I have an idea about making an online strategy game, where lots of players (1000's) can join a game and play for months, and all achivements they get, are stores on a server (the world is persistent).
So, this is the genre: online massive strategy(with rpg elements) game, persistent world.
The problem is i cannot take a decision about the theme (sci-fi, swords and magic, gangsters, vampires,..) and the mechanics involved on the game (conquest planets or cities?, one on one fights?, economy-base game?),
There are lots of themes and kind of games that i like, the main objetive is make a thinking game (not an action game), where the player can take decisions that will improve more or less its position of the game. And the game will be long, very long, playable for months or years.
I like games that i can play for a some time (not much), leave it for a day or two, and then return to the game, and find that my "troops" or items are already there to play again, sure, the others players can play when im not playing the game, so the "board" changes although i was not there for a couple of days, anyway the game still can be interesting and fun.
The first step to make the game is find a good game designer that can take these ideas and make a good game, and its rules.
My task is to develop the computer programs that let a player play this game online, with an easy and cool interface, and solve the technical issues (backend database and servers, comms, interface development).
Comments
ww1
I have no interest (or at least no time) to get involved in such a project, but I have thought of a design for such a game (that I will probably never try to make anything from):
WW1 trench warfare would work very well for a multiplayer online game. The front don't have to ever move, or only move a little every now and then caused by some special quests (attacks). You could just have an endless number of raids and patrols and minor attacks etc (or defending against such events), but on a larger scale nothing really happens, so if you move your soldier(s) into a safe location away from the front they will still be there next time you login and you can pick up a new "quest" and everything is just as it were. :)
A friend of mine suggested changing the theme to scifi to make it sell better. I guess that would work. Or fantasy. You could get lots of ideas from ww1 history, but put the never-ending stalemate war where nothing really changes in some other world no matter how successful players on one side are.
And to get on topic, I'm sure there is a way to do something similar as a boardgame, but not sure how.
Anyway, feel free to steal this idea. Ideas are supposed to be free.
You should combined all your
You should combined all your ideas into one. Vampires in the future, take over a new planet and you must save the economy by time traveling to the past and fight (bare knuckle boxing style) wizards.
other worldly robots
I have an idea for a massive online environment, and coincidently enough, I haven't had anyone with enough time nor knowledge of server-based multi-player environment (or programming wherewithal) to delve into it. If you are, in fact, looking for this, please message me privately with what you need and I will provide it (btw - I'm expecting you to request an encyclopedia - which I have). I am right now looking to create this as an RPG, but it would have a much greater appeal as an online MPRPG. Additionally, it has several aspects that are puzzle-based (that do not HAVE to be completed to continue in the game), but also has the option to be a shoot-em-up, but is primarily a mystery. It is also completely customizable, and uses repeatable (already rendered) graphics.
If you are interested, please message me - I have too much information about this, and would LOVE to realize this as a computer game!!
Interested in designing
I am also interested in designing an online massive strategy game. I will send you PM.
ugg
UGG Classic Tall Boots
It'd be neat if you could combine strategic and tactical...
Your post made me think of an on-line game I played in collage: Stars!. It's a turn based space strategy game, is totally on the strategic level, it has economic, political and military aspects to it, and it allows for players to design and then build units, and then set tactics scripts for different units for different situations. The game was fun, but could get very detailed as your empire grew... micro-managing 50 planets vs 1 planet as well as managing ship fleets could take hours to complete a turn.
I always thought it would be neat to take some of the raw statistics out of this game and replace them with player skill. If you took a stragic game like this and took out the automated resolutions, then you could have more control over outcomes than just statistics. Instead of a computer deciding the outcome of ship to ship fights, you could let players command their fleets. The same could be used with troops during planet assaults (first persen shooter type). This could let players have more of an impact on tactical outcomes.
The strategic game had sequences of tactical resolutions based on a set time resolution. I don't remember what length of time this was (day, month, year), but it wouldn't really matter. The events that were to happen in within this time period resolved in that cell (i.e. if there was a ship to ship fight in the front of a given time block it resolved at the same time as anything else happening within that time block). If time resolution cells were broken down far enough, then there could be a que of tactical events, and players could then plan and choose when and where they wanted to be for tactical events (because inevidably some events would coincide or overlap).
Time sensitivity to tasks seems to be the critical element of making a game like this work. If you could allow for players to make strategic decisions that shape the framework for tactical decisions/actions within a game, and then allow the player to choose to join in different tactical engagements in the mean time, you would capture both elements. Most massive online games don't allow for this strategic framing, and have mechanics that take it out.
I also think it would be neat to have multiple persistant avatars that a player could direct in different areas, and that could jump between NRPC and RPC status. So say I start out as a newbie with 3 avatars that I can only play one at a time; so I enroll the two in different schools (or enlist them in an army, or apprentice to a trade guild, etc...) where they learn skills over time while I play the third. The one I play may gain experiance/skills faster than the other two but they all can be engaged in something whether I'm on-line and using them or not. Once experianced, I may have more options for an avatar (start my own school or business, hire out as a mercenary to another player, be able to interact differently in the world etc...).
Now to put it all together; there could be the strategic game that allows a player to set forth the movement and output of units/facilities that that player owns/controls and allows for real scouting/intelligence reports with dispatch options for command and control (a general's/admiral's perspective on events). A player could log on and start at this level and see their overall status in the fake world... if they don't want to get too involved , they can allow for auto resolution of tactical events while continuing to make strategic inputs. If they want to take action on certain events, they can see when a battle is likely to occur/resolve and/or is already engaged and use an avatar to jump into the chosen combat situation. If the world is big enough, and a player has access to enough avatars, then a player may choose to interact only on a tactical level (jump from fight to fight). Tactical level engagements would be dictated by the actions of players on a strategic level, making the game dynamic since action wouldn't have to rely on set instances or quests (though these could be incorporated as well).
I don't know what would be best in terms of determining how much strategic impact any given player has on the fake world. A fuedal system could work (start out as a page, work up to knight, then various levels of lord as holdings grow), but so could a guild system (start out as an apprentice and work up) or any other type of hierarchical approach. You may want to have multiple ways to gain rank/strategic influence just to keep the game interesting.
I hope this helps. If not, it was fun for me while I thought about some of this stuff again. I don't like a lot of the current on-line RPGs because there is a lack of strategic thought, so I don't play them (World of Warcraft doesn't come close to what Warcraft II was in terms of a strategy game).