My MMORTS Comment

I’m not a frequent commenter on the many blogs I read. This is not because I don’t have something to say most of the time, this is more because I have what people may call a “commenting problem.” You see, I am not a happy and healthy individual like most of you. I have a disease. It is, as of now, still unnamed and until I get my medical degree (which, as I understand it, would require me to actually go to medical school) shall remain so.
My problem is quite simple. I can’t just comment and forget. In fact, I can’t just comment now and check back later where I commented to see if there are any responses. I comment and then I get stuck thinking. I think about all the questions I raised, what questions they raise, what questions others may raise, the arguments or disagreements others may have and then formulate responses and answers to all of these things. And then I repeat that process over and over again in my mind for days before curling myself into the fetal position in the corner of my room.
The corner of my room is cold, and I don’t much enjoy it so you can imagine my dismay when I made a comment over at Cameron’s site. Now I am stuck with a partially designed game in my head and I can’t stop thinking about all the other questions and all the other ways to design this game.
I’m just going to throw it down here. Things will probably be disjointed. Then again, if you read here regularly this will probably not come as a shock to you. First a quick rundown of what I said over there, then on to my ideas.
There are plenty of ways in which an MMORTS can be done without balance issues. At some point you have to sacrifice a bit of realism to attain them, perhaps, but then again, if a person is going to complain that much about realism in a game then perhaps they have other more pressing issues they need to attend to.
In relation to limited resources this does not have to be the case. All resources can be unlimited as they are in every MMO I’ve ever played. More specifically these resources would just have to have rarities attached to them so “spawn” rates on rarer nodes are longer/there are less of them.
This would not be unlike the way that Silver veins in WoW are a rare “spawn” of tin veins.
The problem with unlimited resources based on rarity then instantly becomes one of balance. One guild/person can take over a map and simply hog all the resources, no matter how rare they may be he still ends up getting them every time they appear.
This also brings about the “new player problem” in which new players are able to be beaten on by the simply better prepared, longer time players who have built up bases.
Balance is the key here, specifically balance of the resource and “technology” economy. In most RTS games there are levels of “technology” which can be upgraded. That is you can upgrade a level 1 “tower” to a level 2 “outpost” which costs resources but has higher “HP” and does more damage.
In an MMORTS you simply make this technology more freely available to new players over time.
To give an example, let’s assume there is a high end group/guild/person who has built up a strong base and continuously researches the newest technologies. As time passes this technology would simply become part of day to day life not just for the people under control of that kingdom, but for the entire world. This would mean that the resource cost for these “level 2″ buildings would decrease and would immediately be available to all new players as well without having to build their level 1 counterparts because the technology is no longer new to them.
In this way new players can build bases, if not equal to, at least enough so that they can reasonably hold on long enough to build themselves up further to truly compete with the higher end players.
The problem of resource herding still exists by one group that has a pre-dominant control of the map, but it is not so large anymore and can also be dealt with in any number of ways. One such way is raw materials need to be sold to “NPC” manufacturers that can turn it into the workable resource for a price. And, only raw materials can be traded/sold amongst players.
In this way you create a circle that traps even the strongest kingdoms into needing other players to control parts of the map so they can sell between themselves to have money to build better bases.
Another way of alleviating new player issues would be to have a new game tutorial which plays itself like a single mission of a single player RTS. In this tutorial mission new players are not only introduced to the game, but depending on how well they complete it are given bonus raw materials at the start of the game. These bonuses can be gradually increased as time goes on so that a newer player who does the tutorial at the same level as an older player will start the game off with more resources than the older player did.
This handling of matters does not interfere with the older player, who has had extra time to play and has far surpassed what the new player has gained by the “bonus bump” from the tutorial and the new player is now given a fair chance at building up a base.
Anyway, that’s just what popped into my head on how to fix some of the issues brought up. There are plenty of other issues to deal with, but all of them can be overcome if a little bit of time is put into designing the game properly. I don’t think an MMORTS is doomed to failure if done right. Whether anyone does do it right, however, remains to be seen.
So then, other things with the design. I’ll only mention a couple, otherwise we’ll be here all day, and I can’t have that.
First, currency, it wasn’t discussed at all but would obviously need to exist to keep the player driven part of the economy going. The problem with currency existing not as a farmable resourcebut as an earned one means that you have to have some way of infusing the economy with money. In the typical RTS there are not a lot of random enemies. Or, more accurately, in an MMORTS where each person would be playing as it’s own side for the most part you have to look at random enemies in an MMORTS as the equivalent of “neutral” creatures in the typical RTS. That is, those creatures which are not part of the side you are fighting against but still exist.
Given the fact that there are so few of these creatures in an RTS you could have them drop whatever currency you are using, but the influx of money in this way would not be anywhere near enough to create a working economy on it’s own. You could also have enemies that you destroy (that is, PvP enemies) drop money as well but that would force your MMORTS into the trap of the RTS in which the only point is go kill the other guy. In an MMORTS you want to change your primary focus from “destroy the bad guy” to “run a kingdom…and destroy bad guys.”
In essence the point of the MMORTS does not have to be simple destruction, rather players can work to protect their own borders but not actively expand. They could become a kingdom of farmers or gatherers or maybe they are interested in exploring technology, etc. All these need to be viable. The point of the MMO world is freedom to be who you wish. In WoW, you can be primarily a crafter if you want. It doesn’t mean you don’t fight but maybe you have fun crafting with the character as the main reason for creating him. Perhaps you create a character that is primarily meant to play the auction house. The point is, in an MMORPG, you have other viable options besides mindlessly kill.
Not to say that your slaughtering thousands won’t happen but there is more to the world then that. To cheapen the MMORTS to be simply about expansionism and conquering you can create dozens of viable options all involved in running a country all wrapped together in a world where there will be conflict.
Create alliances with other nations, declare war on others, provide raw materials or technology or whatever to everyone and just remain neutral, all these, and many others, should be viable.
So then, assuming all this freedom stuff is true, where does money come from? Perhaps it comes from your kingdom’s industry. Maybe you are a farming kingdom. Your peasants, farm and along with producing food to feed your people they also produce a certain amount of money (this money can be explained away in game terms as selling the surplus food, but really that is a side point.)
That is one simple example of how things could work for one particular industry.
The next point has to do with the most valuable resource that is often overlooked, people. Players should not create “footmen”, “archers”, “peasants”, etc. Instead they should be producing “people” and then these people are specialized into jobs. Perhaps you have an all volunteer military. If you keep your people happy more people volunteer for the military and they train hard and are stronger than the guy who’s kingdom has forced military service and who constantly sends his people out on suicide missions to gain another few feet of land.
You should be able to set up a functioning government in an MMORTS. Maybe there are taxes on your people, and you can set certain budgets for military spending, or health spending or infrastructure spending, etc. and all these things affect the happiness of your people and how much they give back to you.
Some people will probably say that this actually combines qualities of the RTS with the turn-based strategy game or the simulation game and I would agree with that completely. The question people should ask themselves is why this shouldn’t be the case? As I mentioned before, the point of the MMO space is freedom, and if you are not going to provide anything other than a single-player RTS experience don’t bother sticking it online in a persistent world.
That’s enough for now, I don’t want this post to get much longer than it is, and if I get into grouping, guilds, alliances, and all those other things I fear this would go on forever.
Perhaps more later, perhaps not. Let me know what you think in the comments.
mmo gaming, mmog, game design, mmorts, mmorpg
March 24th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Before I post with my opinions on what you say, could you cite a few examples or games you have played within the genre. Skimmed the article for now - just needed some context before I give my reply. Thanks
March 25th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Vimes,
Thanks for the comment.
To be honest, I probably have not given any in the genre a fair shake. I’ve played several for very short lengths of times ranging from a couple of hours to a couple of days. So, I haven’t played any heavily enough to give my opinion on any one in particular (which is why I didn’t).
These were more just general thoughts on overcoming problems that Cameron had written about along with some other random ideas of how to work things.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I am beginning to see a problem here, maybe two. Firstly I think the genre had a bad experience tech wise in the past and we have a huge inertia to overcome. New players attention span is one thing but to persuade a once burnt long term gamer to revisit is proving difficult. Either no-one knows the genre at all or define it with Mankind and Shattered Galaxy (a MMORTT imo).
Second problem probably crosses over to other genres, and that is the short term review. We need gamers who play MMO games to review in enough numbers to offset the immediate appearance of game fanboys. Noone will pay someone to play and grind away at a game for 2-3 months to give it a good fair shake. Gamers could fill this void and if we managed to engender enough activity, the inevitable bias would get watered down. The problem there is the built in passivity to most previous game models and the most popular ones still. Players have yet to grasp such activity that is needed to fuel player run stories and content. So we have a chicken - egg situation that needs to be cracked (geddit!?)
March 27th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I think the real issue you run into with MMOX games is the “X” portion of that equation. The MMO portion is understood. The tech exists to support a game in a persistent online universe as evidence by the myriad of MMOs out right now. I think the issue people miss is that and MMORPG has to be an RPG and an MMORTS has to be an RTS. That entire premise is wrong with MMOs we have a unique opportunity to appeal to massive fan bases by cleverly combining and crossing genres.
To a more specific point about an MMORTS you run into the problem that even given the Real Time element of an RTS it still takes longer to “play” then say an RPG or FPS/TPS. With the later to genres I load my game and I’m going somewhere doing something running and gunning. With RTS I load my game I make some gather units I gather. Then I expand and we all see where this is going. The general MMO player wants a greater feeling of instant or at least less postponed gratification.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Agreed at the general gamer needing a fast fix and something peculiar to them - Ie an avatar etc. We haven’t really managed to persuade RTS gamers to go MMO yet in numbers - then the RTS element will play itself with active participation. Some MMORTS like Dreamlords crosses genre with avatars. Saga allows the unit progression to be more player initiated rather than purely combat related. Project Visitor is another with innovative genre blending.
I have mooted the vision of virtual worlds with ‘jobs’ for RTS and politics. Short or solo gameplay could be handled within any number of events occurring at that moment by creating an ‘instant’. Problem we have atm is each company handles what it does well - but cross genre will need some commercial cooperation if its truly to become dominant. I dont know if you folks have noticed but I have spotted that devs love to make forums and chat interfaces. They express annoyance at having to redo them but none can resist meddling in another companies expert area. If this takes off - we could see a MMORTS developer colluding with a Virtual world operator to present a VW interface for a MMORTS game element such as Beyond Protocols senate etc. This would allow, in the short term, an avatar for the masses and not detract from those who prefer god mode. Just thoughts.