Just for fun: a WvW strategy game

[Danikat.8537]

This is not a serious suggestion: it's just something I thought would be fun to imagine.

 

What do you think World vs World would be like as a strategy game?

 

I started thinking about it because I was talking about the Total War series and it's (as far as I know fairly unusual) mechanic that you have to keep your troops happy or they may desert or refuse to cooperate. What that means varies by faction but the one that especially amused me is the orcs in Total War: Warhammer (should have been called Total Warhammer, but whatever) who have to fight something every so often or they start fighting each other. I said that sounds a bit like WvW, where if a commander leaves their squad standing around too long or just running in circles they'll all start to disappear off to do their own things, either to keep participation up or just because they're bored.

 

I imagine it as you're the commander on a WvW map and at first glance it's a lot like any RTS game (I'm assuming real-time rather than turn-based because otherwise it's not like WvW): you have a squad made up of different types of units and you capture camps to gather resources, use them to capture towers, keeps and eventually a castle and to reinforce the ones you've captured to defend against attackers.

 

But there would be a number of unqiue mechanics too:

• You cannot directly recuit specific units. You can put the call out for more people to come to your map but the unit types you get are random. (Maybe you can choose a 'meta game' for your server which makes certain professions and builds more likely, but you can't specfically recruit necromancers or guardians or whatever.
• Units who die will respawn at your base, but there's an attrition system where after a certain amount of time on the map, or if they die too often, they quit and you lose them.
• Like Total War you have to keep your units happy. They want to keep their participation up, so if you don't give them things to attack and kill every so often they'll stop following your orders as closely and go looking for things to do, or simply leave the map. But equally if you're going too fast and they struggle to keep up they'll also go looking for other things to do.
• Your units are easily distracted, even if their participation is ok. If you come in range of an enemy guard some portion of your forces will stop and attack them and claim the point, even if you keep going. If you're breaking down the door on a keep some of them will spread out and attack enemies on the walls, if an enemy player goes past some of them will chase them, and so on.
• As well as moving your commander around to direct your squad you can issue commands, like reminding them to stay on tag or spread out and search a newly captured keep...but maybe how many of them respond will depend on their participation.

 

I think it could be fun, if a lot more chaotic and unpredictable than most strategy games.

[Azure Prower.8701]

And we will call it Guild Wars 3.

[Leo.3428]

On 8/16/2021 at 5:29 PM, Danikat.8537 said:

I think it could be fun, if a lot more chaotic and unpredictable than most strategy games.

 

Actually a very good challenge for a game AI researcher.

Don't forget to have them duel once in a while.

 

On 8/16/2021 at 8:37 PM, Azure Prower.8701 said:

And we will call it Guild Wars 3.

 

Or Mist Wars Mobile Edition.

[Dawdler.8521]

Look up Savage Battle For Newerth. It was waaaaaaay ahead of its time and quite an amazing little game.

 

But yes, whats described in OP is a new game. Not sure its even a Guild Wars game.

[joneirikb.7506]

Reminds me of old game called Majesty, where you recruited heroes/classes. And then they ran off and did their own things. You had to put bounties on different stuff to make them bother get around to attack stuff (and then made the money back from taxing them when they where buying health poitions and gear)

[Ronin.4501]

This thread has me nostalgic for Herzog Zwei on the Sega Genesis.

[subversiontwo.7501]

I made its own thread for piecing together a bunch of the modular suggestions I've made in the past, a while back.

 

In it I discussed how as the game now essentially has WvW standard, EotM and OS = 3 modes in the mode (technically, where if you consider the 3-sided EB and the attack-defense design of the BL's different modes-in-mode as well, then there are 4; even if we do not go into subcontent created by players and look only at tech and design). I've lost the thread/link since signatures were reset, but it is around here somewhere.

 

If, big if, a full multi-instanced megaserver could be established for WvW [ie., salvage EotM tech for an EotM 2.0] then they could easily have developed one mode (ie., standard WvW) using the standard mechanics and another direct mirror mode (ie., inside EotM's or OS' button/slot) that has more object permanence to create an extra mode where the objectives that guilds claim could be more like homes/bases and then it will become more like a strategy mode. They already have the tech for that too with the pullable tactics. It could be run with seasons and even monetized like late 90's asp/php mmorts games (essentially a season pass into a map-control- or dominance mode; similar to the tournaments).

 

Edited August 22, 2021 by subversiontwo.7501

[Svarty.8019]

On 8/16/2021 at 10:29 PM, Danikat.8537 said:

This is not a serious suggestion: it's just something I thought would be fun to imagine.

 

What do you think World vs World would be like as a strategy game?

 

I started thinking about it because I was talking about the Total War series and it's (as far as I know fairly unusual) mechanic that you have to keep your troops happy or they may desert or refuse to cooperate. What that means varies by faction but the one that especially amused me is the orcs in Total War: Warhammer (should have been called Total Warhammer, but whatever) who have to fight something every so often or they start fighting each other. I said that sounds a bit like WvW, where if a commander leaves their squad standing around too long or just running in circles they'll all start to disappear off to do their own things, either to keep participation up or just because they're bored.

 

I imagine it as you're the commander on a WvW map and at first glance it's a lot like any RTS game (I'm assuming real-time rather than turn-based because otherwise it's not like WvW): you have a squad made up of different types of units and you capture camps to gather resources, use them to capture towers, keeps and eventually a castle and to reinforce the ones you've captured to defend against attackers.

 

But there would be a number of unqiue mechanics too:

• You cannot directly recuit specific units. You can put the call out for more people to come to your map but the unit types you get are random. (Maybe you can choose a 'meta game' for your server which makes certain professions and builds more likely, but you can't specfically recruit necromancers or guardians or whatever.
• Units who die will respawn at your base, but there's an attrition system where after a certain amount of time on the map, or if they die too often, they quit and you lose them.
• Like Total War you have to keep your units happy. They want to keep their participation up, so if you don't give them things to attack and kill every so often they'll stop following your orders as closely and go looking for things to do, or simply leave the map. But equally if you're going too fast and they struggle to keep up they'll also go looking for other things to do.
• Your units are easily distracted, even if their participation is ok. If you come in range of an enemy guard some portion of your forces will stop and attack them and claim the point, even if you keep going. If you're breaking down the door on a keep some of them will spread out and attack enemies on the walls, if an enemy player goes past some of them will chase them, and so on.
• As well as moving your commander around to direct your squad you can issue commands, like reminding them to stay on tag or spread out and search a newly captured keep...but maybe how many of them respond will depend on their participation.

 

I think it could be fun, if a lot more chaotic and unpredictable than most strategy games.

It's a lot like the regular game: If you're doing well people stay and if you're not they leave.

Thing is, it means SNOWBALLING. Which is the opposite of the desired outcome.

These troops should either

1. be more enthusiastic when you're losing. - berserkers or something, or 

2. be undead - the more you lose the more troops you gain.