World domniation mode

[R315r4z0r]

In the July update podcast, Fobby said something about an unconfirmed inclusion of some form of a World Domination mode similar to what was seen in Tiberian sun and Red Alert 2. He also said that he had no idea how they would do it (at the time.)

When he said that, I started to think of some basic structural ideas.

1. Obviously, people chose a side at the beginning of a match and are forced to stick with that choice for the entire duration of their play.

2. A game could only start when a certain amount of people join for each team, in the mean time, everyone would be waiting in a chat room of some sort. After the games start, however, you're free to come and go as you like. (Players would be able to join domination mode games that are already in progress).

3. In addition, new "teams" could be formed as the game progresses. For example, if the mode started with GDI having 20 players and Nod having 20 players, then one of the factions could split their ranks and create a second "team" to fight battles in another part of the world. Like, if GDI totals 20 players, there could be two teams of 10 fighting in two different maps during the same game of World domination. As a side note, I think teams should be able to make their own (appropriate) names to differentiate them from the rest of the faction.

4. To make these teams seem more unique to each other, they should emphasize on the idea of coordinated continuality, which would make team cooperation more important. I came up with a few ideas to make it work:

A] In the early stages of the mode, a team would be very limited as to what it can and cannot do/have. As the team reaches certain objectives/quotas, they would be granted new things to use as the mode continues on. When new maps start, those unlocks would be consistent.

B] Players themselves would also unlock individual options apart from their team mates. For example, your team may have unlocked the usage of a medium tank, but you would have to earn the authority to use one. In order to do that, you would have to prove your usefulness to the team by meeting certain personal objectives (such as kill counts or specific objective criteria). Might I suggest a "prestige" scoring system that players could keep track of as they earn points to unlock the usage of different things and abilities.

C] Players could also lose points and authority rights for doing stupid things (like, for every mine over the limit, they lose one point, ect)

D] When a match ends, and a new one begins, players should retain much of what they had in the previous map:

-The infantry class they were

-The amount of credits they had accumulated

-Any vehicles that might have been left over.

(This idea might need some more thought in it to prevent exploits and unfair advantages)

5. Every map that is apart of the mod (remake and custom alike) should have a setting and background. Meaning, every map should take place in a specific part of the world. As new maps are added to the mod, World Domination mode increases in depth.

Now, here is how I think the mode would work, start to finish:

There would be 3 levels of assignment:

Faction > Team > Individual Player

ex:

GDI > Team Falcon > R315r4z0r

Every player would assign themselves to a team within a faction. Their status would grow in that team as they play and make each team more unique. Players could defect to different teams within their faction, but they would lose their progress and would have to start out with the basics from scratch and work their way up again. Faction defection (Changing from GDI to Nod) would be a server option that would be defaulted to "Disabled."

Players join and create groups to start a domination mode match. The factions have to be and above a certain quota for the game to start. (They don't have to be even, just reasonably close as long as they meet the player requirements. For example, the requirement could be 20 players per faction, but GDI might have 22 players and Nod might have 25).

After enough players join the game, they then proceed to the team creation menu. Any specific team can't hold more than a certain number of players and can't be less than a certain number of players (so you wouldn't be able to make 40 player teams or 4 player teams). Other than that restriction, you can make as many (or as least) as you want without having to worry about being equal to the other faction (GDI might have 1 team of 30 players and Nod might have 3 teams of 10 players each. There would be a trade-off of sheer power and domination speed. Larger teams could conquer smaller ones more quickly, but smaller teams can cover more areas faster.) Teams created before the actual match starts are free. If new teams wish to be created, the creator will be charged a fee from their personal credit pool. If you don't have enough credits, you can't form a team.

Once teams are created, the match begins. Everyone is shown a world map with different areas highlighted. Each area represents a map in the mod, which, in turn, represents a given location in the world. Everyone in the team clicks on one area to attack, which ever has the most votes gets attacked. When the mode starts out, all the maps would be neutral. The object is to get into as many maps as you can and "control" the main field area for a certain amount of time to gain ownership of the map. (Sort of like King of the Hill in Halo.) Once you gain control of an area, your Faction's logo would appear on the area in the world map menu.

If your team votes to attack an enemy occupied area, a warning is sent to the enemy faction that the area is under attack. If any enemy teams are in the world map menu, then they would have the choice of defending the location. If no teams are available for combat, your team simply has to contest the map and convert it to your side (Again, like Halo's King of the Hill, but this time you have to get inside the enemy base. Automatic base defenses would still be active) *Note* The more people you have in your team, the faster you can control an undefended enemy location. The less people, the longer it takes.

If you aren't in battle, you are viewing the world map. When in the world map, there are some restrictions that apply to progression:

1. Your team moves about the map in a group represented by a faction logo and name. When you win control of a map, you are in that area until you move to the next place. So if an enemy attacks you before you move, you have the choice to engage or retreat.

2. If you lose control of a map, you fall back to the nearest friendly location automatically.

3. You can only move from location to location within a certain distance of each other. (unless your team unlocks alternate modes of transportation).

4. You are free to move through your own faction controlled areas without restriction (except in terms of geographical location, like across ocean).

5. Different modes of transportation have different restrictions. You can't walk to locations across the ocean, for example, you have to earn another mode of transport, like air-drop or ocean travel.

6. The ability to travel is decided through votes made by the players of your team. If votes are even, then a location is randomly selected. Votes aren't final until movement happens.

The object of the game would be to control all the maps in the world map or obliterate all enemy teams.

The rules of engagement:

1. You scramble to gain control of all neutral territory.

2. You fight to control enemy territory (or contest enemy locations if no one is available to fight)

3. If an enemy team can combat you, the winner of the battle gets control.

4. Players can defect from their teams to join other teams or create their own. Creating their own team costs credits.

5. If you lose a battle, then your team gets "destroyed" and disbanded. All achievements are lost. You can then either leave the game or join another team. *note* you have to re-earn all your achievements and rights.

6. If all of the teams within a faction are destroyed before a new one is created, then they automatically forfeit the match to the enemy faction.

Anyway, that is just how I think a Renegade World Domination mode would work. That's all conceptual.. merely food for thought.

[R315r4z0r]

One more thing I should add:

"Neutral" maps, should be different versions of a map that don't have bases set up. There should just be an MCV in your factions default location instead. (Regardless of if the map contains a construction yard or not)

New idea for neutral maps:

When trying to control neutral territory, an enemy team can join in the game and engage in combat. However, because the territory is neutral and no bases are set up, it would be a free-infantry style death match. The same rules apply, you would have to control the center field, but you would first have to destroy the enemy MCV (which, in turn, stops the enemies from spawning and "destroys" that team.)

[[NE]Fobby[GEN]]

That's quite in depth and well thought out. For your obvious dedication I was just morally obliged to read the entire post.

Anyway most of it sounds really good. I think an area of disagreement though would be how a team would keep the units and credits they had from a previous game. Keeping the "features" achieved in the objectives is understandable, but I think having a constant build up of credits from map to map might not be a good idea for a C&C-related mode like this. Then you'd have winning teams starting off with thousands of credits, where they may be facing a team that had lost their previous area and are starting much lower, thereby creating a disadvantage right from the get-go. Correct me if I am wrong.

As for the player progression, I think I'd disagree with a couple aspects. I don't think you should "work towards" getting access to a Medium Tank or something. I feel that slows things down a lot more and could deny some potentially good "newbies" at World Domination their right to a tank.

Though I do agree about the objectives. Maybe at the beginning of World Domination you'd start off with just a Hand of Nod or Airstrip, and then as you take more regions and meet map-based objectives, for whatever reason your tech level can go up. For example for Nod you can have an island off of Europe, and the only way Nuclear Strikes can be used in European maps would be if this island is captured for the purpose of building a nuclear silo. If Nod takes control over it, then any Nod teams fighting in Europe will be able to purchase beacons. Or even a region responsible for the power supply of 2 other regions - if cut off by the enemy, the defenses go offline in those maps (like field )

Engineers capturing enemy buildings in certain regions would be cool as well.

Another idea would be one Global Commander who gets realtime information about all of the battles that are taking place. He'd be able to communicate with all of the teams within that faction, and even slightly help them out with things like supply drops, vehicle drops, building repairs, etc. But such services can be denied by the other team in different ways.

But a potential problem would be how this would work server-wise. Obviously 1 gameserver would not be able to run different games simultaneously with different teams going at it, and countries being taken updated realtime. Something like this would need a network of servers. There would also be all kinds of problems like servers crashing, or failing to recognize that certain regions are taken, off limits, or in progress, etc. A lot of potential bugs.

It's also almost like a mod on its own really, so a lot of work.

Anyway we'll definitely contemplate.

[Demigan]

Instead of having several games at once, how about just one at a time?

Like in the first 2 C&C's, both teams get to see a world map with the lines of what is in their control and what isn't. One team is allowed to select a place to fight, based either on sheer chance, or other factors like which team can travel faster to the location they select, which team has won (and doesn't have to spend time retreating) and so on. Perhaps add special abilities to that 'world map commander' that they can use to get an advantage next battle. Another option is to see which area affects which, and let's the most dominant over the other play first.

Say GDI attacks a coastal area, and Nod attacks a mountainous area, a pass through the mountains towards a powerplant station of GDI for instance. Then we'll see who's faster or which map is more dominant: in this case Nod is attacking a GDI power station, which is supplying power towards the coastal area (the Islands map). Now the game chooses that nod is faster, and the nod map begins (the first mission map). Let's just say nod loses that map, GDI will keep control and nod has to retreat. But at 17 minutes during the game, Nod managed to destroy the powerplant of GDI.

Now GDI had been attacking a coastal area, and getting power from the other map. This game starts now with all players from the previous map. After 17 minutes in the game, the power will fail GDI and they will have higher costs for units and vehicles. Suppose that GDI won the previous map at 34 minutes of play, then it might take for instance 15 minutes afterwards to get the powerplant back online. Which means that GDI will have power back in Islands at 49 minutes of play.

Losing or winning could affect a lot of things in the game. Adding abilities that the commander can use might be a great addition: building AA emplacements in a certain base, which will take some time, will put pressure on Nod as they can't get vehicles on certain maps if they don't destroy those AA before they are finished. Attacking GDI supply routes might do the same for the warfactory as they can't get any heavy materials to build with, and so on. Some maps would be far to easy this way if you can shut down your enemy's defences before the map even starts, but that's what strategy is all about isn't it? Besides, the next map won't be as easily taken, and you still get to fight for a whole world...

[Ban4life]

I read the whole post, but I dont have enough time to go in dept about it.

I had another idea, that isnt just for world domination. What about the respawning happening in an helicopter "outside" the map, and that flies you into the camp. Just another drop off helicopter, like the vehicle helicopters or the harverster pathing. Same coud be done with ordering vehicles.

Nod has a great airstrip for it, GDI just helicopters. Maybe a parachute idea (you see it on some servers) that people would be dropped out of a plane into the camp.

could be fun.

World domination sounds interesting, and I've seen some form of it in another game. Its quite fun, but you need lots of people. Also the abuse, as stated, should be fended off (though a little exploiting should be allowed, preparing for the next battle)

Ban4life

[[NE]Fobby[GEN]]

QUOTE

Instead of having several games at once, how about just one at a time?[/b]

It wouldn't really work if 40 or 50 people are signed up with a faction. Either they'd all be on the same team in the same map (which is impossible really) or players would have to take turns. I think the only way it could work is if different fights happen at the same time in different parts of the globe - we'd just need to make it that the servers communicate with each other.

[R315r4z0r]

Like you said, it might need multiple networks, but what if it was like this:

One server simply manages the macro game (ie the world map). For example, it is responsible for telling which fights are in progress, which areas are player owned, ect. The way I had it designed is that it wouldn't have to be a constant "real-time" update, because games can take time to play out. The only time the server would update is when something happens.

Like, when you win or lose a battle, the server would update the world map. When a new team is created, the server would update. When a contested map is taken, the server would update.

There would be no need for any real-time updates because everything would happen in intervals, rather at a steady pace.

Another server would manage the individual games (battles) going on. (Or as many servers as required.. or are available). Those servers would send the information to the world-map server and then that server would update.

Perhaps world domination modes could be like official Renegade X tournaments. They would only happen every so often at the discretion of the dev team and it's server source. (As I see it, these games would take a very long time to play out. Waaaaay longer than the RTS versions.

As for the ideas itself, what I was getting at with the personal player achievements (like unlocking authority to use certain vehicles) was that it would give a moral reason for players to play the game. Their progress has to mean something to them because if it doesn't then there would be no reflectional penalty to losing a match.

Take a flashback to a match in Renegade.

The map is field, you're on GDI. There are 15 players on each team. You've lost all your structures except the AGT and WF. Nod is pounding the WF with artilleries and you have like 6 engineers repairing it. That's when you start seeing the messages. "Just let it die!" "We can't win, I want to go to the next map!" "Stop repairing you noobs!" Then they start jumping in the way of the repair beams and pushing players out of the way. In the confusion, the WF loses health too quickly and you lose it.

What I'm trying to get at with the personal player authorities was to make it so that a player would have a more emotional connection to the game. They would fear losing because their progress would be destroyed. People would start thinking "I've come this far and I'll be damned if you stop me now!" It gives the players more team spirit and a better competitive edge. The games would be more intense if there was something to actually lose from being defeated. About it being "newb friendly:" A simple amount of server side options would cater to that. A server would be able to decide what new teams are allowed to use right off the bat. I was only giving an example with the medium tank.

Now, about the credits. Like I said, it needs further thought because of the unfair advantages and exploits it gives. One thing I was thinking of was that all of your credits would be stored in a personal fund after a match. These credits would only be spendable in the world map and that would be do purchase things like new team formations (because forming a team would be expensive to do).

[b3h1ndu]

I think it should be only one game played at a time, and each team takes a turn where to attack.

Eg. in between games it goes to a screen like this. Obviously this is just a concept of what I believe it could be like, I'm sure you guys could make it look much prettier. Lol.

This way the team whose turn it is can decide between them what to attack (Kind of like in Star Wars Battlefront 2). If they win the battle they take control, if they lose the battle they can't attack the same area for 1 or 2 whole turns.

Credits left over at the end of the game can go into buying upgrades in between games. (Don't know what these upgrades would be, maybe things like infantry starting with different weapons, eg. you buy a shotgun and any character you buy during the game has a shotgun, or something like that. But you can only buy one weapon, and you only have a limited choice in weapons. Could be a server side option?)

But if it was like this, you would only need a single server. And I don't think you would even need multiple teams.

It would be like a multiplayer campaign mode. Where experience and upgrades are carried over from map to map, but only last until one team is dominating the world when the server resets. (Kind of like certain servers in Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory.)

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Oh, also.

Both Nod and GDI should have a Headquarters location somewhere on the map.

HQ battles would play out something like this.

Nod is launching an assault on GDI's HQ. So Nod only gets a small forward base comprising a HoN, and a MCV.

GDI starts off in a fortified base. (Fortifications depending on how many areas are controlled. More areas, more fortifications, to stop the other team attacking and wiping out your base on the first go.)

To win, Nod has to defend their base until their MCV is deployed, (say this can take the first 10-15 minutes of the game). Once their MCV is deployed the rest of their base gets built (possibly over time), and then they can start building tanks and a harvester spawns and things like that.

Nod start off with a HoN + extra credits allowing them to defend against GDI who already have a whole base + less credits. This ensures that GDI can't just mass tanks and take out the MCV straight away. It allows Nod to purchase Heavy Weapons such as Laser Chain Gunners, SBH and Raveshaws before GDI can get a Medium Tank or Mammoth.

(Eventually) Nods base will then rival GDI's fortified base, maybe even better it. (possibly depending on how many areas are controlled? Just so you can't just attack their HQ on the first go to wipe out GDI.) Then the final battle between the sides can begin.

Or maybe make it so that the HQ battles can't be fought until one team controls all other territories.

Once again, just concepts.

[havoc9826]

QUOTE (b3h1ndu @ Jul 31 2009, 10:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ideas[/b]

Sounds a lot like PlanetSide.

[[NE]Fobby[GEN]]

The 1 game at a time idea is definitely good for individual servers rather than a network of servers, which is problematic. Voting on a region (and maybe even a commander?) would be cool though. Though if limited to one server then that would also mean there'd be no such thing as neutral areas (as there'd be two teams at all times) which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Most of the other ideas would still stand though.

[R315r4z0r]

The main issue with that, however, is that there would be marginal difference between a world domination mode game and a normal game server.

[b3h1ndu]

QUOTE (R315r4z0r @ Aug 2 2009, 09:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The main issue with that, however, is that there would be marginal difference between a world domination mode game and a normal game server.[/b]

Yeah, I see what you mean.

But I am sure there are ways you could make it significantly different.

Say the upgrades and HQ final battles for one. Maybe add different gametypes into the mix as well, maybe a Control gametype like KotH or a Point Capture gametype like in battlefield 1942. Maybe even an Assualt gametype, where one team has to destroy a certain object/objects that ISN'T the enemy base... (not really sure how to implement them, but yeah.)

Was just thinking; Neutral areas could be implemented by having it turn into a baseless, infantry only KotH game or something similar. So the team that controls the hill the longest takes control.
Though the attacking force would need some kind of advantage because they choose to attack a neutral area, and the defending force would just be a small interception force trying to contest.

[Demigan]

We could also give each team a certain amount of moves. Let's say that every time we get to the worldscreen, each team get's 4 or more action points. Each action point represents the use of a commander ability, which is up to the commander himself, an upgrade to area's (making them a designated supply base for another base for instance, changing the abilities on another map), or a troop movement.

The troop movements and upgrades can be voted for. This will take a set amount of time before the vote is finished. Say 20 seconds each action point or different depending on server specifications. After all action points have been used, the world screen will change accordingly, and only then the movements of your enemy will become visible. At which point all battles that spring forth of the troop movements will be fought out one by one (or all at the same time in the multi-server mode) and afterwards you will return to the worldscreen. If no battles are fougth because only neutral zones were attacked or only upgrades and abilities were used, the next 4 action points will be spendable.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[R315r4z0r]

I was thinking, much like people with different servers can create their own games online, why not, in World Domination Mode, people with different servers be able to create different teams?

That way all the servers required don't have to be provided by the main host of the match. The host of WDM would have the server that coordinates the world map. Other servers from other people would join the game as teams.

Doing it that way also reduces the risk involved when a server crashes.

[Demigan]

QUOTE (R315r4z0r @ Aug 2 2009, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was thinking, much like people with different servers can create their own games online, why not, in World Domination Mode, people with different servers be able to create different teams?

That way all the servers required don't have to be provided by the main host of the match. The host of WDM would have the server that coordinates the world map. Other servers from other people would join the game as teams.

Doing it that way also reduces the risk involved when a server crashes.[/b]

Are you saying that the map's are coördinated by one server, and all servers that agreed to be part of that WDM will simply be servers that can be joined like regular servers?

[R315r4z0r]

Yes, exactly.

Except that each server wouldn't play host to a specific map, but rather a specific group of people. In this case, each team in a faction would use it's own server.

[b3h1ndu]

QUOTE (R315r4z0r @ Aug 3 2009, 07:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, exactly.

Except that each server wouldn't play host to a specific map, but rather a specific group of people. In this case, each team in a faction would use it's own server.[/b]

I see what you're getting at. But I believe that something like that would be a coordination nightmare. Imagine trying to get your whole team on at the same time... >.<

I still think it would be better if the teams just fill up with people that have the time, and want to play a 3+ hour campaign.

But still, it's good to discuss all options.

[R315r4z0r]

QUOTE (b3h1ndu @ Aug 3 2009, 12:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see what you're getting at. But I believe that something like that would be a coordination nightmare. Imagine trying to get your whole team on at the same time... >.<

I still think it would be better if the teams just fill up with people that have the time, and want to play a 3+ hour campaign.

But still, it's good to discuss all options.[/b]

No, no. You misunderstand.

You wouldn't have to coordinate anything. Just make a server (team) and hope for people to join.

However, I came to a realization that would make this not work. I was only thinking about creating a server per team on each faction, but what happens when two opposing factions battle? A battle is held on a single server, not over two... so if two factions battled it out, where would it be hosted?

I have a new idea. What if WDM was actually a coordinated clan war? Except the "clans" were the factions? It would be like ranked play vs unranked play.

If you play in ranked mode, you contribute to your faction's war effort. If you play in unranked, you just play for fun.

[b3h1ndu]

QUOTE (R315r4z0r @ Aug 3 2009, 10:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, no. You misunderstand.

You wouldn't have to coordinate anything. Just make a server (team) and hope for people to join.

However, I came to a realization that would make this not work. I was only thinking about creating a server per team on each faction, but what happens when two opposing factions battle? A battle is held on a single server, not over two... so if two factions battled it out, where would it be hosted?

I have a new idea. What if WDM was actually a coordinated clan war? Except the "clans" were the factions? It would be like ranked play vs unranked play.

If you play in ranked mode, you contribute to your faction's war effort. If you play in unranked, you just play for fun.[/b]

Oh, I see.

What you're saying now is Clans choose whether to be GDI or Nod when they are created, and every battle they have against a different clan contributes to what team is winning?

It's a nice idea, but I don't think it would quite work.
What about those people that want to play in world domination mode, but don't want the competitiveness of clan based gaming?
I know I would be in that category myself.

How would this world domination mode end? How long would it take to play through?

[R315r4z0r]

What you're asking doesn't make sense. The question contradicts itself and I don't know how to reply to it..

Well, for starters, you don't join a "clan" that sides with a faction, I was just using the term clan to give you a perspective. Clans would be an entirely different aspect of the game.

But what I'm confused about is how do you join a game mode that is based off of being competitive and not want to be competitive? If you don't want to play competitively, then join a normal server. World domination mode isn't for you because it takes all the aspects of a regular non-competitive game and adds many intensely competitive aspects.

By joining a normal server, the only think you'd be missing from a WDM match would be the competitive aspects, which according to what you said, you don't want in the first place.

World domination mode exists for the players who want to compete. You can't join (or shouldn't, I should say) and not want to compete..

And besides, it isn't about competing against other players, it's about simulating a war fought in real time. You fight to survive against enemy invasions, not compete with other players. You're playing the role of a soldier in the war, not a competing in a sport. You're fighting to win because of a fear of losing rather than trying to be a better player than someone else.

[b3h1ndu]

QUOTE (R315r4z0r @ Aug 3 2009, 02:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What you're asking doesn't make sense. The question contradicts itself and I don't know how to reply to it..

Well, for starters, you don't join a "clan" that sides with a faction, I was just using the term clan to give you a perspective. Clans would be an entirely different aspect of the game.

But what I'm confused about is how do you join a game mode that is based off of being competitive and not want to be competitive? If you don't want to play competitively, then join a normal server. World domination mode isn't for you because it takes all the aspects of a regular non-competitive game and adds many intensely competitive aspects.

By joining a normal server, the only think you'd be missing from a WDM match would be the competitive aspects, which according to what you said, you don't want in the first place.

World domination mode exists for the players who want to compete. You can't join (or shouldn't, I should say) and not want to compete..[/b]

Ok, now I think you're misunderstanding me now, heh. But that's because I misunderstood your usage of "clan".

I was assuming you meant people join clans like you would in renegade, and those clans are sided with a certain faction.
But I see where I was mistaken. My bad.

What I was saying though, was that I think World Domination mode would be fun. I'm not saying that I don't like a bit of competitiveness, as there is competitiveness within just normal C&C mode anyway. I was just saying that I wouldn't enjoy the level of competitiveness and structural play that comes with being part of a clan.

But I see what you were trying to say, and my misunderstanding was based off of your usage of clan. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[R315r4z0r]

Lol, if it was possible to say the word "misunderstanding" any more in a thread then we would definitely win a medal.

[spellman23]

I think some kinda of super meta game would be cool.

However, I'm unsure about trying to cram a huge number of rounds into a small timeframe. This would make campaigns require dedicated time if you wanted to see it through to the end.

Instead, what about a kinda of global game that occurs over a few days. Several servers host a particular viable battleground. Players are registered to a central system on which side they've signed up for this "set". Games are played out on the different servers (adjusted # of servers based on number of players signed up and number currently playing). Enough wins over a certain period of time on a server triggers that one side has won the territory. Central map changes (hosted on a website somewhere) and new regions open up, maybe special unique powers, etc.

In this system, you can always have casuals come in and out and a "set" could take over a week, allowing people of different time zones to help out. However, if you set the # of victories to a lower number, you can have tight fast-paced single team matches where people may have to really plan how to allocate their players to keep the territories they want.

The tricky part is determining which territories to fight over. If you have a top level commander, if they win a territory they get to choose the next offensive. However, if they don't respond in a certain amount of time, that territory is opened up again for counter attack by the enemy commander to try and take it back. A strategic choice is then made to temporarily shore up other regions before opening up a new front.

Oh, and to prevent one player from being everywhere, there'd have to be a system that forces players to wait a set amount of time before they can re-enter a territory. That way, you can't instantly shift 10 players from one territory to the other, you'll have to have them "in transit" for a while.

This may be over complex, but in my mind a decent way to keep this manageable and to let the casual players enjoy it, not just the pro clans.

[159456]

maybe, one sever can host a cyber war, that lasts days. this way everybody can play.

lets say you've played an hour in a cyber war, you've gained a specific rank, and you don't want to lose it. you can have the sever remember you until the war ends, this way, i can play the next day without losing my rank, letting me keep my earned credits on that game.

however, when a war ends, lets say it took eight days for nod to win, all the records(saved statistics) would be deleted, and every body has to work their way up the ranks again, this way a player wouldn't be at the highest rank forever.

next, the cyber war is like an enormous battlefield striped in to three or four parts (all joined together in a line) that forms a battle front, a player can see all the information on his field of battle (location of players, controlled areas...), however he can only see the percentage of land taken by his faction on the other fields.

the battlefields separate field or front's would consist of three bases, one is yours, one is your enemy, and one is neutral. basically, it's a rush to control the center base. the center base however, only has a barracks and a refinery. and you cannot re-spawn at the center base. your own base would have all the structures, and one automated defense. this would give a fair advantage to both sides, because this would make sure you can't keep on attacking with heavy armor, you would have to make a long journey to get to the enemy's base.

and finally, to end the game, either a specific time runs out or all the bases are taken.

to end the war, a time limit is needed. and to judge the winning faction is by seeing which side has controlled the most land or who has taken all the land.

after this war ends, a new one would begin, a war in another section of the world (lets say you've taken mexico, next battling on the border line of USA, then through several states and to claim total victory, destroy the gdi HQ, or temple of nod (kind of like the last mission on renegade).

after destroying either of them, all the players are then ejected out of the war. then a new war would begin, and all of the players would rejoin.

if you like to change or build on this idea, feel free to do so.

[SkyHammer]

Hmmmmm........ I dunno. It just seems to me like this game mode would just be an elaborate way to play a bunch of matches in a row, I'd rather have a mode that differs in actual gameplay itself. I think that would help boost the life of the mod more.

I only read the first post though, so correct me if I'm wrong.

[R315r4z0r]

That's why I suggested a system in which players earn new things to use and diversify how the specific team they are playing on is different from the others.