Func_Msgboard: Coop Mode / What Are The Good Features To Implement ?

News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Register | Log in

|  | Coop Mode / What Are The Good Features To Implement ?

Posted by JPL [213.30.139.243] 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 [213.30.139.243] 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...
Well, Before:
#2 posted by necros [69.193.222.114] 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.
Err
#3 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.254.248] 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?"
Necros
#4 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.254.248] 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. [24.136.254.248] 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. [24.136.254.248] 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 Scampie [24.180.188.166] 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.
Proper Netcode!
#8 posted by Friction [84.230.176.57] 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."
"No. You."
"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 [62.189.9.161] 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
#10 posted by voodoochopstiks [85.224.212.202] on 2005/03/13 10:43:28
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.
Than...
#11 posted by distrans [131.172.4.45] 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 [131.172.4.45] on 2005/03/13 16:12:37
...bleh, "arrive."
Ahh ??
#13 posted by JPL [213.30.139.243] 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...
JPLambert...
#14 posted by than [62.189.9.161] 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 :)
#15 posted by voodoochopstiks [85.224.212.202] on 2005/03/14 08:00:55
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.
Distrans
#16 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.254.248] 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.
LAAAAAAAAG!
#17 posted by than [62.189.9.161] on 2005/03/14 10:06:51
it was just an accident
Hm..
#18 posted by necros [142.150.107.209] 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 Scampie [63.236.226.222] 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.
Scampie
#20 posted by necros [142.150.107.209] 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.
Necros
#21 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.254.248] 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.
#22 posted by voodoochopstiks [85.224.212.202] on 2005/03/14 11:23:44
console cheats do not have to be enabled necros. I think scampie was referring to überhaxes 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
Vdcs
#23 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.254.248] 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.
R.P.G. #16
#24 posted by distrans [131.172.4.44] on 2005/03/14 15:43:09
lol, guffaw. blurt...
Cheat Commands
#25 posted by JPL [213.30.139.243] 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.. ;)
.
#26 posted by necros [69.193.222.114] on 2005/03/15 01:15:27
don't you dare bring "real life" into this.
don't you dare.
hm... actually, it's fun playing in coop mode alone for the respawning, actually.
Cooped Up
#27 posted by LTH [62.249.237.147] on 2005/03/16 08:20:07
I like the idea of having co-op with one life each, or perhaps with 3 lives each? (or free respawn if tked?). I also like the idea of 'anti-coop' where two teams push buttons to make the other team's job harder by dropping extra monsters in, or forcing them to go a longer way around or whatever. It'd be nice to see some kind of sacrifice for such, actually - you can drop a shambler (or a Than :P ) right in your opponents' path, but you have to go out of your way to make some tough jumps or fight some extra beasts for the privilege.
I also think the ability to drop ammo / guns is a far better way of sharing than any multiple-pickup-of-the-same item method. I'd rather weapons / armour disappeared in co-op once one person picks them up, but possibly have them respawn after 30sec / 1min or so. Of course I implemented all this in my coop realism (*cough*) mod 'Black Ops' about five years ago :)
Coop
#28 posted by Lunaran [69.208.197.77] on 2005/03/16 09:35:42
I'm going to be different again.
I think a better mode of coop would be one with no special allowances whatsoever. No extra weapon pickups or special key stuff - if there's one grenade launcher in the map, then one guy picks it up and he becomes the grenade launcher guy. If another player picks up the gold key, he's gotta be the guy that opens the door. Coop is often a lot easier just because there's a fairly infinite pool of ammo and health available as long as the players keep dying. I would rather see Coop with the extra challenge of making two guys finish the map with only as much supplies, or maybe a tad more, as the designer deemed necessary for one.
This would, of course, still require a few extra items that are coop only, like a few more armors or multiples of the staple weapons like the SSG. It wouldn't be entirely fair to have one shotgun in the map and make the other player faff about with the pistol until a machinegun shows up.
Also, as long as the map isn't too hard, I say, if one player dies, game's over. Dying in Coop doesn't seem to carry any kind of penalty other than the mild inconvenience of having to walk back from the start point. Staying alive in SP is half the challenge - why should coop be any easier?
Lunaran
#29 posted by necros [142.150.107.213] on 2005/03/16 10:16:09
i think what you're describing would work better in something like D3, where a constant shortage of ammo would help to make more tense gameplay.
but, i think for something so radical, the map would have to be designed with it in mind (not necessarily coop only, but that there was some real thought put into item placement w/regards to coop)
also, if weapons weren't available to all, then i'd think it would require a way to drop weapons and ammo to give them to other players
i still am unsure about permadeath in coop...
it wouldn't be as carefree fun as it is currently.
the whole fun part comes from the lack of penalty from dying.
if death becomes permanent, then that means people have to play a lot more seriously. it becomes more of a tactical challenge than anything else, instead of just running guns blazing.
it would also make other players angry if you accidentally shot them. this, i think, is the reverse of what coop should be.
i'm open to discussion though.
#30 posted by voodoochopstiks [85.224.212.202] on 2005/03/16 10:35:05
www.coopordie.com is a pretty cool quake 2 coop mod. If one person dies, everyone dies, and you have to play the map over again from the start. This is pretty fun, and there is a large deal of cooperation needed, but its alot less spontaneous than normal coop as you need to organize a bunch of good players in order to get a proper game going. The mod changes item placement on the maps, for coop bonuses(with one guy standing on the others head to get something etc). It's quite fun, but it doesn't have difficulty levels, and that makes it a bit too hard for me and my friends in many spots. Friendly Fire is also forced, which is both fun in some ways and irritating in some.
#31 posted by voodoochopstiks [85.224.212.202] on 2005/03/16 10:37:05
forgot to mention that weapons stay is on in coopordie. I think Lunarans idea is pretty cool, with each one carrying a role. But as he said, maps would need to be made with this in mind, so that there are several grenade launchers throughout the campaign, etc.
See,
#32 posted by necros [142.150.107.213] on 2005/03/16 10:44:55
that's just what i'm talking about though. coop shouldn't be a serious affair, at least, it should necessarily be one.
coop is one of those things you can just say "yo, let's go beat up on some monsters"
and you go in there and just have fun.
it's simple and straight forward like dm.
you add in things like tactical decisions, preplanning, perma death, and you make it into a serious thing, where every action you take matters.
like i said, this is cool for slower paced games like d3, but i don't think this would work in q1 (which i assume we are all still talking about, no?)
Bleh.
#33 posted by necros [142.150.107.213] on 2005/03/16 10:45:38
"at least, it shouldn't necessarily be one"
I Agree With Necros
#34 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.254.248] on 2005/03/16 15:45:15
Part of the fun of Q1 and Q2 coop is that it's not serious and meticulous. I'd like to keep it that way.
Statistics Stuff...
#35 posted by JPL [213.30.139.243] on 2005/03/17 05:36:22
Let's say each player respawn each time he die: so I really think a kind of statistic should be great (like you can find in DM), in order to know how many times you died, how many monsters kills you have etc.. etc.. etc..
I also think it's possible to have fun with tactical decisions and make the game go (not too much) into a serious thing... It's not incompatible to prepare an assault like a commando, and have fun when butchering some shamblers/vores/etc... The thing is it must not turn into a "real life" commando preparation with its months of training, etc.. etc.. the boring stuff...
Lun:
#36 posted by LTH [62.249.237.147] on 2005/03/17 07:28:56
I still think you'd need some allowances eg. if the guy with the key dies, he drops it where he dies, so someone else can carry on where he left off.
Dropping Keys
#37 posted by Preach [131.111.249.211] on 2005/03/17 08:39:33
If you're gonna drop the key so that people can carry on, you might have to have some provision if the key lands somewhere unrecoverable, like in lava or in a section of the level you can't walk to(yet or ever). Perhaps a time limit before the key returns to where it started, like CTF flags. You could even design the map with that feature in mind, with respawning enemies along the route to the key/from the key to the door so if you die with the key, you'd have to try and recover it quick or you'd have to fight through again. Just make sure you've got some respawning ammo too :-).
(Stupid off topic comment: First time I played CTF I didn't know flags returned after being dropped, and so when I dropped it into a lava pool I kept trying to dive in to recover it, then grapple out before I died. Needless to say it didn't work...)
Jpl:
#38 posted by necros [69.193.222.114] on 2005/03/17 12:00:47
if there's a fight that might benefit from doing something specific, then fine, but it shoulnd't be necessary to plan anything.
if there is more preperation than asking "Ok, ready?" than it's boring. this is not csquake where elaborate plans and strategies are required to win.
Well
#39 posted by Lunaran [69.208.195.35] on 2005/03/17 14:50:40
if death becomes permanent, then that means people have to play a lot more seriously. it becomes more of a tactical challenge than anything else, instead of just running guns blazing.
Give this kid a cigar!
Unless you want to follow that train of thought to completion, of course. Maybe have players respawn with the items they had before they died? And, even better, have them teleport to the spot they died so they don't miss anything! In fact, how about let's just make all players in Coop invulnerable?
All you guys who don't want coop to be difficult can have it if you want, but the fun of single player doesn't lie entirely in blasting stuff, it's in survival and supplies as well. I don't think that whole arc of FPS gameplay should be written off just because there's a second guy in the game.
If someone produces a decent D3 cooperative codebase I can roll Byzantine into, I think I'm going to have "Sissy Coop" where players respawn and weapons stay, and "Man's Coop" where they don't. :P
#40 posted by voodoochopstiks [85.224.212.202] on 2005/03/17 15:37:46
Amen Lunaran!
Sissy Coop
#41 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.254.248] on 2005/03/17 16:26:28
I think the harder mode can be fun, but I'm guessing that most people here are arguing against it because Q1 coop is just a fun relaxing romp. They don't want it to become competitive or serious because of just that: they don't want seriousness. Q1/Q2 coop is its own breed of FPS gameplay, and it should either be tweaked to emphasize its current strengths, or radically changed to become entirely different.
I also tend to agree that a serious mode just wouldn't work with Q1 the way everything is designed--especially the weapons and levels.
Exactly.
#42 posted by necros [69.193.222.114] on 2005/03/17 21:13:01
at least, some one understood. :P
Bleh
#43 posted by JPL [213.30.139.243] on 2005/03/17 23:00:37
If it becomes too easy, it bocomes boring and not interesting... If you want an interesting coop mode, you need to have a certain level of difficulty... In SP mode, does anybody here still play map in easy skill ?? everybody start at least in normal skill, when it's not in hard skill (for the best players...)... So in coop mode, there is no reason to "trash-bin" the spirit of Quake, and make a Sissi Coop Mode like... o_O
In fact, without difficulties, without a little bit of strategy, etc.. there is no fun, that's my humble point of view... We now have to find a trade-off to please everybody... ;)
Uh...
#44 posted by necros [69.193.222.114] on 2005/03/18 09:45:16
no, actually we don't.
q1 coop is very good as it is, and only by concentrating on it's strengths will it be made better.
if you want to completly alter coop gameplay, go ahead, but it's not something I or many others will want to play.
frustration and annoyance are something best left to SP.
I'm not against the the changes, in general however. i still stick with my earlier statement that perma death and non sharing weapons would work well in D3. try that game instead.
Necros
#45 posted by JPL [212.96.79.202] on 2005/03/19 02:59:09
When I said We now have to find a trade-off to please everybody... ;) I was not meaning that I want to change all the coop mode of Quake... I was just guessing we can find what could be the changes, according to everybody, in order to please everybody, that might be implemented.. The "goal" is, like you said, to improve Quake coop mode, by increasing its strengths, increasing perhaps a little bit realism and difficulty, and all of this should increase fun ! That's all..
Er
#46 posted by Lunaran [68.51.209.251] on 2005/03/19 13:37:12
frustration and annoyance are something best left to SP.
Well, there's the problem. I was under the impression quake single player was neither of those.
Well
#47 posted by PuLSaR [62.33.55.224] on 2005/03/20 11:17:53
I played Q2 coop awhile ago, it was fucking awesome thing.
I think we should leave coop in the way that it is atm. But makin' coop oriented maps sounds interesting, but usual SP maps sound more interesting for me.
I can be wrong (posting drunk), but anyway...
Btw
#48 posted by PuLSaR [62.33.55.224] on 2005/03/20 11:20:47
tell me please, is there anyone playing custom maps in coop mode?
Pulsar
#49 posted by necros [142.150.107.59] on 2005/03/23 07:07:25
kell and i have played quite a few custom maps in coop mode, both, some of our own maps and maps made by others.
Re 46
#50 posted by necros [142.150.107.59] on 2005/03/23 07:13:50
mmm, yeah, sorry that was just a bad way of putting it.
what i meant was, introducing elements that are present in a Single player experience into a Multiplayer experience would create frustration and annoyance.
what i was trying to say is that coop should be a lot like dm. it shouldn't try to adhere to the rules of SP or try to be realistic as possible. It should also try to keep 'downtime' to a minimum, in fact, i thought the idea of letting players keep at least the weapons themselves (there should still be a bit of a penalty from dying besides time lost... maybe you start with 1/4 the original ammo you had?) sounds like a good one.
also, in a map oriented towards coop, and also if it's long and linear, should open up teleporters at certain points to allow you to jump back in faster than walking the whole map over again.
think about it: what are the worst times in coop? not dying, but when you have to walk all the way back, thinking "what cool things am i missing?"
#terrafusion
#51 posted by Lunaran [68.51.209.251] on 2005/03/23 08:32:16
For all this talk about quake coop how come nobody wants to play quake coop?
Necros
#52 posted by LTH [62.249.237.147] on 2005/03/23 09:02:43
I'm with Lun... if you completely erase any penalty for dying by letting players keep their guns and not have to walk back to where they died, there's no point in having a concept of 'death' in the game. I'm definitely with the people who want to make Quake Co-op harder and more fun by dint of being a challenge.
Btw Preach
#53 posted by LTH [62.249.237.147] on 2005/03/23 09:06:33
Yeah, same here with the CTF flags :P
Lun
#54 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.254.248] on 2005/03/23 09:56:40
I do.
But silly pixar stole you away from me. :(
I Want To Play Coop
#55 posted by Kell [82.41.10.46] on 2005/03/23 10:31:02
it's more a matter of who I want to play it with
Nehahra Coop...
#56 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.254.248] on 2005/03/23 10:51:45
...
:)
#57 posted by necros [69.193.222.114] on 2005/03/23 10:58:26
in SP, when you die, you press a key to restart the map and *immediatly* you're back in the action. you're playing right away, killing things again.
in dm, when you die, you press a key to restart the map and *immediatly* you're back in the action. sure, you don't have any guns, but guns are fast to come by, and there's always the threat of being shot.
in coop, when you die, you press a key to respawn, and you walk around, picking up guns, not shooting anything (since all the monsters are dead), meanwhile, you know your teammate is still having fun killing things... finally, 45 seconds later, you've got all the guns again, and rejoined your teammate/members. well, he's already slugged through another 45 seconds of the map without you.
think of it from the other guy's perspective:
your teammate dies, and now your gameplay experience isn't coop anymore, it's SP. you need to wait 45 seconds before gameplay is coop again. sure, you can sit around, not playing and wait, but that ruins the flow.
and if you keep playing, well, that's fine, but it's not different if you loaded up the map yourself.
downtime in between death should be as short as possible, so maps with hub layouts would be prefered so that the distance you need to walk to rejoin in the action isn't to great, as well as being able to replenish your weapon loadout.
or, as an alternative:
both respawning monsters and respawning items.
when you die, you are sent back to the start, and now, you need to not only rejoin your comrades, but fight your way there. in fact, your team mates could fight their way backwards to help meet up sooner.
Yes!
#58 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.254.248] on 2005/03/23 11:39:15
or, as an alternative:
both respawning monsters and respawning items.
That's one of the main reasons I suggested that monsters and items respawn infinitely, but not at an impossibly hard rate.
RPG
#59 posted by Lunaran [68.51.209.251] on 2005/03/23 13:58:28
But silly pixar stole you away from me.
Ssh, people will think I work there.
And there's always the interweb. Is Fitzquake based on netquake or quakeworld?
RPG
#60 posted by than [62.189.9.161] on 2005/03/23 15:12:11
I should actually be able to connect to internet quake servers at work now. I'd be WELL AND TRULY up for some Quake 1 or 2 coop pretty soon. I just need to get them installed at work.
You up for it?
Anyone else?
Up For It
#61 posted by Kell [82.41.10.46] on 2005/03/23 15:39:48
aye
Lunaran:
#62 posted by metlslime [209.213.199.133] on 2005/03/23 15:48:20
glquake, meaning netquake.
Than
#63 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.254.248] on 2005/03/23 18:30:31
I love you, Than! Of couse I would love you run around with you nekkid in a coop game!
In Like Flynn
#64 posted by Lunaran [68.51.209.251] on 2005/03/23 19:31:10
I just apparently need the right client.
Hud
#65 posted by voodoochopstiks [85.224.212.202] on 2005/03/25 08:21:24
Would be nice with a good way to view the ammo/health/armor counts of the other players with a hud, so you don't have to keep asking the other guys how much health/armor/ammo they have.
I Had A Bug
#66 posted by PuLSaR [62.33.55.149] on 2005/03/28 12:18:32
playing Q2 coop with my friend. he was a server, so that's why he was saving all of his weapons and ammo, while I had nothing but blaster (Q2), and I still enjoyed the game (with almost nothing of weapons/ammo).
The fun of coop mode is to play with your friend, while none of ammo/weapon affects you while you're playing. At least that was the way it was for me. (posting drunk anyway)
Coop Monster AI
#67 posted by necros [142.150.106.149] on 2005/03/30 10:42:28
currently, the code that governs how monsters behave in realtion to being shot by multiple players is to simply get angry at the newest player to shoot at it.
i think this area could use a lot of work.
i've been experimenting with more powerful monsters of late, and i've found that they become not only easier, but trivial in coop, since as long as two people shoot at a monster, it will continually switch between the two and never get any shots off.
i've alleviated this by implementing a sort of timer, which will only allow the monster to switch enemies after a certain amount of time (about 8 to 11 seconds).
while this works, i think maybe a bit more sophistication could be cool...
if each monster built up a threat table based on how much damage it was taking from each player, and decided to on that basis who to attack, it might make play more interesting.
ie: if one player is wailing on a shambler with the SNG and another is trying to keep it distracted with the SG, ignore the SG player and try to get rid of the SNG player.
i dunno if this moves away from the spirit of quake though, which is supposed to be simple and straightforward, and i don't even know if this would be balanced... hoping for some opinions on that.
also, i think chthon's ai needs to be reworked to make him more effective in coop, but that's another story. :P
Append
#68 posted by necros [142.150.106.149] on 2005/03/30 10:45:24
also, who woke the monster up in the first place might get a bonus to it's threat level or something like that...
or maybe even what weapons the player is carrying. although, that could be mitigated by simply switching to a weak weapon like the SG and then after the monster is awake, swtich to a more powerful weapon... *shrug*
Necros:
#69 posted by metlslime [209.213.199.133] on 2005/03/30 11:17:59
that's similar to the type of AI one sees in MMORPGs, where players use the monster's "aggro" state as part of their tactics.
Hit List
#70 posted by Lunaran [68.51.209.251] on 2005/03/30 12:21:06
One would expect large monsters not to necessarily focus on any one player. A hell knight might try to get between two players and swing his sword to hit both, or a vore would toss a ball at any player on it's 'enemy list' that was visible. The way it stands now, or even with a timer, two players could be standing in clear view of a shambler, but as long as the third player who's the shambler's current enemy is hiding nobody will be in immediate danger.
A monster in coop should queue up enemies, and maybe rank them on who's done him the most damage so far, and just attack whoever's convenient.
Deh
#71 posted by Lunaran [68.51.209.251] on 2005/03/30 12:28:56
but as long as the third player who's the shambler's current enemy is hiding nobody will be in immediate danger.
ITT lunaran makes sense [56k lol]
Let's try 'but as long as the shambler has a third, hiding enemy, nobody will be in immediate danger.'
Necros
#72 posted by pushplay [129.128.23.141] on 2005/03/30 15:46:43
You would probably want to factor in distance for melee monsters. There's no sense having a whathcamajiggy cross half the map to attack the other player when he's going to take critical damage before he gets there.
Re: Necros
#73 posted by necros [69.193.222.114] on 2005/03/30 18:40:39
indeed. too much WoW i guess. :P
i like lunaran's idea better, but instead of having an enemy at all and queueing up attacks, to simply always be searching for a player, even if it's already angry and fighting.
heck, even throw in something like WoW's Secondary Targetting System where a monster will randomly target another player for a few seconds before switching back to it's primary target.
and yeah, Pushplay:
threat assessment would give bigger bonuses to players close to melee monsters, so a fiend would be more likely to attack someone in jump range than someone who is far away.
also: maybe when more powerful monsters die, it would make any other weaker monsters go after the one who killed it.
just a random thought.
Coop Monster AI
#74 posted by mwh [195.92.198.72] on 2005/03/31 01:12:15
Have you seen this demo:
http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake...
(four players with axes vs some enormous number of shamblers)
Takes the 'but as long as the shambler has a third, hiding enemy, nobody will be in immediate danger' idea to ridiculous extremes :)
Shafted
#75 posted by pushplay [68.148.157.110] on 2005/04/02 16:43:40
The map can be found here:
http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake...
I watched part of it, but it would probably be more enjoyable with a 4-way split screen and 200% gameplay speed.
I was surprised that pushcoag had speedruns. The coop runs are pretty cool.
So This Is Quite An Old Thread, But It Interests Me So Here Goes!
#76 posted by Text_Fish [82.32.6.221] on 2005/08/30 14:11:06
Player Respawning:
Perhaps players could revive each other? But it would be a time consuming process, meaning that when one player dies the other will have to finish the firefight before jumping to player #1's aid. Or if there are more than two, then one player can revive whilst the other(s) cover him. There could perhaps be some sort of penalty for the person who died [such as starting with 50 health], so that staying alive still 'matters'. In the case of players who die in lava where their teammates cannot revive them, they would be respawned at the beginning of the level with the same penalties.
Monster Respawning:
I think monster respawning is a very cool idea, but it shouldn't be universal. That is to say, the level designer could set a 'respawn' flag on any monsters they want to be respawnable.
New monsters/The 'anger' problem:
What if there were a modified grunt, carrying two shotties that he can fire at seperate targets? Or a shambler that can fire a bolt of lightning from both hands/claws/paws at the same time and at different targets, allowing both players to be properly involved in the fight? That would allow for some kickass boss monsters too.
Pickups & sharing:
I like the idea of players being able to drop certain items for one another. Perhaps a simple graphical inventory navigated by the numpad, listing all the items could be used rather than a console command or key bind, to make it simpler.
Ending a level:
Perhaps in the interest of players sticking together, all living players would need to 'exit' the current level before a new one begins. Any player who exits becomes a spectator until every living player has completed the level.
A specially designed campaign:
I would love to see a specially designed Coop Quake Episode with levels geared towards teamplay and a story that revolves around a squad of soldiers, rather than the lone ranger in regular Quake.
On the issue of 'seriousness':
I don't think building a more advanced version of Q1 coop would stop it from being a "fun relaxing romp", so much as facilitate that fun and relaxation by providing a more polished experience. As it stands at the moment, there's little need for cooperative play in coop, so the temptation is often for the best player to run ahead and do everything first. If it's tweaked so that every player depends on one another nomatter what their skill, then -everybody- can have fun, and that's the point of coop isn't it?
Interesting Ideas!
#77 posted by mwh [82.33.185.193] on 2005/08/30 14:41:29
(that is all)
Thread; Revived!
#78 posted by necros [70.31.50.57] on 2005/11/07 16:07:06
Coop idea: currently, when you die, any other player can pick up your bag and get all your goodies.
sometimes when i'm playing i'll accidentally pick up my teammate's pack, which means he'll not have any ammo.
consider: Packs not only carry all the ammo you had before you died, but also all the weapons.
other players would be able to pick up ONLY the ammo in your pack, but the weapons would remain in it. only you would be able to pick up your own pack for weapons (and ammo if no one else took it already)
this means:
1. you don't need to go back all over the map searching for weapons (or if a map closes off certain areas with, say, the SNG, you could still get it back from your bag
2. other players can still use your supplies if they are running low on ammo during a fight.
obviously, if you died in lava/void, then your pack wouldn't be retrievable, but that would be true regardless.
opinions?
Coop Mode.
#79 posted by Shambler [82.38.192.54] on 2005/11/08 02:51:00
The best thing for a coop mode is TO ACTUALLY HAVE IT FUCKING IMPLEMENTED IN A GAME INSTEAD OF THESE UBER-LINEAR TRAIN-TRACKED INTERACTIVE FUCKING MOVIES THAT GIVE YOU A GRAND TOTAL OF ONE - YES, ONE - GAMEPLAY OPTION, I.E. TO PLAY EXACTLY ON THE SAME FUCKING PATH EACH TIME.
etc.
He He He...
#80 posted by JPL [213.30.139.243] on 2005/11/08 06:18:03
I guess Shambler just would like to see dedicated coop map instead of playing SP map in coop... and it's not a reason to shout ;P
Errrr No.
#81 posted by Shambler [82.38.192.54] on 2005/11/08 15:30:20
I'd like to see games that have a coop option as well as normal SP gameplay.
RocketGuys Coop
#82 posted by scar3crow [151.141.78.102] on 2006/07/22 13:11:08
Fairly regularly, as in, a few times a week, people in #darkplaces #qc and #qexpo will often go play on the netQuake server coop.runequake.com:26003
It is a coop netQuake mod which has weaponstay, player respawn and item respawn on, and it alters the enemies to be tougher but also fire different weapon types. However it also adds runes, which I know many would scoff at, but having someone with the medic rune and someone with the engineer rune keeping near the big gunners goes a long long way... Also, players can level up, which increases how much ammo and armor they respawn with. Some of the runes are risky to use as they can kill your teammates, but the game does a global bprint as a warning for such.
A players level is remembered by the game until they leave the server. It also has a map pack, filled with many custom sp maps, most of which were made by regulars here... and a hub map where people view a screenshot of the map and are given its name, filename, and name of the author.
It isnt orthodox Quake, but it is usually quite fun - I enjoyed roaming antedeluvian and adamantine cruelty with 4 other players.
no this post isnt a solution to coop design problems, its just pimping some fun coop =)
Inspiration Could Be Drawn From
#83 posted by inertia [24.164.73.173] on 2006/07/22 13:42:22
svencoop for hl

Post A Reply:

Name: |
Title: |
Body: |

Website copyright © 2002-2011 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.