puddles123
04-23-2010, 08:50 PM
Hello all,
I've been avid fan of the Total War games for years now, and I've been considering recently the feasibility the possibility of combining elements of first-person shooters (and the tactical situations that this entails) along with the RTS strategic elements into a hybrid game. Specifically: an Massively Multiplayer Online Game. Total War Online.
Why an MMO?
Imagine all the thousands of units that can be onscreen during a big Total War-esque pitched battle. Imagine the ability to select one of the squads of units and to zooooom into the shoes of one of the warriors. Then, through your own individual prowess in battle, you can help win the engagement from the ground level, in a first-person mode. Imagine taking the shoes of the captain of your squad/unit and imagine leading that squad wherever you deem fit on the map to accomplish strategic goals, to support one of your fellow squads in battle, or to plow into the enemy from behind. Imagine doing this multiplayer, with hundreds of other people to cooperate with across different squads and together, to pull off amazing strategic stunts and maneuvers.
Now think of how much processing power a server will need to be capable of to create this sort of game. Thousands of units don't lag the game when viewed from above. But, from the shoes of the soldier, it will be quite the chore to render so many units on such giant maps. And the server will have to be able to compute and register the movements and actions of thousands of different units and players in this 'world'. Thus, the need for an MMO.
And an MMO has its benefits. I would gladly pay $15 a month for such a game, and this would be a great financial boon to the developers who work on it. And the steady income encourages them to build upon the idea and expand upon it.
Now, how would this be feasible? After much time thinking and discussing amongst friends, I came up with this basic framework with regards to how to design such a fusion between Total War and FPS, in an MMO setting:
1. Take the Rome or Medieval 2 Total War graphics engine (for battles). This will be the strategic overview.
Rationale --- Most computers these days can run these engines with little issue. Units all look somewhat similar from this bird's-eye view, which allows for simplicity with regards to seeing how the action is developing, and seeing which squad is on each side.
2. Players will start out viewing the battle from this height as spectators. They can then choose which squad they wish to join in with at a First Person level..
Rationale --- The key is to give the players options with regards to whatever group of units they wish to join the battle with. If they do not like the squad that they join, they can retreat to this 'strategic overview' of the battle, and choose a different squad if they like. This can be restricted to a certain number of squad changes per half-hour if abuses arise from this system of choice.
3. Create a handful of predetermined, sizeable maps. These individual maps and battles will be the entire gaming 'world' for each MMO server.
Rationale --- The maps will be huge, but the fact that it does not need to be a giant, persistent gaming world will relieve significant strain both on the servers and the developers, as they will have less ground they need to render. It will not be a persistent world, as once the battle is won the server will reset to a new giant battle. A persistent world is not necessary for this kind of game, and the point is having fun with manipulating strategy, tactics, and individual prowess, not exploring some giant world (although exploring the map should be fun). By creating a half-dozen or so giant maps, you have an excellent framework with which to rotate maps for each server, with battles that last for, potentially, hours. More maps can be added through content updates.
4. Strictly control the starting places of all squads and groups of units.
Rationale --- This is to make the design process even easier to start out with. Strategic diversity will lie within the various things the groups can do from their positions, much like how you can't choose where you start in an RTS but that doesn't really restrict your strategic options. Each separate map could have a number of different preset starting positions for each separate squad on each separate side. Room can be made in the future for player-chosen starting places.
5. Limit the size of each group/squad to somewhere around 40-60 soldiers. Players can only control a maximum of half a group.
Rationale --- This is really just a ballpark figure, as I don't know if an MMO-sized server would be able to handle more with regards to total soldiers on the entire map. But imagine 10 groups of 40-60 soldiers on each side clashing with each other on a big map. A map with stone walls, sandbags, mountain passes, gates, castles, bunkers, or anything really that changes the strategic terrain and goals. Pretty epic. More soldiers can be put into a map if servers are capable of doing so, but I think 40-60 is a good starting point. As for the player control restriction, this is so that people don't just band together and leave other groups wanting. Those units not controlled by players will be controlled by AI's of varying competency based on the elite or non-elite status of each separate group for the purposes of each separate map. The restriction will also encourage and enforce player spread and, ideally, cooperation amongst squads near to each other and across the map (on your side).
6. Groups/squads will be controlled and directed by their player-controlled captains. These will be the most experienced players (through the leveling system mentioned later) but can be voted out of position by a majority of players within the squad.
Rationale --- This is where the strategy and tactics really begins to enter into it as the big groups of units can be led by players into interesting gambits and attacks. Most people likely won't want to command. However, the most experienced people will be the ones who likely like the game the most and will be more inclined to do so. Thus, their automatic preference for a captain. Majority kick-vote is in place so you can get rid of the retards. Those groups without captains (or players, for that matter) will be controlled by AI and sent in a predetermined path (think Dynasty Warriors) until some player finally decides to take command. Taking command will be made more attractive through use of achievements or increased experience gains that are only made available through use of the position.
7. Make a number of capturable points/items available throughout the map.
Rationale --- Put in place so the map will eventually end, although it will be designed with the goal of making it take a while (preferably an hour or two, or more) to accomplish. Team balancing will be enforced much like a FPS game so that there are no steamrolls. Each side will also have a sizable pool of 'lives' (think 30,000+) much like the 'tickets' of Battlefield games so that a map will eventually end through attrition if neither side can accomplish their goals.
8. When a map ends, those people on the server are put into a chatroom/launch room where they can collectively vote on the next map. They can also choose if they want to be on attackers or defenders (although team-balance will be present). Some maps can be set on a field or something so that there does not always need to be 'attackers and defenders'.
Rationale --- Pretty self-explanatory.
9. There will be a level-up system in place to distinguish players from each other. Level-ups will unlock weaponry, armor choices, unique decals/chevrons, etc. Think Modern Warfare 2 or Battlefield 2.
Rationale --- A level-up system like the one mentioned will allow options and differentiation between players but, in the scheme of things, is largely arbitrary when it comes to utilizing actual skill. Therefore it will not scare off those who haven't been playing the game since launch, or anything like that. A level 1 will be just as able to kill a lvl 60. The lvl 60 will just have a larger pool of weapons, armor, what have you, to choose from. But weapons will have their own strengths and weaknesses that will mean there is no such thing as the 'best weapon'.
10. This game can be set in pretty much any era of history. It can be swords, guns, bows, sniper rifles; anything really, so long as it is consistent and balanced for each map.
Rationale --- Remember Battlefield 1942? With this game format, you would have increased strategic command, much larger battles, AND balanced World War II era weaponry on the individual scale. Or set it in a Medieval era, and weapons can be balanced for the job. For example, something like spear > axe > sword > spear, etc. The possibilities are endless given this conceptual framework.
So what do you all think? Is there anything that can be improved within this theoretical game design? Anything I'm missing that would unbalance things or make it unplayable?
I think that with this idea, all you would need is to spend a couple years making the transition from RTS view to FPS, and to work on the effects that individuals can cause across the map, and the rest would be easy. A handful of maps instead of a giant WoW sized world seems pretty easy to me. Everything else will click together rather easily (at least to my perception).
Thoughts?
I've been avid fan of the Total War games for years now, and I've been considering recently the feasibility the possibility of combining elements of first-person shooters (and the tactical situations that this entails) along with the RTS strategic elements into a hybrid game. Specifically: an Massively Multiplayer Online Game. Total War Online.
Why an MMO?
Imagine all the thousands of units that can be onscreen during a big Total War-esque pitched battle. Imagine the ability to select one of the squads of units and to zooooom into the shoes of one of the warriors. Then, through your own individual prowess in battle, you can help win the engagement from the ground level, in a first-person mode. Imagine taking the shoes of the captain of your squad/unit and imagine leading that squad wherever you deem fit on the map to accomplish strategic goals, to support one of your fellow squads in battle, or to plow into the enemy from behind. Imagine doing this multiplayer, with hundreds of other people to cooperate with across different squads and together, to pull off amazing strategic stunts and maneuvers.
Now think of how much processing power a server will need to be capable of to create this sort of game. Thousands of units don't lag the game when viewed from above. But, from the shoes of the soldier, it will be quite the chore to render so many units on such giant maps. And the server will have to be able to compute and register the movements and actions of thousands of different units and players in this 'world'. Thus, the need for an MMO.
And an MMO has its benefits. I would gladly pay $15 a month for such a game, and this would be a great financial boon to the developers who work on it. And the steady income encourages them to build upon the idea and expand upon it.
Now, how would this be feasible? After much time thinking and discussing amongst friends, I came up with this basic framework with regards to how to design such a fusion between Total War and FPS, in an MMO setting:
1. Take the Rome or Medieval 2 Total War graphics engine (for battles). This will be the strategic overview.
Rationale --- Most computers these days can run these engines with little issue. Units all look somewhat similar from this bird's-eye view, which allows for simplicity with regards to seeing how the action is developing, and seeing which squad is on each side.
2. Players will start out viewing the battle from this height as spectators. They can then choose which squad they wish to join in with at a First Person level..
Rationale --- The key is to give the players options with regards to whatever group of units they wish to join the battle with. If they do not like the squad that they join, they can retreat to this 'strategic overview' of the battle, and choose a different squad if they like. This can be restricted to a certain number of squad changes per half-hour if abuses arise from this system of choice.
3. Create a handful of predetermined, sizeable maps. These individual maps and battles will be the entire gaming 'world' for each MMO server.
Rationale --- The maps will be huge, but the fact that it does not need to be a giant, persistent gaming world will relieve significant strain both on the servers and the developers, as they will have less ground they need to render. It will not be a persistent world, as once the battle is won the server will reset to a new giant battle. A persistent world is not necessary for this kind of game, and the point is having fun with manipulating strategy, tactics, and individual prowess, not exploring some giant world (although exploring the map should be fun). By creating a half-dozen or so giant maps, you have an excellent framework with which to rotate maps for each server, with battles that last for, potentially, hours. More maps can be added through content updates.
4. Strictly control the starting places of all squads and groups of units.
Rationale --- This is to make the design process even easier to start out with. Strategic diversity will lie within the various things the groups can do from their positions, much like how you can't choose where you start in an RTS but that doesn't really restrict your strategic options. Each separate map could have a number of different preset starting positions for each separate squad on each separate side. Room can be made in the future for player-chosen starting places.
5. Limit the size of each group/squad to somewhere around 40-60 soldiers. Players can only control a maximum of half a group.
Rationale --- This is really just a ballpark figure, as I don't know if an MMO-sized server would be able to handle more with regards to total soldiers on the entire map. But imagine 10 groups of 40-60 soldiers on each side clashing with each other on a big map. A map with stone walls, sandbags, mountain passes, gates, castles, bunkers, or anything really that changes the strategic terrain and goals. Pretty epic. More soldiers can be put into a map if servers are capable of doing so, but I think 40-60 is a good starting point. As for the player control restriction, this is so that people don't just band together and leave other groups wanting. Those units not controlled by players will be controlled by AI's of varying competency based on the elite or non-elite status of each separate group for the purposes of each separate map. The restriction will also encourage and enforce player spread and, ideally, cooperation amongst squads near to each other and across the map (on your side).
6. Groups/squads will be controlled and directed by their player-controlled captains. These will be the most experienced players (through the leveling system mentioned later) but can be voted out of position by a majority of players within the squad.
Rationale --- This is where the strategy and tactics really begins to enter into it as the big groups of units can be led by players into interesting gambits and attacks. Most people likely won't want to command. However, the most experienced people will be the ones who likely like the game the most and will be more inclined to do so. Thus, their automatic preference for a captain. Majority kick-vote is in place so you can get rid of the retards. Those groups without captains (or players, for that matter) will be controlled by AI and sent in a predetermined path (think Dynasty Warriors) until some player finally decides to take command. Taking command will be made more attractive through use of achievements or increased experience gains that are only made available through use of the position.
7. Make a number of capturable points/items available throughout the map.
Rationale --- Put in place so the map will eventually end, although it will be designed with the goal of making it take a while (preferably an hour or two, or more) to accomplish. Team balancing will be enforced much like a FPS game so that there are no steamrolls. Each side will also have a sizable pool of 'lives' (think 30,000+) much like the 'tickets' of Battlefield games so that a map will eventually end through attrition if neither side can accomplish their goals.
8. When a map ends, those people on the server are put into a chatroom/launch room where they can collectively vote on the next map. They can also choose if they want to be on attackers or defenders (although team-balance will be present). Some maps can be set on a field or something so that there does not always need to be 'attackers and defenders'.
Rationale --- Pretty self-explanatory.
9. There will be a level-up system in place to distinguish players from each other. Level-ups will unlock weaponry, armor choices, unique decals/chevrons, etc. Think Modern Warfare 2 or Battlefield 2.
Rationale --- A level-up system like the one mentioned will allow options and differentiation between players but, in the scheme of things, is largely arbitrary when it comes to utilizing actual skill. Therefore it will not scare off those who haven't been playing the game since launch, or anything like that. A level 1 will be just as able to kill a lvl 60. The lvl 60 will just have a larger pool of weapons, armor, what have you, to choose from. But weapons will have their own strengths and weaknesses that will mean there is no such thing as the 'best weapon'.
10. This game can be set in pretty much any era of history. It can be swords, guns, bows, sniper rifles; anything really, so long as it is consistent and balanced for each map.
Rationale --- Remember Battlefield 1942? With this game format, you would have increased strategic command, much larger battles, AND balanced World War II era weaponry on the individual scale. Or set it in a Medieval era, and weapons can be balanced for the job. For example, something like spear > axe > sword > spear, etc. The possibilities are endless given this conceptual framework.
So what do you all think? Is there anything that can be improved within this theoretical game design? Anything I'm missing that would unbalance things or make it unplayable?
I think that with this idea, all you would need is to spend a couple years making the transition from RTS view to FPS, and to work on the effects that individuals can cause across the map, and the rest would be easy. A handful of maps instead of a giant WoW sized world seems pretty easy to me. Everything else will click together rather easily (at least to my perception).
Thoughts?