A thread about: Multiplayer Game Design

J

JoMo

Veteran XX
So, I've written up 2 game design docs so far on somewhat simple games, and read at least a dozen books on game design. I'm wanting to write one up one a multiplayer FPS.

I have a somewhat original idea for the concept, and I'd like some other input, I know a lot of you play different varieties of games. Judging from the survey that was done a week or so ago, many people prefer a FPS/RPG.

1) What setting do you prefer?

As an example: Tribes was futuristic, mechlike combat, Then you have the WWII shooters, which I think are overdone. There's a variety of settings to choose from.

2) What about vehicles?

Example: Enemy Territory, Quake are examples of games that feature strictly deathmatch style infantry. Battlefield 2 relies a lot on vehicles and teamwork.

3) Individual skill or teamwork?

Example: Battlefield 2 pretty much requires a good amount of teamwork to win, as does Tribes.

4) How do you feel about non-persistant "experience" on a per-server/per-session basis?

Example: Enemy territory has an experience system, as you gain more and play more you get things such as improved health, binoculars, flak jacket, etc..

To add in an RPG element, your character acquires experience points based on kills, defending objectives, capturing objectives. However, this isn't MMOFPS in the sense that it doesn't stay forever. I also don't believe it should have a huge effect on the gameplay or make you "super powerful" if you do nothing but play the game all day. Something to keep the user playing the game to gain more experience and get 'something'.

5) How do you feel about "legolike" objects?

Example: Like in renegades, you could deploy forcefields and blast walls.

Say you have a 'box' you can pick up and move about that will provide you with cover. Or a deployable, stationary gun that you could deploy anywhere and use. I'm not talking about things such as automated turrets. I'm trying to come up with something that gets away from the stationary already placed guns, bunkers, etc.. This will add another element of strategy.
 
ive spent a bunch of time thinking of ideas like this.

a great game is all about how the multiplayer runs smooth.


only vehicles there should be is scouting vehicles (and cant be really used for anything else).
teamwork, all the way.
experience should be a cross between both AA and BF2. with an experience bar, and with certs

deployables can be worked in after.

semi-rpg element could be worked into nearly any game, if done right. and im a big fan of it.
 
Last edited:
I've been toying with game design as an idle hobby for a while now, too. Lets form a development company! We can make my uber FPS/MMORPG/Space Sim game.



1). Futuristic. More options and directions to take in terms of art, you can work more in the realm of logical extrapolation, and none of that gay fantasy stuff ;)

2). Vehicles are fun, but they need to be balanced better than in BF2.

3). Both types have their place. Ideally, in an MMOFPS/RPG, you could do either (teams required for battle, but the odd individual could still be effective). My pet idea for this is to steal the squad command stuff from Republic Commando, so players can play by themselves, lead a squad of NPCs with simple AI commands, or join up with other players.

4). I think if there is going to be any kind of unlocking/XP/etc, it should be persistant or not there at all. If its per session, it just gets in the way for casual players.

5). Anything that lets the players manipulate the environment, even if its as simple as deploying stations or turrets or objects for cover, is a good thing. "Legolike" objects that allow players to set up for defense or add to bases... great thing.
 
SniperOmega said:
ive spent a bunch of time thinking of ideas like this.

a great game is all about how the multiplayer runs smooth.


only vehicles there should be is scouting vehicles (and cant be really used for anything else).
teamwork, all the way.
experience should be a cross between both AA and BF2. with an experience bar, and with certs

deployables can be worked in after.
Click to expand...

But in games such as BF2, it's like a MMO game, persistant. You can't 'lose' the medals you earn, so once you have them, you have them and there's no "carrot on a stick" making you play longer.

I'm talking non-persistant, CSlike 'money' that's used, where it accumulates while you are playing, but once you leave (of course there would have to be a semi-persistant time in say hours, the experience sticks around should you be dropped/kicked from the server) it is erased. I'm also not talking big changes, I don't believe people who have no life should be able to have a huge advantage over people that aren't able to play as long, but still something there that makes you try to 'reach the next level'. Whether it be like a 1/8 faster regen rate on health or energy or something like that.
 
1) What setting do you prefer?

Both honestly it just needs great game play

2) What about vehicles?

Tribes was perfect with vehicles, I like games that do have just a few vehicles to choose from but don’t make you rely on them entirely



3) Individual skill or teamwork?

Teamwork always makes multiplayer games even more fun

4) How do you feel about non-persistant "experience" on a per-server/per-session basis?

I really hate that idea in any FPS. But would be cool for a strategy game and is always needed in a MMO


5) How do you feel about "legolike" objects?

I wish more games would do this kind of thing adds alot of depth to everything.
 
1) I would like some neat techno-fantasy stuff with both guns and magic, kind of like the earlier FF games

2) NO VEHICLES PERIOD

3) Individual Skill working in teams

4) NO EXPERIENCE unless it's an actual rpg

5) NO OBJECTS. I want to play against people, NOT ai
 
1) current day or futuristic
2) vehicles are for the average player, popular competitive games dont have them
3) both should have room to shine
4) competitive titles should always be non-persistant
5) no
 
Excel said:
I've been toying with game design as an idle hobby for a while now, too. Lets form a development company! We can make my uber FPS/MMORPG/Space Sim game.



1). Futuristic. More options and directions to take in terms of art, you can work more in the realm of logical extrapolation, and none of that gay fantasy stuff ;)

2). Vehicles are fun, but they need to be balanced better than in BF2.

3). Both types have their place. Ideally, in an MMOFPS/RPG, you could do either (teams required for battle, but the odd individual could still be effective). My pet idea for this is to steal the squad command stuff from Republic Commando, so players can play by themselves, lead a squad of NPCs with simple AI commands, or join up with other players.

4). I think if there is going to be any kind of unlocking/XP/etc, it should be persistant or not there at all. If its per session, it just gets in the way for casual players.

5). Anything that lets the players manipulate the environment, even if its as simple as deploying stations or turrets or objects for cover, is a good thing. "Legolike" objects that allow players to set up for defense or add to bases... great thing.
Click to expand...

Have you checked out Battlefront 2? You can fight in space and "infantry style".
http://www.lucasarts.com/games/swbattlefrontii/indexFlash.html

There's no MMORPG aspect to it though.

1.) Yeah, I would agree, something different, a combination of perhaps futuristic and something else.

2.) The big thing now is vehicles, people love them, but do they take away from the gameplay as you have everyone rushing to use them?

3.) I dunno, are you talking about single player or multiplayer?

4.) See my other post.

5.) I agree that allowing player to manipulate bases, or the environment adds more depth to the gameplay and takes away the repetitiveness of the same maps. Just as an example, deployable sandbags for a WWII type game, where you can deploy them for cover etc..
 
I personally wouldn't want to see any vehicles, RPG/exp elements or "legolike" objects in a multiplayer FPS. I do enjoy team-based games, but it's nice when one player can make a difference. I guess that's easier with smaller teams. I'd like to see a nice balance between movement and aim :E
 
game design is an art, you won't "get it" by simply reading books about it. or even asking what people want. for example CS has the same (general) elements any other fps does, with a subtle difference, and its far more successful and fun than the competition.

tribes had skiing, which was unintended, and would have completely sucked if it weren't for that feature. in this case, it was art by accident.

the greatest games of our time weren't designed by asking what players wanted.
 
I think there should be a sort of team-based ghetto gang-banger FPS...kinda like Tribes meets GTA...Have all the maps be urban settings, and make it like capture the flag or something. Except make the flag a KFC bucket.
 
I'd say for experience take a different angle and make it team based or location based. If you have an objective to defend for example, anyone defending it earns experience points for it and that location will get additional resources allocated to it, or something like that. Beefing up an existing and effective defense may not be the best thing but I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at.

Anyway, that's all I really wanted to add :)
 
Khushi said:
the greatest games of our time weren't designed by asking what players wanted.
Click to expand...

kind of a dangerous business plan though (if thats in the future)

1) i think the world is due for a good wild west game of some kind. other than that, if the game is good i'm not partial to a particular setting beyond the usuals.

2) i tend toward no vehicles as they seem to create more problems than the fun they provide.

3) individual skill with teamwork helpful but not necessary.

4) sounds fine to have per session rewards but not sure i'd want to stick around long enough to really appreciate it, so make em fruity

5) sounds fine to have deployables or movable objects, just watch out they don't open up some cheesy turtling up tactic or something.
 
Here's the game I want to play.

Massively online, with ground combat (planetary campaign theatres/invasions, ship boardings, etc) elements, space combat (moving from system to system, commanding and crewing ships and fighters, hauling troops to invade planets with, etc) elements, and traditional MMORPG (do whatever you want, pretend to be a weapon maker or a hobo, etc) elements.

Two layers to the game, space and ground. Ground game is played in both FPS and Third person (like tribes, you can switch at will) and incorporates FPS gameplay with open ended "career" stuff. No IFF of any kind - faction membership is determined by uniform, codes/passwords you write down and type in, and by who you know (opens up an entire criminal underworld/espionage angle). A player willing to accept the risk can murder other characters, steal, spy for the enemy, sabotage, etc.

TK'ing is determined by what someone sees you do - green uniform guy kills another green uniform, you are prompted to report it. If he belongs to the green army he gets it on his record, if he is a spy nothing happens. Too many tally’s on your record, you get discharged and that character spends a week in jail (after which he is a civilian and can do whatever). This applies in battlefield situations and in “civilian” situations (murders, etc).
Characters cannot be deleted, you get a set number and they are persistent. So, taking advantage of the no IFF thing is possible, its not wise to do it - you cant just be a murdering, thieving cock then remake your guy and do it again. Your character's reputation and trust is something of an ingame commodity which would be guarded (who wants to recruit a known faggot, or buy from one, or make a fake ID for one, etc).

Space combat and ground combat can interact, but in a limited fashion. Ground zones can be bombed or invaded or have guns and vehicles sent down from space in the middle of combat, but its more of a "select zone for supply drop" thing - different engines and all that, just passing database data between each other. If someone wants to launch a fighter from a spaceship and then drop into the atmosphere, he essentially "zones in" then spawns in his fighter. Same for shuttles, drop pods, cargo pods, etc. Someone leaving the planet would do the reverse - get in a shuttle or whatever, and head straight up until they zone out and reload into the space game. In which case, they appear next to planet, above the area on the planet "linked" to that zone in the ground game.
Bombing (or artillery shelling) a zone has the effect of randomly applying damage to all players and materiel in the zone, and changes the zone map to reflect the damage (done by reloading the map, using one of several variants to reflect the current damage status of the zone). For example, level 1 damage is the normal, civilian-looking map that has no damage. Level 2 is slightly eroded, looking like there has been some fighting…. and down the line to a nuked, rubble strew variant used for when there has been long term shelling or just a nuke.

Ground zones would have capture points (factories, warehouses, shipyards, mines, military bases, etc) and produce or store resources either automatically or as instructed. So, capturing a military base doesn’t give someone points or anything, it gives them control of a defensible structure and ready access to any ammunition/weapons/vehicles that are inside it. That is, they don’t "own" the materiel (no IFF system, its all done by user discretion and the use of uniforms) they just have it in easy reach.

Space combat/maneuvering is all done with Newtonian inertia, so the "flight sim" feel of fighters is non existent - engine output is rated in terms of acceleration, not top speed. Ships, shuttles, fighters, etc can take up to an entire day (real time) to cross a system.
"Shields" work on a multiply layered system of vector deviation; each "layer" of shielding will magnify the % off-axis the vector of incoming fire is at. Incoming fire that is dead-one bull’s-eye perfect is not altered at all, but shots that are not perfect are bent away from the ship, increasing in deflection in direct proportion to how off-center the shot. Allows for player skill to make a difference in the otherwise chess-like space game, which plays out over many hours or even days (if the combatants are being cagy and not just bulling into each other).

Since players cannot be logged in all the time, a simple AI system is set up to manage in their absence. If the player captain of a ship logs and doesn’t want to give command to a subordinate player until he returns, he flips on the AI and instructs it using a simple command menu. In fleets, the AI can simply be set to obey menu-commands from the flagship, so even in large scale fleet combat, neither side is crippled by the absence of players - they are merely limited in flexibility (AI ships cant scout or anything, but they can fire on target, maintain formation with the fleet, etc). Using this system, someone could join their ship (if they had earned one or bought one) to a fleet and theoretically leave it for a month while they play the arcadish ground game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top