The Future of RTS

We have to comment on an RTS article on Gamasutra recently, regarding the future of RTS games and issues within that genre. Unable to post without approved membership we decided to bring the debate here. Not once did anyone mention the next evolution of RTS which is already here - ie MMORTS. That any debate occurred without even a mention of our genre makes me wonder just where they find these folks. This wasn't an article about liking or disliking the genre RTS but about its future and interpretation of strategy. Mentioned many times was the lack of long term strategy and goals and the unrealistic reliance on battles to settle games, reducing RTS to RTT.

My opinion on this is what else do you expect from a single/multiplayer game with no persistence. Not once was MMO mentioned and neither was persistence. Without these two elements - RTS will always emulate RTT, especially with a finite game ending. With games like Beyond Protocol and Saga looming, as well as numerous other small ­title­s building up momenteum for beta stage, we pretty much have the long term need and facility to cope with some real strategy and eliminate the reward of rushing and griefing. With a long term persistent game/story evolution such short term tactics will remain just that.

So the short of it is we have many folk debating our genre but few such participating in it, know of it or anything about it. Or worse still, have uninformed opinions shaped during a brief time playing one game. Hopefully, if we have the time, we will be doing some articles soon about those aspects, with games being brought under the microscope to highlight examples. Both good and bad examples need dealing with before this genre will enter the mainstream under a benign public eye.

Well the debate rages amongst the browser ­base­d and turn ­base­d communities but complete silence in our corner?! Explains a lot regarding the lack of attention we receive doesn't it folks? Most in this debate don't even know 3D MMORTS exists and tbh this is our own fault. We need to invite these folks in and thrash the pants off them until they admit that a browser cannot in any way simulate a RTS versus a Live opponent. The AI of these games makes them fun but finite and this is why all mainstream RTS resemble RTT more nowadays. Hate to agree with the article there. As to the reasons and the hopes for the future - I totally disagree with him.

flashofsteel.com

Add some comments folks before these online board gamers think they can handle a few hundred ships in 3D with z-axis active lol.

These are great conversations and I'd love to join in, eventually. Seems I have some reading to do and I've been short on time recently.

I'm pretty new to the world of MMORTS, having only discovered most of these games in the past year, but I'm a passionate supporter. Hopefully when I get more time on my hands to catch up in these conversations I'll be able to back you up Vimes.

Thanks to you for reading my article. I read the discussion on MMORTS games on Troy Goodfellow's Flash of Steel blog. I had no idea--although I have hoped for some time that they existed--that there were MMORTS games out there. I'm looking forward to playing the games that Vimes mentioned, because I absolutely agree that MMO is the future for RTS games, especially if there is a way to include thousands of computer sub-agents (i.e., AI units under the control of human players).

In my Gamasutra article, I suggested broad ways in which the genre could move forward. I'm not a regular contributor to Gamasutra, and I do have a day job (don't worry, I'll keep it). While I've played the more popular RTS games, hardly have I played every game out there. What I had hoped to contribute with my article was observations about politics for a genre of games that has so much to offer. I had also hoped to generate a discussion about the direction these games could go. At the very least, I think I've accomplished the latter. I really am just an occasional gamer dissatisfied with the games I've played so far. It just so happens that I think about politics a lot, and I tried to articulate these thoughts in a way that might alleviate my dissatisfaction.

Well, maybe MMORTS games are the answer. Thanks for making me aware of games that I can't wait to play. I plan to return to this site in the future for updates on the MMORTS genre.

Thanks for coming to mmortsgamers.com, nate! I'm sure Vimes will be quite pleased.

Anyway, feel free to drop by http://f-g.wikidot.com/ to look at Fragmented Galaxy, an MMORTS in development. We're a small group, made up of ordinary people like you who have dreams of what RTS can become, and now we've come together to try and make those dreams reality. New ideas about where RTS can go are always welcome on our forums.

Thanks Matt, the master of understatement lol! I am ecstatic to have converted a RTS gamer to MMORTS, its what I set this site up for (though I imagined I would be doing less work lol)

Nate - re-reading your article, allowing for the lack of MMORTS insight, it makes a more reasoned and less harsh critique than it seemed upon first read

Also - many communities use/abuse the acronym MMORTS and they get very touchy about being, as they see it, relegated to RTT. Real Time Tactical within the genre is defined by a lack of building and more conservative use of resources given at key stages typically. Thus large numbers of gaming communities regard themselves outside this sub-genre and didnt consider other meanings. Ground Control is the only RTT I have played to my knowledge.

I am unusually hesitant to get into large statements (Havoc pick yourself back up now chap) but I will soon. Definitions and sub genre labels are a minefield but I think we should go there ..later. For immediate note - if you prefer a SciFi feel then hit Boundless Planet or time of defiance for active released games with 7 day free trials. For a fantasy theme I would suggest Ballerium or Saga.

I would suggest Beyond Protocol but for a few reasons. You may not look at another game and a spread of play might help you decide that anyway later. Its possibly everything you think desirable but most is cutting edge and initial impressions last (as you saw with so many who answered your article). Some things will change rapidly as balance is checked etc - not allowing you wallow in a bit of the routine you need to acquire to manage MMORTS and real life lol. Most persistent like games don't require 3D management but 2D. MMORTS is addictive and you WILL lose sleep. Factor that in now lol.

Have fun in your new genre - we need numbers to ensure it all works and is balanced. If you show full intent to play and enjoy it - many will stop to assist you. Long term strat remember lol

Welcome again.

Could not resist posting the reply by James Campbell, more locally known as Aurelius from Dark sky entertainment, Developers of Beyond Protocol. I am fairly sure he wont mind the quote lol.


James Campbell 28 Jan 2008 at 1:40 pm PST

I would like to suggest that the evolution of an RTS is going to require the following elements to be considered:

* Speed of game. To succeed at evolution, the game must be real time but combat is not a single shot killing spree of rock-paper-scissors as has been seen with tech trees. In fact, battles in order to be strategic, must involve the same mechanics as a good story: Introduction, followed by build-up, then the problem, the rise of a hero, and then an outcome. The RTS we have all seen to date moves way too fast for any of these things to occur. The battles must be prolonged, must be thought provoking, and must create a balance that must be broken to find victory.

* Next, wars and politics involve one simple thing: SCARCITY. Without scarcity, there is no need for anything else. Scarcity has often been achieved through a finite set of resources. Once those resources are gone, then conflict will occur. I propose that scarcity must flow from those resources and into the very ideas of the game. By having scarcity in resources combined with the scarcity of ideas, true conflict occurs. Within that conflict, you bring forth intense strategy matching your resources and your ideas against others. While the raw resources are capable of levelling a playing field, it is the combination of these resources that expose the greatness of a player's intellect and strategic prowess. In simple form, consider this: in most MMOs, you play the tech tree and the game reaches a climactic conclusion. In real strategy, its never really a super weapon that does it, but compromise and strategic planning.

* Games in an RTS must consider more than the battlefield. It must consider espionage, information, diplomacy, intrigue, and ingenuity to be a great game. Information that your player receives that is readily available in a strategy guide is somewhat stale and just provided through the means of good die-rolls. Information that cannot be found in such guides are the true value. What makes them significant is when the player seeks out the know how of another player and the techniques they have established. This goes from researching and developing great weapons and defenses, to finding locations in a vast expanse, bringing great communitive power to discovering the intentions of your opponents through negotiating spies around building tactics, unit formations, and battle movements.

* For politics, one must consider the evolution of the RTS ready to be an MMO in order to provide the time necessary for full realization of such needs. In this manner, an RTS must solve a primary problem: What makes the player/empire that can do it all themselves really need anyone else. Simply put: SCARCITY. There is a need to provide an RTS that involves all forms of player: This includes the conqueror, explorer, developer, and diplomat. An evolved RTS would require multiple players to control one empire. The fabric of the game depends on too many variables that remain in sync in order to function effectively.

Hopefully, this makes sense and brings about the idea that MMORTS is most likely the evolution of RTS.



Sadly the debate has gone a bit more quiet lol

James' remarks are interesting and on the whole quite true. There are some things I would like to add or contest though.

On the whole, in my opinion, both reality and game dynamics come down to a basic principle of incentives. What drives a person to take a certain action is a calculated thought process where the mind weighs the incentives that are present and takes action accordingly. I buy food from the grocery store because there is a strong incentive to doing it – so I won't starve. Likewise, I attack an opponent in a game because of another incentive – so I can win the game.

When developers make a game, they do so expecting a certain kind of gameplay, and design the game to operate in such a fashion as to make that desired gameplay experience possible. This goes beyond just coding the content correctly, since an unknown factor is always involved in games: the player, of course. In order to steer the player into engaging in the right kind of experience that the developers intend, they must create an environment where the incentives presented to the player make the desired behavior in that player's best interest.

Now I'll get back to the point, which is RTS and its future. You see, I believe most of all the problems with RTS that Mr. Toronto expressed (many of which I agree with) have come about because of an improper balance of incentives. For instance, he states in his article that one problem is the unavoidable tactic of sending waves of soldiers against the enemy until they are overwhelmed. This is obviously caused because the incentive to use this tactic is greater than say, building up your defenses and not your army, because obviously it allows victory to be achieved faster. So the solution to these problems, on a simple level, is to try and rebalance the incentives present in the game to try and influence the player into taking the desired action. This can be done with several of the things Toronto pointed out in his article, as well as other things several people have mentioned.

But now moving on to MMORTS rather than simple RTS. First, I believe MMORTS is the next evolution of RTS simply because of the fact that it involves large amounts of real player opponents. Real people means more in-game diversity, which means more realistic and unexpected behavior, which means more entertainment. However, MMORTS, by its very nature, changes dramatically the balance of incentives involved in a game.

For one, the incentive to win the game is eliminated, since in a truly persistent MMORTS, no one player can "win" the game outright. James Campbell points out one incentive that replaces this: scarcity. By his argument, scarcity drives action because, obviously, scarcity causes weakness and stagnation, and so comes down to the basic incentive that made me buy food at the grocery store. Except there is a key difference between these incentives, which in itself denotes the difference between reality and games: survival is the greatest incentive in reality, but entertainment is the greatest incentive in games.

MMORTS faces many problems. Veterans harassing newer players, stagnation, keeping entertainment going, what to do when people are offline – these are several issues that different games have taken different approaches to. But really, no matter what approach you take, a successful MMORTS relies on the balance of incentives to be truly successful. To solve the genre's problems effective systems must be built that take this simple principle into consideration.

Take picking on new players for example. This problem is because, obviously, the veteran has an incentive to attack the newby because the latter is weak and an easy source of resources. This is the result of scarcity, since it drives people to take dishonorable action to fill the coffers. So scarcity, which as James said drives action, can drive bad action. The first thought to eliminating this bad action is by imposing limits, such as making a play of a certain size unable to attack a weaker player of a certain size. This hard limit, although eliminates the bad incentive, just replaces it with another one, that is, the incentive against playing the game itself. People by nature don't like to be confined, and hard limits do this, so adding to the player's incentive to stop playing the game altogether, and we don't want this, of course. So how do we combat the problem? We work within the system.

The goal is to make it so that attacking vastly weaker players is not in the best interest of the veteran, while not eliminating the action from his plethora of choices. To do this, we need to balance the incentives of an easy target and easy to get resources with bad incentives. These could include making the act of attacking another player an arduous ordeal, so its not worth it to do unless there is a big reward. Small players have small rewards, but big players and big rewards. Suddenly it becomes in the better interest of the player to balance the effort required with the rewards, so a target of more equivalent size to them self may be more appropriate. So the weaker player is protected by incentives, but the action itself is not eliminated. Balance makes gameplay more fun, and solves the issues inherent in the genre.

So the future of MMORTS is not necessarily to keep stacking on more content and more choices and more features, but to create a balanced system. If adding new features, like Toronto suggests, were the only solution, then the concept of the casual game would be inherently flawed. But we know it to not be, since there are casual games that are very fun, and this is because they have well-balanced incentives. An RTS on the scale of an MMORTS has a much more complex structure of incentives, but it must still adhere to the same basic principles of balance.

This idea of balance seems obvious, but it is surprising, when analyzing games, to see exactly how much imbalance is present. When devs talking about "balancing", they talk about influencing incentives by altering variables in the game. Make warrior A susceptible to warrior B, which is susceptible to warrior C, which in turn is vulnerable to warrior A. This is the common definition of balance, because it states that no one strategy is dominant over another. But think about this. Because no one strategy is dominant over another, strategy is thus removed, and this is why incentives develop that state it is in the best interest of the player to ignore strategy and just pummel the enemy with waves and waves of troops. One strategy should be dominant over another, since this is how successful strategy is developed. But just because one strategy is dominant, doesn't mean it should be forever – new strategies should be able to evolve, and James touched on this point. This is critical to persistence, and critical to balance, and critical to diversity. An MMORTS will never succeed unless new strategies can be developed over time to make old ones obsolete, and that this process is continuous. A strategy is an incentive, and once a dominant incentive is born, an equally dominant incentive must be created to restore balance, but this act in itself makes the latter the more dominant incentive, and the process is continued. Just is how the battle between good and evil works, and the reason neither good nor evil will ever win over the other, but conflict will forever last. That is the true definition of persistence.

Fascinating reading Matt. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. When we designed Beyond Protocol, we considered a universe whereby there were rules. Those rules however were an abstraction to what the player would need to encounter. For example, to prevent newb killing by veterans we implemented two items. First, the colonists and military under your rule show great displeasure in hitting a smaller opponent. This is in the form of morale and command penalties. They are more severe the further the experience levels differ.

This method was indeed more brute force than we liked, but we needed a way to teach those new to the concept of MMORTS that its bad. This is temporary pain, but meant to teach a lesson that the player would recognize.

The other more subtle approach was to eliminate the desire to kill newbs. New players have an asset to provide. We simply leveraged the new player's ability and recognized a method that made the new player an asset to the veteran. Now the veterans fight to defend the newbs.

more later...