I have never really heard about the finer details of the Warhammer games, though I am aware of the franchise. I have to admit that a multiserver meta like this does touch upon a type of game-play experience I have been longing for sometime. I always wanted to play a (semi) massively multiplayer shooter where two team simultaneously battled on a number of different sub-parts of a much larger map. As one area fell to a single team, they would be able to relocate to another area. Should a sub-battle be going poorly, reinforcements could join them from other areas. While the meta-game idea that we are developing does not actually use one single map, the same design spirit governs both of these game-types to an extent. This has me very excited. Hopefully, the meta will be easy enough to implement that it proves worth the time and effort of the UWE devs. Then again, there is always the chance that a team of modders would be up to that task.
<!--quoteo(post=1825319:date=Jan 18 2011, 10:35 PM:name=Fallen Greatly)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fallen Greatly @ Jan 18 2011, 10:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1825319"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have never really heard about the finer details of the Warhammer games, though I am aware of the franchise. I have to admit that a multiserver meta like this does touch upon a type of game-play experience I have been longing for sometime. I always wanted to play a (semi) massively multiplayer shooter where two team simultaneously battled on a number of different sub-parts of a much larger map. As one area fell to a single team, they would be able to relocate to another area. Should a sub-battle be going poorly, reinforcements could join them from other areas. While the meta-game idea that we are developing does not actually use one single map, the same design spirit governs both of these game-types to an extent. This has me very excited. Hopefully, the meta will be easy enough to implement that it proves worth the time and effort of the UWE devs. Then again, there is always the chance that a team of modders would be up to that task.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Planetside did something like this, I think, and Global Agenda tries to. (I only say "tries" because of its inter-clan politics leaving one clan deadlocked on first place) While games like this usually put a player cap on each sub battle (especially if each sub battle is on an instanced battlefield representing a "hex" on a world map), it's possible to switch more suited players into a particular match, effectively reinforcing the team.
In a game like Warhammer, since the players generally will get to know each other and the game has to finish in a reasonable amount of time, there may not be such a hard limit on how many reinforcements a team can get. It might allow the game to end so everyone can enjoy a new game next week. When you talk online campaigns that last longer and are played every day, there has to be a limit to each sub battle to keep the game fresh and balanced. No one likes being stuck on a team that can't move out of its home base because they're outnumbered and lost the whole map.
That is a fair point about being shut out from the rest of the map, Deadzone. I actually was thinking of a mechanic that may help with this issue. In TF2, the territorial control map Hydro features an intense fight for the final CP of each team. Given that the battle is heavily biased towards the attacking team, the reward for a successful defense is something similar to a military routing of the enemy. In a sense the map resets. While that would be a bit unfair in this Meta, I can see a similar idea being implemented. Should the attacking team, lets say marines, be defeated in their attempt to capture the alien stronghold, the aliens would then automatically be allowed to instantly capture a ratio-fixed number of territories on the over-map. In small over-maps this might be just one territory. However, on really large and complex ones, the number of insta-captured territories could be two, three, four, five, or possibly a lot more than that. I feel that this idea makes sense to an extent. If you are going to launch an invasion of your opponent's most defended position, you will likely bring the majority of your available forces in order to improve your odds of victory. Should your force be annihilated in this endeavor, that leaves a significant weakness that can be exploited by your enemy. Again, this would work best as an optional feature, but I feel it adds an additional reason for wanting to hold off from prematurely attacking your opponent's base.
While I am already posting, I would like to propose another possible over-map feature. The inspiration for this one comes from UWE devs themselves. I recall reading an early explanation of the power grid system. The key difference from what has already been implemented in beta is that rooms would need to be connected somehow to active marine controlled tech point rooms. Failing that, the power could still be out in a room that actually has an intact power node. While that seems difficult to convey to non commander players on an individual map. I feel that something similar could readily work with the over-map. As I said in a previous post, I support letting teams attack any territory on the over-map. However, I think that a neat feature to limit this practice would be if a map's territorial reward was only available if the the territory possessed a direct link to the stronghold. Any map that does not link to the stronghold (i.e. a broken chain) would be considered cut off from the the main group. While this map would still possess its defensive bonus, it would otherwise be lacking in the rewards associated with the main group. The only time a territorial reward would be available for a cut-off map is if it had another cut-off territory or group of territories adjacent to it. This mechanic would allow for an interesting game-play option. A team may choose to encircle difficult to capture territories thus making them easier to defeat as well as depriving the enemy team of their associated territorial rewards. Of course, in so doing, the team may allow for their own territories to be cut-off in subsequent rounds. As far as optional features go, I suspect that this one would be rather popular. Still, if sever ops. don't want it, they should be free to turn it off.
Linking maps for bonuses definitely works. I'm thinking that bonuses and linking should have some degree of effectiveness even if the HQ isn't connected, though. (like you said, letting linked maps affect each other even if they're not connected all the way to HQ) Simply because depending on the whole metamap structure, it could be very easy to snip the chain linking HQ to front lines. There should definitely be an additional bonus if that chain is kept intact, but don't make it the only bonus.
From a purely artistic and thematic standpoint, this idea works. I believe Cory has said that all the official maps (excluding rockdown and junction) are supposed to be part of one big Alterra facility. I.e. Tram is a central transport hub, Mineshaft is the mine at the bottom, and as yet unseen maps will show us living spaces, refineries, etc.
As for actually implementing a meta game, I would instinctively err on the side of keep-it-simple-stupid. TF2 style - clear maps and no complex bonuses.
I like the idea but the bonuses would have to be extremely minimal for it to stay balanced, especially for trying to get new players past the learning curve which seems to be another big concern atm.
If this metagame is in play it would get extremely confusing for new players to start one game, only to realise their team is completely underpowered for some reason. They might then go to play another game, on the same map, as the same team, and find there is a complete difference in the team balance.. Fairly sure to turn a new player off.
That could be a bit of a personal preference, as I know if I joined late in a metagame with the other team having major bonunses, I'd be pretty likely to leave straight away. Also seems to me that you'd often get people leaving the server once one team begins winning, likely keeping one team of good players and rotating out a number of players who join, realise they're midgame and outmatched, then leave (eg. pub l4d versus matches, almost always went that way).
Comments
Planetside did something like this, I think, and Global Agenda tries to. (I only say "tries" because of its inter-clan politics leaving one clan deadlocked on first place) While games like this usually put a player cap on each sub battle (especially if each sub battle is on an instanced battlefield representing a "hex" on a world map), it's possible to switch more suited players into a particular match, effectively reinforcing the team.
In a game like Warhammer, since the players generally will get to know each other and the game has to finish in a reasonable amount of time, there may not be such a hard limit on how many reinforcements a team can get. It might allow the game to end so everyone can enjoy a new game next week. When you talk online campaigns that last longer and are played every day, there has to be a limit to each sub battle to keep the game fresh and balanced. No one likes being stuck on a team that can't move out of its home base because they're outnumbered and lost the whole map.
While I am already posting, I would like to propose another possible over-map feature. The inspiration for this one comes from UWE devs themselves. I recall reading an early explanation of the power grid system. The key difference from what has already been implemented in beta is that rooms would need to be connected somehow to active marine controlled tech point rooms. Failing that, the power could still be out in a room that actually has an intact power node. While that seems difficult to convey to non commander players on an individual map. I feel that something similar could readily work with the over-map. As I said in a previous post, I support letting teams attack any territory on the over-map. However, I think that a neat feature to limit this practice would be if a map's territorial reward was only available if the the territory possessed a direct link to the stronghold. Any map that does not link to the stronghold (i.e. a broken chain) would be considered cut off from the the main group. While this map would still possess its defensive bonus, it would otherwise be lacking in the rewards associated with the main group. The only time a territorial reward would be available for a cut-off map is if it had another cut-off territory or group of territories adjacent to it. This mechanic would allow for an interesting game-play option. A team may choose to encircle difficult to capture territories thus making them easier to defeat as well as depriving the enemy team of their associated territorial rewards. Of course, in so doing, the team may allow for their own territories to be cut-off in subsequent rounds. As far as optional features go, I suspect that this one would be rather popular. Still, if sever ops. don't want it, they should be free to turn it off.
A meta-game timer is a must, imo.
As for actually implementing a meta game, I would instinctively err on the side of keep-it-simple-stupid. TF2 style - clear maps and no complex bonuses.
If this metagame is in play it would get extremely confusing for new players to start one game, only to realise their team is completely underpowered for some reason. They might then go to play another game, on the same map, as the same team, and find there is a complete difference in the team balance.. Fairly sure to turn a new player off.
That could be a bit of a personal preference, as I know if I joined late in a metagame with the other team having major bonunses, I'd be pretty likely to leave straight away. Also seems to me that you'd often get people leaving the server once one team begins winning, likely keeping one team of good players and rotating out a number of players who join, realise they're midgame and outmatched, then leave (eg. pub l4d versus matches, almost always went that way).