Howdy, Stranger!

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

(idea) Would you play this?

45074507 Member UncommonPosts: 351
An MMOFPS set in an enlarged No Man's Land between two Western Front trenches in WW1. The game's main focus would be on gaining territory for your faction (Entente or Central Powers) through player-driven open-world PvP, and building fortifications to defend your territory (i.e. construction system for trenches, bunkers, forts, even subterranean cities). Progression would come about partly from killing the enemy, and partly from capturing territory and armaments (machine guns, howitzers, ammo crates, etc) for your side, with the ability to spend progression tokens/points in a complex tree system to unlock new abilities, weapons, and gear (gear would not be tradeable or lootable - you spawn with what you pick in a point allocation gear system, with available points dependent on progression level). However, individual gear is not the extent of the gear system - your side can salvage parts for and construct/repair larger things that can be captured, such as biplanes, airships, and tanks (alongside the already mentioned heavy machine guns, artillery, and the ammo for them).

There obviously wouldn't be much, if any, PvE (although I could see a trench rat hunting minigame being fun), but plenty of non-combat tasks would still exist - reconnaissance, building/repairing war machines/large weaponry, salvaging, building/designing fortifications, cooking, healing (medics stopping bleeding, carrying casualties back to base, surgeons restoring health), etc.

Would you play it?

Comments

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332
    Nope,not because the idea is bad but because i am sooooooooooo tired or pew pew rifles and ak47's.

    That is why i prefer Fantasy,you can do more with creativity.I also do not find a huge wide open area to be fun as a fps for the simple reason,it relies too much on sniper.
    I mean if the game play was realistic,nobody would just run in and get slaughtered,the only reason it happens in real life is because the leaders are idiots and charge anyone with treason if they don't obey STUPID commands.

    So i prefer arena fps and with lots of strategic game play.
    delete5230Hluill

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • nerovergilnerovergil Member UncommonPosts: 680
    no ww1 is depressing i only play medieval fantasy
    Amathe
  • DakeruDakeru Member EpicPosts: 3,802
    I will never say yes to an idea alone.
    That's only what fanatics do while they are waiting in limbo for a release that will never come.

    If your game is good it will attract people no matter what it's based on.
    But you need that game first.
    Harbinger of Fools
  • Electro057Electro057 Member UncommonPosts: 683
    Not likely, the setting has been thoroughly explored in many forms of media. Almost everything about WW1 has been focused on the same western conflict and theatres, and it feels kinda old and redundant at this point. There's also only so far you can go with the setting, and it's been explored in a variety of FPS. Why not just play Battlefield?

    --Custom Rig: Pyraxis---
    NZXT Phantom 410 Case
    Intel Core i5-4690 Processor - Quad Core, 6MB Smart Cache, 3.5GHz
    Asus Sabertooth Z87 Motherboard
    Asus GeForce GTX 760 Video Card - 2GB GDDR5, PCI-Express 3.0
    Kingston HyperX Fury Blue 16GB

  • CryomatrixCryomatrix Member EpicPosts: 3,223
    Nope for me, play either medieval fantasy or futuristic.
    Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix
    You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations. 
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 43,505
    Wizardry said:
    Nope,not because the idea is bad but because i am sooooooooooo tired or pew pew rifles and ak47's.

    That is why i prefer Fantasy,you can do more with creativity.I also do not find a huge wide open area to be fun as a fps for the simple reason,it relies too much on sniper.
    I mean if the game play was realistic,nobody would just run in and get slaughtered,the only reason it happens in real life is because the leaders are idiots and charge anyone with treason if they don't obey STUPID commands.

    So i prefer arena fps and with lots of strategic game play.
    In WWI no one ran in and got slaughtered, look up the history of trench warfare,  (or watch the first Wonder Woman movie) not a lot of progress was made, positions were held for months,  if not years at a time.



    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • Electro057Electro057 Member UncommonPosts: 683
    Kyleran said:
    Wizardry said:
    Nope,not because the idea is bad but because i am sooooooooooo tired or pew pew rifles and ak47's.

    That is why i prefer Fantasy,you can do more with creativity.I also do not find a huge wide open area to be fun as a fps for the simple reason,it relies too much on sniper.
    I mean if the game play was realistic,nobody would just run in and get slaughtered,the only reason it happens in real life is because the leaders are idiots and charge anyone with treason if they don't obey STUPID commands.

    So i prefer arena fps and with lots of strategic game play.
    In WWI no one ran in and got slaughtered, look up the history of trench warfare,  (or watch the first Wonder Woman movie) not a lot of progress was made, positions were held for months,  if not years at a time.



    Except that one time a General decided to use cavalry against a line of machine guns, they got slaughtered. 

    --Custom Rig: Pyraxis---
    NZXT Phantom 410 Case
    Intel Core i5-4690 Processor - Quad Core, 6MB Smart Cache, 3.5GHz
    Asus Sabertooth Z87 Motherboard
    Asus GeForce GTX 760 Video Card - 2GB GDDR5, PCI-Express 3.0
    Kingston HyperX Fury Blue 16GB

  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,888
    No.

    But you're a strong contender for Most Generic Idea of 2018 award.
    Electro057Dakeru
     
  • 45074507 Member UncommonPosts: 351
    Vrika said:
    No.

    But you're a strong contender for Most Generic Idea of 2018 award.
    If there is a game out there even remotely similar to what I described, I've never seen it.
  • cameltosiscameltosis Member LegendaryPosts: 3,706
    I've long desired a large scale FPS game, it's something I've never seen before. 

    I did try out Planetside 2 for a while but the largest fights I ever got involved in only had about 150 people. I was late to the party though. 

    I think I'd personally drop the persistence from your idea. Just go for a Battlefield style lobby game, but scale it up to MMO numbers (500+ players). I think a persistent shooter based on WW1 would be too difficult to pull off. You could still have the crafting in the game, you'd just have to dumb it down so that you could actually do stuff within the duration of a match. 

    Going lobby based also makes it easier to have a larger variety of locales and to also better channel the gameplay. Once you've got 500+ players on a map you're really gonna have to rethink level design and gameplay, otherwise the hail of bullets will just be too much in certain places!
  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    If I can have a Fokker dreidecker then yes.
    Kyleran said:
    In WWI no one ran in and got slaughtered, look up the history of trench warfare,  (or watch the first Wonder Woman movie) not a lot of progress was made, positions were held for months,  if not years at a time.
    Walking straight toward a well dug down enemy with machineguns were surprisingly common though. That after first shooting on the same place for a week so the enemy really had pulled all their reinforcement there.

    The real problem was that the officer core didn't understand how new technology suddenly had changed warfare, the people in charge were old and conservative. That eventually changed when the Germans invented their Stosstropen in 1918 but the first 3 years were costly attacks followed by costly counterattacks for a few yards of lands.

    It did however set the world for modern warfare. At the start of the war were airplanes considered dangerous toys but just a couple of years later were they used for scouting, bombing, ground attacks and as figghters with specific and rather advanced planes for each specific purpose. Tanks were invented and everyone soon got their own, submachine guns were made to clear trenches and so on. It was the 4 years warfare changed forever and new technology evolved at an insane speed.

    A new fighter plane would only last about 6 months before it were considered outdated (with a few exceptions like Spad XIII), that even made WW2 seem slow by comparision. That made strange things happen, like when the British airforce had 90% casualties in a single month because the German Albatross just made everything tey owned obsolete.

    The saying "may you live in interesting times" comes to mind. The question is of course if a massive MMOFPS like that would be fun or not, WW2 Online didn't do that well so you need new ideas to get the whole thing to work.
    Kyleran
  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 7,532
    4507 said:
    An MMOFPS set in an enlarged No Man's Land between two Western Front trenches in WW1. The game's main focus would be on gaining territory for your faction (Entente or Central Powers) through player-driven open-world PvP, and building fortifications to defend your territory (i.e. construction system for trenches, bunkers, forts, even subterranean cities). Progression would come about partly from killing the enemy, and partly from capturing territory and armaments (machine guns, howitzers, ammo crates, etc) for your side, with the ability to spend progression tokens/points in a complex tree system to unlock new abilities, weapons, and gear (gear would not be tradeable or lootable - you spawn with what you pick in a point allocation gear system, with available points dependent on progression level). However, individual gear is not the extent of the gear system - your side can salvage parts for and construct/repair larger things that can be captured, such as biplanes, airships, and tanks (alongside the already mentioned heavy machine guns, artillery, and the ammo for them).

    There obviously wouldn't be much, if any, PvE (although I could see a trench rat hunting minigame being fun), but plenty of non-combat tasks would still exist - reconnaissance, building/repairing war machines/large weaponry, salvaging, building/designing fortifications, cooking, healing (medics stopping bleeding, carrying casualties back to base, surgeons restoring health), etc.

    Would you play it?
    I sounds like a fun idea, and no doubt would really work for some gamers, but. just no my flavor.
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.

Sign In or Register to comment.