Howdy, Stranger!

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

Indie Dev Focus-Question: Would you play.....?

BearKnightBearKnight Member CommonPosts: 461

[Edit: I've given up on this thread. I asked for opinions on SMALL pieces of the game, and people are misreading it and thinking what I have posted is 90% of my game. I simply asked for ideas on individual mechanics I already have planned. If you can't even read the OP correctly please move on]

So I've been working on a concept for awhile in Unity3D for an MMO with the following ideas:

-World is NOT a 2x2 plane of terrains stitched together, but is actually a planetoid that you walk around on that is roughly 1/100th the size of earth.

 

-Be able to drive/fly across the planet with vehicles. Go from space -> planet surface with little to no lag (no loading screens!).

 

-Limited instancing (aka: primarily seamless open-world), roughly only for special group oriented missions or class/quest/gear specific events that would serve to prevent 500++ people fighting over the same small area (think epic quests in EQ?).

 

-Tab targeting system, I believe there are enough "Twitch" games coming out lately.

 

-Gameplay would be a mixture between Anarchy Online (Future Sci-Fi), DAOC, and SWG.

 

-Unknown about graphics at this point as I'm still trying to decide how much detail can be done with what I currently have planned. Definitely NOT cartoony stuff like WoW, Wildstar, etc.

 

 

Thoughts? Positives/Negatives for you? I already have points 1 & 2 complete, but i've yet to start adding high-def textures, atmospheric effects, etc etc.

 

 

Sincerely,

-Bear

 

ps: I might decrease the size a bit as 1/100th is still freaking huge for an MMO.

 

I underlined "prevent" next to the 500+ area part because SOME posters are ignoring that word and thinking that each area will be 500++ players or instanced into oblivion. That is NOT what I posted.

Comments

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Based on the number of people you plan to have per instance, I don't expect the gameplay to be very engaging. It would have to be quite stripped, I'd imagine. Same for character customization.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • BearKnightBearKnight Member CommonPosts: 461
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Based on the number of people you plan to have per instance, I don't expect the gameplay to be very engaging. It would have to be quite stripped, I'd imagine. Same for character customization.

    Eh? What? I said limited instancing. In other words seamless open world. The limited instancing was a factor of compensation as I had originally decided on zero-instancing, but then the topic came up for epic quests on a seamless world with a minimum of 1000 players on at any given time per server.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] UncommonPosts: 0
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • BearKnightBearKnight Member CommonPosts: 461
    Originally posted by greenreen

    I think you are going about this all backwards. The only thing you've talked about is graphics. You are approaching the project like a user instead of a developer.

    Here are some questions that you might answer in future for yourself.

    What makes people want to play my game?

    What will people do each day, week, month?

    Do I have clear goals that are in place that aid in a sense of progression?

    What can I offer that is different than what other games have done or are doing?

    Who is the grand enemy and who is the grand friend or are things grey meaning my players must make choices along the way?

    How do I satisfy the people who want to play alone?

    How do I satisfy the people who want to play as a group?

    etc.

    This talk of a spaceship for travel and that the world will be round answers very few of those items outlined.

    This plan without a "plan" is way too early to ask people whether it's playable or not.

    Here's an example of one of the concepts I have for my own game.

    I want to balance skills in PVP because of player feedback. It's presented as a courtroom where players are voted in to be on both sides of the argument. They post on the forum like lawyers and points will be won and lost. Other players can participate but only by voting on the original posts of those allowed to speak on the topic. There are phases where evidence may be introduced because in the initial stages evidence is not allowed. It's more like an opening statement. This is expected to involve my playerbase who want to petition for changes to become orators with reason and evidence behind them. This will encourage onlookers to passively vote for their side in the same way that people watch sports instead of play them. During the conversation in those areas, if you lose an argument at some point your forum character loses the ability to type as many characters as you are weakened. This is displayed like a paper doll in the avatar for the orators.

    Now, see how different that is from spaceships and a circular world. That has more meat and taters and I see it directly translating for PVP players and including forum PVP.

     

    What? I talked about graphics a tiny bit. In fact I said I wasn't sure on which direction i'd go, but i knew it wouldn't be anything Cartoony. 

     

    Majority of what I talked about were world mechanics, and gameplay aspects similar to Anarchy Online, DAOC, and SWG?

     

    I'm concerned that some of you aren't reading what I wrote properly, or perhaps I should have been more specific with my bullet points??

     

    Additionally, I already know everything you listed, and have a set agenda in mind with all of them. I've been planning this out for quite some time now.

     

    I'm not going to outline my whole concept here on MMORPG.com for someone else with more money to simply take and run with :). I was simply asking how people felt about what I outlined, which seems to me you're focusing on the tiny one-line i did at the bottom with regardles to graphics unless you're talking about Atmospheirc effects etc, which are part of the Planetoid system and are a very small fraction of what pertains to being "Graphics".

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] UncommonPosts: 0
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • BearKnightBearKnight Member CommonPosts: 461
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by BearKnight
    Originally posted by greenreen...snip

     

    Additionally, I already know everything you listed, and have a set agenda in mind with all of them. I've been planning this out for quite some time now.

     

    I'm not going to outline my whole concept here on MMORPG.com for someone else with more money to simply take and run with :). I was simply asking how people felt about what I outlined, which seems to me you're focusing on the tiny one-line i did at the bottom with regardles to graphics unless you're talking about Atmospheirc effects etc, which are part of the Planetoid system and are a very small fraction of what pertains to being "Graphics".

    That's good that you have those things defined but you didn't post them so no one knew.

     

    Don't worry about your ideas being stolen. Everyone is so full of themselves they think their ideas are better than yours anyway. Don't give them code to implement your ideas because that would be dumb but a concept - they won't take it. I've posted many a design idea over the years in different places and not one developer has stolen it. They sit in their ivory tower thinking of us as cattle these days - they don't think our thoughts are worth much because theirs are so much better.

    If you think the big guys are watching for ideas then why isn't this in place. It's pure genius. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueDAVMbuDvw

     

    Haha :)

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by BearKnight

     

    -World is NOT a 2x2 plane of terrains stitched together, but is actually a planetoid that you walk around on that is roughly 1/100th the size of earth.

     

    -Be able to drive/fly across the planet with vehicles. Go from space -> planet surface with little to no lag (no loading screens!).

     

    I don't really care about how big the world is. The real question is what are you going to fill it with ... and how long i have to walk before there is something fun to do.

    And if it is not filled with fun adventure, you better put in fast travel so i can jump to the fun part.

     

  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,891
    Your idea lacks soul. Those feel like detached ideas that won't even make a game.
     
  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by BearKnight
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Based on the number of people you plan to have per instance, I don't expect the gameplay to be very engaging. It would have to be quite stripped, I'd imagine. Same for character customization.

    Eh? What? I said limited instancing. In other words seamless open world. The limited instancing was a factor of compensation as I had originally decided on zero-instancing, but then the topic came up for epic quests on a seamless world with a minimum of 1000 players on at any given time per server.

    You wrote "500++ people fighting in the same area". That means stripping away gameplay features until you reach that magic number. Do you think it is a coincidence not many games reach such high player numbers in the same area as those? -It is because tracking all those 500++ people is very demanding from the server, and including stuff like collision detection would increase that demand exponentially.

    There is a reason why Eve Online has only rudimentary combat mechanics and gameplay while Battlefield 4 fields only 64 people in the same server (comfortably). So unless you have a very simplified combat system (semi-turn-based or turn-based, dice rolling maybe) you probably wont reach those high numbers at acceptable performance levels.

    Remember, unlike Eve, you would have terrain and player characters (likely visually customizable to an extent) to contend with so reaching those 500++ numbers could be a significant undertaking.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    There is a reason why Eve Online has only rudimentary combat mechanics and gameplay while Battlefield 4 fields only 64 people in the same server (comfortably). So unless you have a very simplified combat system (semi-turn-based or turn-based, dice rolling maybe) you probably wont reach those high numbers at acceptable performance levels.

     

    yeh .. and i would much rather have a fun combat system, then 500 players.

     

  • BearKnightBearKnight Member CommonPosts: 461
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by BearKnight
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Based on the number of people you plan to have per instance, I don't expect the gameplay to be very engaging. It would have to be quite stripped, I'd imagine. Same for character customization.

    Eh? What? I said limited instancing. In other words seamless open world. The limited instancing was a factor of compensation as I had originally decided on zero-instancing, but then the topic came up for epic quests on a seamless world with a minimum of 1000 players on at any given time per server.

    You wrote "500++ people fighting in the same area". That means stripping away gameplay features until you reach that magic number. Do you think it is a coincidence not many games reach such high player numbers in the same area as those? -It is because tracking all those 500++ people is very demanding from the server, and including stuff like collision detection would increase that demand exponentially.

    There is a reason why Eve Online has only rudimentary combat mechanics and gameplay while Battlefield 4 fields only 64 people in the same server (comfortably). So unless you have a very simplified combat system (semi-turn-based or turn-based, dice rolling maybe) you probably wont reach those high numbers at acceptable performance levels.

    Remember, unlike Eve, you would have terrain and player characters (likely visually customizable to an extent) to contend with so reaching those 500++ numbers could be a significant undertaking.

    And, yet again, you did NOT read what i posted. I guess i shouldn't have expected anything different from MMORPG posters.

     

    To be clear: I said to prevent 500++ in the same area for said special event missions (think SWG Corvette Instance) instancing would be used. Therefore, it would be scarcely used.

     

    Additionall, I asked the opinion about SMALL functional parts of the game I have planned. You're looking at it as a whole thinking that is 99% of the game.

     

    MANY of you need to go back and learn what re-reading and reading comprehension is all about. 

     

    Again, I asked for OPINIONS on SMALL PARTS of the game. It's like EvE devs coming in an asking what you think about their Planetary Interaction system, and then YOU claiming that they meant that Planetary interaction was 99% of their game.

     

    Again, please read next time before posting. I'll concede this thread to the depths of MMORPG's crypts as it is apparent I cannot even get people to read the thread OP.

  • BearKnightBearKnight Member CommonPosts: 461
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    There is a reason why Eve Online has only rudimentary combat mechanics and gameplay while Battlefield 4 fields only 64 people in the same server (comfortably). So unless you have a very simplified combat system (semi-turn-based or turn-based, dice rolling maybe) you probably wont reach those high numbers at acceptable performance levels.

     

    yeh .. and i would much rather have a fun combat system, then 500 players.

     

    Re-read what I said. That is NOT what I said.

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by BearKnight
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by BearKnight
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Based on the number of people you plan to have per instance, I don't expect the gameplay to be very engaging. It would have to be quite stripped, I'd imagine. Same for character customization.

    Eh? What? I said limited instancing. In other words seamless open world. The limited instancing was a factor of compensation as I had originally decided on zero-instancing, but then the topic came up for epic quests on a seamless world with a minimum of 1000 players on at any given time per server.

    You wrote "500++ people fighting in the same area". That means stripping away gameplay features until you reach that magic number. Do you think it is a coincidence not many games reach such high player numbers in the same area as those? -It is because tracking all those 500++ people is very demanding from the server, and including stuff like collision detection would increase that demand exponentially.

    There is a reason why Eve Online has only rudimentary combat mechanics and gameplay while Battlefield 4 fields only 64 people in the same server (comfortably). So unless you have a very simplified combat system (semi-turn-based or turn-based, dice rolling maybe) you probably wont reach those high numbers at acceptable performance levels.

    Remember, unlike Eve, you would have terrain and player characters (likely visually customizable to an extent) to contend with so reaching those 500++ numbers could be a significant undertaking.

    And, yet again, you did NOT read what i posted. I guess i shouldn't have expected anything different from MMORPG posters.

     

    To be clear: I said to prevent 500++ in the same area for said special event missions (think SWG Corvette Instance) instancing would be used. Therefore, it would be scarcely used.

     

    Additionall, I asked the opinion about SMALL functional parts of the game I have planned. You're looking at it as a whole thinking that is 99% of the game.

     

    MANY of you need to go back and learn what re-reading and reading comprehension is all about. 

     

    Again, I asked for OPINIONS on SMALL PARTS of the game. It's like EvE devs coming in an asking what you think about their Planetary Interaction system, and then YOU claiming that they meant that Planetary interaction was 99% of their game.

     

    Again, please read next time before posting. I'll concede this thread to the depths of MMORPG's crypts as it is apparent I cannot even get people to read the thread OP.

    Well if you want to avoid it rather than aim for it, forget what I wrote.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by BearKnight

    [Edit: I've given up on this thread. I asked for opinions on SMALL pieces of the game, and people are misreading it and thinking what I have posted is 90% of my game. I simply asked for ideas on individual mechanics I already have planned. If you can't even read the OP correctly please move on]

    If you want useful opinions, run a survey (on survey monkey?) or run a focus group.

    Asking for opinions on an internet forum is going to degenerate into what you have seen here.

Sign In or Register to comment.