59 replies to this topic

[Pattom]

I'm in favor of the One Free Man mode, too. It might be a good idea to limit the number of units available to the RTS player, though, and unlock them as time passes or objectives are met. For example, at first only Metrocops, scanners, and manhacks are available for use, and then striders and elite troopers can be built as the game approaches a close. You could justify it by saying that Gordon becomes a greater threat the longer he somehow manages to survive.

[Firespray]

Or somehow Gordon Freeman the longer he is alive, the less effective overwatch/combine weapons would be.

[Tucker]

Assuming the soldiers are HL2 soldier (badasses) and not GMod soldiers (Cannon fodder) then you'll need the most rebels avaliable

[A1win]

I've had some ideas for some singleplayer maps as the RTS player, which would add yet another different gameplay mode to the mod (it'd basically be like the indoors maps in Red Alert and StarCraft, for example). Maps designed solely for 1vs1 also sounds awesome since that'd be a lot different from the current multiplayer maps, which will be balanced for 2—8 players.

[Tweevle]

Glad people approve of the suggestion! Obviously, the main focus should be the cooperative regular modes, but the Freeman mode could be fun as an aside, and I guess it could help solve the problem of people having to wait ages to play as Overwatch, if that's what they were really keen on.

[Shisnopi]

Depending on how troops can be sent out, anywhere from 4-10 human players is a good challenge. Anymore and it'll probably become a camp fest.

[Shawn]

It'd be nice if effectiveness of both sides were dynamically changed based on how many players there were.

[braddollar]

Tweevle, on 14 July 2010 - 01:13 PM, said:

Glad people approve of the suggestion! Obviously, the main focus should be the cooperative regular modes, but the Freeman mode could be fun as an aside, and I guess it could help solve the problem of people having to wait ages to play as Overwatch, if that's what they were really keen on.

I think that initially there may be an "ages" long wait to get to play the overwatch, as everybody will want to try it, but after a short while I think there will be enough people that don't have a desire to play the OW and just enjoy the rebel side of play. I think there'll be enough of a gap that you won't have to wait too terribly long to play as the OW.

[Dr. Who]

From the post before 5-7 sounds good but if a server wanted 9-15 then doubling the Overwatch would be interesting. It would be nice feature to have it where based on the player numbers addition overwatch slots become available so that larger player base servers are possible

[Firespray]

Pretty much how I feel about it too.

[Mac Monkey]

8-10 seems perfect for any squad and teamwork based game. Keep in mind there are guys shooting babk at you, this isn't L4D. Bullets can hit you farther than fists.

[Ranma]

After playing, I can safely say "as many players as possible". Cooperation is a big part of the gameplay and the game gets way more exciting with more players.

[braddollar]

Ranma, on 14 July 2010 - 09:21 PM, said:

After playing, I can safely say "as many players as possible". Cooperation is a big part of the gameplay and the game gets way more exciting with more players.

But as you add more rebel players wouldn't the job for the OW become increasingly difficult?

[Liamh101]

I like having 5-7 or else it gets a bit to crazy so what happens then that the hole game just gets annoying and here's no room for strategy more build build build, then just use all your troops in one place to defend, then some guy from behind and distroy you, and i'm not talking about the end of the round i'm talking more the beggining. So a small group for a calm and strategy based game

[WierdSnake]

The server owner seems to choose the player count. As Ive seen many servers such as 20 player l4d servers and 40 player killing floor servers.
So it really is the server owners decision.

[LtAttack]

WierdSnake, on 17 July 2010 - 04:38 PM, said:

The server owner seems to choose the player count. As Ive seen many servers such as 20 player l4d servers and 40 player killing floor servers.
So it really is the server owners decision.

yea the server owner can set it but there are also ways to stop that too.

i think 8-10 be good because 8 and 10 are good even numbers i would do a minimal of 4 rebals and 1 OW, and a max of 10 rebels and 1 OW player even though i think that get a bit chaotic on the OW side

[Sir Quissibell of Nargeles]

I can see a 50 man server ending in an epic zerg rush, so yeah let the owner choose how many players can join

[braddollar]

Killy, on 18 July 2010 - 09:36 AM, said:

I can see a 50 man server ending in an epic zerg rush, so yeah let the owner choose how many players can join

O.o

You'd need some kind of amazing amount of units for the OW.

[Sir Quissibell of Nargeles]

braddollar, on 18 July 2010 - 12:15 PM, said:

O.o

You'd need some kind of amazing amount of units for the OW.

Heh, just raise troops, hold out, counter attack, repeat until victory, war by attrition is my favourite tactic. But I could allways spam a crap load of metrocops, quality Vs quantity.

[braddollar]

Dude every time you took one down, there'd be ten people not doing anything to just come over and revive him lol. You'd never be able to take out that many unless they were all as retarded as a bunch of kiwi children.