# Large Scale Battles

This topic is 5459 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

##### Share on other sites
hmmm.... it sound like a really large bite that cant be chewed or swallowed easilly.... dont forget that games like GTA vice city already take years and millions of cash to be created. what u propose is even more intense(and fun, cant deny iy :D) but it will be 2 hard 2 make i guess.... :(_

##### Share on other sites
Never sya nver and don't doubt the undoubtful about designing or programming a game or two. Forget about the cash and how much it cost.writing or as it were programming an idea like this is original would be interesting to consider. Just my two cents.

##### Share on other sites
You could simply make battles have objectives. If you are being attacked, you have to hold off the attackers for X amount of time. The attacks have to capture 5 stations in that time to win. You could then have infinite respawns. However, have respawns be in timed waves, not automatic.

To prevent kamikaze players, however, at the end of the battle give them "points" based on their participation. if they went 0 and 50 (0 kills, 50 deaths), subtract from their "rank". Player "rank" could affect what they can buy, etc. So everyone starts as a Lt. or something, and can work their way up to "field general" or all the way down to "peon". This would force people to play as a team and with tactics, because their scores depend on it.

Just some ideas.

##### Share on other sites
Sounds interesting, but a few questions.

1) If you only have so many lives and then you suffer perma-death, how is this implemented? Assuming this plays out in a similar way to a large fps battle game i.e. 1942, joint operations, etc. Then is the player booted from the server when he reaches perma-death or does he just wait for the next match (assuming up to 300 ppl the match could take a long time, a player who died in the beginning might get bored and leave).

2) What stops the player from logging out and right back in?

3) If "sides" share lives then what stops a player from suiciding over and over to make his "side" lose?

4) 300 ppl is a tall order. Joint operations, for example, is promoted for being one of few games that have up to 150 players on a server. How do you plan to overcome those technological hurdles? If your thinking to yourself, EQ or SWG has 1000+ players, then you should also take into consideration that those battles are statistics based battles with no true tracking of projectiles, aiming, etc.

5) who is hosting these 300 ppl games? Your average PC with an average connection won't be able too unfortunately. Will your company be hosting servers? Will they cost money to play on?

6) Other than forcing a player out of a current battle what other effects does perma-death have? Do I gain skill or exp that I lose when I lose my character? Is my player stats (i.e. kills, games won) perhaps tracked via a central server and thus I lose those stats when my player dies? Or is the perma-death local to the current battle?

I think it's a great idea and several games are built on the ideas you have presented. A good thing, as it shows you have your finger on the pulse of the industry. I recommend you check out Joint Operations (a mmo fps similar to what you describe) or try out Star Wars Galaxies (a mmorpg, which will be releasing a space based expansion that also has some of the elements you describe)

##### Share on other sites
A battle with numbers in the order of 500 people, even if its only something like bf1942, would allow for some pretty interesting stuff.

People would be fighting in large enough groups that individual skill would come into it less - if you suck then you'd probably survive anyway from sheer numbers.

Overall team skill would matter, but the actions of individuals wouldnt - the game would come down more to team coordination, yet still leaving players skill at the actual mechanics of fighting a part of the game.

Additionally, there'd be enough players doing the actual fighting that it would actually be worthwhile for some players to do tasks not directly related to combat, such as hiding at an outpost and reporting passing enemy vehicles, a dedicated mine laying mission, or transporting ammo and supplies to the front line.

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by KrizzleToTheZizzlePeople would be fighting in large enough groups that individual skill would come into it less - if you suck then you'd probably survive anyway from sheer numbers.Overall team skill would matter, but the actions of individuals wouldnt - the game would come down more to team coordination, yet still leaving players skill at the actual mechanics of fighting a part of the game.

I know what this looks like. In Americas Army or whatever the game is called now, it was like this a lot. There were only a few players would be so good that their team would win all the time. But for the most part it was a team effort and the skill of the individual was blurred.

Quote:
 Additionally, there'd be enough players doing the actual fighting that it would actually be worthwhile for some players to do tasks not directly related to combat, such as hiding at an outpost and reporting passing enemy vehicles, a dedicated mine laying mission, or transporting ammo and supplies to the front line.

I like that idea.

##### Share on other sites
First off, let me just say that this MMO, if it ever gets beyond the design stage, will be around when there's much better technology for designing games. I'd say if I really worked at it, i'd probably start developing a team in 3-5 years. I have a few other things I need to do to before i start this game. I'd really like for a set of things to start off before a team works on this.

I'm also looking to base this game on a series of novels I'm writing. So they also need ot be finished before the game starts. That way I can build a community first.

Quote:
 Original post by DeadpenguinSounds interesting, but a few questions.1) If you only have so many lives and then you suffer perma-death, how is this implemented? Assuming this plays out in a similar way to a large fps battle game i.e. 1942, joint operations, etc. Then is the player booted from the server when he reaches perma-death or does he just wait for the next match (assuming up to 300 ppl the match could take a long time, a player who died in the beginning might get bored and leave).

If it was permadeath, then they will have to recreate a character (not all is lost, they can inherit money. Since there are little to no skills, building their character won't take long...). Anyway, the lives thing is my attempt at letting the players have a few chances to complete a task. Just so a random shot or whatever doesn't take them out of the game in the first seconds of the battle. The way i'd explain how this is possible is that each player gets a squad of troops to command, more for higher ranked people. When they get shot, it's actually one of their troops, not the actual character. It's only until after the last of their troops is killed that they are now playing with their actual character and the chance of permadeath is now in action. If they get shot to the point that they don't die but are incapacitated (see *** below), they are out of the battle. This is only needed though if the battles seem too quick. If they are not then the "lives" thing is not needed. I'm trying to aim for a 2 hour or so battle for someone trying to capture a battleship. There's fighting out in space around the ship and also a battle inside the ship with the crew vs the boarding party.

And being an MMO, the battle is only happening on one part of the server, their new character will probably appear in a safe zone of some kind. It would probably take too long to get back to fighting, that and they'd have to join the group again and whatnot. Basically I'm trying to balance out having "death" in a game mean something yet not have it too punishing to drive people away. The no skills/levels is almost a necessity with permadeath as someone who has grinded for the last 6 months getting the l33t character only to have to start over cause of permadeath, they'd probably quit and never play again.
I guess when someone dies, think of an already existing MMO and what they'd do there.
*** Also another note on dying, When someone "dies", they might just be incapacitated and have to be returned to a medical facility. While some will actually die and have to start over, there are still many who can continue cause their player was injured beyond playability. There might be a penalty of 24 hours before their player is fully mobile. They might have to go around on crutches before then ;).

Quote:
 2) What stops the player from logging out and right back in?

Another point. You're character goes into offline mode when you're not using them. I think Dark and Light has this. Youre character is still in the game but they act like an NPC.

• 11
• 10
• 9
• 15
• 22