Here's a weird one...Basic Idea Imagine you have a game that's played out on multiple levels. There's a world filled with about 5 to 50 cities. Each city is divided into districts controlled by units. Groups of cities make up mini-nations, and groups of mini-nations make up alliances. The world sits largely undisturbed until a player acts. Maybe they take control of a district, setting it to produce something; or send units owned by one city to aid another; or maybe they select a nation and cause it offer truce with another. Whatever they do, the core concept is that they do not own any district, city, nation or unit. They own nothing.Playing All Sides Instead, players temporarily control one or more units, production in cities and special units like diplomats, merchants and spies. Each unit costs at least one basic resource to use (oil, mana, whatever), and an exponentially increasing "control cost" that resets when relinquished to another player. Players have to have both to use a unit. They can spend resources to upgrade a unit to increase its utility by spending acquired resources, but the slow growth in cost will force them to let it go. Players build up control points by accomplishing mission objectives. Objectives involve things like hording the most wealth, creating the most happiness or causing the most mayhem. Control points give players control of larger and larger swaths of the world. When two or more players want to control the same unit or production queue, they spend control points to bid for it. The map contains "powerups" that temporarily boost or diminish control points, allow playing "acts of god", or letting players temporarily take over an entire nation. Okay, that's the basics but this idea needs a lot of work.Questions: 1) How do you think players will end up playing this? I can see them either not upgrading anything or trying to scuttle units after use. How to prevent that? (Or should you?) 2) How would you stop player cabals from trading a superunit back and forth? Or should this be encouraged? 3) What do you think would happen if unit control was based on alliances, but the player switched alliances after a set time period? 4) How would you stop a see-saw back and forth control of a single unit that basically accomplishes nothing? Would a cool down time work? Thoughts?

What if units had a definite lifetime, or could take some sort of damage and be destroyed. Then you can allow the tradeback cabals because if another player has a problem with it, they can start a war over it. I do wonder though, what goals are there for players to accomplish? Where is the conflict. Conflicts are fun, but if you play both sides, its a sand box and the player stops caring, either that or they do still care, but they have the power to run into the ground the side they want to lose making it easy to win.

Sounds complex, but manageable. With something this novel, you're bound to run into horrible gameplay problems that we can't really hope to predict here. Playtesting is probably the only way to really evaluate the idea.

[Edited by - Iron Chef Carnage on May 3, 2008 10:09:44 AM]

You could make the control cost decrease slowly over time instead of resetting it instantly. This way, two players can share a unit in relative harmony (instead of switching it back and forth rapidly), or if a player doesn't want to share a unit, he could just disband it when the control cost rises too high.

I'm a bit worried that one person might somehow gain more and more power. If it gets to a point where one person controls the world, no one will be able to outbid that.

Another possible issue, is if one player decides to change something that the previous controller wanted. If this is a war game, a player might come in and (through incompetence) get your favorite scout killed.

But criticism aside, this sounds like a fun game, and a rather unique take. I'd play it.

Quote:

Original post by JasRonq I do wonder though, what goals are there for players to accomplish? Where is the conflict. Conflicts are fun, but if you play both sides, its a sand box and the player stops caring...

What is the gameplay here? RTS? are the players at war with each other? If the players arent at war with each other then you need to give them goals and conflicts. If you are playing both sides of those goals and conflicts I cant see you having much emotional attachment.

Quote:

Original post by JasRonq What if units had a definite lifetime, or could take some sort of damage and be destroyed. Then you can allow the tradeback cabals because if another player has a problem with it, they can start a war over it.

I do see units taking damage and taking time to repair. So you'd be holding the unit for that time, with the cost rising, if you wnated to use it again. Right now the only way I see of getting rid of a super unit is to kill it (maybe whittling it down with quantity if you don't have quality) or outbidding for it.

Quote:

I do wonder though, what goals are there for players to accomplish? Where is the conflict. Conflicts are fun, but if you play both sides, its a sand box and the player stops caring, either that or they do still care, but they have the power to run into the ground the side they want to lose making it easy to win.

The goals are player versus player, sort of like gods using nations as pawns. I'm thinking things like "capture and hold 10 cities" or "control Y resources" for the length of the game, with the possibility of shifting goals midgame.

What might be interesting about this is how it contorts typical strategy. Typically we think in terms of battle lines guarding vulnerable interior assets. But this upends some of that. Do you want a super unit in your midst if it can be taken, for example? Maybe yes, so you can destroy it if it is taken from you, or no because it could wreak havock.

Quote:

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage Sounds complex, but manageable.

It might be too complex. I've thought about adding avatars as a way of limiting what could be controlled, as well, so that it corresponds more closely with typical strategy. Then a player can see what units are under threat of being controlled because they can see enemy avatars near them and act with their own.

Quote:

Original post by Dathgale You could make the control cost decrease slowly over time instead of resetting it instantly. This way, two players can share a unit in relative harmony (instead of switching it back and forth rapidly), or if a player doesn't want to share a unit, he could just disband it when the control cost rises too high.

I like decreasing it over time. I don't think I want to allow you to just disband a unit, because that is part of the risk of having it (maybe some sort of delayed disband would work?)

Quote:

Original post by Humble Hobo I'm a bit worried that one person might somehow gain more and more power. If it gets to a point where one person controls the world, no one will be able to outbid that.

I *think* you want this, though, because it can really spur diplomacy. In a game like Risk, for example, if everyone notices that player A is gaining in power, they tend to gang up him, leading players to be clever and conservative in how they play because nobody wants to stand out.

This will also depend on what kind of "power gain" objectives a player has. If one gains power via defeating units, players can control his rise to power by creating peace and cooperative alliances.

Quote:

Another possible issue, is if one player decides to change something that the previous controller wanted. If this is a war game, a player might come in and (through incompetence) get your favorite scout killed.

Yes, excellent point. I want the player to think about this beforehand, maybe with the help of some kind of quick measuring tool in the interface. So if they're moving a huge army against another player, they have to think, "Will I be able to control these guys long enough to accomplish my objective? And more importantly, WHERE WILL THEY BE WHEN I'M DONE WITH THEM?!"

I think victory then goes to those who think far ahead.

Quote:

Original post by JasRonq What is the gameplay here? RTS? are the players at war with each other? If the players arent at war with each other then you need to give them goals and conflicts. If you are playing both sides of those goals and conflicts I cant see you having much emotional attachment.

I was thinking somewhere between RTS and 4X Civilization type game, but with less emphasis on combat trumping all other gameplay (i.e., some sort of treasure hunting as well as trading and expansion).

The emotional attachment issue is a big one. What if we complicate this a bit and add two kinds of power: A reputation level (for lack of a better word), and the previously mentioned control power? The higher the reputation, the more likely that when you control a unit the units surrounding it will help it; conversely, you'll gain negative reputation with the units enemies.

You then would need to weigh what side to join, and the relative strengths of the sides. (Assume that they are acting with or without you, by the way, when not controlled).

This seems to have been alluded to but not yet stated, and it may not be the direction you want to go: but the first thing I thought when I read your OP was "deity".

What is the objective? For you to ultimately choose one faction and see that it controls all of the others? To choose one faction and see that it ultimately is destroyed or absorbed by the others? To foster balance? Unity? Any of these? Something I haven't imagined?