home home

downloads files

forum forum

docs docs

wiki wiki

faq faq

Cube & Cube 2 FORUM


singleplayer respawning

by Aardappel_ on 04/21/2006 01:03, 41 messages, last message: 06/07/2006 07:49, 6288 views, last view: 05/18/2024 20:40

As I am looking at whats still missing in the sauerbraten FPS, particularly on the SP side, one obvious thing is that loadgame/savegame is broken (though its easy to restore).

So I wanted to try out this recent SP map "vr", but had no savegame functionality, so had to make sure to not die at all.

I noticed how much more exciting playing the map without it was, as running into monsters around corners made me jump, and every little ambush made me feel "omg I am going to die!".

Of course, it is well known that having to start from scratch would be too frustrating for SP. So that got me thinking about alternative methods that would take out the frustration, but would keep some of the added excitement that having things at stake gives.

My idea is the following: add special SP spawning to SP. The way it would work is:

- respawn points are placed thruout an SP map, particularly in quieter areas before major battles.
- if you touch a respawn point (marked by some model), that becomes your current respawn point.
- if you die, you respawn at the current respawn point.

To give appropriate fear of death, yet make continuing after death possible, and easier every time it happens:


- all monsters and items stay where they were before you died. This means that if you are having a very difficult time, it becomes a little bit easier every time as monsters get killed.
- you will lose all your armour, and get all your ammo capped to a low amount (probably 5 each).
- to compensate, your health gets replenished fully, and you will get a large amount of pistol ammo
- your permanent powerups (currently the +10 health boost) will stay across respawns, as in DM (making them more useful!)

I think this would be a lot more interesting than load/save. It would feel less than just having to repeat a section, since it would be different every time. I think its a good balance between being punished for dying without the frustration, and increasing the excitement of battles.

Comments welcome. The rules as to what you lose and what you get when dying can be tweaked, of course.

Go to first 20 messagesGo to previous 20 messages    Board Index    Go to next 20 messagesGo to last 20 messages

#2: Re: oh and...

by Pxtl on 04/21/2006 03:34, refers to #1

Sounds good. I've always said that "quicksave" is worse than checkpoints, because quicksave is like crack... first you use it just once in a while, then after big fights, and pretty soon you're hitting F9 before you round each corner. Games with a good checkpoint system seem much better.

To compare to my personal favourite game, Abuse: each quicksave in Abuse was effectively a health restore. All the state info was saved _except_ your health, which returned to 100 when you respawned. It had the annoying effect that players would often suicide into the next room just to get health back, as taking damage is less painful than wasting ammo... particularly since Abuse weapons had effectively no max ammo count so every shot missed was a shot wasted.

"5 of each" would be a bad idea since often mappers design specifically for a subset of weapons. For example, say a map has a large number of monsters on far-off corners that are in eyesight, but only gives the player shotguns with which to attack. Giving the player 5 sniper rounds suddenly woudl throw that out of whack.

Perhaps the best approach would be to have the player loadout be configured at the respawn point. That is, each individual respawn point is programmed with an invisible list of health, ammo, and armour values that are given to the player when they respawn there.

Alternately, there's the Descent approach - you respawn with nothing, although the corpse from your previous failure is covered in the spew of your old weapons, so you have to rush back to loot your own corpse before continuing the mission.

reply to this message

#3: I Remember

by pushplay on 04/21/2006 05:17

I remember the discussion quicksave v savepoints caused on func_. I'm pretty sure no conclusions were drawn but it was an interesting thread.

reply to this message

#4: Re: oh and...

by pushplay on 04/21/2006 05:20, refers to #2

Deciding what weapons someone should get at a save point jacks up the difficulty of blanancing the map considerably. It's a difficult enough process as it is.

reply to this message

#5: ..

by makkE on 04/21/2006 13:05

I like the idea. But pushplay is right, it could make balancing harder.

reply to this message

#6: Re: oh and...

by Pxtl on 04/21/2006 14:04, refers to #4

Well, the ideal approach is having both quicksave and checkpoints - saving is needed for players who're called away to do something else right_this_minute, and checkpoints are needed because they provide a middle ground between "only 1 life" and "quicksave mashing" so players don't have to choose between those terrible options.

And I suggested the "mapper chooses" because I haven't seen a better alternative. Consider these sensible alternatives:

1) player respawns with same health and ammo. result: player saves with 10 health + 10 pistol bullets (and nothing else) and is screwed, trapped in an endless cycle of ass-whupping.

2) player respawns with full health and same ammo they saved with. result: health is free, ammo is expensive, as in Abuse. Players suicide after passing checkpoints to get their healths back before entering the next fight.

3) player respawns with set health and ammo (aard's style) - mapper's cant control loadout of players, because the player will have whatever they Aard gives them after death. Eg - map that starts out with fighting through a horde of Ogros and Hellpigs armed only with default weaponry is now really easy after you die.

I suggested it because there are good reasons for letting the mapper say "spawn with rockets and shotgun at this checkpoint".

reply to this message

#7: Re: oh and...

by mitaman at dark cave on 04/21/2006 17:55, refers to #1

Please keep the quick save, or at least make it some sort of option.

Yes - quick save is crack, but I'm hooked. I never truly enjoyed a game (like PARIAH) without it.

My 2 cent opinion - MitaMAN

reply to this message

#8: Re: oh and...

by Aardappel_ on 04/21/2006 19:48, refers to #2

note that I said ammo CAPPED to 5. meaning if you have 0 rifle rounds, you will have 0 after too. That makes more sense.

I don't feel like making it mapper specified. That is too confusing. I think finding a good basepoint is enough, you will never be completely stuck, in the worst case dying means dying a few times. But its less boring because its a new challenge every time.

I don't feel like implementing both. If savegames are available, people will use them, which reduces the whole excitement of play like before.

Either I am going with this idea, or I just reenable the old savegame code :)

reply to this message

#9: ..

by makkE on 04/21/2006 19:54

I´d say go with this idea then. It sounds good to me.
Saving is something I find pretty boring in sp games, though it´s neccesairy. Some games allow only 3 saveslots per map or so, that´s better. (maybe think of this as an option?)
What is good about this idea, is that you won´t have to redo the same stuff over and over again when you try to overcome a tricky fight. Would be and feel more dynamic.Imho.

And the idea of calculating everything into a score is good too. :)

reply to this message

#10: Re: oh and...

by MitaMAN in the cave on 04/21/2006 22:11, refers to #7

With the new "system", what will happen if a player wants to stop playing the map "mid-stream"? Will he be able to save his progression up to that point and resume at a later time? Or must the player always complete the map, or be forced to start the map from the beginning next time it's loaded?

I love quick save for one important reason, I can stop / start / resume playing at any point. The phone rings: hit quick save, I need a cold beer: hit quick save.

Aard, I really think the opinions of the "mostly sp players" should weigh in a bit more than the "mostly mp players" in your choice.

If I know a game does not have quick save feature - I usually won't buy it.

MitaMAN

reply to this message

#11: Re: oh and...

by Pxtl on 04/22/2006 04:00, refers to #8

Re: capped.

Oh, my mistake. Still, if we're talking about leaving the game in the same state it was when you died, perhaps dropping some extra ammo where the player died would be nice.

After all, consider the problems of the "5" cap - unless the cap refers to the _first_ time the player died. Say he's cut down to only 5 rockets, and died quickly when charging into a post-savepoint room. Well now he's got only 5 rockets, which last only a couple of seconds. So he's reduced to pistol and dies again. At this point he's stuck with nothing but a pistol. He's screwed. That's why a system where the player can have a _real_ weapon loadout on respawn seems better.

Maybe a divisor would be better? On the first death, ammo is cut in half, and future deaths are just respawned with whatever remains? Idunno, it's getting complex. That's why I suggested the labour-intensive "mapper chooses".

reply to this message

#12: Re: oh and...

by kurtis84 on 04/22/2006 04:20, refers to #11

I like the checkpoint idea. The ammo issue could be solved by the checkpoints saving the ammo stats as they are triggered/touched. If you die and fall back to the last checkpoint, you start off with whatever ammo you had when you crossed that checkpoint.

Then theres the issue of really big maps that a player might not want to play through in one try. Will we be able to load the last checkpoint, even after shutting the game off, and coming back later?

reply to this message

#13: Pause

by spentron on 04/22/2006 13:20

If you go to all checkpoints, need pause. That deals with the need for short breaks. (Has everyone become so used to using quicksave as a pause they forgot about the old thing?) Stopping entirely will require a bit of replay from the last checkpoint, not necessarily bad. Or quitting the game could do a save option.

One other aspect of checkpoints is a "bad save" if there's only one save slot that gets overwritten. This could leave the player in a hopeless situation.

I like the checkpoint idea re: some of my musings going back to before Cube had save. But I think checkpoints themselves are enough "penalty" without any health or ammo penalty -- checkpoints should be just like any other save (although the "scoring" idea would add some teeth). On the other hand quicksave is unfairly criticized and is a great feature when used properly. It is a great practice tool as well as helping get through tough spots well into a map. The bad things are when it is used to play something that is simply too hard and one must reload anytime a scene is not played almost perfect, and when one forgets to save. I try to use a save often, load rarely style.

reply to this message

#14: ..

by CC_machine4 on 04/22/2006 19:42

i should point out that savegame does work in sauerbraten but for some reason if you close it you cannot use any of the saves you did when you last used sauerbraten.. it crashes if you move your mouse more than a few degrees.

re to #13: if the map is made properly you won't end up in a hopeless situation, the spawn point should be well away from monsters/fighting.

reply to this message

#15: ..

by CC_machine4 on 04/22/2006 19:44

also ammo should not be capped to 5 rounds.. 5 rifle rounds is worth a lot more than 5 chaingun bullets... how about capped to 1 ammo pack?

reply to this message

#16: ..

by pushplay on 04/22/2006 21:49

After reading all this I prefer quicksaves. Quicksaves allowes the player to make the game more difficult or easy on him or herself depending upon skill and the amount of time available to play. If you're looking for a greater challenge but can't resist hitting F5 maybe you need to learn a little more self-control.

If that's asking to much maybe we could limit how frequently you can quicksave instead.

Also, capping the amount of ammo after loading at a checkpoint is a terrible idea. Again, it makes the map harder to balance. The mapper then has to worry about if the player dies here are they going to have enough ammo to finish the map? So then the mapper is forced to over-stock the map with ammo, or make the placement evenly spread out and boring.

reply to this message

#17: Re: ..

by MitaMAN in the cave on 04/23/2006 00:23, refers to #16

I am in full agreement with you pushplay.

All the ideas Aard "put on the table" sound great, and I think they could be lots of fun / add a gameplay challange / put more thought into map making.

But if the only choice is between "cool check points" and "quick save", just give me quick save.

Sorry, but my opinion in very strong in this matter.

MitaMAN

reply to this message

#18: Re: ..

by shadow,516 on 04/23/2006 01:06, refers to #17

I always forget to quicksave... I get too involved to realize I need to save every 5 seconds. So I think a checkpoint system would be awesome

reply to this message

#19: ..

by Mad Merv on 04/23/2006 01:27


Call of duty 2 has the most sophisticated active "seamless" attempt at saving; worth a look!

reply to this message

#20: so...

by Aardappel_ on 04/24/2006 01:24

seems sofar people are a bit divided. Lets see if we can figure it out one way or the other.

I think most importantly people don't realize how this system would be quite different from checkpoint systems before it, which are just limited savegame systems. The cool thing here is that the world state _doesn't change_ as you respawn, which means that even if you are mostly thrown back to the pistol, you won't have to kill the same monsters over and over again, every time you die whatever you are up against will be easier as monsters _stay dead_. So every respawn is different. The worst that can happen is that you have to respawn a few times and work with the pistol, which personally I would find a fun challenge. Gameplay never just repeats, which is great. This system is very similar to Diablo, which lets monsters steal a bunch of your gold every time they kill you. Here that would be valuable ammo :)

What exactly you lose can be tweaked. Cap to an ammo pack is a good suggestion, though I think its a bit much maybe. Cap something more relative to how much you were carrying could work too, i.e. be a certain percentage of what you have, or just "3 random ammo packs worth".

I think we could have a pause feature for "when the phone rings". We could alternatively have save+quit much like Diablo, but I am not sure if SP maps last that long for it to be worth it. Not that its hard, we already have the code, but it be nicer to do away with the idea of saving altogether.

There are TONS of balancing issues with savegames too. If you want to avoid these, the player has to keep a hierarchy of savegames (i.e. at least last savegame + last savegame with good stats at 2 levels) to avoid getting stuck. At least with my proposed system, you are NEVER stuck!

reply to this message

#21: Re: ..

by Aardappel_ on 04/24/2006 01:26, refers to #19

can you explain the Call of Duty 2 system, I haven't played it yet.

Another game which has a cool savegame system is this new game which allows you to simply rewind the game to any spot, you don't need to save manually. But logging all gameplay changes continuously is not trivial, I am not sure if it be worth the complexity.

reply to this message

Go to first 20 messagesGo to previous 20 messages    Board Index    Go to next 20 messagesGo to last 20 messages


Unvalidated accounts can only reply to the 'Permanent Threads' section!


content by Aardappel & eihrul © 2001-2024
website by SleepwalkR © 2001-2024
54039142 visitors requested 71819815 pages
page created in 0.023 seconds using 9 queries
hosted by Boost Digital