Other Software > Developer's Corner

Let's Make us some Games!

<< < (10/11) > >>

JavaJones:
So what are the advantages/disadvantages of building? The consequences or effects? If you don't build and your city gets destroyed, do you die? Lose points? Will you have to end up tending your castle when you'd rather be off fighting? If no, then how is the castle management dealt with when the player is not handling it - AI? And if that's the case then you have to develop the AI, and how effective is it? If it's too effective, no one will want to do the building parts. Lots of problems I see with that basic concept. I like that it's reasonably innovative, but it also seems kind of like just throwing in some unrelated components as sort of filler. The bits have to interrelate and depend on each other to make each compelling. I understand you just may not have outlined the idea fully, but it does already sound immediately complicated. If so perhaps it's something to do a little later, after a first game or prototype is done, to build momentum for the team and ideas.

- Oshyan

Mizraim:
Defending the castle would have the benefits of growth. If anyone played Utopia on the SNES, there were places where food was processed. I kind of see the same idea behind fortifying the castle. It could be like sending food to the troops, giving moral, or like in Civ, if your nation was destroyed, you had to settle a new town before too many rounds or you would disband, not seeing a purpose to fight for a nation that has no future. I'm out of time but I will revisit this for a better explanation. Thanks for the links and point of views. 8)

Deozaan:
If you think of an RTS, each faction needs resources. The castle would be akin to the main headquarters for your faction. Naturally there could be cities elsewhere that your faction controls.

This idea is starting to get very complicated, but I think it's worth mentioning just as an idea and not necessarily a mandatory feature. In fact this is probably best suited for something much more advanced than what we'd want to start with.

How about, like an RTS, when the faction had the resources to train/buy new units, what would happen in this particular setting is that new players joining in could only join the faction that had allocated the resources to train new units. So if your castle or main base was damaged or destroyed and you didn't have the resources, you couldn't "hire" more people to join the faction. It would be almost as if the game took place on another world and everyone who joined was basically a freelancer/mercenary getting into a contract to join the faction and be shipped off to the planet.

JavaJones:
Interesting concepts but it sounds like that *depends* on multiplayer functionality fundamentally, and that's a tall order for a web-based game - or if non-web based, then it would probably require a central server, or people to run servers. Not impossible, just additional complication we probably don't want to start with.

As far as the rewards of building and maintaining the castle, I understand the traditional goals of that in a regular civ-like RTS. It sounded like it was being suggested that it be different than that though, particularly in the sense that the user only controlled one guy. Would people follow you? Would additional units just run around with AI and do their own business? Lots of questions are raised in this scenario.

- Oshyan

Mizraim:
I agree. Something this big will take a team that can dedicate their time and get paid for their labor. I think if we want to go with a smaller idea, we could go with some of the afore mentioned ideas. This was something I wanted some input on and some brainstorming.

Another thing, maybe we could tone this one down a bit. Drop the multiplayer aspect. More or less, use the idea where you can bulid up cities and command armies, I guess like a Civilization and Populous mix. As basic as the first Populous was, that may be too simple, but somewhere along those lines.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page