Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Sandbox MMOFPS - PvP - Opinions Needed

unkillable9unkillable9 cicero, ILPosts: 29Member

I have an idea for a MMO that I think could/should be made and im willing to personally drop the 99$ on the HERO engine myself if enough people agree. I would do my best to build a team and get this thing in motion.

-First person and Third person perspectives, without one or the other feeling gimped.

-NO factions, Just guilds/ clans and a very detailed "flagging" system for PvP

-Open persistant world where Player built towns and cities are the only areas that exist in the game

-A completely open skill tree upon 1st login that allows every player to spec, right off the bat, into whatever class/ archetype they choose. the only limitation being an allotment of total points to spend. spec into any combo/ mashup of  "Healer/ Tank/ DPS" you  would like. Dont like your current spec? Trees are able to be reset whenever.

- Pure PvP. Get kills, earn points. Use points aquired in the open world to buy the mats used to make player bases and cities and upgrade the appearence of your gear.

-Arenas. battle 2v2, 3v3, and 5v5 for ladder rankings, bragging rights, and more points to go toward your player built structures.

-Territory Warfare. Declare war on opposing guilds. Once each guild has reached the determined online player count (10v10 - 20 v20) for the war contract, the "match" starts. Each guild city has a "Relic" at a centralized location, Grab that relic and return it to your guild city for a victory and a large amount of points and benefits.

 

Upon first login (game release) everyone will be thrown into the same basic starting "safe zone" a very small area designed for simply teaming up with players for 2v2, 3v3, or 5v5 arenas, or to group up in larger groups to go out into the open world to engage in open pvp.  the open group pvp could be completely FFA, or be based on a "Group Dueling" concept, where you challenge other groups to large "duels" when meeting them in the open world

The game idea does sound complicated but there are a few things that when brought into perspective, make this somewhat feesable to create from a design standpoint:

-Skill tree fully available from the start gives the player the ability to feel free to play whatever class/ role they wish at anytime without the need of a level grind.

-Character advancement comes in the form of Guild/ player cities and appearance gear.

-Territory Warfare is balanced and doesnt favor the old "We blew up your city at 5 am cause you werent logged on" simply because once one guild challenges the other a certain amount of players from each guild have to be logged on and ready to fight before the "Match" begins. making the real challenge about fighting the other guild on thier ground and overcoming the player designed cities along with the players in each battle.

Let me know what you guys think of the overall concept and idea. If i could ever form the team, i would love to be a part of making a game like this. Any opinions you guys shoot my way is more then welcome.

Thanks for reading.

 

Comments

  • itsneoitsneo HAMILTON, ONPosts: 18Member
    Already being done, see upcoming MMOs, think its called repopulation.
  • unkillable9unkillable9 cicero, ILPosts: 29Member

    i know quite a bit about the repop, and i dont think its anywhere near what i have outlined here. the repop is gonna be a tad bit more slowpaced and the combat maybe a tad more clunky. i wanted this to be a bit more twitch and skill based, not really about farming mobs to get mats.

    this would be a pure pvp game with arenas and fast-er paced combat, open world pvp and a completely player driven world.

    i can see where you thought repop is similar. but i want it to possibly be different then that.

  • unkillable9unkillable9 cicero, ILPosts: 29Member
    let me know what you guys think.
  • unkillable9unkillable9 cicero, ILPosts: 29Member
    bumping for whatever reason.
  • GeschaeferGeschaefer Parlin, NJPosts: 117Member
    Originally posted by unkillable9

    I have an idea for a MMO that I think could/should be made and im willing to personally drop the 99$ on the HERO engine myself if enough people agree. I would do my best to build a team and get this thing in motion.

    -First person and Third person perspectives, without one or the other feeling gimped.

    -NO factions, Just guilds/ clans and a very detailed "flagging" system for PvP

    -Open persistant world where Player built towns and cities are the only areas that exist in the game

    -A completely open skill tree upon 1st login that allows every player to spec, right off the bat, into whatever class/ archetype they choose. the only limitation being an allotment of total points to spend. spec into any combo/ mashup of  "Healer/ Tank/ DPS" you  would like. Dont like your current spec? Trees are able to be reset whenever.

    - Pure PvP. Get kills, earn points. Use points aquired in the open world to buy the mats used to make player bases and cities and upgrade the appearence of your gear.

    -Arenas. battle 2v2, 3v3, and 5v5 for ladder rankings, bragging rights, and more points to go toward your player built structures.

    -Territory Warfare. Declare war on opposing guilds. Once each guild has reached the determined online player count (10v10 - 20 v20) for the war contract, the "match" starts. Each guild city has a "Relic" at a centralized location, Grab that relic and return it to your guild city for a victory and a large amount of points and benefits.

     

    Upon first login (game release) everyone will be thrown into the same basic starting "safe zone" a very small area designed for simply teaming up with players for 2v2, 3v3, or 5v5 arenas, or to group up in larger groups to go out into the open world to engage in open pvp.  the open group pvp could be completely FFA, or be based on a "Group Dueling" concept, where you challenge other groups to large "duels" when meeting them in the open world

    The game idea does sound complicated but there are a few things that when brought into perspective, make this somewhat feesable to create from a design standpoint:

    -Skill tree fully available from the start gives the player the ability to feel free to play whatever class/ role they wish at anytime without the need of a level grind.

    -Character advancement comes in the form of Guild/ player cities and appearance gear.

    -Territory Warfare is balanced and doesnt favor the old "We blew up your city at 5 am cause you werent logged on" simply because once one guild challenges the other a certain amount of players from each guild have to be logged on and ready to fight before the "Match" begins. making the real challenge about fighting the other guild on thier ground and overcoming the player designed cities along with the players in each battle.

    Let me know what you guys think of the overall concept and idea. If i could ever form the team, i would love to be a part of making a game like this. Any opinions you guys shoot my way is more then welcome.

    Thanks for reading.

     

    Everything you want in your list was already created,, then foolishly destroyed in a game once called Star Wars Galaxies - Pre CU..

    Your ideas are great and the game that reflects your ideas (SWG) was epic.

    G.E.Schaefer
    Played: EQ1. EQ2. FFXI. SWG. Aion. WAR. LOTRO. TabulaRasa. Hellgate London. Diablo 1. Diablo II. Diablo 3. STO. WOW. Vanguard. Guild Wars. Rift. Terra. The Secret World. EVE. Guild Wars 2. Firefall. Neverwinter.

  • unkillable9unkillable9 cicero, ILPosts: 29Member
    thanks a lot for your reply Ges, myabe i should persue attemping to dev somthing like this. i feel its greatly needed at this point.
  • GeschaeferGeschaefer Parlin, NJPosts: 117Member

    There are SWG emulators.

    I dont know where they are hosted though, Im sure someone else here can direct you towards one..

    The emulators are always looking for help with development; however it has been many years since SWG and not a single emulator has been successful.

    Nevertheless; your gaming ideas are good IMO.. however; todays average gamer quits when a game is too hard / complicated. Most fanboys on this site would play for a little. then trash your game on a forum to compensate their terrible gaming abilities. 

     

    Its unfortunate but the easy games make the money and the subs.

    G.E.Schaefer
    Played: EQ1. EQ2. FFXI. SWG. Aion. WAR. LOTRO. TabulaRasa. Hellgate London. Diablo 1. Diablo II. Diablo 3. STO. WOW. Vanguard. Guild Wars. Rift. Terra. The Secret World. EVE. Guild Wars 2. Firefall. Neverwinter.

  • unkillable9unkillable9 cicero, ILPosts: 29Member
    i sure would love to hear what more of you guys have to say about this model. whatever the comment good or bad, id like to hear it.
  • unkillable9unkillable9 cicero, ILPosts: 29Member
    Originally posted by Geschaefer

    There are SWG emulators.

    I dont know where they are hosted though, Im sure someone else here can direct you towards one..

    The emulators are always looking for help with development; however it has been many years since SWG and not a single emulator has been successful.

    Nevertheless; your gaming ideas are good IMO.. however; todays average gamer quits when a game is too hard / complicated. Most fanboys on this site would play for a little. then trash your game on a forum to compensate their terrible gaming abilities. 

     

    Its unfortunate but the easy games make the money and the subs.

    once again Ges thanks for the reply, and i totally understand what you are talking about. thanks for the reassuring comments all the way. this game idea has been floating around in my head for years and i just now spit it out in type form. 

    i think its simple enough to make with an indy team but has enough replay-ability to actually be successful. maybe i should really dig deep here and start to figure this out. if anyone would like to talk more about it just PM me on these forums for a more indepth convo, as i might might seriously consider looking into this.

  • KrytycalKrytycal Miami, FLPosts: 520Member

    I think your concept is lacking progression, which is a staple in any RPG. Maybe look at EVE's progression design. I find horizontal progression to be best option for MMOs in the long run. Maybe have abilities/gear (i.e. weapons) that needs to be crafted to fill a specific role. For example, if you want to be a sniper, you have some progression in terms of crafting your abilities and the best weapons/utility for the job.

    This vertical progression shouldn't be the end-game though, if anything it shouldn't take too long to obtain. After that progression becomes fully horizontal, and any new abilities/gear you craft don't make you better at sniping per se, but give you more flexibility if you want to try other weapons/abilities later on.

     

  • GeschaeferGeschaefer Parlin, NJPosts: 117Member

    Little feedback / input on your guilds declaring war idea.

    The declarer of war should suffer worse penalties for losing than the guild who had war declared on it..

    Meaning... if your bold enough to delcare and you lose.. you would be penalized far worse than if you were the defensive losing guild.

    Vice versa. If war is declared on you,, and you win as the defensive guild.. the rewards should be greater.

    Mainly this is a reward / punishment system to keep guilds from declaring war with no consequences.

    Also; if theres a strong guild, and they lose a few times; now they really have to consider declaring war again, due to all the great rewards their enemies have gained from their careless declaring.

    Wining should make your guild physically stronger - not just earn you higher ranking

    Losing should make your guild physically weaker - not just lower ranking.

    Same with basic PVP / PVE,

    I think theres no better way for a game to mold good and knowledgeable players, other than a punishment system for being defeated.

    G.E.Schaefer
    Played: EQ1. EQ2. FFXI. SWG. Aion. WAR. LOTRO. TabulaRasa. Hellgate London. Diablo 1. Diablo II. Diablo 3. STO. WOW. Vanguard. Guild Wars. Rift. Terra. The Secret World. EVE. Guild Wars 2. Firefall. Neverwinter.

  • unkillable9unkillable9 cicero, ILPosts: 29Member
    Originally posted by Krytycal

    I think your concept is lacking progression, which is a staple in any RPG. Maybe look at EVE's progression design. I find horizontal progression to be best option for MMOs in the long run. Maybe have abilities/gear (i.e. weapons) that needs to be crafted to fill a specific role. For example, if you want to be a sniper, you have some progression in terms of crafting your abilities and the best weapons/utility for the job.

    This vertical progression shouldn't be the end-game though, if anything it shouldn't take too long to obtain. After that progression becomes fully horizontal, and any new abilities/gear you craft don't make you better at sniping per se, but give you more flexibility if you want to try other weapons/abilities later on.

     

    thanks for your reply Krytycal, i kinda wanted to stay away from gear based progression all together. but you do bring up a valid point in the way of "Ability" based progression.

    i dont know how this would work not to give a large benefit to players that spend more time playing. 

    IE: player that plays very often has a very powerful set of "customized and buffed" abilties that are far more advanced then the player who say, just logged on. this creates a typical mmo "disparity" between the player base making the old "high levels are more powerful" setup the dominant factor. i wanted to eliminate this in my mmo completely. i wanted other things to drive you  to play the game, hence the "player build city progression" and "appearance" gear, completely avoiding gear based progression.

    ideally i want the social aspect of guilds and player structures, and the fame and ladder progression of the arenas to be the driving force of why people play. i know there needs to be personal worth while character progression and this is what i need ideas on at this point.

    i would love to see what suggestions you have on how i could make "ability" progression work and not give competitive edge to people who play more.

    and since the skill tree is fully accessible to everyone upon 1st login, i dont think the current "unlock with xp, choose a path" system like the one in Firefall could work at all in this case.

    if you guys were wondering what the Skill tree system would be like, Think back to "The Matrix Online" and take a look here for what i mean: http://www.thematrix.rumbaar.net/index.php?action=MxO_Abilities

    ^the site is a tad laggy, but as you click through the tree and images you can see you were able to go partly down one "healer and caster" tree then also go partly down another "Fighter and melee" tree. resulting in greatly customizable build options that could be redone at any time, to fit any situation.

    let me know what you guys think.

  • unkillable9unkillable9 cicero, ILPosts: 29Member
    Originally posted by Geschaefer

    Little feedback / input on your guilds declaring war idea.

    The declarer of war should suffer worse penalties for losing than the guild who had war declared on it..

    Meaning... if your bold enough to delcare and you lose.. you would be penalized far worse than if you were the defensive losing guild.

    Vice versa. If war is declared on you,, and you win as the defensive guild.. the rewards should be greater.

    Mainly this is a reward / punishment system to keep guilds from declaring war with no consequences.

    Also; if theres a strong guild, and they lose a few times; now they really have to consider declaring war again, due to all the great rewards their enemies have gained from their careless declaring.

    Wining should make your guild physically stronger - not just earn you higher ranking

    Losing should make your guild physically weaker - not just lower ranking.

    Same with basic PVP / PVE,

    I think theres no better way for a game to mold good and knowledgeable players, other than a punishment system for being defeated.

    I really like this input Ges, and it makes perfect sense to me. the idea of consequences for actions in PvP has all but been lost nowadays. the system you are speaking of here, seems to me the right way to go about it. well done, and noted.

    what do you think Ges about the post ive made above having to do with personal player progression? i was trying to make the game more community based and also skill based at the same time, therefore i just dont know where ability/ personal progression fits in this case.

  • unkillable9unkillable9 cicero, ILPosts: 29Member

    i also wanted to brush upon something important, i want the combat system to be as Twitch as the Hero Engine can handle keeping latency issues in mind and the standard mmo technology considered.

    also id like to see what you guys think would be a good lore/ setting/ art style for a game of this kind. Ive always been a fan of Sci-Fi futuristic settings myself, but it would be cool to see what you guys would want it to be.

  • GeschaeferGeschaefer Parlin, NJPosts: 117Member
    Originally posted by unkillable9
    Originally posted by Geschaefer

    Little feedback / input on your guilds declaring war idea.

    The declarer of war should suffer worse penalties for losing than the guild who had war declared on it..

    Meaning... if your bold enough to delcare and you lose.. you would be penalized far worse than if you were the defensive losing guild.

    Vice versa. If war is declared on you,, and you win as the defensive guild.. the rewards should be greater.

    Mainly this is a reward / punishment system to keep guilds from declaring war with no consequences.

    Also; if theres a strong guild, and they lose a few times; now they really have to consider declaring war again, due to all the great rewards their enemies have gained from their careless declaring.

    Wining should make your guild physically stronger - not just earn you higher ranking

    Losing should make your guild physically weaker - not just lower ranking.

    Same with basic PVP / PVE,

    I think theres no better way for a game to mold good and knowledgeable players, other than a punishment system for being defeated.

    I really like this input Ges, and it makes perfect sense to me. the idea of consequences for actions in PvP has all but been lost nowadays. the system you are speaking of here, seems to me the right way to go about it. well done, and noted.

    what do you think Ges about the post ive made above having to do with personal player progression? i was trying to make the game more community based and also skill based at the same time, therefore i just dont know where ability/ personal progression fits in this case.

    Well I think that people want to "build" their characters. I dont think that having all skils at game start is a very good idea.

    I personally think that you should have to build your character up.. xp can come in the form of PVP or PVE.. doesnt matter all xp can be used to gain new skills.

    I agree that players should be able to re-spec whenever they want.. but only to their current level.. meaning if you have attained 20 skills from several trees then you can resepc and use those 20 somewhere else. but only those 20. you will have to gain more xp to aquire more skill credits.

    I think that a good way to combat your issue of not having super powerfull guilds push around smaller guilds is by making it that all guilds are ranked by tiers.. Your tier ranking is something that can be controlled by the guild; and must always be maintained.. If you dont PVP or participate in wars. your guild will fall to lower tiers..

    Additionally; perhaps you can only declare war on a guild in the same tier.. Meaning a tier 10 guild cannot declare war on a tier 2 and vice versa.

    Or,, guilds can only challenge other guilds wihtin 3 tiers of each other.. if your guild is 2 tiers higher than the battle will have to be on the lower ranking guilds home turf. (Home turf meaning at the outskirts of their cities where player built defenses can help them beat the higher ranking guild.

    What tier your in could rely on average player level and online activity. meaning you can have a great tier 9 guild one day.. but lets say some of the high levels dont log in for a few days to maintain.. they will steadily drop in ranking.

    Higher tiers for guilds means more land to build on and more player city defense / offense options such as turrets ETC.

    If your guild slips in ranking then player city structures on the outskirts should be vulnerable to attack from other players / guilds. Meaning the higher rank your guild is the larger its area of influence is,, this should be a litteral circle that can be seen on the map.. of your guild is tier 9 and your players have built homes / shops / stuctures near that tier 9 ring.. then they will be in for a world of hurt god forbid the guild drops to tier 7.. (the ring of influence will get cmaller and all stuctures outside the new tier 7 influence ring are open to and and all undelared rogue attacks..

    This will keep the more dedicated / active player living in the heart of their player cities..and they will thoughroughly maintain their needed tier ring of influence to protect the inner player city. new guild mates will have to live on the outskirts and help the guild gain tier points to ensure that their homes do not get destroyed and build up defenses.

    However single / open world flagging PVP and group PVP should always be open to anyone. 

    G.E.Schaefer
    Played: EQ1. EQ2. FFXI. SWG. Aion. WAR. LOTRO. TabulaRasa. Hellgate London. Diablo 1. Diablo II. Diablo 3. STO. WOW. Vanguard. Guild Wars. Rift. Terra. The Secret World. EVE. Guild Wars 2. Firefall. Neverwinter.

  • unkillable9unkillable9 cicero, ILPosts: 29Member

    Damn Ges, thanks for the epic post. seriously. i continue to like the ideas you propose here. i cant say that i disagree with any sinlge comment in the post concerning the Territory Warfare.

    one thing i do want to ask you now is about the individual character progression. How do we keep the despairity and "level" separation from becoming too great and how could this all balance out while still remained a skill based game?

  • SnarlingWolfSnarlingWolf Thereiam, ARPosts: 2,697Member

    1) Program some things before planning out a whole MMO you're going to develop. It is tough to make any game let alone an MMO which is a, no pun intended, massive undertaking. There is a reason so few companies do so successfully.

     

    2) Don't bump your thread 5 minutes after your last post.

  • unkillable9unkillable9 cicero, ILPosts: 29Member
    Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

    1) Program some things before planning out a whole MMO you're going to develop. It is tough to make any game let alone an MMO which is a, no pun intended, massive undertaking. There is a reason so few companies do so successfully.

     

    2) Don't bump your thread 5 minutes after your last post.

    thanks for the advice.

  • GeschaeferGeschaefer Parlin, NJPosts: 117Member
    Originally posted by unkillable9

    Damn Ges, thanks for the epic post. seriously. i continue to like the ideas you propose here. i cant say that i disagree with any sinlge comment in the post concerning the Territory Warfare.

    one thing i do want to ask you now is about the individual character progression. How do we keep the despairity and "level" separation from becoming too great and how could this all balance out while still remained a skill based game?

    You could scale the players level by tier war average to keep everything purely skill based..

    Meaning: two tier 1 guilds go to war with each other.. all players participating in the war will be level scaled to lvl 10..

    two tier 5 guilds go to war and everyone participating is scaled to lvl 50.

    A tier 8 guild goes to war with a tier 6 guild and everyone participating scaled to lvl 70... the average

    This can keep everything skill based for player on player warfare..

    This should only apply during guild warfare, However the higher tier guild should still be able to use its tier pvp warfare rewards against the lower guild.

    Meaning; a tier 8 guild is fighting a tier 6 guild.. they all personally scale to lvl 70; but the tier 8 guild can use its tier 8 guild pvp rewards while the tier 6 guild is limited to using its tier 6 rewards.

    The battleground area can expand around the defending guild player city to scale the levels of all those who enter for battle. 

    G.E.Schaefer
    Played: EQ1. EQ2. FFXI. SWG. Aion. WAR. LOTRO. TabulaRasa. Hellgate London. Diablo 1. Diablo II. Diablo 3. STO. WOW. Vanguard. Guild Wars. Rift. Terra. The Secret World. EVE. Guild Wars 2. Firefall. Neverwinter.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member

    1) Personally i am not interested in such a game.

    2) How much budget do you have? A team with a few volunteer is not enough to make a MMO.

  • ApraxisApraxis RegensburgPosts: 1,515Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by unkillable9

    i also wanted to brush upon something important, i want the combat system to be as Twitch as the Hero Engine can handle keeping latency issues in mind and the standard mmo technology considered.

    also id like to see what you guys think would be a good lore/ setting/ art style for a game of this kind. Ive always been a fan of Sci-Fi futuristic settings myself, but it would be cool to see what you guys would want it to be.

    Hmm.. seriously. If you want Open world and as twitch as possible (maybe even real time, with more hitboxes) the hero engine wont do it for that. You should really think more about the classic tab targeting half round based combat.. maybe with dodging added like GW2. But more than that and you need better technology.. Hero Engine wont do it.

  • majimaji ColognePosts: 2,003Member Uncommon

    "A completely open skill tree upon 1st login that allows every player to spec, right off the bat, into whatever class/ archetype they choos"

    That would confuse the heck out of new players. You have to introduce players slowly to the controls, the interface, what's different about the game, and then gradually introduce more and more mechanics. Otherwise people get confused and stop playing before they really started.

    Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)

    Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member

    OP, the good ideas from that (imo) are:

     

    No real character stat/item progression. I to would go down this road for and open world sandbox with pvp emphasis. The progression would come from factors such as getting gold to make castles, run sieges, replace ruined armour et al.

     

    FFA pvp (i'd add full loot). You have a "safe zone" in the form of centralized npc cities and a small area outside of them. Outside of that guild law counts and everything goes. As everyone starts off with maxed out skills and there is no real gear progression it shouldn't be an issue. The full loot is needed though to help drive the territory warfare aspect. You loot your enemy to take his arrows and armour to use in the fight against his allies whilst at the same time stripping resources from them.

     

    No player factions, just guilds. Again this can work well so long as you give the playerbase the tools and the reasons to form large guilds and alliances to actually fight against each other in large scale open warfare.

     

    Player built cities. Yeah always a good idea.

     

    The bad:

    Arenas which gain you anything other and above arena ranks or cosmetic items which are purely linked to the arena. If you add in items/factors/points which can be used in the game world then people will spam through arenas to make points to use in the open warfare game, simply because you can jump into an arena every 5 minutes. Whilst I would have arenas, there is no way in hell they should give anything at all which can be used in the open game.

     

    I really don't like your territory warfare thing at all. How about you let guilds build castles and forts. The castle/fort/city controls a specific amount of surrounding area. The guild which runs that castle gets tithes in the forms of gold/resources with which to build more castles, dominate more area. Other guilds can build siege equipment and destroy or take over other players castles, thus taking their tithes and resources.

    Furthermore, you could place importance upon trade routes and supply caravans. To run a seige or get equipment you would need a supply of arrows, catapult projectiles etc. You would stipulate that a character can not carry over x amount on them (not enough to assault a fort), nor can they fast travel with siege items on them. This would mean they would have to set up a supply route from their nearest base. This supply route could be assualted by other players.

     

     

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

Sign In or Register to comment.