching service for RTS (or even TBS''s), but rather an actual system. I''m thinking that the 2D top-down or 3D-ish iso view would make it much smaller, and therefore (maybe I''m wrong) easier to expand without using too much additional bandwidth. Make a large persistent world, and give each player a certain amount of territory to begin with, with at least a little empty padding space so they aren''t automatically attacked. Players could ally so they weren''t screwed over whenever they were logged out, or maybe an AI could be set up to run battles (or at least, to keep you from losing too much land.) Empty land could be simply claimed, and resources would continue to come in from all territories, whether that was the currently active one. Whenever someone attacked a disputed territory, either the battle map would be built from the general territory data, or the screen could be built from the local map (the big map could be divided into smaller...say 128x128 or 256x256 tiled maps) and the battle would take place. The attacking player would start with whatever forces he was bringing along; the defending player would start with any units already in that square. A basic orders system could request reinforcements, which would be sent starting with the most local units, but they would arrive based on time (vectoring just to make it easier, rather than actual pathfinding), so they may show up after the battle. The magic system is still debatable...it could use the spell-networking system I altered from the Future of RPGs chain. Units, style (fantasy vs. sci-fi, etc.), and several other things are also still debatable...this is just a basic framework. Sorry about being long-winded...so what does everyone think? -- All hail the Technoweenie!

Well, inventing is not the word I would use... Sovereign is already on the board for coming out... another MMO strategy game (although not the greatest...) is Mankind. It is a space-conquest game and though it is not very well thought out it is an MMORTS. My team has been working on this concept for several years now and the technology is finally available to pursue it.

I think the MMO market is extremely nice for the industry to go. Especially WELL thought out games. It is an entirely different scope to think in and I am quite intrigued in how game developers are responding to it...

In any case... cool idea.

E.D.

What about that Artifact game I keep seeing advertised? Isn''t it MMO?

One of the things I wonder how these games are going to handle is growth and fairness. In an RPG, you expect that you might get clobbered by a high level player.

But what happens when you drop in at tech level 1 when everyone''s at TL9, or 15, or whatever. How do you get a fair fight (remember, most multiplayer RTS/TB games start you out at the same level)

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Artifact has a bunch of different levels you can join, each of which tell you how progressed the players are. Also, the levels have time limits so nobody can stay super-powerful for ever.

Personally, I didn''t like it very much, but that''s just me...


NPCs will be inherited from the basic Entity class. They will be fully independent, and carry out their own lives oblivious to the world around them ... that is, until you set them on fire ...

quote: Original post by Wavinator

One of the things I wonder how these games are going to handle is growth and fairness. In an RPG, you expect that you might get clobbered by a high level player.

But what happens when you drop in at tech level 1 when everyone''s at TL9, or 15, or whatever. How do you get a fair fight (remember, most multiplayer RTS/TB games start you out at the same level)

To me, the way to handle this correctly is to ally with a higher level player. Join his entourage to make him even stronger. Meanwhile, you build strength, knowledge of his operation, and can possibly revolt or backstab at a later time.