So… I’ve just finished the basic online gameplay for my FPS game; Scoreboards, Online functionality, Kill feed, chat, room creation, weapons and whatnot…
But I want to make the game more interesting than just “Go online, kill, go offline”. I played Contract Wars and really liked the skill system and weapon upgrading. But I don’t want to rip that straight off; so do you have any tips on what would make a MOFPS fun and get the players to play the game again? I’m between either doing something advanced like in CW och doing it simple as CS… What are your recommendations?
Ok well there is a lot of different ways that you can approach retaining players on a game like this, and it is a vary open question, here are a few of my ideas that initially come up.
Leveling, XP and money. These are “easy hooks” if done right, if it is a free game, a lot of people then to drag out this system out to try and get people to pay for advancement, it kind of works, yet annoys a lot of people. My way to implement this would be to try and have a lot of smaller rewards, this would make people feel like they keep getting something the more they play.
Art style and theme. Uniqueness is something to strive for, and this doesn’t just mean re skinning. Make sure your manics for your game, mach the art style, so if you have a SCI-FI shooter, use 0G or jet packs bla bla bla.
Im really into the idea of having one big ‘match’, rather than loads of little ones, like Planetside. So in my opinion, a good way to get players to keep coming back is to simply give them a side and something to fight over. You could simply have red team and blue team, it wouldnt need to be an MMO, just every time red players win a match, they win a certain area on a map, and visa versa.
Like heroes and gens. Not a bad idea, but playing a game like that I never really felt a impact of losing a war or winning, if you could implement that, that would be interesting.
1 Like
You have a point, but the only ways to do that is to go beyond FPS and into politics and economy and stuff which is effected by the battles you win. The only game to really have a noticeable impact on its wars by the players is Eve online
Then you may have a issue of what happens when one team keeps storming over the others
Then thats what happens, that kind of thing shouldnt be prevented.
If you are going to implement this mechanic, you should let it run it’s course to world domination. Then close the server, reset, and start the game over again.
Avoiding winners and losers is a bad thing.
2 Likes
I understand that, but if team X keeps beating team Y, non stop, you will likely lose player base.
1 Like
You only need to look at existing systems to see why this isnt true, despite the fact that its unlikely. The CFC wins most of their wars, yet EVE is still going strong. People like fighting as the underdog
I was thinking of hero’s and generals, when it first came out there was such a imbalance between Germany and the USA. Most games ended up with the us being based camped by tanks, these ended up being not fun for each sides. The US, bored of just being repeatedly killed and the Germans bored of no compaction, campaigns that last weeks use to last half a day… They have since fixed the problem with balancing and now is much more enjoyable, but it had lost a lot of people with there first time impression after release.
I had gone back but I have had great trouble convincing others that witnessed the start of this game.
I do not believe that EVE can be used as a example due to the fact that it is so vast, you have other activities that can be done other than combating other plays, and that there are safe zone where you can still play the game. These couldn’t really help in a FPS game.
But Planetside 2 had that issue, I believe with the TR (Since TB backed them), and people overcame it.
As for the EVE example, yeh but at the end of the day, wars are wars, no matter what else there is to do in the game. Besides, the losses of a territory are FAR greater than a normal fps, so the fact that people still play against a massive, seemingly unbeatable force certainly shows for something
Again, only personal opinion, that’s why I don’t play eve
1 Like
All in all I would avoid the idea of a meta-game in an FPS. It never works well specifically for your concerns above. I always WANT it to work well, but the options you have are:
The winning side ends up with a positive feedback loop, ruining everyone else’s time.
The winning side has a negative feedback loop and the game will feel like there’s no possible victory (for good reason).
The game will reset periodically removing the feeling of progression alltogether.
I think there are SOME ways around these 3 scenarios, but really it sounds like a lot of work that could simply be put into making the FPS experience better. The end result is that if you haven’t mapped out a plan for a meta content from the start it may not be worth trying to tackle what I see as the most difficult aspect of an MMOFPS.
In short if you can see a clear path to fixing the items I outline above then PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make the game I want 
If not, I’ll apparently be the first to say focus on the micro. Focus on character development, individuality, and creating what feels like a unique experience for every player, as well as letting them clearly see the many options they could have taken. This will provide them the hook they desire to create something unique and then see something new they want to try.
For my money, this probably means shifting away from “realistic” (I want you to make air quotes with your hands when you read that) games like Contract Wars and focusing on something that lets you play with balance in a more severe way. That’s my 2 cents
as @DanglinBob stated, focusing on the FPS experience would befit you a lot more, than jamming in some sort of meta to it.