I know there will still be problems, but two things often get responses to the effect ''no way''. These two things are peer-to-peer massively multiplayer online games and massively multiplayer online real time strategy. Well, if both terms were applied to the same game it might work. Most file-sharing networks aren''t all clients with no servers, many use a client-server approach where the server only performs an administrative role, which is perfect for this as someone who is semi-permanent needs to hold onto records. When someone isn''t connected, someone else who wants to play them just won''t do it cause their territory won''t be found on the network.

How would that work though? Would territories just appear magically? What happens if I''m driving over a territory that doesn''t "exist" and then that person logs in? What does it look like if they''re logged off (is the ground just black where their land is?)

I''m not sure how it would work... but I *WOULD* like it to. The only possibility I can think of is that their is no concept of location, and countries simply "are". You are given a plot of land, and that is completely independent (ie: there is no global landmass) The problem with this is it kind of defeats the point of MMORPG.

I still think MMO RTS games are impossible, because someone has to lose, and the time span in which they lose is very short. I mean, one big battle, and it could be game over for that player/s. In an RPG, everyone wins (assuming PvM) Planetside is PvP, granted, but the way in which the game is played (FPS), it is more acceptable to die (and you don''t have to reinvent the wheel, like you''d have to do if you died in an RTS and had to rebuild) I think the way to do it is something like Renegade, in which you have a commander choosing what to build, and players can choose from that (not exactly like Renegade, but similar)

Give it some more thought maybe

One massive gaping hole with the "individually hosted terrain" idea - disconnection. If you''re fighting on my land and things go badly for me, what stops me from "accidentally" tripping over the phone cable and, potentially, wiping out your entire army.

I still think the future of MMO lies in distributed virtual servers, and I''m optimistic that there''s a way to make MMORTS work too. The trouble is that neither solves the fundamental obstacles to succeeding with the other...

What about running the game world using a distributed computing framework, like SETI? You won''t have disconnect problems, because several computers will be processing the same packet. Your computer might not even be processing the packet for your character, so it wouldn''t make sense to disconnect your machine.

Sounds kind of like DnD''s Ravenloft. Extremely evil people get sent to Ravenloft with their domain, which becomes part of the landscape. I seem to remember that the different parts of the world appear disappear into what is called the ''mist''. That might be worth investigating, because it could provide an example of something similar to your suggestion!

Stu

"I still think MMO RTS games are impossible, because someone has to lose, and the time span in which they lose is very short."

Just limit the loss. Say each battle you stand to lose (or win) 1%-10% of your total army size.

quote: Original post by RolandofGilead
Most file-sharing networks aren''t all clients with no servers, many use a client-server approach where the server only performs an administrative role, which is perfect for this as someone who is semi-permanent needs to hold onto records. When someone isn''t connected, someone else who wants to play them just won''t do it cause their territory won''t be found on the network.

You just suggested solving the problems of peer to peer networking a MMPORTS by making it client server. Sure that would solve the problem cos it wouldn''t be peer-to-peer anymore.

Ignoring RTS for the moment the reason peer to peer wont be used for MMPOG is data/bandwidth. In peer to peer each client holds the game state and sends update to every other client. In a four player game every client sends an update to the other three (3x4=12). Up that to 50 players give 2450 sets of data and taking it up to Massive (say 500 players at once) you have 249,500 sets of data. It simply isn''t a viable way to run a game.

Do the same numbers with client server and you get (4x1)+(1x4) (client info to server)+(server update back to clients) giving a total of 8 sets of data for a four player game rising to (500x1)+(1x500) giving 1000 sets of data for a 500 player game.

1000 vs 249,500? no contest.


Dan Marchant
Obscure Productions
Game Development & Design consultant

Moving on to stustill''s design suggestion it could work (if the networking problems mentioned before are ignored). A player''s land is a seperate area in the mist. For the land to exist and interact with the world the lord must focus his attention/energy to raise it from the mist/push back the mist (log on). However this terretory never touches the other islands in the mist. Instead you need to construct a device to scan the mist for other islands and then transport your forces there (think Cronosphere in Red Alert).



Dan Marchant
Obscure Productions
Game Development & Design consultant

I still think a traditional server farn like MMORPGs use now, coupled with some P2P would be kind of interesting. Take advantage of idle CPU power that people have, and give them either some free playing time, or maybe, a few in-game perks (probably the former)

But my original point stands : how can you have an RTS where your territory disappears as soon as you sign off? If I want to avoid an attack, how about I just sign off?

Also to Silvermist:

quote: Just limit the loss. Say each battle you stand to lose (or win) 1%-10% of your total army size.

How would you limit the loss exactly? When I think of RTS such as C&C, Warcraft, AoE, etc... you basically throw all your units into a big battle; if it's dead, its dead. The only way to limit this would be to say a player can only send out a portion of his army, which I think is foolish Could you elaborate a little more on how you would limit the loss? This is really the fundamental problem of a MMO RTS, IMHO -> in a genre where one battle can decide everything, how do you make sure the game lasts a good length of time (for an indivudal player)?


[edited by - Peon on April 26, 2003 12:23:04 PM]

How about losing the army but not losing your base, since you wont have to be building ur base everytime you join you could give players a certain ammount of credits to set up a base and leave it like that for the rest of his account live... Then he CAN gather resources for army making only... armies can claim territories and set up a CAMP in the claimed territory. This way when or if the player gets a chance to build more of a base he would exapnd his base to that claimed territory... So basically what a player can lose is the army and the camps but not the base making a player not lose the game but lose the army... giving the player an oportunity to restart... setting up a unit limit for every player and of course players would always start the game after they build their WHOLE base... maybe sometime another the server could set a date where bases will be attackable and whoever loses their base can start over another day... well those are just some of my ideas... want more...


angellukar@hotmail.com

Mecha Engineer (Making Real Humanoid Suits)