Persistent world vs. matches

Discussion in 'General' started by duke, Aug 29, 2017.

  1. duke

    duke Former Developer (BE Creator)

    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What do you guys think of a persistent world on say a 64km x 64km map vs discreet matches on smaller maps? I feel like the discreet matches force action whereas persistent could lead to a planetside situation where you need a critical mass before anything of consequence happens. Comment?
     
  2. D.D.D. Destroyer

    D.D.D. Destroyer Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    9,499
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It sure sounds interesting to have a series of games that span a day or more and get played on a variety of different maps before reaching a conclusion, much like the old PUG games evan and co organised. I'm not diving into any details here, of which there is a multitude, but I'm a fan of the core concept.


    Unless you are talking about a single massive map that gets played and then reset once one side wins. That also has a degree of appeal to me, but I feel like it's far less compatible with the Empires playstyle.
     
  3. duke

    duke Former Developer (BE Creator)

    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was talking about one huge map but I hadn't considered a campaign style game.
     
  4. Sgt.Security

    Sgt.Security Member

    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Huge map means the game time is going to be much longer.

    1: Most players won't be able to play from early game to end game, Empires is kinda weird if you don't play the whole game.

    2: Followed by reason 1, the game result would be decided by which team has more good players that's willing to fight til the end. (it's not even "fight", tbh, it's just roll over because there's no one good enough on the other side.)

    In fact, we already noticed these things in our old 2+ hours games.

    I have to say, it's only suitable for scrims.
     
    D.D.D. Destroyer likes this.
  5. PwnedYoAss

    PwnedYoAss Member

    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's a bit broad of a question, but to comment on your concerns about action not happening the precursor to PlanetSide was a game called Infantry Online which dealt with that problem fantastically. Essentially your could "attach" to players on your team, that is you could teleport to them. With the appropriate class or ability you could also summon teammates to your position. This fixed the problem of there being a lack of action because the moment anyone on your team saw anyone on the other team you could suddenly have a group on group engagement of some kind.
     
  6. duke

    duke Former Developer (BE Creator)

    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe a squad power called "regroup" could be added to summon all members of a squad to their leader.
     
  7. D.D.D. Destroyer

    D.D.D. Destroyer Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    9,499
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's already in the game, it's called "Revive" and it can be broken levels of strong at times. Then again, we have much smaller maps.

    But if the response time to a ninja attack is going to be even longer because of the larger maps, Lord have mercy either because a surprise attacked commander will be on their own or because ending a low pop game will be a nightmare if CV survivability gets increased to compensate.
     
  8. VulcanStorm

    VulcanStorm Developer Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would say it depends how much action you can expect per minute?

    Current empires has very small maps, so action is fairly common, people don't spend longer than about a minute walking before they can get in a gunfight and do something. A jeep can cross from one side of the largest map size to the other in about 20 seconds.

    If there is enough transport to get around a larger map in a small amount of time, then a large map wouldn't be so bad. However you'd also need the players to fill it...

    Also, how would a server cope with massive amounts of players? 50 per side or so...
     
  9. Xyaminou

    Xyaminou Member

    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    154
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If people think Empires is a complicated game. A game on maps that big with gameplay similar to Empires would be a hundred times more complicated.

    It's just not possible.
     
  10. Kidpaler

    Kidpaler Member

    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you want the appearance of a bigger game while having intense action, do the red orchestra 2 way of their online campaign.

    They have a map divided into sectors for the city of Stalingrad. Both teams get 500 power that, if they run out, they lose. The attacking team votes which sector to attack, they attack, if they win they claim the territory, lose a lot of power for attacking but gain x power from the territories they hold. Then the winning team votes if they want to attack again or defend, if attack the process repeats if they choose defend, (defenders lose a lot less power so it can be beneficial), the enemy gets to attack and it goes till either all territories are captured or power runs out for one side.

    This setup gives the appearance of a large campaign but the intensity of small battles, which I generally think would fit empires. Plus, then it also doesn't require hundreds of players online to make the game fun. That's planetsides problem now, low pop. Big battles are really a thing of the past. Taking a facility is now a 20 man job when it used to be 200.


    You could even improve this by changing the power to resources + manpower and make each territory captured give a bit of both. Then you could have the "commander" improve the captured provinces/territory to generate more over time.
     
    w00kie likes this.
  11. Sgt.Security

    Sgt.Security Member

    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It kinda doesn't matter how it's gonna work.
    The most important thing is the length of a typical round.

    We either have to make the rounds last up to days (you lose and gain territory gradually), OR, the rounds should last < 2 hours, kinda like now.
    There's no mid point.

    Because it is very, very important in video games, that people need to feel like they've actually done something.
    In other words, people need to "quite often" play the whole game, or at least see their contribution pile up.

    For example, if a typical round lasts for 6 hours, 99% players can't play the whole round, people either play early game and quit mid game, then the game ends without you knowing.
    Or, you join late game and just stomp(or getting stomped) the other team.

    Don't underestimate the sense of achievement that overwhelms people, when he(or his teammate) fires that final CV-killing shot, and hearing that sweet "you are victorious."

    If your game crashes when your team is literally killing the enemy CV, or, for whatever reasons you are forced to leave the game, even if you've been the best player in the world for 99% of the round, you'd still feel like you wasted your time.
     
    w00kie likes this.
  12. PwnedYoAss

    PwnedYoAss Member

    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Assuming this hypothetical game would be Empires + PlanetSide, you have some issues with implementing it like that. In Infantry Online, they almost built the whole game around the "attachment" and "summon" mechanics. I didn't mention it, but the attachment / summon mechanic had it drain an energy supply to zero that all players had that fueled their guns, shields, and equipment. This prevented people from doing crazy ultra fast flanks and ninjas because there would be a bit of a delay before someone who attached could be effective. If you were ambushed, you were 100% dead because usually it was a grenade thrown at the guy you're attaching to.

    So, the flow was that usually someone would call out "Attach, at enemy, [coordinates]," and you would attach hoping that the guy was in a safe enough location so that you wouldn't be ambushed by enemies with your shields out.

    That being said this mechanic was compelling because you rewarded coordination and initiative not unlike mass revive but, with some notable differences.

    Attachment required initiative on the player's part, and coordination between the whole team because it's a prisoner's dilemma. Usually multiple people claim to have flanked, or found the enemy, and you have to figure out which one to attach to to help your team win the engagement. If not enough people attach you end up with a weak assault or if the guy is incompetent you end up dead via grenade.

    Summoning kind of alleviated this problem a little because they only drained their own energy supply, but they have the issue of potentially summoning the wrong people, too many people, or too little people for their front in question.

    I guess my point is that, if you didn't add in the nuances of how they did it in Infantry Online, you'd end up without enough solutions for player movement.

    Attachment allows individual players to pick their own front to go to without necessarily needing to sync up with people (a bottom up solution) and ummoning allowed for players who had more experience or insight control the battle top-down. At least, that's what I think. You could also solve it with fast transports.
     
  13. duke

    duke Former Developer (BE Creator)

    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We need some solution for large maps anyway. Planetside'y or not, with aircraft maps have to be larger.
     
  14. duke

    duke Former Developer (BE Creator)

    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think map size figures into the complexity equation.
     
  15. Kidpaler

    Kidpaler Member

    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Copy the battlefield approach of "YOU ARE OUT OF BOUNDS!"
     
    w00kie likes this.
  16. LordDz_2

    LordDz_2 Strange things happens here

    Messages:
    2,956
    Likes Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    0
    YOU ARE LEAVING THE MISSION AREA YOU WILL BE SHOT BY THIS INVISIBLE MAN WHO IS BEHIND YOU.
     
  17. Kidpaler

    Kidpaler Member

    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It could be made to be a bit more believable... perhaps artillery strikes around the area if you walk into it. Prototype did that back in the day when that game was fun. Go out of the zone, artillery strikes you.
     
  18. Grantrithor

    Grantrithor Member

    Messages:
    9,820
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know this post/thread is a bit old but so is this forum. If you're thinking of this idea for your game check out Foxhole -> http://store.steampowered.com/app/505460/Foxhole/. Rounds can last several days, shares a lot of similarities to empires with the difference being that it's a top down shooter rather than an FPS. I think it's something that's possible.
     

Share This Page