A version of this has been done for many years in MUDs. The ones I''m familiar with were RPG, allowing players of various classes to have "pets". For example, a necromancer could animate undead and command them to attack other characters (player or non) or their pets.

But the games typically had rules about over-crowding. You couldn''t put more than a certain number of pets in one area. I think the rules are partly about balancing the pet-using-classes with non-pet-using classes and partly to prevent bandwidth congestion.

You don''t want persistence if someone can conquer the world. It''ll be like everyone is stuck at the end of the game! How boring is that?

Instead, limit the number of units or only allow players to occupy a certain maximum space. What''s the point then? Maybe there are certain highly prized locations. The player''s forces or allied groups then try to hold the positions as long as they can.

Well...i was thinking persistance yet still SIMILAR to starcraft...the balancing would be the hardest part....i was thinking training and stuff would be really slow....I dunno im working on aa design document...Ill have it done when I get back from Alberta at the end of this week then ill post it somewhere for you all to read...with the one player domination, that wouldnt happen because of my balancing techniques...if you are just starting you get a speed boost everything goes faster and is easyer...also you cant be attacked in your "area" during the first x days. Plus if we have the problem of domination we will have multiple servers depending on your ranking....maybe 1-1000 "score" is in the first server...then when you get to 1000 your base blows up and you have to start on the next server...

[edited by - maxd gaming on August 15, 2003 4:54:19 PM]

besides there would be a server reset every month or whatever...we would wipe the servers maybe install better ones.... I dunno I thought it sounded like a good idea....i was also thinking it wouldnt be exactly like SC cause you would need economy (SimCity Style) and war (StarCraft style)....making the game alot more difficult....Im working on genneral plans for this game...im quite serious about making it

I have similiar idea for a RTS(maybe not MMO, but for 50+ players). A WW2 RTS where every player commands players below him in CoC(Chain-of-Command). At the lowest level in CoC, AI would control soldiers. Players would control squad leaders, platoon leaders,generals etc. Player could control "himself" directly(keyboard+mouse) and soldiers via Command-menu.

I''m not much into strategy games currently (not really good at them), but I also had this idea some time ago. Also, maybe not massive multiplayer and not persistent, but the concept was similar to Grusifixi''s. You could play as in FPS mode, but if you chose (or were promoted to) a higher rank, you get a different interface and you can command troops.

Have you tried PlanetSide? It''s a MMO FPS, I personally didn''t like it very much, but it''s good. The battles that go on there are cool and involve strategy. But the strategy is done by chatting.
A strategy game interface could work well on top of that. If a player got promoted to a high rank (for what?), he could start making plans and giving orders to those below him. But it would be up to the "smaller" players to follow those plans. The strategist would of course be able to view the action from high above. Maybe your promotion would depend on whether you followed your orders or not.
In a persistant world, you could start as a peasant and end up as king.
But this idea has many problems that need to be solved.

A game called 10-6 (Ten-Six). Its was a sci-fi MMORTS. I did not play it, but a few members of my gaming clan did.

And realistically, the latter offerings of MMORPGs are combining RTS elements. Shadowbane, Star Wars Galaxies etc. Resource gathering, object creation and ownership, NPC hirelings that function as warriors.

The game design I am working on is based on a MMORPG/RTS concept.

Some others offered additional examples above, from what I see in the trenches playing these games, a good portion of the MMORPG market would move this way given a properly made game.

Shoving garbage out the door won't cut it, and if you launch a game unfit for the public, they are loathe to return once bitten. This is something I hope is sinking in with the advent of games like AO, WWII Online & Shadowbane.

Bad launch, game is sunk. Preventable by; more testing, not cutting obviously useful and often needed features for players to handle your complex game properly (slider bars not working for guild management interfaces in Shadowbane...), not restricting your game's appeal to a narrow market segment, not "dev griefing" your customers (making counter productive occurences regularly happen creates frustrated players that cancel accounts).

On persistence, if it is reset every so often, or like most RTS that the game lasts a few hours at most, I wouildn't see as many players sticking to it for many months on end like PW world players. Certainly the issue of established players dominating becomes one of the largest concerns. If you make it PW, possible solutions are having a safe zone where players can get a grubstake base up & working to then challenge the established ones, alliances, territorial "shrink" (like in retail loss factor, the more territory you control the more costly your supply lines etc, thus putting a practical limit on how much real estate a player could control as you adjust the cost curve to create a negative gain after reaching X size in area controlled).

[edited by - Saxxon on August 17, 2003 8:42:53 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by maxd gaming
nice...im downloading Shattered Galaxy right now...looks really good...see I was thinking about making a MMORTS (NO FLAMING) I do realize the problems and complications but I''m very good at problem solving and I have a team of 4 VERY GOOD C++ Programmers...If you are interested in joining the team email me at

fallenkatana AT netscape DOT net

---

Shattered Galaxy... the game is extremely good. All things considered, Nexon USA did a great job putting it together. They were in beta for 2 years I believe(I joined @ the end of P4). Yes, an MMORTS is possible, but I think it would require more work than most other projects.

How about a command hierarchy? (Forgive the following example, but I''ve been playing alotta SC during the last week..) The first time you play, you could start with the normal 4 workers, town hall, etc. In order to "save" your game, you should be able to retreat to a home base or something, and make sure that no enemies are following you, like a retreating army in real life. Then, next time you log in, you start off with the army that you had "saved" last time. When you reach a certain level, instead of commanding all your units individually, you could enlist other players to join your army, and have them be generals, and command parts of it.

I don''t think a stereotypical RTS would be a good fit; however, something like xconq done over the Internet with persistent worlds and troop placement would be great (of course, only if your troops can fight very well for you when you are not present!!!).

Most RTS''es are maxed out at eight teams; what''s to stop a new player from being completely crushed by the biggest dogs? Alliances?

So basically you''d need to come up with a new and dynamic way for players to join the game without being completely overwhelmed (like they were in 10six), a revised interface, and genius artificial intelligence (or a buncha neat defenses) for when the player isn''t there.

quote:

---

Original post by Ravuya
I don't think a stereotypical RTS would be a good fit; however, something like xconq done over the Internet with persistent worlds and troop placement would be great (of course, only if your troops can fight very well for you when you are not present!!!).

Most RTS'es are maxed out at eight teams; what's to stop a new player from being completely crushed by the biggest dogs? Alliances?

So basically you'd need to come up with a new and dynamic way for players to join the game without being completely overwhelmed (like they were in 10six), a revised interface, and genius artificial intelligence (or a buncha neat defenses) for when the player isn't there.

---

I've been thinking these questions in my "version" of MMORTS.
There should be only 2-4 teams and every new player would join team at the lowest level of CoC. One player would control only one team and anyone above him could have priority over his units. So that general could control soldiers if he has time.

[edited by - Grusifixi on August 19, 2003 7:42:57 PM]