Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grind and Click]

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?

[cameni]

What are "high and low sec EvE:Online styles of areas to travel to"?

Our plan 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.

[Grind and Click]

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.

[SpaceFlight]

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.

[Matt6767]

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.

[Grind and Click]

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.

[SpaceFlight]

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.  

[Grind and Click]

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.

[Seth]

Hardware + Software + Infrastructure =  
ETA 2012    ETA 2013    ETA 2013

[Seth]

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.

[Grind and Click]

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.

[Seth]

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.

[AKNightHawk]

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

[Grind and Click]

In a mil-sim too....you mean?

[SpaceFlight]

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
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.