JoeJ said:

Trip_Nero said:
The bases of this idea is to pit the players against the developers. Imagine players are first person or third person, and developers are RTS style.

I see two problems: 1. Nobody has managed yet to unite RTS and FPS, although the idea seems obviously promising. 2. Devs may not have enough time to play their own game, aside of developing it.

Beside that, your idea seems, e.g. players win over devs, and so ‘force’ them to change / extend the game in some aspect? Interesting, but how do players organize and agree on their wishlist? Isn't this something where only the devs could make proposals about potential new features, resulting in simple voting but no true influence from the players side again?
If not that restricted, what happens if players requests are simply impossible to fulfill for various reasons? Devs have to present appologiezes?

Eventually, the ‘toxic / dissatisfied / rant about broken promises’ situation would only become worse not better?

In this regard, the other obvious option is to give players the option to develop the game further themselves. E.g. like Dreams, or the thing epic is trying to pull off currently (forgot the name), with better modding SDKs, etc.
Not really a new idea, and showing players making games is not easy does not help the situation either it seems. Those who prefer to rant are usually not the creative ones.

I was a big fan of a game back in 2009-2011 called battleswarm players chose either a soldier (first person view shooter) or the other portion which was controlling bugs similar to starship trooper bugs in an rts fashion and it was fantastic, the players who chose soldiers had to defend generators from swarms of the bugs, so I know it is possible, now Last night I was thinking yes it would be difficult to have devs play as well so I was thinking if we rid the RTS and devs, and make the map huge as in Red dead redemption huge, and only allow the boss level or boss fight to happen at certain intervals like monthly or more, it would give the players time to work their character to a specific level in order to participate in the battle to move on to the next “realm” or “region” of course multitudes of quests and missions would be plentiful on a map that is huge to give the players time to get to the max level for the region, and in order to move on would have to participate in the battle. Now the battle could consist of multiple “gates” they would have to pass with soldiers and monsters and towers that need to be destroyed along with said gates. This would allow the boss fight to be challenging but able to be complete.

@NikiTo you are quite right the headline was my own opinion and from the massive online games I have played such as planet fall and battlefield team work is almost a must but it is very hard to find without a team, regarding about the devs yes I see that would be difficult to do, not impossible if we make the devs play by the rules just like the players, If we allowed the map to be massive lone wolfing it would be fine up until you have to proceed to the next realm or region the main “siege” would have to be complete by alot of players at once, but they would have to be the same level due, as in the final siege of the realm or region to move on is level capped and only opens in intervals monthly or by monthly to give players time to reach the level needed, I was also considering if we somehow did keep the devs playing they could randomly send out small armies to harass the players as they get closer to the time for the main boss fight to happen. The size of the maps in my opinion would not only make exploration fantastic but also gives the players a chance to find rare items to help in the fight i.e battering rams, trebuchets things like that. Imagine the old game morrowind with its numerous dungeons and exploration thats what I would like to see in a game like this. No more Im better because Im a higher level, in one realm players levels would be a decent gap but not a huge one and once you pass the boss fight in one realm you wouldn't be able to go back only forward to stronger battles and realms.

@Gnollrunner look up battleswarm from like 2009-2011 fantastic game and way ahead of its time back then, unfortunately it has been shut down but if we could get something like back into the light, with changes like swords and armor or magic

JoeJ said:

I rememebr now, when i thought about RTS+FPS mix, one big problem would be: What if the RTS generals give orders to FPS soldiers, but FPS players do not obey? Because of stress, thinking they know a better strategy, being an ass… many reasons. I guess this can become pretty frustrating to the generals. Some penalty might be needed, like deleting soldiers fancy customized skins >:D

ah I see what you mean but the devs would control only npc soldiers due to having to control multiple groups at once, lets say for instance the dev is able to place archers on a battlement then send foot soldiers in right after, all npcs tho the players fight through the npcs we can make it like having to get into the gates then having to navigate through mazes and corridors and rooms to get to the final boss which would be what a dev would control at a specific level. The boss of course would hard but not impossible that way it is achievable through a good battle.

NikiTo said:
How many sofa-warriors would have the guts to play a realistic game? Definitive death after the first fatal shot. No healing packs. In real life, if you eat a piece of chicken, your wounds won't instantly close.

Thats a great idea, it would take some serious gamers to handle a game that realistic, i was leaning more towards a fantasy style but if we do this with a world war theme that would be interesting and things can be dialed down a bit, an open world war game set in the near future not sci fi futuristic but like 70 years ahead of normal warfare, those would be pretty epic battles

Trip_Nero said:

no one wants to work as a team nowadays

Given that there are tons of games released by various teams, I think you'd need to back that up with a lot of research and citations before we'd take that assertion at face value.

Maybe nobody wants to work with you as a team, and that's your experience? That can have all kinds of reasons.