>Dystopia is a cyberpunk themed total conversion of Half Life 2, created by an amature development team and released to the public for free.
>amature development team
>amature

>>14629943

You know what? That typo is so common fucking common it's unreal. I didn't even spot it until you pointed it out though.

That said, how interested would you be in a game like I outlined?

>>14629976

The hell is common in there twice?

It was not that way when I typed it.

Bump.

Gonna bump it once or twice because /tg/'s going really fast.

Final hopeful bump before I go and throw myself of a bridge.

Oh well, at least I found out that people don't care before I tried to sell it. Or started really working on it. Or got my hopes up.

You should have found a more exiting pic. /tg/ only responds if they're really eye-catching.

That said, I would play the hell out of this game. How would the 'different speeds' part of cyberspace work?

>>14630302

I'm surprised someone responded at all.

Right, I was thinking about Shadowrun when I realized that there was one speed for cyberspace. What if it's older, shittier computers? What if they're top of the line? Wouldn't there be a speed discrepancy?

So I was thinking that Cyberspace could move anywhere between 4-5 times faster than the 'real world' to as slow as real-time. Maybe slower. And then maybe certain people could do things like over-clock them to speed it up or use some sort of Malware to slow it down. Too much of either (or both) could do something like bring down some sort of automated security or crash the system.

Some systems would be better equipped to deal with some problems.

That said, this is still just a vague 'concept' stage.

Right, so I decided to elaborate on some stuff and hope it generates some interest.

Faction ideas:

>Name
Future Securities

>Concept
Heavily cyborged people, mostly ex-cons (we're talking 40k servitor grade 'borging). Used mostly in high-security areas by virtue of the fact that the rank and file aren't smart enough to differentiate 'no clearance' as in lost or civilian, and 'no clearance' as in Kill On Sight Intruder.


>Special 'rules'
Unable to directly access cyberspace., but extremely deadly in real-space. Not agile or fast, but walking balls of death.

Require an active commander to do anything but patrol.

>>14630600

(Please note that everything I say here may be subject to change.)

>Faction Name
Redemptionists

>Concept
Made up of complete badasses who've done bad things in the past and want to make up for it. Upon joining they give up their 'real' name and take up a mantle relation to either:
a)Their expertise (Someone Codenamed Loki might be a skilled Hacker and have a cloak to disguise himself as an enemy)
b) Their sin (what pushed them over the limit to deciding to redeem themselves. 'Cain' for instance might be someone who killed someone dear for a reason they later regretted)
c) both.

>Special 'rules'

No normal units. Every one of these guys has a name and some sort of superpower (so to speak). The downside? They're always outnumbered. In some really low point matches you might well only have one unit as opposed to a half dozen.

So should I list some more faction ideas, type up some ideas for the 'core' rules, or go kill myself because my idea sucks?

Nothing?

Dammit. I was really hoping somebody might like this.

Or at least drop in and tell me why I suck.

>>14631071

You don't suck OP, it's just /tg/. OC can sometime struggle to survive here. Make some pics, of figures especially, and post a thread every other day or so. It'll catch on yet.

and would you look at my captcha

>>14631071
I'm sorry, I gave a quick skim of your idea earlier, and figured it would take off with /tg/ on its own.

We appreciate OC, truly, it's just... Well, there's a lot. Too much competition here. It's pretty freaking bizarre, really, that there's more people producing than consuming, at times.

>>14631121

Is that a fucking barcode?

On that note I don't have any real skill in the realm of figurines.

To be perfectly honest, I'm more of an 'idea guy'. I was really kinda hoping that some people might pop in and decide they wanted in on it.

Oh well.

Maybe I'll use a catchier picture next time. On that note, is there anything you want me to talk about? I have a half-formed general idea in my head, but I don't have it organized enough to just post it out.

Q&A would work fine I think.

>>14631141

Alright.

I was worried that people were just ignoring me because it was stupid or something.

Do you have any real interest in something like this? Would you play it?

Is there anything you'd want to know in the general sense?

Did I really just fucking lose the only two people who even bothered to post in the thread?

>>14631176

>idea guy

I'm afraid to say that projects that work with a single 'idea guy' don't often get done. Most successful homebrew projects on /tg/ are more of a peer review model: one designer releases a basic rules drafts. Other people then jump in to critique, offer suggestions, and the ruleset is revised by the original designer. In rare cases, you might attract additional help, but only if you're willing to set up some sort of method of regular contact - an e-mail, IRC, regular weekly homebrew posts, etc.

>>14631338

I know this. And sadly a good many ideas of varying levels of awesome die as a result.

I'm not that amazing at most other things.

I don't just up and surrender, but I'm not sure what scale of project I can really tackle alone.

This one has a lot more going for it for several reasons: first and foremost is that a Wargame tends to be easier to make (at its very core) than something like a computer game.

>>14631414

I'd play the hell out of it. Maybe have it so ICE defenses were purchased with the same thing your units were - you'd design your cyberspace base yourself, link it to the actual game table. Would take a lot of playing space, but it could be good. Don't worry, OP, I'm here for you.

>>14631414

Ideas are simply ideas. If you'd like to see a ruleset happen, keep on trying to stimulate discussion, or try again later.

Use images or the like to attract attention, or post some thoughts on what you'd like to see in a ruleset. Decide on a basic resolution mechanic, or perhaps figure out a system that you could work off of, either specific die sizes, percentile dice, or dicepool systems. Provide some hooks for people to discuss. In homebrew, the sky is indeed the limit - but it also makes it difficult for people to get in on what you're talking about. Give a little starting push and keep pushing. Homebrew rulesets can happen but they definitely do require commitment; something you have to show.

>>14631443

The thing about this is that the games would consist of an attack/defend scenario inside a base. In which case the guys who own the place would get to decide what it looked like.

Cyberspace would have four main areas of activity:

>Cybercombat
Direct conflict between any two being in cyberspace.

>Hacking
Doing things to alter the odds or change the way the world works. For instance if you used a 40k game to symbolize the cyberspace, you could HACK to change your avatar from say a guardsman to a Space Marine Terminator. Or do something

The bigger the change, the more likely it is to have consequences.

>Cracking
Breaking things that are locked with passwords, or doing something like disabling a security node. Whearas Hacking changes the rules of the system, cracking twists the rules to your advantage.

>(Name missing)
This works at the Meta-scale for the cyberspace field: You change things like how fast it's going by 'clocking' it (up or down) or spamming it with useless data.

This has the most risk because it could cause the system to re-boot in which the best case is you have to start over with some light mental damage from being booted from the system, or a complete meltdown which would be very bad since most of the game is built around complex interactions with the Thing You Just Broke. That's just the beginnings of the Horror-show that a complete meltdown can cause.

>>14631414

Finally, no one's amazing at stuff until they try, or get practice. If you feel you aren't up to the commitment of doing a ruleset, then yes, this idea will likely die with you.

That all being said, I think you're off to a decent start. Three or four people is pretty solid. Try again on a different day.

>>14631537

How do you envision combat and the scale of the game?

Is it going to be bloody and fast, like how Warhammer 40k has models that mostly have just a single wound?

Or will units have HP? Also, will this be mirrored in cyberspace too or will the rules change completley?

>>14631519

I was leaning in the way of dice-pools, preferably d10 (because I like the probability spread. Easy to work in terms of 10% and it lets you use percentile dice without having to have a set reserved for that purpose) but might want to either use a d6 instead or at least have a variant rule for converting the game to d6 because, let's face it, they're fucking everywhere.

IIRC in Dystopia, Cyberspace was actually a separate "map" entirely of tunnels and the like that linked into real world points.

You could potentially have each game with two playing boards - one represents the physical battlefield. The second represents the maze corridors of cyberspace.

In the Regular phase, players move units on the Reality board, while in the Cybercombat phase, players move units on the Cyberspace board.

yes. basically how it works in dystopia: it's a objective based game. as combatants move in realspace, deckers jack into the cyber-realm to open doors, manipulate objectives. while the defenders move in meatspace, as well as defend their cyberspace by killing the enemy deckers trying to manipulate objectives.

>>14631583

To build on this "two level, two phase" concept, actions done in one Phase will have an effect on the game board of the other phase.
Hacking a terminal in Reality during the Physical phase will allow you to change the shape of the Cyberspace board - perhaps add corridors, or remove them.
Conversely, interacting with a location in Cyberspace during the Cybercombat phase allows you to open doors or activate auto-turrets on the Reality board.

In short, the gimmick of the game should revolve around manipulating the *terrain* on both maps to the player advantage. (Compare this with a lot of other wargames, which are more about unit selection).

(Also, I realize I'm severely lacking in cyberpunk styled pictures)

>>14631550

Combat has some real potential to be very deadly.

In terms of feel it's closer to (to use and RPG metaphor) Shadowrun that Dark Heresy. If you Do It Right, it's entirely possible for you to go in, get the data (for a capture the flag style game) and leave without the other guy 'knowing' you're there.

Combat itself would be less like a shoot-out between two cowboys and more cat and mouse, using cover and the like. Single deadly shots with a few exceptions.

It's hard to define it in terms of a strait-up wargame for me because it's not always a strait-up wargame. Both teams have an OBJECTIVE that brings them into conflict. In theory you could have a game where More than one team wins, nobody wins, or a draw is forced.

Let me know if that makes sense.

>>14631539

I'm willing to give it a go. We'll see how far it takes me. Hell, worst case it's a learning experience.

>>14631583
I would play this with infinity figs....

Its rather strange, I just picked up dystopia today after a long hiatus...

If you want to hash out rules or someone to playtest against just hit my up on my skype. neiowanderer

>>14631621

Kind of sounds like some elements found in Etherscope, which is the Matrix meets the victorian age.

Like, let's say a player goes into the Ether (it's the Matrix, more or less), he can fight some monster that is actually the lock to a door, after defeating him in the cyber world, the door unlocks in the real world.

>>14631583
>>14631606
>>14631621

YES.

This is exactly why it made a good jumping off point to explaining the idea: The two are linked and important. The combat is asymetric in both how the units work and how they would interact with each other AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

Redefine the battle-field, redefine the battle. (holyshit, that was off the top of my head and that would work as a good marketing line)

>>14631550

Just realized I didn't answer the scale question here >>14631631

Or the Hp/Wounds thing. For the latter, I don't know yet.

For the former, it's going to be mostly squads. Average side for most teams would be some-where between a half-dozen and a dozen. Somewhere between 10-20 guys total running around.

Also I'd suggest to worry less about statting up factions at the moment and focus on the core gameplay rules - how to move, how to shoot, etc.

Making the game very map-oriented by focusing on terrain-shifting via Realspace and Cyberspace actions should be more the priority, I feel. And also forcing players to have to juggle actions in both should be part of the strategy of the game - no player should be completely cut off from either. Realspace terrain changes should *only* be accomplishable via Cyberspace actions, and vice versa. It's what would give the game a unique feel, which is pretty essential - and also somewhat different from the way Infinity handles hacking.

>>14631680

Feel free to take that description for use in future threads, then. Your original post suffers from a big lack of clarity in direction... you need to shout "THE GIMMICK OF THIS GAME IS X" in the first few sentences, otherwise people will just skim over and move on.

Also, what about the cyberspace scale? Will players deploy entire cyberspace teams, or will it be more individually focused?

Personally I think sticking with the Dystopia scale would work best; make in a skirmish level game that doesn't go larger than 12 - 24 or so troopers on each side.

>>14631688

That might be the best cosplay picture ever.

That or the one where it was a guy dressed as snake who spent half the con hiding in a box.

In relation to your comment....

given the way the duality between the two feilds of play works, you would have to have a presence in both sides, but how you approach each aspect would bring some unique flavor to each faction.

Speaking of factions, I have about a half dozen in mind now (Big enough for variety, small enough to be manageable by a small team of developers [currently just me]).

A note on the cyberspace: Like I said earlier, you could do cyberspace TRON style, or you could substitute another wargame entirely. Or settle conflicts in cyberspace via rap-off instead of dice. There's no one standard for how things on the other side work.

>>14631750

Sounds like the homebrew is boiling well. Need to sleep on this end, good luck OP and will watch for future threads.

>>14631725

>Feel free to take that description for use in future threads, then.

Plan on it. Or at least something based on it.

>Your original post suffers from a big lack of clarity in direction... you need to shout "THE GIMMICK OF THIS GAME IS X" in the first few sentences, otherwise people will just skim over and move on.

That might go a ways to explaining why some of my old project threads died.

>Also, what about the cyberspace scale?

Should roughly match the physical one. If the game is Huge then so will the cyberspace.

>Will players deploy entire cyberspace teams, or will it be more individually focused?

Depends on both the faction and the person playing them.

>Personally I think sticking with the Dystopia scale would work best; make in a skirmish level game that doesn't go larger than 12 - 24 or so troopers on each side.

Honestly I was thinking about half that in number.

Of course, I plan to put something in the rules about Bigger/Smaller games.

>>14631781

Thanks!

If I archive this you'll have name to look for.

Of course, archiving it would be up to you guys. You think there's enough here for it, or should I go a bit longer? I've got a few hours in me yet.

So guys, just wanted to get input on one last thing (assuming anybody's reading this) what should we call this thing?

>>14631882

call it "OP is a lazy fuck who doesn't want to do any work but wants all the credit"

>>14631893

Did you read the thread? I asked if /tg/ would be willing to play the game, let it out there that I would like some help on the actual project IF people wanted in, and answered questions.

Hell, suggestions for a placeholder name would be the first actual question for input.

Thanks for bumping the thread by the way.

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/14629922/

Archived.

>>14631983

Binary Warfare?

That's.... That's actually a pretty awesome name.

Alright, I'm probably going to leave soon. Since this is archived feel free to just post whatever as far as questions go. I'll try to answer them all in the next thread.

Binary warfare? I can live with it.

Used to play a lot of Dystopia back in the days.

This definitely has potential. Me and my gaming buddies spent years making our own tactical shooter tabletop game. At one point we decided to include sewers too, so we tossed out some "Doom Boardgame" tiles on the side of the real table and marked out where the manholes were.

One suggestion would be WiFi nodes put both in cyberspace and in the real world, if the hackers get to them and take control of them they could run interference against real world targets.

Instead of just say hacking in and disabling turrets and doors as you do in a dystopia game, imagine if you could take over one such node, and depending on its range you could give soldiers near it negative modifiers by hacking straight into their eye gear etc.

This of course may spell the end for an 80% mechanical cyber dreadnought, while your average security guard with just a cellphone, walkie and handgun probably wouldn't notice.