PDA

View Full Version : 50-200 Player 'Conquest' Servers.


theinternetman
06-26-2011, 08:34 AM
To summarize this concept is a "risk" style game mode.

1.) Players:

- 50-200 depending on what your budget for server and storage is and how many players you think reasonably fit on 1 world map.

2.) Ruleset:

Free For All:

- Players can join the game world until it is full.
- First player to control the majority of territory at the end of the campaign timer wins.
- The campaign timer lasts a few weeks or months.

Faction Wars:

- Player cap is split evenly 3 ways (Humans, Orcs, Elves), locking any faction which becomes imbalanced.
- First faction to control the majority of territory at the end of the campaign timer wins.
- The campaign timer lasts a few weeks or months.

3.) Features:

- Players can create encampments in real time across the world map that would display for other players.

- Encampment start locations would be based on the faction of the player in both Free For All and Faction Wars modes.

- Each encampment radiates a default territory value which does not increase. (Do not want to encourage turtling)

- Players may take over (and re-take) each other's castles by defeating that castle in a siege.

- If a player is defeated in a siege they may re-start a new encampment at another location in their start location territory or decide to quit the campaign.

I can flesh it out more but honestly it's a pretty simple concept that is very solid and a lot of fun.

The biggest issue is if allow offline sieges are allowed and how that will work into the conquest if a player for instance just logs on 5 minutes a day to avoid being siege'd.

I'm personally a fan of letting the AI defend for a player if they're away. Even if it isn't great AI, there's no real better way to do it. If you force the players to be online they can just go offline to avoid being siege'd.

The key is striking a balance between forcing players to be on 24/7 to make sure their keep won't be siege'd, and not allowing players to just go offline to avoid sieges.

I'm throwing around a "siege timer" which would be a period of time time every day when players can engage in sieges based on the server location group. (I.E. Conquest 1 US East would be from 7 PM to 10 PM, and all weekend)

At some point players just have to suck it up and accept that they won't be able to defend their castle themselves 24/7.

Another idea I'm throwing around is letting other players in their alliance defend their castle for them in the event of a siege in the "Faction Wars" mode.

Brotolemaeus
06-27-2011, 03:49 PM
I would love to see this come in to existence, but it is probably rather far down the line if at all :( .

Sythin1
06-27-2011, 04:49 PM
Still seems pretty awesome :D

Stiffneck
06-28-2011, 04:57 AM
sounds good :)

DOminator
07-12-2011, 02:02 PM
I don't know what exactly the gameplay is now. But I can say, that this sounds really awesome.

tribalwars 3d (exactly what I'm looking for in a MMORTS)

yankeejim
07-16-2011, 09:37 AM
@internetman:
I know im late to the discussion, but i would take your suggestion and add one tweak. When a player is defeated in a siege and they lose their lands. Kick em out of the game world. But place a time limit on how long this campaign can run. I think this would definitely motivate some well thought out play. But it would also need a max amount of kingdoms like you suggested.

ICE4ciD
07-16-2011, 06:55 PM
re: 50-200 depending on what your budget for server and storage.

Do we have the ability to host this game on our own servers?

Bloodlance
07-18-2011, 01:59 AM
I would say make a cluster server with 9 servers meaning 9 land continents and then all are connected to each other.

When one continent is allied or under 1 player rule, he can then advance to a 2nd continent etc.

Would make the games last longer.

Lets say, a ultimate challange. if its 100 player per continent a clustered 9 continent would mean 900 players in one world. The beauty in that is, you can make bigger and bigger worlds the more famous this game becomes. a small world games always are ... small... not epic.

Meaning it would look like this:

X X X
X X X
X X X

/Bloodlance

theinternetman
07-19-2011, 04:48 AM
re: 50-200 depending on what your budget for server and storage.

Do we have the ability to host this game on our own servers?

I like this idea a lot. They provide the matchmaking server we provide the dedicated hosting for the games.

Win-win situation!

Mungo
07-19-2011, 06:26 PM
I would say make a cluster server with 9 servers meaning 9 land continents and then all are connected to each other.

When one continent is allied or under 1 player rule, he can then advance to a 2nd continent etc.

Would make the games last longer.

Lets say, a ultimate challange. if its 100 player per continent a clustered 9 continent would mean 900 players in one world. The beauty in that is, you can make bigger and bigger worlds the more famous this game becomes. a small world games always are ... small... not epic.

Meaning it would look like this:

X X X
X X X
X X X


/Bloodlance


Sounds like a complex multiplayer version of Powermonger (old game for pc made by Bullfrog in 1990 using the Populous engine)... :cool:

Mad Mungo