GoldenEye: Source Forums

  • October 18, 2018, 09:32:54 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Yesterday at 11:49:24 PM 
Started by Whimsical - Last post by Whimsical
(Just has a quick note, I had to break up writing this reply over 3 days, so I'm not sure if everything here is put together as well as I would like in terms of grammar and how well things flow)

Thank you for both replies, and the gameplay footage. Sorry, I wasn't able to reply right away, I've been a bit busy with classes. Still, I've had time to make a few improvements to the game mode (but have a couple more I want to add before releasing the next version). Before I get into my replies, I'll just give a quick note about myself, it might not seem relevant, but hopefully, it gives some context into my thought processes. I like playing Trading Card Games and have experimented with casual game design in regards to them (just between friends), and this mode adds some elements I like from those games to this game.

We got to play 2 matches of Cache last night, and while I personally found the mode fun it seemed rather polarizing among the other players.  People seemed to be split 50/50 on if they enjoyed it or not, but no-one really gave me a clear reason as to why so I can only collect the comments I heard and try to extrapolate from there.

Polarizing isn't bad, if people have a strong response about the game mode it means there is at least something there. Now it's just a matter of refining it.

Anyway, some of the comments I heard were:

- Switching takes too long
- Not enough ammo
- It's not clear you start with 3 guns

1. Switching taking too long I can see, you mention switching again later so I'll put my thoughts there.
2. That's a little more tricky, managing limited ammo is supposed to be a part of being able to play this mode well, and ammo counts are supposed to act as a balancer for some weapons. That being said, I need to strike a balance. Is this a concern for all weapons overall, or just specific ones (and if so, which ones)?
3. Probably the best way to fix that is to print them on-screen somewhere when the player spawns. I'll see if I can't add it to the next version.


It's easy to address these comments at face value but my interpretation is that most of the dissenters don't like how the switching mechanic is implemented.  I personally avoided switching at all without the bonus, as it was generally better to just go huge with your good weapons, and if you died before running out of ammo just eat the respawn time versus waiting out the normal switch duration.  A lot of people probably feel the current setup is unfair and random as you have to take a pretty big penalty if you spawn with a bad selection of guns.

Because of this, I'm kind of wondering if maybe the switching could happen incrementally instead of all at once.  Something like:
Press G -> lose all current weapons except for slappers.
1/3 of switch time passes -> Get first weapon
2/3 of switch time passes -> Get second weapon
full switch time passes -> Get final weapon

With the option of rerolling again during the switch time to restart it if you don't like the guns you're getting. 

Would make it clear you're getting 3 guns, give you a usable weapon much faster, and give more chances to roll for guns you like.  Even 2-3 seconds is a long time to go without a gun in an open firefight, so this would still be something people would have to use strategically if they wanted to use it to the best effect.

To be fair, I kind of expected issues with the switching mechanic. I added it originally to deal with the fact you don't have Slappers, and thus it at least is in theory possible for all players to use up all the ammo on all their guns on a stage where you can't die from fall damage (thus, while very unlikely, leaving open the possibility of the game just halting). Later I expended the rules so it was more than just that, but getting it to work well is probably going to be more a case of trial and error. I do like your suggestion and want to at least implement it as an option. The other alternative is just adjusting the delay to be more reasonable. If you end up playing any more games between now and then, I would suggest setting "cs_switchdelay" to 5, if that still doesn't work then maybe set it to 3 and set "cs_knifeswitchdelay" to 1. The only problem with setting the delays lower is that I don't want people to constantly be rerolling until they get a strong set, since playing with (or around) less than ideal sets is supposed to be an aspect of the game mode.


Anyway, to me it's a pretty straightforward deathmatch variant, and while it probably needs a fair bit of tweaking the core concept seems pretty fun.  I'll try adjusting some of the console variables and see if I can play a few more matches tonight.  2 matches is kind of a small sample size so I want to try it a few more times before trying to draw the final consensus.  Investment Losses was pretty polarizing on its first few iterations too, but after adjusting some implementation details a lot of the players who hated it now say it's their favorite mode.  It's just part of the gamemode development cycle, really.  It's hard to get something with so many moving parts perfect on the first attempt.

Thank you, I agree with you on all points here.

Quote
I look forward to the next version of the mode!

I look forward to it as well. I'll cover my planned changes at the end of this post and a bit during my reply to your other post.

Gameplay footage, as promised.  I didn't play quite as well as I would have liked, but eh, probably better for capturing a typical gameplay experience.  Please suffer through my twitchy aim as best you can.

Thanks. Gameplay-wise, much better than I can do. I'm not really the best FPS player. Seeing the gameplay in action though was really nice.

Sadly I didn't tweak the console variables like I was hoping to, but this is decent footage of the mode I feel.  One thing I noticed while recording this is that it's pretty common to have loadouts like D5K, D5K(s), and DD44 where you don't have much hope of getting much done.  These weapons are decent on their own, but the prevalence of the AR-33 and Auto Shotgun in other player's loadouts, which are both powerful and easy-to-use weapons, makes them very difficult to get more than 1 or 2 kills with.
Those kinds of loadouts shouldn't be exactly common, though maybe the prevalence of ARs and Auto Shotguns should be looked at?

Conversely, it's also possible to get loadouts like Golden Gun, Rocket Launcher, and Silenced PP7, which on paper seem really good...but the AR-33 and Auto Shotgun can still kill you very fast without armor and so losing these loadouts before really getting to use them is actually quite easy.  Having 2 or 3 high powered weapons isn't all that much better than just having 1, but it certainly feels like you're losing a lot more when you die.

I have added (what I hope is) a fix to this issue, or what should be a nice feature regardless. If you use the switch command ("!voodoo" or the others) after you die, so long as certain criteria are met, you can carry your loadout when you respawn (i.e. you keep the same guns after you die). The following must be met for weapons to be carried over.
  • The option only exists for a set time after getting the weapons (either after a respawn or a switch), by default the window is 15 seconds but can be adjusted with a cvar.
  • You must not have scored any kills with your current weapon set.
I'm not sure if criterion 2 is enough without the delay, it might be. Anyway, that should mitigate the sting of losing a strong set before you can use it.

The solution to both of these problems, I feel, is guarantee a certain weapon strength distribution for each loadout granted.  They shouldn't all be equal, as I feel the randomness is part of the mode, but they should all follow something similar to the following structure:

1 Good Weapon (AR33/Auto Shotgun to Golden Gun, better being rarer)
1 Average Weapon (ZMG-CMAG/Shotgun, not much bias in the random selection)
1 Weak Weapon (Klobb - DD44, weaker being rarer)

It would be fine to have overlap between the different classifications but something more structured like this would at least guarantee every player has a chance against any other player.  The other player might have the Gold PP7 and they only have the AR-33, but they can overcome that with better deathmatching skills or strategy.

That is supposed to be what breaking them into categories does. As noted, the randomness is a part of it, and I do want players to have to manage sub-par weapon sets. At the moment the fixes I want to try are weapon carrying (deals with losing good sets), making switching more viable (deals with mitigating very weak sets), and adjusting the weights on weapons and categories (as I feel that should be the first step before any major overhauls in the distribution method). Still, I won't rule this out as a possibility if weapon distribution keeps being a problem.

This mode has potential, I feel like all it really needs is the right tweaks and people will love it.

I agree, now I just need to make those tweaks and get gameplay data.

Now, as promised, here is my list of things that I want to add to the next version.
  • Weapon carry over, as detailed above (and is already scripted).
  • Your "rolling switch" idea (as I've come to think of it as).
  • Displaying weapon names on spawn (also worth asking if there is a way for players to set some local cvar equivalent so I can give them the option to disable this)
  • Lowering the rate of handgun appearance (possibly).

The last point leads to this last section. Since I haven't played with others, and not as knowledgeable about this game, I do have some question I want to ask that I can't really get answers to on my own.
  • How are the weights on the weapons and categories? Are there some weapons that appear more or less often than they should for their power?
  • Do the special effects applied to certain weapons feel impactful?
  • Do you feel properly incentivized to use all of the weapons in your given set?
  • In regards to your weapon distribution idea, I am giving thought to how I would go about it, and for that, I do need to know if I'm correct about the following. Would this be the correct ordering from best to worst sets:
    • Good - Good - Good
    • Good - Good - Average
    • Good - Good - Bad
    • Good - Average - Average
    • Good - Average - Bad
    • Average - Average - Average
    • Good - Bad - Bad
    • Average - Average - Bad
    • Average - Bad - Bad
    • Bad - Bad - Bad
    I especially want to know if I'm correct in saying 3 Average weapons is better than a Good weapon and 2 Bad ones.

 2 
 on: October 16, 2018, 06:36:40 AM 
Started by Roach - Last post by Roach
Absolutely, I'll be willing to learn and get myself up to GE:S's working standard, while also doing my own research, reading up on tutorials, etc.

 3 
 on: October 16, 2018, 01:26:47 AM 
Started by Roach - Last post by Mangley
We'll be willing to trial you once you have some experience and work to show using IK. I would definitely recommend taking the time to learn if you are interested in animation as it makes animation production much faster and the results much more true to life.

 4 
 on: October 15, 2018, 03:38:43 PM 
Started by Whimsical - Last post by Entropy-Soldier


Gameplay footage, as promised.  I didn't play quite as well as I would have liked, but eh, probably better for capturing a typical gameplay experience.  Please suffer through my twitchy aim as best you can.


Sadly I didn't tweak the console variables like I was hoping to, but this is decent footage of the mode I feel.  One thing I noticed while recording this is that it's pretty common to have loadouts like D5K, D5K(s), and DD44 where you don't have much hope of getting much done.  These weapons are decent on their own, but the prevalence of the AR-33 and Auto Shotgun in other player's loadouts, which are both powerful and easy-to-use weapons, makes them very difficult to get more than 1 or 2 kills with.

Conversely, it's also possible to get loadouts like Golden Gun, Rocket Launcher, and Silenced PP7, which on paper seem really good...but the AR-33 and Auto Shotgun can still kill you very fast without armor and so losing these loadouts before really getting to use them is actually quite easy.  Having 2 or 3 high powered weapons isn't all that much better than just having 1, but it certainly feels like you're losing a lot more when you die.

The solution to both of these problems, I feel, is guarantee a certain weapon strength distribution for each loadout granted.  They shouldn't all be equal, as I feel the randomness is part of the mode, but they should all follow something similar to the following structure:

1 Good Weapon (AR33/Auto Shotgun to Golden Gun, better being rarer)
1 Average Weapon (ZMG-CMAG/Shotgun, not much bias in the random selection)
1 Weak Weapon (Klobb - DD44, weaker being rarer)

It would be fine to have overlap between the different classifications but something more structured like this would at least guarantee every player has a chance against any other player.  The other player might have the Gold PP7 and they only have the AR-33, but they can overcome that with better deathmatching skills or strategy.


This mode has potential, I feel like all it really needs is the right tweaks and people will love it.

 5 
 on: October 15, 2018, 05:53:03 AM 
Started by WNxRicky - Last post by WNxRicky
Ah, the naming is a bit confusing ("ges-legacy-code" is actually in use but has legacy in its' name). I will give it a try and ask for help if I encounter any issue.

 6 
 on: October 14, 2018, 09:23:34 PM 
Started by Roach - Last post by Roach
I don't yet have any footage to show off with using IK, since while I understand how they work, I'm as of yet unsure how to use them within Maya, but I am more than willing to learn.
I did find some more animation footage though, should it interest you.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xfzmppeqspret95/a_staff_deploy.mp4?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/waw0pp79egmbcz4/a_staff_special.mp4?dl=0

 7 
 on: October 14, 2018, 03:00:43 PM 
Started by Roach - Last post by Mangley
Hi Tom,

Thank you very much for your application.

You certainly have some experience with particle effects, however we don't have a dedicated position for them.

If you were to join the team, it would have to be as an animator and for animation the use of IK rigs is an essential part of the role. Any animation trial we do would involve using IK to produce animations and I think we would need to see a demonstration of being able to work with IK before proceeding. If you are willing to learn and produce a short demo animation clip to show that you can work with them then we will be able to trial you for the team. IK is a pretty stringent requirement for animation jobs in the industry so it would certainly be worth it to learn this skill set.

If you were to join the team as an animator then you would be able to work on and contribute particle effects along with your primary role. If this is of interest to you, feel free to get back to us once you have some work with IK rigs to show off.  I look forward to seeing what you can do.

- Thanks

 8 
 on: October 14, 2018, 09:03:15 AM 
Started by WNxRicky - Last post by Entropy-Soldier
If you want to work on the 5.0 code, it's here:

https://github.com/goldeneye-source/ges-legacy-code

ges-code is for the Source-2013 build but for 5.0 we opted to stick with 2007.  I'm not sure of the state of the ges-code repo but it hasn't been updated in some time.


If you're still having trouble, feel free to get in touch with me on Discord (E-S#2674).

It's a lot easier to troubleshoot this kind of thing in real-time.

 9 
 on: October 14, 2018, 08:54:00 AM 
Started by Whimsical - Last post by Entropy-Soldier
We got to play 2 matches of Cache last night, and while I personally found the mode fun it seemed rather polarizing among the other players.  People seemed to be split 50/50 on if they enjoyed it or not, but no-one really gave me a clear reason as to why so I can only collect the comments I heard and try to extrapolate from there.

Anyway, some of the comments I heard were:

- Switching takes too long
- Not enough ammo
- It's not clear you start with 3 guns


It's easy to address these comments at face value but my interpretation is that most of the dissenters don't like how the switching mechanic is implemented.  I personally avoided switching at all without the bonus, as it was generally better to just go huge with your good weapons, and if you died before running out of ammo just eat the respawn time versus waiting out the normal switch duration.  A lot of people probably feel the current setup is unfair and random as you have to take a pretty big penalty if you spawn with a bad selection of guns.

Because of this, I'm kind of wondering if maybe the switching could happen incrementally instead of all at once.  Something like:
Press G -> lose all current weapons except for slappers.
1/3 of switch time passes -> Get first weapon
2/3 of switch time passes -> Get second weapon
full switch time passes -> Get final weapon

With the option of rerolling again during the switch time to restart it if you don't like the guns you're getting. 

Would make it clear you're getting 3 guns, give you a usable weapon much faster, and give more chances to roll for guns you like.  Even 2-3 seconds is a long time to go without a gun in an open firefight, so this would still be something people would have to use strategically if they wanted to use it to the best effect.


Anyway, to me it's a pretty straightforward deathmatch variant, and while it probably needs a fair bit of tweaking the core concept seems pretty fun.  I'll try adjusting some of the console variables and see if I can play a few more matches tonight.  2 matches is kind of a small sample size so I want to try it a few more times before trying to draw the final consensus.  Investment Losses was pretty polarizing on its first few iterations too, but after adjusting some implementation details a lot of the players who hated it now say it's their favorite mode.  It's just part of the gamemode development cycle, really.  It's hard to get something with so many moving parts perfect on the first attempt.

As for that gameplay footage I promised, I had some issues with the footage from last night so I'm going to try a different method next time.  -Hopefully- I'll have something for you in the next few days, but for now I hope a write up is enough info to go on.

I look forward to the next version of the mode!

 10 
 on: October 14, 2018, 01:09:45 AM 
Started by WNxRicky - Last post by WNxRicky
I've cloned the GE:S project from GitHub and I have trouble with building the project. I've set the source code location to D:/GES Programming/ges-code/game and the build location to D:/GES Programming/ges-code/build (not that it's relevant in this case). I also set the file paths for the .lib files. Anyway, when I try to configure in CMake GUI I get the following errors:

CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:1 (include):
  include could not find load file:

    precompile_header


CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:30 (ucm_add_dirs):
  Unknown CMake command "ucm_add_dirs".

Any ideas why these errors occur and how I can fix them?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10