I want to make a MMORTS

The time has come..

Published on January 16, 2005 By Draginol In PC Gaming

As I look at Stardock's massive IT infrastructure I realize something - we are well suited to make a massively multiplayer online real time strategy game.

The problem with RTS's done as massively multiplayer has always been the persistent world. That is, what happens to your empire when you're not playing? There is also quite a bit more involved in keeping the world compelling and interesting over time.

Most game developers would have to build an awful lot of tools to make a persistent RTS world. A lot of non-game tools to solve some of the issues that come into play when you sit down and try to seriously think out how an RTS would be done if it were persistent and massively multplayer. That's something Stardock has in abundance. After all, Stardock.net's infrastructure, already today handles roughly 100,000 unique users per day.

And with some of the talent we now have, we can do this. The time has come for us to make a MMORTS. Details will follow once we have more code in place. We have a really cool design and we have the infrastructure..

Comments (Page 1)

Lotherius

on Jan 16, 2005

Let me be the first to say: WOOT!

Factory

on Jan 16, 2005

The problem with a MMORTS is that the central play mechanic, a PvP battle, has yet to be done successfully. Not as in the implementation side, but that the genre has yet to 'prove' itself.
For MMORPGs the central mechanic (stat building) has been 'proven' to be successful.
One the most pressing problems I would think is that the RTS genre itself is running out of steam, basing an MMOG on it would prolly be a bad idea.

Kobrano

on Jan 16, 2005

Every RTS out there is PvP, thats the core to the genre itself. I guess the 15 RTS games I played with PvP battles last week alone, aren't done successfully according to you?

If anything the RTS genre will continue to GROW.. If I had to predict, i'd say the FPS genre will begin to falter, while the RTS will continue to rise. Theres several prominant RTS's coming out in 2005, and on a per-sale basis, RTS's continue to be a stable entity in the product line of publishers. One of the best selling games in 2004 was Rise of Nations, a RTS, lets not forget Rome Total War, and the others though.

I think we'll see RTS popularity continue to increase, FPS's start to falter, and RPGs and 4X making a comback in 2005-2006.. Watch and see.

cactoblasta

on Jan 16, 2005

I think Factory was talking about massively multiplayer rts games - although I've never heard of any of them that were worth playing, or any that were real-time in anything but name. I'd like to see what Stardock can do with the concept though.

Frightlever

on Jan 16, 2005

http://www.ballerium.com/

I've no idea how it plays but there's a beta going on at the moment.

http://www.shatteredgalaxy.com/ this one actually looks pretty neat.

http://www.mankind.net/ on the go since 1998.

Nobody else was posting the names of these failed previous attempts at MMORTS games...

Personally , while I enjoy RTS well enough (Total Annihilation remains one of my favourite and most played games) I've always found the PvP aspect to be pretty dull because of the inevitable refinement of play that leads to every battle on a particular map being virtually identical. Warcraft 3 gets around this by having continual development of new game types and new maps coming out. Those Blizzard guys really do know their stuff so I'd wait and see how their Battlegrounds turns out for WOW before I went announcing anything MMO. Don't go shouting hey that's an RPG! It's going to be 2 armies clashing for control of territory, how strategic or tactical it turns out will be down to the players. Also look at what was done with Planetside - if you've never played that you really have to at least try it for a month.

A couple of months ago I trawled around looking at a lot of those small web-based strategy games out there and there's a real sense that a successful persistent world treats you like a monkey that learns to press a button to get a handful of peanuts. They're also balanced in such a way that although the ultimate aim of the game is to totally conquer the other side, in actuality this is next to impossible. If you can imagine red and blue liquids (that don't mix) in a petrie dish. As one displaces the other it in turn has to give up space somewhere else. This is how you keep people paying.

Zoomba

on Jan 16, 2005

Damnit, now I want to ditch my job here and move to MI to work for you guys! Strategy have always been my favorite genre, and I've been waiting for someone to do them right in an MMO setting. Time of Defiance kinda did it, but the pacing was way off, making it very boring to play.

Ultimately I'd like to see a MoO or GalCiv style MMO where I slowly expand my empire planet by planet across the galaxy!

*Puts on sandwich-board sign that says "Will Test For Food"*

sujju

on Jan 16, 2005

thats something interesting and wild imagination but worth thinking that big ................... sujju

Frightlever

on Jan 16, 2005

Political Machine wasn't even close to being one of the best games of 2004. Even in context for (US OF A!!) it got surpassed by probably dozens of better games. Even the concept was a conceit, assuming that the rest of the world cares who's US President. If not then why make a US election game? I know, I'm only kidding. It's because you require huge amounts of self-re-inforcement. Do you want to see where the world will be in 10 years time? Look to Australia.

joetheblow

on Jan 16, 2005

Interesting...

Frogboy

on Jan 16, 2005

Frightlever - I am not sure what The Political Machine has to do with an RTS given that The Political Machine wasn't even real-time. It did, however, win an Editor's Choice award from Computer Gaming World. And for $20, that's pretty good I think.

I think we have one advantage over other attempts too. I want us to give away the actual game for free. There are other methods to generate revenue from the game. We have some ideas that I don't think have ever been done.

With regards to maps - I'm a big believer in randomly generated maps.

Mike C

on Jan 16, 2005

yes, Pirates was better, in my opinion. Political machine is a good original game, but I find Pirates more fun. Thats just my opinion though, so what are you trying to say about people who like Pirates!?

Kobrano

on Jan 17, 2005

I dunno, considering I beat pirates in about 25 minutes. I guess i'd say its simplistic, rediculously paced crap designed for people with bad attention spans? But thats me.. Political Machine was much more cerebral. Last year was trendy for mindlessly simple games.. Lets hope 2006 brings some stimulating games that are difficult and cerebreal.

Factory

on Jan 17, 2005

"Every RTS out there is PvP, thats the core to the genre itself. I guess the 15 RTS games I played with PvP battles last week alone, aren't done successfully according to you?"
I was referring to PvP in a persistant world, not such games as Dune 2, Command and Conquer, et al.

"If anything the RTS genre will continue to GROW.. If I had to predict, i'd say the FPS genre will begin to falter, while the RTS will continue to rise. Theres several prominant RTS's coming out in 2005, and on a per-sale basis, RTS's continue to be a stable entity in the product line of publishers. One of the best selling games in 2004 was Rise of Nations, a RTS, lets not forget Rome Total War, and the others though."
I was referring to RTS in terms of being in the same stable as Dune 2, so I do not consider RTW, Hearts of Iron, etc to be one of those.

Evil Roy

on Jan 17, 2005

how about a MMOTBS?!? i'd like to see that!

Yellow Sign

on Jan 17, 2005

Okay I don't say much but I have to comment on this one!

I stumbled upon joeuser via galciv of which I am a huge fan. And that is due to the fact that galciv is a STRATEGY game. I love strategy and that's why I hate most of the RTS games out there. I think the concept of realtimeSTRATEGY is great, but most of the games are just REALTIMEstrategy. They are just about who can click faster and optimize his build-up phase. Worst example is WarCraft, others are better, but still... with very few exceptions, real strategic depth can only be found in turn based games (think of classics like Civ, BattleIsle, GalCiv etc.) The RTS games I liked (HeartsOfIron for example) all have a pause function which wouldn't work for an MMO-game.

However, after GalCiv being one of my favourite games ever, I have a lot of trust in you guys.

So please don't screw it up! Please don't make it about who clicks faster, make it about who comes up with a better strategy. Make it slow paced.
(Hm, wait a second, what about having different server running the game with different speeds so guys like me who like to think about every move and consult several tables and statistics before actually doing anything can be happy as well as the people who like insane fast clicking action?)
Oh and how will you deal with the "I can't be online 24/7-syndrome" which is far more critical for a MMORTS than for a MMORPG?
I am very excited about this and hope to read more about it soon. Best luck to you!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!