News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register | Log in
Accessibility To Maps
This is a discussion that may not have any easy answers, but a thought I wanted to introduce into the wild in a place where the issue could be explored.

One crime in single player Quake is the sheer pain a new player has in learning how to load a custom map.

First, the player must find out where to put the map. Second, the player has to type the name in the console like "map ac2" to load the map. The *only* engine that has a built-in maps menu to take that pain out is JoeQuake, and I might add it even finds maps in pak files and displays them separately.

The user-unfriendliness is a killer.

Here is a possible solution I want to introduce into the wild.

There is a mod called RuneQuake. The source is available and it is actively maintained by Slot Zero at http://www.runequake.com and http://forums.runecentral.com

It is available in both Quake and Quakeworld varieties.

It has been run on multiplayer servers for ages and is very powerful, easy to use and user friendly.

1. It can be run in cooperative mode with monsters.
2. It has an amazing "vote-map" capability with support for up to 200+ maps.
3. On maps without a sufficient number of spawn points, it will spawn a player somewhere else.

To see it in action, a recommended servers to check out are:

QW: hoh.dtdns.net:27500
quake.msmcs.net:27500

NQ: quake.shmack.net

Type "custom" in the console and it lists the maps available. Type the map name in and it will initiate a vote for that map.

vb pointed out to me a list of Quakeworld servers at quakeservers.net and there are a grand total of 3 servers running coop in the whole world listed there.

It seems to me that something that would be very logical would be a Quakeworld server running various custom single player maps in coop mode (that don't require a progs, of course, that would throw a huge wrench into things).

I think it would be a great way to expose players to single player maps without them having to do anything/learn anything.

It would be a totally lazy way for players to experience single player maps and they could "vote" for the map they wanted to play on the server.

There are a million server hosts out there, one server host that is known to do a great job and has a lot of experience with Quake/Quakeworld is Essentrix.net and, for the sake of thoroughness, the contact email address there is chris ---at--- essentrix.net. There are many good hosting companies, but I'm a thorough guy and wanted to provide at least one name for research purposes.

Anyway, I don't know if anything will ever come of this, but I wanted to introduce this thought into the wild somewhere that cares about such a thing.

If such a thing existed, I'd make sure a lot of players know about it. I've seen a post about coop servers at quakeworld.us and basically, there aren't any.
First | Previous | Next | Last
 
This is a coop thread, I figured I'd give you a heads-up in advance so you knew what was going on with that.

oh 
Ok, Throwing In My Ideas 
I come from qw background and honestly don't know much, but think it's much smarter to base multiplayer on the qw net engine. Physics is a different question.

It would be cool if sp/coop could be added to mvdsv and ktpro (the de facto qw server and mod/progs.) Or something similar. Vb, put it in jteams please?

In ktpro, one can change map by voting, just say it's name. If there are 8 people on the server and 5 of them say "dm2" then the server changes to dm2. There's also the command "maps" that shows all the maps on the server (except the ones in paks I think).

Download should be better somehow though, sp maps are often large and that non-compressed udp transfer sucks. This has been on the working list of people making servers and clients, I don't know how much of it has been implemented yet.

A question I don't remember seeing answered to, how hard would it be to add 1 frame of drag making bunnies not accelerate much in a qw mod? Or would a server side mod even suffice? Would it fuck up prediction? Could it be remedied with an universal client that still would predict both normal qw and dragbunnyqw (like netquake) ok? 
Poll 
I've set up a poll:

http://www.quakeone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3328

And posted about it also on the SDA forum because I know they are single player fans.

After a 2 or 3 days, it will be interesting to see if there is enough interest. I think it is a great idea and I'm hoping for strong interest in the concept.

Or interest might my minimal to non-existent .. you never know for sure. 
 
Be

vb pointed out to me a list of Quakeworld servers at quakeservers.net and there are a grand total of 3 servers running coop in the whole world listed there.

No, I pointed out a search on Quakeservers.net for servers with coop in their hostname, because there isn't a specific catergory for co-op servers @ that site. There isn't a grand total of 3 SP QW servers in the world - even servers with co-op instead of coop in the hostname wouldn't have shown up in that query. Additionally, not all co-op mods are straight forward monster bashing, check this out for example:

http://www.quakeservers.net/?p=news&id=16

Do we have proper coop support in Quakeworld at all? Afaik it's still a mod that you must run in order for coop to function semi correctly.

SP/co-op has been around in QW since the year dot, thanks to id releasing the game source (not engine source) from early on. SP in NQ is 'just a mod' too (progs.dat/qwprogs.dat), remember, it just comes with the game.

The only half decent netcode is in Quakeworld, and to play coop, you need a modification (right?), which means it is impossible to play mods, unless the progs are recompiled to include the coop code.

The mods just have to have a QW port is all. There's no special co-op 'mod' you have to include because it's QW. QW didn't come with co-op/SP (the community created that soon after), but not because there was reason it couldn't work.

And being from a primarily NetQuake, primarily multiplayer community myself (QuakeOne.com), I can tell you that there is no special advantage of QW if you have broadband, it is like playing on a LAN for the most part.

Incorrect. QWCL's 0ms player movement, more efficient netcode (eg: 1 net message per super shotgun shot instead of 14), NAT support, extra bandwidth control etc. aren't it's only advantages. It also has native spectator support, customizable skin support, team names/ping/pl in scoreboard, extra renderer configurability, just to name a few features. And that's just QWCL. Proxies like Qizmo added more and more functionality (like routing, 32 spectators per proxy at the cost of only 1 client slot, voice communication, team communication macros, skin/color forcing, networking configuration, extra visual configurability & more), still lacking from NQ. Then the engine source came out - making even more improvements possible.

Any spikes or lag comes from the same unavoidable ISP route issues that give lag in Quakeworld, your computer acting up or spyware.

I've never heard of this 'issue' you mention in all my years of QW. Computer problems/spyware affect most things, not specifically QW, NQ, or games.

It isn't like in Quakeworld you can connect across the Pacific and expect to not have lag.

Really? Guess they forgot to tell all the American players playing in this competition played on servers on the other side of the Pacific:

http://www.QuakeWorld.biz/Duel/?sec=BesMella

or the many QW players who've played trans-Atlantic over the years. When playing over long distances, you can expect some latency, but this is largely negated thanks to the fact that latency doesn't affect movement thanks to QW's player prediction. Lag spikes aren't something QW specific - you won't get any in QW you wouldn't get in NQ. I don't ever get any when I play in North America, and it doesn't seem the Americans who play in New Zealand don't either. 
 
Oh, and if you're that much of a noob, you probably don't have a QW client installed, either.

Not necessarily. With eQuake pimped everywhere, a lot of people who have never played Quake 1 start out with a QW engine. 
 
There are about 200 idle Quakeworld servers at any given point in time because they are mostly run the same thing.

There are more idle servers, because there are more servers (as well as more players). I disagree that they all run the same thing either. 
Dude 
You get so defensive, hah. ;) You like QW better, it's ok man!

Btw .. you agreed with everything I said. You could have slimmed your post down to "Yes" and found something better to do for an hour, heheh. 
 
It's not being defensive, it's correcting your inaccuracies. I like Quake, I just choose QW because it's the improved version of the game.

P.S I don't see how you came to the conclusion that I spent an hour detailing how I agree with you, considering my prose was 1 big, long rebuttal. 
 
1 big, long rebuttal blurted from the top of my head, I meant to say. 
Maps That Work/don't 
rpg was correct, Insomnia does work! Strange enough, some maps that do not work:

sm82 (sigh)
moonlite (no!)
rpgsp1

Plus any map with a progs.dat.

There is a permanent server that will be running custom maps in cooperative mode, I've been playing there ;) 
 
moonlite play last night :) map what a fucking great map!!! 
I Get Sick 
of this defense of NQ as something that is superior over QW for multiplayer.

Yes, ok, for singleplayer its fine and/or wonderful -- but for multiplayer, QW's netcode is vastly superior and its clients have all sorts of DELICIOUS spectating and customization features... why not take the isolationist quakeone.com community and integrate it a little more into the qw/nq hybrid community we have here at func? 
Errr ... 
I never said it was superior. In fact, about the only time the Quake v. Quakeworld seems to come up is when vb posts. 
I Might Add ... 
First my first post in the thread ...

"It seems to me that something that would be very logical would be a Quakeworld] server running various custom single player maps in coop mode (that don't require a progs, of course, that would throw a huge wrench into things)." 
Stop Getting Angry We Don't Like QW 
Why do QW people get so mad not everyone agree's QW is better? I started out with NQ (as did millions of others) and I liked QW about as much as I liked Q2. Why don't I like it? Cause it doesn't *feel* like quake. Yes, it's netcode is more efficient. That doesn't make me like it.
I could post all day long about how QW is junk, and not true to original quake, or whatever. No one who likes QW would give a crap cause they like QW. Nor do netquakers care when you tell us we're dumb cause we like netquake. If you like QW better, great, play that and enjoy yourself. 
 
I never said it was superior. In fact, about the only time the Quake v. Quakeworld seems to come up is when vb posts.

Haha are you serious? You brought up the NQ v. QW thing yourself, as you've done on... How many sites is it now? I've lost count, because you seem to try and bring it up everywhere you go.

Yellow No. 5: Nobody is angry at you for liking NetQuake as far as I know, nor do I see anybody labelling you dumb. I for instance, was simply correcting Baker on stuff he had seemed to have invented himself (eg: his comment regarding trans-Pacific QW). 
Ahem 
Nice friendly community you people got going here... ;D 
HMMM 
Never have I had so many ppl in a single thread tell me who I am and what I like/don't like.

I never knew these great things about myself, heheh.

Things I have learned about myself in this thread:

1. I was flaming FitzQuake. Which is weird.

2. My favorite engine is DarkPlaces. Hmm. I always thought I was a hardcore JoeQuake guy myself, heheh. I guess I'll have to stop helping out Mr. Jozsef.

3. I hate QW. Hmmm, I'll have to take out all the links in http://www.quakeone.com/navigator and remove all the 24-bit textures that mostly get used by QWers from the downloads section.

Plus, I'll have to stop making the texture installers compatible with QW. And delete that post @ QuakeOne.com where I announced that Inertia's Aerowalk guide has been setup.

I have a lot of work to do!
-------------
In all seriousness, it would have been nicer if only ppl that are interest in a cooperative server participated in this thread instead of trolls barging in. 
If Qw Doesn't Feel Like Quake 
how much could it be helped by a qw mod? This is the third time I ask. You know about this stuff, vb.

I understand that the single player mappers intended many of their maps to be played in quake. That is, no qw bunny, and other differences. Now, would that be easy to achieve in qw? 
 
Nobody is saying you hate QW, Baker. You are the first to even use that verb in this thread ;)

In all seriousness, it would have been nicer if only ppl that are interest in a cooperative server participated in this thread instead of trolls barging in.

If somebody doesn't agree, or corrects a false claim, they are a troll? :D

bambuz: You can bunny in NQ, especially when playing locally (eg: SP) :> 
O RLY? 
�_� 
Vb 
bunny is much harder at least in fitzquake than in fuhquake. 
 
Harder perhaps, much wouldn't be my personal choice of words though.

There is 1 frame of friction when you land whilst bunny-hopping in NetQuake that isn't present in QuakeWorld. 
Well 
is it possible to have that in quakeworld?

It's very much harder for me! If I bunny in a circle in nq, I don't speed up much at all, ever. 
W00t! Hehe 
First | Previous | Next | Last
Post A Reply:
Name:
Title:
Body:
message
question
exclamation
idea
flame
noflame
error
skull
beer
moon
pent
rocket
sheep
pacman
pig
cheese
worldcraft
gauntlet
crate
pitfall
pimp
smile
cool
sad
frown
oi
yay
tongue
evil
wink
neutral
q1
q2
q3
ut
hl
cs
doom
dkt
serious
cube
Website copyright © 2002-2017 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.