It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here.

Origin XT RPG Network Home

What are we doing?


Jul 11 2009, 10:43 PM (Post #1)
Not Odd anymore
* * * * * * * * * *
Posts: 45,872
Cash: 1,911,877 / 1,817,041,051
Group: Administrator
Joined: 7/10/02 09:48 PM
That's for us to decide. But after discussions with Brian, we decided that a turn-based strategy game will be the most relevant and manageable to us.

I propose that we build an idea off of something we've always wanted to do since the RP-ing days: An official mechanism for the clan wars (Remember clans and the Origin 33 map?).

It won't be nearly as complicated at first. Remember—it's important we prioritize. But there will be a world map where everyone is assigned a random location initially. People can capture regions to get more resources (Say, gold and silver for financing, and iron and copper for weapons production). People can form alliances.

If an alliance/team can capture a region uninterrupted for a certain amount of time (depends on the amount of resources in that region and the area and whether the region's occupied by someone else already), that region belongs to them (until someone else captures it). If one team is capturing a region, another team can contest them, in which case they enter a regional battle that is similar to Advance Wars (at least in my head). Each unit will be able to move a certain amount each day, depending on equipment and such, and when they get close enough, they can fight unit-on-unit (or multiple-unit-on-unit).

If a team gives up or gets completely wiped out, the opposing team can continue (or begin) capturing the region.

The way I'm imagining this, producing the maps, coming up with the ideas/details, and even producing sprites for the individual units (or even what they are) can be done by separate people who need to know no programming.

After we decide what the regional maps are like, say G for grass, T for trees, R for rivers, W for water (ocean), M for mountains, C for cities, F for factories, D for roads, B for bridges, A for gold mines, we can produce a simple graphical MapMaker that exports a map in a format like this:

CODE
GGTTRTWW
GGGTRRTW
RRRRRBTW
GGGGGRRW


The details aren't clear yet, but the goal is to make this an entirely team effort and to design the game such that the entire framework is conducive to achieving that goal.

One last thing, to make this easier for future entrants, I'm thinking there should be two maps: A starter map and the "real" map. New people enter in the starter map where they'll be competing against others around their level, and whenever they want (or when they reach a certain amount of victories/resources/whatever), whichever comes sooner, they and their resources will be moved to the full map. This addresses one of the main concern with our other ideas before, which is that it basically eliminates any newcomers.

Any suggestions, concerns, or such? Remember, this is OUR project—if you don't like this idea, feel free to suggest alternatives!
Post Options

2 Pages  1 2 > 
Jul 12 2009, 12:27 AM (Post #2)
Commander in Chief
* * * * * * * *
Posts: 5,699
Cash: 2,145,476,571 / 2,147,483,647
Group: Representative
Joined: 12/23/06 04:45 AM
QUOTE (Jinghao @ Jul 11 2009, 05:43 PM)
That's for us to decide. But after discussions with Brian, we decided that a turn-based strategy game will be the most relevant and manageable to us.

I propose that we build an idea off of something we've always wanted to do since the RP-ing days: An official mechanism for the clan wars (Remember clans and the Origin 33 map?).

It won't be nearly as complicated at first. Remember—it's important we prioritize. But there will be a world map where everyone is assigned a random location initially. People can capture regions to get more resources (Say, gold and silver for financing, and iron and copper for weapons production). People can form alliances.

If an alliance/team can capture a region uninterrupted for a certain amount of time (depends on the amount of resources in that region and the area and whether the region's occupied by someone else already), that region belongs to them (until someone else captures it). If one team is capturing a region, another team can contest them, in which case they enter a regional battle that is similar to Advance Wars (at least in my head). Each unit will be able to move a certain amount each day, depending on equipment and such, and when they get close enough, they can fight unit-on-unit (or multiple-unit-on-unit).

If a team gives up or gets completely wiped out, the opposing team can continue (or begin) capturing the region.

The way I'm imagining this, producing the maps, coming up with the ideas/details, and even producing sprites for the individual units (or even what they are) can be done by separate people who need to know no programming.

After we decide what the regional maps are like, say G for grass, T for trees, R for rivers, W for water (ocean), M for mountains, C for cities, F for factories, D for roads, B for bridges, A for gold mines, we can produce a simple graphical MapMaker that exports a map in a format like this:

CODE
GGTTRTWW
GGGTRRTW
RRRRRBTW
GGGGGRRW


The details aren't clear yet, but the goal is to make this an entirely team effort and to design the game such that the entire framework is conducive to achieving that goal.

One last thing, to make this easier for future entrants, I'm thinking there should be two maps: A starter map and the "real" map. New people enter in the starter map where they'll be competing against others around their level, and whenever they want (or when they reach a certain amount of victories/resources/whatever), whichever comes sooner, they and their resources will be moved to the full map. This addresses one of the main concern with our other ideas before, which is that it basically eliminates any newcomers.

Any suggestions, concerns, or such? Remember, this is OUR project—if you don't like this idea, feel free to suggest alternatives!
*


Wow, sounds like a multiplayer Civilization IV, eh Brian?

I like the idea, but I have a couple things to ask. How long would one game go? Is it something where a few of us would log on and play a couple rounds in a few hours, or something that continues day-by-day? Also, how long are you expecting it to take for us to complete this?
Post Options

Jul 12 2009, 12:33 AM (Post #3)
Nutricious Banana
* * * *
Posts: 738
Cash: 44,948 / 68,948
Group: Citizen
Joined: 8/13/07 06:56 PM
That sounds great! To encourage people to interact/work in teams, how about different technologies for people to specialize in (or advantages/disadvantages that people can earn)? Natural disasters and diseases? Does anyone else who plays strategy games like this one have ideas?

I like the starter map and real map idea! Another solution would be to have some sort of "protection" for new players if there aren't enough people to separate them into two maps. Also, are we restarting the game every few months, or when someone becomes too "dominant"? stongue.gif
Post Options

Jul 12 2009, 07:40 PM (Post #4)
Member Of The Year 2005
* * * * * * * * *
Posts: 10,363
Cash: -77,174 / 11,869,762
Group: Administrator
Joined: 2/28/03 10:58 AM
If you guys work out the strategy element and basic ideas for characters and storyline, I will happily write up full Character Backgrounds, Origins, and a complete background Story to the game, perhaps even in novel format, if you would like that as a tie-in / more in-depth reading to coencide with the game.
Post Options

Jul 12 2009, 09:22 PM (Post #5)
Not Odd anymore
* * * * * * * * * *
Posts: 45,872
Cash: 1,911,877 / 1,817,041,051
Group: Administrator
Joined: 7/10/02 09:48 PM
QUOTE (Derp @ Jul 11 2009, 04:27 PM)
Wow, sounds like a multiplayer Civilization IV, eh Brian?

I like the idea, but I have a couple things to ask. How long would one game go? Is it something where a few of us would log on and play a couple rounds in a few hours, or something that continues day-by-day? Also, how long are you expecting it to take for us to complete this?
*


It's all for us to decide. However, my plan is for the main game to be continuous (Hence the dual worlds), but the individual regional battles can last for however long as one team survives.

I'm not sure about completion date. I don't think we'll ever "complete" it, by which I mean produce something that we can't feel like it can be improved. However, I think we can get some working demonstration of basic functionality by the end of summer.

QUOTE (Tricia @ Jul 11 2009, 04:33 PM)
That sounds great! To encourage people to interact/work in teams, how about different technologies for people to specialize in (or advantages/disadvantages that people can earn)? Natural disasters and diseases? Does anyone else who plays strategy games like this one have ideas?

I like the starter map and real map idea! Another solution would be to have some sort of "protection" for new players if there aren't enough people to separate them into two maps. Also, are we restarting the game every few months, or when someone becomes too "dominant"? stongue.gif
*


Those are good ideas and will definitely be considered when we have the basic framework completed. For now, we'll start small and iterate in more features ssmile.gif

Protection might work—but if your goal for that is to avert "monopoly" or dominance by a particular team when there aren't enough people, I don't think that'll be an issue. We'll all start off at the same time (except testers stongue.gif), so there's no particular advantage conferred to anyone UNTIL the project gets big enough that there are many newcomers who can't possibly compete with the incumbents.

QUOTE (Garlic Junior @ Jul 12 2009, 11:40 AM)
If you guys work out the strategy element and basic ideas for characters and storyline, I will happily write up full Character Backgrounds, Origins, and a complete background Story to the game, perhaps even in novel format, if you would like that as a tie-in / more in-depth reading to coencide with the game.
*


Sure, that'd be cool.
Post Options

Jul 12 2009, 10:11 PM (Post #6)
Member Of The Year 2005
* * * * * * * * *
Posts: 10,363
Cash: -77,174 / 11,869,762
Group: Administrator
Joined: 2/28/03 10:58 AM
Cool, well I'll let you guys get on with organically expanding on the project and, when you are at the stage to discuss characters, settings and storylines, drop me an email ssmile.gif
Post Options

Jul 13 2009, 06:38 AM (Post #7)
General
* * * * * * *
Posts: 4,936
Cash: 29,817,299 / 68,857,771
Group: Representative
Joined: 11/26/02 02:31 AM
QUOTE (Derp @ Jul 11 2009, 07:27 PM)
Wow, sounds like a multiplayer Civilization IV, eh Brian?


More like Advance Wars, though turn-based strategies are good in general!



Unless I'm not interpresting this, I'm a bit at odds with the the game being massively continuous, ie: mmo style. It would really shift power to veteran players. I think a system that encourages new games on maps that can be purchased or built (membership incentive), and more frequent or more fast-paced gameplay, would be a more pragmatic approach to the architecture.

I'm mainly coming from the direction of having seen games of similar magnitude, and they all went belly-up, not because the new guys couldn't get to the top, but the massive power was boring.
Post Options

Jul 13 2009, 02:09 PM (Post #8)
Lieutenant
* * * * *
Posts: 894
Cash: -4,376 / 3,952
Group: Citizen
Joined: 12/18/07 07:25 AM
QUOTE (Billy Mays @ Jul 13 2009, 01:38 AM)
More like Advance Wars, though turn-based strategies are good in general!
Unless I'm not interpresting this, I'm a bit at odds with the the game being massively continuous, ie: mmo style. It would really shift power to veteran players. I think a system that encourages new games on maps that can be purchased or built (membership incentive), and more frequent or more fast-paced gameplay, would be a more pragmatic approach to the architecture.

I'm mainly coming from the direction of having seen games of similar magnitude, and they all went belly-up, not because the new guys couldn't get to the top, but the massive power was boring.
*




I agree with you on your point. MMO always become quite boring with the people who find the "loopholes" or take advantage of the loophole of veteran playership taking over the game and frankly, ruining it. I've seen this over and over again. Games like AOE2 or Diablo seem to be much more successful in preventing such gameplay.
Post Options

Jul 13 2009, 03:45 PM (Post #9)
Not Odd anymore
* * * * * * * * * *
Posts: 45,872
Cash: 1,911,877 / 1,817,041,051
Group: Administrator
Joined: 7/10/02 09:48 PM
QUOTE (Billy Mays @ Jul 12 2009, 10:38 PM)
More like Advance Wars, though turn-based strategies are good in general!
Unless I'm not interpresting this, I'm a bit at odds with the the game being massively continuous, ie: mmo style. It would really shift power to veteran players. I think a system that encourages new games on maps that can be purchased or built (membership incentive), and more frequent or more fast-paced gameplay, would be a more pragmatic approach to the architecture.

I'm mainly coming from the direction of having seen games of similar magnitude, and they all went belly-up, not because the new guys couldn't get to the top, but the massive power was boring.
*


Like I said, this is our project to design.

If a continuous game won't work, how about a 3 or 6 month refresh cycle, where people can keep some sort of memoranda from the previous games, like badges or something?

I don't want people to plan myopically, but I also see your concern about it getting boring and dominated long term
Post Options

Jul 13 2009, 06:36 PM (Post #10)
Here for the cute boys ;)
* * * * * * * * *
Posts: 16,850
Cash: 9,336,061 / 95,912
Group: Nobility
Joined: 5/08/05 04:11 AM
How about on the side, we develop a text adventure—or a build your own plot story. Simple, but can be very entertaining.
Post Options

Jul 14 2009, 02:38 AM (Post #11)
General
* * * * * * *
Posts: 4,936
Cash: 29,817,299 / 68,857,771
Group: Representative
Joined: 11/26/02 02:31 AM
QUOTE (Jinghao @ Jul 13 2009, 10:45 AM)
Like I said, this is our project to design.

If a continuous game won't work, how about a 3 or 6 month refresh cycle, where people can keep some sort of memoranda from the previous games, like badges or something?

I don't want people to plan myopically, but I also see your concern about it getting boring and dominated long term
*



A profile that displays badges, rewards, etc. from prior games would be a great idea.

I don't think we should design the game to be any particular length, though a game that encourages a reasonably long time would be good. I mean, that will likely just come down to the map size.

We will have multiple games running, I'm assuming? I think longer games with a low (20) maximum player count would be more personable, and probably be a better time for friends who want to play together.

That's something we could work out later.
Post Options

Jul 14 2009, 05:49 AM (Post #12)
Not Odd anymore
* * * * * * * * * *
Posts: 45,872
Cash: 1,911,877 / 1,817,041,051
Group: Administrator
Joined: 7/10/02 09:48 PM
QUOTE (Billy Mays @ Jul 13 2009, 06:38 PM)
A profile that displays badges, rewards, etc. from prior games would be a great idea.

I don't think we should design the game to be any particular length, though a game that encourages a reasonably long time would be good. I mean, that will likely just come down to the map size.

We will have multiple games running, I'm assuming? I think longer games with a low (20) maximum player count would be more personable, and probably be a better time for friends who want to play together.

That's something we could work out later.
*


Yeah, sure. Perhaps when the players decide to quit the game or when one alliance wins, the game is stopped and archived. I didn't mean to imply that the game will last X days or months; just an indication that I support the idea that it should have an end.

Multiple worlds would be cool. It'll prevent a single game from stalling us.
Post Options

Jul 14 2009, 11:44 AM (Post #13)
Colonel
* * * * * *
Posts: 2,579
Cash: 46,264 / 266,023
Group: Nobility
Joined: 12/14/05 03:32 PM
Don't go square grids, it's lame.

Go hexgrid.
Post Options

Jul 14 2009, 04:12 PM (Post #14)
General
* * * * * * *
Posts: 4,936
Cash: 29,817,299 / 68,857,771
Group: Representative
Joined: 11/26/02 02:31 AM
There would be nothing less lame about hexgrid, aside from a slightly more complicated structure. For ease of use and development, it would be a more pragmatic solution to make the more familiar square grid system, with an option for diagonal movement.
Post Options

Jul 15 2009, 03:21 AM (Post #15)
Not Odd anymore
* * * * * * * * * *
Posts: 45,872
Cash: 1,911,877 / 1,817,041,051
Group: Administrator
Joined: 7/10/02 09:48 PM
QUOTE (Billy Mays @ Jul 14 2009, 08:12 AM)
There would be nothing less lame about hexgrid, aside from a slightly more complicated structure. For ease of use and development, it would be a more pragmatic solution to make the more familiar square grid system, with an option for diagonal movement.
*


What I'm envisioning is that the world (big) maps will be just maps with points (regions), whereas the regional maps (the ones where actual activity happens, like mining and fighting) will be the familiar square grid. Much easier to say guy A is on (x,y) than to use some complex system to identify him on a hexagonal grid
Post Options

2 Pages  1 2 >