Large scale pvp combat with minimal number of players

Context is open world mmo, pvp centric with player built structures and siege weapons being a big part of the game.

When I say mmo, I'm actually leaning towards letting players run their own servers, so populations will be smaller but the world itself is large. Similar scale to Life is Feudal.

The goal is to have group oriented combat that's similar to GW2, Shadowbane, ESO. I know those vary a lot in but they are all group focused pvp and one on one is there but it's marginal.

The challenge is it's just tough for any indie game to get enough players to have large scale group focused combat. One idea I had was to have player owned/controlled npc's.

The issue with the npc idea is I don't want a moba. So I was thinking of having npc control tied to player abilities. You can't directly tell npc's what to do, that happens through player abilities. For example a 'rush' ability might give a speed/combat boost and at the same time trigger your npc's to attack your target or the area where your target is if it's an aoe. Players might have an epic ability on a long CD, and with extra training casting their epic triggers npc's to cast theirs as well, etc. So npc's are basically just a power boost in a way, but one that gives combat a larger feel.

Another aspect I'm thinking of is making it so attacking with npc's drains some resource, one that has to be recharged. So you have to plan and timing becomes a strategic thing. Together with that I was thinking of defensive npc's that are tied to land/structures. Defenders don't drain resources they can always defend, but they can only hold out so long, you need your attackers to put up a strong defense.

The other thing I'm doing to try and make it feel larger is there is no focus on personal survival against the environment. Food is basically a boost, you don't need food/water to survive. You don't start out by building a small hut, you start with building a small keep or underground bunker. Same with the economy. You start out buying/selling logs/bricks/rocks in the hundreds or by the ton. I'm also planning on using the npc's to help out here by allowing npc's to do a lot of the harvesting of resources.

Curious to get other ideas on this.

 

First - I like a number of things about this design, even if it's a bit ambitious.

1. Having food as a boost has been done in other places, like Tales of Symphonia, where eating food gives stat boosts; it's much better in my opinion than having a hunger system. Keep that.
2. Avoiding direct-control of the NPCs by giving them "orders" is actually a really cool idea; you could order a swarm of minions to guard a fortification, or you could take your minions with you into an unexplored region to give yourself some margin for error if you meet something "friendly."

That being said, I think your focus on MO, MOBA, and voxel construction games has limited your perspective a bit.

I recommend playing some Dynasty Warriors, or if you have a Wii U, Hyrule Warriors. Those games have a single player character, but huge freaking armies of AI minions. You could gain some inspiration from that, since you want armies as well, and Warriors-type games do have RPG mechanics of their own (levelups, equipment, etc.)

In the polar opposite direction, you should really play some Elder Scrolls Online. It's gone free to play, so all you have to worry about is the ginormous client download (a good chance for you to play some Dynasty Warriors, in fact.) It has a PvP system in Cyrodiil that centers on siege combat; this would also give you some ideas since it's a simplified model.

I think you're trying too hard to classify minions; a minion is a minion. Now, if a minion does something, they can eventually specialize, which changes some of their traits. Still, it would be simpler to start with minions being generic, and only adding that customization later, when you see that playtesters have a problem that a minion specialization would help them solve.

A note I want to make, because of another game, StarMade that I periodically dust off - the problem with games where you can build anything is that these sorts of games more often than not wind up having a 'correct answer' in multiplayer, that attempts to patch don't really fix until the underlying design is addressed. Because you can build anything, the game mechanics prioritize one solution. Instead, give your players limits to what they can do with a constructed thing; this forces a sort of construction calculus where you have multiple viable builds that feel (and are) powerful, but are also beatable, and not in a bull@#$% way.

I can't tell you how I hate StarMade due to the fact that planet-killers are more or less mandatory.

 

Perhaps a more simple example of how to utilize "NPCs" while having some fun combat (including online) is Mount & Blade (Specifically avoiding the firearm expansion, which is far less fun than running down an archer with a lance). Simply put, you wander around recruiting them and lead your army to go do crazy army things while everyone else is doing the same... upgrading gear, stats, building a castle (or conquering one and rebuilding it) hiring a garrison, defending it, and so on.

It is certainly an ambitious project!

 

If you want a good large scale, low player count experience, I suggest isometric gameplay or large scale powers for the few players in a match/server.

Perhaps you could use mechs that are 80 times the size of a player but the players outside of mechs are nimble (jetpacks?) enough to scale up the mechs to enter and engage in combat inside.

An idea I've been holding on to for the last 11 years was ship combat similar to Black Flag but with spaceships, programmable CPUs (similar to dragon age), and interior customization for that extra surprise when boarding. This level could take about 1-3 players per ship minimum and allow for larger ships and servers. I could see this being used in an mmo setting so players could fly around a star system with their friends fighting and trading similar to Elite: Dangerous.

Another idea is like the VIP mode from TF2 classic, have a small team of nimble assassins that can easily scale a city vs a small military escort. Unlike Evolve with its 1vs4 where everyone wants to be the monster, this would have extra class for each side that would be badass such as having tanks or turrets for the military while the assassins have snipers or wall climbing ninjas, but I digress.

Building off of Asvarduil's comments about Starmade (Love-hate it too mate), using different classes of minions to do similar things like deal damage but with different side effects, will help to extend the number of strategies and factions that could form in player armies or star fleets even if it's a cosmetic only trait.

To sum it up, I recommend looking at large scale fights that don't require large numbers of players to extend the scale but large settings, missions, and powers. Filling up the extra space with CPUs can also be beneficial if done right.

 

Great idea. Sandbox games are fun and a lot of people like them. Do you have a prototype yet? I always ask this because it's always important to get something playable right away. So as you add things you can see what's fun and what's just annoying. I found that the prototype of a game I'm making right now was weak and boring so I changed a few things and I'm excited to put these new ideas in a prototype.

These are tips to save space.
A few sandbox games have way to much wasted space and aren't easy for everyone to play. Such as ARK. If the game can run for anyone more people will be able to play. Plus the more space you save the more stuff you can fit at once.

Make presets. One enemy times 100 is a lot less taxing then 5 enemies times 10. Just change the colors of them for the teams. Test how many you can fit on the screen before breaking. Also if you absolutely must have multiple enemies it might be best to make generals that all look alike. So just 2 enemy models times 50. You have to get simple when you're going for quantity.

To make it feel huge start small. Start them inside a tiny bunker. Have them move to a small clearing surrounded by trees. This way it'll feel bigger the more they explore. Plus you can hide things by not rendering everything in the distance. This means only the tiny area they are in is taking up processing power.

Simplify the crafting and building materials. Walls are not cubes, okay kinda cubes and have different types of walls the same model which a different texture and better defence stats.

 

I've got most of the pieces for a playable demo. I know that sounds bad. I had a full sandbox style mmo that was playable but it ended up just not being fun and too much like everything else. So I'm reusing large chunks of the code from that but the game itself is quite different.

Technically I've solved most of the hard problems. That area is my forte. My side project is Game Machine. The building system is actually a whole terraforming/building/underground building system I'm about to release on the asset store. Last game world was huge and I worked through most of the issues you face technically with large multi terrain worlds in unity.

Trying to think of how best to explain the overall design. I really like the approach of GW2 where you could jump in as a brand new player and experience the end game pretty much when it came to pvp. But to master it took hours and hours. But it wasn't a grind, it was mostly about learning strategies.

So I'm trying to blend in stuff that I know players like from past pvp mmo's, into something that works for an indie game. I can't duplicate GW2 because it wouldn't work, it relies on a large number of players to have fun. I'm hoping that a combination of something like the npc system along with a fairly fast paced building/terraforming system might be a good combo.

For the building system in particular I want to get rid of mindless clicking as a timesink completely. I want the time sink to be the actual building, and to feel like you accomplished something in a fairly short time period. So having multiple keeps/fortresses is probably a thing, with some strategic value for having them. To solve the problem of players getting upset when their stuff is also destroyed quickly, I'm thinking about letting structures heal up instead of completely going away. Most likely there will be areas where structures heal, close to your homeland, and then no mans land where the best resources are your structures are lost completely if destroyed. Or something along those lines.

 

How did I ever miss Mount and Blade? That's really close to what I'm going for.only multiplayer. Thanks for sharing!

 

That I don't know, it is an EXCELLENT game. You're about to lose 40+ hours of your life to "research it properly"