PDA

View Full Version : Hmm mmorts?


Rvjobje
03-30-2010, 03:48 PM
I've been looking around on this forum for a while and cant find any good explanation of how the MMORTS part works.

for example:
- will it run on more then one server?
- how many people are allowed in one server?
- will it be something like browser rts game, where you have to wait 2 hours for one building to upgrade?

If its already been explaned can someone post the link? :)

Josh Warner
03-30-2010, 04:10 PM
I've been looking around on this forum for a while and cant find any good explanation of how the MMORTS part works.

for example:
- will it run on more then one server?
- how many people are allowed in one server?
- will it be something like browser rts game, where you have to wait 2 hours for one building to upgrade?

If its already been explaned can someone post the link? :)

Server stuff I can't answer yet, it'll be revealed at a later date. Building/training/teching times will all be quite long, we've tossed numbers ranging between 1-4 months to complete all research for example. Unlike browser games however, there's actual combat. It's not just two stacks of numbers and varying amounts of RNG influence. There's more to do in our game than just building up your city, though it'll be a fun aspect no doubt to see your city grow and evolve.

Rvjobje
03-30-2010, 04:33 PM
Server stuff I can't answer yet, it'll be revealed at a later date. Building/training/teching times will all be quite long, we've tossed numbers ranging between 1-4 months to complete all research for example. Unlike browser games however, there's actual combat. It's not just two stacks of numbers and varying amounts of RNG influence. There's more to do in our game than just building up your city, though it'll be a fun aspect no doubt to see your city grow and evolve.

Thats exactly what i want to hear about research time !!! Hopefully it will take around 4 months. Its better to get things slowly. There are so many things I want to ask you guys :P. but i wont

p.s.
If this gonna be as great as I think it would get. A LOT of more people need to know about it, i found ou about it when i was looking for mmorts on google a few years ago.

nickson104
03-30-2010, 05:01 PM
Thats exactly what i want to hear about research time !!! Hopefully it will take around 4 months. Its better to get things slowly. There are so many things I want to ask you guys :P. but i wont

p.s.
If this gonna be as great as I think it would get. A LOT of more people need to know about it, i found ou about it when i was looking for mmorts on google a few years ago.

If you need info, feel free to message any members or create posts, or use the search function to search for specific information :) This forum is quite a treasure trove when you know where to look :eek:

And yes, advertising is key... however that is not the devs decision to make, that is up to the publisher. And currently there has been no announcement as to publishers so we can assume the deal has not been sealed as of yet...

LiTos456
03-30-2010, 07:58 PM
Well there will certainly be advertising. Once the publisher decides to start it, they'll launch a marketing campaign. So it'll be fine in terms of that.

DarkMaster
03-31-2010, 03:49 AM
1-4 months to complete all research for example.
Hmm... 1-4 months to complete ALL research? seems a bit of a short time for a kingdom to become that advanced. Are there things that will perhaps lengthen this? eg. lack of correct resources, production focused on armies etc.

szebus
03-31-2010, 07:08 AM
Again, how long a game will last, until the server is restarted, or it will be constant and after you reach fully everything there will be some other things what makes the player go on with the game ? Let's say another town where you start all over but with the possibility to send help from the first village.

welshie
03-31-2010, 11:07 AM
Can i eloborate?

When bulding a building will it be in stages or constant building, so you can see the roof being put on. Stages in a mmorts for me wouldnt seem to fit, but then again it would waste alot of time doing the latter option.

wills370
04-01-2010, 08:47 AM
with regard to research times im guessing thoose will be based on a normal casual gamer thoose who find themselves in constant combat etc will of course either progress slower or faster deciding on if they win or not and the overall expirience of the game. Later researches and other things can always be added but id say 4 months is a good length for thoose who want to play and thoose who will stick with the game after that length.

crispyg29
04-01-2010, 09:35 AM
im sure someone anwsered this but is actual 4 months or like game time 4 months

Negthareas
04-01-2010, 02:53 PM
I think actual time, assuming you are on regularly. Obviously a clueless morgan might take 4 years, and find himself dead without an alliance and no firends.

I definitely thing he meant real-time.

otomotopia
04-01-2010, 04:05 PM
I think he meant realtime too. 4 months for the casual gamer, 1 month for the dude on 30+ hours a week.

Vind
04-02-2010, 02:27 AM
Well if you take into account some other games that have research things (eve comes to mind) then you just select what you want to research and leave it researching :p

As for building stuff I guess that depends on the resources available and resources you have. When you run out of resources the building stops. Also would be cool if there is something like worker happiness if they have food they build stuff faster.
Plenty of options but since i don't know much about this system this is all my speculation.

Noxeros
04-02-2010, 11:34 AM
Server stuff I can't answer yet, it'll be revealed at a later date. Building/training/teching times will all be quite long, we've tossed numbers ranging between 1-4 months to complete all research for example. Unlike browser games however, there's actual combat. It's not just two stacks of numbers and varying amounts of RNG influence. There's more to do in our game than just building up your city, though it'll be a fun aspect no doubt to see your city grow and evolve.

Monthly fee or onetime pay for the game? :eek:

blackfang
04-02-2010, 11:52 AM
one time pay...

szebus
04-02-2010, 11:57 AM
One time pay with pay for downloadable content and other extras.

GPS51
04-02-2010, 01:14 PM
Yeah if the DLC is pretty sweet I'd love to buy it just don't break my piggy back eh?

Joseph Visscher
04-03-2010, 10:12 AM
Well if you take into account some other games that have research things (eve comes to mind) then you just select what you want to research and leave it researching :p

As for building stuff I guess that depends on the resources available and resources you have. When you run out of resources the building stops. Also would be cool if there is something like worker happiness if they have food they build stuff faster.
Plenty of options but since i don't know much about this system this is all my speculation.

Buildings take all the resources they need before building, they do not drain resources like it supreme commander. If a house is 50 wood, you build one, it takes 50 wood, forget about it it will be built eventually.

One more thing you guys have to consider is this game is very persistent, buildings, walls, resouces, research they all still continue to procces after you log out (at a slower rate) for a few hours after signing out; if you build a few houses late at night, then sign off, go to bed, come back in the morning, they will be complete or nearly complete.

Yeah if the DLC is pretty sweet I'd love to buy it just don't break my piggy back eh?

Players that play alot most likely wont have to buy DLC with real money, they can use Wealth (which is earned very slowly beating human players, completing quests etc.). ;)

otomotopia
04-03-2010, 10:22 AM
One more thing you guys have to consider is this game is very persistent, buildings, walls, resouces, research they all still continue to procces after you log out (at a slower rate) for a few hours after signing out; if you build a few houses late at night, then sign off, go to bed, come back in the morning, they will be complete or nearly complete.


That's incredibly cheap, in my opinion. You can get resources and build buildings while logged out, but can't be attacked? I could queue all my buildings and tech without being on, and hypothetically log in the middle of being informed that I'll be under attack, and not loose my units or even have to fight? That encourages expoitive behavior, and maybe even cause attackers to NOT have any players to fight.

Considering players can have the AI available to defend their territory, I think that scrapping the "Not being able to be attacked when not logged" is a good plan, just let the AI take over. Set a unit queue like in Sup Com before you log. Moderators will have to deal with some whining, but a LOT less then people having no one (RE: no Players) to fight.

Josh Warner
04-03-2010, 01:09 PM
That's incredibly cheap, in my opinion. You can get resources and build buildings while logged out, but can't be attacked? I could queue all my buildings and tech without being on, and hypothetically log in the middle of being informed that I'll be under attack, and not loose my units or even have to fight? That encourages expoitive behavior, and maybe even cause attackers to NOT have any players to fight.

Considering players can have the AI available to defend their territory, I think that scrapping the "Not being able to be attacked when not logged" is a good plan, just let the AI take over. Set a unit queue like in Sup Com before you log. Moderators will have to deal with some whining, but a LOT less then people having no one (RE: no Players) to fight.

Firstly, it's pretty easy to make it so you auto-forfeit if you log out before/during an attack. Second, there can be added a set amount of time you have to be on before it counts as being on towards persistence. So set that for an hour, if you don't stay on for an hour then you do not gain any persistent gathering/building etc. And if you do play for more than an hour, then 1-2 hours of reduced productivity, say half, then 2-4 more of around a quarter productivity perhaps. These numbers are just examples but they should illustrate the point. AI isn't the best option, it'll never be as good as a player unless we make it cheat which just causes a myriad of other problems.

We're putting a lot of thought into how we'll do this, and we'll be adjusting it during beta if need be. We wouldn't let something so easy to exploit live long in beta, much less on live. Not being attack-able while offline will be minimally exploitable, and it's an important feature. Most people don't want to lose everything just because they can't play for a day, and with only being able to rely on AI... They would.




TLDR: We won't allow players to dodge fights without a very steep penalty, we've already outlined this in other posts how the surrender/fight options will work. And we certainly won't allow people an effective way to play and be productive while impervious to attack, conflict is part of the game.

GPS51
04-03-2010, 01:33 PM
Sounds good. We'll see how it all plays out.

otomotopia
04-03-2010, 11:00 PM
We won't allow players to dodge fights without a very steep penalty, we've already outlined this in other posts how the surrender/fight options will work. And we certainly won't allow people an effective way to play and be productive while impervious to attack, conflict is part of the game.
Now hold on there, mate: That's two different points of view. I'm aware that you've outlined three ways that conflict CAN wpork: AI, Playing it, or paying them off, but my point was on creating the absence of conflict by logging out, possibly preserving your units.

Firstly, it's pretty easy to make it so you auto-forfeit if you log out before/during an attack. Second, there can be added a set amount of time you have to be on before it counts as being on towards persistence.
That's very true, and both are extremely good solutions to one aspect of the problem. That being said, it seems you didn't consider this as an exploit, as it has not been done yet.


Second, there can be added a set amount of time you have to be on before it counts as being on towards persistence. So set that for an hour, if you don't stay on for an hour then you do not gain any persistent gathering/building etc. And if you do play for more than an hour, then 1-2 hours of reduced productivity, say half, then 2-4 more of around a quarter productivity perhaps. These numbers are just examples but they should illustrate the point.
+1, now you're seeing how this could be a problem, and you solved it pretty darn well in my opinion.

AI isn't the best option, it'll never be as good as a player unless we make it cheat which just causes a myriad of other problems.
Most people don't want to lose everything just because they can't play for a day, and with only being able to rely on AI... They would.

AI is never the best option, but in this case it should be THE option when logging out. This supplies people with enemies constantly and creates both interest and tension, and an urge to get back online. By shifting the algorithm used to match players to queue in favor PvP, you do a couple of things: You actually give players less of a chance to be attacked while away, you provide people with more active opponents, and you'll always have a statistically fair match. That being said, some people will be ****ed off if they get the short straw, but from what I've outlined, I do think that an intensive Pro/Con debate is in order once we get to the MMO stage of testing.

We're putting a lot of thought into how we'll do this, and we'll be adjusting it during beta if need be. We wouldn't let something so easy to exploit live long in beta, much less on live. We won't allow players to dodge fights without a very steep penalty. You came up with fixes very fast, so I absolutely have confidence in you guys. Keep in mind that I'm just bringing up a weakness that I saw in that, and it seems that you guys now have that under control.

Josh Warner
04-04-2010, 01:05 PM
These are pretty simple problems honestly, and ones we've already discussed internally quite a bit. We're not going to spend time working on them when we have more important things to do however, combine this with the fact that they're the sort of things that require actual playtesting and feedback rather than speculation to implement properly, and it's just not worth doing yet.

Just because we haven't outlined all of our plans, doesn't mean we don't have them ;)

Wait until you've tried the game before worrying too much.

metman
04-04-2010, 01:18 PM
AI is never the best option, but in this case it should be THE option when logging out. This supplies people with enemies constantly and creates both interest and tension, and an urge to get back online. By shifting the algorithm used to match players to queue in favor PvP, you do a couple of things: You actually give players less of a chance to be attacked while away, you provide people with more active opponents, and you'll always have a statistically fair match. That being said, some people will be ****ed off if they get the short straw, but from what I've outlined, I do think that an intensive Pro/Con debate is in order once we get to the MMO stage of testing.

But by doing this whoever logs out to has a good chance that when they get back most of their troops are going to be dead and their buildings destroyed. I feel I can safely say no one wants to be thinking I'm going on vacation by the time I get back I'll probably have no soldiers or buildings left. Also, there is probably not going to be a shortage of people to attack and by doing this attackers are most likely going to go for the person who is offline rather than online because they know it is an easy win.

GPS51
04-04-2010, 01:53 PM
Easy man...Let's see how it plays out. Remember this is a game and so the game may not be realistic in that you get 50% soldiers back after you're town is sacked etc etc. Let's give it time to develop for a while.

Kire
04-04-2010, 02:55 PM
Well also at mmorpg games (like WoW) you cant be attacked while offline even tho your character is persistent (at DoF you have instead kingdom). So noeone can stab you while you are "sleeping" ingame and noeone is complaining there about it ... =).

otomotopia
04-04-2010, 04:32 PM
Disclaimer: I want to clear something up here before I post: I may seem fired up about this, but I'm not attempting to bash the game or insult/flame/start something with anyone or anything. I'm just posting my thoughts on this aspect of the game based on information we've recieved.

Ok basically by saying this you want anyone who ever logs out to have like a 95% chance that when they get back most of their troops are going to be dead and their buildings destroyed. I feel I can safely say no one wants to be thinking I'm going on vacation by the time I get back I'll probably have no soldiers or buildings left. Also, there is probably not going to be a shortage of people to attack and by doing this attackers are most likely going to go for the person who is offline rather than online because they know it is an easy win.
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there should be a chance that you can be attacked, but still give players that are online a much better chance of being attacked. When the players online have an extremely slim chance of winning, put it to the AI.

There's a huge counterpoint to what the current system has, though.

The scenario: I'm ONLINE. I've got a medocre army, a small seige train, and some basic fortifications. There's six other players online who've barely started, and three people who are nearing the end of their research, and have over twenty battalions that are over level seven.

There's an enemy who's much, much stronger then I am, with a good veteran army and a small but teched-up seige train. He's coming to my territory. He will will absolutely murder the new players, and every wave he'd send out would die under the whithering fire the advanced players have at their disposal. Then there's me, who the enemy player can easily defeat.

Offline, theres three players who have at their disposal (at least) the capacity to defend well against that player.

Now, This player will have to fight someone. I've drawn the short straw and I'm actually the closest person in my territory to his level that's online. So basically, I'm dead.

With this current match system, I have no choice but to fight him. He'll probably toy with me and crush me. And because I'm ONLINE, despite there being a much more even fight with players that are OFFLINE, I'm actually at a huge disadvantage because I'm logged in and others are not.

Your thoughts?

Kire
04-04-2010, 05:03 PM
The scenario: I'm ONLINE. I've got a medocre army, a small seige train, and some basic fortifications. There's six other players online who've barely started, and three people who are nearing the end of their research, and have over twenty battalions that are over level seven.

There's an enemy who's much, much stronger then I am, with a good veteran army and a small but teched-up seige train. He's coming to my territory. He will will absolutely murder the new players, and every wave he'd send out would die under the whithering fire the advanced players have at their disposal. Then there's me, who the enemy player can easily defeat.

Offline, theres three players who have at their disposal (at least) the capacity to defend well against that player.

Now, This player will have to fight someone. I've drawn the short straw and I'm actually the closest person in my territory to his level that's online. So basically, I'm dead.

With this current match system, I have no choice but to fight him. He'll probably toy with me and crush me. And because I'm ONLINE, despite there being a much more even fight with players that are OFFLINE, I'm actually at a huge disadvantage because I'm logged in and others are not.

Your thoughts?

I dont think match making system works in way that it gives the closest one but rather random enemies at your lvl of disposal (something like WoW bg .... its only for 10-19 lvl for example and it wont start if too few of right lvl are in queue even if there are thousands lvl 40).
And i dont think you could know that someone is going to attack you before he really do it (when hes already at your gates). So there arent possibility to hide from that fight, maybe if you just log in quick, start building or research and quick log out =).
Thats what i imagine it can be =).

metman
04-04-2010, 05:18 PM
Sorry the way I phrased that was quite thick headed but we're just going to have to see how it works when we get to play the game. Every system has its pros and cons and that's why we have betas to see which system is better. :D

Negthareas
04-04-2010, 05:42 PM
This is partially why I suggested a while ago that offline players could be attacked and defended by an appropriate AI. However, the defender's persistent kingdom would take no persistent damage. The attacker would merely get looting privileges if victorious.

In many cases, most often, players, even dumb ones, are harder to defeat than easy or medium AI's.

Therefore, the offline player's would be attacked for gain, but would not suffer loss, while the new online player's would be spared.

Obviously, an attacker should get more from looting an online player, but not that much. Maybe his honor or something should be much greater, but besides that there would be little difference.

welshie
04-05-2010, 02:38 AM
tbh, if there was a player like that then surly his seasoned troops, even if you only kill a battalion or what ever would out weigh the looting/pilaging rights of you little settlement unless your a rich low level. Tbh i like the idea of no AI but in the event of someone logging off just before enemy troops hit your town, i think istead of auto-payment then an AI should go in charge. If im going to attack someone to make their town a mess then i would hate it if they pay me off or logged out and auto-payed :(

Kire
04-05-2010, 03:51 AM
someone logging off just before enemy troops hit your town,
I think if you decide to attack an enemy (trough matchmaking system) than you would instant hit it. Its no difference than if he decide to pay you off or force disconection and pay you anyway. Reality is, that anyone anyday can pay you off, so dont expect for all players that you could do a mess to them =).

otomotopia
04-05-2010, 03:54 AM
tbh, if there was a player like that then surly his seasoned troops, even if you only kill a battalion or what ever would out weigh the looting/pilaging rights of you little settlement unless your a rich low level.

It doesn't matter if your units all die and your town sacked, which alone is a strong possibility.

This is partially why I suggested a while ago that offline players could be attacked and defended by an appropriate AI. However, the defender's persistent kingdom would take no persistent damage. The attacker would merely get looting privileges if victorious.

In many cases, most often, players, even dumb ones, are harder to defeat than easy or medium AI's.

Therefore, the offline player's would be attacked for gain, but would not suffer loss, while the new online player's would be spared.

Obviously, an attacker should get more from looting an online player, but not that much. Maybe his honor or something should be much greater, but besides that there would be little difference.

We're not totally sure on how actual the actual matchmaking system works- the question: "Will I be able to target a certain player and what are my imitations?" hasn't been touched upon, along with if the attacker can deny being payed-off (instead of acceptance being mandatory, which I think would be absolutely terrible in of itself...). So actually "Targeting/gunning for" a specific player you KNOW is offline could be out of the equation either way. We could just be auto-seleced and/or given a list of players to attack, which alone would work, IMO.

That being said, Negthareas' fix sounds like a great fix to this problem I've outlined. I actually like it alot.

Darathor
04-05-2010, 02:40 PM
You can't attack anyone who's offline, at all, but you can specifically choose to attack someone's army or castle. However, there is a period where you can't be attacked again after someone attacks you.

welshie
04-05-2010, 03:32 PM
i ment, as in for the attacker if his troops are well seasoned and teched-up soilders compaired to basic units defending a poor, small town. surly the pilaging and looting wont cover the cost to re-supply your armies, as your not attacking a rich colony meaning poor looting and pilaging so therefor the high lvl attacker would be diswaded from attacking you in that sence, unless you decided to get on his bad side.

Darathor
04-05-2010, 06:14 PM
i ment, as in for the attacker if his troops are well seasoned and teched-up soilders compaired to basic units defending a poor, small town. surly the pilaging and looting wont cover the cost to re-supply your armies, as your not attacking a rich colony meaning poor looting and pilaging so therefor the high lvl attacker would be diswaded from attacking you in that sence, unless you decided to get on his bad side.

I didn't mean it to you, necessarily.

Well, there would certainly be many more units for you to loot, as otherwise you would have a large advantage because of your experienced soldiers, I don't think you would ever regain all of your losses from looting, unless it was a smashing victory. Now as for being poor with fewer resources, it might dissuade others from specifically attacking you for money, but there are also those who will attack you just because you're poor with a weaker army. There will be those who only want to attack someone weaker because they are warmongers and want to conquer, and there will be those who will pillage your town for money.

Being poor won't necessarily stop everyone who would attack you, but it might stop some.

Berd
01-20-2011, 12:09 PM
I think an MMORTS is a great Idea.

nobby
01-20-2011, 01:31 PM
The system sounds awesome, i was worried it was going to be like some browser games ive hated lol. It sounds like it will work wonderfully

are there any good comparisons for this game on the market atm??or just bits of it lol

LiTos456
01-20-2011, 04:19 PM
are there any good comparisons for this game on the market atm??or just bits of it lol

Not particularly, which is why DoF is one of the first of its' kind.

bishopgunn
01-20-2011, 04:27 PM
I'm just happy there is finally one being put out, been waiting a long time.

Jolleyboy
01-21-2011, 12:14 AM
Its been great to see how active the devs are in these forums! It gives me great hope for this game :D

I'm very interested to see how this all plays out. I've got my fingers crossed for something Epic.
I'm curious as to how factions will be able to work together against other factions. Will there be multi army wars where you meet on a battlefield on the front lines of the current border between 2 opposing factions? That would be amazing! Especially if there was a King, or a Counsel of Kings that had a zoomed out view of the field and could give direction to each of the players as they micro their armies in their part of the front line

Thanks :)

Zabu
01-21-2011, 02:36 AM
It has been a nice concept that wasn't used that much nad it's still rare to see some MMORTS, i'm excited about this kind of games since MMOFPS/ MMOTPS are really nice and change a lot from classic fps/tps, it would be great to see all well this is going. Lags might be a problem with big fights but it could be really awesome to look some serious clans fighting each other with massive troops. :cool:

Arachnid
01-22-2011, 12:28 AM
I agree. There are many issues that aren't a problem with mmorpg's or mmofps's that are an issue for mmorts games because mmofps games you have 0 risk if you're offline, same with mmorpg's...with exceptions like Eve Online, but I won't go there. MMORTS games, you're risking losing your army, resources, etc., and with a persistant economy where you're gaining resources even when you're offline, rates need to be altered, guilds/alliances and how they interact need to be handled differently, the game pace is different, etc. but this game does look very exciting and I'm looking forward to more press releases so we can learn more things.

Th3 Mastodon
01-22-2011, 08:23 AM
Im looking forward to see how its gonna work.

Zenidiller
01-31-2011, 10:22 AM
Well there will certainly be advertising. Once the publisher decides to start it, they'll launch a marketing campaign. So it'll be fine in terms of that.

lame unless they make it optional.

Zenidiller
01-31-2011, 10:23 AM
I agree. There are many issues that aren't a problem with mmorpg's or mmofps's that are an issue for mmorts games because mmofps games you have 0 risk if you're offline, same with mmorpg's...with exceptions like Eve Online, but I won't go there. MMORTS games, you're risking losing your army, resources, etc., and with a persistant economy where you're gaining resources even when you're offline, rates need to be altered, guilds/alliances and how they interact need to be handled differently, the game pace is different, etc. but this game does look very exciting and I'm looking forward to more press releases so we can learn more things.
Yeah but you cannot gain in resources while offline either.

BassZ1890
01-31-2011, 11:23 AM
Yeah but you cannot gain in resources while offline either.

I thought it said that you still gain resources and tech while offline but at a severely reduced pace.