Idea, Concept, Artwork needed for new Sci-Fi MMORPG

[Lagmonster]

Actually the problem is more of population density. We want what worlds we have bustling with life, we don't wan't 400 ghost towns.

Why not create a scenario where habitable planets ARE rare, and thus competition for them is waged in structured team-based racial PvP events? Say, where each event is held once a month, with preliminaries leading up to it, with the winning race getting control of a planet for that month?

The easiest way to factor in population density would seem to be to go the DS9 route - overcrowded, overpopulated deep-space stations crammed with illicit trade and over-worked, over-stretched security.

[Zablorg]

I just had an idea; Blackmarket smuggling!

Yeah, I figure that in these sorts of MMO's, a lot of players would put lots of attention into big, strong ships with a lot of DPS. By having smuggling as an occupation, you might increase the popularity of fast, agile, and possibly cloaked ships to avoid government authority.

And following that, how about big government sanctioned ships that go around patrol routes or something monitoring for illegal activity (such as same-species fighting, smuggling, etc).

[j1j2j3]

The population density=bustling with life I was refering to = actual game player population density.

You can't have that many worlds(places to go to) without stretching actual player density too thin. In other words, we need lots of player interaction.

15 minutes to cross all of known space is SLOW?

I'm sure it's not, but for gaming purposes it is. For example a friend on the other side of the galaxy gets attacked. It would take 15 minutes to go and help which in all probability be too late.

This in turn makes humans more likely to bunch around at keep together. Greys would be incouraged to act alone more often.

Hrm. I might be able to provide some ideas but they would require some info on the scale of the space combat. For instance, could players organize their own small fleet, similar to a "guild" found in many other online games? How would the warfleet battles occur? (for instance, would you receive pleas for assistance from ongoing fights, or would you simply follow the warfleet around and fight whatever it decides on?)

Scale as currently planned would be player organized fleets vying for domination or control of outposts(expanded upon below) or on 'quests' generated by server for 'gold = in game currency'

Player would start as a small scout ship able to advance to big mothership(battleship, carrier) types(current plan is to make mothership types economically unviable so that several players would have to band together to keep mothership running in effect forming 'guilds' by necessity).

There will be no 'levels' ; economics will dictate who gets a mothership or not. There will be however levels for crewmen(tradeable commodity).

Hrm. I might be able to provide some ideas but they would require some info on the scale of the space combat. For instance, could players organize their own small fleet, similar to a "guild" found in many other online games? How would the warfleet battles occur? (for instance, would you receive pleas for assistance from ongoing fights, or would you simply follow the warfleet around and fight whatever it decides on?)

Current plan is to have 'outposts(small moons or whatever)' player controllable.

There should be several 'core' worlds that provide safe zones and ship upgrade facilities per race.

The fringes have the above mentioned' player controllable outposts. Outposts will have some special 'resource' that would generate income making incentives to attack and keep in a players 'guilds' posession.

Outpost rescources will runout after several weeks or so too keep more powerfull guilds from monopolizing in game resources.

Defense of outpost should be easier than attacking and taking one.

I just had an idea; Blackmarket smuggling!

This is a great idea, and an additional incentive for small unnoticeable ships. Passed along to creative team.

And following that, how about big government sanctioned ships that go around patrol routes or something monitoring for illegal activity

This is obviously necessary for policing grief inducing players. We plan it so that griefing is VERY difficult, but not impossible.




Again, everything I've mentioned are just preliminary plans, nothing has been decided yet, so any suggestions, points that can be improved are very very welcome.

Current timeline for development is :
12 months for creative development and client side development.
6 months for alpha testing.
6 months for beta testing.
Launch in May, 2010.

Of course if we lose out to internal competition(another team is also working on a sci-fi MMORPG) everything goes down the drain. Which would also suck because then I would have been part to a losing team which reduces my chances for a nice contract the next year

[j1j2j3]

This might sound really, really unusual, but...why not create a more aggressive motivation for racial differences? Say you divide your three player races up so that they have a specific goal, which becomes reflected in their gameplay, skills, and equipment. For example:

(snip)

Passed on to our creative team which actually needs to come up with a backstory and something like what you said.

Hopefully this will help. Thanks.

[Darth Smiley]

For the love of all that is (and isn't) holy, please, please, please remember this little thing we like to call inertia. I am fucking tired of 'space' games that don't let you go faster than 3 km/s, particularly if you are constantly thrusting while not gaining any speed.

That said, one of the first things you need to consider is interface and piloting. One of the things I absolutely hated about EVE was that you couldn't really 'fly' your ship, all you could really do was chose the range between your ship and the enemy ship and hope for the best. Dogfights get so much more interesting when both players can use their ships layout and equipment to its maximum extent. Of course, you'll need an autopilot regardless - some players may be sucky pilots, and you don't want that to drive them off. Just don't prevent the people who can fly a spaceship from doing so.

Also, FTL needs to be carefully thought out. Start-Anywhere Go-Anywhere drives are wonderful in theory, but in practice they tend to make any kind of real conflict problematic. Why should two fleets ever fight each other if they can just warp past the enemy and bomb his homeworld? If FTL is cheap and easy, it may be nearly impossible to achieve a decisive victory, because the loser can always run for it, and not be followed ( actually, if you allow for ships being pursued and interdicted in FTL, that mitigates these issues). I would suggest an 'alternate space' style FTL - essentially, a ship moves itself into hyperspace, moves a short distance, and then comes out have moved a long distance. If hyperspace ships can be located and interdicted, it allows for both relatively freeranging FTL while still allowing for consequences. It also neatly avoids the problem of FTL missiles - ( in EVE, there was no reason you couldn't strap a series of nukes to an FTL package and ram it into enemy spacestations / planets with relative impunity). With hyperspace, FTL missiles can easily be shot down, requiring ships that can fight in realspace.

[j1j2j3]

I'm sorry, the middle of my earlier post should be :

Why not create a scenario where habitable planets ARE rare, and thus competition for them is waged in structured team-based racial PvP events? Say, where each event is held once a month, with preliminaries leading up to it, with the winning race getting control of a planet for that month?

Current plan is to have 'outposts(small moons or whatever)' player controllable.

There should be several 'core' worlds that provide safe zones and ship upgrade facilities per race.

The fringes have the above mentioned' player controllable outposts. Outposts will have some special 'resource' that would generate income making incentives to attack and keep in a players 'guilds' posession.

Outpost rescources will runout after several weeks or so too keep more powerfull guilds from monopolizing in game resources.

Defense of outpost should be easier than attacking and taking one.

[Lagmonster]

I'll tell you something else that appeals strongly to older players who prefer to use their brains: Customization. The more flexible your customization of equipment can be, the more fun guys will have tweaking their ships. Besides adding a sense of uniqueness, it creates a more fluid economy and eliminates the plateau created by introducing 'epic' weaponry. I would ten times rather play a game where all items were composed of dozens of basic to rare parts (each providing a minute improvement to a certain trait) welded onto a basic ship or weapons 'skeleton', rather than find all ships and weapons grouped into 'small, medium, and large' categories that almost serve to funnel the player into a fixed path of equipment progression. It also adds a sense of unique ownership and player mystique; your ship is its own Millennium Falcon, owner-tweaked in a way suitable to you.

The other thing I'd like to see more of is a substantial increase in item rarity. Taking Diablo as an example, over time the online market changed so that eventually, there was a flood of highest-end weapons on the market due to the constant generation of them in the game, and the millions of other items' value essentially fell to zero.
What I'd like to see is a game where ultra-rare or experimental weapons existed only as items which could not be placed on the open market and only acquired via specific feats or to players of certain rank or ability. Further to that, it would be nice to see that ammunition for the best of the best weaponry was rare by comparison, or even that superweapons had NO ammo reserves, forcing players to choose carefully whether or not they REALLY want to waste one of those impossible-to-replace alien death rockets and making combat mean more than just a 'hold down the button until somebody dies' proposition.

[j1j2j3]

For the love of all that is (and isn't) holy, please, please, please remember this little thing we like to call inertia. I am fucking tired of 'space' games that don't let you go faster than 3 km/s, particularly if you are constantly thrusting while not gaining any speed.

This is also a big topic internally, shall we have a real intertia based system or a terrestrial drag based movement system(full power = capped top speed , not using power = slowing down)

If we go with the drag based system(which is actually more likely) we need an excuse to do so. Current excuse is Most of the ship is in realspace not moving , part of the ship is in 'subspace' using something like a 'mass lightening field' that makes it easier to move around. The realspace part of the ship always drags the rest of the ship to a stop(I know there is no actual all stop in space but for gaming purposed we need a 'stop')

Any suggestions regarding an excuse to have a drag based system are very very welcome and needed.

Also, FTL needs to be carefully thought out. Start-Anywhere Go-Anywhere drives are wonderful in theory, but in practice they tend to make any kind of real conflict problematic. Why should two fleets ever fight each other if they can just warp past the enemy and bomb his homeworld? If FTL is cheap and easy, it may be nearly impossible to achieve a decisive victory, because the loser can always run for it, and not be followed ( actually, if you allow for ships being pursued and interdicted in FTL, that mitigates these issues).

Current planning is that control of 'resource points' would be the incentive to fight making convergence points.

For example the humans would always be able to run from battles but the greys can be waiting for them in their path. All three races will get interdiction tech which will pull enemy ships out of hyperspace.

[j1j2j3]

I'll tell you something else that appeals strongly to older players who prefer to use their brains: Customization. The more flexible your customization of equipment can be, the more fun guys will have tweaking their ships. Besides adding a sense of uniqueness, it creates a more fluid economy and eliminates the plateau created by introducing 'epic' weaponry. I would ten times rather play a game where all items were composed of dozens of basic to rare parts (each providing a minute improvement to a certain trait) welded onto a basic ship or weapons 'skeleton', rather than find all ships and weapons grouped into 'small, medium, and large' categories that almost serve to funnel the player into a fixed path of equipment progression. It also adds a sense of unique ownership and player mystique; your ship is its own Millennium Falcon, owner-tweaked in a way suitable to you.

This is actually exactly what we had in mind. The business model is actually for a 'free' game and we sell parts , items, crewmembers etc.

Space, weight, heat generation will be the 3 factors in strapping in parts. Somewhat like the Mechwarrior system.

The other thing I'd like to see more of is a substantial increase in item rarity. Taking Diablo as an example, over time the online market changed so that eventually, there was a flood of highest-end weapons on the market due to the constant generation of them in the game, and the millions of other items' value essentially fell to zero.
What I'd like to see is a game where ultra-rare or experimental weapons existed only as items which could not be placed on the open market and only acquired via specific feats or to players of certain rank or ability. Further to that, it would be nice to see that ammunition for the best of the best weaponry was rare by comparison, or even that superweapons had NO ammo reserves, forcing players to choose carefully whether or not they REALLY want to waste one of those impossible-to-replace alien death rockets and making combat mean more than just a 'hold down the button until somebody dies' proposition.

Superweapons will have less durability(uses, shots, ammunition) compared to normal weapons. We are thinking exactly what you are thinking on this topic.

Again, weapons bought with real money will have a much higher durability but will not necessarily be more powerful. So a player that has paid cash for weapons will be able to use his superweapons more often(how much more often needs to be playtest balanced) than someone who obtained his superweapons in game.

[Zixinus]

Any suggestions regarding an excuse to have a drag based system are very very welcome and needed.

To be fair, there is NONE. The idea to not use an inertia system is space is ridicolous, because that is what space has. It's simply the way it is.

Space is not an ocean (a fact that if you paid attention to, would actually make your product stand out). There is no drag. On large scale, it might actually be better in regards of balancing to have an inertia system then a drag-where-there-is-really-no-drag-but-we-will-have-drag-dammnit one.

Players will have to be more careful where they go, have to chose more accordingly and would allow for some manoeuvrability over their situation if you also attach more simple slingshot manoeuvres.

The strength of the rocket drives (if you are using rocket drives anyway) can really make the difference: the monsters use fission drives, humans use fusion drives, greys use antimatter/laser drives.

Besides, if you are using autopilot to select going between places in general, it won't really matter.

[Terralthra]

To be fair, there is NONE. The idea to not use an inertia system is space is ridicolous, because that is what space has. It's simply the way it is.

Space is not an ocean (a fact that if you paid attention to, would actually make your product stand out). There is no drag. On large scale, it might actually be better in regards of balancing to have an inertia system then a drag-where-there-is-really-no-drag-but-we-will-have-drag-dammnit one.

To be fair, I've worked on space combat sims, and we really tried to make a game with a true Newtonian physics engine. The problem is that space combat under Newtonian physics with any sort of realistic assumptions about weaponry and engines isn't fun. It's boring and battles take literally days, or it lasts half a second.

[Zixinus]

Even with FTL?

[Terralthra]

Even with FTL?

You're ok with breaking relativity with a 10-ton hammer, but space drag is just plain wrong?

Can we get a little consistency?

[Lagmonster]

If we go with the drag based system(which is actually more likely) we need an excuse to do so.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but drag-based systems are more fun overall, for one, and don't really demand an explanation other than dismissing it with the wave of a technobabbling hand.

If you are absolutely in dire need of an explanation for drag-based physics, you can always write it off to dozens of automated directional thrusters which serve to imitate the effects of atmosphere in order to make dogfighting possible.

[Zixinus]

You're ok with breaking relativity with a 10-ton hammer, but space drag is just plain wrong?

Can we get a little consistency?

You need FTL for the setting to work. There *might* be something that makes FTL work.

Space drag on the other hand violates something that is pretty clearly established and even common sense.

It was mentioned that different races have different FTL capabilities. They each provide different tactics and combat. Who says that space combat always has to happen in a Newtonian-only framework just because we follow Newtonian law?

Also, just because we assume inertia, doesn't mean we have to be realistic about everything else. We can have pretty crazy powered weapons and engines.

[j1j2j3]

Slightly unrelated question :

Do you think it would be worth hiring western sci-fi scenario writers/directors?

It would have to be done with the same budget, and hiring or contracting outside work would leave less for game development. So it's not an unlimited budget.

Rephrased : Would our in house team be enough? Or should we look outside?

Does scenario writing actually matter to warrant outside help in an MMORPG?

[j1j2j3]

Again on the inertia drive system, we acutally have someone here that is arguing for it pretty passionately.

One compromise is to have 1 race with an intertia sublight drive - Probably the greys to coincide with their higher learning curve.

Would that be a better compromise? Or would be having just one race with intertia drives be too disorienting?

[Zixinus]

Do you think it would be worth hiring western sci-fi scenario writers/directors?

It would have to be done with the same budget, and hiring or contracting outside work would leave less for game development. So it's not an unlimited budget.

Rephrased : Would our in house team be enough? Or should we look outside?

Does scenario writing actually matter to warrant outside help in an MMORPG?

This is a question for upper management. We can't help you here.

One compromise is to have 1 race with an intertia sublight drive - Probably the greys to coincide with their higher learning curve.
Would that be a better compromise? Or would be having just one race with intertia drives be too disorienting?

Having one race have inertia and suddenly no other races makes no sense. You either have Newtonian (or at least approximately Newtonian) system for travel or stick with the drag-based system. There is no Golden Mean here.

Again, just because you take away the space drag, doesn't mean there will be no dogfighting. You can still have crazy inertia control.

[j1j2j3]

This is a question for upper management. We can't help you here.

My question is : Is a better scenario worth slightly less gameplay.

Does the in-universe background matter more than gameplay?

[Zixinus]

My question is : Is a better scenario worth slightly less gameplay.

Does the in-universe background matter more than gameplay?

Obviously it varies. We are talking about an MMO here, so its not obvious.

So people like to immerse themselves for roleplay. Others like to just pwn like mad.

Personally I would say no, but there will be others that will think differently. Personal taste really.

[Lagmonster]

Slightly unrelated question :

Do you think it would be worth hiring western sci-fi scenario writers/directors?

It would have to be done with the same budget, and hiring or contracting outside work would leave less for game development. So it's not an unlimited budget.

If you're talking about raw plot, it will be vastly easier to get ideas for plot and scenarios by simply asking excited forum-goers who would give their left lung to participate in game design than to approach professionals who, in their collectivity, haven't had an original idea in ten years.

Just ask yourselves if an idea makes you excited. If you can't raise yourself to a level of emotional involvement, neither will anyone else.

Failing that, just ask for community feedback whenever you get stumped. People will fall all over themselves to give away good ideas if someone is going to create something with it that they can enjoy.

[Zixinus]

A site for some crazy ideas: http://www.davidszondy.com/future/futurepast.htm

[Lagmonster]

My question is : Is a better scenario worth slightly less gameplay.

Does the in-universe background matter more than gameplay?

No, because in-universe background is trivially easy to write if you have even a passing ability to fantasize on your own.

If you scour the web for indie games and freeware games, like I do, you'll eventually find out that sometimes the only part of games that people can do *consistently well* is write the backstory and plot. I've played simple flash shooter games where the backstory takes longer to read than the game does to play. You can often tell that people really just want to show you around their own personal fantasy universes far more than they wanted to make a game. In other words, as I said, just do what makes you excited, provided nobody else already has.

[Vehrec]

On the subject of crews: People are social. They interact with each other. Most crewmembers should interact only normally with other crewmembers.

But let's examine a special scinario. You've just 'hired' Micheal Irons, a Master Engineer. He gives a small bonus to all your ships systems and auto-heals it over time by directing damage control and repairs. Your crew includes several other people, including rookie gunner Usagi Uzuki and the ace pilot Von Himmelhausen. Usagi is very friendly and nice to be around, and Mr. Irons takes a shine to her. He pays special attention to the guns for her, and works a little better knowing that she's depending on him. She learns tricks to ease a little more juice into her weapons. In addition to the normal bonuses, Micheal and Usagi together on the same crew give an extra bonus to firepower. On the other hand, Mr. Irons and Mr. Himmelhausen don't get along at all. They hate each other, and Irons doesn't do his job as well as it relates to Himmelhausen. Himmelhausen repays the favor by abusing the engines. You get a penalty to speed, because these two just can't get along.

These interactions could even develop over time if you leave crew members in the same ship for a long time. A crew that's been together for a year might develop several beneficial interactions and make you think twice about dropping a crewmember. Or you might be desperate to get rid of an anti-social character who doesn't get along with anyone. It should also be the case that Junior Female Gunbunny B doesn't get the same benefit from Male Master Engineer C as Junior Female Gunbunny A. This will help creat the illusion that crews are people and not just part of the inventory.

[j1j2j3]

This will help creat the illusion that crews are people and not just part of the inventory.

Thanks a lot! Passed on with a star to creative team!