[quote name='Acharis' timestamp='1326379006' post='4902007']
But can you design an RPG that can be played as RTS without sacrifacing/dumbing down several aspects of a great RPG? I don't recall even one instance of a designer achieving this. I guess this concept could used as an engine, so the developer can decide which client to use for his game. But all these in one game is probably an overkill.
[/quote]

RPG and RTS are close cousins through Resource Gathering mechanisms. In the RPGs the Player gathers resources to Build-up their Character. Crafting/Mining in MMORPGs are a direct form of Resource Gathering. RPGs like RIFT's use what I suspect to be RTS-inspired mechanics for their Invasions that position/maneuver units and structures to secure areas of the map destroying the lands and people of Telara.

The concept I propose herein, is for the Player to decide on which client to use to interface to game (preferably a single 3D Client offers a configurable interface which caters to a particular genre and each genre can be be played in 5 popular game-perspectives: First-Person, Third-Person, Top-down, Isometric, and Side-Scroll).

[quote name='Krohm' timestamp='1326363594' post='4901950']
I honestly think this is very, very complicated. I'd have serious trouble in stuffing this in my current system.
[/quote]

Its my belief that the Server/Client Engine would have to be designed from the ground up with this concept in mind, it would be extremely difficult to retrofit an existing Server/Client Engine. S3GP is designed and developed to support this concept. My design strategy is to consolidate at every level of the development process. Starting with the consolidation of the game mechanics within each Genre:

1. Examine as many genres as possible.
   
2. Identify common systems.
   
3. Consolidate and Merge Systems that share similar features. (Some of these consolidated systems will be non-traditional or experimental.)
   

I'm taking a top-down approach (also known as step-wise design) breaking down a complex system to identify the broadest set of supported features. The motivation behind this philosophy is to consolidate systems starting with the most complex or elaborate systems. For example, using an Advanced Physics Engine for to provide all collision detection and physics simulation requirements.

Consolidation at higher levels can also be achieved. The Modular Entity Construction Hierarchical Sets (MEChS) is a 3D Entity Construction System originally conceived with the intention of creating various customizable static/animated 3D entities for RPGs by inter-connecting different modeled part combinations. It was realized that the system could also be employed in other genres to:

1. Create `whole` pre-fab entities useful in other types of games.
   
2. User Entity Customization
   
3. Parts-based Model Packs System.
   

MEChS consolidates Entity Creation and Customization for RPGs, Racers, RTS, FPS, Fighters, etc into one system. Entity Creation and Customization also exist for games that normally don’t require it, which in itself can be exposed to present a new twist within the Game.

Hi, I'm new here

Have you heard of DUST14?

It is set in the same universe (literally, the way you mean it) as EVE Online, developed by CCP.
It is an FPS, unlike EVE Online which is a sci-fi simulator MMO (I say simulator because while it has tactical combat, a lot of players don't even touch that and specialize in mining, trading, and even just guild-type politics [which is the main force driving pretty much every other activity in the game]).

Anyhow, the way the two games interact, supposedly, is that DUST14 will take place on the surface of EVE's planets (which EVE players make use of, but cannot actually land on) and EVE's players will employ DUST14 players to fight over control of those planets (and then the EVE player can gain resources from that planet, use it to fuel his/her empire, etc.)

So DUST14 isn't out yet, and the fact that EVE is PC-only and DUST14 is console-only is worrying, it will be very interesting to see how it will play out.

Techlord, I have been designing an MMORPG with RTS elements.

I don't think you can do what you are proposing where you assign FPS players to RTS groups. Players have to autonomously agree on a leader. What if the RTS player is bad? No one will follow those orders. Games which utilize complex player interaction systems have to take players into consideration. The average MMO player has a pretty big ego. They are going to treat the game like a pug fps battleground.

Why not let the RTS players control a faction, while the FPS players control another?
That way there's no problems with players regarding orders, since everyone will be free to decide what to do,

The average MMO player has a pretty Big Ego

Not Doubt It )
Soon this is Good Arrangement in the Game World . When player chained with notBig group He was good Thinking of situation .
And if he not Leader ( group usually have a Leader or together Leaders ) then he will made Limited Business ( Defend of Base ) .
If he Leader then he Extend Possible : Move , Trade , Attack or other with Group !!

RTS players control a faction, while the FPS players control another

All Players is RTS only in RPG Charachters they have differently functions . In Solo in RTS Game not necessarry Wait in
Await of Join to Group : player himself do his Game as Solo Player . Only He have a small Strong , if he want have a Biggest Strong
then he Develop his RPG Charachter in Small Danger Place ...

Techlord, I have been designing an MMORPG with RTS elements.

I don't think you can do what you are proposing where you assign FPS players to RTS groups. Players have to autonomously agree on a leader. What if the RTS player is bad? No one will follow those orders. Games which utilize complex player interaction systems have to take players into consideration. The average MMO player has a pretty big ego. They are going to treat the game like a pug fps battleground.

Savage 2 does mix action game (fantasy medieval, not modern) and rts. Similar to a PvP match where two teams fight each other. Difference is that each team also has a commander which sees everything top down, and can build structures, units etc. I haven't played it, but it definitely makes it look more interesting than just standard pvp.

Have you heard of DUST14?

I believe it's actually called Dust514.

[quote name='Xaan' timestamp='1326398866' post='4902084']
Have you heard of DUST14?

I believe it's actually called Dust514.
[/quote]

Yep, my bad. Thanks for the correction

Techlord, I have been designing an MMORPG with RTS elements. I don't think you can do what you are proposing where you assign FPS players to RTS groups. Players have to autonomously agree on a leader. What if the RTS player is bad? No one will follow those orders.

So let's fix that, by turning it into a free-market economy. We will call our currency 'Valour':

• Each faction has N players, N-1 of which play as an FPS 'soldier', while 1 plays as the RTS 'commander'.
  
• Soldiers earn a small amount of valour for each kill, and earn a large amount for completing objectives that the commander sets. The commander earns valour solely by completing RTS-style map objectives (defeat the enemy, control map zones over time, etc.).
  
• The game proceeds in short rounds (say, 15 minutes max). At the end of each round, the commander position is offered to the player with the highest amount of valour. if he wishes to play FPS instead, he can refuse, in which case it is offered to the next player, etc.



Now, this isn't perfect - it's just a quick sketch of mechanics off the top of my head. But I think it serves to illustrate that you can potentially create balanced systems of this nature...

Hi, I'm new here

Have you heard of DUST14?

It is set in the same universe (literally, the way you mean it) as EVE Online, developed by CCP.
It is an FPS, unlike EVE Online which is a sci-fi simulator MMO (I say simulator because while it has tactical combat, a lot of players don't even touch that and specialize in mining, trading, and even just guild-type politics [which is the main force driving pretty much every other activity in the game]).

Anyhow, the way the two games interact, supposedly, is that DUST14 will take place on the surface of EVE's planets (which EVE players make use of, but cannot actually land on) and EVE's players will employ DUST14 players to fight over control of those planets (and then the EVE player can gain resources from that planet, use it to fuel his/her empire, etc.)

So DUST14 isn't out yet, and the fact that EVE is PC-only and DUST14 is console-only is worrying, it will be very interesting to see how it will play out.

Although DUST514 is following a tried RTS Commander/FPS Soldier format (ala: Allegiance, ZombieMaster), its looks really good and I love FPS games. Perhaps, it will give PlanetSide 2 a run for my money.

Techlord, I have been designing an MMORPG with RTS elements.

I don't think you can do what you are proposing where you assign FPS players to RTS groups. Players have to autonomously agree on a leader. What if the RTS player is bad? No one will follow those orders. Games which utilize complex player interaction systems have to take players into consideration. The average MMO player has a pretty big ego. They are going to treat the game like a pug fps battleground.

That is a simplified example and one of many other possibilities. In my opinion, its all in the presentation. I'm certain there is innovation in this concept and I hope we can drive this discussion beyond just RTS Commander/FPS Soldier. Perhaps, what I'm proposing is a game for a new type of player that switches from one game style to another on a frequent basis. A Player like me who enjoys playing all types of games FPS, RPG, RTS, Racers, Fighters, etc. A Sandbox that provides multiple game-play styles and a single Client that can support them would offer greater leverage of assets for the Developer, and greater play/replay value for the Player.