Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Game Design Theory / MMOFPS + Online RTS = Really Crazy Idea

Author
Message
BMacZero
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: E:/ N_America/ USA/ CA/ South
Posted: 27th May 2009 06:47 Edited at: 27th May 2009 07:07
I had this crazy idea today when I was considering how to make more intellegent AI for an RTS game, and I thought I'd just put it out here for discussion and the flying of more crazy ideas .

In this idea, you have an MMOFPS such as Planetside in which hundreds of players are playing against each other on massive city-size maps, and an Online RTS.

The FPS has many different worlds - one for each RTS game that is going on, plus one additional "waiting" world for the players that aren't in a game yet. Whenever a player in the RTS game recruits a new unit, an FPS player from the waiting world is placed into the RTS player's world. If there aren't any players available, a standard AI player is added instead.

The players in this world play as though they were simply playing Planetside or a similar game - they run around, shoot people that aren't on their team, and take bases. However, there is one difference - they also "take orders" from the RTS player, and essentially become that player's units. The RTS player basically has an overhead view of the FPS world, and he tells the FPS players on his team where to go and what to do by placing "target markers" on the world. The FPS players are encouraged to follow the RTS player's directives through some sort of rewards system - they get better weapons, more features, or whatever for doing what the player asks. The idea is that by using actual people instead of AIs, much more realistic gameplay can be achieved.

Here's an illustration:


Feel free to comment and throw out contributions to this crazy idea .



Diggsey: I have a spine and memory, but one memorable guy says he hates me. What am I? + Code Snippet
ThatOther Person
8
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2009
Location:
Posted: 27th May 2009 07:25
I don't know how well it would work but it definitely seems like an interesting idea. There trying to do a similar thing with MAG. Its an online shooter with massive amounts of players and people ranking up and giving orders to the lower ranked masses with the game focusing on accomplishing more then the usual run and gun death match. Only without the waiting room part with the fps and rts parts being treated like almost separate games.
Dared1111
10
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Oct 2006
Location:
Posted: 27th May 2009 12:48
Savage did that. I believe the original is free. Players actually listened to the RTS player's orders.
TechLord
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2002
Location: TheGameDevStore.com
Posted: 27th May 2009 16:00 Edited at: 27th May 2009 16:00
Quote: "For example, one game concept thats on burner is the development of two distinct genres that interact together to create a MMO with complex Political Factions. 1) Kings: A Real-time Strategy Game in which Player's battle for control over Terriorities on a Slower Turn-based `Macro` Scale. 2) Knights: Multiplayer FPS in which Players select a faction and battle over Bases on a Faster Twitch-based `Micro` scale. The actions of Kings generates quest for the Knights - Knight's success/failure effect Kings ability to control a territory. Although the genres play from different perspectives and game mechanics, they can share the same Assets and Lore."

Taken from The Official DarkMORG - MMORPG FPS Server/Client WIP Thread. Posted: 4th Oct 2008 08:30

BMacZero, what you propose isnt crazy and I trully believe that its the future of MMO and multiplayer gaming. I'm pursuing this concept in developing my MMO. However, instead of developing many genres in one world, I'm devloping many genres with one world. In other words, developing different games using the same assets/data from one world. The idea is to create many types of games (single player, multiplayer, turn-based, real-time) that impact the MMO world.

The concept isnt that far off from taking a IP and producing different movies, games, toys, etc from it. The major difference here, is persistence and affect each has on the other.

BMacZero
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: E:/ N_America/ USA/ CA/ South
Posted: 27th May 2009 16:15
Wow, it's interesting to hear this is actually being implemented in games today. I knew of some games that had the higher- and lower-ranking players, but not that they had actually got to mixing the genres together.

Quote: "However, instead of developing many genres in one world, I'm devloping many genres with one world."

I'm not sure I understand the difference, but I think I agree . Combining several genres is a good way to make something that's really unique.



Diggsey: I have a spine and memory, but one memorable guy says he hates me. What am I? + Code Snippet
TechLord
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2002
Location: TheGameDevStore.com
Posted: 27th May 2009 17:56
Quote: "However, instead of developing many genres in one world, I'm devloping many genres with one world."
The difference would be creating different games based on a common game universe that do not interact. For example, Mario Bros and Mario Kart. Two different games that use the same characters.

My MMO, META-Lore, is the conglomerate of several genres FPS, RPG, RTS, Puzzle, Arcade with multiple forms of access, accessible on a massive-scale. All sharing the same assets & rules with different game mechanics & UIs.

PS: Cool illustration BMacZero.

Serial Velocity
8
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Aug 2008
Location:
Posted: 30th May 2009 19:26
Haha thats quite an awesome idea. Maybe if the players dont follow their orders, you could send some kind of police force after them. That could escalate and eventually your entire army could have a civil war against eachother

Mike Schlueter
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere that I\'m not suppose to be
Posted: 26th Jul 2009 21:18
I kinda have an idea like this, using world war 2 as an example.

A player would be elected to command each side through the rts mode. He would have access to support abilities, like artillery air strikes, and supply drops. All of which cost resourses.

Players would be able to create the look of there characters, and choose weapons. When a battle happens, all players are in the game.

One style of a map would be Assault. The defenders just hold the town, while the attackers must capture the town with-in a time limit. The defenders spawn in buildings, while attacker come in waves. Attackers have unlimited resourse, while defenders gain resourses from holding houses, and stopping waves.

Now the commander would put markers on what he wanted completed, and players would recieve points, to spend on weapons and abilities, for completing these orders, and lose points for not completing them.

I hadn't gotten farther than that, but I think that covers a FPS, RPG, and a RTS.

"Our destination may define us, but it's what we do along the way that makes us who we are."
-MTS
BMacZero
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: E:/ N_America/ USA/ CA/ South
Posted: 27th Jul 2009 04:50 Edited at: 27th Jul 2009 04:51
Quote: "Now the commander would put markers on what he wanted completed, and players would recieve points, to spend on weapons and abilities, for completing these orders, and lose points for not completing them."

I particularly like that idea, it'd be a good way to keep the players on track without resorting to just killing them.



Diggsey: I have a spine and memory, but one memorable guy says he hates me. What am I? + Code Snippet
wickedly kick it
10
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jul 2006
Location: Fort-worth Texas
Posted: 27th Jul 2009 20:42
Battlefield 2 comes to mind when i read this. The commanders give orders and can give supplies and artillery support, but i suppose that you would add more than just supplies, radars and artillery?

BMacZero
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: E:/ N_America/ USA/ CA/ South
Posted: 27th Jul 2009 20:50
My thought was that the "commanders" would also give objectives to the troops and control the arrival of new troops, yes. Artillery and other kinds of support I hadn't though of, but it's a good idea as well!



Diggsey: I have a spine and memory, but one memorable guy says he hates me. What am I? + Code Snippet
Mike Schlueter
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere that I\'m not suppose to be
Posted: 28th Jul 2009 05:23
More Ideas came today.

Attack and Defend style.

Attacking Commander abilities:
-Artillery
-Air Strike
-Air Drop(paratrooper spawn for players that are waiting to spawn)
-Vehicle drop

Defending Commander abilities:
-Smoke screen
-Supply drop
-Gun enplacement drop

Attk Commander chooses a point at the edge of the map to send the first wave of troops (so attackers can come from any where). Defenders spawn in barrack houses at beginning and when they die. Dfnd Commander is in the town hall baracks and acts as a spotter aswell as a support giver.

Defenders are stuck with stationary weapons and light vehicles.

Attacking commander chooses vehicles that will be in a wave, and players fill those spots. different vehicles cost different amount of resourses. But if there are 16 attackers, but the vehciles the commander picked only carry 8 of them, an unarmoured transport would carry the rest.

Thats all I got for now, I wish I could do something like this. I got the ideas, but not enough skill to make 'em.

"Our destination may define us, but it's what we do along the way that makes us who we are."
-MTS
Monk
8
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Sep 2008
Location: Standing in the snow =D
Posted: 28th Jul 2009 09:35
What would happen if the "commander" had to leave? Another one takes over?

I like work. It fascinates me. I sit and look at it for hours

The Start of my FPS
cyril
9
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2007
Location: 7 miles away from big ben
Posted: 28th Jul 2009 15:41 Edited at: 28th Jul 2009 15:43
the first person to join the RTS team becomes the "commander" since BmacZero said about using the same game assist. thats how many mmofps work. maybe put a countdown warning
for that player might smoothen the transition a bit.

however other people might have better ideas

The MMOPFS+RTS might be the furture of mmo though
BMacZero
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: E:/ N_America/ USA/ CA/ South
Posted: 28th Jul 2009 16:48
Quote: "What would happen if the "commander" had to leave? Another one takes over?"

Interesting thought, actually the original idea was that the FPS and RTS players were really playing completely seperate games - an FPS player wouldn't want to be randomly thrust into an RTS. Possibly AIs would just take over the commander's rolls if they abandoned the RTS game. Otherwise, it wouldn't be too bad just to end the game. The FPS players will find another.



Diggsey: I have a spine and memory, but one memorable guy says he hates me. What am I? + Code Snippet
Monk
8
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Sep 2008
Location: Standing in the snow =D
Posted: 28th Jul 2009 21:12
I suppose it would just be a little bit like the person running the server leaving...

Monk


I like work. It fascinates me. I sit and look at it for hours.
JLMoondog
Moderator
8
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Jan 2009
Location: Paradox
Posted: 30th Jul 2009 02:53 Edited at: 30th Jul 2009 02:56
Dang I had a similar idea that I had written done several months ago.

Basically your first given a mission and a strategic map that is broken into hexagonal grids. Your 'forces' start at a certain grid space, and you have objectives throughout the map that you have to accomplish.

You can then order your forces into an adjacent grid space and take it over from the enemy by destroying the forces, or killing the grids commander. When you ordered your forces in, you go directly into 1st/3rd person player mode where you can choose between doing soldier, tank or mech assault, depending on the situation.

Once you take over the grid space, your main forces move in and setup fortifications. Grids can grant you added power boosts when attacking adjacent grids. If you control 3 grid spaces and they all touch an enemy grid space, when you assault the enemy space you gain x3 attack and defensive power.

Ideally you have boss grid spaces that will ultimately win you the mission. These boss grids are extremely hard and will require you to capture all the grid spaces surrounding it in order to defeat them.

Before and after each mission, your able to create units, assign squads and even allocate resources and new equipment.

Just an idea though.

Libervurto
10
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 15th Oct 2009 18:18
That sounds awesome!
I hate multiplayer games where you all do the same thing. Isn't the whole point of collaborating with others that you have different roles in the team?

I have a vision of the RTS General drawing zones on the map (attack/defend) and a visible zone would appear in the FPS game. Players would receive bonus points for being inside the zone or attacking enemies within it, depending on the zone type.
You could draw any shape zone, so maybe you want to make a defensive zone along a ridge for example.

The officers on the ground would then use this information to lead their squads to the positions using squad based commands like in many games.
The general should also be able to give instructions to specific officers, and the officer would gain a bonus for obeying orders, and in turn the soldiers would get a bonus for following their officer's orders.

You'd also get points for kills and staying alive. When you are General you use your points to hire soldiers promote officers
[sorry have to dp]

TGC Forum - converting error messages into sarcasm since 2002.
Libervurto
10
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 15th Oct 2009 18:24 Edited at: 15th Oct 2009 18:26
you can't choose your officers, the highest ranking players would be promoted.
The risk for the general is that he could lose a lot of points, but if he wins the conflict he'll gain huge amounts of points.
I think the price of hiring/promoting should be relative to the general's points so it keeps things fair. For example: a general with 100pts would pay 5pts to recruit, while a general with 1000pts would pay 50pts. The win bonus would also scale so massive point scores are still possible, just reliant on consistant performances.

haha sorry I went off on one there...

TGC Forum - converting error messages into sarcasm since 2002.
BMacZero
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: E:/ N_America/ USA/ CA/ South
Posted: 24th Oct 2009 05:56
I kind of like where you're going with that OBese. The original idea of having two really seperate games what the crazy part, but having an MMOFPS with commanders working RTS-style isn't so crazy at all.

Libervurto
10
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 27th Oct 2009 03:24
Operation Flashpoint isn't far off.
Online, one player is deemed squad leader; this gives them authority to command all AI units (others can only command those within their own fireteam).
When choosing your role, at the top of the screen are generals/non-combat roles but they are "unavailable" to me. Does anyone know if you ever get to assume those roles?

While playing I had the idea of online armies.
People would enlist in your army, you'd then choose where to attack/defend and with how many troops, and whenever enough people were online for the battle it would be played out.
Time plays a big role: every territory has a timer, when the timer expires control of the territory reverts to neutral. Time is added for successful defenses or if not attacked, having enough players online to defend. Time is lost when there aren't enough players online for a defence.
Territories are won by invasion (occupied or neutral) and multiply armies can invade at the same time!
*Servers explode!*

TGC Forum - converting error messages into sarcasm since 2002.
Sigh
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Dec 2005
Location: The Big 80s
Posted: 13th Nov 2009 05:30
The group I had conceived K96 with (in 1996) had an idea like this. Players would start out in the first-person mode and make their way to RTS mode as they progressed. Players start in a 3-5 person group with the commander making use of an occasional RTS interface but still playing first-person most of the time. Eventually a commander would be in charge of 125 people and up, spending most of the time in RTS while still being able to click back into first-person mode if need be.

Fighting the War Against Misused Apostrophes since 2002! Stop by for a chat! [IXE]Nateholio on irc.maxgaming.net:6667 #GarageGames
Outscape
9
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd May 2008
Location:
Posted: 27th Nov 2009 23:33
sounds like battlefield 2..
become a commander...



Azunaki
8
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2009
Location:
Posted: 31st Dec 2009 08:03 Edited at: 31st Dec 2009 08:04
http://www.savage2.com/en/main.php

you guys are a little late on this idea.

[url]http://myportfolio.x10hosting.com/[url]
visit my site.(still in progress)
Krimzon Destiny
9
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 8th Jan 2010 07:04 Edited at: 8th Jan 2010 07:08
Quote: "you guys are a little late on this idea."


We're talking shooter not swashbuckler.
thm120
8
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Dec 2008
Location:
Posted: 7th Mar 2010 22:05
this is a pc recreation of M.A.G massive action game
qwe
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Sep 2003
Location: place
Posted: 8th Mar 2010 14:50
this isn't a new idea, ive actually had it since i was a kid. it's my dream game, actually. once they have this game all ready for commercial sale, technology will be where i want it to be........for now! (next i really need improvements in medicine that will allow me to live forever and enter virtual worlds with holobands)
qwe
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Sep 2003
Location: place
Posted: 8th Mar 2010 14:53
but yea..... let's take this idea another step forward

let's have a whole MMO world. this world has cities, bases, etc

both teams have a number of generals. these are the RTS players

when a general recruits a soldier, an FPS enters that soldier's avatar from the waiting room

so any combat that takes place would be drastically different from, say, going against AI, or playing starcraft. if the environment/world is realistic enough, it would be like actual war (making the MMO world all the more amazing if tehre are multiple generals)

would be an amazing thing to be a part of

now let's take it even further!!!

starships

RTS player commands starships... FPS players are on ships and try to board enemy ships... pilots and gunners damaging other ships and evading fire... engineers trying to repair damage... all while RTS commander is trying to give orders to regain control of battle

in ADDITION to MMO world down on earth!
Libervurto
10
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 8th Mar 2010 20:49
I like the world idea. Here's my interpretation in an Age of Empires style...

People would spawn into the game as neutrals and they could either start to build their own base or join another base if there is space for them (i.e. housing).

The first building, let's call it the town centre, would be where people join your community. They go into the town centre and reappear sporting your community's colours (after a time delay for "training").

Your new citizens can help you build structures like barracks. Once built your citizens can enter the barracks and train to become soldiers in much the same way as the town centre.
After training is complete they emerge as soldiers who have better weaponry and armour but can no longer build.

All players could go back to the town centre and retrain as civilians if you need more builders.

"With games, we create these elaborate worlds in our minds, and the computer is there to do the bookkeeping." - Will Wright
TechLord
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2002
Location: TheGameDevStore.com
Posted: 13th Mar 2010 12:05 Edited at: 13th Mar 2010 12:06
I wrote this on Nov 19, 2005 at 07:34 AM

..and have been working on it ever since.

medsouz
7
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th May 2010
Location:
Posted: 24th May 2010 00:44
Kinda like an MMO Battlion Wars? (Don't judge its a good game!)


Switching from Lua scripting to BASIC Programming is a HUGE change..
Rawror
8
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2009
Location:
Posted: 22nd Jun 2010 01:04
There is a game called SAVAGE, 1/2 (Not heroes of newerth) but it works similarly

Thatmay be your choice but mine stays true.
tvzen
7
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Dec 2009
Location:
Posted: 27th Jun 2010 03:32
i like the idea,i would personally pay for a game like that if it ever came out
Shadowtroid
7
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Dec 2009
Location: nope
Posted: 27th Jun 2010 03:58
Except how would you balance it? There's going to need to be a lot more FPS players than RTS players.

dragon assasin
9
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2007
Location: Wait did that shadow just move...
Posted: 27th Jun 2010 07:51
I know its been done with savage, but I also had this idea prior to knowing it existed and this would be a really cool project to work on.

If i did it once i can do it again (Do you see what i see Sept 09)
Isocadia
7
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Jul 2009
Location:
Posted: 27th Jun 2010 21:00
Quote: "Except how would you balance it? There's going to need to be a lot more FPS players than RTS players."


Well, Let's say it will be like CoDMW2. And divide the amount of players by lets say, how many FPS'ers per RTSer, lets say 300. Well, Divide the amount of FPS'ers by 300 and let the amount of best players ( like top ranked active players ) be the RTS. That way you will always have enough RTSers.

Isocadia

Zeus, it's over. I DIVIDE YOU BY...uhh. damn what was the number again?
Shadowtroid
7
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Dec 2009
Location: nope
Posted: 27th Jun 2010 22:45
But being an FPS'er requires a different skill set then an RTSer. So that wouldn't work...

...Maybe it could be random, and it's weighted by how well you do at one of them. Like, whenever you are an FPS'er you do really well, then when the randomization operation happens it weights it towards the FPS side. And vice-versa. Also, maybe you could have an option where you are always an FPS player. You would probably not want that option for RTS players, as that could be overused easily.

Isocadia
7
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Jul 2009
Location:
Posted: 28th Jun 2010 10:14
There you got a point. Well, now in SC2 you play placement matches before getting into a league, so you could make it like before you really get in the world, you need to play 10 matches, 5 as FPS 5 as RTS and then they get you average skill. And maybe some league because one really good FPSer doesn't want to be commanded by some mediocer RTSer. So you could make something like 4 leagues and if your win/loss or kill/death ratio is high enough you advance to the next league.

Zeus, it's over. I DIVIDE YOU BY...uhh. damn what was the number again?
kordman916
9
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location:
Posted: 5th Jul 2010 01:30
There's a game called Zombie Master which is a mod for source engine games that's just like this.


Dell Optiplex GX280, 3.4 GHZ Pentium 4 processor
1 Gig DDR2 ram, Geforce 8500 GT 512mb
bruce3371
6
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Aug 2010
Location: Englishland
Posted: 5th Aug 2010 01:18
FPS players + RTS commander = Natural Selection, an old mod for Half Life 1 currently being remade as a commercial project using the Source engine. It's a nice idea, but it would have to be radically different to anything else that's gone before and I'm not sure it CAN be made radically different.
Libervurto
10
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 25th Aug 2010 07:49 Edited at: 29th Aug 2010 06:20
I love the idea of loads of people interacting in a really flexible world.

What do you need for a good online game?
* Co-existance - One player's actions can effect other players.
* Co-operation - Working together is beneficial.
* Competition - There is a finite supply of money/power/resources that can be gathered, traded, stolen and/or fought for.

I think that's it, and they're all C's! Yay I made a corporate-style slogan-type thingy: The Three C's, remember them and you will be awesome...

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2017-06-23 02:45:57
Your offset time is: 2017-06-23 02:45:57