PDA

View Full Version : World Domination


zach12wqasxz
02-20-2010, 01:13 AM
will world domination be possible in the game? like i know u can only have a certian amount of cities and armies, but what if ur maxed out in ur like 3 cities and 10 armies( just guessing ) and u cant do anything else in the game except defend? will there be a sort of lord vassal thing where if i conquer someone i can tax them and stuff but since im maxed out in cities i cant actually take there city? will u be able to lvl up in some way to where u can have more cities under your
control?
also if its not possible, could or would there be a mode like called world domination where giulds and players all fight over the same world and if u lose a castle thats it your done ( unless u have existing armies and casltes left ). i think that would be cool, 2 massive giulds fighting over power in a world domination server where u can actually lose your caslte permanelty if u lose a batlle
anyway just sorta ranting, sorry for the bad grammer and spelling

raving
02-20-2010, 04:13 AM
sounds nice in theory but i think when u implement it you eventualy have 1 person controling the world bullying everyone who trys to take a teritory.
same prob with the guild idea ^^.
and if i remember correctly you only can have 1 castle (but im not really sure about this)

Kire
02-20-2010, 04:48 AM
Well world domination cant work i guess and its too harsh for newer players if ppl are offline you cant exercise that domination =P. As for that mod sounds interesting tho it would be nicer if would be 3 guilds ading some extra tactics =) (maybe orcs vs humans vs elves?). Maybe also little smaller world.

zach12wqasxz
02-20-2010, 12:42 PM
well i mean do this on a completely different server, and there can be many guilds, but it would have to be a guild and not just 1 player, like it would almost be a separate game from single player and the normal online mode, but the stakes are way higher in WD mode, but also the benefits are a lot higher. this would be a game mode for the more dedicated hardcore fans that are ok with losses.

Negthareas
02-20-2010, 12:53 PM
Interesting thoughts - maybe 3 different servers:

Race wars
Guild Wars
MMORTS

Darvin
02-20-2010, 10:05 PM
As far as I've gathered, this is not possible. Players each have their own unique instances of the world, which means we're more or less playing in separate parallel dimensions. This is pretty well how every conventional MMO works.

Just as no one is allowed to assassinate key political figures (unless it's part of a quest) in World of Warcraft, players in Dawn of Fantasy will never conquer the world or do anything that has significant and permanent repercussions.

GPS51
02-20-2010, 10:36 PM
Right it wouldn't have to be permanent. It could be set in 2 week cycles or a set time determined by the amount of opponents. In no way should this have a bearing on the general map. More like a specific server or part of the server for such mischief.

welshie
02-21-2010, 08:15 AM
To your statement that once you maxed out everything u have nothing to do, Quests should take their time to complete all of them. Then you got helping other players with quests, socilising and then raiding capitals. And then if you have a good guild and trying to compete competitavily then you have guild vrs guild. hopefully it will be a long time before you start to bore, and if u do you can easily /delete and start from scratch or have fun making maps :)

As for the world domination thing, bascily this would be impossible to impliment without being elitist and very anti-new players. That and i would fail to see the point that this would feed my hunger for more content and things to do, you would be able to attack them and raid people so that side of the argument that it would give you something to do isnt fesiable. And as for the taxing situation, you have max everything so the point in getting more money when you wouldnt use it?

sorry for mispells and stuff im hugly hungover..

Darathor
02-22-2010, 05:58 PM
On what is possible in the game, You will only be able to have 1 city I believe, not be able to conquer, only pillage, other players' and npc cities, and the vassal idea could only work in a roundabout fashion, with you attacking them and forcing them to cough up money to pay you or dying.

Konstantin Fomenko
02-22-2010, 07:04 PM
As far as MMORTS part of the game goes - World Domination will not be possible - just too many reasons it can`t work out.

However, as we`ve mentioned earlier we are hoping (unconfirmed at this point), to include a single-player mode - similar to Battle For Middle Earth world conquest mode - where player would start with a small army and would need to conquer the whole know world, including dozens of NPC towns.

GPS51
02-22-2010, 07:51 PM
That would be so much fun with/without a single player campaign. I would love to conquer the world. :D

zach12wqasxz
02-22-2010, 09:40 PM
conquering the world is 1 reason why i love the total war franchise, its like the only game where u actually can

willrockyo1
02-23-2010, 10:05 PM
conquering the world is 1 reason why i love the total war franchise, its like the only game where u actually can

I think a system where the starting players had a lot of units (Horde style) and the more advanced players had more upgraded units and more ground to protect would keep most everything balanced so it wouldn't be so discouraging to new players. Like a new player started off with 350 pop but had to surrender 150 to start their first city. They'd get an extra 10 pop per level so soon would make it back to the 350 but now has more ground to protect the more they expand.

welshie
02-24-2010, 04:11 AM
I think a system where the starting players had a lot of units (Horde style) and the more advanced players had more upgraded units and more ground to protect would keep most everything balanced so it wouldn't be so discouraging to new players. Like a new player started off with 350 pop but had to surrender 150 to start their first city. They'd get an extra 10 pop per level so soon would make it back to the 350 but now has more ground to protect the more they expand.

yeh but then it wouldnt be realistic and would make everyone at the company to swich things arround, what your saying would solve it. But players that just starting with 350 troops would be chaos unless this is a new save to play while their other one is going on no one would know what to do. The point that world domination is good to a point but it will never work in a mmo enviroment unless you want everyone to leave in droves.

Ziegler
12-15-2010, 09:37 AM
The point that world domination is good to a point but it will never work in a mmo enviroment unless you want everyone to leave in droves.

Never heard of Eve? It's about world domination and has been running for ....years and years.


The one thing you need in an MMO ....to me...is persistance. If you cant take over as much territory as possible, then what's the point of MMO as opposed to just playing matches online?


EDIT: sorry for the necro post...didnt notice how long this thread has been dead.

Naivedo
12-16-2010, 08:00 PM
I agree with Ziegler, what's the point of calling it a MMORTS if everyone is protected by instances? That is not a true MMORTS.

What I want to see if a strong NPC force that defends its homeland when you are offline. A defense force that knows it's land in and out. One that can defend against almost any attack from a force greater then itself but still has a chance of losing. When you get conquered by a greater force, you are forced into no-land mode where you are just rebels against the state until you find a patch of open land that no one is defending and take it. Some of these elements can be found in the latest Romance of the Three Kingdoms games. If you lose all your territory, you are conquered and are forced into being free-agent/rebels that scout out new lands to take over and get a foot hold in unless... you are captured and executed but that doesn't need to be a part of the game. ;)

True warfare should be open and chaotic or it has no reality to it. If I wanted to play a normal RTS match, I would play Starcraft. Give us the MMO in MMORTS.

This reminds me of All Points Bulletin which was one of my latest betas. They called themselves a MMOFPS but lacked MMO. They thought that 10v10 match ups counted as MMO which in my opinion, doesn't. MMO means thousands of people and what makes it great is when things can change under player control. If you want this to be great, don't instance anything.

Of course, what do I know? I haven't played the game yet.

DeliCious
01-19-2011, 03:29 AM
So how is PvP played here and how do you interact with other players?

Axal01
01-19-2011, 03:59 AM
To be honest Naivedo Ive seen other MMORTS games, They are cheesy graphics, decent concepts but terrible terrible quality and lack of service. Dawn of fantasy is indeed far the best one out. Try googling "MMORTS" and you will see what I mean....

kingdominic
01-22-2011, 02:24 PM
As far as MMORTS part of the game goes - World Domination will not be possible - just too many reasons it can`t work out.

However, as we`ve mentioned earlier we are hoping (unconfirmed at this point), to include a single-player mode - similar to Battle For Middle Earth world conquest mode - where player would start with a small army and would need to conquer the whole know world, including dozens of NPC towns.

that Awesome!!!!!! let Elfs rule the world:D

Barca
01-23-2011, 01:36 AM
I really wish that at some point maybe there would be a free reign server where players can pretty much be monsters to each other. This may sound horrible but Nation State building should always be filled with back stabbing and not so civil conduct. But I'm sure that's not the game you guys wanna make. :)

luizeba
01-23-2011, 05:31 PM
World Domination is kinda strange in an online game. If you conquer everything, no one will play. No one playing, no one pay. No one paying, no game.

hawkravengold
01-30-2011, 01:01 PM
World Domination is kinda strange in an online game. If you conquer everything, no one will play. No one playing, no one pay. No one paying, no game.

This is true if you think of it as a complete and total domination. If you consider at some point someone does dominate, then perhaps there should be some extreme disadvantage to that i.e. that they would have so much to keep track of, that they could only defend so many parts of their empire at once, plus players that are against the person that has taken control now are granted the ability to combine efforts to overthrow the person that has dominated the world while they are at a disadvantage of not being able to defend the entire world at once. Just a thought.

zhaoyun23
02-11-2011, 12:29 AM
I hope i do not get wiped out from the map...that would really succk :S It will be nice to have a protection system when after getting attacked and lost a few times you get protections from future attacks for a limited time. This can help less experienced players have some more time to catch up

om3n
02-11-2011, 09:51 AM
It's something that couple probably be solved with another instanced map. You could have another map with 30-50 tiles or so each with some kind of benefit to having. You could have those in a persistent state that players/alliances could fight for. It would allow to maintain the games mechanics and give a world domination feel while still keeping the game and world as-is.

Noel Bohac
02-11-2011, 01:48 PM
Never loose hope in the concept thou, Kon did say "never" as far as world dominiation which in this case makes sense. But other ideas are out there and again if things go well after launch, one of my suggestions (can't spill my beans for free haha ) goes threw, well let's just say it is something along these lines and very very doable in the current build.

So eh, keep your hopes up on some kind of domination in the future, let's say I need to sell Kon and the team on it ;)

*goes back into the shadows..... POOF!*

elielikesnow@hotmail.com
02-12-2011, 09:55 PM
Very interesting. In a game as unique as Dawn of Fantasy, the features and the game play it possesses just makes it seem so possible for some reason.