Yes(gernade launchers make me hate...well pretty much everything) and I used to play COD:WAW on full volume in hardcore war and it got really intense. I think part of the MW2 fear aspect is partly the chaotic spawn system. Then again I wonder how many campers camp out of fear of the actual event of dying in-game, or the fear of having less impressive kill/death ratios.
But as you mentioned "Long Term Goals" I was curious how a game could simulate a war, when they can take years to win, and the player will only be able to play for hours at a time. My best suggestion is to keep a set number of players on each side and if players leave and are not replaced you could put a bot in their place.
Also you might be able to give players that instant reward feeling by having lots of big and small objectives to achieve during gameplay so they could spend a small amount of time playing but still leave knowing "Well I helped capture that hill" or "I defended that AA-gun for awhile"
Still not Instant gratification, but its kinda close.
25 users logged in
Proud partner of GDC 2025
Before posting, review our community guidelines.
Support GameDev.net with a monthly GDNet+ subscription!
How to simulate war
1,007
July 14, 2010 05:28 PM
Re: Simulating Responsibility
I am most interested in this part of the topic. I think that it is impossible to have a 100% simulation of war unless you can control the population of players playing it to play it seriously.
Perhaps you could have a seriousness ladder so that only people that are playing seriously may advance to play in the connected world. If you behavior in manner that is unrealistic, the character is demoted and banned in the serious world.
Another way to do it may be adding debts and credits to the player whenever the player does something. The concept here is that there is the player, soldiers, weapons and vehicles. Everytime the player checks out something to control, the player accumulates debt.
Normally in a FPS, the soldier you control is always free. In this design it is not. The soldier you control is not free. It is a property of the base, and the player merely borrows it. Until the player has earned enough credits for the faction and there is enough supply of soldiers, the player cannot get his own soldier to customize.
When a player checks out a soldier from the base, there is a mission attached to the soldier. The player can only earn credits if the soldier succeeds and returns to base. If the soldier is killed in action, the player accumulates debt. Other kills that are not part of the mission that the soldier accomplished are logged, but do not automatically turn into credits to discourage players from just going Rambo'ing.
The credit is a form of trust that the player can perform a task and return to base with properties in good condition. A player needs a lot of credit to check out expensive equipment, or soldiers assigned with important missions.
When a player earns enough credits, he can buy his own soldier that is persistent. A player must buy a soldier to progress in leadership. Progression in leadership gives additional powers, such as assigning values to target, declaring mission objectives, request supplies and so on. Soldiers with leadership roles can check out missions at a higher hierarchy. Each mission also has a value assigned by his leader. (There is a chain of command where the total value of a mission assigned from the top level leadership trinkles down to the lower level.)
When a player checks out a mission with subordinates, the player is playing the role of a leader, and he must complete the mission within the deadline set by the upper level leadership. He posts the mission on the board with objectives and values assigned for each subordinate role. As a leader, the player can buy additional soldier and open them for other players to control.
For example, if the leader player (LP) decides that the mission needs 4 soldiers A,B,C,D, and the player owns 2 soldiers ( 1 is the leader, 1 is another soldier), the player set up the mission in may possibilities, like this:
The role of A is fulfilled by the LP's leader soldier, played by the player himself (this means the leader is going onto the battlefield also)
The role of B is fulfilled by the LP's second soldier, player by another player. To do this, the LP sets a credit and opens his own soldier for another player to control. The that player kills his soldier, that player would accumulate debt, and the LP will lose his soldier (but cannot request any compensation). Otherwise everyone is happy.
For the role of C, the LP checks out a soldier from the base and allows another player to control it. (This is the cheaper method compared to B, but the supply of soldiers at the base varies.)
For D, the LP opens the role for a player that owns a soldier to join the team. (This is the best situation because the LP is taking less risk. But if the supply of soldiers at base is limited, the supply of player-owned-soldiers is even more limited.)
The same goes for weapons, equipments, vehicles and bases. A player can either borrow or buy them, and the player that owns the properties can issue them for other players to control. So if you are a General, and you have 100 tanks and you borrowed 200 more from the base, you are responsible for all of them and the flow in your debt/credit balance is huge.
However, you can also be a player that just be a pilot without owning any soldier nor pilot. Everytime you play, you just check out a pilot with no owner. You can always play training, but you cannot control when you can fight for real because you have no power to initiate the missions. You don't have to own aircrafts, but you need to have your own soldier with enough rank as a leader, and enough credits to borrow aircrafts and to create the mission.
Quote:
Original post by Parker_H
I think a problem in simulating war in a game is the behavior of the player themselves. They often lack a key element: Fear. ... They dont behave like a real solider who has something to lose, because they just respawn.
I am most interested in this part of the topic. I think that it is impossible to have a 100% simulation of war unless you can control the population of players playing it to play it seriously.
Perhaps you could have a seriousness ladder so that only people that are playing seriously may advance to play in the connected world. If you behavior in manner that is unrealistic, the character is demoted and banned in the serious world.
Another way to do it may be adding debts and credits to the player whenever the player does something. The concept here is that there is the player, soldiers, weapons and vehicles. Everytime the player checks out something to control, the player accumulates debt.
Normally in a FPS, the soldier you control is always free. In this design it is not. The soldier you control is not free. It is a property of the base, and the player merely borrows it. Until the player has earned enough credits for the faction and there is enough supply of soldiers, the player cannot get his own soldier to customize.
When a player checks out a soldier from the base, there is a mission attached to the soldier. The player can only earn credits if the soldier succeeds and returns to base. If the soldier is killed in action, the player accumulates debt. Other kills that are not part of the mission that the soldier accomplished are logged, but do not automatically turn into credits to discourage players from just going Rambo'ing.
The credit is a form of trust that the player can perform a task and return to base with properties in good condition. A player needs a lot of credit to check out expensive equipment, or soldiers assigned with important missions.
When a player earns enough credits, he can buy his own soldier that is persistent. A player must buy a soldier to progress in leadership. Progression in leadership gives additional powers, such as assigning values to target, declaring mission objectives, request supplies and so on. Soldiers with leadership roles can check out missions at a higher hierarchy. Each mission also has a value assigned by his leader. (There is a chain of command where the total value of a mission assigned from the top level leadership trinkles down to the lower level.)
When a player checks out a mission with subordinates, the player is playing the role of a leader, and he must complete the mission within the deadline set by the upper level leadership. He posts the mission on the board with objectives and values assigned for each subordinate role. As a leader, the player can buy additional soldier and open them for other players to control.
For example, if the leader player (LP) decides that the mission needs 4 soldiers A,B,C,D, and the player owns 2 soldiers ( 1 is the leader, 1 is another soldier), the player set up the mission in may possibilities, like this:
The role of A is fulfilled by the LP's leader soldier, played by the player himself (this means the leader is going onto the battlefield also)
The role of B is fulfilled by the LP's second soldier, player by another player. To do this, the LP sets a credit and opens his own soldier for another player to control. The that player kills his soldier, that player would accumulate debt, and the LP will lose his soldier (but cannot request any compensation). Otherwise everyone is happy.
For the role of C, the LP checks out a soldier from the base and allows another player to control it. (This is the cheaper method compared to B, but the supply of soldiers at the base varies.)
For D, the LP opens the role for a player that owns a soldier to join the team. (This is the best situation because the LP is taking less risk. But if the supply of soldiers at base is limited, the supply of player-owned-soldiers is even more limited.)
The same goes for weapons, equipments, vehicles and bases. A player can either borrow or buy them, and the player that owns the properties can issue them for other players to control. So if you are a General, and you have 100 tanks and you borrowed 200 more from the base, you are responsible for all of them and the flow in your debt/credit balance is huge.
However, you can also be a player that just be a pilot without owning any soldier nor pilot. Everytime you play, you just check out a pilot with no owner. You can always play training, but you cannot control when you can fight for real because you have no power to initiate the missions. You don't have to own aircrafts, but you need to have your own soldier with enough rank as a leader, and enough credits to borrow aircrafts and to create the mission.
110
July 14, 2010 05:37 PM
If you want to simuate a real war in a game there are a few key parts that somegames over look. In no order
1. During most major wars where there was a draft law soilders did not want to fight. And because of this they had a pure hatered for the enemy. I have studyed World War 2 alot. In classes I teach the teachers World War 2. And during that time soilders were basically just taken. One morning you would get a letter telling you your life had to be on hold and you we'er going to war. So the soilders who you see in games realy don't exist. An example is in Call of Duty World at War. If you rember from the campain during a secen you see Resnof(Sorry for spelling). Yell at a soilder for writting in a journal his words we'er you are here to fight the war not write about it. That is an example of the normal soilder and the 1 in a million
2. In multiplayer games forget or just ignor the fact that in war you just don't go running at the enemy. There is normaly a position you want to get to and it is a battel of snipers and heavy mechine gunners. Then the guys with sub machine guns come out and start firing.
If you are thinking about making a game that is real I suggest you watch the "Band of Brothers" Serise. The movie realy showes how soilders felt for each other and about the war. It starts at Normandy and ends at the Invation of Berlin and the Eagels nest(Hitlers hideout for if germany became under attack).
1. During most major wars where there was a draft law soilders did not want to fight. And because of this they had a pure hatered for the enemy. I have studyed World War 2 alot. In classes I teach the teachers World War 2. And during that time soilders were basically just taken. One morning you would get a letter telling you your life had to be on hold and you we'er going to war. So the soilders who you see in games realy don't exist. An example is in Call of Duty World at War. If you rember from the campain during a secen you see Resnof(Sorry for spelling). Yell at a soilder for writting in a journal his words we'er you are here to fight the war not write about it. That is an example of the normal soilder and the 1 in a million
2. In multiplayer games forget or just ignor the fact that in war you just don't go running at the enemy. There is normaly a position you want to get to and it is a battel of snipers and heavy mechine gunners. Then the guys with sub machine guns come out and start firing.
If you are thinking about making a game that is real I suggest you watch the "Band of Brothers" Serise. The movie realy showes how soilders felt for each other and about the war. It starts at Normandy and ends at the Invation of Berlin and the Eagels nest(Hitlers hideout for if germany became under attack).
126
July 14, 2010 09:07 PM
I like Wai's idea about building credit as a solider, its somewhat harsh because shit can happen, but also fair. I'd be curious to see if players would be willing to undergo those kind of rules instead of just playing their usual FPS. I think the players would behave much more realistically to situations in the game, and people love being able to unlock items and what-not.
As a side-note you could let people purchase credits to make a quick buck, but I don't personally encourage that, I just don't like to withhold suggestions.
As a side-note you could let people purchase credits to make a quick buck, but I don't personally encourage that, I just don't like to withhold suggestions.
126
July 15, 2010 12:08 AM
Hey everyone, im new to this forum and just saw this thread and i HAVE to jump in. I love the CoD games, but one thing that I cant stand is how easy it is to shank someone, I mean think about it you are a trained soldier and you cant defend yourself once someone comes at you with a knife?! I think that you should be able to defend yourself and possibly counter mellee attacks somehow. To me this would make war games more intense and make it a funner experience.
1,007
July 15, 2010 12:26 AM
Re: Parker, Taitor
Training
The assumption is that before a player would check out a soldier, the player would test his skills (in boot camp) and get a sense that he is a decent player before he makes the investment.
But what should the game do for a player to redeem himself if his credit is negative, so low that he can't check out any soldier to earn credit?
Should there be some relatively safe assignments for those players to grind for credits, such as transporting supplies, or working as a look out?
I think the base level of credit comes from the training camp. So if a player's soldier dies and his credit goes to negative, he must go through and pass the training again. Passing the training session would reset the player's credit.
The soldier the player uses to pass the training session enters the system. Since the player has been using this soldier, the player can immediately try to join a mission to earn credits. If the player success, the player can trade that credit to buy that soldier.
If the player doesn't want to keep going, that soldier enters the pool of new soldiers, that the leaders can assign to various bases, while the player keeps the credit for training that soldier (if the leadership has trinkled down credits as incentive for people to train soldiers).
What if a player can't pass the training as infantry? The player try training in other roles, such as piloting, tactical leadership, repairing/mechanical/engineering, robotics, mine-sweeping, strategy, civil/transportation/logistics, communication, martial arts, stealth operation, etc. What if the player fails all of the training?
Perhaps that is impossible, since that would mean the player can't even drive a vehicle to deliver suppies from A to B. But instead of asking the player to grind for credits, I think the game just try to teach/train the player to be a better player. So the player should just repeat the training (any part of the training), until he can pass it.
For a player that wants to grind, the game can possibly let the player earn credits for training skills for existing soldiers. For example, a player could check out a soldier that is not in a mission for free and go through training to upgrade that soldier's skill sets. Equip more soldiers with automatic close-combat skills and they will become less vulnerable to getting knifed, some something similar. To get credit, the player must find a soldier that is free and doesn't already have the skill. When a player selects a soldier to check out, the player can see what active and passive skills the soldier has.
Since the player must pass the corresponding training to use a soldier with that role, training 1000 soldiers how to use the minesweeper does not qualify the player to play as infantry. The player needs to pass the training as an infantry himself. But doing so will probably earn the player enough credit to buy equipment and soldiers. For example, you could train other soldiers to earn credits buy the equipment you want, so that when you go to the first real fight, you will have a better gun, more ammo, better armor, etc, so that your soldier has a higher chance to survive and earn the credits of the mission.
[Edited by - Wai on July 15, 2010 12:26:22 AM]
Training
The assumption is that before a player would check out a soldier, the player would test his skills (in boot camp) and get a sense that he is a decent player before he makes the investment.
But what should the game do for a player to redeem himself if his credit is negative, so low that he can't check out any soldier to earn credit?
Should there be some relatively safe assignments for those players to grind for credits, such as transporting supplies, or working as a look out?
I think the base level of credit comes from the training camp. So if a player's soldier dies and his credit goes to negative, he must go through and pass the training again. Passing the training session would reset the player's credit.
The soldier the player uses to pass the training session enters the system. Since the player has been using this soldier, the player can immediately try to join a mission to earn credits. If the player success, the player can trade that credit to buy that soldier.
If the player doesn't want to keep going, that soldier enters the pool of new soldiers, that the leaders can assign to various bases, while the player keeps the credit for training that soldier (if the leadership has trinkled down credits as incentive for people to train soldiers).
What if a player can't pass the training as infantry? The player try training in other roles, such as piloting, tactical leadership, repairing/mechanical/engineering, robotics, mine-sweeping, strategy, civil/transportation/logistics, communication, martial arts, stealth operation, etc. What if the player fails all of the training?
Perhaps that is impossible, since that would mean the player can't even drive a vehicle to deliver suppies from A to B. But instead of asking the player to grind for credits, I think the game just try to teach/train the player to be a better player. So the player should just repeat the training (any part of the training), until he can pass it.
For a player that wants to grind, the game can possibly let the player earn credits for training skills for existing soldiers. For example, a player could check out a soldier that is not in a mission for free and go through training to upgrade that soldier's skill sets. Equip more soldiers with automatic close-combat skills and they will become less vulnerable to getting knifed, some something similar. To get credit, the player must find a soldier that is free and doesn't already have the skill. When a player selects a soldier to check out, the player can see what active and passive skills the soldier has.
Since the player must pass the corresponding training to use a soldier with that role, training 1000 soldiers how to use the minesweeper does not qualify the player to play as infantry. The player needs to pass the training as an infantry himself. But doing so will probably earn the player enough credit to buy equipment and soldiers. For example, you could train other soldiers to earn credits buy the equipment you want, so that when you go to the first real fight, you will have a better gun, more ammo, better armor, etc, so that your soldier has a higher chance to survive and earn the credits of the mission.
[Edited by - Wai on July 15, 2010 12:26:22 AM]
126
July 15, 2010 12:03 PM
I agree with you Wai about having to redo training if the players credits fall below a positive mark and I also believe that every player should be able to find a niche in the military system in which he/she could serve a meaningful role, like if the player is a bad solider maybe they could be part of a mortar team or other such artillery. Also they could take command roles if they do not prefer the fighting and work their way up in a field such as logistics.
Also maybe the game could not encourage grinding by seperating credits by the tasks taken to achieve them. Because if Player A spends all day doing meanial delivery tasks, should he be rewarded in different fields? Such as better weaponary? I think the player deserves something for his work, but not something in a different field of work. Maybe he could upgrade to driving a war-related vechicle, but not recieve better infantry weapons. I think that if you wanted to grind for infantry you should have to do tasks related to that field, such as patrol or recon.
Also could this possibly create a steep skill curve in the field of play?
If lots of players grind before they go to battle they could have a serious advantage over a fresh player, and I wouldn't want the new players to have to do meanial tasks for a long time before they could go to battle, especially if they are skilled but hindered by not having joined up as soon in the fray.
Maybe the game could try to decrease this saturation by adding less skilled bots to the battle?
Also I am starting to wonder, should we hinder the player by making them need supplies, such as food, water, and rest? Because yes you can fight without these things for a long period of time, but not as well as you can fully refreshed. I think it would help add strategy to the game because it would help change decisions on where to attack, the base with fully refreshed troops? or the one who hasn't gotten supplies in 2 weeks? As far as food and water go I think the player should be able to play without them, but maybe it could affect their sight and reaction times, but I don't think the player should be able to continue to play without rest. I think you could let the player play for a long time(like 12 - 16 hours, or some decent amount of time) but not forever. I think this would also help stop addicition.
Also on the melee instakill topic, I also dislike that. If they get you in the back your pretty much screwed, but the left arm? come on really? I think if they catch you in the front or sides it should do some kind of a reaction minigame. I think Gears of War(2?) did something like this in chainsaw duels where whichever player could break their b-button faster won the duel, which seems fair to me.
Also maybe the game could not encourage grinding by seperating credits by the tasks taken to achieve them. Because if Player A spends all day doing meanial delivery tasks, should he be rewarded in different fields? Such as better weaponary? I think the player deserves something for his work, but not something in a different field of work. Maybe he could upgrade to driving a war-related vechicle, but not recieve better infantry weapons. I think that if you wanted to grind for infantry you should have to do tasks related to that field, such as patrol or recon.
Also could this possibly create a steep skill curve in the field of play?
If lots of players grind before they go to battle they could have a serious advantage over a fresh player, and I wouldn't want the new players to have to do meanial tasks for a long time before they could go to battle, especially if they are skilled but hindered by not having joined up as soon in the fray.
Maybe the game could try to decrease this saturation by adding less skilled bots to the battle?
Also I am starting to wonder, should we hinder the player by making them need supplies, such as food, water, and rest? Because yes you can fight without these things for a long period of time, but not as well as you can fully refreshed. I think it would help add strategy to the game because it would help change decisions on where to attack, the base with fully refreshed troops? or the one who hasn't gotten supplies in 2 weeks? As far as food and water go I think the player should be able to play without them, but maybe it could affect their sight and reaction times, but I don't think the player should be able to continue to play without rest. I think you could let the player play for a long time(like 12 - 16 hours, or some decent amount of time) but not forever. I think this would also help stop addicition.
Also on the melee instakill topic, I also dislike that. If they get you in the back your pretty much screwed, but the left arm? come on really? I think if they catch you in the front or sides it should do some kind of a reaction minigame. I think Gears of War(2?) did something like this in chainsaw duels where whichever player could break their b-button faster won the duel, which seems fair to me.
126
July 15, 2010 12:35 PM
Exactly, I liked the way that Gears of War did the chainsaw battles. Another thing that irritates me is the way you run around with your weapon sticking straight out like a dummy! I think you should be able to go into some sort of a stealth mode, where your guns are pressed up close to your body and you can peak around corners and shoot aimlessly around corners. I think this would make covering your allies while they try to get in better positions more effective and realistic
1,007
July 15, 2010 04:36 PM
Re: Grinding credits for equipment
I also think that a soldier can only use weapons he is approved to use. So I wasn't saying that a soldier grinding credits can drive a tank when they had never passed the training for driving a tank. I was talking about the case when the soldier can already use a weapon type as an infantry, but the player could grind some credits to buy extra ammo or weapon of the same type. Just because your infantry soldier is trained to use grenades doesn't mean that your leader will give you enough grenades to use. So if you buy your own, you can be sure that you can use it.
Re: Skill curve
I don't think the effects of grinding would be this dramatic. You can grind and buy 1000 grenades, but the soldier can only carry a dozen each time at most. Also, the credit you get for doing mission should be more than what you get spending the same time grinding. So a skilled player would not need to grind because they can just do missions (as in: just start playing).
In my consideration there is no bot except very stationary roles. And when there is a bot, they would be actual robots, so that when a player sees another soldier, the player knows that the soldier is controlled by a person. So for a mission where the leader can't get a player to play the driver of a vehicle, the leader could buy or check out a robotic system to drive the vehicle. A really rich leader could possibly control a completely robotic team using the map like playing an RTS.
Re: The need of supplies
I think yes. And the game would support this quite well because each player can own a number of soldiers, in addition to being able to check out soldiers to play. So as long as there are stuff to do, the player can play. I think the game already has something to discourage addiction, because when the player goes into a real fight, he is taking a risk. If you are tired and you play, you are just going to lose what you have, and the loss is not trivial.
Additional Topics:
There are a few important things I think we never talked about.
o What sort of player would play such a game? Since there are so many constraints, why would a player play this game instead of those with simplier mechanics?
o How do you scale the content of the game so that when few people logged on, the game world is not handicapped by having only robots? Is this a problem?
o Do you think it is good if a leader has the power to assign soldiers to missions? I mean for a certain type of relation, the leader may order a soldier to do a mission. If the owner of the soldier declines, the the owner would lose credits for not following the order.
o How do you keep the world going? It is easier to destroy than to build. So afte awhile, most of the game world would have nothing left (no building, no robots, no vehicles, no soldiers). Will this happen? Should that be the way it goes? Should most of the time there is nothing going on (like in the real world)?
o What happens when one side wins?
I also think that a soldier can only use weapons he is approved to use. So I wasn't saying that a soldier grinding credits can drive a tank when they had never passed the training for driving a tank. I was talking about the case when the soldier can already use a weapon type as an infantry, but the player could grind some credits to buy extra ammo or weapon of the same type. Just because your infantry soldier is trained to use grenades doesn't mean that your leader will give you enough grenades to use. So if you buy your own, you can be sure that you can use it.
Re: Skill curve
Quote:
Original post by Parker_H
Also could this possibly create a steep skill curve in the field of play?
If lots of players grind before they go to battle they could have a serious advantage over a fresh player, and I wouldn't want the new players to have to do meanial tasks for a long time before they could go to battle, especially if they are skilled but hindered by not having joined up as soon in the fray.
I don't think the effects of grinding would be this dramatic. You can grind and buy 1000 grenades, but the soldier can only carry a dozen each time at most. Also, the credit you get for doing mission should be more than what you get spending the same time grinding. So a skilled player would not need to grind because they can just do missions (as in: just start playing).
Quote:
Maybe the game could try to decrease this saturation by adding less skilled bots to the battle?
In my consideration there is no bot except very stationary roles. And when there is a bot, they would be actual robots, so that when a player sees another soldier, the player knows that the soldier is controlled by a person. So for a mission where the leader can't get a player to play the driver of a vehicle, the leader could buy or check out a robotic system to drive the vehicle. A really rich leader could possibly control a completely robotic team using the map like playing an RTS.
Re: The need of supplies
Quote:
Also I am starting to wonder, should we hinder the player by making them need supplies, such as food, water, and rest? Because yes you can fight without these things for a long period of time, but not as well as you can fully refreshed.
I think yes. And the game would support this quite well because each player can own a number of soldiers, in addition to being able to check out soldiers to play. So as long as there are stuff to do, the player can play. I think the game already has something to discourage addiction, because when the player goes into a real fight, he is taking a risk. If you are tired and you play, you are just going to lose what you have, and the loss is not trivial.
Additional Topics:
There are a few important things I think we never talked about.
o What sort of player would play such a game? Since there are so many constraints, why would a player play this game instead of those with simplier mechanics?
o How do you scale the content of the game so that when few people logged on, the game world is not handicapped by having only robots? Is this a problem?
o Do you think it is good if a leader has the power to assign soldiers to missions? I mean for a certain type of relation, the leader may order a soldier to do a mission. If the owner of the soldier declines, the the owner would lose credits for not following the order.
o How do you keep the world going? It is easier to destroy than to build. So afte awhile, most of the game world would have nothing left (no building, no robots, no vehicles, no soldiers). Will this happen? Should that be the way it goes? Should most of the time there is nothing going on (like in the real world)?
o What happens when one side wins?
126
July 15, 2010 05:50 PM
Re: What sort of player would play such a game?
- I've myself this same question,and as for console gamers I'm not very sure if they'd want to put this much effort into the game when they could play another FPS with a lot less hassle. Yet I do think it has hope for computer based gamers because of the slightly more zealous nature. From what I can tell they tend to enjoy games that involve more strategy, involve more communication and large player communities, and can take a long time to play. I could see them forming squads and large hiearchal chains of command in-game.
Re:scaling the content
- I think you could vary the robots skill and as player leave, leave robots in their place and give them their own AI leaders so they'd continue to attack and defend bases so the action truly never stops, also if the game had support over a large amount of timezones you might not have as much of a problem with players not being logged on. Also I think it could add strategy if a group of players planned a night attack on the enemy when they knew it owuld be less challenging due to the number of bots and not human control.
Re:Do you think it is good if a leader has the power to assign soldiers to missions?
-This I'm not sure about, it'd be more realistic if soliders HAD to listen to their commanders, But also Who's calling the shots? I think players shouldn't have to make every thing they do a known mission, like if you wanted to have a special ops unit sneak in and take out a barracks or factory I think a Player should be able to pay them under the table. So I think you could have player made missions, which are optional and Gameplay missions which would take away credits if not accepted, since its your duty to serve your commanders.
Re: World Continuation
-I think this is where the game could include a RTS like feature. I think the game world should start out each side with a main base and capturable bases and such, but also I think players should be able to invest credits into building new buildings and factories. Like if you wanted tanks to spawn closer to a certain point on the map instead of buying tanks and have them taken out there you could purchase a factory which would have to be delivered and construced, and then you could buy tanks from it whenever you pleased. same thing with barracks and maybe defensive forts and such. I suppose vegatation is pretty much screwed and should stay that way. Also I think factions should be able to capture key buildings instead of having to blow them up, this should help preserve some of the enviroment.But as far as Robots and Players go Should the Game Keep each sides Totals of both of these pretty even and just replace them when they die? or let the players control it completely?
Re: Winning
-I guess it could start over on a fresh map and give some bonus credits to the winning side. and would they win by destroying all the enemies bases and characters?
Additonal Topics:
-Team Killnig: Yes,No? Punishments?
-Setting: Is one side defending or are they on some neutral territory?
-Would it include Naval Battles?
-Can Players salavage dropped enemy weaponry?
-Would the number of players on each side be forced to balance or can they pick at will? Are they stuck with decision?
-Medics:Could a downed soldier be saved and used again after a recovery period?
-Could players invest a large amount of credits into something like a second life for a character they care about a lot instead of investing in multiple characters?
- I've myself this same question,and as for console gamers I'm not very sure if they'd want to put this much effort into the game when they could play another FPS with a lot less hassle. Yet I do think it has hope for computer based gamers because of the slightly more zealous nature. From what I can tell they tend to enjoy games that involve more strategy, involve more communication and large player communities, and can take a long time to play. I could see them forming squads and large hiearchal chains of command in-game.
Re:scaling the content
- I think you could vary the robots skill and as player leave, leave robots in their place and give them their own AI leaders so they'd continue to attack and defend bases so the action truly never stops, also if the game had support over a large amount of timezones you might not have as much of a problem with players not being logged on. Also I think it could add strategy if a group of players planned a night attack on the enemy when they knew it owuld be less challenging due to the number of bots and not human control.
Re:Do you think it is good if a leader has the power to assign soldiers to missions?
-This I'm not sure about, it'd be more realistic if soliders HAD to listen to their commanders, But also Who's calling the shots? I think players shouldn't have to make every thing they do a known mission, like if you wanted to have a special ops unit sneak in and take out a barracks or factory I think a Player should be able to pay them under the table. So I think you could have player made missions, which are optional and Gameplay missions which would take away credits if not accepted, since its your duty to serve your commanders.
Re: World Continuation
-I think this is where the game could include a RTS like feature. I think the game world should start out each side with a main base and capturable bases and such, but also I think players should be able to invest credits into building new buildings and factories. Like if you wanted tanks to spawn closer to a certain point on the map instead of buying tanks and have them taken out there you could purchase a factory which would have to be delivered and construced, and then you could buy tanks from it whenever you pleased. same thing with barracks and maybe defensive forts and such. I suppose vegatation is pretty much screwed and should stay that way. Also I think factions should be able to capture key buildings instead of having to blow them up, this should help preserve some of the enviroment.But as far as Robots and Players go Should the Game Keep each sides Totals of both of these pretty even and just replace them when they die? or let the players control it completely?
Re: Winning
-I guess it could start over on a fresh map and give some bonus credits to the winning side. and would they win by destroying all the enemies bases and characters?
Additonal Topics:
-Team Killnig: Yes,No? Punishments?
-Setting: Is one side defending or are they on some neutral territory?
-Would it include Naval Battles?
-Can Players salavage dropped enemy weaponry?
-Would the number of players on each side be forced to balance or can they pick at will? Are they stuck with decision?
-Medics:Could a downed soldier be saved and used again after a recovery period?
-Could players invest a large amount of credits into something like a second life for a character they care about a lot instead of investing in multiple characters?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
Recommended Tutorials
Advertisement