Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 01:28:05 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Game Design/Development  |  Topic: Tactical combat interface for MMORPG 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Tactical combat interface for MMORPG  (Read 5175 times)
Dark_MadMax
Terracotta Army
Posts: 405


on: April 08, 2004, 10:22:25 PM

Here is a draft of one  of  my toy ideas .Please refrain from posting if you don't read it till the end :) :

In a multiplayer environment with fast paced action there are always problems of communication and organization ,especially if you band together relatively random ppl. – Even in FPSes clan using TS and learned how to work together will win match vs. the group of  other players even though group of other player could be more skilled individually . When you introduce  massive multiplayer environment those problems grows ten fold .  And lead to “zergs” – massive amount of poorly controlled and coordinated people ,relying mainly  on numbers grinding for winning  (term has its origin in Blizzard Starcraft game ,where “zerglings” were cheap mass produced unit ).

Funny but so far very few games tried to solve this problem in-game (So far even Planetside failed to provide any helpful and well thought out tools for commanders) – devs delegate solution to players themselves ,stating that they should “train and become more skilled in working together” – obviously this only small groups of hardcore ppl who can afford wasting a lot of time on such “training” . Some 3d party tools such as Teamspeak are  widely as solution .  They work well for FPS games and small scale PvP (10 vs 10 ).

Problem though that voice chat programs do not work very well in truly massive environment ,where you need to coordinate hundreds of people. –Its physically not possible to have them all on the same TS server ,yet alone trying to organize them (ever been in 100 ppl TS channel  during major battle :) .  –Too many chiefs ,too few Indians problem.

Yet solution of the problems lies  on the surface  - ability for few dedicated people(“commanders” ) to give waypoints , assign targets  and give orders to groups of other people trough specifically tailored interface. –Savage ( FPS+RTS ) commander interface could be a good example .Though in FPS environment idea is not working very well (as totally random people  rarely follow orders and commander often are even worse ) – this approach is perfectly tailored for persistent world with organized guilds ,where problems of  subordination and order execution are controlled .

 We would  make 2 distinct  interfaces  : group interface  and battle commander map. Individual unit for group  would be PC (or NPC) – individual unit for battle commander would be one group.

Group interface would be basically your run of the mill “xp group” with some modification and additions  in order to facilitate group creation and maintenance (which was major pain in SB ,especially considering all sb.exe CTDs) and improve group combat control :

Group leader would be able to place specific requests and fill out it with members in special “LFG channel” .Ppl looking for group will place their name in  , group leaders will be able to recruit them in  their group . Also group leader would be able to put requests (e.g. Nore’s Deaths squad needs healers and few tanks)

Group leader will be able to make such basic commands as moving whole group(individual members cant turn of auto follow) around ,changing its formations (a-la SB) , changing group member placement in group ( for example tanks in front line ,healers behind).  Highlight specific targets and waypoints and combat goals for group members. “Сombat goals” could be for example assign to healer to heal specific player.
 
At all times each group member will see buffs/hp status of other group members ,their coordinates. Group members will be able to /assist  group leader or other group member.

Battle commander will be tailored to control large amount of people and coordinate with other battle commanders , develop elaborate battle plans and easily manipulate tactical units. Privilege to be battle commander could be specifically delegated by guild leader/inner council.

First battle commander will be able to create “army” – some amount of groups he commands. –Recruiting to it will be similar to groups , only this time instead of individual groups battle commander will see group names and leaders name. Battle commander wont have any direct control over the actions of any individual member or group (except NPCs)  -instead he would be able to mark targets  ,waypoints and orders on minimap of  group members.  Battle commander would be also able to assign spec. ops/recon units to his army ( by picking any player/group  from  his army pool). –those units will have ability to communicate with commander and specific channel and have special orders (such as scout specific area , assassinate specific target).

His interface will be 3d isometric map   (amount of information he sees could be dependent on scouts in his army)  with  menu displaying groups he commands .Orders – attack , retreat, create waypoint ,assign goal  xxx (hold/ambush/delay/lure/././etc) , etc.

For example battle commander Swiftdie could select Joe’s and Sue group and assign them waypoint in forest ,then assign “goal” –“ambush” . All members (or only leaders – I would make it adjustable to be able to assign goals only to group leaders or to whole group) of Joes and Sue group will see the goal and waypoint .  Then select group 3,5,6,7 click goal  “hold “ than point it on the the hill nearby  -   those groups will see the hill with “hold order “ icon on their minimaps. At all times  battle commander see  his group and the orders he assigned them to

We can even add 3d layer – “army commanders” . For multiple army coordination between different guilds and allies some battle commanders may be granted “army commander status” –they will be able to see their own groups and also the groups of other battle commanders.

Of course dedicated chat channels for battle commander+group leaders+recon+spec ops. and for army commander + battle commanders .Ideally such system would include in-game voice chat system for group members (planetside does it)  .

    We can incorporate such interface even more deeply into the game by introducing  disorganization problems on battle commanders death (thus encouraging guard/assassins game) .-Such as for example on death commander is not able to use his commanding interface for short amount of time (5-10 minutes)  (  you can easily make it meaningful by  preventing other commanders take over his groups for period  of time  commanding  penalty lasts).


Imagine assassins /kamikaze squad rushing into  Swiftdie group   killing him on spot and leaving his army  without orders while  Joe and Sues groups ambush is uncovered by enemy scouts , groups 3,5,6,7 are  outflanked and soon battle for killed general army is lost :)
Alluvian
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1205


WWW
Reply #1 on: April 09, 2004, 07:46:34 AM

Wouldn't that be fun in Warhammer Online?  Too bad we aren't getting that.  *sniff*

Good ideas.  Not sure how 'fun' it would be to be the cog in the machine waiting on a hill forgotten by your commander though.
Daeven
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1210


Reply #2 on: April 09, 2004, 08:28:14 AM

IMO, one of the best arguments for the control of area resulting in income would be that it would not only enable the construction of fortifications, but also allow the player to raise NPC armies to lead into battle.

One of the problems with large scale activity in the MMOG space is the 'herding cats' phenomenon. Therefore, in order to enable large scale battles, you need to make the players the heroes and commanders of said force, instead of the multitude of grunts.

So take your idea, and add a strategic layer of the game in which control of land and resource actually gives reason for conflict, toss in attribute driven ‘need based’ AI for NPC societies, and I think you have an interesting game.

"There is a technical term for someone who confuses the opinions of a character in a book with those of the author. That term is idiot." -SMStirling

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion
Dark_MadMax
Terracotta Army
Posts: 405


Reply #3 on: April 09, 2004, 04:44:25 PM

Quote from: Daeven
IMO, one of the best arguments for the control of area resulting in income would be that it would not only enable the construction of fortifications, but also allow the player to raise NPC armies to lead into battle.

One of the problems with large scale activity in the MMOG space is the 'herding cats' phenomenon. Therefore, in order to enable large scale battles, you need to make the players the heroes and commanders of said force, instead of the multitude of grunts.

So take your idea, and add a strategic layer of the game in which control of land and resource actually gives reason for conflict, toss in attribute driven ‘need based’ AI for NPC societies, and I think you have an interesting game.


 I am already working on such system . Taking into the account all the major problems games run into   . Actually this tactical combat interface   is a paragraph from draft of a big article about competetive persistent worlds environment . I am just  probing those forums ground  for constructive criticism :)
Dark_MadMax
Terracotta Army
Posts: 405


Reply #4 on: April 09, 2004, 05:43:25 PM

Quote from: Alluvian

Good ideas.  Not sure how 'fun' it would be to be the cog in the machine waiting on a hill forgotten by your commander though.


 You have a free will of following orders or not - commander has no direct control over your avatar. Although I am sure in organized  guild not following orders would be a good reason to be kicked out of the guild.
koboshi
Contributor
Posts: 304

Camping is a legitimate strategy.


Reply #5 on: April 13, 2004, 07:46:27 AM

I had a similar idea a few weeks back, inspired by a couple of games I had just played, Spellforce, and C&C renegade, both played with the idea of getting up close and personal, via FPS, with RTS games.  I floated the idea around here but didn’t get any useful feedback, however, I have been thinking about it.

A few notes and ideas:
Quote
Group leader would be able to place specific requests and fill out it with members in special “LFG channel”.  People looking for group will place their name in, group leaders will be able to recruit them in their group. Also group leader would be able to put requests (e.g. Nore’s Deaths squad needs healers and few tanks)


I have played two MMOGs in recent weeks that use these group finds parson/person finds group functions.

The first is puzzle pirates.  In this game those looking for some instant action can simply go to the notice board (found on most islands).  This lists not only ‘navy’, AKA made to order jobs, but also ‘jobbing’ listings.  Jobbing is when a captain of a boat of another ‘crew’ (read guild) needs a few good men and your ‘crew’ doesn’t have any ships at sea.  When you decide to go jobbing you look at the notice board and look over the listed ships which are hiring, these list also include the affiliations of the ships and a rundown on the state of the crew who owns them.  When you apply to job for a captain you give them your name with which they may find out your stats and if they approve you are invited to join, temporarily.

The other is city of heroes, and thanks to the recent lifting of the NDA I can talk about it.  In this game there is a system where you may turn on your LFT flag, or as they put it you can seek team.  While this is active you may click on the find team and you will see a list of the people in the area who are seeking teams.  Their name, character types (mutant/blaster, magical/tank) and level appear, all you have to do is double click and you have invited them to join.

Quote
Highlight specific targets and waypoints and combat goals for group members. “Сombat goals” could be for example assign to healer to heal specific player.


Adding bonuses to those who perform better than others, meaning those who follow orders better, could discourage those who would break ranks and go screaming into the fray.  Its simple, the number of orders followed, divided by the number of orders given, equals your group score.  When money or inventory is captured it is split up based on your score.  Another possibility is that score is displayed when a controller type is creating teams, they will be expected to choose a team that will follow orders under pressure, therefore mavericks won’t get the good jobs and less zergs.

Quote from: Dark_MadMax
Quote from: Alluvian

Good ideas.  Not sure how 'fun' it would be to be the cog in the machine waiting on a hill forgotten by your commander though.

 You have a free will of following orders or not - commander has no direct control over your avatar. Although I am sure in organized guild not following orders would be a good reason to be kicked out of the guild.


On the other hand if you leave a man on the hill or in some other way fail to use your assets properly will result in a loss of trust.  Without that you won’t be able to convince people to follow you.


Other ideas,
I) exclusive governed-group powers
.  1) Link weapons/spells: if you’re a magician in a unit with other magicians you can be ordered to cast an amplification spell on one of your teammates allowing them in turn to cast a devastating spell.  Think link guns from UT2k4, used to there fullest potential.
.  2) Howitzer > Cruse > Nuclear Strike: Order subordinates to defend a soldier while he paints a target building then order the strike.  Based on the size of your army you can call more and different types of strikes.
.  3) Enhanced radar: more detail in the grunts radar readout showing, increased viewing distance, enemy character types, terrain.  Listing more information about enemy targets when they are in the player’s field of view. Showing enemies hiding behind buildings.

II) Fort features
.  1) Bunker generals: Most obvious is that the commander is not in the thick of it but rather in a safe building within the fort.
.  2) Communication lines: in ancient type games in particular there must be a runner telling your subordinates what to do. Runners are NPCs, fast as hell but poorly armored.  Set your archers on them to destroy the chain of command.  In modern types there can be area effect signal scramblers.

III) Overhead map features
.  1) Visibility: magicians can summon clouds, techs can cloak or jam satellite images, or sneaky troops can attack through the forest. In days of yore a commander can see what all his men see and only what his men can see.
.  2) Terrain bonuses: a commander can see the importance of a hill or the idiocy of a charge across open ground. He knows a trench of only a few inches is better than an open field. When commanded properly a soldier is better at range, accuracy, and defense and gets buffs accordingly.  As well, a commander sees not only the terrain but the importance of it in useful overlays.

IV) Rank and file
.  1) Frontline support: those players set in formation behind tank types should be defended from direct attack. There should be a difference between lob type attacks like grenades or arrows and direct/line-of-sight attacks like guns or spells.
.  2)unit moves: staggered firing line, one line fires while the other reloads then ducks as the second line fires and they reload. Dual shields, front and secondary lines defend with shields interlocking them, if successful it is almost impenetrable from direct and partially from lobed attacks.

Finally, I agree that this type of system is best used in guilds and possibly would only be useful to guilds. Don’t make the controller a character type; allow any type of character to become a leader nothing would be more disturbing than the prospect of having to catass Lineage 2 style to get the necessary powers while being ostensibly useless alone.  Any player should have the ability to become a leader as an avenue they can travel down even if they never chose to.

-We must teach them Max!
Hey, where do you keep that gun?
-None of your damn business, Sam.
-Shall we dance?
-Lets!
Dark_MadMax
Terracotta Army
Posts: 405


Reply #6 on: April 16, 2004, 06:28:47 PM

Quote

Quote
Highlight specific targets and waypoints and combat goals for group members. “Сombat goals” could be for example assign to healer to heal specific player.


Adding bonuses to those who perform better than others, meaning those who follow orders better, could discourage those who would break ranks and go screaming into the fray.  Its simple, the number of orders followed, divided by the number of orders given, equals your group score.  When money or inventory is captured it is split up based on your score.  Another possibility is that score is displayed when a controller type is creating teams, they will be expected to choose a team that will follow orders under pressure, therefore mavericks won’t get the good jobs and less zergs.


 Problem is to control order execution. - It may be a  heavy burden for server/system/design . For example "heal this guy order" - tank maybe barely hurt for whole battle, he was being watched closely by cleric who was assigned to him  . Does that mean that cleric didn't fullfill order? Or if tank gets gangraped despite cleric doing his best? -tricky issue. I would leave it to players to decide the effectivness of their subordinates.

Quote

Other ideas,
I) exclusive governed-group powers
.  1) Link weapons/spells: if you’re a magician in a unit with other magicians you can be ordered to cast an amplification spell on one of your teammates allowing them in turn to cast a devastating spell.  Think link guns from UT2k4, used to there fullest potential.



 Yeah one of my another toy ideas: uber spells requiring coordinated casting by few peopl. -Extra powerfull impressive looking summons , uber AOES , army wide buffs ,etc etc.
 
For example you would require 6 druids to cast "earthquake" - each one casting his component after another ,and then all together casting finalizng component together , throw in some good spec. effects (sky
darkening ,thunder ,some sweet animations and particles)


Quote

.  2) Howitzer > Cruse > Nuclear Strike: Order subordinates to defend a soldier while he paints a target building then order the strike.  Based on the size of your army you can call more and different types of strikes.



 Or capture structure (similar to planetside hackers), or open gate lock ,or command siege engine, or pour boiling oil ...

Quote


.  3) Enhanced radar: more detail in the grunts radar readout showing, increased viewing distance, enemy character types, terrain.  Listing more information about enemy targets when they are in the player’s field of view. Showing enemies hiding behind buildings.


 Yeah radar enhancements would be good too.



Quote


.  2) Communication lines: in ancient type games in particular there must be a runner telling your subordinates what to do. Runners are NPCs, fast as hell but poorly armored.  Set your archers on them to destroy the chain of command.  In modern types there can be area effect signal scramblers.


 Won't work -as whole purpose of such system to be able to have operative information ,feedback and controls .If you introduce additional lag (npcs) -  ppl will just revert to using teamspeak.




Quote


map features
.  1) Visibility: magicians can summon clouds, techs can cloak or jam satellite images, or sneaky troops can attack through the forest. In days of yore a commander can see what all his men see and only what his men can see.
.  2) Terrain bonuses: a commander can see the importance of a hill or the idiocy of a charge across open ground. He knows a trench of only a few inches is better than an open field. When commanded properly a soldier is better at range, accuracy, and defense and gets buffs accordingly.  As well, a commander sees not only the terrain but the importance of it in useful overlays.


 Terrain overlays would be definetely usefull if terrain would play a role  in combat.



Quote

Finally, I agree that this type of system is best used in guilds and possibly would only be useful to guilds. Don’t make the controller a character type; allow any type of character to become a leader nothing would be more disturbing than the prospect of having to catass Lineage 2 style to get the necessary powers while being ostensibly useless alone.  Any player should have the ability to become a leader as an avenue they can travel down even if they never chose to.


 And I wholeheartedly agree with that to - commander's  interface shouldnt be linked to characters abilties. -Only to his rank in his guild.
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Game Design/Development  |  Topic: Tactical combat interface for MMORPG  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC