Multiplayer Model

[ChoryAbbadon]

I was thinking about it for a while, watching some multiplayer experiments on YT from not only VS but also other games, and I think I managed to come up with an interesting model/format of multiplayer experience for a large number of players that I just want to share with whomever might be interested.

As in many such cases, there would be a set of rules to follow to get all players on the same page, but I tried my best to design it in a way that wouldn’t limit players’ freedom too much.

Technical - Soft RP + PvP, competitive is the one phrase I would use to describe it. The game is played in seasons, each with a set start and end time. Each takes place in a new world, though there might be some overlaps from previous ones. I think 30-day months would work best: 16 IRL days = 1 in-game year (if I’m calculating this correctly), 10 years = 5+ months, without skipping nights. Limited map, maybe 10k x 10k, without polar regions, to ensure enough space. Admins would need to pre-gen the world and map, and divide it into territorial units - baronies - trying to keep them roughly similar in size. No protected land claims. No fixed spawn point - these should be relocated now and then for the sake of player distribution. With the map already uncovered, good spots can be picked for that.

This format focuses mainly on growing factions. Small groups and even solo players can still have their place, but the whole idea is faction-oriented. Each season has winning conditions designed to be difficult and time-consuming. Factions compete to complete one of the winning conditions first while generating Power Points (or whatever you want to call them). If none of the conditions are met before the time limit passes, the faction with the most PP wins. PP are gained by exchanging large amounts of resources, so they must be invested, not hoarded. I was debating using 1-3 lives per player, or even the GearToLife Mod. 

Territory - The basic territorial unit is the barony. A few baronies can form a county, a few counties form a duchy, duchies form kingdoms, and kingdoms form empires. To be considered rightful rulers of a given territory, a faction must have enough PP (thresholds) and one crown (any type) per barony. Gold coronets can be panned or found in ruins, giving incentive for exploration. They can also be obtained as rewards or loot in events. I believe drop/loot chances could also be tweaked to make them more common than default. Additionally, other items could be valid as well. A faction attacked on their rightful territory would be considered the wronged party, with the right to seek compensation or retaliation, while still retaining the right to defend their own land and resources from unauthorized intruders.

PvP - Should be justified by RP reasons and the current state of affairs. I was thinking about using the Unconscious Mod to make things less accidental. In most cases, factions should follow the path of formal war to keep things honorable, let’s say. Wars are not declared willy-nilly, however – there is a set of predefined casus belli to use, which not only gives justification for war but also defines what can be gained. I can elaborate, but I don’t want to make this wall of text too big, so just as an example:

Quote

Rebellion Cassus Belli - Subordinate faction or group rises against its liege to contest leadership or control. Victory grants independence or succession of rule. Defeat restores the prior order and reinforces the ruler’s legitimacy (rp only).

Claims - Any player who was at any point considered the Rightful Ruler of a certain territory (usually a faction leader) keeps a claim to that territory even if no longer in charge of it. They might one day try to take back what is rightfully theirs.

Concepts of Tyranny - This would be the main regulatory “force.” Tyranny refers to actions that skirt the edge of rule-breaking without fully crossing into it. It is a moral and political stain rather than an immediate crime. Some actions are inherently Tyrannical regardless of circumstance - such as breaking truces, willfully violating treaties, or ignoring a lawful surrender. In other cases, Tyranny would be determined by community consensus, reflecting collective judgment and moral outrage. Those declared Tyrants face looser restrictions in PvP and diplomacy: their enemies may strike with fewer formalities, and alliances may unite against them freely. Acts of Tyranny committed against already-declared Tyrants are not themselves considered Tyrannical.

Community Tribunal - Regardless of its composition, rules of joining, or voting system, it is meant to be a regulatory body that decides on new rules, changes to existing rules, accusations of Tyranny, and so on. This way, power is not entirely in the hands of admins, and the whole experience remains democratized and adaptable.

I could go on and on with more ideas and details, but I’ll leave it at this for now. Let me know what you think. Would you play something like this? Are rules and other meta implementations like this popular in the VS space?

[Sparkplug04]

I love so much about this, and it fits so much of what I've been looking for in a multiplayer server. With... A specific exception that people must form their territories during gameplay and not in a meta pre-game way (kills a lot of the customization and fun imo) and allowing solo runners is awesome! Playing a mercenary would be very fun for something like this. Or just a respectable hermit... That can cause havoc if messed with.
That, plus respect to the game's established lore... Is it really that hard to ask for a server that is based on the lore we have currently, and just let the people evolve onwards as their build their territories and have their characters learn about the lore as they venture through the story?

Though I would say that determining "winners" and "kingdoms" should come down to something less gamified and more interesting, such as resource control or literal annexation of communities. Possibly even technological progression or expansion efforts? Having crowns to grow nations feels a little silly, but milestones could supplement them well.

[DejFidOFF]

On 10/9/2025 at 5:47 PM, ChoryAbbadon said:

I was thinking about it for a while, watching some multiplayer experiments on YT from not only VS but also other games, and I think I managed to come up with an interesting model/format of multiplayer experience for a large number of players that I just want to share with whomever might be interested.

As in many such cases, there would be a set of rules to follow to get all players on the same page, but I tried my best to design it in a way that wouldn’t limit players’ freedom too much.

Technical - Soft RP + PvP, competitive is the one phrase I would use to describe it. The game is played in seasons, each with a set start and end time. Each takes place in a new world, though there might be some overlaps from previous ones. I think 30-day months would work best: 16 IRL days = 1 in-game year (if I’m calculating this correctly), 10 years = 5+ months, without skipping nights. Limited map, maybe 10k x 10k, without polar regions, to ensure enough space. Admins would need to pre-gen the world and map, and divide it into territorial units - baronies - trying to keep them roughly similar in size. No protected land claims. No fixed spawn point - these should be relocated now and then for the sake of player distribution. With the map already uncovered, good spots can be picked for that.

This format focuses mainly on growing factions. Small groups and even solo players can still have their place, but the whole idea is faction-oriented. Each season has winning conditions designed to be difficult and time-consuming. Factions compete to complete one of the winning conditions first while generating Power Points (or whatever you want to call them). If none of the conditions are met before the time limit passes, the faction with the most PP wins. PP are gained by exchanging large amounts of resources, so they must be invested, not hoarded. I was debating using 1-3 lives per player, or even the GearToLife Mod. 

Territory - The basic territorial unit is the barony. A few baronies can form a county, a few counties form a duchy, duchies form kingdoms, and kingdoms form empires. To be considered rightful rulers of a given territory, a faction must have enough PP (thresholds) and one crown (any type) per barony. Gold coronets can be panned or found in ruins, giving incentive for exploration. They can also be obtained as rewards or loot in events. I believe drop/loot chances could also be tweaked to make them more common than default. Additionally, other items could be valid as well. A faction attacked on their rightful territory would be considered the wronged party, with the right to seek compensation or retaliation, while still retaining the right to defend their own land and resources from unauthorized intruders.

PvP - Should be justified by RP reasons and the current state of affairs. I was thinking about using the Unconscious Mod to make things less accidental. In most cases, factions should follow the path of formal war to keep things honorable, let’s say. Wars are not declared willy-nilly, however – there is a set of predefined casus belli to use, which not only gives justification for war but also defines what can be gained. I can elaborate, but I don’t want to make this wall of text too big, so just as an example:

Claims - Any player who was at any point considered the Rightful Ruler of a certain territory (usually a faction leader) keeps a claim to that territory even if no longer in charge of it. They might one day try to take back what is rightfully theirs.

Concepts of Tyranny - This would be the main regulatory “force.” Tyranny refers to actions that skirt the edge of rule-breaking without fully crossing into it. It is a moral and political stain rather than an immediate crime. Some actions are inherently Tyrannical regardless of circumstance - such as breaking truces, willfully violating treaties, or ignoring a lawful surrender. In other cases, Tyranny would be determined by community consensus, reflecting collective judgment and moral outrage. Those declared Tyrants face looser restrictions in PvP and diplomacy: their enemies may strike with fewer formalities, and alliances may unite against them freely. Acts of Tyranny committed against already-declared Tyrants are not themselves considered Tyrannical.

Community Tribunal - Regardless of its composition, rules of joining, or voting system, it is meant to be a regulatory body that decides on new rules, changes to existing rules, accusations of Tyranny, and so on. This way, power is not entirely in the hands of admins, and the whole experience remains democratized and adaptable.

I could go on and on with more ideas and details, but I’ll leave it at this for now. Let me know what you think. Would you play something like this? Are rules and other meta implementations like this popular in the VS space?

interesting idea

[ChoryAbbadon]

On 10/13/2025 at 2:00 AM, Sparkplug04 said:

With... A specific exception that people must form their territories during gameplay and not in a meta pre-game way

I was considering 2-4 starter factions that would have some territory from the get-go, though they would have to enter server faction by faction in some coordinated way with set spawnpoits for each and then the spawn for all new players would be set somewhere in between them (and changing from time to time).

 

On 10/13/2025 at 2:00 AM, Sparkplug04 said:

That, plus respect to the game's established lore... Is it really that hard to ask for a server that is based on the lore we have currently, and just let the people evolve onwards as their build their territories and have their characters learn about the lore as they venture through the story?

I haven't went through all established lore but I remember some kingdoms being mentioned. With some creative pre world-building those could be accommodated as "Ancient Claims" and factions with right roleplay reason or artifact (book describing the realm) could do some investigation as to where exactly those lands suppose to be and then proceed to claim/conquer them. There is also question of regenerating story locations, should there be a race for The Archives or should it be weekly/monthly whatever thing. Realism would suggest the former, but then again recurring event also sounds interesting imo. What other lore considerations you have in mind?

 

On 10/13/2025 at 2:00 AM, Sparkplug04 said:

Though I would say that determining "winners" and "kingdoms" should come down to something less gamified and more interesting, such as resource control or literal annexation of communities. Possibly even technological progression or expansion efforts? Having crowns to grow nations feels a little silly, but milestones could supplement them well.

As for crowns and coronets I was just looking for fitting item that must be somehow looted to encourage hunts for ruins and competition around it while also having something of high value for trade/negotiations. That's the best I came up with but sure there might be another way to do it. As for progress, that's the idea with Power Points, I thought of them as something faction exchange with GM's. Some resources would be applicable for that exchange with certain value to reach for each PP (could scale with territory or player base), for example 16 steel ingots or equivalent like 12 iron ingots + 20 rusty gears + 32 fat, etc. etc. (numbers hypothetical here, just to illustrate the point). This will ensure that grind is not only for stockpiling stuff and prompt competition for valuable resources. Certain amount of PP would allow for annexing another territory, for example 1 territory per 5 PP. Player base is not a modifier but bigger factions could have it easier to amass resources, however small but well organised/dedicated group could still compete (and hire mercenaries to make for low numbers).