(idea) Would you play this?

4507

An MMOFPS set in an enlarged No Man's Land between two Western Front trenches in WW1. The game's main focus would be on gaining territory for your faction (Entente or Central Powers) through player-driven open-world PvP, and building fortifications to defend your territory (i.e. construction system for trenches, bunkers, forts, even subterranean cities). Progression would come about partly from killing the enemy, and partly from capturing territory and armaments (machine guns, howitzers, ammo crates, etc) for your side, with the ability to spend progression tokens/points in a complex tree system to unlock new abilities, weapons, and gear (gear would not be tradeable or lootable - you spawn with what you pick in a point allocation gear system, with available points dependent on progression level). However, individual gear is not the extent of the gear system - your side can salvage parts for and construct/repair larger things that can be captured, such as biplanes, airships, and tanks (alongside the already mentioned heavy machine guns, artillery, and the ammo for them).

There obviously wouldn't be much, if any, PvE (although I could see a trench rat hunting minigame being fun), but plenty of non-combat tasks would still exist - reconnaissance, building/repairing war machines/large weaponry, salvaging, building/designing fortifications, cooking, healing (medics stopping bleeding, carrying casualties back to base, surgeons restoring health), etc.

Would you play it?

Wizardry

Nope,not because the idea is bad but because i am sooooooooooo tired or pew pew rifles and ak47's.

That is why i prefer Fantasy,you can do more with creativity.I also do not find a huge wide open area to be fun as a fps for the simple reason,it relies too much on sniper.
I mean if the game play was realistic,nobody would just run in and get slaughtered,the only reason it happens in real life is because the leaders are idiots and charge anyone with treason if they don't obey STUPID commands.

So i prefer arena fps and with lots of strategic game play.

nerovergil

no ww1 is depressing i only play medieval fantasy

Dakeru

I will never say yes to an idea alone.
That's only what fanatics do while they are waiting in limbo for a release that will never come.

If your game is good it will attract people no matter what it's based on.
But you need that game first.

Electro057

Not likely, the setting has been thoroughly explored in many forms of media. Almost everything about WW1 has been focused on the same western conflict and theatres, and it feels kinda old and redundant at this point. There's also only so far you can go with the setting, and it's been explored in a variety of FPS. Why not just play Battlefield?

Cryomatrix

Nope for me, play either medieval fantasy or futuristic.

Kyleran

Wizardry said:

Nope,not because the idea is bad but because i am sooooooooooo tired or pew pew rifles and ak47's.

That is why i prefer Fantasy,you can do more with creativity.I also do not find a huge wide open area to be fun as a fps for the simple reason,it relies too much on sniper.
I mean if the game play was realistic,nobody would just run in and get slaughtered,the only reason it happens in real life is because the leaders are idiots and charge anyone with treason if they don't obey STUPID commands.

So i prefer arena fps and with lots of strategic game play.

In WWI no one ran in and got slaughtered, look up the history of trench warfare,  (or watch the first Wonder Woman movie) not a lot of progress was made, positions were held for months,  if not years at a time.

Electro057

Kyleran said:

Wizardry said:

Nope,not because the idea is bad but because i am sooooooooooo tired or pew pew rifles and ak47's.

That is why i prefer Fantasy,you can do more with creativity.I also do not find a huge wide open area to be fun as a fps for the simple reason,it relies too much on sniper.
I mean if the game play was realistic,nobody would just run in and get slaughtered,the only reason it happens in real life is because the leaders are idiots and charge anyone with treason if they don't obey STUPID commands.

So i prefer arena fps and with lots of strategic game play.

In WWI no one ran in and got slaughtered, look up the history of trench warfare,  (or watch the first Wonder Woman movie) not a lot of progress was made, positions were held for months,  if not years at a time.

Except that one time a General decided to use cavalry against a line of machine guns, they got slaughtered. 

Vrika

No.

But you're a strong contender for Most Generic Idea of 2018 award.

4507

Vrika said:

No.

But you're a strong contender for Most Generic Idea of 2018 award.

If there is a game out there even remotely similar to what I described, I've never seen it.

cameltosis

I've long desired a large scale FPS game, it's something I've never seen before. 

I did try out Planetside 2 for a while but the largest fights I ever got involved in only had about 150 people. I was late to the party though. 

I think I'd personally drop the persistence from your idea. Just go for a Battlefield style lobby game, but scale it up to MMO numbers (500+ players). I think a persistent shooter based on WW1 would be too difficult to pull off. You could still have the crafting in the game, you'd just have to dumb it down so that you could actually do stuff within the duration of a match. 

Going lobby based also makes it easier to have a larger variety of locales and to also better channel the gameplay. Once you've got 500+ players on a map you're really gonna have to rethink level design and gameplay, otherwise the hail of bullets will just be too much in certain places!

Loke666

If I can have a Fokker dreidecker then yes.
Kyleran said:

In WWI no one ran in and got slaughtered, look up the history of trench warfare,  (or watch the first Wonder Woman movie) not a lot of progress was made, positions were held for months,  if not years at a time.

Walking straight toward a well dug down enemy with machineguns were surprisingly common though. That after first shooting on the same place for a week so the enemy really had pulled all their reinforcement there.

The real problem was that the officer core didn't understand how new technology suddenly had changed warfare, the people in charge were old and conservative. That eventually changed when the Germans invented their Stosstropen in 1918 but the first 3 years were costly attacks followed by costly counterattacks for a few yards of lands.

It did however set the world for modern warfare. At the start of the war were airplanes considered dangerous toys but just a couple of years later were they used for scouting, bombing, ground attacks and as figghters with specific and rather advanced planes for each specific purpose. Tanks were invented and everyone soon got their own, submachine guns were made to clear trenches and so on. It was the 4 years warfare changed forever and new technology evolved at an insane speed.

A new fighter plane would only last about 6 months before it were considered outdated (with a few exceptions like Spad XIII), that even made WW2 seem slow by comparision. That made strange things happen, like when the British airforce had 90% casualties in a single month because the German Albatross just made everything tey owned obsolete.

The saying "may you live in interesting times" comes to mind. The question is of course if a massive MMOFPS like that would be fun or not, WW2 Online didn't do that well so you need new ideas to get the whole thing to work.

Ungood

4507 said:

An MMOFPS set in an enlarged No Man's Land between two Western Front trenches in WW1. The game's main focus would be on gaining territory for your faction (Entente or Central Powers) through player-driven open-world PvP, and building fortifications to defend your territory (i.e. construction system for trenches, bunkers, forts, even subterranean cities). Progression would come about partly from killing the enemy, and partly from capturing territory and armaments (machine guns, howitzers, ammo crates, etc) for your side, with the ability to spend progression tokens/points in a complex tree system to unlock new abilities, weapons, and gear (gear would not be tradeable or lootable - you spawn with what you pick in a point allocation gear system, with available points dependent on progression level). However, individual gear is not the extent of the gear system - your side can salvage parts for and construct/repair larger things that can be captured, such as biplanes, airships, and tanks (alongside the already mentioned heavy machine guns, artillery, and the ammo for them).

There obviously wouldn't be much, if any, PvE (although I could see a trench rat hunting minigame being fun), but plenty of non-combat tasks would still exist - reconnaissance, building/repairing war machines/large weaponry, salvaging, building/designing fortifications, cooking, healing (medics stopping bleeding, carrying casualties back to base, surgeons restoring health), etc.

Would you play it?

I sounds like a fun idea, and no doubt would really work for some gamers, but. just no my flavor.