[SUGGESTION] Ideas for singleplayer gameplay

What is your username on the wiki (should show in top right if logged in)?

What is your username on the wiki (should show in top right if logged in)?

mcse7en

Hm, apparently you do not have write access - ask for it in #xonotic on freenode?

Hm, apparently you do not have write access - ask for it in #xonotic on freenode?

Will do. For some reason I was never notified of this post.

UPDATE: Still nothing. Apparently, there's never anyone online on freenode.

EDIT: Great, NOW people are online.

EDIT 2: STILL waiting. No one's ever online...

EDIT 3: Z showed up and got me access. For anyone else who needs to be able to edit the wiki, ask detrate` on #xonotic over on freenode (that's Z).

Sorry for the double post, but here's an update worth bumping the thread: I've finished my outline for the whole story. It's 2006 words long and it's got a lot of shorthand (yeah, typed shorthand )

Next step: Proofread at sometime other than 1:40am ()
Then: Convert it all into an actual script.
Later: Upload it for review here
After that: Revise
Finally: Upload and start work on player models, monsters, maps, mission logic, etc.

I have tomorrow off. In the morning I'm hanging out with friends, and after that, I'm open all day for proofreading the plot outline and scripting.

This thing is kinda sorta moving right along!

Okay, good job. I'll help you proofread, etc. once you upload it.

Alrighty, here's some more updates:

First mission has been slightly modified (the ending has changed due to a storyline change I made further ahead in the game).

The PDF of the script will be at the link below (permanently, or at least for the duration of this writing process). I'll be updating it whenever I feel like I've made enough changes to warrant making the effort to press the Export button. I'll be putting the link in the wiki somewhere too.

The opening cutscene to the next mission has been typed up. The first part of the mission has been summarized for level devs to work with. I'll be adding the rest of the missions later this week (hopefully). Maybe some more will be finished tonight...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ge0q9sc9n8ekh3y/script.pdf

Let me know if the link breaks.

I copied the script to the wiki for easier collaboration, please make changes on the wiki. Seems to be going in a good direction so far.

I copied the script to the wiki for easier collaboration, please make changes on the wiki. Seems to be going in a good direction so far.

Alright, will do. I figured it would be easier to write one complete copy before adding it to the wiki for editing so that we had the entire thing up and didn't have to keep updating each time a new section was written. Also, is it possible to add it as a child page of the concept page so it's not so cluttered on the main page? I pretty much suck at wiki formatting so I have no idea if it's possible.

Glad you like where it's headed. I think it's going to get a lot better, especially near the end. Pretty cool stuff coming.

We can start a new page and link to that page from the main page. I'll do that when I get a chance.

I got it already, actually.

I saw, thank you.

missions and co-op missions
maybe a kind of hack n' slay mode? with trigger for enemy spawners?
assault+hack n' slay + a 4 player team with you and 3 bots and other guys from lan or internet can eplace the bots

What?

Oh, hey, sorry for the downtime recently. I've had a lot going on. I intend to get some more writing done on Friday while I'm off from work.

Guys, I wouldn't overshoot ambitions atm. One step at a time. For "proper" (campaign) singleplayer, the first thing to implement would be save/load. Then, create some simple, prototype AI monsters, and give them "team" alignments (configurable), as well as possibly, individual in-team alignments (remember the bullsquid/headcrab relationship from Half-Life?). The first target could be Quake 1 level NPC's. After that, maybe HL1 level AI (think HL marines, there's actually a guy who was working on a remake of those for Darkplaces, we could try to contact him for help ). Those are the most important things to work on IMO. As someone said, if we get those aspects in, the rest will come by itself. Oh, there's one more thing, movement and weapons. Those will have to be changed if we want a singleplayer game that feels good. IMO the best thing would be a game that feels equally good in singleplayer and multiplayer modes without tweaking too much (weapons, movement style) between the two, with only changes to weapon balance in multiplayer so that weapons are more or less equal (SP games work best where new weapons are upgrades over the previous). Oh, and standardize the +use key and add it to the key configuration, and separate flag/key drop from +use command.

Guys, I wouldn't overshoot ambitions atm. One step at a time. For "proper" (campaign) singleplayer, the first thing to implement would be save/load.

We already have campaigns, play nexuiz.

Then, create some simple, prototype AI monsters, and give them "team" alignments (configurable), as well as possibly, individual in-team alignments (remember the bullsquid/headcrab relationship from Half-Life?). The first target could be Quake 1 level NPC's. After that, maybe HL1 level AI (think HL marines, there's actually a guy who was working on a remake of those for Darkplaces, we could try to contact him for help ).

We already have bots.

As someone said, if we get those aspects in, the rest will come by itself.

LOL?

Oh, there's one more thing, movement and weapons. Those will have to be changed if we want a singleplayer game that feels good.

Why?

IMO the best thing would be a game that feels equally good in singleplayer and multiplayer modes without tweaking too much (weapons, movement style) between the two, with only changes to weapon balance in multiplayer so that weapons are more or less equal (SP games work best where new weapons are upgrades over the previous)

We can't have weapon upgrades without changing balance settings per-mission.

Sorry for the very late response!

I really like the evil corporate giant and the perpetual idea. Sounds a bit like 1984 but more sci-fi!

I've read the script for the first mission - it's a good story, but I don't think it really establishes the situation of the story i.e. the galaxy is torn apart by war, funded by a shadowy corporate giant. Also, the cutscenes can't be too long or complicated, we wont be able to make them! I was thinking that cutscenes could be recorded as demo files or edited into video files, but it'd be very difficult to organise and I don't know whether the game can play video or not.

I think an important thing to consider is the balance of plot movement (i.e. cutscenes) and gameplay. If there's too much or too deep plot, then the player's going to get pretty bored - people play FPSs to shoot at stuff, not to watch movies!). But if there's not enough plot, the player won't know what's going on. That's why the situation establishment needs to be solid in the first mission.

The problem is, we only have four colors to work with (which are red, yellow, pink and blue) - so we can't have all of the factions in one game.

That's assuming that the enemies are all bots. If we use monsters instead we won't be limited to four teams/factions, and we can have variable health, damage and speed (and possibly size as well).

Oh, there's one more thing, movement and weapons. Those will have to be changed if we want a singleplayer game that feels good.

I suppose we'll have to wait until the weapon balance for 1.0 is finalised, to see where we stand in terms of weapons.

Oh, and standardize the +use key and add it to the key configuration, and separate flag/key drop from +use command.

We don't really need a use key, because things like button and door functions are all designed to be walked into or shot at.

Guys, I wouldn't overshoot ambitions atm. One step at a time. For "proper" (campaign) singleplayer, the first thing to implement would be save/load.

We already have campaigns, play nexuiz.

Offline bot matches =| Proper campaign

Then, create some simple, prototype AI monsters, and give them "team" alignments (configurable), as well as possibly, individual in-team alignments (remember the bullsquid/headcrab relationship from Half-Life?). The first target could be Quake 1 level NPC's. After that, maybe HL1 level AI (think HL marines, there's actually a guy who was working on a remake of those for Darkplaces, we could try to contact him for help ).

We already have bots.

But not NPC's. Bots=Computer controlled players. NPC's=Non Player Characters. Players (including bots) and NPC's behave very differently in most games, as I'm sure you're aware.

As someone said, if we get those aspects in, the rest will come by itself.

LOL?

Did you read the thread? This is what I'm getting at:

I think the best way to do this is a "build it, and they will come" mentality. If someone were to put the foundations in place, in order to be able to create such a campaign, then you will more than likely see lots of different map developers taking a crack at it.

Oh, there's one more thing, movement and weapons. Those will have to be changed if we want a singleplayer game that feels good.

Why?

You didn't read it, did you?

IMO the best thing would be a game that feels equally good in singleplayer and multiplayer modes without tweaking too much (weapons, movement style) between the two, with only changes to weapon balance in multiplayer so that weapons are more or less equal (SP games work best where new weapons are upgrades over the previous)

We can't have weapon upgrades without changing balance settings per-mission.

I'm not sure what you mean. What I meant by upgrades was that some weapons are stronger than others in Singleplayer, and you get them later in the game.

That's assuming that the enemies are all bots. If we use monsters instead we won't be limited to four teams/factions, and we can have variable health, damage and speed (and possibly size as well).

Exactly.

Oh, there's one more thing, movement and weapons. Those will have to be changed if we want a singleplayer game that feels good.

I suppose we'll have to wait until the weapon balance for 1.0 is finalised, to see where we stand in terms of weapons.

Yeah, I suppose. I hope the devs pay attention not to make running speed and such too silly for the 1.0. Too speedy running doesn't even feel good for multiplayer, to me. Keep fast movement to the various trickjumping techniques. Defintiely can't have slow running speed, but not too over the top either. It has to feel somewhat natural, anyway. I heard the new running speeed is 320, what was the speed for the latest Nexuiz version?

Oh, and standardize the +use key and add it to the key configuration, and separate flag/key drop from +use command.

We don't really need a use key, because things like button and door functions are all designed to be walked into or shot at.

I dunno. What you say works for the Quake games, but a use key has its upsides, especially for a slower paced singleplayer game (even without slower movement etc, fighting NPC's won't be the same as fighting players). It could be used for manipulating physics objects, using more complex mechanisms than big red buttons etc. I think a modern singleplayer game almost demands a use key, because modern SP games aren't just about running into/shooting buttons and looking for keys/keycards etc. Half-Life is a good example of what a use key could be used for (not saying this game should be like Half-Life in all aspects)

Guys, I wouldn't overshoot ambitions atm. One step at a time. For "proper" (campaign) singleplayer, the first thing to implement would be save/load.

We already have campaigns, play nexuiz.

Offline bot matches =| Proper campaign

He meant that we already have a sort of save/load feature. We just need to replace bot matches with story missions (although I do think we should have a set of matches alongside the story).

I heard the new running speeed is 320, what was the speed for the latest Nexuiz version?

It was 400.

I dunno. What you say works for the Quake games, but a use key has its upsides, especially for a slower paced singleplayer game (even without slower movement etc, fighting NPC's won't be the same as fighting players). It could be used for manipulating physics objects, using more complex mechanisms than big red buttons etc. I think a modern singleplayer game almost demands a use key, because modern SP games aren't just about running into/shooting buttons and looking for keys/keycards etc. Half-Life is a good example of what a use key could be used for (not saying this game should be like Half-Life in all aspects)

A use button would make gameplay more interesting, but there just aren't any features in Xonotic that could use it, as far as I know.

I've read the script for the first mission - it's a good story, but I don't think it really establishes the situation of the story i.e. the galaxy is torn apart by war, funded by a shadowy corporate giant. Also, the cutscenes can't be too long or complicated, we wont be able to make them! I was thinking that cutscenes could be recorded as demo files or edited into video files, but it'd be very difficult to organise and I don't know whether the game can play video or not.

Agreed, I think the game can play video. Making cutscenes should not be that difficult.

I think an important thing to consider is the balance of plot movement (i.e. cutscenes) and gameplay. If there's too much or too deep plot, then the player's going to get pretty bored - people play FPSs to shoot at stuff, not to watch movies!). But if there's not enough plot, the player won't know what's going on. That's why the situation establishment needs to be solid in the first mission.

Also agree.

That's assuming that the enemies are all bots. If we use monsters instead we won't be limited to four teams/factions, and we can have variable health, damage and speed (and possibly size as well).

What do you mean by this? Do you mean to have the player and his teammates up against a ton of unteamed enemies? That would require a new game mode, and also would not fit into the story line (player is not fighting a bunch of somethings, player is fighting organized factions). Also would require a modification of bot code to make them not fight each other.

But not NPC's. Bots=Computer controlled players. NPC's=Non Player Characters. Players (including bots) and NPC's behave very differently in most games, as I'm sure you're aware.

Conceited, aren't we?

Did you read the thread? This is what I'm getting at:

I think the best way to do this is a "build it, and they will come" mentality. If someone were to put the foundations in place, in order to be able to create such a campaign, then you will more than likely see lots of different map developers taking a crack at it.

So basically reading the thread == agreeing with it? Let's not make this personal.

That kind of mentality is not a good idea. There is a very large amount of apathy in the community, (in the way that it is highly unlikely that people will help you do something, as they are not likely to be genuinely interested in what you want to do) and if you want something done you can't rely on other people swooping in and doing it for you. Trust me, I've been with this community for a long time.

You didn't read it, did you?

WOW THIS IS A GREAT ARGUMENT TROLLOLOLOL

I'm not sure what you mean. What I meant by upgrades was that some weapons are stronger than others in Singleplayer, and you get them later in the game.

Stronger is objective, it is often difficult to determine which is a stronger weapon (mortar or RL? RL or nex?).
If you are suggesting changing the damage of weapons throughout the campaign, no.

I dunno. What you say works for the Quake games, but a use key has its upsides, especially for a slower paced singleplayer game

Heh, it's a good thing we're not making a slow game, eh?

It could be used for manipulating physics objects,

FPS slaughterhouse.

using more complex mechanisms than big red buttons etc.

You will code these more complex mechanisms? See what I said about apathy.

Half-Life is a good example of what a use key could be used for (not saying this game should be like Half-Life in all aspects)

Elaborate for those who have not played half-life, you are in the habit of making references to games and not explaining them.

I have to agree that fighting the same kind of opponent over and over in a standard bot match would get really old over the course of a whole campaign.

Monsters and character classes and vehicles would all be invaluable at mixing the game-play up, unless the campaign is designed to be mercifully short. Relying on weapon diversity would only be enough for so long, imo.

That's assuming that the enemies are all bots. If we use monsters instead we won't be limited to four teams/factions, and we can have variable health, damage and speed (and possibly size as well).

What do you mean by this? Do you mean to have the player and his teammates up against a ton of unteamed enemies? That would require a new game mode, and also would not fit into the story line (player is not fighting a bunch of somethings, player is fighting organized factions). Also would require a modification of bot code to make them not fight each other.

Regarding story: This game will go nowhere with all these (still hypothetical) storyline restrictions put on it. How hard would it be to integrate primitive alien animals into the storyline, anyway?

But not NPC's. Bots=Computer controlled players. NPC's=Non Player Characters. Players (including bots) and NPC's behave very differently in most games, as I'm sure you're aware.

Conceited, aren't we?

Maybe. Still though? Bots are a good stand in for proper NPC's, really? Compare Quake 2's campaign to Quake 3's. My point is, if we stick to bots, a worthwhile singleplayer mode will never materialize, because players will rather play against real people. With proper NPC's and an actual campaign (not multiplayer modes with bots) there is an incentive to play the singleplayer mode.

Did you read the thread? This is what I'm getting at:

I think the best way to do this is a "build it, and they will come" mentality. If someone were to put the foundations in place, in order to be able to create such a campaign, then you will more than likely see lots of different map developers taking a crack at it.

So basically reading the thread == agreeing with it? Let's not make this personal.

Not really, I just assumed you hadn't read all of the thread, since you seemed so alien to what I said. My mistake, it was a question though, I didn't accuse you of anything.

That kind of mentality is not a good idea. There is a very large amount of apathy in the community, (in the way that it is highly unlikely that people will help you do something, as they are not likely to be genuinely interested in what you want to do) and if you want something done you can't rely on other people swooping in and doing it for you. Trust me, I've been with this community for a long time.

Fine. That's not the impression I've gotten so far, at least since the Xonotic fork happened, but I trust your judgment.

You didn't read it, did you?

WOW THIS IS A GREAT ARGUMENT TROLLOLOLOL

You asked me why, I asked you to read the thread because others have already explained. And no, I'm not a troll.

I'm not sure what you mean. What I meant by upgrades was that some weapons are stronger than others in Singleplayer, and you get them later in the game.

Stronger is objective, it is often difficult to determine which is a stronger weapon (mortar or RL? RL or nex?).
If you are suggesting changing the damage of weapons throughout the campaign, no.

How many times do I have to explain this? I didn't mean that weapons should become stronger throughout the campaign, I meant that the weapons you receive throughout a typical campaign should be stronger than the previous. The weapon balance should be standardized for this, so different campaigns shouldn't have different weapon balance. The only difference would be between campaign(including coop) and regular multiplayer.

I dunno. What you say works for the Quake games, but a use key has its upsides, especially for a slower paced singleplayer game

Heh, it's a good thing we're not making a slow game, eh?

(even without slower movement etc, fighting NPC's won't be the same as fighting players)

In other words: You have more opportunity to solve puzzles, use things etc in a campaign with relatively stupid and immobile NPC's.

It could be used for manipulating physics objects,

FPS slaughterhouse.

Elaborate.

using more complex mechanisms than big red buttons etc.

You will code these more complex mechanisms? See what I said about apathy.

Are you accusing me of something? What was it you said about getting personal?

Half-Life is a good example of what a use key could be used for (not saying this game should be like Half-Life in all aspects)

Elaborate for those who have not played half-life, you are in the habit of making references to games and not explaining them.

Sorry, examples would be: Again moving objects, using health/armor recharge stations or variations of those (possible without the use key but gives player more control), assuming control over vehicles (this is already implemented), perhaps even find secret areas in walls by using the wall (more challenge than just running into the wall to open it), manipulating computer stations, and I remember a particularly good use for it where you specified coordinates for a air strikes, bombing down a big wall to get on to the next location.

I have to agree that fighting the same kind of opponent over and over in a standard bot match would get really old over the course of a whole campaign.

Monsters and character classes and vehicles would all be invaluable at mixing the game-play up, unless the campaign is designed to be mercifully short. Relying on weapon diversity would only be enough for so long, imo.

I never said anything against enemies getting progressively harder/smarter.

Regarding story: This game will go nowhere with all these (still hypothetical) storyline restrictions put on it.

How are these hypothetical?

How hard would it be to integrate primitive alien animals into the storyline, anyway?

Quite difficult, have you read it?

Maybe. Still though? Bots are a good stand in for proper NPC's, really? Compare Quake 2's campaign to Quake 3's. My point is, if we stick to bots, a worthwhile singleplayer mode will never materialize, because players will rather play against real people. With proper NPC's and an actual campaign (not multiplayer modes with bots) there is an incentive to play the singleplayer mode.

Good god, right when I thought you could not get more vague. I ask you to be clearer and instead you just make a few more quake references.

Fine. That's not the impression I've gotten so far, at least since the Xonotic fork happened, but I trust your judgment.

Since the fork most people have been doing what they wanted themselves. Look at fruitiex and his panel hud, MK and his player color selector. These are one person affairs.

How many times do I have to explain this? I didn't mean that weapons should become stronger throughout the campaign, I meant that the weapons you receive throughout a typical campaign should be stronger than the previous. The weapon balance should be standardized for this, so different campaigns shouldn't have different weapon balance. The only difference would be between campaign(including coop) and regular multiplayer.

So you mean weapon balance differs in multiplayer and campaign?

In other words: You have more opportunity to solve puzzles, use things etc in a campaign with relatively stupid and immobile NPC's.

Solving puzzles and using things are both not implemented in any way shape or form. So far, I've been doing my best to stay within the technical limitations of the game.

Elaborate.

ODE objects (physics, etc.) significantly reduce one's fps iirc.

Are you accusing me of something? What was it you said about getting personal?

I'm accusing you of nothing, I'm saying that it is not likely that someone will turn up and write this sort of thing for us.

using health/armor recharge stations

Would a room full of health not work? If it doesn't, I'm pretty sure health can be regenerated for a player by the map.

perhaps even find secret areas in walls by using the wall (more challenge than just running into the wall to open it)

Or challenge could be in reaching a button for the wall.

manipulating computer stations, and I remember a particularly good use for it where you specified coordinates for a air strikes, bombing down a big wall to get on to the next location.

All of these would also require coding (except possibly the last one, if an explosion could be caused by the map when a player does something).

I have to agree that fighting the same kind of opponent over and over in a standard bot match would get really old over the course of a whole campaign.

Monsters and character classes and vehicles would all be invaluable at mixing the game-play up, unless the campaign is designed to be mercifully short. Relying on weapon diversity would only be enough for so long, imo.

I never said anything against enemies getting progressively harder/smarter.

I don't mean simply harder and smarter. I mean different. Various types of opponents (and player avatars) different enough from each other that tactics that work better against one work worse against another and vice versa.

Just like how the weapons don't line up to be progressively better and better, they are roughly equal but different; requiring different tactics depending on both what you and your opponent are wielding.