|Posted by JPL on 2005/03/10 23:27:05|
|Bal suggested in the General Abuse Thread to open a discussion about Quake Cooperative mode features, so I do it (we are not chickens... ;) doh !!!)
So, what is(are) your experience(s) concerning Coop mode in any FPS game ? According to this(these) experience(s), what should be great to implement in a special Quake Mod dedicated to Coop ??
To your opinion, what are the "global features" which should be nice to have ? What are the modifications required for Quake (about monsters/ammo/armor/health/engine, etc...), in order to have fun ? etc.. etc... any good ideas are welcome...
Now, let's discuss...
Fucking "preview" Button... Grrr...
#1 posted by JPL
on 2005/03/10 23:34:26
The title of the thread doesn't appear completly... holy shit.... It was
Coop Mode / What Are The Good Features To Implement ?
Anyway, my humble opinion is it's possible to change few things in order to have fun in Coop mode. First: we can boost monsters health, in order to increase difficulty during fights. There was also a suggestion about ammo/weapon sharing, and I'm not sure it will increase fun..
Concerning mapping, for sure dedicated maps are required: 2 starts, more monsters, more ammos, more fights, more fun...
#2 posted by necros
on 2005/03/11 09:29:33
i was thinking of having one 'ammo pool' where every player shares from that same pool.
the limits would be a lot higher, like 1000 nails, 500 shells, 500 rockets, etc... basically normal ammo * 5.
but i dunno how this would work out in practice...
on the one hand, it makes ammo sharing simple, but could also lead to problems, like someone wasting all the ammo or something like that. O_o
and what would be prefereable, spawning a monster in twice, right after the first one is kill, or simply upping it's health by 2x?
i'd be more for spawning two in because then you still have a chance to take on any given monster solo if your partner is missing, but if they have 2x health, it makes it more likely you'll die.
#3 posted by R.P.G.
on 2005/03/11 12:48:20
what would be prefereable, spawning a monster in twice, right after the first one is kill, or simply upping it's health by 2x?
No offense, but IMO that's a bit like asking "Which would you prefer, a nail through your left foot or a nail through your right foot?"
#4 posted by R.P.G.
on 2005/03/11 20:19:59
I don't like the idea of changing the monster count because it's not addressing the amount of room the players and monsters have to navigate. And I don't like changing the monsters' health because by now players are accustomed to monsters dying after a certain amount of damage. I don't like the idea about changing the ammo packs for a similar reason.
I think the best option for coop play is to have smart design on the code side (keys and weapons that stay like in DM, all players start a level or respawn with ammo and health greater than a set minimum amount, and maybe when a weapon is picked up by a player it goes into a "pool" of weapons that all players have when they respawn) and levels that are designed to play well in coop (plenty of area to navigate, a higher difficulty rating that normal SP maps, tasks that have distinct approaches depending on the number of players, non-linearity, a vague hub-like design). It's issues on the latter that I wanted people to comment on for my own purposes, but the former is an interesting topic as well.
Now one thing that I think would be interesting is to have a specific coop mode where monsters respawn a la Doom's Nightmare mode. The problem of ammo, armor, and health shortage could be solved by respawning those items. And a monster that respawns would be stripped of its "target" key so it doesn't accidentally retrigger an event that it shouldn't. And then on top of the coop mode, players could set the skill setting to determine the quantity and difficulty of the monsters in the map. (i.e. the coop setting and skill setting are set independantly so you can monster and ammo respawning on lower skill settings.)
I Knew I Should Have Proofread That.
#5 posted by R.P.G.
on 2005/03/11 20:24:17
(i.e. the coop setting and skill setting are set independantly so you can have monster and ammo respawning on lower skill settings.)
Wait Just A Minute...
#6 posted by R.P.G.
on 2005/03/11 20:33:35
spawning a monster in twice
Your idea was basically what I just posted, wasn't it? The only difference being that I suggested the monsters respawn infinitely--with perhaps intervals of 20 seconds--and that the items also respawn.
#7 posted by -
on 2005/03/12 13:49:15
I like the idea of a map being designed that it could be done by a single player, but using 2 players will get the job done quicker.
Let's say the start of the map offers 3 paths. 1 path is blocked, requiring 2 buttons to be pressed. Each button is down the other 2 paths which lead back to the start area. A single player will have to deal with twice as much play, and fighting. 2 players could split up, perhaps each getting a differant set of weapons, meeting up at the start again to tackle the large battle that through the locked door. Simple and effective coop design.
#8 posted by Friction on 2005/03/12 14:22:34
Anyone ever tried System Shock 2 co-op? Full of hilarious moments. People you play with are far more dangerous than anything the computer throws at you.
"Step aside, I can't fire"
"What. You're standing in front of me."
"We both can't be standing in front of eachothers!"
At this point the security bot molested both of us to pieces. So yeah, have a proper netcode.
Vague Thoughts On Existing Q1 Coop Without Modding
#9 posted by than
on 2005/03/13 08:59:51
Here are a couple of ideas I thought of ages ago when I was going to make an sp map especially geared for coop play.
A hub design is helpful to avoid retreading large, empty areas when killed. Very linear designs really do not work well in coop.
Have weapon pickups trigger opening of doors at the startpoint where said weapon is also located. This way, players needn't run around recollecting all their stuff.
Large lifts for connecting the main areas if you are going to have lifts at all. Make sure several players can fit onto any lifts you might have. I also think that having button operated lifts might work better than having the usual auto-trigger ones (you can drop back down the shaft of a button operated lift more easily.)
Pretty obvious, but make sure that if a player dies in a locked room monster ambush, they can get back into the room to finish the fight.
Try and put multiple small ammo and health boxes around instead of using large ones. This is obviously so that one player doesn't have an excuse for hogging the items. Make sure there is adequete space between the items too. A bit of lag might mean the difference between walking over one, or all of the items.
Somebody mentioned this before (in GA, I think), but it seems slightly pointless to play coop (with 2 people) if you split up and don't see each other for most of the game. Most of the fun in coop is in cooperating, and seeing the other players fighting alonside you.
I think if players are splitting up the tasks each player is attempting should be within close range and preferably allow the players to see each other whilst doing them. Pressing buttons on the opposite side of a large atrium to open a large door in the centre is something I'm not against.
that's all I think.
Returning With Some Ideas
Basically, some cool things would be:
Saved inventory - Maybe when playing a campaign, each players state when starting the map could be saved to either the players computer or to a world server, allowing people to start on the map they were on last, even if they take a week-long break.
Map thoughts - I think there should be specific coop maps, needing players to stand on each other to get to secrets, and bigger enemy count. Also there should be a avoidance of thin corridors. Quake 2 is littered with these, and they are just a friendly fire death trap for players. Bigger areas, or multiple and intertwining routes leading the same direction.
#11 posted by distrans
on 2005/03/13 16:11:05
...very timely advice, thanks! I'm just about to put a lift in a main vertical thoroughfare in a map that has 4 coop starts. I'll now make sure the lift can accommodate four bodies at the same time.
Having said that, I do have another lift/ambush setup that will only accommodate one player at a time. The vertical distance is not great, so the idea is the first player has to get up and survive long enough for the cavalry to survive. Yes there's a mega-health near the top of the lift.
Reading back over the coop stuff in both threads (most of which is useful), I get the impression that players respawn in coop. Is that right? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose if monsters don't respawn?
Guess I Should Use The Preview Option...
#12 posted by distrans
on 2005/03/13 16:12:37
#13 posted by JPL
on 2005/03/14 01:22:29
Full title is back ! After posting the thread, the title was cut: this explain my first post... Anyway, thanks to the guy who solved the problem, if problem there was ... ;)
To go forward with coop mode, I really think the two players have to fight together, side by side, against monsters, rather than play alone their own "half SP map".. Each player have to help the other one, in order to preserve the cooperative spirit, and to survive from the beginning to the end of the map.. otherwize you should have to restart it (it means no rebirth after death for the players)...
In the same order, I think ammos/weapons/health sharing have to be banned. When you are fighting, there is no good reasons to share health items with your partner, even if he is low in health, the more if you are low in health.. (and the same with ammos/weapons/armor..)..
I agree that ammos sharing can be an acceptable idea (75%/25%-like sharing), but not more... The guy who pick-up ammos item have to keep naturally the most important part of it...
In fact, you just need to consider that the cooperative spirit is in the strategy against monsters, not in the item sharing..
In the same order, I think the good strategy to start coop mode is to create special maps dedicated to coop mode, without any Quake code modification, just thinking about this coop spirit I was talking about..
Why should we need to change code ?? All the stuff is in there, and ready to be used... The only thing the mappers have to do is to think for 2 players, not only one...
#14 posted by than
on 2005/03/14 05:08:52
I agree, there isn't a neccessity for a full on coop mod, but it could be useful, since you need a special QWcoop mod to play coop online anyway, so this could be improved upon.
As for ammo sharing. This should NOT be a code thing, but I do think that it is part of the coop spirit to share ammo by not grabbing it all when you enter a new area before other players. If you have no ammo and hardly any health/armour, then grab it. If you are both in a bad situation, the goodies should be shared.
Mind you, I do remember not wanting to share magic potions and dragons in golden axe :)
Maybe if a player could drop ammo for a friend? So there could be a console command for like: "drop 5 shells" which would drop 5 shells out in front of the player, this could be bound to keys, and if no ammo type was written, it would drop 5 ammo for the current gun.
#16 posted by R.P.G.
on 2005/03/14 09:44:02
Correct, players do respawn. But, you see, it's a necessary thing because Than keeps shooting you in the back. Therefore, it's more like You vs All Monsters + Than, and because Than respawns, it is also necessary for you to respawn so you have a chance of actually finishing the map.
#17 posted by than
on 2005/03/14 10:06:51
it was just an accident
#18 posted by necros
on 2005/03/14 10:12:37
what about if ammo only disappeared after all players had picked it up?
ie: box of shells on the ground. four players in the map. one walks over it, and gets 20 shells. the box remains on the floor, but the player can't pick it up again (behaves like weapons do when you've already got the same weapon in coop)
the other two players pick up the shells too, and the box remains. finally, the fourth picks up the box, he gets the shells then it disappears.
would solve ammo problems for normal maps not specifically designed for coop play in mind (esp if monster respawning is implemented)
also, speaking of monster respawning, i already wrote a mod that makes monsters infintely respawn every 15 seconds after they die, so you could give that one a shot in coop and see what it's like...
i don't remember if there's a link or not for that, so i'll try to remember to upload it when i get home.
#19 posted by -
on 2005/03/14 10:31:44
The ammo thing could easily be done as a serverside mod I'd think. Just remove the server tracking ammo boxes and make the server trust client's ammo counts (who the fuck is going to cheat in coop?). Hell, alot of simple things to make coop better could be made into a serverside mod. Might be a cool idea to get one put together, pack it with some awesome coop maps (author's permissions of course), and see if we can get some of the servers to run it.
#20 posted by necros
on 2005/03/14 10:49:43
actually, i routinely cheat in coop.
if i die and loose all my guns, i will usually just use the give command to get back all the weapons i had before instead of wasting time to pick them all up again. it lets me get back into the fight faster.
also, if i run out of ammo completly, i tend to give myself a few shells so i can at least continue to fight with the sg or ssg.
what i was suggesting would actually just involve a bit flag on each item, and would check the bitflag value against each player, checking to see if they've picked it up before, and if they hadn't, adding the player's bit value into the ammo's bit value.
#21 posted by R.P.G.
on 2005/03/14 11:15:52
If monster respawning were to take place, I think the ammo and health should both respawn, too.
Unrelated to respawning discussions, I think a coop mod should keep track of how many monsters each player kills, and penalize each player if he kills another player. And on Nightmare when monsters respawn infinitely, you could have an event where seperate teams of players try to get the highest ratio of frags per minute.
console cheats do not have to be enabled necros. I think scampie was referring to �berhaxes that run in the background and stuff :D
Cool idea about the frag contest.
Maybe there could be a thing where you have two identical maps next to each other, and there are two teams competing to finish the level the long ass level the fastest. Maybe there could be buttons to use traps against the other team, or such things :D
#23 posted by R.P.G.
on 2005/03/14 14:13:44
While the two identical map idea might be fun for a round or two, it would require a minimum of 4 players, plus specially built maps. But just seeing which set of players can have the highest ratio of frags/minutes when monsters respawn constantly is something that can be done on existing maps, and you only need two players to try for a record.
#24 posted by distrans
on 2005/03/14 15:43:09
lol, guffaw. blurt...
#25 posted by JPL
on 2005/03/14 23:21:28
Must be avoided in coop mode...
Another idea: I think it's really cool to be close to the reality as far as possible.. For example, when you die, why to rebirth ?.. In real life, like in SP mode: it's impossible !! When you died, you "are" dead, and you have to restart the map from the begining.. so why don't apply this concept ?? Some will say why rebirth at the map start when the fun is where you died in the map ? Yes it's true, but so far away to reality, without talking about monsters which don't exist in reality... bleh...
So the ideal way would be to start a map like a commando mission, and if a player die (sorry for him), but teh reamining ones have to finish the map alone, otherwize restart from the begining... like in real army commando operations.. ;)
You must be logged in to post in this thread.
Website copyright © 2002-2023 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.