PDA

View Full Version : A persistent world for MMO mode.


Josh Warner
07-12-2009, 07:52 PM
This will be a lengthy post that will only get longer as I add to it over time, and don't bother posting if you can't take the time to read it. This is not not something I expect to happen, only that I would love to see it, and I'm just so bored I feel like being somewhat constructive.

A persistent world made up of player made factions and territories represented on a map hosted by Reverie. Each territory would have it's own level and specific bonuses that increase in power based on level, these bonuses would only work within x number of jumps from it, so a bonus from one side of the world won't do anything for a battle on the other side of it.

Each MMO mode worldmap skirmish would give worldmap resources that can be used to capture uncontested territories and upgrade territories your kingdom owns, worldmap resources would be accumulated for a kingdom from regular matches based on resources left/length of game/win or lose. If the winner and loser both have the same amount of resources, the winner gets aprox. 4x the amount of worldmap resources.

A skirmish is a fight between two kingdoms that does not involve territories OR you could make it a lesser version of attack where if you win as an attacker you take a certain amount of level(s) off the territory you're attacking and if you lose they gain a level or maybe just resources. As with territory wars attacking without an adjacent territory costs significantly more.

For territory wars a leader of the kingdom would select a territory to attack from or to chose to attack without an adjacent territory which costs significantly more and within x hours the challenged team would select the settings ie; 1v1 2v2 3v3 etc. and when the fight will take place within a given window from when the attack was launched. Both sides can choose which players will be at the battle, to balance numbers a kingdom's defenders can defend unlimited amounts of battles, attackers can only attack once in a certain period and after they've attacked they cannot defend and vice versa. This gives numbers an advantage, but not an insurmountable one.

In order for an attack to be launched the attacker must pay a large amount of resources, for each level of the defending territory they pay more. After the minimum is reached any more spent on the attack will give bonus troops/resources. The defenders can choose to spend worldmap resources as well to gain an advantage, they also get a bonus to their army/resources based upon their territory level. Capping this or not is up to the devs, I would say no and just balance income and the return on the investment. If the defenders are successful they retain control of their territory and gain a full territory level. If the attackers are successful they gain control of the territory and the territory loses half of it's levels unless you pay several times the cost of each level. Short of successful defenses territories can only go up a level once a day, say 30~50 levels max, or no max at all and make the increases very small. Thus fortifying a small area and letting it build up to high levels is possible and has it's benefits.

In order to balance expansion each new territory beyond the first would cost more to upgrade, and after a certain percentage of the map is under your control you would start to suffer from such expansion and depending on how far over this soft cap you go your territory levels will go down anywhere from once every few weeks to once a day preventing any growth once you reach an extreme level of control.

Independent players are their own 'kingdom' on the map until they join another player or group of players.

Another idea is to simply create a dumbed down version where two sides go at it in an event thing for bragging rights instead of actual territory control, instead of something this elaborate two groups of players can declare 'war' on one another and they each start with x amount of territories on a mirrored world map and fight using a slightly modified ruleset from above. Significantly easier to add, could probably even be done by modders with enough time on their hands, a lot less depth though.

Any thoughts or opinions? I'll add more as time goes on and refine the ruleset etc.

Aametherar
07-12-2009, 08:00 PM
Seems like a Shattered Galaxy clone to me, which isn't a bad idea SG is a great game and great idea that i'm surprised noone else has marketed on, it's a prety open market, but I don't see it happening here unless its a major expansion.

Josh Warner
07-12-2009, 08:12 PM
Seems like a Shattered Galaxy clone to me, which isn't a bad idea SG is a great game and great idea that i'm surprised noone else has marketed on, it's a prety open market, but I don't see it happening here unless its a major expansion.

Sort of, except the actual gameplay will be fun >_> I just don't enjoy the actual RTS portion for various reasons. The whole thing about it really is that it adds an optional depth for people that want it. An MMORTS has it's advantages and disadvantages, primarily the advantages of an MMO are persistence ie: Depth. I doubt this becomes a starcraft in terms of competitive ladder play, it's diehards are going to be the MMORTS players who enjoy RTSes but want more depth, want their army and city to grow. And this just adds something else to 'grow' as well.

Aametherar
07-12-2009, 08:23 PM
Some of the earlier versions were amazing. I think the main problem with that game was developer/publisher conflict, instead of growing it kept changing and pointing down different paths rather than growing, and sometimes in fact degrading. It would appear that in the end the publishers had it, fired the devs and sold the game to another company who has no idea how to make any changes to the game, which is a shame since it had so much potential, and since it ended up on a version far inferior to some of the previous ones, as well as leaving a lot of elements of the game inactive that were previously active. It's a testament that even though that it's player base has remained as active as it has. Like I said i'm surprised no other companies have taken off that formula since it's so simple yet effective. This would be a bit different as it's an RTS but the concepts the same. I think Red Alert has also used something similar (but very lame) in the past, nothing more than a pretty map to look at before skirmishes really lol.

Josh Warner
07-12-2009, 08:37 PM
Some of the earlier versions were amazing. I think the main problem with that game was developer/publisher conflict, instead of growing it kept changing and pointing down different paths rather than growing, and sometimes in fact degrading. It would appear that in the end the publishers had it, fired the devs and sold the game to another company who has no idea how to make any changes to the game, which is a shame since it had so much potential, and since it ended up on a version far inferior to some of the previous ones, as well as leaving a lot of elements of the game inactive that were previously active. It's a testament that even though that it's player base has remained as active as it has. Like I said i'm surprised no other companies have taken off that formula since it's so simple yet effective. This would be a bit different as it's an RTS but the concepts the same. I think Red Alert has also used something similar (but very lame) in the past, nothing more than a pretty map to look at before skirmishes really lol.

Well, the extent of such meta strategy games is... turn based games and pseudo real-time browser games. Very simply for other people, to explain what I want - think Total War where the campaign is massively multiplayer. Sort of.

The stigma I think is that it's literally never been tried for a pay to play game. Micro transaction browser games are about the only games to try for such a grand scale. Nobody wants to stick their neck out on the chopping block and hope it translates well and pays off it's initial investment with a good return.

Esculas the Mighty
07-12-2009, 10:43 PM
Kinda sounds like Rise of Nations CTW ( Conquer The World)

KINDA

Aametherar
07-12-2009, 11:02 PM
Kinda is, except multiplayer style with factions tweaks perks and progression. I could see it being a major expansion adding a game mode, but only if there's a large enough player base to safely add a new mode without splitting the player base up too much killing the game.

Josh Warner
07-13-2009, 05:13 AM
Kinda is, except multiplayer style with factions tweaks perks and progression. I could see it being a major expansion adding a game mode, but only if there's a large enough player base to safely add a new mode without splitting the player base up too much killing the game.

Again, I doubt traditional ladder will attract many people compared to MMORTS mode, and the number of territories can just be changed to represent the interest. Since persistence is already present this is actually really simple to add and balance, and not terribly difficult to code either.

Esculas the Mighty
07-13-2009, 06:56 AM
sorry to go a bit off topic

but my dream is a mmorts in a fulling seemless world

where u draw ur own territories based on diplomacy

but it would also have a extremely complex economy :D

Darathor
07-13-2009, 09:02 AM
Would there be a finite amount of territories? If there are, then where would new players go if all the territories are occupied?
Seems like a cool concept but I would prefer instead of paying resources to attack/defend and then attacking/defending I would want to just attack and not pay all these resources. But that's just me.

Esculas the Mighty
07-13-2009, 09:12 AM
Would there be a finite amount of territories? If there are, then where would new players go if all the territories are occupied?
Seems like a cool concept but I would prefer instead of paying resources to attack/defend and then attacking/defending I would want to just attack and not pay all these resources. But that's just me.

yea thats one that I've ye to figure out in my dream game =\

i only have a extremely simplistic answer haha super huge world

i agree with the resources thing

Josh Warner
07-13-2009, 09:31 AM
Would there be a finite amount of territories? If there are, then where would new players go if all the territories are occupied?
Seems like a cool concept but I would prefer instead of paying resources to attack/defend and then attacking/defending I would want to just attack and not pay all these resources. But that's just me.

Yes, finite. Players aren't meant to hold their own territory, new players would join another kingdom or make their own with friends and expand using the ruleset provided, it would require more to start but it would be doable. The other option is to make it unlimited and expand the map as need be. Perhaps have part of the map under an unplayable faction that can't directly be attacked but will lose territory as needed to give new kingdoms a way to form. The other option is to make the game revolve around the race factions, where depending on your race you automatically join one of the three factions, possibly have smaller rogue factions as well. It would require a different ruleset, but it's easy to draw up.

As far as paying resources, there needs to be some cost to attacking or building up is too high risk with little reward. This is only for fights between territories though, not just regular matches.

Darathor
07-13-2009, 09:34 AM
Hmm, the idea is interesting but I still don't like the paying resources part, to me it seems like its discouraging attacking a lot. If you build up a bunch then you should have an army to protect your buildings.

Josh Warner
07-13-2009, 10:57 AM
Hmm, the idea is interesting but I still don't like the paying resources part, to me it seems like its discouraging attacking a lot. If you build up a bunch then you should have an army to protect your buildings.

It's either that or increase the penalty for losing an attack significantly.

Aametherar
07-13-2009, 11:50 AM
Again, I doubt traditional ladder will attract many people compared to MMORTS mode, and the number of territories can just be changed to represent the interest. Since persistence is already present this is actually really simple to add and balance, and not terribly difficult to code either.

ok well first, I also dunno about the paying resources idea. second, if theres a land issue, it's gonna be different based on day and night, why not just do separate worlds/servers like SG.

As for the part I quoted, this isn't a traditional ladder though, and I personally think the MMO mode will have people go on build up some then go do some battles in traditional ladder mode. Thing is, when you add too many options it still splits up the player base, and this could really draw players away from the MMORTS mode unless there is a large enough total player base.

Josh Warner
07-13-2009, 01:02 PM
preferably it would be the focus of MMORTS mode, not just something a few decide to do and some don't.

zach12wqasxz
07-13-2009, 07:33 PM
isnt this whole game pretty much based on online play where you have persistent kingdoms with set territories fighting it out to control more territorys, and you expand by seiging citys? and if this is how the online game will be every time a new player comes they would just spawn a peice of territory on the edge of the world map enabling a constantly expanding world i guess....... my dream game is like the total war series but way more in depth when it comes to economy and and more realistic warfare and seiges. and instead of AI you would be playing other players in one HUGE world, add in diplomacy and technology and you have the perfect game.

Kire
07-14-2009, 02:30 AM
isnt this whole game pretty much based on online play where you have persistent kingdoms with set territories fighting it out to control more territorys, and you expand by seiging citys? and if this is how the online game will be every time a new player comes they would just spawn a peice of territory on the edge of the world map enabling a constantly expanding world i guess....... my dream game is like the total war series but way more in depth when it comes to economy and and more realistic warfare and seiges. and instead of AI you would be playing other players in one HUGE world, add in diplomacy and technology and you have the perfect game.

I would also looooove this and totally agree about perfect game =).

Esculas the Mighty
07-14-2009, 07:56 AM
isnt this whole game pretty much based on online play where you have persistent kingdoms with set territories fighting it out to control more territorys, and you expand by seiging citys? and if this is how the online game will be every time a new player comes they would just spawn a peice of territory on the edge of the world map enabling a constantly expanding world i guess....... my dream game is like the total war series but way more in depth when it comes to economy and and more realistic warfare and seiges. and instead of AI you would be playing other players in one HUGE world, add in diplomacy and technology and you have the perfect game.

very much close to perfect game

that game will take away many hours of my life

zach12wqasxz
07-14-2009, 10:07 AM
very much close to perfect game

that game will take away many hours of my life

that game would be my life!!!

szebus
07-15-2009, 06:47 AM
that game would be my life!!!

And what about Dawn of Fantasy 2 ? will it be You're second life ? :p

zach12wqasxz
07-15-2009, 11:20 AM
dawn of fantasy 2!!!!!! they still have to come out with the first one lol!!!!

SPARROW94
07-15-2009, 11:42 AM
Heh, Dawn of fantasy 2.... sounds so .... far away. :P

Neotyguy40
07-15-2009, 01:37 PM
Wow... This is almost the exact time of game I am making in my spare time... Except an RPG, not RTS...

Darathor
07-27-2009, 07:04 PM
Wait, I thought it was a persistent world. This really needs a better title for the idea.

Josh Warner
07-27-2009, 11:08 PM
Wait, I thought it was a persistent world. This really needs a better title for the idea.

... how is it persistent. The only thing persistent in MMO mode is the individual level of cities, not anything close to a world.

Darathor
07-28-2009, 09:37 AM
The place of your cities, the place of your armies, the size and level of your armies and cities. Everything changes in real time.

Josh Warner
07-28-2009, 02:58 PM
The place of your cities, the place of your armies, the size and level of your armies and cities. Everything changes in real time.

The 'place' has no bearing on any other player, the 'place' of your armies isn't going to be changing between games, and the other two obviously.

And who said anything about real time, I'm pretty sure you don't know what the word persistent means. I'm talking about things that carry over from one MMORTS match to another. The level of your units and city is it. With my idea, if you'd read it, you'd understand what would be different.

The Witch King of Angmar
07-28-2009, 03:06 PM
If this game is how it is described, not much will be persistent in it. Your armies, castles, and territories will always be changing. I really don't see what the issue is here.

Josh Warner
07-28-2009, 03:18 PM
If this game is how it is described, not much will be persistent in it. Your armies, castles, and territories will always be changing. I really don't see what the issue is here.

Persistence is what carries over, of course during the actual matches things will change. Your territory never changes either, there IS no territory. There is the plot of land your city starts on and that is it.

The persistence is your city, and possibly your army that at the end of one match is saved, and will be used in the next. My idea would add far more to that, that's all.

Aametherar
07-28-2009, 04:18 PM
I was all for a new mode but the prospect of replacing the current mmo mode is a 0% possibility imo.

Josh Warner
07-28-2009, 05:10 PM
I was all for a new mode but the prospect of replacing the current mmo mode is a 0% possibility imo.

-shrugs- either way would be nice, I didn't expect either though lol.

Darathor
07-29-2009, 08:09 AM
I said that those will be persistent, the place of your armies and the levels of your armies and cities. Your armies will move throughout the world. Your armies and cities won't just start over every time you play. I said those would be persistent.