   MMORTS End Game
  The MMORTS genre as a whole is young with maybe no more than 20 titles published and active.  Most if not all of the active MMORTS games are by indie teams.The basic building block of MMORTS is about resource development and management.  Typically there is a "safe" period where your zone is protected while growing.  Once the "safe" period is up, a player is able to attack other players and also be attacked by the same.My question has to do with a specific facet of the MMORTS endgame. Zerging by other players who have been active longer as this results in grief and very possible exit from the game by the player who was zerged.Potential solutions1. Not allowing zerging or other players to completely destroy a player.  This results in a detente as players mass resources and troops but have no ability to trully affect the outcome of a game.2. Some type of insurance or recall ability allowing a the zerged party to escape.I have generalized on purpose, but would like some thoughts on what potential solutions there are beyond 1 and 2 to allow for some flow to the game once it matures.   
  Change the paradigm.  Instead of allowing players of asymmetric power to compete directly, give them (relatively) equality in their competition.  This can be achieved by breaking the gameplay into discrete chunks that play similarly to traditional RTS games.Another option to deal with asymmetry of power is to alter the goals for each side.  Less powerful starting positions require less lofty achievements to secure victory.;  The real problem (which I still haven't seen a satisfactory solution for) with MMORTSs is the 'log-out' problem. You can't log on to find that you've lost crucial position/resources, or the game loses its worth. And you have to put something on the line with each battle, or it isn't interesting. So how can you establish a game where you build up an empire, and have to defend it while active, without having the player (should they be forced to leave during a battle) utterly squashed.I'm not really sure how you could do that.To start, try doing the followingMandatory number of battles per week/month, with a penalty should they not be completed.. You can see a list of every player currently online, and may challenge them. Should they accept, the battle commences.Victory is defined by securing key resource locations. So more like a capture and hold game than a 'squish the enemy' game. You couldn't build units during a battle, but could field any guys you have, up to a maximum equal to the challengee's guys. Defender can surrender and leave if they want. The challenges happen over new territory.How, you may ask, can you then lose territory, and have your empire shrink?Because if you are the challenger, and your attack fails, the enemy can push into your base, making a new, more intense battle occur. Victory will be hard, since you'll have towers and way better terrain, but you can gain a lot of tech.   ;  Re: gamedogmaA paraphrase of your post:Suppose players A and B start playing the game at the same time, but A plays more than B does, then after some time, A would have a lot more zerglings than B. Now, A attacks B with the zerglings. B is simply overwhelmed and is forced to quit the game. What could you do to fix it?A comparison with MMORPG:In an MMORPG with PvP, if you get ganked, you typically respawn at a point where you could choose to go somewhere else in the world, but you still retain your level before you get ganked. If you see some high level players around, you could just run away or hide. In an MMORTS, the situation is different in that getting ganked is to become Lv 1 again, also, you could see the enemy coming but you have no option to run away. Your solutions:1) Disallow zerglings from completely destroying a player.This is similiar to the spawn point and the limit in the number of levels that a character could lose in PvP in an MMORPG. Your criticism is that if that is the case, the players can fight but can't really conquer. 2) An insurance method to allow the defender to escape.This is similar to letting a low level player flee if they see a high level player in PvP. Building on your ideas:Big Brother FleetThe Big Brother Fleet is a merchenary fleet that arguments a player when they send a distress call. The player needs to pay for the fleet, but they could pay in installments after the battle. While the player owes the fleet, the player cannot expand or attack other people on behalf of itself. While the player is still in debt, whatever the player gains or conquers belongs to the Big Brother. To repay the debt, Big Brother might contract the player to do missions for itself. As long as the player is in debt, the Big Brother Fleet will continue to reinforce its presence in the territory until the Fleet is defeated. For example, the Big Brother might organize a 15-player fleet to assault a 1-player territory. If the 15-player fleet captures the territory, Big Brother would write off some or all of the debt. Big Brother might provide some equipment in those missions. In terms of game design, the Big Brother is just a facilitated alliance to even out the odds between the powerful forces and the weak forces. When a player is in-debt, the player becomes part of the "mob". This mechanism balances the zergling situation because if you are the owner of the zerglings, if your victim is sufficiently frightened and calls a Big Brother fleet, you will only lose your force. So normally, in addition to your zerglings, you will also have a set reserve fleet to deal with the BBFleet if it gets summoned.;  As Wai mentioned, the problem is that all your progress is lost when you are squashed by a stronger enemy. An obvious solutions might be to give the player, besides is earthly possession, some form of experience just like in a regular MMORPG. For example, you could gain building experience. When your city is completely destroyed by a strong neighbor, you move to another part of the map and start over and have your city up and running much faster than the first time.On the 'Big Brother Fleet' idea, it sounds like an interesting option. Although I would prefer that something similar would simply emerge from natural interaction between players. When each player belongs to some race or clan, you could automatically send distress messages to all other members when the player is attacked. You could reward rescuing players with some reputation system or with extra resources. Having new players start out in one of a few large n00p clans gives them an initial safety net and a direct environment to start interacting with players.   ;  I have had some ideas for an MMORTS (just don't have the resources to make it at the moment).First of all, I had to try and avoid the positive feedback loop that occurs in RTS games. This is when you use resources to gather more resource. In a typical RTS this is a good thing as it allows the game to reach an end point where one player wins. In an MMORTS, this can not be allowed to occur as it will mean that the game is no longer playable (not a good thing in an MMO game).My solution was to limit the player in the amount of resource they could have. In my game the players fought over "Realms", fragments of a shattered world destroyed by magic.They had a safe Home realm, but beyond that they could gain and loose them in the battles, however owning realms drained Manna (to maintain the rift gate to them). As players had a set manna regeneration rate, the more realms they owned the slower they regenerated manna. If they owned to many realms, then they could not regenerate manna at all and one of the things man was used for was to create rift gates which meant that once they had a certain amount of realms, they could no longer gain  any more and setting a natural limit on their resource levels (it worked out at around 7 realms could be owned by a single player - there were going to be artefacts which were very rare that would enable an extra realm to be owned).Manna was also used for many other things, including the super weapons (apocalypse spells - a bit like the one that were supposed to ahve destroyed the world in the first place), so this also meant that owning too many realms prevented you from using you super weapons as often. This also allowed new players an advantage and so created a ballance between them.Quote:The real problem (which I still haven't seen a satisfactory solution for) with MMORTSs is the 'log-out' problem. You can't log on to find that you've lost crucial position/resources, or the game loses its worth. And you have to put something on the line with each battle, or it isn't interesting. So how can you establish a game where you build up an empire, and have to defend it while active, without having the player (should they be forced to leave during a battle) utterly squashed.To solve this problem I proposed a solution where while a player is logged off, any realm of theirs that does not have an enemy on it becomes protected and can not be attacked, but neither does it gain any resource or expend them (basically it puts it into suspended animation). IF a player accidentally logs out, they can log back in and take control.This method also prevents grief logging out, where a player could potentially log out so as to avoid loosing a battle.When a match is made, each player puts up an "ante" of one or more of their realms, and while you are logged in any one can request a match up to one of your realms (which you can reject). This would allow player to form guilds, where they log onto each others realms to give re-enforcements in battles, and to connect to enemy realms for battles. There would be a limit to the number of people that could connect to any 1 realm (I limited it to 6 realms that could connect to any other realm - including your own realms), so if you wanted many allies in a battle, they would have to traverse many realms (and possibly many players as well) to get to the battle field. So although you could have a large army with all the allies, any re-enforcements that would come form them would take a long time to get there.All realms were randomly generated and players could always connect to a neutral realm (unowned by any player) and try to capture that. This meant that even if you were totally wiped out, you could payer a kind of single player campaign to gain new realms.Realms would have artefacts (some rarer than others) that would enable a player to use its power in some way. These ranged from being able to own a realm for free, to special spells that only the artefact could cast, to being able to create extra resources, etc.Research was not a global powerup, like current RTS games do. What I did is when you did research, you gained a "Scroll" which could be stored in a building. If this was a training building, then the unit you train there would have the researches ability. For example: If you had a Mage school, then you could research spells that your mages could cast.You also had Libraries where scrolls could be stored long term (and research that needed them as prerequisites could be done). They could also copy scrolls so that you could use them in more than 1 building, trade them, etc.What this meant is that if you made a raid on an enemy's buildings, you could destroy (or capture) their research scrolls and knock back their research (or steal their research for yourself). This game more reasons for fighting an enemy than just to take their realms, or resources.The other thing I had in the game was an artificial life simulation (genetic algorithm) for your people. So a player could selectively breed their populations for a particular style. A units ability in various skills (magic, fighting, resource gathering, research, etc) and abilities (reproduction rate, healing, max health, etc) could be selected for at the cost of others, and each Realm a player owned, had their own populations which enabled them to breed different types of base units. If you captured a realm form a player, you got all the resource, research scrolls, and non combatant populaiton for your own.   ;  The Travian set up is pretty hardcore and only appeals to a certain group of players. It has it's place but there is need for something else IMO.I think the most obvious solution is to base it on a WOW type model. There are two sides, there is a strong emphasis on PVE, and most PVP is instanced.Co-op RTS game against a computer can be fun. There can be a lot of different scenarios that require the player to only start the battle with a limited number of units or techs available to you in your "match."You really want to keep players advancing. So you want to offer flat progression which fits in well with a system that limits the number of units you can start a battle with. Of course you can also have Epic encounters that have very high limits and require multiple players.   ;  Kru - Remove asymetric gameplay with discrete chunks.Very good, I like that.  Rather than a winner take all mode, something similar to EVE where there are multiple paths to success.  Success does not have to be defined by wiping out your enemy.  I myself really liked playing the auction markets in MMOs and always thought an economic MMO would be cool.Doomhascome - How to deal with troops when logged off and still defend territory.Victory is defined by securing key resource points.  This is definitely workable, rather than have one or just a few secure points have multiple that need to be defended.  Loss of a single point while off line would not matter greatly and maybe would be expected.  The battle for the destruction of a player's home base would need to scheduled to give the defender an opportunity to be online and defend.  I think it would be reasonable to expect a player to check in once a day or every other day to be able to accept a challenge of the home base.Wai - Use Big Brother or Mercenary troops/fleets to backup player against zergers.  Player would owe debt to Big Brother for defense and can't attack until debt is paid off.Definitely orginal mechanism.  Something like this would work where you don't have alliance troops to back you up.  My thought is you would still have to have a resource limitation as some players are incredibly adept at being able to build very large armies if there is no limit.Dietepiet - Have players rewarded for helping other playersThis was done in the MMORPG, Atlantica Online.  I really liked how it was implemented as it encouraged players to help other players and created a strong community.  All MMO games could learn from Atlantica Online regarding this to foster community within their game.Edtharan - Home realm is not seen nor accessible within the game to other players.  Battle for zones would only be against players that are online.  Zones are not connected linearly. Battles are resource limited.I was thinking mainly of a 2-D type MMORTS.  This definitely solves the zerging/grief issue and would be a very different MMORTS than is out there today.  Strangler - Instancing the PVPThis is used in just a few of the MMORTS games out there now.  The instancing PVP mechanism could definitely be developed further.  ---All great thoughts.;  I feel that the current mass of MMORTS games currently available are missing the mark by a considerable margin because they are, for the most part, still focused on a primarily single player experience.I think a more compelling and truly 'MM' experience would require a large group of players work together to build up a Fortress/army, though this in itself does nothing to address the OPs original question.To that end there are a number of things that could, and in fact should be done, some of which actually add to the experience as opposed to just serving as an arbitrary restriction on older/more experienced players.First, as has already been mentioned, limit resource stores.  In reality, any stores require some form of storage facility.  Grain silos, lumber yards, equipment sheds, etc.  All buildings require space, upkeep, construction, become potential targets.Fortresses themselves require fewer men to defend than they require to assault.  With proper mechanics they also require fewer resources to defend than they require to assault.  In a properly designed MMO environment, the offensive party needs to balance the consumption of their own resources against the benefits of defeating a lesser opponent and the risk of becoming a target by others.Mechanics for a Declaration of War could be implemented.  Such a Declaration would need to be made, and some period of time pass, before the attacking party could initiate their siege upon their target.  The target of the Declaration could choose to seek diplomatic avenues that would cost them resources, but increase the period of time before the assault could actually be made, but not indefinitely so (even if they could obtain the resources to do so).  Once that time had passed, the assaulting party would then be able to gather their forces and commence the march.  Marching is fatiguing on an army.  Causes them to consume more resources, and degrade their performance.  To remain optimal, the march would need to be at a moderate pace (taking longer to get to the target).  An army can only carry with it supplies to last short periods of time.  This necessitates a supply train from their base fortress to their target.  Such a supply train would need to be guarded or risk falling prey to brigands or being cut off entirely by the enemy, or allies, expected or unexpected, of the enemy.  This would further subtract units from the actual assault.  The opportunities for real strategy here start to expand rapidly.As a corollary, surrender mechanics should be built into the framework as well,  allowing an overwhelmed opponent an 'out' at the cost of some defined number of units and resources, without being completely destroyed.The cost of upkeep for a given army should also increase exponentially with it's size, providing a 'soft' cap on army sizes, and also providing some benefits to only maintaining a smaller standing army at any given time.  This extends to all aspects of resource consumption such that an army twice as large requires 4 times as many resources to build, and 4 times as many resources to maintain, 4 times as many resources to move around, etc.  Thus it would not be in the interest of an older/more experienced player to assault the newbie fortress with his 20 defenders using an army of 60 units.  His costs for doing so would far outweigh any benefits gained from doing so, and cause a much larger depletion of his own resources thus making him far more vulnerable to attack himself, even given that his assault succeeds.  However, he COULD choose to assault that newbie fortress with only a 20 unit army of his own and rely on his experience to win the day.Back to the idea of making the RTS truly MMO, each player would only be capable of commanding an individual squad.  The player itself would be represented by an immortal avatar that leads the squad.  Various types of squads would be available each suited to different tasks, all capable of being led by any given avatar.The fortress building and resource gathering activities would be guild focused activities.  Sorry, a single player shouldn't be capable of building and running an entire fortress by themselves.  That doesn't mean there can't be any place for a non-affiliated player in such a game.  There are always brigands, mercenaries, traders, etc.  And individual players could still be capable of building their own home, hideout, lair, tower.  It would be the guild's responsibility to define the overall layout of their fortress.  Where the walls, buildings, towers, and other various structures are to be placed, but the individual players will have to command the appropriate squads to actually build said fortress, gather said resources, etc.  Various obstacles could be put in place to make the more mundance tasks 'less' mundane.  NPCs or PC Brigands to be killed when beyond the protection of the guild fortress.  Resources outside the fortress will need regular protection to maintain control of them.Alliances with other guilds could be made.  Members of the guild could turn traitor.  Conspiracy, deception, honor, diplomacy.  There's infinitely more possibility to a fully massively multiplayer RTS type game than anyone has yet to attempt.   ;  Question, why do MMORTS even have an end game? Isn't that a carry over from single player RTS which have very distinct phases of gameplay? Why can't you have a MMORTS which is continuously leveling, exploring and growing your armies with occasional PvP combat. Also RTS have more levels of player engagement than a MMORPG, for instance a single player can control a squad within a RTS army, while another player controls entire armies and still other players control the engines of the economy (trade, research, diplomacy). It seems there are many levels of gameplay which has yet to be explored within this model.-ddn 