Crazy Idea?
by Brian -Cybore- Smith · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 05/22/2005 (7:14 pm) · 33 replies
I'm aware the following idea would be a Massive undertaking, however, I would really like to know how popular it might be.
A game based on real world political agendas, but on a Universal scale. Instead of interaction between countries, there would be interaction between planets. Each planet would have its own government made up from the players that have chosen to reside on each planet. (If a player chose to reside on Earth, he/she could run for office to represent Earth.) The governments from each planet would have to be voted upon by its settlers (players). This could be tracked via sql or the like on a master server, as could the meeting between governments via irc.
After a government is in place for each planet, the stage would be set for real world political goals and obstacles.
In the game there will be planets that are inhabited and some that aren't. The uninhabited planets could be mined for precious minerals by other planets. These "mineral" planets could be mined by several different governments, if agreed upon peacefully, or a single government could take the planet through force.(War)
Players would spend time in one server exploring their world or others looking for resources necessary to survive. When they achieve certain goals in their travels, such as finding oil or gold..etc...etc.., they would be rewarded monitarily. They could, in turn trade for better tools, armour, weapons....and so on. This would be in an RPG environment. Stats could be tracked via main server.
If their planet was at war with another planet, it could be played out on a different server.....Example:
The leader of Earth could challenge Auturia to a battle for rights to Lavidia.(a minable planet)
Each government would agree to a time for the battle(s) to take place. It would be held on a map based on Planet Lavidia. This would take place in an FPS environment.
The battle could be based on Deathmatch, Arena, Capture the Flag, Siege.....anything the two governments agreed to. The results could be recorded via the main server.
The winner of the battle would then have control over said planet and could then explore it for mining opportunities.
Wargames could also be held during peacefull times as well.
I hope I don't confuse anyone in my attempt to explain the idea. If I do, It has not been my intention and I apologize.
Like I said earlier, It would be a Massive undertaking. Can it be done? Would there be enough interest to bother?
A game based on real world political agendas, but on a Universal scale. Instead of interaction between countries, there would be interaction between planets. Each planet would have its own government made up from the players that have chosen to reside on each planet. (If a player chose to reside on Earth, he/she could run for office to represent Earth.) The governments from each planet would have to be voted upon by its settlers (players). This could be tracked via sql or the like on a master server, as could the meeting between governments via irc.
After a government is in place for each planet, the stage would be set for real world political goals and obstacles.
In the game there will be planets that are inhabited and some that aren't. The uninhabited planets could be mined for precious minerals by other planets. These "mineral" planets could be mined by several different governments, if agreed upon peacefully, or a single government could take the planet through force.(War)
Players would spend time in one server exploring their world or others looking for resources necessary to survive. When they achieve certain goals in their travels, such as finding oil or gold..etc...etc.., they would be rewarded monitarily. They could, in turn trade for better tools, armour, weapons....and so on. This would be in an RPG environment. Stats could be tracked via main server.
If their planet was at war with another planet, it could be played out on a different server.....Example:
The leader of Earth could challenge Auturia to a battle for rights to Lavidia.(a minable planet)
Each government would agree to a time for the battle(s) to take place. It would be held on a map based on Planet Lavidia. This would take place in an FPS environment.
The battle could be based on Deathmatch, Arena, Capture the Flag, Siege.....anything the two governments agreed to. The results could be recorded via the main server.
The winner of the battle would then have control over said planet and could then explore it for mining opportunities.
Wargames could also be held during peacefull times as well.
I hope I don't confuse anyone in my attempt to explain the idea. If I do, It has not been my intention and I apologize.
Like I said earlier, It would be a Massive undertaking. Can it be done? Would there be enough interest to bother?
#2
The different servers I was speaking of was actually one for the rpg part of the game and one for the fps part of the game. Then the third for the master server.
Your suggestion about the smaller, simpler game is the best idea. Expansions are always an option.
Thanks Again!
05/22/2005 (8:19 pm)
Sorry about the confusion Steven. Thanks for the input.The different servers I was speaking of was actually one for the rpg part of the game and one for the fps part of the game. Then the third for the master server.
Your suggestion about the smaller, simpler game is the best idea. Expansions are always an option.
Thanks Again!
#3
http://www.eve-online.com/
05/22/2005 (10:17 pm)
Look up Eve: Online - it's been around for a long time, is a great game, and allows the political aspects you were talking about. As well as wars, economic goals, and much more.http://www.eve-online.com/
#4
This I could see working really well, and is very doable even for a smaller developer... It could even be playable through a web-interface! A 1 to 2 person team could easily develop the entire game theirselves, and the server load would not be nearly as severe as with a realtime action game.
I personally think the first person exploration part is a bad idea... I would focus on either the first person part only or the high level interaction only, not try to do both things at once...
05/23/2005 (2:45 am)
Well, how about just dropping the entire first person part of the game? Have the game take place on a higher level, being all about politics, economics and diplomacy? Planets being controlled by groups of players, working together to make the right decisions in managing their own planet and how to act towards other planets... Every now and then, groups of players would break out and form new governments on new planets.This I could see working really well, and is very doable even for a smaller developer... It could even be playable through a web-interface! A 1 to 2 person team could easily develop the entire game theirselves, and the server load would not be nearly as severe as with a realtime action game.
I personally think the first person exploration part is a bad idea... I would focus on either the first person part only or the high level interaction only, not try to do both things at once...
#5
Eve online is definately right on the mark, thanks for the heads up. Looks like an excellent game.
@Mattias...
Your idea reminds me alot of a game I use to play online that was text based. Awesome game! I spent hours on end playing it. I really like what you've suggested, so I'm going to start laying plans for it.
Thanks!
*edit for spelling*
05/23/2005 (3:09 am)
@Michael...Eve online is definately right on the mark, thanks for the heads up. Looks like an excellent game.
@Mattias...
Your idea reminds me alot of a game I use to play online that was text based. Awesome game! I spent hours on end playing it. I really like what you've suggested, so I'm going to start laying plans for it.
Thanks!
*edit for spelling*
#6
It's a massively multiplayer strategy game, played through a browser.
Somehow, I think this can be a really good way for indie-developers to get into the whole MMO side of things, without needing hundreds of expensive servers or large teams to create content.
05/23/2005 (4:01 am)
Yeah, well, some types of games are really well suited to be played in a browser. Check out this for example: www.alloutwar.com/screenshots/index.cfmIt's a massively multiplayer strategy game, played through a browser.
Somehow, I think this can be a really good way for indie-developers to get into the whole MMO side of things, without needing hundreds of expensive servers or large teams to create content.
#7
05/26/2005 (8:09 pm)
Jennifer Government is a game just like you are describing. You should check it out.
#8
05/27/2005 (8:21 am)
Jennifer Government! Wow, I remember that... that's awesome. Definitely check that out.
#9
Anywho, I'm open for discussion and, even though I've set this on the back burner for now, I know it'll be a large undertaking when I come back to it when it's more feasible to develop further.
As for your idea, please, go all the way! If I could help you, I'd be more than happy to, it's nice to see we've got similar interests.
- Ronixus
PS - Just because it's been mentioned, www.nationstates.net is where you can check out Jennifer Government. It's a nice sim game based on being the dictator of your own government. Check it out if you haven't and come visit Grr Cheese on The Isle Of Pacifistic Atheists!
05/28/2005 (7:29 am)
My design for Universal Genocide is quite similar to this. It's both a War Strategy and FPS in one, focusing on an ever expansive galaxy of planets. The story revolves mostly around an overpopulation of earth and where to go next. It's main gameplay involves inhabiting a new planet with a ship of settlers, meeting new races of creatures and new, alien elements, then expanding your planet. The FPS part comes in when a player wishes to get into the fray of a battle.Anywho, I'm open for discussion and, even though I've set this on the back burner for now, I know it'll be a large undertaking when I come back to it when it's more feasible to develop further.
As for your idea, please, go all the way! If I could help you, I'd be more than happy to, it's nice to see we've got similar interests.
- Ronixus
PS - Just because it's been mentioned, www.nationstates.net is where you can check out Jennifer Government. It's a nice sim game based on being the dictator of your own government. Check it out if you haven't and come visit Grr Cheese on The Isle Of Pacifistic Atheists!
#10
@Christopher- I'd love to talk to you about your ideas more, it does sound alot like what I'm talking about.
05/29/2005 (1:51 pm)
I'm in the process now of putting up a site to better descibe the idea and layout of the game. When I have it up, I'll leave a link in this forum.@Christopher- I'd love to talk to you about your ideas more, it does sound alot like what I'm talking about.
#11
I've done alot of research into strategy games in general. Alot of times, developers setup their gameplay to a solid, specified style. I'm trying to design the game to appeal to lots of different play styles, while at the same time, accomidating to a much larger play area (planetary scale) and still satisfying both resource management and creative gameplay.
I then went a little deeper and asked,"Why not take the player right into the action if they so choose?" Thats when I researched the gameplay aspects of an integrated FPS-style mode. Players can not only build up forces and go out to conquer a world, but also go in personally on a mission and lead their soldiers into battle or infiltrate a base covertly. This also appeals to the story since the world they left behind is now out to take over the rest of the planets, power-hungry-empire style. Players can side with the empire or side with each other. In the earlier instance, players can claim bounties or command platoons of troops for the empire.
There's so much more! :D
Feel free to mailme:ronixus_X@yahoo.com
I'll stay posted for that site, and thanks!
- Ronixus
05/31/2005 (10:27 am)
I actually started the design based off of a Pen & Paper style strategy game I created. I once started a novel on the story of the game, but I've lost it now. There's always room in the future though.I've done alot of research into strategy games in general. Alot of times, developers setup their gameplay to a solid, specified style. I'm trying to design the game to appeal to lots of different play styles, while at the same time, accomidating to a much larger play area (planetary scale) and still satisfying both resource management and creative gameplay.
I then went a little deeper and asked,"Why not take the player right into the action if they so choose?" Thats when I researched the gameplay aspects of an integrated FPS-style mode. Players can not only build up forces and go out to conquer a world, but also go in personally on a mission and lead their soldiers into battle or infiltrate a base covertly. This also appeals to the story since the world they left behind is now out to take over the rest of the planets, power-hungry-empire style. Players can side with the empire or side with each other. In the earlier instance, players can claim bounties or command platoons of troops for the empire.
There's so much more! :D
Feel free to mailme:ronixus_X@yahoo.com
I'll stay posted for that site, and thanks!
- Ronixus
#13
A) Did I mention there's also a single player (story) mode? Besides, when you can appeal to more than one demographic (RTS and FPS), wouldn't you expect twice the sales? Even if there are more playing in the FPS mode, it can be set so you can jump right into play from the start of the game.
B) Refer to mentioning of single player above.
C) Story Mode starts a player on their own, randomly generated planet. As they progress in story mode, they will eventually take over the planet completely, making it theirs, available for online play. On a lighter scale, random generation of a planet can be done on the fly to skip the single player and jump right online.
D) Only partially. If a planet is currently under attack and it's owner, for any reason, gets disonnected, data for the areas of the planet currently in use remain untill either the attack is completed or the attacker has either been defeated or has retreated. Otherwise, planets are 'lost in space' when not available and cannot be harmed. There may be some more research into 'idle' planets. If a system can be set up, persistant planets could become a possibility.
I like questions! :D
- Ronixus
05/31/2005 (2:29 pm)
@Thc-03A) Did I mention there's also a single player (story) mode? Besides, when you can appeal to more than one demographic (RTS and FPS), wouldn't you expect twice the sales? Even if there are more playing in the FPS mode, it can be set so you can jump right into play from the start of the game.
B) Refer to mentioning of single player above.
C) Story Mode starts a player on their own, randomly generated planet. As they progress in story mode, they will eventually take over the planet completely, making it theirs, available for online play. On a lighter scale, random generation of a planet can be done on the fly to skip the single player and jump right online.
D) Only partially. If a planet is currently under attack and it's owner, for any reason, gets disonnected, data for the areas of the planet currently in use remain untill either the attack is completed or the attacker has either been defeated or has retreated. Otherwise, planets are 'lost in space' when not available and cannot be harmed. There may be some more research into 'idle' planets. If a system can be set up, persistant planets could become a possibility.
I like questions! :D
- Ronixus
#14
I'm working on a fantasy strategy war game with complex rpg character building and highly tactical battles. Its kind of like what you are doing as it is different yet has many familiar elements that people can identify with.
05/31/2005 (11:09 pm)
The idea is good you just need to make it. Its just easier for people to make games that are already out there because they can copy source code and/or get people to help who already know how to do that sort of thing. I'm working on a fantasy strategy war game with complex rpg character building and highly tactical battles. Its kind of like what you are doing as it is different yet has many familiar elements that people can identify with.
#15
I couldn't agree more fully than I am. I'm just not one of those who have it easy - at all.
06/01/2005 (4:24 am)
Quote:
The idea is good you just need to make it. Its just easier for people to make games that are already out there because they can copy source code and/or get people to help who already know how to do that sort of thing.
I couldn't agree more fully than I am. I'm just not one of those who have it easy - at all.
#17
In RTS Mode, you play the commander for your armies. In FPS Mode, you play as one of the soldiers within an army. Technicly, any amount of FPS players can be 'recruited' by any RTS Commander(s). Using your own high ranking soldiers, you can even lead your own troops to battle, taking a break from commanding. An auto-commander can take control of basic infastructure and attack coordination while you're away!
Depends on how many places the commander wishes to attack. There could be a few players taking on covert missions into a base, a few coming ashore from a ship battle, and maybe some defending a previously conquered base. The commander and the soldier(s) for hire can work out mission details before the battle and be assigned to any amount of missions.
For the record, units are all soldiers. Soldiers can be trained and certified for specialty missions (covert, spying, rescue, etc.) or for piloting vehicles - wether land, all terrain, naval, submersive, air, or space. The same goes for FPS players, though the training has to be completed by the player (though, accomplishing a mission will give the same certification).
Hope the second has both good defenses and plenty of high-ranking NPC soldiers! A good trio could probably hold their own though, if they're used to working together. Then again, maybe one of the three could go into RTS Mode themselves and provide allied support to his two friends. All three could even do it, then put it on auto-command and go at it in FPS mode!
Remember, the advantage will almost always be with the defender's planet. If they're respected by the population well it's even better! Then again, they could be getting attacked by all 15 players' forces (in RTS)! Remember, the planets won't be too close to each other exactly, and though they may have some long range PtoP (planet-to-planet) weapons, they usually can't attack as the planet.
Only the main attacking forces win the planet if it's defeated. Those that helped are given ally trade agreements and/or a surplus of troops for their perusal from the planet conquered. There could be other benifits as well, depending on what could be squeezed into the game before completion.
As for your suggestion, you don't need to rely on FPS players to help your armies, it's just an option, albeit a good, fun one!
- Ronixus
06/28/2005 (4:11 pm)
@Thc-03Quote:
May I know how do you think to interact between players that choose RTS-Style gameplay and who chooses FPS?
In RTS Mode, you play the commander for your armies. In FPS Mode, you play as one of the soldiers within an army. Technicly, any amount of FPS players can be 'recruited' by any RTS Commander(s). Using your own high ranking soldiers, you can even lead your own troops to battle, taking a break from commanding. An auto-commander can take control of basic infastructure and attack coordination while you're away!
Quote:
Do they play totally different missions, with totally different enemyes and partners?
Depends on how many places the commander wishes to attack. There could be a few players taking on covert missions into a base, a few coming ashore from a ship battle, and maybe some defending a previously conquered base. The commander and the soldier(s) for hire can work out mission details before the battle and be assigned to any amount of missions.
For the record, units are all soldiers. Soldiers can be trained and certified for specialty missions (covert, spying, rescue, etc.) or for piloting vehicles - wether land, all terrain, naval, submersive, air, or space. The same goes for FPS players, though the training has to be completed by the player (though, accomplishing a mission will give the same certification).
Quote:
How about (in multyplayer) a planet deciding to invade another, where the first has let's say 15 users connected, while the second has 3?
Hope the second has both good defenses and plenty of high-ranking NPC soldiers! A good trio could probably hold their own though, if they're used to working together. Then again, maybe one of the three could go into RTS Mode themselves and provide allied support to his two friends. All three could even do it, then put it on auto-command and go at it in FPS mode!
Remember, the advantage will almost always be with the defender's planet. If they're respected by the population well it's even better! Then again, they could be getting attacked by all 15 players' forces (in RTS)! Remember, the planets won't be too close to each other exactly, and though they may have some long range PtoP (planet-to-planet) weapons, they usually can't attack as the planet.
Quote:
Do they win the planet if they win the battle?
Only the main attacking forces win the planet if it's defeated. Those that helped are given ally trade agreements and/or a surplus of troops for their perusal from the planet conquered. There could be other benifits as well, depending on what could be squeezed into the game before completion.
As for your suggestion, you don't need to rely on FPS players to help your armies, it's just an option, albeit a good, fun one!
- Ronixus
#19
Uh, no, only you have control over what you do in FPS mode, he can't control what you do, you are instead expected to follow orders. If you don't, you lose merit. Then again, you could always sabatodge their mission and kill off his men (until he kills you). You are a soldier on an agreed mission, a mercinary. You may be a unit in another's army, but they have no control over your actions.
As NPC soldiers increase in expertise, they gain more tactics and are able to evaluate situations more effectively. For instance, a new soldier in a platoon might be less inclined to duck in midst of a firefight, meanwhile an experienced vet might find his way behind the enemy or flank them at a weak point. Snipers will climb trees, a soldier with grenades will look for a mob of enemy soldiers and blow them all up, or a vehicle. Very experienced soldiers might instruct a few new ones to follow a plan.
As for losing the planet, that would take a while to do, wouldn't you think? Again, it'll probably be impossible to even attack a planet when it's owner is offline. That just wouldn't be acceptible to many at all.
As for your final statement, I do listen quite a bit, which is why I tend to think out everything in detail more effectively. If I do infact miss your point in any discussion, please feel free to elaborate further so that I may comprehend the intentions of your thoughts. I only wish to know.
- Ronixus
06/30/2005 (11:24 am)
Quote:
If cht chooses to use me as RTS unit, he will take control of my movements and actions, wich could make me die as well as make me win, but without playing, because he is playing in my place.
Uh, no, only you have control over what you do in FPS mode, he can't control what you do, you are instead expected to follow orders. If you don't, you lose merit. Then again, you could always sabatodge their mission and kill off his men (until he kills you). You are a soldier on an agreed mission, a mercinary. You may be a unit in another's army, but they have no control over your actions.
Quote:
Well, NPCs requires very good decision making AI in order not to get beated by the worst player and we're not talking about one-on-one fighting, they'll have to take account of various other players and NPCs and "think" about a strategy that allows them to beat as more enemyes as possible with the minor lost possible. In plus, you have to make AI not too strong, giving the player a chance or him won't play your game any longer because AI is too hard to win.
As NPC soldiers increase in expertise, they gain more tactics and are able to evaluate situations more effectively. For instance, a new soldier in a platoon might be less inclined to duck in midst of a firefight, meanwhile an experienced vet might find his way behind the enemy or flank them at a weak point. Snipers will climb trees, a soldier with grenades will look for a mob of enemy soldiers and blow them all up, or a vehicle. Very experienced soldiers might instruct a few new ones to follow a plan.
As for losing the planet, that would take a while to do, wouldn't you think? Again, it'll probably be impossible to even attack a planet when it's owner is offline. That just wouldn't be acceptible to many at all.
As for your final statement, I do listen quite a bit, which is why I tend to think out everything in detail more effectively. If I do infact miss your point in any discussion, please feel free to elaborate further so that I may comprehend the intentions of your thoughts. I only wish to know.
- Ronixus
#20
Next problem: RTS vs. FPS
No. I like RTS but I'm really bad at FPS. If I was reading about your game I quickly move on. Why would I want to play a game where my soldiers may turn on me. "You could just go into FPS mode and kill them!" Wrong. They would kill me. I would have to start over in my attempt to conquer a planet. More likely I would just stop playing. If adding two game type together really gave you twice the sales, then all games would be FPS racing puzzle RTS games with RPG elements that are played on a dance pad. But they aren't because adding more game types gives you a smaller audience, not a larger one.
Finally if you make this game, that is IF you can get a team of thirty or fourty dedicated people, then there would be a huge empire in no time. After a while someone would start winning. Before lone he would have conquered many planets and every new planet that came into play he could easily defeat (unless of course they couldn't arrage a time to fight, which might be there best hope of surviving). Overall I would say this game is a bad idea. You started off by saying it's based on politcal agenda, but the more you talk about it the less it sound like it has anything to do with politics. You haven't even mentioned what the game would be like during a time of peace. During war you act like it would be easy for a team of say sixteen people to agree where everyone should go on a whole planet in order to beat it. Right. This will never work. But if you don't think I'm right then go ahead and get started. I sure wouldn't know where to start.
-Peter
06/30/2005 (12:25 pm)
This is a huge sounding game! I've been reading along and there's ton's of holes in it. In your first post you said planets would agree on when to fight which doesn't sound at all like real political agenda. In your example you said planet A would agree with planet B on a time and place to fight for planet C. Something about that just sounds wrong. Why does planet B have planet C? Did C get conqued by B? What about the players who live on planet C? Do they just walk up to rock walls, use there pick ax and go sell the ore so that they can buy an new pick ax? Is that the game for them. Don't you think as soon as they loose their planet (which they had to play through the one player mode to get) that they'll just start a new one player mode to get a new one? If anyone can just get a planet by playing through the one player mode, don't you think that everyone will be doing it and that no one will just join a planet as a lowly soldier? What happened to voting people into office? Anyway, back to our three planets. So A wants planet C. Wouldn't it be more like real politcal agenda just to go take it? Why even tell planet B? Just go and force the miners to send their ore to planet A. And besides, what if planets A and B can't agree on a time and place to fight? "I'm sorry. Were booked solid with battles for the next eight weeks. Maybe you could come back in a month or two and we'll talk about fighting then." I can't see how even this simple senario will ever work.Next problem: RTS vs. FPS
Quote:Besides, when you can appeal to more than one demographic (RTS and FPS), wouldn't you expect twice the sales?
No. I like RTS but I'm really bad at FPS. If I was reading about your game I quickly move on. Why would I want to play a game where my soldiers may turn on me. "You could just go into FPS mode and kill them!" Wrong. They would kill me. I would have to start over in my attempt to conquer a planet. More likely I would just stop playing. If adding two game type together really gave you twice the sales, then all games would be FPS racing puzzle RTS games with RPG elements that are played on a dance pad. But they aren't because adding more game types gives you a smaller audience, not a larger one.
Finally if you make this game, that is IF you can get a team of thirty or fourty dedicated people, then there would be a huge empire in no time. After a while someone would start winning. Before lone he would have conquered many planets and every new planet that came into play he could easily defeat (unless of course they couldn't arrage a time to fight, which might be there best hope of surviving). Overall I would say this game is a bad idea. You started off by saying it's based on politcal agenda, but the more you talk about it the less it sound like it has anything to do with politics. You haven't even mentioned what the game would be like during a time of peace. During war you act like it would be easy for a team of say sixteen people to agree where everyone should go on a whole planet in order to beat it. Right. This will never work. But if you don't think I'm right then go ahead and get started. I sure wouldn't know where to start.
-Peter
Steven Fletcher
For one thing, I don't see what's so massive about it. Obviously, you're only going to have so much stuff to explore on each planet because there's alot of planets. So you would basically have the same amount of area to explore as any other MMORPG - it's just that the area would be seperated into different planets.
But here's your answers
"Can it be done?"
Yes. I assume you have a bunch of spare servers lying around because you mentioned having one per planet.
If I were you, I'd cut back my design a bit and use 1 server to handle all the planets, at least first.
"Would there be enough interest to bother?"
I haven't the slightest. I don't play many MORPGs, but your idea doesn't sound like anything all that new. Do a search on google and see if you can find a game that you can describe with the same text. If you can, you need something more.
My suggestion is to make a smaller, simpler game. You can always extend it later.
But if you're some sort of tycoon with servers lying around and a full development team, go for it.