[SUGGESTION] Ideas for singleplayer gameplay

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).

How about no?
I don't think the player should respawn. If they get killed, they get killed.

Well I only meant for a few of the levels, just for the sake of variety and game mode integration. It's best for most levels to take player death seriously.

Going back to the original topic for a second, another feature that would be very nice for campaigns is support for cooperative play, whenever technically possible. Supporting playing through campaigns with multiplayer coop is very popular in modern games and for good reason.

Well I only meant for a few of the levels, just for the sake of variety and game mode integration. It's best for most levels to take player death seriously.

How would the resistance, for instance, an underground movement that has to steal weapons, be able to have avatars and stuff? Variety is all well and good, but I think we should have variety in other respects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP9qWLUWxT8
Going back to the original topic for a second, another feature that would be very nice for campaigns is support for cooperative play, whenever technically possible. Supporting playing through campaigns with multiplayer coop is very popular in modern games and for good reason.
[/quote]
If we can do it, coop would be great.

How would the resistance, for instance, an underground movement that has to steal weapons, be able to have avatars and stuff? Variety is all well and good, but I think we should have variety in other respects.

Remote control technology is beyond the reach of a distant future military force?

UGVs are just (perhaps captured) weapons. And cybernetically wiring up POWs into weapons could be considered a guerrilla tactic. They've done it today (years before today in fact) to cockroaches. In the future they'll do it to people too, at first to aid the handicapped probably, and then. . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP9qWLUWxT8

Lol, wtf?

• A monster kill doesn't count as a frag

Does this really matter that much?

No, but the point is that monsters aren't "bots with classes"

Monsters can't pick up health/armour

Monster health doesn't regenerate

This would make the campaign too easy.

Not if you set the monster health to 200+, give them good accuracy and high damage.

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?

Since the maximum number of teams is 4, you're limited to using only 3 different kinds of bots. I'm also guessing that there's a limit to the number of bots that can be in a map. With monsters there is no limit on either of these.

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.

Again, I was just explaining how monsters are so different from bots.

Not if you set the monster health to 200+, give them good accuracy and high damage.

That can all be done with classes.

Since the maximum number of teams is 4, you're limited to using only 3 different kinds of bots. I'm also guessing that there's a limit to the number of bots that can be in a map. With monsters there is no limit on either of these.

No, that would be the case only if each faction was stuck with one class. They can have any number of different classes to spawn.

Again, I was just explaining how monsters are so different from bots.

If you give a class a melee weapon, it has a melee attack.


I think what you are talking about is mostly special spawning code that would be independent of what an enemy is and how it fights. You are making the assumption that classes = normal gametype spawning, but that is not the case.

Special or 'scripted' spawns will be desirable and used no matter what kind of enemies you are fighting.

Since the maximum number of teams is 4, you're limited to using only 3 different kinds of bots. I'm also guessing that there's a limit to the number of bots that can be in a map. With monsters there is no limit on either of these.

No, that would be the case only if each faction was stuck with one class. They can have any number of different classes to spawn.

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.

You can't control which spawn point a particular bot spawns at, because it spawns at a randomly chosen team spawn point.

As far as co-op, that would be completely do-able, since most of the levels will consist of a two-man team doing everything (occasionally separated, which is good for co-op because while they're separated, each player can see advancements in the story that the other may not...which should be exactly the case here.)

Once the campaign is done, you'll see what I mean...

You can't control which spawn point a particular bot spawns at, because it spawns at a randomly chosen team spawn point.

And the same applies to those monster 'zombies', who just spawn randomly around the map.

Like I said before spawning is a separate issue that has to be tackled either way. The engine doesn't yet support one time, event or proximity triggered spawns. This would have to be coded, if I am not mistaken.

As far as co-op, that would be completely do-able, since most of the levels will consist of a two-man team doing everything (occasionally separated, which is good for co-op because while they're separated, each player can see advancements in the story that the other may not...which should be exactly the case here.)

Actually there's little reason to limit it to just two players.

You can't control which spawn point a particular bot spawns at, because it spawns at a randomly chosen team spawn point.

And the same applies to those monster 'zombies', who just spawn randomly around the map.

Actually, no. They don't spawn randomly. That's the whole point of using monsters instead of bots. I could make a video explaining what I mean, if anyone wants me to...

As far as co-op, that would be completely do-able, since most of the levels will consist of a two-man team doing everything (occasionally separated, which is good for co-op because while they're separated, each player can see advancements in the story that the other may not...which should be exactly the case here.)

Actually there's little reason to limit it to just two players.

I agree.

I wasn't limiting it to two players, just saying that for a two-player campaign, it would work.

Actually, no. They don't spawn randomly. That's the whole point of using monsters instead of bots. I could make a video explaining what I mean, if anyone wants me to...

Well then just use that spawn code to spawn classes, that way you have more precise control over spawns and the greater enemy capabilities / variety that comes with classes.

There's many things that players / bot classes can do that you'd want at least some enemies to be able to do as well. Like use weapons or jetpacks intelligently or regenerate health. Then you could have other classes lacking some of these abilities to act as more exotic 'monsters'.

Remote control technology is beyond the reach of a distant future military force?

UGVs are just (perhaps captured) weapons. And cybernetically wiring up POWs into weapons could be considered a guerrilla tactic. They've done it today (years before today in fact) to cockroaches. In the future they'll do it to people too, at first to aid the handicapped probably, and then. . .

This only serves to undermine the importance of a player's death. If a player dies, they should die dammit. You do not want to go the route of pussy deaths, where it doesn't actually matter.

This only serves to undermine the importance of a player's death. If a player dies, they should die dammit. You do not want to go the route of pussy deaths, where it doesn't actually matter.

It wouldn't matter if only 10% of the levels were this way. It'd just be a little change of pace that wouldn't require any new code. A pinch of salt.

It wouldn't matter if only 10% of the levels were this way. It'd just be a little change of pace that wouldn't require any new code. A pinch of salt.

A pinch of salt that would make the player go "why do I die on this level but not here?"

Well explaining things is where the cutscenes, voice acting, mission summaries and special graphics come into a campaign. The player will expect somethings to be different each level anyway, so that he doesn't get bored.

Well explaining things is where the cutscenes, voice acting, mission summaries and special graphics come into a campaign. The player will expect somethings to be different each level anyway, so that he doesn't get bored.

Yes, such as more interesting weapons/enemies, not suddenly becoming immortal.

maybe some levels mustn't be so difficult mapped...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1XlHkJ2ihs&NR=1
only a big monster (not bot ) and kill it with STRONG(!!!) weapons!

maybe some levels mustn't be so difficult mapped...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1XlHkJ2ihs&NR=1
only a big monster (not bot ) and kill it with STRONG(!!!) weapons!

I'm definitely planning that for the end of the game, but I could try to work some of those into earlier parts of the game as well. For example, the battle at the end of the first mission...

This only serves to undermine the importance of a player's death. If a player dies, they should die dammit. You do not want to go the route of pussy deaths, where it doesn't actually matter.

I agree, a player should fail a mission if they die. Although if they die on co-op, their teammates should be able to carry on playing.

Die? maybe we should add respawn points in some maps! ...If that is possible

Agree with ThePWTULN.

Checkpoints are another thing that will need to be coded then.

Checkpoints are another thing that will need to be coded then.

The Assault gametype already supports checkpoint spawnpoints, so that's not a problem.

Those just respawn you, they don't revert the game state. And you said you don't want respawning.