• Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

Sci-Fi Multiplayer Tactical Game

This topic is 880 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

My team is currently trying think out an idea for a good game. But we aren't able to select one. So I decided to post one of the ideas to get an unbiased feedback on it.
But first I feel I should give some information -
The Team
2 Programmers
2 3D Modellers
1 Sound and 2D Artist
The Game Engine - Unreal Engine 4

The Idea
The idea is basically a 10 vs 10 sci-fi multiplayer shooter game lasting two rounds and the maximum time to complete both rounds is 20 minutes.
The maps will be simple with only natural terrain set on different planets.
Now the most important part -
Gameplay
As soon as you join the game, you will be in a team of friends or random players (your choice) against another team. As soon as round one starts you will either have to defend a base of destroy the enemy base. If you get to defend the base then in the first 3 minutes all the players will be given a certain amount of resources to get the weapons of choice while communicating with the team thus removing the need of Classes and resources will also be uses to purchase a variety of equipment to defend the fortress. While doing so the base will be shown in a top down perspective for better tactics and the other team will also get equal resources to buy equipment for a offensive.
The Equipment for Bases -
Turrets
Auto-Turrets
Force Field
Missile Launcher
Different types of robots

The Equipment for the Offensive
Land and Aerial Vehicles with Firepower
Different types of robots

It's clear that the defenders have a slight advantage here and in order to balance it the Attackers will have slightly better weapons and robots.

If one player dies in a round he won't respawn until the next round with each round excluding planning lasting 7 minutes.

The the second round the roles of both team will be reversed.
The Defenders will win if all enemies die or if they survive for 7 minutes.
The Attackers will win if they destroy the power source of the base or kill every enemy.

That's it.
Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

That's a really long time to wait around after you die, and sounds like a long round time for players getting only a single death. I liked the single death rounds back when I played Gears of war, but I think those rounds were generally around a minute or two, so you usually didn't have much time to wait if you died early in a round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a really long time to wait around after you die, and sounds like a long round time for players getting only a single death. I liked the single death rounds back when I played Gears of war, but I think those rounds were generally around a minute or two, so you usually didn't have much time to wait if you died early in a round.


I think you have a valid concern but honestly I believe by the time the Attackers manage to destroy the outer defences 3-4 minutes would've passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if a player dies while attacking or defending the outer defenses, they'll either be bored for the next several minutes, or quit rather than waiting for the next round. But maybe this is just a small detail that you can adjust as needed in development. What's more important is probably the smaller scale of what players will be doing, moment to moment. First, shooting defenses or whatever you're doing has to be fun. If it isn't, the structure of the multiplayer doesn't really matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I think you have a valid concern but honestly I believe by the time the Attackers manage to destroy the outer defences 3-4 minutes would've passed.

Halo 5 uses 20 second respawns in the co-op campaign, and that's already a punishingly long time. Destiny's 30 second respawns in co-op are a source of endless frustration. In both of these case, allies can revive you almost immediately if they are close by, and players have significant shields (encounters with an opponent are rarely fatal).

 

In competitive multiplayer, both of those games use 5 second respawns. And that's enough to make the game feel very slow-paced compared to games like CoD: Black Ops II (which has instant respawn).

 

I'd suggest you prototype the core game before making decision about things like respawn timers - you are likely to find that any decision you make before being able to playtest the game are prone to be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in Q3A clan-arena you can die early and then watch your team fighting the other team. somehow it doesn't feel frustrating, although it tickles your fingers to fight again when you see the stream from the point of view of a team mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking an interesting mechanic might be a capture the flag style "taking the map by pieces" game where you have flags and mini-flags, in this scifi case you have a turret which is the flag (you own an area if you own the turret in it's center, that's why you own it) but you also have mini-flags which are one or more generators which power the turret which are spread around in defendable positions. It's debatable how many generators need to be up for the turret to work, only one, half or all of them have their own gameplay advantages, you could experiment with that. But once the turret is offline that's when the enemy players would be capable of moving up on the turret and capturing it for themselves..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking an interesting mechanic might be a capture the flag style "taking the map by pieces" game where you have flags and mini-flags, in this scifi case you have a turret which is the flag (you own an area if you own the turret in it's center, that's why you own it) but you also have mini-flags which are one or more generators which power the turret which are spread around in defendable positions. It's debatable how many generators need to be up for the turret to work, only one, half or all of them have their own gameplay advantages, you could experiment with that. But once the turret is offline that's when the enemy players would be capable of moving up on the turret and capturing it for themselves..

That's basically planetside 2 at a smaller scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't sound like a very throughly thought out game design. What's the hook? Even if i try to imagine the concept fully fleshed out very polished in the indie-context, it just sounds generic.

 

Robots, turrets, forcefields, and I'm guessing lasers and hover-vehicles. All very standard fare and uninteresting unless it's wrapped up in a several-million dollar budget in a very fleshed out universe.

 

Compare:

1) A tower defense game set in a fantasy kingdom. Play as a wizard, warrior, or amazon. Cast powerful spells to defeat your foes!

 

2) A tower defense game set in a world controlled by cannibalistic rabbit mutants. Barf acid at your enemies and desecrate their corpse!

 

I'm not too interested in tower-defense, but if i can play as a acid-barfing rabbit mutant, it might be good for a chuckle. The concept might immediately turn off half the people that read it, but the rest might be motivated enough to try it out. 

 

It doesn't have to be goofy, just something that isn't generic. There are plenty of possible twists, and indies-not being big companies controlled by politics, investors, and public perception have a lot more freedom to push boundaries and to pursue ideas that would be immediately shot in the face by corporate in a AAA setting. If your team can find something really unique that you all believe in, you'll be much more likely to finish it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't sound like a very throughly thought out game design. What's the hook? Even if i try to imagine the concept fully fleshed out very polished in the indie-context, it just sounds generic.

Robots, turrets, forcefields, and I'm guessing lasers and hover-vehicles. All very standard fare and uninteresting unless it's wrapped up in a several-million dollar budget in a very fleshed out universe.

Compare:
1) A tower defense game set in a fantasy kingdom. Play as a wizard, warrior, or amazon. Cast powerful spells to defeat your foes!

2) A tower defense game set in a world controlled by cannibalistic rabbit mutants. Barf acid at your enemies and desecrate their corpse!

I'm not too interested in tower-defense, but if i can play as a acid-barfing rabbit mutant, it might be good for a chuckle. The concept might immediately turn off half the people that read it, but the rest might be motivated enough to try it out.

It doesn't have to be goofy, just something that isn't generic. There are plenty of possible twists, and indies-not being big companies controlled by politics, investors, and public perception have a lot more freedom to push boundaries and to pursue ideas that would be immediately shot in the face by corporate in a AAA setting. If your team can find something really unique that you all believe in, you'll be much more likely to finish it too.

There is a unique idea which can be found here-
http://www.gamedev.net/topic/673266-into-the-mind-feedback/?p=5262433
Please take a look at it if you can.
PS - That is the biggest problem between Fantasy and SciFi games. Like a spaceship, there are hundreds of them built previously by AAA companies while in fantasy you can create a multitude of creatures as vehicles never seen before.

Share this post


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

  • Advertisement