[SUGGESTION] Ideas for singleplayer gameplay

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.

What do you mean by tactics? A faction that is faster than others, etc.? This would require CSQC players.

What do you mean by tactics? A faction that is faster than others, etc.? This would require CSQC players.

Per character class (or unit iow) differences would be preferable, with any factions fielding one or more kinds of class.

And yes, it seems the CSQC players thing would be a requirement, but there's a lot of requirements for a real campaign anyway which won't be happening overnight.

The idea of "monsters" would also add another dimension to a campaign. "Monsters" being defined as things too weird or impractical for players to play as but adding flavor and a unique challenge as enemies.


Diverse Weapons + Diverse Character Classes + Diverse Monsters + Diverse Vehicles + Diverse and Immersive Map Environments + Intricate and Solid Plot + Engaging and Twisting Storytelling = Awesome Non-Repetitive Campaign

The more of those elements you can achieve, the better. Ultimately I mean, not necessarily immediately.

but...yes...we will need some more weapons (stronger ones)!
so some levels of just killing thousands of aliens and monsters would be more fun!
and such levels are easy to create!

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

Quite difficult, have you read it?

That doesn't look diffifcult. Just because the galaxy is ruled by four factions and a weapons manufacturer doesn't mean they've exterminated all the wild "animals" in it. And NPC's don't have to be exclusiev to non-humanoids, as you can see in that Quake 2 vid I posted further down.

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.

I thought you were familiar with Quake games, my bad. Quake 2 has a "real" campaign, with many levels that you progress through, solve some puzzles and kill non-bot NPC's, reach some bosses, etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZupecVUnu...re=related

Quake 3 SP, meanwhile, is little more than a training course. You play against the same opponents as you would in MP, with the same weapons and the same maps. There's no point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS-loz5FBIg

So you mean weapon balance differs in multiplayer and campaign?

Correct. Of course there will have to be more siginificant tweaks than raising/lowering damage, though, otherwise people will be confused. By the way, only the final weapons in the 1.0 will tell if we'll need to make any changes at all.

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.

It's not implemented yet, I know that. Non-bot NPC's aren't either.

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

Ok. Won't be needed as much in an SP campaign with monsters rather than bots though. For a multiplayer based SP, it would be unnecessary, I agree.

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.

Oh, sorry.

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.

Variety

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).

Oh, there will be coding. And no, as you say, I'm not going to do it. Everything I say are suggestions. If I knew C++/whatever language necessary, I would gladly help. Perhaps I will in a year or two.

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.

Per character class (or unit iow) differences would be preferable, with any factions fielding one or more kinds of class.

And yes, it seems the CSQC players thing would be a requirement, but there's a lot of requirements for a real campaign anyway which won't be happening overnight.

The idea of "monsters" would also add another dimension to a campaign. "Monsters" being defined as things too weird or impractical for players to play as but adding flavor and a unique challenge as enemies.


Diverse Weapons + Diverse Character Classes + Diverse Monsters + Diverse Vehicles + Diverse and Immersive Map Environments + Intricate and Solid Plot + Engaging and Twisting Storytelling = Awesome Non-Repetitive Campaign

The more of those elements you can achieve, the better. Ultimately I mean, not necessarily immediately.

Completely agree.

The idea of "monsters" would also add another dimension to a campaign. "Monsters" being defined as things too weird or impractical for players to play as but adding flavor and a unique challenge as enemies.

How exactly are monsters different from regular enemies? They will still have to be on a team which is not the player's team, etc.
These would require models+animations, in game changes etc. for little benefit.

That doesn't look diffifcult. Just because the galaxy is ruled by four factions and a weapons manufacturer doesn't mean they've exterminated all the wild "animals" in it. And NPC's don't have to be exclusiev to non-humanoids, as you can see in that Quake 2 vid I posted further down.

It would be painfully out of place, since the combat will be happening in industrialized areas (space ships, stations, etc.).

I thought you were familiar with Quake games, my bad. Quake 2 has a "real" campaign, with many levels that you progress through, solve some puzzles and kill non-bot NPC's, reach some bosses, etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZupecVUnu...re=related

Quake 3 SP, meanwhile, is little more than a training course. You play against the same opponents as you would in MP, with the same weapons and the same maps. There's no point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS-loz5FBIg

Maps would definitely be different in the campaign due to the locations. There will also likely be boss fights.

Correct. Of course there will have to be more siginificant tweaks than raising/lowering damage, though, otherwise people will be confused. By the way, only the final weapons in the 1.0 will tell if we'll need to make any changes at all.

Completely against this idea. Weapons should be the same in MP and campaign mode.

Variety

?

Oh, there will be coding. And no, as you say, I'm not going to do it. Everything I say are suggestions. If I knew C++/whatever language necessary, I would gladly help. Perhaps I will in a year or two.

Exactly why coding should be at a minumum.

How exactly are monsters different from regular enemies?

They can have wildly different forms of movement, attack, durability and general size. Because they don't have to conform tightly to the rules of playabilty and per-individual-balance, since they aren't meant to be human playable in default multiplayer.

They can have wildly different forms of movement, attack, durability and general size. Because they don't have to conform tightly to the rules of playabilty and per-individual-balance, since they aren't meant to be human playable in default multiplayer.

So they can just be bots with a different "class" than the player.

Basically, yeah. You just need to be able to customize all player features and bot AI per class and you could then create just about anything imaginable with that.

Whelp, need CSQC players for that, so we can't do that.

The campaign will likely evolve from version to version, implementing more features and taking advantage of game code.

Sure, just don't limit what can eventually be added to the game, through artificial plot restrictions (as opposed to the natural progress of engine features). If a plot can't handle different opponents or non-industrial maps or other plausible future features, you might not be helping the chances of that plot becoming popular and official and long lived, imo.

When I was drafting a setting for the nexuiz/xonotic campaign attempt MKI, I tried to leave room for just about any popular side story idea, map type and plausible feature to have a part in the universe that wouldn't seem out of place or thrown together. I thought, like you do too it seems to some extent, that trying to focus everyone's different creative interests into a more narrow but streamlined direction would be difficult. So my strategy was to create 'a plot with a place for everything' (which was also a multi-factioned space opera, among other things).

Sure, just don't limit what can eventually be added to the game, through artificial plot restrictions (as opposed to the natural progress of engine features). If a plot can't handle different opponents or non-industrial maps or other plausible future features, you might not be helping the chances of that plot becoming popular and official and long lived, imo.

Well, we can write an idealistic plot and restrict it in the campaign as necessary depending on the game's abilities.

When I was drafting a setting for the nexuiz/xonotic campaign attempt MKI, I tried to leave room for just about any popular side story idea, map type and plausible feature to have a part in the universe that wouldn't seem out of place or thrown together. I thought, like you do too it seems to some extent, that trying to focus everyone's different creative interests into a more narrow but streamlined direction would be difficult. So my strategy was to create 'a plot with a place for everything' (which was also a multi-factioned space opera, among other things).

Do you think the TC has a "place for everything"? There are several factions and lots of tensions, etc.

Do you think the TC has a "place for everything"? There are several factions and lots of tensions, etc.

Well it seemed like you were indicating earlier that alien creatures and non-industrial/space maps did not fit your tech focused plot proposal.

That might not have been overly restrictive years ago, but the direction and variety of maps and engine features no longer restricts environments to the cramped industrial labyrinths of the game's past.

Well it seemed like you were indicating earlier that alien creatures and non-industrial/space maps did not fit your tech focused plot proposal.

That might not have been overly restrictive years ago, but the direction and variety of maps and engine features no longer restricts environments to the cramped industrial labyrinths of the game's past.

Xonotic's whole theme is that of futurism and civilization - we won't see nature maps because a. no way to make good foilage/grass and b. it's not a popular map theme, it's also not stylistically fitting.

EVERYBODY SHUT UP!

OK, sorry.

My email's been down for a few days so I haven't known about the updates in this thread. Here's my stance on the entire SP experience in Xonotic.

1) We have to use monsters, not bots, or the game will become to repetitive.

2) There will be a few nature maps according to my current, completed outline of the story (which I apologize for not having advanced the scripting on much lately. I've been kinda busy with work). These maps will have various terrains (I'm trying to not get repetitive and keep the player on their toes) and will be mixed in with futuristic factories, bases, etc.

3) The weapon's will not change as far as stats on the actual guns, but I think weapon placement will be mostly up to map designers. They will know what weapons will work best in the maps. Beta testers and the like will be able to give them feedback on weapon placement so they can fine-tune it.

4) The majority of my script will consist of cutscenes because those are important parts of the story. There will also be directions for certain level-design elements that advance the plot. However, most level-design options will be left up to map builders to put their own flavor into the game. This is a community project, after all. I cannot (and don't want to) write every aspect of the game and then tell everyone to conform. I'll lay down a skeleton and give the important details, then let the respective members of the community give their input and add their own styles and features (within reason). I'm by no means "running things" but since I'm currently the only one working on a real script (along with Roanoke), he and I are pretty much the ones in charge of that area right now.

5) More on cutscenes: some are "big" and should be rendered as a video (too much action for some machines to handle, or for whatever other reason). Others (most) can (and should be) be rendered in-game by the engine. As far as I know, there is some form of video support in DarkPlaces. If not, I hope someone can get it in (it used to be in there, so it probably still is).

6) Note to Beefeater: There will indeed be at least one level in which the player faces wild beasts while hiking to a base in the snow (yes, snow. I said there were nature maps ). Actually, I believe there are currently at least two maps with wild animals. Maybe three, I can't remember...


I think I've got some stuff for everyone in the campaign I'm writing. If not, the community can always give me feedback and a few updates can be drafted in. This is a community effort.

Xonotic's whole theme is that of futurism and civilization - we won't see nature maps because a. no way to make good foilage/grass and b. it's not a popular map theme, it's also not stylistically fitting.

None of that has been true since v2.3.

Okay and now I'll shut up (or try to at least).

1) We have to use monsters, not bots, or the game will become to repetitive.

If by "monsters" you mean "bots with classes", yes.

3) The weapon's will not change as far as stats on the actual guns, but I think weapon placement will be mostly up to map designers. They will know what weapons will work best in the maps. Beta testers and the like will be able to give them feedback on weapon placement so they can fine-tune it.

Agreed. Weapons come from enemies, from start, and at map locations.

4) The majority of my script will consist of cutscenes because those are important parts of the story. There will also be directions for certain level-design elements that advance the plot. However, most level-design options will be left up to map builders to put their own flavor into the game. This is a community project, after all. I cannot (and don't want to) write every aspect of the game and then tell everyone to conform. I'll lay down a skeleton and give the important details, then let the respective members of the community give their input and add their own styles and features (within reason). I'm by no means "running things" but since I'm currently the only one working on a real script (along with Roanoke), he and I are pretty much the ones in charge of that area right now.

The thing is, I don't think people want to see more cutscenes than action. That basically turns it into a movie.

5) More on cutscenes: some are "big" and should be rendered as a video (too much action for some machines to handle, or for whatever other reason). Others (most) can (and should be) be rendered in-game by the engine. As far as I know, there is some form of video support in DarkPlaces. If not, I hope someone can get it in (it used to be in there, so it probably still is).

I have no idea if it is easy/possible to do cutscenes in real time.

6) Note to Beefeater: There will indeed be at least one level in which the player faces wild beasts while hiking to a base in the snow (yes, snow. I said there were nature maps ). Actually, I believe there are currently at least two maps with wild animals. Maybe three, I can't remember...

Hopefully someone can model realistic beasts? (this also means that the campaign will likely have to be a separate PK3 due to file size).

Hopefully someone can model realistic beasts?

*Silently gestures at himself whilst maintaining vow of silence.*

Get to it then

They will still have to be on a team which is not the player's team, etc.
These would require models+animations, in game changes etc. for little benefit.

All monsters can be automatically aggressive towards players. We could use existing player models and animations for monsters, as long as they are what the faction members look like.

What in game changes would we need?

1) We have to use monsters, not bots, or the game will become to repetitive.

If by "monsters" you mean "bots with classes", yes.

Monsters (well, one monster) already exist, while bots with classes don't.

Also, if we use bots with different classes, we'll need to find a way of spawning a particular bot at a particular spawn point, because you don't want the boss spawning at the beginning of the map!

All monsters can be automatically aggressive towards players. We could use existing player models and animations for monsters, as long as they are what the faction members look like.

What in game changes would we need?

The key is not to make them aggressive to each other. Using models for the enemies is trivial, we've already got lots of models.

Monsters (well, one monster) already exist, while bots with classes don't.

What? Monsters are bots with classes, and what you call "monsters" requires bots with classes.

Get to it then

Once the code is in place, I will get (back) on this.

Until then I'll continue to focus on increasing my own coding experience, since that's the only sure way to see this happen (plus everything else I want to do). I mean there isn't so much value in having things look different if the engine won't let them be different.

Code is everything.

Monsters (well, one monster) already exist, while bots with classes don't.

What? Monsters are bots with classes, and what you call "monsters" requires bots with classes.

Watch this video. The zombie is the only monster that existed in Nexuiz (although I guess the walker turret counts as a monster as well). You can see that it's completely different from a normal bot.

Here are a few reasons why monsters =/= "bots with classes":

• A monster kill doesn't count as a frag
  
• Monsters can't pick up health/armour
  
• Monster health doesn't regenerate
  
• A particular monster can only spawn at one specific point. Say you wanted a zombie to spawn outside a building and a soldier to spawn inside. You wouldn't be able to do that with bots, since they can spawn at any of their team's spawn points. The zombie might spawn inside while the soldier spawns outside.
  
• Monsters can have melee attacks (e.g. zombie) or fire multiple weapons at once (e.g. walker)
  

The key is not to make them aggressive to each other.

I tested a map with 2 zombies - they didn't attack each other. I'm guessing that they're only aggressive towards players.

• A monster kill doesn't count as a frag

Does this really matter that much?

Monsters can't pick up health/armour

Monster health doesn't regenerate

This would make the campaign too easy.

A particular monster can only spawn at one specific point. Say you wanted a zombie to spawn outside a building and a soldier to spawn inside. You wouldn't be able to do that with bots, since they can spawn at any of their team's spawn points. The zombie might spawn inside while the soldier spawns outside.

Soo... put the monster team spawn points outside?

Monsters can have melee attacks (e.g. zombie) or fire multiple weapons at once (e.g. walker)

I don't want a campaign where enemies can only do melee, that would be super bad.

4) The majority of my script will consist of cutscenes because those are important parts of the story. There will also be directions for certain level-design elements that advance the plot. However, most level-design options will be left up to map builders to put their own flavor into the game. This is a community project, after all. I cannot (and don't want to) write every aspect of the game and then tell everyone to conform. I'll lay down a skeleton and give the important details, then let the respective members of the community give their input and add their own styles and features (within reason). I'm by no means "running things" but since I'm currently the only one working on a real script (along with Roanoke), he and I are pretty much the ones in charge of that area right now.

The thing is, I don't think people want to see more cutscenes than action. That basically turns it into a movie.

I totally agree, but what I'm saying is that most of the action will be designed by map designers (since it will take place on maps designed by them, they will have control over the battle. I can't very well plot out how each action sequence should go without a map.) So yes, tons of action, cutscenes at the beginning and end of missions, and in the middle where necessary, but not overused.

5) More on cutscenes: some are "big" and should be rendered as a video (too much action for some machines to handle, or for whatever other reason). Others (most) can (and should be) be rendered in-game by the engine. As far as I know, there is some form of video support in DarkPlaces. If not, I hope someone can get it in (it used to be in there, so it probably still is).

I have no idea if it is easy/possible to do cutscenes in real time.

I believe it's something called "scripted actions" or "scripted events" or something similar. Basically, the bots/monsters/map does things because they are triggered by some event in the game.



As far as enemies go, when I say "monsters" I'm referring to the zombie code someone (either tZork or morphed) wrote. Bots with classes would be similar, but as PWTULN pointed out, there are some differences.

No, monsters not being frags doesn't matter since there shouldn't really be much reason to keep count of frags during the campaign (though it would be cool for statistical purposes).

It wouldn't make the campaign too easy if the monsters had a ton of health to start with. I wouldn't want the enemies picking up the health and ammo intended for the player (though it would be an interesting twist...)

Monsters would be able to fire weapons, not just use melee attacks. The zombie just didn't have a gun.

Let's not split hairs here, a comprehensive class system can cover basically all of those bases.

And the other things, like spawns, would have to be coded either way, unless you used the assault gametype. You could even have "UGV levels" to explain the player respawning in assault, since you'd be sending in expendable remote piloted weapon systems instead of the player avatar's own self. And/or cybernetically remote controlled expendable living soldiers (like captured enemies).