A Few Questions

Hi there!

few answers: (via iPad so I apologize for typos)

I think most people will play single player against AI. But multiplayer games shiuld include (in final version) random matchmaking. In custom games, FFA is open to abuse but I don't think thatl'll be any more an issue here than in other games where it's FFA.

stock price (in the current build anyway) is based on the asset balance sheet of the company. Steam rolling can happen (the games tend to only last around 30min on a typical map right now) so when one lawyer starts to pull away it starts to end abruptly unless others active work to stop them.

all resources (again, in our build) are vslued based on supply and demand which varies from game to game. There's no perfect "build order" because different maps will have different resources.

Having lost a lot of mp games to the guys (me and Kael play 1 on 1 in the evenings) I can say there tends to be a lot of appreciation to the maneuvering they did to win. There's very little "luck" involved but rather carefully balancing between short term exploitation and long term planning.

Very good questions - I almost forgot that you haven't played the game!

- I am a huge fan of teamplay in RTS games and never, ever play a standard RTS in free-for-all (FFA) mode. I have to state that preference to show how significant it is that we only like to play Offworld in FFA mode; it's easily the best FFA RTS I've ever played (which is, admittedly, not saying much). The problem with FFA in a typical RTS is that the potential for direct conflict leads to lots of diplomacy/kingmaking problems. In Offworld, direct conflict is possible, but limited, sort of like the robber in Catan. So, I understand if you are looking for a team-based game, but I hope you give Offworld a try as it is perhaps more similar in player dynamics to a good boardgame than a typical RTS.

- The stock formula is being tweaked all the time, but - yes - it is sort of a sum of all your assets, including the stock you own in other players. There is a bit of a steamroll effect, but that isn't always a bad thing. As a design, you want to minimize the amount of time players are still in the game but cannot win (a big problem in RTS games). The ideal situation is that TWO players start steamroll and then have a final conflict at the end to determine the winner. (Player A buys out players B & C. Player D buys out players E & F.)

- There is a different base price for the primary and secondary resources (so that steel starts the game more expensive than iron, for example), but it's a fairly minor effect. Prices can swing violently during the game itself (so that, for example, iron might suddenly cost more than steel, which means it's time to turn off your steel mills and just sell iron and buy steel directly).

Kind of getting some 'Monopoly' vibes from this. I totally agree that the last thing you want is the first player out of a game having to wait a very long time for it to end with nothing to do.

Have you thought about adding any 'mini-game' style systems to keep these players occupied? Maybe some sort of speculative trading system for those players based upon the game currently being played that doesn't impact the players still active but still gives the losers something to participate in if they wish.

Many thanks to both of you for the detailed answers, the overall design sounds incredibly interesting.

That actually sounds really interesting, give the last player part (or all) of their buy out money and let them work their way back into the game. Maybe they can buy back into the game if they have enough cash? Atleast that way, the lead player can't just buy out their strongest opponent, and then crush the weaker ones.

To make things a bit more intersting, how about allowing the players to set up roadblocks to prevent steamrolling, such as a "poison pill" provision, or Shareholder loyalty hurtle, or minimum share block purchase, bad publicity modifier, etc - something to counter/trip up a player that's ahead of the pack.

Also, alternative win conditions - the player with the highest market cap by a certain date wins, those with the strongest long term growth, etc..

From the sound of the game it should continue to escalate so that you'd have no chance of catching up to the leaders as they gobble up more and more players, but I like the sound of using the buyout money to invest in the game as a way to keep people engaged. Since you'd have no asset holdings or operations you wouldn't be able to legitimately compete on the commodity market, but it would be interesting if you could use your money to buy / sell company stock to either help or hinder the active players (and possibly set a final ranking). Hopefully this would give a 'jury of peers' survivor mentality where screwing someone over may also lead to your buyout cash going straight into your opponent's stock.   

Something that I liked about Age of Empires and which I really miss in Civ4&5 is the ability to form teams in-game and achieve a coalition victory. This is NOT the same as starting a game with players A&B in one team and players C&D in another! I'm talking about dynamic coalitions forming (and disbanding) as game-play progressed.

It would be interesting, IMO, to have Offworld support joint victories. It gives you a reason to trust another player in the game - for more "team" diplomacy.

When you play a game of Civilization, and form friends/alliances with someone else, there is this nagging feeling that sooner or later, the alliance will crumble simply because only 1 player can win the map. But if we allowed for dynamic team victories, players could form teams depending on how the game plays out and you wouldn't need to get worried about being stabbed in the back.

-chronodekar

30 minutes are good for a quick game, are there plans to make the possibility for an epic game that could last for 6+ hour or more depending on how you play the game?

Is this game going to be 64 bit only?

Even though doesn't appear to be a graphic pressing game, will this be using mantel?

Should the game do well is there plans for any future DLC's or Expansions and if so would the founders get any type of discount on them?  There is no mention of such?

The game is using Nitrous, so both of these are probably the case (unless Mantle support is a lot of work).