1066

[zolacat999]

Right well here goes my basic project plan, It will be based on events in England in 1066, Three armies will be present the Saxons, who were the original inhabitants of england at the time. The normans who came over from france to try to conquer england and The vikings. Those who know there history will know that in reality the Saxons beat the vikings at stamford bridge but were beaten by the normans at hastings, so in the end the normans owned england.

upon registering to the game the player will chose one of the three sides who are all at war with each other. then for the moment it will be that if you are a saxon you can only have Player V player combat again the Vikings and the normans. You will be able to explore the countryside to find things and battle Computer enemies. Do quests as well as buy multiple armor and weapons.

I know this is only a basic overview but it is start, more details to come             

[Xavier]

I smell a massive disproportion in viking vs others party count. Who would you want to play? Viking for me please!

[zolacat999]

true but I personally would rather play as the normans (better equipment). I would have to try to think of away round that if that started to occur but first I need to create the game first     

[Mufasa]

perhaps do some population control? I'd started on a game a while back that grayed out race choices if that race was too powerful

[Chris]

Who cares about better equipment. Vikings, I wanna be a super coolz viking! L33t rulz!

That's the thing you are to expect. Players will take vikings. I had similar problem, I wanted to make american civil war sim, but then majority of US players would choose the "good" north side. I doubt I could make it balanced. With vikings/saxons/normans it won't be a problem as to that extend, but still... Come one, whom would you choose if all were equal?

[Marek]

World of Warcraft doesn't seem to have this problem. Dark Age of Camelot has three factions, and they don't seem to have a balance problem either.World War II Online was a game entirely based on the premise of two factions, Axis and Allies, with the pvp actually affecting the state of the war front, and neither side got outnumbered.

I suspect that faction systems of this sort usually naturally balance out, especially if overcrowding in a faction makes it less fun. But, it's true that "viking" sounds a heck of a lot more badass than "saxon" or "norman". Maybe simply changing the name to, say, "norse" or "norseman" would help. That way you avoid the instant "awesome badass vikings" connotation but you keep the historical context.

I have to add that I think this kind of "realm vs realm" pvp play is a great idea for fostering player interaction and cooperation against a common enemy. In the MMORPGs mentioned above, for instance, you see players getting much more deeply immersed in pvp than when it's a free for all system.

[Chris]

World of Warcraft - has big bad ogres vs mighty knights. These sounds equal. The coolness factor, while not everyone would agree, is statistically equal.

Axis and Allies - it might be that it attracts "historians" type of players, they are not very affected by coolness thing Also, Allies consist of US+SovietUnion, it has a very big range or interpretation (you could pretend to fight on the Axis (and not necessarily as Germans) side to crush the red disease).


Saxons+Normans VS Vikings probably won't work this way. I mean, who heard about some "Normans" (except for history freaks or GB citizens)? Maybe if you watch RobinHood. On the other hand, everyone knows about vikings They have big axes, beards are strong and courageous

Yes, norse instead of vikings should work. They sound equally pathetic to saxons and normans.


Do you have any other names of "realm vs realm" games? And more info about gameplay, since you seem to be familiar with these. These sound interesting...

[JGadrow]

I suppose it'll throw the debate off if I said that I would probably choose to play as the Saxons... I've never found vikings to be "cool."

[zolacat999]

Thanks all for the feed back some population control may be in order, maybe offer gold or something to player who join the norman or saxon side. WW2 online does work well, i play the game and most of the time the sides are reasonable balanced   

[Chris]

What is the link to "World War II Online"? I found only some FPS with that name.
Does anyone know of any other mass team strategy games?

[zolacat999]

here is the link to ww2 online http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/

[Chris]

http://warofsupremacy.com

From their site:
Allies
Allied numbers have always been supreme in War of Supremacy, no doubt due to the feelings of patriotism of those who sign up. The allies also have good clan structure in that they have a clan for newer players and a clan for more experienced players.

Many of the allied players are from the USA and some with ex or current military backgrounds.

Axis
The axis have often been called the underdogs in War of Supremacy due to a lesser number of players (arguably because the majority of new players join as the USA). Numbers aren't everything though and with the right co-ordination, the axis have done well in the past. There is further debate about which side has the better country bonuses, with many arguing that Axis bonuses are superior.

Axis players themselves seem to be a collection of Europeans mostly in the younger age bracket of below 30-40.


I joined one world, top country was USA(30), second top Germans(15) and Italy(15)

[Nox]

I'd probably offer starting benefit or limit joining possibilities base on some mixture of player counts and their strengh...current values at the time of registration

I'd probably go for Saxons or Normans though

[Chris]

I'd rather go for altering combat die. If normal die is rand(1,6) the weaker side would have rand(2,6) instead. Weeding out the minimum rolls should have no game breaking effect. You could call it "coordination", smaller forces are easier to coordinate on global scale, that's why they have a bonus.
I don't like disabling joining one side for any reason. Some players are there to play just that side because, well, just because It would be cruel to bar them from it.

[Nox]

I'd dislike more making combat unfair for one side just because they chose a certain side...
hmf, but you're right about the barring, don't know, it's difficult

I'd probably choose some smaller economic bonus for weaker side then since combat is about direct interaction between players and I would refrain from making one side advantageous, eco bonus is a bit similar, but not so direct

[Chris]

Well, if you choose smaller side it will be unfair too since there will be more enemies killing your units and demolishing buildings It will be unfair no matter what solution we invent. But I think total fairness is not needed. If you take a weaker side and win you get more bragging rights The thing is to make it enough balanced to not let the game crumble.

This is assuming that it would be a team driven game (not solo ranking with sides as a flavour) and combat with casualities.

[jannesiera]

In my opinion, if you get a discussion like this, the classes aren't a good idea to begin with. It's absolutely silly to invent such tricky solutions to a problem that should never exist in the first place.

Try choosing different classes, presentation is very important. Perhaps you could even use the classes you have right now if they are presented as "equally cool".

Otherwise try changing the whole settings. I guess you probably want to do something about medieval england since you are interested in the subject, but do you really need it? It might be a lot easier to make your own settings in a non existing world, inspired by that subject. Or maybe, if you are able to use the historical context to create a very good story line emerged with gameplay players will show more interest in other classes.

It's just a matter on how you go about it, just don't create problems from the start. Don't be stubborn because of a small detail, it won't do your game any good. Use the passion for the subject to create a kick-ass game. Don't let it control your game.

[zolacat999]

I would like to keep it reasonable accurate, Side unbalance although could cause a problem is not one of my huge concerns, I could call vikings norse or many of the above solutions, The bigger problem at the moment is simply creating the game.   

[Chris]

The bigger problem at the moment is simply creating the game.   

LOL, well said Rep+1.

[133794m3r]

Well here's my two cents. I played a game that had 3 warring factions also, and teh developers took a pretty interesting way in controlling the population but they also added in a reason for people to wnat to capture all the other sides main items.

They had 6 gems 2 in each of the 3 areas. And teh goal was to get all 4 from the other two sides. Once you did this you got to talk to the "dragon" which let you choose to either a)reward you side with better exp, drop, and money drops. or b) punish the other two sides by reducing said stats.

Also there was one realm which no one wnated to play. It was basically a frozen north full of dwarves, goat people, and half dwarf things. So they were always wildly underpopulated whilst the "evil" realm was always pretty much a zergling rush type of thing. How they fixed this was the people from the zergling realm had their rates reduced, and the ones from the goat people area had theirs increased. This was because you couldn't go to fight until you were level 30 (cap's 50) so it slowed the zergling rush down whilst helping those of the goat people realm to get more units into the war. But your game not sure if it's got an actual goal. So i'm not sure what your style is.

If you make an TBS, make it so that the lowest population side will have a hand up on the resource buying, and that the higher up side will have lesser rates. Also if you're going to make it an RPG with PvP make it so that players have some sort of goal. Like conquering england. Since there are three warring factions in england. If the english take out this one area which'll be your conquering area. If they capture all the forts of the others, make it so that they "win" and that area's reset and a new battle starts again. DO NOT RESET THE PLAYERS if it's an RPG. If it's an TBS(turn based strategy), make it so that they do reset. Or well you have the choice though. As in you the developer do. On the one hand, players who just worked up their forces will be pissed, but the other ones who were weaker will be pissed b/c they can't get it as fast. But that's where the population control i talked about comes into play.

By adding in this little bit you can make it almost completely based on PvP but have a bit fo PvE to get the players up to where they need to be. Figure out what level you wnat the players to be when they can finally get to the "pvp land".

Any other things you're worried about ro any comments on my ideas to try to keep it balanced are welcomed.

[jannesiera]

If you make an TBS, make it so that the lowest population side will have a hand up on the resource buying, and that the higher up side will have lesser rates.

Gave me this idea:

Every faction has 1 unique resource. All factions need all 3 types resources. The faction which has the lesser population will have lesser resources and so they can sell for more money.

It's simple and dynamic + may be a very fun mechanic when done correctly.

[saljutin]

you can implement some sort of gods who will bless sided which have fewer men and give them some bonuses to help them against others. So less man on each side compared to other two, more gain you get because your men has plenty of courage and so...its all story

[jannesiera]

you can implement some sort of gods who will bless sided which have fewer men and give them some bonuses to help them against others. So less man on each side compared to other two, more gain you get because your men has plenty of courage and so...its all story

In battles courage can be a factor too. So, indeed, there are multiple roads to take.

But how's the game going until now? Are you learning to code right now?

[zolacat999]

I do like the idea of having an objective, my only concern was i didn't know how complicated that would be to do.   

[zolacat999]

Bit of an update i plan now to have an objective, each nation will own 4/5 towns in england (just a few to start with to keep it simple)  The objective will be to control all of the towns. After some thought, i decided that this is going to probably be quite complicated. So each side will be appointed a king/commander (call him what you will) who is in charge of organizing attacks and defenses. So when the leader decides he wants to attack the other nations town he will organize an attack roster, where people will sign up, then a day or so later (to give people an opportunity to sign up) the attack will start and all the players who signed up will be pitched against all the people inside the town that is being attacked. If the players attacking kill all of the players in the defending city then they capture the city, if not then the attack will have failed. Because there are 5 or so cities they will be placed so that only one is accessible at a time so if players don't want to be attacked then they can hide in a city behind there front line. However, they then are not helping there own side.

As for was of generating an income from the game i wanted to create a way of doing it with out causing to much advantage for players so i though that players can buy defenses for their towns, for example someone could buy a tower for their town which would mean that when attacked the defenders would have an advantage.