Time and again, it has been suggested that certain map packs that we haven't reviewed are only really suitable for coop play (Zora's and TentacleHunter's maps, for example).
What this suggests to me is that, were they to be reviewed on a single player basis, they could score very poorly on gameplay and/or story, which might not really be fair as they were never really intended to be played that way in the first place.
But does that mean that they shouldn't still be reviewed here in some form?
This is the idea that I had this morning: Coop reviews. Essentially, we arrange an UnrealSP.Org coop game using one of the packs in question, and then two of the players review their coop experience. I would suggest that each review should involve at least one experienced coop player to assess the gameplay, and one player who is less familiar with the maps (who wouldn't need to know a lot about coop) to assess the other aspects of the design and contribute their first impressions of the gameplay experience. The review could then be written jointly, possibly taking the form of a discussion / dialogue between the two reviewers.
Such a pattern of reviewing would require an alternate schema. I would imagine that most coop-only maps don't major on story, so the two story scores could be ditched in favour of an expanded gameplay section, for example Gameplay Awe / Combat Balance / Inventory Provision / Coop Layout (the latter point covering such areas as opportunities for strategic team play and appropriate provision for respawning players to ensure that they don't get left behind).
This represents an idea, rather than a commitment of time on my part, at this stage - although I would be interested to participate in at least one or two of these reviews to take the "build" role, should the idea catch on. I would welcome any thoughts / counter-suggestions.
Discussion: Coop reviews
- Hellscrag
- Founder
- Posts: 4007
- Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 19:14
- Location: In a random access memory of dreams
- IronMonkey
- Skaarj Scout
- Posts: 17
- Joined: 18 Jan 2010, 23:20
- Contact:
Subject:
Post Posted: 27 Feb 2010, 12:14
Plus we would have to have a co-op session! Oh dear!
I think it sounds like a reasonable prospect but I know from BuF that it can sometimes be difficult getting everyone together on a suitable server at the same time.
I think there is a lot of crossover between the SP and co-op playerbase. There is an argument for saying that the standard review scheme could note the suitability for co-op play of SP maps without necessarily being a full-blown review of the map from a co-op perspective.
I suppose you would need to limit the scope of material that you were willing to review (or maybe not) otherwise you would end up reviewing MH maps. Some of those have a near SP-like experience (especially if played co-op).
I think it sounds like a reasonable prospect but I know from BuF that it can sometimes be difficult getting everyone together on a suitable server at the same time.
I think there is a lot of crossover between the SP and co-op playerbase. There is an argument for saying that the standard review scheme could note the suitability for co-op play of SP maps without necessarily being a full-blown review of the map from a co-op perspective.
I suppose you would need to limit the scope of material that you were willing to review (or maybe not) otherwise you would end up reviewing MH maps. Some of those have a near SP-like experience (especially if played co-op).
- ividyon
- Administrator
- Posts: 2354
- Joined: 12 Nov 2007, 14:43
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
Subject:
Post Posted: 27 Feb 2010, 15:05
There's the questions of finding a game host, a suitable time for all reviewers and finding a way to accomodate reviewers from different time zones both time-wise and latency-wise. However I'm all for dialogue-type collaboration reviews.
I'd volunteer as server host, however you must consider that I would be hosting from my home connection (16MBit down/1MBit up) and off my own PC. This might be a problem especially for non-European players, considering that one co-op session I hosted... but then again, my PC performance is vastly superior from that time, and I won't make the mistake of messing around with playerpawn settings and lagging the whole thing to hell twice.
I'd volunteer as server host, however you must consider that I would be hosting from my home connection (16MBit down/1MBit up) and off my own PC. This might be a problem especially for non-European players, considering that one co-op session I hosted... but then again, my PC performance is vastly superior from that time, and I won't make the mistake of messing around with playerpawn settings and lagging the whole thing to hell twice.
- Shivaxi
- Gilded Claw
- Posts: 1916
- Joined: 24 Jun 2008, 19:51
- Location: Behind You! =P
- Contact:
Subject:
Post Posted: 27 Feb 2010, 16:02
I don't mind hosting. I run several servers and the oldunreal master server. My upload is 2 GB, so ping isn't a problem for Europeans. They usually get just over a 100 ping on my server, with U.S. players around 40 ping.
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/9950/shivavatar2.jpg
Waffnuffly: If there is any purpose for the god damned ocean, it is for us to eat it.
Jet_v4.3.5: I want to be Lincoln and kick Satan's ass. Emancipate and Proclimate on his ass.
Waffnuffly: If there is any purpose for the god damned ocean, it is for us to eat it.
Jet_v4.3.5: I want to be Lincoln and kick Satan's ass. Emancipate and Proclimate on his ass.
- Shivaxi
- Gilded Claw
- Posts: 1916
- Joined: 24 Jun 2008, 19:51
- Location: Behind You! =P
- Contact:
Subject:
Post Posted: 27 Feb 2010, 16:31
That is Zombies server...not my server....I actually know how to set it up right.
And I can also run a UT server for UT only map packs as well.
And I can also run a UT server for UT only map packs as well.
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/9950/shivavatar2.jpg
Waffnuffly: If there is any purpose for the god damned ocean, it is for us to eat it.
Jet_v4.3.5: I want to be Lincoln and kick Satan's ass. Emancipate and Proclimate on his ass.
Waffnuffly: If there is any purpose for the god damned ocean, it is for us to eat it.
Jet_v4.3.5: I want to be Lincoln and kick Satan's ass. Emancipate and Proclimate on his ass.
- Jet v4.3.5
- Skaarj Elder
- Posts: 1247
- Joined: 24 Dec 2007, 17:40
- Contact:
Subject:
Post Posted: 27 Feb 2010, 16:46
Well, optionally, one could theoretically host two servers on one server. One could accommodate for one time zone expanse, and another would host those who lived on another group of time zones. Generally, you begin hosting the servers in general at the appropriate times, then people who are notified prior to the server run could all join immediately after a the server, and in turn, the pack itself, has begun. Just announce it some time before the server is launched, include the time when the server will begin for each group of time zones, and then people who really want to join can establish that before you begin then they can join without the announcement being last-minute. As for the host, I'm not available and I have no information on anyone who would be willing to host these particular sessions, so that would be up to the masses and anyone contained within that group to step up for the occasion when USP desires a coop review session.
- jackrabbit
- Skaarj Elder
- Posts: 1014
- Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 21:23
Subject:
Post Posted: 27 Feb 2010, 17:22
I think its a great idea. I would also suggest a re-review of Skaarj Tower - Shadow and Fire for the "coop" section of the reviews. I feel that that those 2 maps really shouldn't be played alone offline and are definitely a co-op based scenario.
- Hellscrag
- Founder
- Posts: 4007
- Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 19:14
- Location: In a random access memory of dreams
Subject:
Post Posted: 27 Feb 2010, 18:08
jackrabbit wrote:I think its a great idea. I would also suggest a re-review of Skaarj Tower - Shadow and Fire for the "coop" section of the reviews. I feel that that those 2 maps really shouldn't be played alone offline and are definitely a co-op based scenario.
I think reviewing unreviewed maps would be the priority, but I would consider doing supplementary reviews of already reviewed packs under the "Coop Reviews" section. These would be supplementary rather than replacement reviews, and would probably be expected to be consistent with the main review in terms of the build (i.e. only the gameplay would be assessed for the coop review, with the rest of the scores being the same as the main review).
Life is what you make of it.
- Mister_Prophet
- Red Nemesis Leader
- Posts: 3099
- Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 23:30
- Location: Lost in Oraghar
Subject:
Post Posted: 27 Feb 2010, 22:09
The way I see it, we've already reviewed one pack that was tailor made for COOP over SP. It was called Zephon.
I think it's an okay idea in theory as long as the approach is different for what we would do for a SP. For instance, in our reviews we never cover the COOP aspect of a pack....and nearly all of them are capable of being played on COOP. If people are serious about doing this it would probably be less of a review kinda thing and more of an informal session summary, wouldn't it? Obviously we could start with COOP-specific mappacks that haven't gotten reviewed. But once started, I don't see why this wouldn't extend to all the mappacks on the site (granted they are COOP capable). Basically, what I'm saying is...if USP does this then it might as well acknowledge COOP gameplay as a whole. It will require a whole new schema and a standard for critique (since playability and general fun become the whole of the experience), depending on how serious we want to get.
EDIT: As I write this, I understand that COOP can often be added as an afterthought to many packs and maps, so there would be the potential for a high variance between how a pack might have been reviewed SP-wise as opposed to COOP.
I think it's an okay idea in theory as long as the approach is different for what we would do for a SP. For instance, in our reviews we never cover the COOP aspect of a pack....and nearly all of them are capable of being played on COOP. If people are serious about doing this it would probably be less of a review kinda thing and more of an informal session summary, wouldn't it? Obviously we could start with COOP-specific mappacks that haven't gotten reviewed. But once started, I don't see why this wouldn't extend to all the mappacks on the site (granted they are COOP capable). Basically, what I'm saying is...if USP does this then it might as well acknowledge COOP gameplay as a whole. It will require a whole new schema and a standard for critique (since playability and general fun become the whole of the experience), depending on how serious we want to get.
EDIT: As I write this, I understand that COOP can often be added as an afterthought to many packs and maps, so there would be the potential for a high variance between how a pack might have been reviewed SP-wise as opposed to COOP.
- Jet v4.3.5
- Skaarj Elder
- Posts: 1247
- Joined: 24 Dec 2007, 17:40
- Contact:
Subject:
Post Posted: 27 Feb 2010, 22:27
That reminds me, Proph, Seven Bullets was suposedly Coop, and there was like, 1 online pic I saw on your site, but I could never get it to work at all. Were there any settings you need to have in particular, namely for a LAN game, or was the Coop aspect a fail? Generally, I and anyone else on my network cannot even join a server with 7B, and no errors appear that I can see. Also, I tried the batch file included, but no dice whatsoever.
- Mister_Prophet
- Red Nemesis Leader
- Posts: 3099
- Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 23:30
- Location: Lost in Oraghar
Subject:
Post Posted: 28 Feb 2010, 03:25
jetv435 wrote:That reminds me, Proph, Seven Bullets was suposedly Coop, and there was like, 1 online pic I saw on your site, but I could never get it to work at all. Were there any settings you need to have in particular, namely for a LAN game, or was the Coop aspect a fail? Generally, I and anyone else on my network cannot even join a server with 7B, and no errors appear that I can see. Also, I tried the batch file included, but no dice whatsoever.
7B COOP is a bit twitchy.
- jackrabbit
- Skaarj Elder
- Posts: 1014
- Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 21:23
Subject:
Post Posted: 02 Mar 2010, 21:09
Has there been a time and place set yet for this event? I'm assuming Zora's mappack would be first on the list. It is compatible with UT and OldSKool using this 3rd party mod: http://zzora.altervista.org/ZORADAT.zip (this file somehow makes Zoras maps compatible with UT).
I haven't tested it yet though so I can't be certain that it works like it should.
That seems fine to me. Kinda seems odd though that there could potentially be 2 reviews for the same pack on the same site on 2 different sections though....
I haven't tested it yet though so I can't be certain that it works like it should.
Hellscrag wrote:...doing supplementary reviews of already reviewed packs under the "Coop Reviews" section. These would be supplementary rather than replacement reviews, and would probably be expected to be consistent with the main review in terms of the build...
That seems fine to me. Kinda seems odd though that there could potentially be 2 reviews for the same pack on the same site on 2 different sections though....
Last edited by jackrabbit on 02 Mar 2010, 21:13, edited 2 times in total.
- Hellscrag
- Founder
- Posts: 4007
- Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 19:14
- Location: In a random access memory of dreams
Subject:
Post Posted: 02 Mar 2010, 21:11
jackrabbit wrote:Has there been a time and place set yet for this event? I'm assuming Zora's mappack would be first on the list. It is compatible with UT and OldSKool using this 3rd party mod: http://zzora.altervista.org/ZORADAT.zip (this file somehow makes Zoras maps compatible with UT).
I haven't tested it yet though so I can't be certain that it works like it should.
This is only a discussion thread. No decision has been made yet.
Life is what you make of it.
- jackrabbit
- Skaarj Elder
- Posts: 1014
- Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 21:23
Subject:
Post Posted: 02 Mar 2010, 21:17
Hellscrag wrote:This is only a discussion thread. No decision has been made yet.
A bit confused about this decision making process. Do you mean make the decision whether or not to have a public co-op session with the potential for a full server, or the decision whether to have the session at all?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests