Give me your thoughts on my massive galactic war idea...

forums.uberent.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=43595
For anyone who hasn't been on the general discussion subforum. Would also love to see what Uber thinks about it.

From the sounds of it I think the Galactic war Is going to be dam awesome!!!

theseeker2> maybe you should ask CCP to add an RTS to Eve Online, then mix that with Dust (the FPS).

Why did they decide to have different games on the same system?
Wouldn't it be better if it was all in the same Application rather than forcing people to spend money on different platforms and software if they want all the features of the universe?!

Guess what: they are. There's a five-year plan that hopefully will merge the two games together.

But you need to realise that Dust is less than a year old. Eve is celebrating its 10th birthday in a few weeks. Originally, there was no concept of Dust514. Eve was made as a space game, in space, when the PS3 didn't exist.

I think the Galactic War would be a great idea, Albeit when a player disconnects.

A good idea might be that when you're disconnecting, you assign an AI, such as resource gathering, defence building, troop building, aggressive, defencive, or stay still unless attacked. Then when the player reconnects they get a brief low-down on what's happened with their base since their last log-in.

nic idea ^^

This sounds like a huge time and (therefore) money sink. Maybe it's something to be added post-release, but I do not believe this is a feature needs to be available on-release.

I'd love a semi-intelligent reaction system wherein you'd give the general orders of what to do to the AI, but what if something outside of it's parameters happened? Say a massive asteroid swarming with anti-nuke launchers is hurtling towards your commander's face, what then?

I'd want to get an email that has the situation's report, estimated odds of survival through inaction, and a list of options to chose from like 'escape with commander using whatever means necessary', or 'bring the enemy down with you', or 'counter', ect., ect.

You reply back, and provided the situation hasn't killed your commander off yet, the AI responds with a SitRep after completing the action.

Nope. When someone dissconnects from the game, the state should pause and be saved. The save being locked with player logins.
Using login services like Steam, Google or Facebook etc.
And just for extra flexibility have an option for normal Email or login name and password.

I hope this is what they mean by drop-in drop-outs
I also hope we get awesome all in a single map multiplayer because a turn based metagame wouldn't be allot better than a server controlled ladder/elimination match system.

Forcing a pause would be terrible. If you leave for work, or go to sleep; you've just ruined the game of those who were playing. That's a few hours of invested time that has been wasted.

For that game to continue, you need everyone to come back and be online at the same time.

If you drop, and pause my game; I'm going to leave and find better people to play against. You can come back if you like, but since the game is paused and locked to logins; I'm never going to let you finish it.



If I made it, I'd have a few settings configurable by each player;

When I quit: (1) Give my stuff to my team, (2) Blow it all up, (3) Wait for a few minutes in case I come back before blowing it up.

It's 2013 and you want to communicate with your real time strategy game via email. Why not go the whole way and make the game support smoke signals and carrier pigeon? Lots of people have discussed why an MMORTS doesn't actually work so I won't bother repeating their points, but this amused me somewhat.

Great contribution to the thread there, jurgen. Very helpful.

I think it's fair to say that muzzledelk probably wasn't talking about REAL emails going to his hotmail account.

It's exactly as helpful as every other post made on this topic, because it's been discussed to death. The persistent world PvP MMORTS is a fundamentally unworkable concept as long as people have jobs and need to sleep.

Only in a traditional sense where you imagine basically a scaled-up multiplayer RTS, where players care about "their" units and "their" bases.

Something with less of a sense of ownership, and more of hundreds of players stewarding the shared units of a faction to victory, that might work. But that's obviously not PA we're talking about.

How is it ruined when it's saved 'safely' on the server?!

That's the point.

That's terrible behaviour!

Can we have all those options displayed for all your opponents/victims to before they agree to start the game?
Just for people like you there should be a setting to filter out games that use the feature on your display of the game lobby.

You've never tried to organise a multiplayer game between people who live in different time zones, have you?

People have played Chess by mail and Civilization can be played by email. So why can't an RTS save a multi player match?
One key to this is agreement between all the players. Ref: my last post.

This.
Well planetside 2 makes some good examples how it could work.

Precisely what i thought syox. Maybe have it running as a sort of lobby system, where you could flag some buildings in your base to allow other players to join the match. So if you were playing against two enemies and getting overwhelmed by various attacks you could call your friend and have them control part of your forces so your attention isn't split as much.