#26 posted by Qmaster
on 2018/09/05 03:44:46
Not so fast. Just adding coop starts isn't enough if a map is designed to trap the player in. Sometimes you need coop only teleports that open up to let coopers or your respawned self back in to the trap or past it.
#27 posted by negke
on 2018/09/05 09:13:44
I Think #25 Is A Fair And Reasoned Response.
#28 posted by Shambler
on 2018/09/05 09:15:26
Tempted to close the thread on that one. But maybe not quite yet.
I must say the ability to add a few coop starts and a triggerable teleporter (a la E1M3) in any locked areas is truly a fantastic level of mapping skill that distinguishes the greats of the past from the incompetent grovelling wannabes today.
Insomnia and Warp Spasm have coop "support", but are fucking boring in coop because of how huge they are.
Vondur's maps are coopable - but it doesn't take a genius to figure out they're simply not built for coop.
Making maps for coop is not difficult, but it's annoying, since you either need to bin all the interesting gameplay ideas* or add shitty workarounds like the e1m3 teleporter.
* - Contract Revoked breaks in coop almost immediately with how some doors and bridges are built - they could have been changed to be coop friendly, resulting in neutered, zero challenge gameplay.
And that's what coop is, at its root: Q1SP where the penalty for dying is being bored.
No one cares about coop. This can be proved scientifically.
Take a representative sample of players and ask them how often do they coop.
Some will have a fond memory of cooping that one time, yes. Most won't, since coop isn't interesting even in the most coop friendly map.
Of all the things that contributed to Quake's longevity, coop is by and far not one of them.
#30 posted by mh on 2018/09/05 10:21:53
It's entirely possible that the reason modern maps don't have co-op is something other than lack of skill.
Gotta Agree With #29
#31 posted by mfx
on 2018/09/05 11:46:11
#32 posted by anonymous user on 2018/09/05 11:54:18
- Focus on brushwork detail and eyecandy in general over gameplay.
- Streamlining on gameplay or how a Quake map should be.
- Coop is MP, Quake MP sites have been on a decline, and this is a SP site, even more focused on Quake and in SP than ever before.
- This is not 1997. People don't gather on other people's houses to play anymore.
Was Refering To #30
#33 posted by anonymous user on 2018/09/05 13:16:08
#34 posted by Qmaster
on 2018/09/05 13:40:36
!gather on other people's houses to play Sad but true. All good points.
#35 posted by Tronyn on 2018/09/06 03:18:36
This Christmas I am getting a bunch of people and gathering at a person's house and literally playing coop and deathmatch quake in singleplayer levels. THIS IS 1997.
#36 posted by Cocerello
on 2018/09/06 09:27:40
I have tried to gather people for LAN or internet play like in 199x in the last decade, but even people that were fanatics back then are not interested, so i only was successful once or twice.
By the way I can testify about the not gathering part that is being commented: i came back to the University for a second degree and to save money i went to a shared flat with students: apart from the typical problems from the big age difference what i found out is that almost no one of them played with other people, but play with strangers over the net, and even with that they don't play much save the guys hooked on some Pay to Win or mmorpg. Strange times indeed. I think that even us played more back then than the kids nowadays.
#37 posted by Esrael
on 2018/09/06 09:40:40
the guys hooked on some Pay to Win or mmorpg.
My wife would probably fall under this category. She plays MMORPGS a lot, and she's developed a close circle of friends with whom she talks every day over Discord.
But there's a twist. She's actually going to meet with them next week in England, doing nerdy stuff like Dungeons and Dragons and more MMORPG-playing, I'm guessing. It was a surprise for me to hear about them having an actual gathering.
(As a side note, my MMORPG days ended around 2006-2007, when I stopped playing Runescape.)
#38 posted by echos on 2018/09/07 12:24:00
sorry dude but nobody ever played coop, EVER. you couldn't find any server running coop, and if you tried to make one nobody would play it with you.
the only time coop gets played is on a LAN if you hold them there at gunpoint and force them to play it with you. and friendly fire turns it into a dm so it wont stay a coop game for long...
Case In Point
#39 posted by Qmaster
on 2018/09/07 18:23:06
Coop party with your brother, your father, and your 5yr old nephew = 5yr old nephew blasting everyone and everything with rocket launcher....then stealing everyone's backpack.
I was that 5 yr old and it was totally awesome.
#40 posted by R00k
on 2018/09/11 03:04:36
it could be possible engine side or quakec-wise to dynamically add coop spawns for maps that dont have any, if the coop cvar is set.
so just add it in markV to do so and all maps are coOp’erable. :D
#41 posted by Qmaster
on 2018/09/11 16:14:14
Technically coop starts aren't necessary as it falls back to use standard player start...it's just more annoying/funny when everyone telefrag gibs each other at next level load or after blowing themselves up at once.
#42 posted by Preach
on 2018/09/11 19:56:26
I don't think spawn points are the major stumbling point when it comes to co-op, here's another couple of possible QuakeC fixes :
* Making all players non-solid to one another like L4D
* Having players join the server in observer mode, and only allowed to spawn once a spot is clear
The real problem comes when you have one-way features in your map, and add the ability to respawn. Think of E1M3, with the fake-out trap lift at the end of the map. It doesn't matter in single player that the lift never returns, if you die at the top you have to restart. But in Co-op you respawn, which is why the map opens a teleporter up there after the lift leaves.
It's that kind of thing that co-op compatibility is concerned with. It's very easy to make assumptions that there's only one player on the map when setting up triggers, and have that reasoning broken in co-op. Even just things like how large the lifts are, whether you have arenas that trap "the player" for a while, these things matter for co-op.
Mark V Coop
* Making all players non-solid to one another like L4D
I believe Mark V has this. But only at spawn.
But in Co-op you respawn, which is why the map opens a teleporter up there after the lift leaves.
Excellent point. Ypu've inspired me. I am going to review this thread and do a coop video!!! Damn you Baker!!!
#44 posted by metlslime
on 2018/09/11 21:33:40
there's also the issue of the route from the start point back to the action being too far and kind of boring -- hub-based layouts where that route is always nice and short would be better for co-op. For example, E2M6. This assumes players know where to go, though :)
#45 posted by brassbite
on 2018/09/12 13:15:58
The teleporter is also for SP. After fighting for the exit, the player can still choose to jump down the hole and get some health that was left lying around. In that case the teleporter is a workaround for not using a second permanent lift.
#46 posted by Qmaster
on 2018/09/12 16:25:59
@metl: there wouldn't be much penalty for dying if you came back right where you died, but yes on sock or Orl-sized maps it is good to add shortcuts and maintain tighter hub or revisiting designs or else coop would become a chore.
#47 posted by metlslime
on 2018/09/12 18:37:24
If you want a penalty, maybe add a respawn timer so players have to wait a while before respawning? And make it so players can spawn on the living teammate's location. This would make the time penalty more consistent. Right now it's no penalty at map start and a huge penalty if you have to travel 3 minutes to get to the front lines. This way it would always be e.g. 15 seconds.
#48 posted by Qmaster
on 2018/09/12 21:57:10
Oh I actually like that idea. I might just steal that for my mod.
#49 posted by jcr
on 2018/09/12 22:17:40
I'd say, adding to that; if all/both players die then game over!
both #47 and #49 would make coop SO much better.