I was actually saying I don't like it to be like that...but I was also trying to think of ways to add to the gameplay so it doesn't become stale, however if you think this: will actually be all that's needed then i'm all for it. Keep in mind, that most of the time, people are going to be ranging in squads or divisions that could grow quite large, so even if there was a general out there by himself, he'd quickly be flanked and pwned. I was trying to think of ways to increase the depth, because I definately don't want people who you can't kill even after flanking and nailing to the floor, simply because you're a newb. So my train of thought was, if you increase the attack power but keep the armour relatively low... But if it works without doing that, and say, you can only get different guns and armours, not better ones, then i'm definately for that. That's how i'd like it to be, although i'm not sure if it would only work in theory.
IMO the MMO aspect would just be way to big of an undertaking. Maybe huge 150v150 games in a non-presistant world but with stat tracking and ranking.
Krenzo, you aren't Blizzard A lot of developers are attracted to MMO's because of Blizzard's success. But here's something you need to remember: WoW was a hit not because it was an MMO, but because it was made by Blizzard, and Blizzard knows how to make good games. I hope this MMO thing doesn't turn into a serious development consideration. This game is buggy and clunky enough already. Let's spend the little time and resources we have more wisely than this.
but what if krenzo was approached by a game developer, that under the condition that it would be turned into "some form of" mmo game, would fund a stand alone empires with a budget nearing the named budget also i would like to contest the fact that you say "blizzard knows how to make good games" i say the current blizzard knows how to make decent games into top selling money cows (world of warcraft is a pale excuse for a decent mmo, and its the main reason why the mmo market is in such mess as it is now) being able to pump enough money into something to MAKE it financially successful (like the Americans often do with things like Vegas hotels "build it and people will come" attitude) does not make it a good product
I don't think he (Krenzo) has any intention of doing this, now or in the future. I think he's just soliciting ideas to see what we come up with, to see how it might work out and what we'd want as players. So don't worry about code or money or anything like that.
No XP, No Quests. Pure, twitch based play. Player can collect, and modify/upgrade their weapons, armor, etc, because I couldn't see an MMO without this(at least a decent one) It's all about the fighting. I would leave the game up to strategic points. Once one faction controls everything, then the game resets for a new war. It would also be nice to see battalions to own their own land/vehicles/etc So if need be, several commanders could operate efficiently and effectively. Another thing which would be nice is supply lines between Strategic points. This way, armor, and better research could be moved from place to place. I see it like this. Your base holds every component. If you want to move your best tanks to the front, you need a supply line to move them. If a supply line is cut, then instead of being able to build them on the front lines, then you would need to build them in base and trek them across the battlefield. Hurry, mines lol. There need to be goals which no one man can achieve to promote team play. Like say holding an objective would take a long time. So there would need to be constant reinforcements.
And also.. without adding something in.. Make sure it would be FPS. No target helping for your aim, please.
The entire thing sounds like a bad idea to me; Empires is supposed to force you to teamplay as NF vs BE.
It's not a serious consideration, but it's the only way I would develop for Empires again, by starting fresh with all that has been learned over the BF1942 and HL2 versions. The bugginess and clunkiness could only really be fixed by starting over completely with a thorough technical design document that lays out all of the code, and that requires a thorough game design document. You would also need the money and resources to fund the development. The HL2 version did have a good game design doc, but it did not have a technical design doc because I made up the code as I went. Something like this is not really possible on my own as the BF1942 and HL2 versions show the extent of what you can achieve with a small amount of resources. However, working on Smashball which is a funded project has shown me how much better development is when you have managers, funding, and paid developers. If Smashball were to become successful and bring in money, then it'd be fun to try to make a real professional Empires. Until then, I'll have fun brainstorming about it.
Tabula Rasa was not financially successful. however, all the other likenesses are genuine. The only thing keeping World of warcraft with a healthy player influx is the fact that they can hire Mr T and others (only Mr t really matters to me) to do there advertising and amusingly, they did one of the best marketing campaigns for a game EVER everyone knows it, everyone has played it everyone "loves" it that is until they play another Mmorpg besides runescape, and realize wow isn't so great after all... then they leave wow but by the time this happens 10 other runescape migrants have settled already
no grind, no xp. get that right, i'd buy it. I would really hate the idea that you couldn't kill some lev 60 guy with your gun because of how long he's spent on the game.
If anyone but Krenzo had posted this topic, they would have gotten flamed to death. :p But it's still sort of interesting to think about. Here's how I'd do it... Players would essentially use command vehicles to form 'parties'. One person would grab a command vehicle somehow, and other people would join on with them in a 'team', either in a temporary ad-hoc thing, or as part of a larger guild (but they could still leave, switch to a different comm, etc at any time.) Teams would ultimately be closest to parties in other MMORPGs, though. CVs would be like a cross between the existing CV and an APC. They would let you use the CV interface in a wide area around their location (but not anywhere in the world, since the world is, well, massive.) There would have to be 'sub-CVs', too, which would let you use the CV interface in a more limited area -- this is essential because of the more hectic nature of a game without two clearly-defined teams. CVs and sub-CVs would automagically collect res from nearby owned res nodes, and store this res internally. This 'local' method of working would make it basically impossible for one person to hold the entire map -- which I think is a good thing. Players would have their own personal advancement and skill trees. Experience would be earned not, primarily, by killing enemies or blowing up buildings yourself (although that would help), but by being part of a 'team' that is doing well -- holding many refs for an extended period of time, blowing up lots of established enemy comms, and so forth. Points for enemy CV kills would be awarded based on how well the CV you killed was doing -- killing a comm that has been in the field for a while, has collected a lot of total res, and so forth would be worth more. There would be neutral zones where players would go to search for teams to join. From there, a typical team would rush out, raid some refs and other vital locations, and capture them. There would be diminishing returns for refs and expansion overall. High-rank tanks and so forth would not be as powerful as they are in Empires, compared to low-rank ones -- after all, new teams have to have a chance. But note that a team would generally be temporary thing anyway -- your CV gets killed, or you log off, and you're back to square one. The only things that are really 'persistent' are your personal bonuses. Players should probably not be forced to choose between making a comm build and making a soldier build. Possibly the skills/perks related to each could use up different skill points, or something. These perks would be fun, but would not have a huge impact -- a player in a LT should always be at a disadvantage against a player in a Heavy Tank, regardless of their perks and skills. This would result in an extremely hectic world where areas are constantly getting taken / retaken, where everyone is changing teams all the time, and so forth. But I think it could be very fun.
At all similar to this game? Exactly the point. Selling the spectacle doesn't work if you don't have anything behind it. Blizzard games are better than decent. They don't excel in everything, such as sublime graphics or masterful poetic prose, but they've got a formula for addictively fun gameplay, and it works damned well. Otherwise they wouldn't have made it as far with the games they've made to be boldly hiring celebrities for commercials. Without the ad campaign, WoW would still be the most successful mmo out there, it just wouldn't get to send out as many press releases about breaking records.
I vote for a semi-persistent battle where both sides fight until one is defeated or a 'truce' is called (say for server maintenance/updates). It should be something where you could jump in at anytime to become a grunt on the front line for some classic FPS fun, but would require time and effort to upgrade to higher gameplay (such as a tank driver or commander).
I disagree, it is now my opinion that you have not been following this from day 1 maybe the advertisements of Mr-t came later, but the advertising campaign is still one of the best overall in gaming history, thats what gave them there initial success, and the fact that people now discover the mmorpg market trough Wow as "standard of mmorpg's" Just look at what the team behind lineage does with only a fraction of the money Wow has, it keeps big, alive and healthy trough gameplay and a solid fanbase in Korea 90% of players that first create a WOW account never even herd of lineage 1, let alone its younger brother lineage 2 this is the only reason why Wow is so big, and all the other mmo's are so small relatively compared, they dominate the market by making themselves the standard of the genre trough advertising, and they do it almost as good as Coca Cola (it doesn't necessarily taste better, its just "the" brand and any other cola is deemed less superior, in fact "cola" is just a lemonade as citrus lemonade or any other lemonade, but if you produce this form of lemonade and don't put "cola" somewhere on the bottle, people will think you are selling sewer water same with Wow, if you don't "do as wow" you are not in the club, this way Blizzard entertainment set the standard, and anything different is a copycat, and is advised against by the average gamer with "just play wow, its the best initiation to Mmorpg's/you wont be dissapointed by wow, while i cant guarantee it with the others" (just drink Coca cola, its the original)
November 15th, 2007. http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/15/world-of-warcraft-hits-9-3-million-subscribers/ November 20th, 2007. http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/20/mr-t-and-william-shatner-in-world-of-warcraft-commercials/ December 23rd, 2008. http://www.blizzard.com/us/press/081121.html Current Subscribers: 11.5 million WoW's growth is slowing in the year after Mr T. By the way, that chart has no relevance to gains made through advertising, no matter how hard you look at it. It's only a measure of the relative and overall success of those MMOs, which could be attributed to anything from game quality to market penetration. You also stated no other 'facts', only claims that are dubious at best. The most real part of your argument is your personal opinion. If you can't fathom why Blizzard games are successful, I would recommend that you take a deeper look into game design and marketing, rather than sourly blaming it on Blizzard's mystically powerful advertising budget.
i was not talking about "Blizzard's mystically powerful advertising budget" i was talking about my personal opinion that World of warcraft's success has more to do with how Blizzard entertainment merchandised it (from day one, those articles only state how successful they were months after the game became gold) then it has to do with it being a better game then any other Mmorpg on the same scale as its client base is bigger Thanks for reading my posts, at least now i know someone is interested
Blizzerd you are wrong to imply that Blizzard's advertising is what got WoW off of its feet. It was simply gameplay, player involvement in the betas, and word of mouth. If anything, it was probably that the devs had a very open community with a large pool of beta players over a long period of time. WoW was the new comer at one time, trying to wean people off of EverQuest (evercrack) and improve MMO game play over it (I remember pairs of co-workers who were Evercrackers staying up all nite---and I'm like what a dumb game). In 2004, WoW was an advance in gameplay. Expansions later, it's obviously now a cash cow trying to impose its business model. You're of course correct about the current advertising--WoW as Coca coal sthick. At any rate, I wouldn't play a traditional MMO ever again (played WoW for 2 months), so I hope Empires wouldn't go that route.
