In the Nehahra's "vanilla quake" mode, do you suppose I should shut off increased falling damage? 

i see no purpose to have increased falling damage at all, but baring it's removal, i'd say, yeah, take that out for 'vanilla quake' mode. :) 

well.. I added the additional (yet not quite realistic) damage based on distance you fall with the thought that if the quake marine jumps off a skyscraper, he ought to get more than a twisted ankle. Maybe skyscraper is an overstatement, but you know what I mean :) 

if Quake guy falls from SkyScrapers or from high cliffs, he should die. I can't belly flop from a distance of four feet in to a pool with out getting my innards crunched up.

General question, Mindcrime, have you taken a look at the gyro physics mod? Or do you plan to do similar things with water boyancy? I know the original code allowed for entities to float, but the approach in the gyro mod was more systemic.

The Zodiac mod for Deus Ex added an interesting feature to the swimming mode. As the player, you could swim pretty much normaly like in every other game, but if you stood still, you automaticaly rose upward. 

I reckon it would be a mistake to change movement physics. A lynch mob might assemble to string me up and beat me like a pinata.

As for floating entities, I'd like to do more with that. The gibs physics have changed. They have these quirky underwater physics which are not realistic, but they are fun. They don't float however. I have a few things that float in Neh already, like if you push an explobox or barrel in the water.

Would it be interesting to apply floating to them or something else? Dunno.

I do know that there is a floating gibs entity in Nehahra that does not work properly that I mean to get to. I reckon I'll be playing with that then (I'm pretty certain how to go about them this time.. once I get to them... they aren't quite high on my list.. used in one place in nehahra...)

As for falling damage.. I think this might depend.. I might have to go through the maps and see if this change adversely affects anything... among the nice things about it.. you might have a very long shaft down to another part of the level (perhaps close to the exit)... might even be visible from where you start, but yet you cannot jump down there and basically skip the level.. you'll surely die.)

There might be instances where it affects the gameplay and the intention of the mapper (I can even think of one in particular in ep4).

I'll have to see how it plays with the proportional falling damage taken out in that mode. 

quite true. it hadn't occured to me that you also were talking of gameplay specific uses for increased falling damage.

make sure it is clear, either via maps or somehow, that falling = bad, because otherwise, you'll have a lot of splattered players... XD

i'm still not a big fan of realistic falling damage though, because there are always other ways to stop players from jumping into areas, via lava/slime, void pits, teleporters. heck, you could even have the player ambushed by tons of monsters and die that way instead. :P

but since whether or not increased falling damage isn't in question, then i'd say you might as well leave it on for both modes, and let mappers use it as a gameplay device. it may be cool to have a worldspawn key to disable it however, incase a mapper wants to make some really crazy vertical level with lots of falling from high up and such.
but that opens up another can of worms because now players will never be able to tell when realistic falling damage is on or not. :P hehe, whee, devil's advocate is fun. o.0 

If the player can survive the fall in e1m7 after defeating Cthon, then I think the increased falling damage is fine. 

You can survive the e1m7 fall, but it's about 75 damage, so a lot of times you won't make it if you took any lavaball hits. Generally not cool to defeat the boss and then die anyway though.

At the moment, I took out the quasi-realistic falling damage in Vanilla Quake mode. Seems to play okay thus far and no harm done to gameplay in the Neh maps.

On the subject of game modes, and "enhanced combat AI", there are two opinionated schools of thought on this matter and really I'm appealing to both this time. Even though I think Nehahra is too easy (granted.. by comparison)... with Vanilla Q mode, it is interesting. And it's nice to be able to choose what kind of gameplay I want based on my mood at the time.

Right now.. and perhaps in the final version.. the modes are set using the NOMONSTERS cvar. It seemed like the best to use for compatibility reasons and ... well ... it's a cvar not commonly used.

+nomonsters 3

would set vanilla q mode, which trumps any mode set globally on a map. Meaning, if a mapper built a map and set it to play on vanilla q mode... if I did want the upped AI and extra monster features, I could simply change the mode to Nehahra mode or classic Nehahra mode (there's only a few notable differences between the two). Also, vice-versa. [[ Although... a mapper can shut off extra features on a case-by-case basis with the "monster_ai" field .. which trumps gamemode.. i.e. an enforcer with "monster_ai" "-2" will always behave like standard Q, regardless of game mode)

Now, for the same reason as I considered mappers using the realistic falling damage as a deterrent, I also consider that there are surely maps in which you do take a huge fall every time (as standard Q of course doesn't have the increased falling damage), so the integrity of that map is hence compromised, as the player will die each time.

For this reason, I am very strongly considering having the game mode set to vanilla Quake automatically for non-nehahra maps (unless trumped by Cvar of course). And checking to see if it's a Nehahra map is really quite as simple as checking for an "info_start" (neh1m*, neh2m*, neh3m*) or an "info_world" (neh4m*).

At first I was gonna leave it. Maps with no info_start would default to the new Nehahra mode. There are a lot of players who prefer playing "old" quake maps, or non-nehahra maps, with the extra monster features. This is why I was going to leave it.

However, I see no reason why they can't type NOMONSTERS 4 at the console, or +nomonsters 4 at the command line, to enable the preferred experience.

The Nehahra enhancements were not the intended gameplay in non-nehahra maps obviously and really.. the mapper's intention, on a map by map basis, is of the highest importance to me.

Maybe some of you will have thoughts on that too :P

On a side note... as I was reading the last posts.. it occurred to me that it might be nice to add a trigger whose only function is to reset the jump_flag of players (which is what is used to measure how big of a fall a player took). So you could have a player fall and not take damage.

Not that you couldn't achieve the same creatively using some other entities... 

I think it's best to have falling damage be totally consistant across all gamemodes. 

Is there a consensus on this? 

i agree to! 

well, like i ended up saying before, either on or off, but falling damage should always be the same. players shouldn't have to 'test' to see if they'll take extra damage or not. they should load up nehahra and know if they'll die from a fall or not.

also this thing of modifying original monsters i've never liked the idea of. i'm all for making cool AI for new ones, but messing with the originals just doesn't seem right. for one thing, we've all learnt what a grunt or enforcer can do. when they start sliding all over the place and going nuts, it's more annoying than fun.

all this stuff about being able to customize the AI to use or not use the new stuff is superfluous imo. just have the original monsters behave as they always have, and have other monsters use the new cool ai. 

you stated: "when they start sliding all over the place and going nuts, it's more annoying than fun."

Which is why I added the game modes. Personal preference. Don't think I haven't heard that before and it's not a majority opinion (I will not say it is a minority opinion however).

If I were to go back in time to 2000, I wouldn't do a lot of things the same admittedly. C'est la vie. I won't elaborate on what would change (that I am not changing already). But I will point out that there are several camps on this issue. There are the in-betweens. But the two main factions are The For and The Against. These camps are quite strong. Google and altavista nehahra some time when you're bored and see what people are saying (then do a few more searches, misspelling it in a variety of ways (: )

There are some who play Quake with Nehahra exclusively and the AI is part of the reason. I wasn't crazy when I took this approach. I read what people were saying, not just inside the community (that's like looking for an atheist in the church choir), but outside ... where Quake was often scoffed for lacking certain things, among them... a real challenge in the SP environment. There are some who are so used to the competitive gameplay of DMing online.. that playing SP is insulting to them. I gathered all those bones and I chewed on them hard. I didn't just wake up with a goofy idea one day to make the game as it was.

If you operate only for the warm fuzzies of only those in the community, and/or those who visit this board, and them exclusively, that's fine, but I don't. I'm not being snippy when I say that. I'm just pointing out where I stand.

I'm at a point of no return on the issue of AI, as after five years, Nehahra has become an institution of sorts. When something becomes an institution, you meddle with it at its peril (or your own). And yes, in a sense, I learned that lesson a bit with Quake itself.
Though I could change everything in Nehahra to exactly how I might have done it this time around, it would be no less ignorant than how I conducted myself in 2000 on this issue. I will not try to appease the previous 'naysayers', gather them in my court so to speak, if it means alienating the fans. Then I am left with the same situation, only with people waving different flags, and that is not the state I want to leave Nehahra in.

Those who don't want the monster behavior changes, you need only go to the console and type a command.. or add a parameter to your BAT file. The idea that someone who strongly prefers vanilla Quake mode (and is able to play based on this preference) would be bothered that are people playing the game a different way because they *like it* that way, or vice-versa for that matter, is downright silly. Petty even.

Would it bother you to know that when I play maps in Fitzquake now, I set GL_OVERBRIGHTS to 0? More importantly, *should* it bother you?

This time I am foolish enough to want to please everyone (this is impossible, of course, but I reckon I will come much closer). However you want to play the game, you can play it that way.

I don't choose. The player chooses.

And, for crissake, what is wrong with that?? 

What's wrong with a mapper being able to choose how the monsters behave?

I do realize the gamemodes is both a testament and a contradiction to some of my stated philosophies. Namely, the one that concerns altering the gameplay to something other than what the mapper may have intended.

I.e. a mapper sets his map to vanilla q mode, but a player might decide he wants all the extra stuff.. so he NOMONSTERS 4 (the neh4m*+ nehahra game mode).

I know personally... when new maps come out. I play it through Nehahra, using the Neh progs.dat because it enhances my enjoyment as a player. (though those maps that come with their own progs.dats of course.. the Nehahra engine will use that progs... and it doesn't bother me either, even though I sometimes wish I had the choice).

(On a side note, though I think I've mentioned it, setting the "monster_ai" field on monsters individually trumps both the map's gamemode and the cvar, case by case basis though.)

Anyway, I've stated openly what I'm doing in the AI department and I will stay the path, as it is the only responsible course of action to take. 

Would you care to comment on my comment about falling damage? 

i think maybe i'm just not thinking of Nehahra the same way you are, which is what's causing the problem.

when i think of mods for quake, i think of them as essentially extending the original game, which is why i'm mostly opposed to modifying anything that was already there, regarding AI for monsters.

I don't choose. The player chooses.

yes giving players a choice is nice, but frankly i think that's superfluous and can, in some cases, destroy a map's gameplay. a monster should be of constant difficulty in each skill setting. this is akin to having a standardized skybox key in the worldspawn, so that whatever engine is used, whatever player who plays the map experiences the same thing.

Would it bother you to know that when I play maps in Fitzquake now, I set GL_OVERBRIGHTS to 0? More importantly, *should* it bother you?
no, because it affects the gameplay in absolutely no way at all. it is simply a visual preference, which doesn't change the way a map plays (unless you had some sort of reliance on fullbrights for gameplay, but if you did something *that* non-standard, you would expect for it to not work for some)

turning off the advanced AI often makes maps too easy, and turning it on, while making it of proper difficulty, is changing established quake monsters.

if monster AI was tied into skill levels, it would make more sense, but i'd still be opposed to the modification of original monster behaviour.

nehahra is more about making a new experience and a new feel. this attempt to please everyone is simply resulting in an game that will be unpredictable (bad from a mapper's and gameplay standpoint).
i think if your original intention was to make a new feel for the game, that you should just go ahead and do it. enable advanced AI on all monsters and FORCE IT. some people may not like it, but then at least they are playing the game the way it's meant to be played.



aside (which i think applies to ANY game or mod):

What's wrong with a mapper being able to choose how the monsters behave?
because then you end up with Unreal type gameplay, where you'll be fighting monsters, and then all of a sudden, the same monster, who looks identical to the others of his type suddenly starts whooping your ass with no way of knowing it would. this is similar to an instant death trap, but, obviously, less brutal. there is no logical reason for one monster to behave different from another monster that is of the same type and it's tricking the player by not giving any visual or audible cues.
the player should always be able to learn from his experiences in the game, and not always be caught flat footed.

anyway, if any of this sounded evile or mean or whatnot, keep in mind it was all said in good faith. :) 

I've been punchy lately, sue me.

Firstly, falling damage: It'll be consistent. I wanted input on that to ensure I wasn't being stubborn.

Necros said: yes giving players a choice is nice, but frankly i think that's superfluous and can, in some cases, destroy a map's gameplay. a monster should be of constant difficulty in each skill setting. this is akin to having a standardized skybox key in the worldspawn, so that whatever engine is used, whatever player who plays the map experiences the same thing.

My response: You would then have to argue that playing on GODMODE also destroys a map's gameplay, and the player can do this at their whim. They can NOCLIP. They can attain all weapons with an Impulse. By the same logic, if I were to subscribe to your thinking, I should then disable all cheats. Right? :)

As for monsters of the same class acting differently. I was talking more about shutting off features than enabling them. I.e. you put a monster somewhere precarious and you don't want him to jump, so you set him not to.

Necros said: if monster AI was tied into skill levels, it would make more sense, but i'd still be opposed to the modification of original monster behaviour.

That's how I originally wanted to do it, but the skill CVAR is not my friend. But that's just the point. The modes are akin to changing the skill setting. You don't require as much skill to play Quake in its native form as you do Nehahra. Playing Nehahra without the monster behavior extras (or at least the combat stuff) is still pretty challenging on its own though. If I really felt (or if in the future feel) that the difference between those two modes is too substantial, I would proceed accordingly. But I don't think they will be.

Anything that broadens the enjoyment of a game I cannot see as a bad thing.

Modification of the original monster behavior: I've already stated my position on that in my long previous post. Stop kicking that dead horse! :) (See the bit about "institutions")

In the end, I truly believe this just translates into more people enjoying Nehahra. A dish served however you want it. And the players who couldn't handle the monsters as well as some others, well, they're less likely to get frustrated and cheat their way through (Fatty, ahem :>). I'd rather they play it.. and I suspect they would rather play it too. 

I think I may still allow a custom mapper (probably through a field in the info_world) to disable falling damage.

My hang-up on this has more to do with encouraging mappers who are more interested in utilizing some of the great features of Nehahra (ambient sounds, level objects, and triggers and funcs, many of which no other mod has) but may wish for the monsters to remain as they were. Basically, the equivalent of a custom progs with the quake monsters the same but with all the added mapping features.) Mappers who want the map to strictly play, like the original Quake.. (and that may mean putting a clamp on 'realistic' falling damage)

That swings the door open wider.

The all-engine version I propose.. swings it wider still.

I want to leave the community more than something they can play, but something they can use.

Call me a sentimental fool. 

My ultimate preference is that falling damage is always the same as in normal Quake. However, if you retain "realistic" falling damage, I won't whine much as long as it's consistant between all gamemodes. 

That might just be the best solution, all things considered.

Just take the damned 'realistic' falling damage out and it becomes a non-issue. heh. 

I'll be away from the func_msgboard for some days, maybe a week. I'm going to dump the evil butts again. This time, come hell or high water, for good. I'm in a position where this is the *only* sane time to do it. I've been flirting with it for the past week though (hence my glorious moods for those who have been around me.. heh)

But it's best I stay away from msgboards :) The withdrawal makes me irrational and temperamental (even more than usual ;) )

I'll come back and address any postings, answer questions, or whatever.. when my head is on straight (at least as straight as it gets).

Cheers. :> <insert bear growl> 

My response: You would then have to argue that playing on GODMODE also destroys a map's gameplay, and the player can do this at their whim. They can NOCLIP. They can attain all weapons with an Impulse. By the same logic, if I were to subscribe to your thinking, I should then disable all cheats. Right? :)

that doesn't make sense. i wasn't aware the monster ai mode was considered a cheat since you suggest prople to set it to their preference. it's not like you tell people "well, you can play my map with godmode if you want"

godmode, noclip etc are all debug features for making maps which just happen to be useful when you want to just blast through a map. monster ai isn't a debug feature, it is designed entirely for the player.

your attempt to draw a parallel failed.

As for monsters of the same class acting differently. I was talking more about shutting off features than enabling them. I.e. you put a monster somewhere precarious and you don't want him to jump, so you set him not to.

i see now more what you were saying about having mapper controlled AI. not something that overly controls the behaviour but to disable specific things like jumping, which is a pretty good idea. 

I don't choose. The player chooses.

And, for crissake, what is wrong with that??


I think there is an assumption here that the player knows in advance what he wants when it is more likely the case he finds out what he 'wants' after the fact of playing a decent or great level.

If you are out to please the player, you will most likely make him more picky, spoiled and eventually miserable if you give him everything that he wants.

No. The player needs to be grabbed by his collar, bounced off the floor a few times and then dragged down the hall to greet the vision you have for him by yanking his head up by the hair, and yelling, "There!".

Inside of every player is a masochist, inside of every mapper is a sadist, and most often they cohabitate in the same specimen --

Thus Spoke Zarathustra 

yeah it is 

Ok the quit didn't last long this time either :p (oh, the horror of the cycles!)

Necros: I made the comparison to the CHEATS, because the cheats are ... oh, actually fugger. Let's not keep going back and forth :o It's making me dizzy.

The modes are in and there will be more Nehahra maps in the future because of it (yes, I was thinking just as hard about mappers as I was players with this). Not to mention, a number of players who couldn't get past the first 2 maps because it was too much for their skills ... playing again and deriving some enjoyment out of it... while a bunch of others (myself included) blast through it in the normal, more challenging game mode that we are more accustomed to now.

It doesn't mean I'm going to condone vanilla quake mode though :) But it's already in there for the mappers who want to use the Nehahra entities... and it wasn't a secret I was going to keep from the player.

I do think of it as merely a change in skill settings. A play who found Nehahra impossible before.. will probably now just find it hard.

More players. More mappers. That's my angle.

Perhaps it is best that you just wait and see when it comes to that. As we've been discussing (arguing?) the theoretical instead of the tangible.

Nehahra isn't out. Only when that happens and everyone's sank their teeth into it, will any of us know for sure who was right or wrong or what was a good or bad idea.

I really feel I'm doing the best thing in this regard however. I've had five years to think about it.

Truce, necros.