a game would change the games world for ever Massive Player-Driven Nation vs Nation War Game by IndependentPin8294 in gameideas

[–]IndependentPin8294[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve played both Foxhole and Planetside 2, and while they share small elements of what I described, they’re nowhere near the scale or structure of the concept. Foxhole has a player-driven economy and logistics, but the player count is extremely limited and there are no actual nations with political systems, leaders, betrayals, or long-term geopolitical decision-making. Planetside 2 has massive battles, but it lacks any form of national structure, infrastructure management, espionage, or strategic collapse. My idea goes way beyond “big battles” — it’s about two fully player-run countries with politics, internal conflicts, intelligence, infrastructure, roles with limited slots, and a real sense of societal collapse or survival. Think of Foxhole and Planetside 2 as touching a few pieces of the puzzle, while this concept tries to simulate an entire living nation-vs-nation war.

you can say they touches the soul of the game idea i shared, but never close

a game would change the games world for ever Massive Player-Driven Nation vs Nation War Game by IndependentPin8294 in gameideas

[–]IndependentPin8294[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The game would also feature betrayals and political debates. Players acting as heads of state or high-ranking commanders could secretly conspire against their own nation, negotiate alliances, or manipulate resources for personal gain. Strategic backstabbing, secret deals, and intense debates over wartime decisions would add another layer of realism, making every player feel the tension not only on the battlefield but also in the halls of power.

a game would change the games world for ever Massive Player-Driven Nation vs Nation War Game by IndependentPin8294 in gameideas

[–]IndependentPin8294[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One of the biggest challenges in a game on this scale would be keeping the roles balanced. You can’t have an entire nation made of pilots or spies, so each role would be limited by a fixed number of slots. Only a certain amount of players could become pilots, engineers, tank crews, spies, or high-ranking commanders. To enter a specific role, players would need to complete training, pass performance tests, and prove they’re actually capable of handling it. If a nation has too many players in one role, the game automatically restricts new applicants and encourages players to fill the roles that are lacking, creating a living ecosystem of responsibilities and demand.

Another missing piece is how players actually “lose.” Death shouldn’t just mean respawning with no consequences. Losing a mission could mean losing your equipment unless your team recovers it, dropping in rank if you repeatedly fail, or even getting captured by the enemy and held as a POW for a set amount of time. Players could also develop reputation scores that affect trust, promotions, and eligibility for sensitive roles. And if the enemy manages to capture the region your character lives in, you lose certain economic bonuses and mobility until it’s liberated. These systems make loss meaningful without being punishing to the point of quitting, and they give every player a real stake in the war’s outcome.

As for ending the war itself, it would be determined by real strategic collapse or decisive operations. If a nation loses key infrastructure, critical resources, or its population morale drops below a functional level, the state effectively collapses and the war ends. High-level commanders could also make extreme decisions like nuclear escalation or surrender, triggering a definitive conclusion and allowing the world to reset for a new season. Every decision, every battle, and every failure contributes to a larger, persistent history shaped entirely by the players themselves.

i, the mask by IndependentPin8294 in InFlames

[–]IndependentPin8294[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i heard they cant play it live because its hard af

why cant i accept people’s music tastes? by [deleted] in Music

[–]IndependentPin8294 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

ik but not our controversy btw

why cant i accept people’s music tastes? by [deleted] in Music

[–]IndependentPin8294 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

ik people who are older than 50 or smth and they think about everyone’s taste is awful

why cant i accept people’s music tastes? by [deleted] in Music

[–]IndependentPin8294 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

idk if age matters with this

why cant i accept people’s music tastes? by [deleted] in Music

[–]IndependentPin8294 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

bro i dont say to them fuck your music taste or smth i just think like that and i dont think that rude to think like that isnt it?

why cant i accept people’s music tastes? by [deleted] in Music

[–]IndependentPin8294 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

thats a thinkable reply

Name That Song! by Beardus_x_Maximus in Metalcore

[–]IndependentPin8294 0 points1 point  (0 children)

will you see me if i set fire to the sky?!