These have been pretty nice suggestions, my original vision for the game had three focuses;
1) The player starts out with very little and grow as they naturally progressed, as is common in strategy gaming. They then use the resources at their disposal (originally, I envisaged a mining/foraging mechanic) to build their empire.
2) The worlds in which this took place would be persistent, and would allow access to other players.
3) Battles, building and troop movement would have a very hands on (as was mentioned before, "spacially represented") control dynamic, similar to that of table top gaming.
Anything beyond these parameters is really up in the air, as the idea is still very much in its infancy. The MMO model was just a quick way of describing how to fit all of this into a connected, persistent game universe.
Also, I would like to point out that Warhammer 40K was just a popular example of the type and depth of table top game that I keep making reference to, as the genre in and of itself is hugely varied.
-
One idea I have been considering is this:
The game could hybridise a typical MMO and a typical table top wargame
In most Warhammer 40K games (even the super battles mentioned in my original post), individual's army sizes were limited by practicality. The armies would generally consist of around forty units, infantry and artillery.
What if the game played out exactly like an MMO, with the exception of the player taking control of , say, twenty characters instead of one. The game would start you with twenty sparsly armed guys who's level and arsenal could be increased but ultimately you were capped to twenty units.
The game as would be tick based for the benefit of managing twenty units at a time. Perhaps minutely ticks?
This itself could go a number of ways:
> Are the twenty man armies persistent (i.e. Still present in the game world when the player logs off) or not?
> Should the players be left to build their own alliances, or should they be put into large factions (Like the Good Vs. Evil mechanics employed by games like WoW)? The advantage of the former is that there would be a more varied spectrum of factions, the advantage of the latter is that player evolution could see them climbing the chain of command on their given side, allowing them to issue missions to lower ranked players and take on missions offered by those higher up players.
Show differencesHistory of post edits
#3TexasJack
Posted 27 March 2012 - 12:36 PM
These have been pretty nice suggestions, my original vision for the game had three focuses;
1) The player starts out with very little and grow as they naturally progressed, as is common in strategy gaming. They then use the resources at their disposal (originally, I envisaged a mining/foraging mechanic) to build their empire.
2) The worlds in which this took place would be persistent, and would allow access to other players.
3) Battles, building and troop movement would have a very hands on (as was mentioned before, "spacially represented") control dynamic, similar to that of table top gaming.
Anything beyond these parameters is really up in the air, as the idea is still very much in its infancy. The MMO model was just a quick way of describing how to fit all of this into a connected, persistent game universe.
Also, I would like to point out that Warhammer 40K was just a popular example of the type and depth of table top game that I keep making reference to, as the genre in and of itself is hugely varied.
-
One idea I have been considering is this:
The game could hybridise a typical MMO and a typical table top wargame
In most Warhammer 40K games (even the super battles mentioned in my original post), individual's army sizes were limited by practicality. The armies would generally consist of around 40 units, infantry and artillery.
What if the game played out exactly like an MMO, with the exception of the player taking control of , say, twenty characters instead of one. The game would start you with twenty sparsly armed guys who's level and arsenal could be increased but ultimately you were capped to twenty units.
The game as would be tick based for the benefit of managing twenty units at a time. Perhaps minutely ticks?
This itself could go a number of ways:
> Are the twenty man armies persistent (i.e. Still present in the game world when the player logs off) or not?
> Should the players be left to build their own alliances, or should they be put into large factions (Like the Good Vs. Evil mechanics employed by games like WoW)? The advantage of the former is that there would be a more varied spectrum of factions, the advantage of the latter is that player evolution could see them climbing the chain of command on their given side, allowing them to issue missions to lower ranked players and take on missions offered by those higher up players.
1) The player starts out with very little and grow as they naturally progressed, as is common in strategy gaming. They then use the resources at their disposal (originally, I envisaged a mining/foraging mechanic) to build their empire.
2) The worlds in which this took place would be persistent, and would allow access to other players.
3) Battles, building and troop movement would have a very hands on (as was mentioned before, "spacially represented") control dynamic, similar to that of table top gaming.
Anything beyond these parameters is really up in the air, as the idea is still very much in its infancy. The MMO model was just a quick way of describing how to fit all of this into a connected, persistent game universe.
Also, I would like to point out that Warhammer 40K was just a popular example of the type and depth of table top game that I keep making reference to, as the genre in and of itself is hugely varied.
-
One idea I have been considering is this:
The game could hybridise a typical MMO and a typical table top wargame
In most Warhammer 40K games (even the super battles mentioned in my original post), individual's army sizes were limited by practicality. The armies would generally consist of around 40 units, infantry and artillery.
What if the game played out exactly like an MMO, with the exception of the player taking control of , say, twenty characters instead of one. The game would start you with twenty sparsly armed guys who's level and arsenal could be increased but ultimately you were capped to twenty units.
The game as would be tick based for the benefit of managing twenty units at a time. Perhaps minutely ticks?
This itself could go a number of ways:
> Are the twenty man armies persistent (i.e. Still present in the game world when the player logs off) or not?
> Should the players be left to build their own alliances, or should they be put into large factions (Like the Good Vs. Evil mechanics employed by games like WoW)? The advantage of the former is that there would be a more varied spectrum of factions, the advantage of the latter is that player evolution could see them climbing the chain of command on their given side, allowing them to issue missions to lower ranked players and take on missions offered by those higher up players.
#2TexasJack
Posted 27 March 2012 - 12:35 PM
These have been pretty nice suggestions, my original vision for the game had three focuses;
1) The player starts out with very little and grow as they naturally progressed, as is common in strategy gaming. They then use the resources at their disposal (originally, I envisaged a mining/foraging mechanic) to build their empire.
2) The worlds in which this took place would be persistent, and would allow access to other players.
3) Battles, building and troop movement would have a very hands on (as was mentioned before, "spacially represented") control dynamic, similar to that of table top gaming.
Anything beyond these parameters is really up in the air, as the idea is still very much in its infancy. The MMO model was just a quick way of describing how to fit all of this into a connected, persistent game universe.
Also, I would like to point out that Warhammer 40K was just a popular example of the type and depth of table top game that I keep making reference to, as the genre in and of itself is hugely varied.
-
One idea I have been considering is this:
The game could hybridise a typical MMO and a typical table top wargame
In most Warhammer 40K games (even the super battles mentioned in my original post), individual's army sizes were limited by practicality. The armies would generally consist of around 40 units, infantry and artillery.
What if the game played out exactly like an MMO, with the exception of the player taking control of , say, twenty characters instead of one. The game would start you with twenty sparsly armed guys who's level and arsenal could be increased but ultimately you were capped to twenty units.
The game as would be tick based for the benefit of managing twenty units at a time. Perhaps minutely ticks?
This itself could go a number of ways:
> Are the twenty man armies persistent (i.e. Still present in the game world when the player logs off) or not?
> Should the players be left to build their own alliances, or should they be put into large factions (Like the Good Vs. Evil mechanics employed by games like WoW)?
The advantage of the former is that there would be a more varied spectrum of factions, the advantage of the latter is that player evolution could see them climbing the chain of command on their given side, allowing them to issue missions to lower ranked players and take on missions offered by those higher up players.
1) The player starts out with very little and grow as they naturally progressed, as is common in strategy gaming. They then use the resources at their disposal (originally, I envisaged a mining/foraging mechanic) to build their empire.
2) The worlds in which this took place would be persistent, and would allow access to other players.
3) Battles, building and troop movement would have a very hands on (as was mentioned before, "spacially represented") control dynamic, similar to that of table top gaming.
Anything beyond these parameters is really up in the air, as the idea is still very much in its infancy. The MMO model was just a quick way of describing how to fit all of this into a connected, persistent game universe.
Also, I would like to point out that Warhammer 40K was just a popular example of the type and depth of table top game that I keep making reference to, as the genre in and of itself is hugely varied.
-
One idea I have been considering is this:
The game could hybridise a typical MMO and a typical table top wargame
In most Warhammer 40K games (even the super battles mentioned in my original post), individual's army sizes were limited by practicality. The armies would generally consist of around 40 units, infantry and artillery.
What if the game played out exactly like an MMO, with the exception of the player taking control of , say, twenty characters instead of one. The game would start you with twenty sparsly armed guys who's level and arsenal could be increased but ultimately you were capped to twenty units.
The game as would be tick based for the benefit of managing twenty units at a time. Perhaps minutely ticks?
This itself could go a number of ways:
> Are the twenty man armies persistent (i.e. Still present in the game world when the player logs off) or not?
> Should the players be left to build their own alliances, or should they be put into large factions (Like the Good Vs. Evil mechanics employed by games like WoW)?
The advantage of the former is that there would be a more varied spectrum of factions, the advantage of the latter is that player evolution could see them climbing the chain of command on their given side, allowing them to issue missions to lower ranked players and take on missions offered by those higher up players.
#1TexasJack
Posted 27 March 2012 - 12:35 PM
These have been pretty nice suggestions, my original vision for the game had three focuses;
1) The player starts out with very little and grow as they naturally progressed, as is common in strategy gaming. They then use the resources at their disposal (originally, I envisaged a mining/foraging mechanic) to build their empire.
2) The worlds in which this took place would be persistent, and would allow access to other players.
3) Battles, building and troop movement would have a very hands on (as was mentioned before, "spacially represented") control dynamic, similar to that of table top gaming.
Anything beyond these parameters is really up in the air, as the idea is still very much in its infancy. The MMO model was just a quick way of describing how to fit all of this into a connected, persistent game universe.
Also, I would like to point out that Warhammer 40K was just a popular example of the type and depth of table top game that I keep making reference to, as the genre in and of itself is hugely varied.
-
One idea I have been considering is this:
The game could hybridise a typical MMO and a typical table top wargame
In most Warhammer 40K games (even the super battles mentioned in my original post), individual's army sizes were limited by practicality. The armies would generally consist of around 40 units, infantry and artillery.
What if the game played out exactly like an MMO, with the exception of the player taking control of , say, twenty characters instead of one. The game would start you with twenty sparsly armed guys who's level and arsenal could be increased but ultimately you were capped to twenty units.
The game as would be tick based for the benefit of managing twenty units at a time. Perhaps minutely ticks?
This itself could go a number of ways:
> Are the twenty man armies persistent (i.e. Still present in the game world when the player logs off) or not?
> Should the players be left to build their own alliances, or should they be put into large factions (Like the Good Vs. Evil mechanics employed by games like WoW?) The advantage of the former is that there would be a more varied spectrum of factions, the advantage of the latter is that player evolution could see them climbing the chain of command on their given side, allowing them to issue missions to lower ranked players and take on missions offered by those higher up players.
1) The player starts out with very little and grow as they naturally progressed, as is common in strategy gaming. They then use the resources at their disposal (originally, I envisaged a mining/foraging mechanic) to build their empire.
2) The worlds in which this took place would be persistent, and would allow access to other players.
3) Battles, building and troop movement would have a very hands on (as was mentioned before, "spacially represented") control dynamic, similar to that of table top gaming.
Anything beyond these parameters is really up in the air, as the idea is still very much in its infancy. The MMO model was just a quick way of describing how to fit all of this into a connected, persistent game universe.
Also, I would like to point out that Warhammer 40K was just a popular example of the type and depth of table top game that I keep making reference to, as the genre in and of itself is hugely varied.
-
One idea I have been considering is this:
The game could hybridise a typical MMO and a typical table top wargame
In most Warhammer 40K games (even the super battles mentioned in my original post), individual's army sizes were limited by practicality. The armies would generally consist of around 40 units, infantry and artillery.
What if the game played out exactly like an MMO, with the exception of the player taking control of , say, twenty characters instead of one. The game would start you with twenty sparsly armed guys who's level and arsenal could be increased but ultimately you were capped to twenty units.
The game as would be tick based for the benefit of managing twenty units at a time. Perhaps minutely ticks?
This itself could go a number of ways:
> Are the twenty man armies persistent (i.e. Still present in the game world when the player logs off) or not?
> Should the players be left to build their own alliances, or should they be put into large factions (Like the Good Vs. Evil mechanics employed by games like WoW?) The advantage of the former is that there would be a more varied spectrum of factions, the advantage of the latter is that player evolution could see them climbing the chain of command on their given side, allowing them to issue missions to lower ranked players and take on missions offered by those higher up players.