[Feature Request] Continuous Map Game Mode (Great for high player count games)

I think this would work best as a team-deathmatch:
There are two teams with shared economy/control. When you spawn, you can spawn on any planet that has a commander of your team.
A team gets a point for killing an enemy commander. If you are killed you have a certain respawn time (a couple of minutes probably).

Because you don't want to give points to the enemy you will probably pick a safe spawn spot. You should probably be able to observe the game before spawning so that you know what's happening around you.
If you join a game like this you should probably automatically connect to the team with the fewest players.

The game should end when
a) At a certain point every enemy commander is dead (so you have killed every one of them within the spawn time)
b) A certain point limit is reached
c) There are no planets left to play on. The team with the most points wins then.

EDIT: Sort of ninja'd

atm I think its better to have no win conditions in a game like this, just a sandbox game. (you win when you conquer every single planet and occupy it ha ha) or whatever

What this game mode could also use are multiple star systems with the vast insane distances between em like in a real galaxy Maybe some binary star systems as well! Oh and black holes

http://novusaeterno.com/

Proof positive it can be done. Mind, this stuff is still in early alpha, but just from the video below, I have confidence they'll be close.

Actually, I was thinking that Total Conversions would be the ones to make primary use of such a feature, as vanilla is designed around chess-match style play rules, and is balanced around that. A persistent game would have to be heavily modded in order to deal with the different circumstances of a persistent world.

Also:

Sometimes I hate you Mered... I don't have enough free time as it is, and now you're trying to get me hooked on an MMO? Ergh.

At the very least, it isn't a game I can go play yet. So my sanity will remain intact for the time being...

The problem I have with that EC article is that they mention Eve-O, but neglect their biggest (and what I argue is their best) deviation from the normal progression mechanics.

If you lose a ship in Eve-O, you don't get it back. It's gone. Forever. Go work hard and earn a replacement. It's impossible to churn fight after fight to get any sort of benefit as you'll quickly end up broke.

That's their biggest limitation on progression that limits high-level players stomping all over low-level ones.

I was thinking the same thing. What about creating a similar situation in a mmorts by linking a city-building game ala Simcity to the RTS portion. If you want to raise an army, you have to manage a city for a while to produce it, or get someone who is into that sort of play to produce it for you. You also would have to defend the city from attack to keep producing troops for you. You would also be able to attack and subvert cities by political means (Sabatoge and capture) and It would give more experienced players something to lose and give a MMOFPS the crafting side that every mmo needs. Also, it would allow a wider range of players to participate in an RTS, even if they are more into the base building that the actual combat. This would also promote social play and make more than just tactical prowess the requirement for success. Make the loss of a commander/prime unit a temporary thing subject to respawn, but the loss of army producing cities would be permanent. Also, urban combat in cities you or another player has built! Just imagine the possibilities.

I think moving in the opposite direction would be the way to go (and this loosely aligns with what the narrator describes). Forgo permanent persistence (cities, bases, armies, etc) except for opening up different/extra options for players to bring to a match.

Build your base and army on the spot, and kill it when you leave - whether you leave in a coffin or carrying a gold medal. The outcome of the match affects some sort of metagame.

I don't speak for everyone, but when I want to fight I don't want to sit around waiting for some serf to build me an army. And when I'm being a serf and building armies, I don't want to give my hard work to an over-eager newb that is going to waste them.

And where exactly are these cities going to be? Also, picture a forum filled with teary-eyed carebears who are complaining that I've just raised their cities to the ground? Bringing those types of players together is very difficult to do.



In any case, this is quickly turning into a discussion on MMORTS. Lets not go there - the topic at hand is 24/7 PA.

Teamwork is going to be a big thing. I think having a few people dive-in together is a good way of offsetting the numerical advantage a lone defender has. And you really can't be expected to have a fair fight when your opponent has friends. Admittedly, this doesn't work when playing FFA games unless people agree to truces/temporary alliances.

I understand that completely, which is why I anticipate a lot of specialization for the game type I am proposing. You wouldnt be waiting around for serfs to build an army, the player that likes to city build will be doing that for you. You just requisition reinforcements from your civilian ally and he handles it. I have seen this sort of gameplay work wonderfully well in EvE. In fact, my own EvE corp specializes in the making of capital ships. This is not a game type intended for lone players. Team play would be absolutely required. Anyway, thats all that I have to say about that topic, back to the OP's discussion.