Outerra forum
Outerra Engine => Ideas & Suggestions & Questions => Topic started by: Grind and Click on March 20, 2011, 02:07:44 pm
-
As has been said, i would love to see this in a new generation of MMO in a persistent state world.
Namely- ArmA: Online. Or an Aliens universe game online.
I really dont know how it would be done, but my ideas for gameplay include parameters where you can use scale and not be trapped on one "small" in comparison island to do a mission on an enemy that may not even expect you.
e.g when you play online in a server for arma 2, the other side obviously knows whos on the server and on what side and that it wont be before long before they find them.
Now take Outerra, give people the ability to chose anywhere (possibly relevant to side or storyline) to make their own base and be given tasker missions, maybe say if they were a mercinary force in this case.
Just the open endedness, and have it include fantastic sounding things, like underground secret bases or even a secret military moonbase, ....man i just cant begin to describe what i mean and yet my idea is so simple in a way.
Scale! Freedom! Content!
Im tired of being hoarded into a little map and bunched up against enemys with no element of surprise.
I want to take my SAS squad through mountains on our own garnered intel to find an enemy encampment, but it be populated with players too.
I want to rise through the ranks and get involved in high command secret projects that affect the game world.
I want to be sent out in a patrol to search an area and maybe find nothing. But function with my squad and that be the fun.
Have each portion of game from infantry to tanks and flight be at a simulated level, and not too arcadey, i suppose a bit like how ArmA runs now but more concentration on the flying being more simy. but then take games like Orbiter 2010 for space. (IE i support the thread that questions multilevel simulating with different companies working on each bit)
Like several games overlapping eachother....is that even possible? WW2OL does it on a semi-basic level so i guess not?
Thats in respect to my Arma: Online idea. As for the Aliens universe online thing, im not sure how much- say like that game "Infinity" "Outerra" is in reference to space travel.
But id want my own quarters on a troop transport ship and head out on missions to other planets and inspect downed transmitters.
Are people seeing what im getting at? Am i not considering the complicated and unpractical side of things enough as to how this type of gameplay would work?
-
I can totally imagine that, and yes it could be a great fun.
One of the potential problems is the scale of the planet - even if there were several hundred teams, finding an enemy encampment on your own would be quite hard. It would need some balancing - the ability to cloak your own base versus the difficulty of finding the other one by some traces.
-
True.
Perhaps each's side could be compartmentalised and you could specialise.
Forinstance the "Inteligence" side could share what they know and it could get passed down to a squad to recon or attack force etc.
Inteligence could be anything from placement of spy sattelites, the launching of them and the upkeep of them (making use of the space sim part) to spying and any number of inteligence orientated things. (just trying to show it doesnt need to be a boring specialisation even though it isnt hands on combat all the time)
(The placement of the enemy base could also be attributed to something that would attract a base to be there, maybe a bit like command and conquer where bases are attracted to being near Tiberium so they can farm it. But for ArmA: Online just another medium to attract a base so areas of suspicion can be reconed or whatever and scale doesnt have to matter so much.)
Depending on how big the enemy base is would have to be taken into account whether just a recon squad goes to watch/infiltrate clandestinely or a full on attack brigade/platoon is mustered. So if its a sizeable base then the movement of the attacking sides forces (if attack brigade/platoon would surely have to match or be greater than that of the enemy base) might be picked up on by the enemys inteligence.
So in all, compartmenting each area of the military then balancing it against the enemies could be a starting point for an easier way to balance? Then of course you have differances of equipment quality and tech, like what would Russia Vs the US look like in a balanced game world.
Sorry, is this getting more into actual mechanics for a game rather than actually speaking about the engine?
-
I was thinking about being able to pick a noisy radio signal from machines and devices used at the base. A kind of a passive radar. It would provide a hint as to in what direction something lies, with some uncertainty.
But what about the distances and realistic movement speed? It will have to span a larger time period as well, what with the attacks during the time the player is logged off?
Sorry, is this getting more into actual mechanics for a game rather than actually speaking about the engine?
Yes but then this thread is about discussing ideas, so it's not forbidden :)
We can split it into a separate topic though.
-
I was thinking about being able to pick a noisy radio signal from machines and devices used at the base. A kind of a passive radar. It would provide a hint as to in what direction something lies, with some uncertainty.
Thats even better i think, perhaps a certain piece of radio equipment that you would have to learn how to use properly and perhaps requires some talent, and also be on high enough terrain to use depending on how far and in what terrain the base is located.
But what about the distances and realistic movement speed? It will have to span a larger time period as well, what with the attacks during the time the player is logged off?
Depending on the nature of the base (It could be deep in its own territory and able to stay indefinitely) The base would be there for the duration of its need eithre way, giving say (for example) if it was an outpost base near a border then the nature of it is covert, so say it only needs to be there a week for the enemy to find it in real time before its packed up and ordered to relocate, "Shut it down" Jason Bourne style.
Or if the player wants to risk having his base there longer its up to him depending on the mission, but obviously people wont play for a week at a time, more like hours. But this is where the scale comes in handy, and so does the radio idea. If the base has to shut down it will be a silent base, and it can be "camo netted" or equivelant quickly perhaps etc. Maybe a sattelite heat scan of the area can be requested and check if anyone is honing in on the base, but you only get one scan per day etc.
This is of course if there were sides and factioned play, open ended play like "heres the gear, there is a substance of interest, like gold or whatever being mined, you go mine it to get more gear, but watch out! *kicked out the door into the world*" Then surround it with some story to fit. I can see that kind of play having everything from self made armys to roaming solitary mercinaries?
The traveling speed should be fine, if its far, then get a flight by someone whos flying say a C130 somewhere or similar vehicle and the pilot (much like flight sim people like to do) is happy to just fly the flight but it have actual affect on the game world, his passengers/cargo isnt imaginary now, but if you needed to change country then it shouldnt be too often as wherever you go initialy will be your point of interest not the traveling itself.
I also just had a thought that a form of High command, like WW2OL could be organised, and squads(clans) are given locations to scout/attack/mine etc etc etc and that be the designated mission type, once they report back that they did what they did and what they found they can be rewarded money for more gear. Or if its a mineing outfit maybe it can also be comission based.
Sorry, is this getting more into actual mechanics for a game rather than actually speaking about the engine?
Yes but then this thread is about discussing ideas, so it's not forbidden :)
We can split it into a separate topic though.
Coolcool.
-
Even if a game was stated and right off the bat you were told exact lat lon cords for the enemy position. Getting a battle response organized, mobilized and executed would keep someone busy for at least a real life week or longer dependent on the actual distance.
-
Thats when stuff gets a bit GAMEY, like WW2OL you can move supplies and things through the ether so certain points.
Thats supposing its not just a recon mission and its an SF squad being sent of 6 or so guys.
-
The traveling speed should be fine, if its far, then get a flight by someone whos flying say a C130 somewhere or similar vehicle and the pilot (much like flight sim people like to do) is happy to just fly the flight but it have actual affect on the game world, his passengers/cargo isnt imaginary now, but if you needed to change country then it shouldnt be too often as wherever you go initialy will be your point of interest not the traveling itself.
I think traveling to wherever you want would be an essential possibility to have. If you want to change the country, hire a scramjet pilot who flies you there. But perhaps you cant take all your stuff with you this way, like the base for instance.
Or only light troops can travel this way.
(http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/55136main_scramjet2a.jpg)
I also just had a thought that a form of High command, like WW2OL could be organised, and squads(clans) are given locations to scout/attack/mine etc etc etc and that be the designated mission type, once they report back that they did what they did and what they found they can be rewarded money for more gear. Or if its a mineing outfit maybe it can also be comission based.
High command would be great. The people in the high command could be the ones who go through all the intel from the satelites and observation teams on the ground, formulating assault plans and such for the combat units. Never played WW2OL but I was thinking of the commander in Battlefield 2, but then much more complex.
Even if a game was stated and right off the bat you were told exact lat lon cords for the enemy position. Getting a battle response organized, mobilized and executed would keep someone busy for at least a real life week or longer dependent on the actual distance.
I was thinking of a slider,
where one can adjust the complexity of the steps necessary to initiate battles, prior to a game.
For those who dont have a week. :)
-
For those who dont have a week.
Solved by employing NPC guards and troops, which could be updated (improved). Of course, you'd have to pay them somehow, to keep them loyal and to keep them from saying, "I'm not gonna get paid, so I QUIT!"
And have instant email alerts for when you're offline: "Commander, we're receiving intelligence reports that an unknown force is within 24 hour strike distance from the base. Please advise."
-
Thats when stuff gets a bit GAMEY, like WW2OL you can move supplies and things through the ether so certain points.
Thats supposing its not just a recon mission and its an SF squad being sent of 6 or so guys.
To clarify,
I think if a big main attack was going to happen then forces over a certain amount can be moved quickly and in a oner, like this but otherwise its a sim so its part of the play. Just try and keep points of interest as means to populate?
Solved by employing NPC guards and troops, which could be updated (improved). Of course, you'd have to pay them somehow, to keep them loyal and to keep them from saying, "I'm not gonna get paid, so I QUIT!"
And have instant email alerts for when you're offline: "Commander, we're receiving intelligence reports that an unknown force is within 24 hour strike distance from the base. Please advise."
Yeah some basic AI defense would be good and requesting a sat scan from a web browser and getting a report emailed to you could allow you to keep tabs.
I think traveling to wherever you want would be an essential possibility to have. If you want to change the country, hire a scramjet pilot who flies you there. But perhaps you cant take all your stuff with you this way, like the base for instance.
Or only light troops can travel this way.
I agree, maybe near future would allow for a scram jet travel option too.
If we keep areas of focus, i think that could keep things as ive said more concentrated too.
Repeating myself now, cameni, hope im inspiring something and not digging myself out a problematic idea.
-
Repeating myself now, cameni, hope im inspiring something and not digging myself out a problematic idea.
It usually comes together, doesn't it? :)
And have instant email alerts for when you're offline: "Commander, we're receiving intelligence reports that an unknown force is within 24 hour strike distance from the base. Please advise."
Yeah some basic AI defense would be good and requesting a sat scan from a web browser and getting a report emailed to you could allow you to keep tabs.
Now this reminds me of the Travian browser game, where you are getting tips about forthcoming attack, though you don't know who is attacking.
We had a similar idea for a multiuser game that would not require heavy server networking infrastructure, relying on AI for attack and AI or human control for defense. It would be like sending an attack force to designated coordinates and continuing to manage your base and surrounding lands. Once the units arrive to their destination, player could be able to establish a comm link and control his vehicles or soldiers directly.
One interesting aspect of it (which I haven't thought through yet much) would be if it was implemented using the defender's computer as a temporary server for the action. The attackers (or friendly forces) would be effectively connecting to his machine and the ability to connect would be conditioned by the player's presence, otherwise AI will take care of things.
-
Ha yeah, i guess it does.
A point id like to try and convey in my idea is the mystery of your being in the game, as in your suddenly stood there with the means to make a base and perhaps mine a substance of some sort for money. From wandering loan backpacking mercinary, to someone whos made a clan of guys 100 or so large running their own large scale base complete with airfield.
Abilities to eventually build space vehicles (for the Orbiter 2010 style gameplay) to launch your own sattelites and maybe even eventually moonbase?
The rest is just content from the developer and the gameplay and society of the world invented by the player as it happens, or at least...try that in beta and the developer curve the flow of play as they see fit? Give the player the tools and see what game seems to arise from the players.
TOO open ended? Greifers galore? But then they would have to find you and you have your own stealth measures, so they are entitled to try and find you for the sole purpose of attack because they would have had to earn it, and you have defenses you have seen fit to be worth the value of the base.
To help those starting out in an already developed world, maybe like "EvE: Online" there are safe zones, or low and high sec as its called?
This is the sort of storyless side of things, the factioned side vs side or Russia vs USA could need more organisation, but thats what the high command with the use of AI would be for.
One interesting aspect of it (which I haven't thought through yet much) would be if it was implemented using the defender's computer as a temporary server for the action. The attackers (or friendly forces) would be effectively connecting to his machine and the ability to connect would be conditioned by the player's presence, otherwise AI will take care of things.
Thats a really good angle actually, as long as when you moved maybe a large force into his area his computer didnt stutter as if it just loaded 40 battle tanks onto his server lol, or he wouldnt be able to easily hack his own server as it were and detect you other ways.
-
The only thing is ive actually seen arma decrease the size of the island in arma 2 from one which means they probably wont be going in this direction.
-
The only thing is ive actually seen arma decrease the size of the island in arma 2 from one which means they probably wont be going in this direction.
I don't believe that was done as a "plan" they just picked a real piece of land and it happened to be smaller than the original arma1 island. I liked the island better.
Maybe cameni can show us the chenarus area in outerra. Im sure the cords are somewhere.
-
AFAIK both BIS (Arma) and RealTime Immersive (a Crytek studio for serious games) work on enlarging the size of terrains they can support, and it's likely that this tech will be later back-ported to their game oriented engines.
Nothing like a whole planet though.
-
Well i guess in the end it doesnt need to actually be ArmA anyway, just a form of mil-sim prefferably.
What do people think of mineing as the purpose and high and low sec EvE:Online styles of areas to travel to as a start with a form of intel gathering and hunting if your an aggressor force.
Bare bones---does anyone have an idea of solidly making it a mil-sim style of game like arma at this scale or have i put over any points that could already potentialy result in a method?
-
What are "high and low sec EvE:Online styles of areas to travel to"?
Our plan (http://www.outerra.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=201) is to develop the sandbox functionality first, making a game with basic economy and resource mining and building stuff. There's a possibility that a mil game could be build atop of it later as well.
As for the ideas, I think everything will become more clear once people get the grasp of the space available there and test out their ideas in place.
-
Yeah i quite like your idea to try and kickstart the engine to show off its capabilities, I sort of touched on that-
Give the player the tools and see what game seems to arise from the players.
In a nutshell high security means you are very unlikely to be attacked by...lets say by pirates/mercs, for the purpose of this idea lets say permabases made and placed by developers and are easy enough to get to and are more frequently close deep in friendly territory. Low sec areas have lower security as you get closer to the enemy (but richer in resources for your needs).
Meaning if there is an enemy close enough by that has detected you and is sizeing you up (probing, stalking etc), it could turn into a distance fight, on if you can get back to a permabase before the enemy presence (which you will sort of know by this point is larger than yours, through whatever you used...UAV, Spec Ops squad recon, used up one of your daily sat scans etc) catches up to you.
Ill fold now, and in brief say I agree the global scale is a problem (a great one right? :) ) but with what you have already sort of been questioning the forums on "the multi-level simulator" with each segment specialisation/vehicle developed by an independant company(?) the richness of that cross over would attract hopefully more players than if it were a single specialisation sim (flight sim, train sim, anything individualy). So would it attract all the crowds from each individual gaming area to populate it, and the distance is "shortened"? Flight sim guys do the flying, train sim guys do the railwaying etc etc etc etc?
The scale then becomes the beauty? The only downside being it just isnt for "Bad Company 2" sorts of gamers.
-
Ill fold now, and in brief say I agree the global scale is a problem (a great one right? :) ) but with what you have already sort of been questioning the forums on "the multi-level simulator" with each segment specialisation/vehicle developed by an independant company(?) the richness of that cross over would attract hopefully more players than if it were a single specialisation sim (flight sim, train sim, anything individualy). So would it attract all the crowds from each individual gaming area to populate it, and the distance is "shortened"? Flight sim guys do the flying, train sim guys do the railwaying etc etc etc etc?
The scale then becomes the beauty? The only downside being it just isnt for "Bad Company 2" sorts of gamers.
About the scale:
I think have a few places (cities) ready where players can meet and exchange stuff, perhaps make it posible to develop land somehow and I am pretty sure the world would be lively enough after some time and there would be enough hotspots to fight about, provided that OT supports enough players at a later stage.
About Bad Company 2:
I dont think playing Bad Company 2 rules out playing simulations.
The older Battlefield 2 (and soon BF3) has ground vehicles, jets and helicopters and stuff. Do something like that in OT, crank up the simulations part if you want, with destructible environment and you would perhaps have even more people interested in it.
-
Sorry didn't read the whole thread.
I don't believe simulation is a problem for any gamer as much as the scale is. The long trips in WWII online scare away all the quick action players who play BC2 and CoD. If a war game comes out on this engine I hope they implement the squad respawn that is seen in Battlefield 2 and Bad Company.
-
About the scale:
I think have a few places (cities) ready where players can meet and exchange stuff, perhaps make it posible to develop land somehow and I am pretty sure the world would be lively enough after some time and there would be enough hotspots to fight about, provided that OT supports enough players at a later stage.
Yeah that fits well with what i have in my mind. To use the rest of the land though would be a positive idea and have hideouts and your own bases you put up at your own risk to mine areas (or for your own reasons), but the more players instead of AI you use, the greater the yield lets say of a mineing op to promote more player based interaction?) plus the idea cameni had earlier about tracking radio signals could work to track whoever you want by having it so when you sign up to the game your given your own signal frequency that you only give to those you trust, but in certain - perhaps quite difficult ways it can be worked out by anyone interested, but your signal frequency can be changed once a week if you want to as well, or perhaps every few days, forinstance if there was a mode of play where you can choose to be a Mercinary and track targets from people who contract you.
I said id fold but i had another museing, and that seeing as its such a grand scale perhaps in the world there could be sorts of places of interest not marked on the map, just secret things that the developers put in, from having certain areas of say the south pole are rich in a secret high value mineral that isnt in the manual that the playerbase itself has to discover, or a UFO crash site, or even for that matter UFO's that the developer can enter in the game once in a blue moon to see if anyone notices it, then if its spotted and screenshotted by a player, then a whole mystery can start on the forums as to what it means if anything or if it was photoshopped, or honestly even Yeti's and Bigfoot haha, i know it sounds funny but dont you remember the great discussions all over the net about Bigfoot being spotted in GTA San Andreas, it created a great atmosphere back then trying to hunt it down, just great mystery like that, and brings the world to life a bit, as if its a frontier and your discovering every day like our own planet with similar mysteries.
About Bad Company 2:
I dont think playing Bad Company 2 rules out playing simulations.
The older Battlefield 2 (and soon BF3) has ground vehicles, jets and helicopters and stuff. Do something like that in OT, crank up the simulations part if you want, with destructible environment and you would perhaps have even more people interested in it.
While i do essentialy completely agree, for some reason it never comes out like that for these types of games i have in mind. The smoothness of the movement in BC2 you just dont seem to find in games like ArmA or WWII Online, its always for some reason more awkward to aim and turn your guy a bit more. I think ArmA has it down for scale and ability of movement. But id love what you just described alot as long as it didnt give the player too much individual ability.
-
While i do essentialy completely agree, for some reason it never comes out like that for these types of games i have in mind. The smoothness of the movement in BC2 you just dont seem to find in games like ArmA or WWII Online, its always for some reason more awkward to aim and turn your guy a bit more. I think ArmA has it down for scale and ability of movement. But id love what you just described alot as long as it didnt give the player too much individual ability.
I agree, the movement when running around in Arma 2 (I have only played the second part of the Arma games), is indeed a bit delayed , I think it is supposed to me more realistic this way. But I am not sure if it is.
Personally I prefer the smooth movement of a BC2 over the delayed one in Arma2.
Although, BF2 and BC2 are a simulation/action games mix in some aspects imo. When moving your avatar,
you still get the feeling that you are running, it is not as smooth as in for example Quake live or CoD.
The pacing of the BF games is a bit slower, though not as slow as in Arma.
It would be awesome imo, if character movement in an OT game would not be too delayed, though when it comes to vehicles, I dont mind the simulations part.
Beeing able to adjust the simulaton level for vehicles later on, could be an other feature that would be useful and I think it has been discussed before on this forum.
Wow, OT looks so promising. :D
-
Hah, i know.
I just rewatched the Apache flight video, its so smooth and exactly what im after in a game with this scale.
I just love the idea (and have honestly thought of this sort of thing before myself) that different developers work individualy on different segments of the game so the content can be both of quality and scale, and the filling of scale is exactly what OT wants to do.
-
Hardware + Software + Infrastructure = :D
ETA 2012 ETA 2013 ETA 2013
-
What am I on about?
Ok, expect an 8th Gen console towards the end of this year.
It will be capable of, unnecessarily, running multiple instances of the Outerra engine.
Software.
Whenever Cameni is done ;)
Plus all those potential add-ons, for example: flight sims, mil-sims, vehicle & sea based sims. the list goes on.
Well, we expect, in the UK, to have HTTP/HTTC in all mojor cities and many towns by 2012/13.
Regarding the original post.
If this is an MMO, like Battleground Europe, then the high volume of players will make it feel "not so empty".
Since this will, yes will, be a pc/console game, it will be part of an exsiting network like PSN and Xbox Live.
Therefore, my squad will comprise of members of my friends list.
There are about 100+ million gamers worldwide, so plenty of friends and comrades to find.
-
I wonder, would it ever be able to be crossed over? At least Xbox and PC gamers playing on the same server?
Ive refined my idea down to a basic i think.
Get given the tools to mine, and develop a military force/base that you can upgrade over time down to individual soldiers weapons and camo etc all modeled on a sim level so that even if you just want to fly from a destination to another then you can and get the same enjoyment as you would in Xplane.
Track other bases with a degree of difficulty and using your own tactics as was suggested by cameni with radio signals and base radio "noise", have some content developed in the world with perhaps citys as safe/trade zones and get kicked out into the world and see what happens...
Is that too vauge? Im sort of reiterating on players making their own game with beautifuly created sim level content from soldiers and classes/specialisations to sim level vehicles and indeed the world itself.
-
I wonder, would it ever be able to be crossed over? At least Xbox and PC gamers playing on the same server?
Ive refined my idea down to a basic i think.
Get given the tools to mine, and develop a military force/base that you can upgrade over time down to individual soldiers weapons and camo etc all modeled on a sim level so that even if you just want to fly from a destination to another then you can and get the same enjoyment as you would in Xplane.
Track other bases with a degree of difficulty and using your own tactics as was suggested by cameni with radio signals and base radio "noise", have some content developed in the world with perhaps citys as safe/trade zones and get kicked out into the world and see what happens...
Is that too vauge? Im sort of reiterating on players making their own game with beautifuly created sim level content from soldiers and classes/specialisations to sim level vehicles and indeed the world itself.
But the pc players will beat the xbox players, that's why it was scrapped in the first place.
Well... thats what the rumour was.
-
One thing I could see with this engine is the ability to actually be able to buy land. Useing two types of credit systems. One credit system would be the game world money, and the 2nd be buyable money that players can go onto a site and buy these credits with real world money.. With the second credit system players could then use the 2nd money system to buy land from players. And or the developer himself. They could also use this credit system to sell stuff as well to other players.. Like say property with base's and stuff already on them.. Then they could turn around after say some one baught there base. Send the credits as real world money back to there own account. Pay pal ect Players could actually buy and sell stuff in the game and soon turn up a liveing buying, and selling virtual property and or objects to one another. Sort of like second life.
If done right the developer of this engine, and also players could make a huge living off this engine.Though the exchange rate would need to be setup. Like you buy the credits for more then you get when you put them back into your account as real world money.
Like say 50 real world dollars with get you 1000 game credits.. But to get 50 real world dollars back you would need 10,000 credits. ect
-
In a mil-sim too....you mean?
-
One thing I could see with this engine is the ability to actually be able to buy land. Useing two types of credit systems. One credit system would be the game world money, and the 2nd be buyable money that players can go onto a site and buy these credits with real world money.. With the second credit system players could then use the 2nd money system to buy land from players. And or the developer himself. They could also use this credit system to sell stuff as well to other players.. Like say property with base's and stuff already on them.. Then they could turn around after say some one baught there base. Send the credits as real world money back to there own account. Pay pal ect Players could actually buy and sell stuff in the game and soon turn up a liveing buying, and selling virtual property and or objects to one another. Sort of like second life.
If done right the developer of this engine, and also players could make a huge living off this engine.Though the exchange rate would need to be setup. Like you buy the credits for more then you get when you put them back into your account as real world money.
Like say 50 real world dollars with get you 1000 game credits.. But to get 50 real world dollars back you would need 10,000 credits. ect
There are a few examples of these, I think they are called "Real Cash Economies", out there.
Like you mentioned "Second Life", and also this really bad game IMO, called "Entropia Universe".
The latter being a total rip off by the way. One can buy virtual land there,
but you have to spend like 10.000$ real dollars for a small piece of it. You can set taxes on it, so players whom happen to mine and hunt on that land, have to pay the owner a certain percentage of their loot value.
But the system is so flawed there, oh gawd :o
Only a very small percentage of the players there make some money off the game, namely those who own an attractive piece of land, the rest will always lose. It is designed that way.
"Entropia Universe" being an example of how it should not be done IMO, lol.
Personally, when it comes to games or mmorpgs, I like a system more where one pays a set monthly fee and everything else is basically up to you and not to the contents of your real life wallet.
Or a play for free model with the possibility of a premium account, if you want to pay a monthly fee.
For example, if you dont have a premium account, you cant own land etc.
-
I would be alright with a real money for land and equipment setup on one condition. That land and equipment can be stolen and held by other players. Then you can have an insurance for real monies setup where you could be reimbursed in-game. Then you could have real money mercenaries for hire to get back your land and equipment.
Until everyone is real life broke.
-
When the addition of a second currency is introduced, you are destined for an unfair world. You have paid for the game, maybe for a monthly subscription because you admire the game enough; but when you have to pay more just to get stuff done within the game, something isn't right. Just imagine the less well-off gamers wanting to play a game they have saved up for, then they get they're ass kicked by some spoilt teenager who gets money handed to him on a gold-plated tray... There should be and in-game currency and an in-game currency only... you earn what you put in... don't just buy your way to success.
-
Well I am not sure if being able to actually steal land and stuff should really be put in.. I mean yeah it sounds kewl and all but the problem with that is you would have to be on guard 24 7. And doing that you would basically be unable to leave your piece of land. Now personally if there was a option to enable that setup and say turn it on and off every 24 hours and have a warning telling the player if they do this there piece of property could very well be stolen. Then that might be a viable option. But you have to remember getting your stuff stolen or taken over by people after you worked your butt off creating you stuff on your land is not fun. And having real life money involved will cause alot of people to be mad.
Though yes if you ask for it. That person gets what is coming to him or her. Have to remember too there will be players whom cheat. And yes it can happen even on a system like this. And other mmo games to boot.
When there is real money involved the developers will have to take every precaution to make sure people is not swindled out of there land or the time and resources they put in playing this game. But yeah being able to actually buy and sell land would be good and actually benefit the developer of this engine very good.. Or whom ever licenses it from them.In the future.
-
I think what needs to separate Outerra from every other engine would not be just the scale of activities in-game but the pace. In arma/2 the entire map with 15 towns can be taken over in 4-8 hours. I'd hope in outerra making military actions against an enemy held town would see more caution and planning. A persistent world with a persistent fighting force (Your personal ai army) per-player that when damaged/wiped out would cause a week or two in real life to rebuild should be a good enough deterrent to the standard "run and gun" tactics. Being able to take over any of your AI in any position at any time would mean your never just the commander nice and safe in your armored truck miles from the action. You could be the reconnaissance pilot in the spy plane surveying the land or the soldier creeping through the trees before an ambush or the tank commander tirelessly calling positions of the enemy to nearby units.
Best part of all this is during multi-player engagements your friends can join the cause and switch up with any of your men as well. Possibly keeping the battle going under human control for the time you sleep/eat/work. However since we are looking at days for this sort of takeover the AI are going to have to control themselves in the mean-time. But fear not, FOR IT IS THE FUTURE. And I am sure a plug-in will be available to allow you to get updates and send commands on your smart phone or corporate web browsers. Which is much less a waste of time then checking your facebook status and watching youtube video's of tickled penguins.
-
Ha! An iPad app to monitor your progression and activities would be rather cool. If there's some sort of HTML page that can track incidences, AI progression, maybe even a "homebase active radar" using Google Maps, then it would be rather easy to browse to the page and track everything periodically throughout the day.
Even an email alert that would be sent out of unknown or enemy forces close within certain distances.
-
I truely don't like the idea of using real money to buy things in a game, especially when it gives the player an extra feature or an advantage over players that do not pay. Systems like this ruin games. :mad:
A persistent world with a persistent fighting force (Your personal ai army) per-player
I like the idea of players controlling a hand full of units and being able to take direct control of them at any time. I think it's the way to go for any civilization/warfare MMO that uses such a ridiculously huge area!
-
What about a free-to-play model with optional subscription that would open certain things, like the ability to own land and build stuff there?
Free to play part is rather important for the game to spread out and gain the mass, and the optional but fixed subscription will guarantee some fairness over a system where you could spend anything to boost your army.
-
Free to play is a must. My thoughts on what you could "buy" with real money would be the obvious vehicle mods and or to gain access to lands sort of like buying a passport.
Want trains? buy them, want planes? buy them, want cars? Buy them. Want to move to Venezuela? Pay!
Now how cool would it be if someone didn't pay to go to Venezuela and instead of blocking them physically it simply alerted the AI forces to find and deport the trespasser.
-
Yeah and you wouldnt need to overdo the AI side of things. Perhaps for a few basic base defense roles, if you wanted to task your players with other things to do with your operation meantime.