| Author |
Making the Metaverse more fun (newby post) |
SmellyTerror
Cadet
Joined: September 24, 2003
Posts: 52
From: Canberra
|  Posted: 2003-10-23 17:25
This might be a bit pretentious coming from a newby, but I suppose it might be good to throw around a newcomer's viewpoint. I have thick skin, so feel free to mock.
I've got three ideas, each of which could exist alone or together.
1. Living world
As far as I can see, the Metaverse is pretty much a dead universe. Sure, there are players bombing the bajeezus out of planets and the occasional ship trying to stop same, but it all feels so un-alive.
I was just thinking - so many people (freaks, I know) enjoy the non-combat "baker" roles in persistant universe games. A good example is Jumpgate, where a staggering proportion of players are only happy if weapons are never used on or by them. Why not put in a whole new side of the game where traders and pirates and other sub factions can thrive? Make it much harder to earn money in the metaverse, and instead get people to rely on complex trade routes and commodities and stuff like that. It doesn't have to alter the basic gameplay, but it might be cool to organise trade convoys and raiding parties and stuff.
I know this would be a huge ask regarding balance, but it could really add an interesting dimension to the game beyond cap-counter cap. I mean, as the game is now, you could push a strike-force deep into enemy territory, but what's the point? Even if you cap a few planets the other guys will just wait for your fleet to go to bed and cap it back.
To go with that you'd maybe want a couple of "neutral" factions to allow for interaction between the factional territories...
Obviously this'd need a *lot* more fleshing out as an idea, but I don't want to waste my time and yours if it's already been rejected.
2. Stability and NPCs
System gets stomped. Players cheer and then go to bed. System gets taken back. Repeat. Surely it shouldn't be so easy to build, destroy, and rebuild an intersteller civilisation?
Ok, making planets harder to capture is just going to make the process even more tedious. That's not really the answer.
One option could be to make population growth and decline *much* slower in the MV - although that's really just going to mean that people are a bit more selective with their bombing, I suppose.
Anyway, another option might be to introduce NPC fleets.
Oooh, is this a taboo subject? AI's seem to have really minimal implimentation, so is it a set-in-stone design decision to avoid them?
If not: make personal wealth and rank really matter (this might add to the "more ranks after FA" debate). Allow each side to have a certain number of AI ships, dependant on income/resources of the faction. Further, allow players to take a certain number of ships under their wing dependant on their relative ranks. They can then give them orders - allowing players to place the NPC ships on the frontier, either defending or attacking, or even setting them to patrol the home territories. Orders would stand until a higher ranking player seconded the ship, or until it dies, or until certain pre-conditions are met (been patrolling for 12 hours without an enemy spotted? Go home).
Ok, higher ranks swiped all the good stuff but you want more ships? Or your faction is short of resources and there just aren't enough to go round? Buy them. Let players spend money on personal fleets - again, have an upper limit based on rank (your government doesn't want you to have some vast personal army). Costs would need to be set to make this allowable.
Last, since factional resources would be so much more important it could mean variations on the standard all-defence planetary set ups. Introduce some economic buildings which use up a range of resources and put that money into the factional ship pool. Use up those huge resource stockpiles, encourage the trade routes to really tick along to keep the war machine fed. This would also allow for effective raids behind enemy lines, to hit the (comparitvely) poorly defended industrial worlds.
By limiting AI independance and tying them to high-ranking players, you'd ensure that players are still the deciding factor. Further, you'd be limiting numbers for both individual players and the faction as a whole - that would limit the "gone to bed" factor. By making players "collect" fleets from whatever the faction has decided to build, you'd stop people creating over-powered fleets with few types. You'd need to make do with what you have.
3. Mini Me
The scenarios are fun, but why not tie them into a kind-of mini MV? If UGTO wins map X, then you go to map Y. But if ICC wins map X then go to map Z. Make the next scenario respond to the one before it, and follow the mini-MV on a map similar to the real MV. You'd need to have side-campaigns (so you won map X and that means that the UGTO/ICC front will move to map Y next time, but *meanwhile* here's map J from the UGTO/K'Luth front).
That'd mean that the maps would have colours for the three factions as usual, and a fourth colour for "contested" - that is, up for consideration for the next scenario.
_________________
|
Gideon
Cadet
Joined: September 14, 2001
Posts: 4604
From: Oregon, USA
| Posted: 2003-10-23 17:58
Overall a good post.
Lemme just breifly touch on where we are going in relation to each of these. This is not all-inclusive, but it should give you some idea.
1 - We have a plan over the next several patches to inclue options for players who want to be interplanetary traders, planetary governors, and possibly pirates. The diplomacy changes we have planned will most likely include some for of neutral faction relationship that players might be able to fill. Much of this is still being designed at this time.
2 - This one touches on a bunch of subjects, so here's a breif:
Some planets need to be easy to cap (backwater rocks with little development) and some planets need to be massive epic efforts of many people to cap (planets like Earth).
We have plans to possibly implement more AI driven events and objects post v1.481. Current release servers cannot effectivly handle and coordinate what we require for this. The new server code should allow for this.
We have plans, in the semi-distant future (after economy, diplomacy, ship modding, and other things are sorted) to create a corp of individuals that will manage the ongoing story in the MV. These people will insure events and consistancy, while making sure things take shape around the players' overall actions.
3 - Our business model calls for the primary play zone to be the MV, and so that is what we will be balancing the game around. This will create a situation where scenario games are unplayable by the nature of thier limited time span. This is intentional on our part. The only scenario server we can envision possibly keeping around is the New Player server, due to it's role in educating new players. Once again. allowing players to bounce between the MV and the newbie server creates more problems than it solves. The scenarios are actually an artifact from a much earlier time of DS, and were always meant to be phased out.
_________________
I had a reality check once.
It bounced...
[ This Message was edited by: Gideon on 2003-10-23 17:59 ]
_________________
...and lo, He looked upon His creation, and said, "Fo shizzle."
|
SmellyTerror
Cadet
Joined: September 24, 2003
Posts: 52
From: Canberra
| Posted: 2003-10-23 18:10
1. Cool.
2. Ubundantly cool!
3. Excellent! It was the Metaverse that attracted me to the game, so i like the focus.
Thanks for the quick answer. I'm glad I started playing!
_________________
|
Axianda The Royal
Fleet Admiral
Terra Squadron
Joined: November 20, 2001
Posts: 4273
From: Axianda
| Posted: 2003-10-24 09:41
/me applauds smelly terror for a fine opening post and Gideon for a very nice reply...
the future looks bright indeed 
_________________
- Axi
|
Daylight \"The Beginning\"
Grand Admiral
Joined: July 24, 2002
Posts: 608
From: Oregon, USA
| Posted: 2003-10-24 09:53
Dito...Nice posts across the board. We all got soemthing out of this...
God Bless Newbs!
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
