Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
toasterthegamer

Game idea..

This topic is 3898 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Hey everyone I've been thinking about a game I would like to try and make. Here's what I got so far: Teams... You can have up to 4 teams with a max of 32 player on one server. That means 16 to 8 players per team. You'll have color coded teams IE team 1 = blue team 2 = red team 3 = green and team 4 = yellow Teams must rely on other team memebers to win a round. If you die you automaticly respawn as well. Ranks... Ranks depends on your frag score and capture the flag/point score. The higher your score the higher your rank. That score is called your rank points. Rank 1: 0 rank points = Basic semi auto machine gunner or Medic Rank 2: 40 rank points = Heavy Machine Gunner Rank 3: 80 rank points = Rocket Launcher or flame thrower. Rank 4: 120 rank points = Sniper Rifle Gameplay... The over all concept will be a FPS except cartoony. There will be differant weapons based on your class. Also to get a heavy Machine Gun you need to advance your level to get it. Then so on and so on with sniper being the top dog. Some of the Classes I thought up of are: 1. Basic semi auto machine gunner for light faster player. 2. Heavy Machine Gunner for heaver more damaging players. 3. Flame Thrower is inbetween a Heavy Machine Gunner and semi auto machine gunner. 4. Rocket Launcher They provide support for the rest of the team and blow up large ammounts of crap. 5. Sniper they also provide support for the team from long range. 6. Medic they patch people up and can shoot people with a really super light semi auto machine gun. The types of games you can play range from capture the flag to frontal assualt death match and team death match. 1. Capture the flag gives the team two flags in the normal style capture the flag game. 2. Frontal assualt is two or more teams have bases and there are capture points. Capture a point to gather score over so many minutes the team with the most score wins the round. 3. Death match is the person with the most kills wins the round. 4. Team Death match is also based on kills and the team with the most kills wins the match as well. Please like give me lots of ideas some ways to make this better. I am kinda basing my game idea around these models I found. http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/327513 Please try to go for unique ideas as I've already covered most of the basics. Thanks for all the input! -Toaster [Edited by - toasterthegamer on January 15, 2008 12:02:42 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Quote:
Original post by toasterthegamer
Teams must rely on other team memebers to win a round.

What game-play features are going to force players to rely on each other?
E.g. TF2 forces team cooperation because each class has a weaknesses as well as strengths (i.e. the classes are complementary).
I only ask because back when I made HL1 mods, every second mod team seemed to be making a team-based FPS where team-play would be required to win, but hardly any of them actually explained why team-play would actually be required, and in fact in many of these mods an unorganised but skillful team could easily beat a co-operative team...

Quote:
Original post by toasterthegamer
Ranks depends on your frag score and capture the flag/point score. The higher your score the higher your rank. That score is called your rank points.

Rank 1: 0 rank points = Basic semi auto machine gunner or Medic
Rank 2: 40 rank points = Heavy Machine Gunner
Rank 3: 80 rank points = Rocket Launcher or flame thrower.
Rank 4: 120 rank points = Sniper Rifle

I'm not a big fan of this style of game-play, because once a team starts winning, their chances of losing drastically decrease.
For example, two rank one players have a 50/50 chance of killing each other.
If one advances to rank two, then it may be a 70/30 chance, then if he advances to rank 3 it may be a 90/10 chance.
Not long after starting to win, the winning team cannot possibly lose because they all have rockets while their enemies all have SMGs...

I think it's much more fun to reverse the ranking order (i.e. start with good weapons, end up with crap weapons), so that the rate of change in a players ownage is not exponential anymore.
E.g. two rank 1 players start with rocket launchers, so they should each have a 50% chance of winning.
If one of those player is more skilled they will advance through the ranks quicker, and with each rank advancement they get a crappier weapon. If someone sucks at the game, they get to keep their powerful weapon, which puts them at an advantage over the skilled players.
This keeps the playing field pretty even, coz if someone gets really far ahead in points then everyone else gets a chance to catch up to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, actually the SMG would have the advantages of accuracy, and close range capability. You don't want to point blank a rocket launcher. You might get them, but it'll get you too.

As long as you have the choice of whether to use x or y weapons, and each weapon is clearly specialized n some way, it could work. Going WWII, that means the Panzershrek wouldn't be all that great except vs armor, or in long hallways where it could have a chance of hitting with the range to keep the player from the blast. Somewhat ahistorical, but I don't think there were any anti-infantry rockets in those days. Then again, I can't think of any hand-held anti-infantry ones today either.

A bolt action rifle would be good at range in open areas, while a SMG would be devastating in close quarters; useless where the bolt gun shines. A semi-auto like the M1 Garand would rest between them.

I say offer a good choice in weapons/classes early on, but allow better weapons to be unlocked the more rounds you run in a single match and the better you are. i.e. For the British you could start them with the Sten gun, M1917 Enfield (5 shot Mauser derivative basically), and Bren LMG; at higher levels they could get the Thompson SMG (50 round drums or more powerful, take your pick), the SMLE/No 4 mk 1 (10 shot bolt gun that could reach over 30 rounds/minuet in the hands of a trained rifleman), The No5 Jungle Carbine (shortened variant of the SMLE/no4mk1) M1919 LMG (US deployable LMG, not sure if the Brits used it or not...)

Of course, I am using WWII as an example, since I have a fair bit of knowledge in that area. Use whatever is appropriate to your setting, or make it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
even if the weapons have realistic strengths and weakness rather than B is stronger than A and C stronger than B the points system feels like a shallow excuse for grinding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the replies so far! :) No matter which way I have the point system both sides will get mad. Say for instance you have it so that Rank 1 is rocket launcher and sniper rifle along with all the other guns. That means that when you get to rank 4 your left with either being a medic or being a semi auto machine gunner which would suck for most experienced players. If you have the way I have it sure some people who cant play very good are just going to suck but thats why you have different servers. IE the n00b server and then you got your veterans server for all the elite players. I could just get rid of the rank system and just have it so you can select but then wheres the challenge of building your skill up and getting new weapons? Also if you have the SMG verses the sniper when your point blank range its pretty clear who should win. Its all about tacts. Oh and i am not saying one your reach rank 4 you cant be a SMG player anymore. When your rank goes up you can still use all the weapons you could before in the past. These are all things that need to be thought over. It might be the rank points idea kinda sucks. :P I think a balance of everything should be good though? Also can anyone think up of any unique gameplay types like capture the flag can be fun buts its in like every game. I want something different new that will appeal to the player.

-Toaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm making these up as I'm writing this, so I apologize if they are crappy. I'm in the same boat as you though, I'm tired of playing Capture the Flag in every single FPS.


~Some kind of game that there is a negative effect on you or your team whenever you kill an enemy. (Not as in a way to make teams not want to kill each other, but in a way that they have to be careful when they do.)

E.g. Each time you kill an enemy, a small horde of AI enemies start to attack your team.

Or, you respawn with less ammo. Something like that.



~As time progresses, the environment gets more and more lethal.

E.g. Parts of the floor break away or turn to acid, the level gets darker so it is harder to see, large rocks start falling from the cliffs above.



Huh...well, I can only think of two ideas that fit with your game design.

Play Halo 3. It has a lot of very good game concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!