Sign in to follow this  

Game Idea, FPS Steampunk multiplayer

This topic is 2005 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

[indent=1][b]I've been developing a game idea for the past month. It could be my first real game that I will build and pursue fundraising. I'm just looking for opinions for now.

The games a multiplayer fps similar to battlefield. With some RTS elements. The setting is in a steampunk world. The teams start off at a point on the map. With little or no base. The engineers can build structures such as barraks, vehicle factories, and facilities. The objective is to destroy the other teams means of production. So if there are no engineers left and there are no more spawn points they loose.

Resources are required to build structures. I've thought of a couple ways to do this.

1. warhouse structures. They generate resources overtime. So if theres a building being built and its nearby a warhouse, it uses up its resources.

2. Resource areas on the map that need to be gatherd. Just like a regular RTS game. Mining buildings can be built over the areas so they can be extracted.

If someone tries to build a structure that is not near a resource building, they need to bring the resources there with supply trucks. The supply truck can drop off resources and any buildings being built around it will be able to use the resources. I was thinking of an option for the player to set a route for the supply truck so they dont need to drive it. Creating a supply line that shows up on the map for friendly players. And other trucks can join the route.

Any player can get resources from resource buildings with supply trucks, if theres enough. I'm thinking this is a good way to segment out the resources so it doesnt just go to one big poll and everyone fights over it.

The maps will be fairly big. And vehicle driven. Theres going to be big airships roaming around so the map needs to be large enough. I would like there to be no fog so the map looks wide open. It may take a while to get from one end to the other, although the team who suceeds in getting a base up with a spawn point at the other side will be better off. The airships could also act as spawnpoints. I'm hoping the game will be able to run with at least 70 players or more on pc.

The game will be free to play. And people can purchase in game points in order to buy unit upgrades. If the first game is succesfull enough, I can make a 2nd one with whole new vehicles people earn with points. [/b][/indent] Edited by Luke Holden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe make it so that anyone can build and shoot, but some people have spent their points to improve their engineering skills and others have spent them on fighting accessories and shootin skills. So if the engineers are missing, it woild still be possible to set up some barricades and basic building (just slower, less advanced and needs more resources?)

What about having to collect steam from buildings for certain things (for small stuff that cant produce the steam themselves or to pack larhe amounts of steam for storage) and maybe even having supply lines to bring steam tanks from factories to the huge doomsday weapon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Luke Holden' timestamp='1339625042' post='4948948']
[indent=1][b]It could be my first real game that I will build and pursue fundraising. I'm just looking for opinions for now.

The games a multiplayer fps similar to battlefield.[/b][/indent]
[/quote]

If I am not wrong, there were 100+ people on Battlefield's development team. Might be better to strive for a design a lone inexperienced indie developer can complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It might be a good idea for non engineers to be able to place sandbags, mines or trenches. But building construction I think should be all engineers work.


In the middle of development I plan to start a kickstarter fund that will hopefully bring in more people. Also battlefield had single player that included working with npc's and nav meshing which I dont plan to do. At least for the first game. It will all be online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have 5 years experience in 3d animation. So I ill be able to handle the modeling the best.

some of my work
[url="http://www.lukes3d.com/"]http://www.lukes3d.com/[/url]
http://www.youtube.com/user/MrSkywalker113/videos Edited by Luke Holden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Luke Holden' timestamp='1339625042' post='4948948']
[indent=1][b]The maps will be fairly big. And vehicle driven. Theres going to be big airships roaming around so the map needs to be large enough. I would like there to be no fog so the map looks wide open. It may take a while to get from one end to the other, although the team who suceeds in getting a base up with a spawn point at the other side will be better off. The airships could also act as spawnpoints. I'm hoping the game will be able to run with at least 70 players or more on pc.[/b][/quote]Team Fortress 2 has fairly small maps and up to 32 players and one of the best development team on this planet and the game still lags sometimes. I hope you have a good plan how to outperform Valve [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/img][/indent]
From programmer's point of view this idea looks like a nightmare.

BTW, I liked the zeppelin aircraft carrier sketch :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Acharis' timestamp='1339927773' post='4949988']Team Fortress 2 has fairly small maps and up to 32 players and one of the best development team on this planet and the game still lags sometimes. I hope you have a good plan how to outperform Valve [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/img]
From programmer's point of view this idea looks like a nightmare.
[/quote]

Yep, Valve currently is at the forefront of multiplayer networking technologies.

Perhaps the OP could tone down his vision drastically, get a working demo out using something easy like Flash that has a tiny fraction of the features, and then work from there.

Too many people come here with zero game development experience and expect to match industry giants with their first attempt. To strike an analogy: if you have never cooked anything before, would it be realistic to expect your first dish to be as good as those from 3 michelin star gourmet restaurants? Chances are, it won't even be as good as cheap supermarket fare.

Please don't take this the wrong way, I am not being offensive. I think a lot of people would agree that you are producing good art/animation work, and we really don't want you to give up after getting stuck for 2-3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your idea sounds nice, but most ideas do sound nice. The execution is almost all that matters in the end [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/img].

Concerning the technical side of things:

Battlefield had somewhat a big development team, but not all of them were working on the network side of things [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/img].
You can achieve something like what you want with a decently big enough map and good map design, and game mode design.
The biggest problem in multiplayer games with tons of people (let's say 64) is synchronizing everything between all the players.
The trick in doing these kind of multiplayer games is making sure a small amount of players are relevant one to another at any given point. Let's say that from the 64 on the map, you rarely see 16 at a time. So the rest don't need to be synchronized to you, because you don't care what their position is or what they are doing at a certain time. They will become relevant to only if they shoot you or get in a certain range, or satisfy some other conditions.
Beyond this main point you also need to hide the lag between players, having a nice prioritization system ,etc.
You could look into commercial engines(Raknet had some interesting api, I did not work with it directly, but rumors say it's nice), Unreal Engine has some surprisingly nice network capabilities, not as fancy as the ones from valve where they rewind time on the server but cool nonetheless.
Or you can get a coder to work day and night on this [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/img].

As a positive and non depressing example I'll give you Mount and Blade. They have servers with up to a hundred players(sometimes more), with a quite high density of players in a map (unlike battlefield 3 where your team of 32 is spread among a huge map), and the multiplayer feels pretty nice. Keep in mind when comparing to valve's or Bf3's multiplayer or that Mount and Blade was made by a ridiculously small team of people. Edited by clickalot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 2005 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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this