Co-op suggestions/discussion

This is the hardest part about coop to deal with. Personally, I think it would be best if it was handled like Synergy, where the first person reaching the change entity trigger will start a timer which everyone else must reach the end before it runs out, then if everyone gets there, the map chaneg takes place immediately.
However more than that is needed. I would like to see dynamic obstacles and enemies, though this would likely be incredibly hard to implement. Essentially my idea would consist of the game actually tracking the players’ progress through each map and giving handicaps to the damage done by players based on how far ahead or behind the average they are.
If you are really far ahead of everyone else, your weapons do less damage to enemies, and crates and planks are harder to break with the crowbar. You can still progress, but that progress is hampered. If you are far behind, your damage is increased so you can break and kill things faster to catch up easier.
If this were to be implemented, I would also like to see individual enemy spawns. Essentially, if you had a point where a battle would take place, each player would provoke their own enemy spawn. This would mean that if someone reached an area first and killed all the enemies before anyone else got there, then a new enemy spawn would take place so that the people who were following behind would still be able to get some fighting in.
Of course, these enemies would need to disappear after that individual player left the general vicinity, or else you could have someone racing through, activating enemy spawns and then leaving them behind to further slow down players who were already falling behind.
Individual player based spawns would also allow players who were actually sticking together to have more enemies to deal with, allowing battles to be balanced no matter how many players you had or how well your group was(or wasn’t) sticking together.

Actually, there’s currently no problem with items and weapons transitioning from map to map. The problem is that there is no way to SAVE the progress you make. What I’d really like is if you could have a coop setting called “campaign mode” which would actually allow whoever is running the game to create a save point in which each player’s weapons, ammo, health, and progress would be recorded so that you could put the game down and pick it back up. If you had someone drop out after joining in, and then everyone else kept playing, the person who dropped out would have their individual health and ammo preserved, but the next time they joined back in, they would start at the beginning of the new map that everyone else was on, and would gain any weapons that were introduced in the previous maps (but without ammo)

I’m putting these both together because I have one solution that addresses both issues. I would like to see this implemented as a new “weapon” perhaps have it in place of where the gravity gun would normally go. The “weapon” would use primary fire to give health to other players, secondary fire would give suit charge to other players, and pressing the reload button would give ammo to whatever weapon the receiving player was holding. The “weapon” would be filled with whatever excess ammo, health, or suit chargers you came across once your own health, suit, or weapons were fully stocked. There would be limits to how much ammo, health and charge each player’s “weapon” can hold though.

Dude, did you steal this idea from one of my previous posts? 4.2 is the perfect way to do things. If an individual player needs more ammo than what is dropped standardly, then that can be taken care of through the “weapon” I specified in the previous section. With this, I would also like to see health and charge stations handled the same way.

This is pretty simple. Have all 3 suit stations active in multiplayer, but then have a new suit come up from below to restock each suit station after 1 has been taken. Sure, the 4th guy has to wait for it, but that’s still manageable. I recall it being mentioned that Black Mesa coop was planned to be designed around the idea of 4 players, but not to be fixed to that amount in any way. So people may use only 2 or 3, or may possibly use even more players. So having each of the suit stations as auto restocking themselves is pretty much the only way to do this reasonably.

I can’t even believe the 3rd idea was suggested. haven’t we learned from teh frustration of plying Decay? That is, and would be, an absolute bitch for everyone. The 2nd idea wasn’t much better, it would be an absolute bitch for the player who died. Sure it’s incentive not to die, but then there’s also no incentive to not just drop out once you’ve died. I highly recommend the first idea, where spawn points are activated throughout each map as you reach them.
It would be kinda cool if you could have the respawn time actually move faster if you clicked the mouse button repeatedly. Maybe 10 - 15 seconds if you just let it sit, but only 5 - 10 seconds if you repeatedly clicked the primary mouse button. It might help alleviate the frustration if the player finds out that their frustrated clicking IS actually making the time run down faster.

I don’t think dynamic lights should be affected by other players. that’s a lot of processing to handle all those different points of light. If I remember synergy correctly, they didn’t even show the actual spot of light from other player’s flashlights, they simply made players who had their flashlight on show up with a short area all around them slightly brighter.

I support all players reaching the level transition, and loading according to their previous position (like singleplayer, for the closest attainable gameplay immersion). This isn’t your typical multiplayer with 32 gunmen running around.

It’s acceptable that the story won’t be as consistent with multiple Gordons, but having each player drop from a predetermined spawn point gives the impression it’s another disjointed multiplayer war-game.

I like the idea of automatically balancing damage infliction to discourage one player from taking all of the glory, but this spontaneous-enemy suggestion is radically different from singleplayer, nay, from Half-Life in general. Especially if the “point man” is weakened, I don’t think there’s much difficulty keeping four or fewer people together. It would only create MORE obstacles between the harbinger and overwatch.

I have no complaints.
Considering the number of ideas cloistered together, that is equal to support. :slight_smile:

Servers can remember players, and keep track of campaign sessions. It seems only logical to remember the equipment (and statistics, if there are any) of the co-op players in the case one gets disconnected.

Individual maps, now, should ensure players always start out with at least the expected weapons and items, new to the campaign or not. You cannot go to Xen without a longjump module, and you cannot go through Unforeseen Consequences without an HEV. This makes the former-comrade-rejoining circumstance very acceptable. (New players would receive the weapons up to that map, but very limited ammunition compared to someone who was playing but had dropped.)

I don’t like the idea of armor/health coming from another player. I do like the idea of dropping ammunition based on whatever is held by whoever’s in your reticle, it makes a boatload of sense (since you wouldn’t give ammo to someone unless you can see them nice-and-close).

I do like the idea of all HEVs being in their positions…

But, if you’ll jump back to my response-before-last, I would like to mention:

  • Only one HEV-clad Gordon is required to open up the door to the next area.

When Unforeseen Consequences boots up, all players will be equipped with an HEV. They don’t need them before then. So I would like to suggest that the one suit remain as it is, and not respawn.

Although respawning suits aren’t that bad either. Really, it’s unimportant.

There’s some appeal to a significant punishment for dying. That way, one player would need to survive through the whole level to continue, which would make sense in the context of a campaign. Infinite respawns would make it too easy. (And I think peppering each map with progressive spawn points is too much work.)

Respawns, though, are still acceptable. I would like to firmly suggest the following consideration be made:

  • When a player dies, they respawn with HP that is the average of all players in the game (including themselves).
  • With 4 players, each player’s health is reduced to 3/4 of what it was (to nourish the new player). This is a reduction to (N-1)/N times the health, with a minimum value of 1/2.

I firmly believe in this respawning method.

Example:
If 1 of 4 players die, and the other 3 have 75 health, the total health is 225. The average health is right below 57. (I suggest ceil()ing in the case of health so players never spawn with 0.) The new player gets 57 health. Each player with 75 health gets 3/4 of that to compensate, which is also 57.

(If a surviving player had 50 health instead, he’d go down to 38… and another player with 100 would go down to 75. This is a proportional sacrifice from each survivor used to fuel the new body.)

@the respawning:because their are jsut 4 players and not like 16,it is a bit more tactical.so jsut respawning without a penalaty is boring;if the rest has to get a sci to the corps to revive them,that would be nice.but most likly a bitch to code

so,they could also be revived from the other players,who would lose like 25 healt for reviving someone.i like this most

or,you could just make it like in l4d,so the dead player can die 3(?) times,respawning in a locker and die after the 3 death(so no more respawning.

@the wepons( :slight_smile: ) :they should respawn,end of question

@guards/scis and other faggots:will there be guards in the coop?i mean,do you still need extra help with 4 shotgun wielding badass fps veterans?it should be disable to have guards and stuff,in sven coop they usualy just stood in your way

so my 2 cent

mad max!lololol

[COLOR=‘Blue’]Grey Acumen’s idea is the most appropriate one, IMO.

[COLOR=‘Blue’]I agree. That was quite frustrating.

[COLOR=‘Blue’]Definitely. Co-op isn’t Co-op is we can’t share anything.

[COLOR=‘Blue’]What about adding one more suit container in this room for the Co-op mode?

[COLOR=‘Blue’]Second option.

How about another color than blue :S

I only realized how much it hurts the eyes when I posted it. And now I’m too lazy to fix it. :frowning:

hmmm, just made me think… with the new forum color, all those people who used white text to make spoilers, all is lost!
[COLOR=‘black’]Time for some black spoilers now

I think you’re misunderstanding my idea a bit. I never intended for the “pointman” to be at a disadvantage, only the ones who are entirely too far ahead for other people to be able to catch up before he reaches the end of the level. If you were within sight or shooting distance of the other players, there should basically be no damage adjustment at all. Also, it would NOT be set up so that if there are 3 players, then there will be 3x the enemies at each spawn. If the first player reached the spawn ahead of everyone else, then 1 spawn would be triggered, if he dealt with them then he could keep moving. If the next 2 players showed up at that point later, then they would trigger two spawns, supposedly stragglers that came in after the first player left.
While there would be twice as many enemies as what the first player had to deal with, that doesn’t mean that all those enemies would show up at once, but that they would keep filing/warping into the area until you finally ran through twice the number of enemies. On top of this, there would be both of those 2 players to deal with these enemies. If you’ve ever played synergy, then you should know that just adding a single extra player can make enemies drop DRASTICALLY faster, and that’s not even touching on the fact that because these players are trailing behind the leading player, they’ll have a boost to the damage they deal out.

pretty much exactly my idea.

Using my “weapon” idea, you could easily have variables that disable any of the “weapon’s” features or remove it entirely, while at the same time not requiring you to learn or bind new keys. If you’re having trouble justifying the “weapon’s” existence then maybe it might feel less jarring if it was the “black mesa all-purpose restockable portable emergency kit” or “B’MARPEK” If you only wanted it to handle reloading weapons, then just play on a server in which the variables are set to only allow weapons to be reloaded, but HL2 already gave the NPCs the ability to give you health as well as ammo, so I don’t see why it would seem strange for you to be able to give other players excess health or suit power that you picked up. Heck, that’s an integral part of team play, and of course it would depend on you being a stronger player as well, since you would only be able to add suitpower, health and ammo to the “B’MARPEK” AFTER you’ve first completely filled your own personal reserves.
Also, this is integral to the idea about items drops, where each item appears individually for each person, so that no one can hog ammo or health. Since no one else can get extra ammo, health or suit power, the only way to help a weaker player to keep up is for stronger players to give extra health and ammo they’ve picked up. to be completely fair though, this really needs to be done at the stronger player’s discretion (they were the ones putting the work into conserving their ammo and health after all)

I find the idea of players automatically being equipped with HEV suits to be jarring unless they’re already jumping in on an existing game.

Yeah, there’s SOME appeal. However if you happen to make a stupid mistake, fall off a narrow ledge and DIE right at the beginning of the level, how much fun is it going to be to have to wait for the all the other players to finish before you can get back into the thing? I don’t know about you, but I’d just drop out entirely at that point.

No.
Just no.
I understand your logic here, but this is perhaps one of the most naive ideas I’ve seen. It also highlights the fundamental problems of socialism, but that’s beside the point.
This punishes other players for one person’s lack of skill, not only that but it HOBBLES other players and makes it more likely for them to ALSO die, creating a viscious cycle where they die and steal health from other players and make it even hard for THEM to stay alive. Griefers could also use this to deliberately irritate other players.

Now what might be reasonable is that each person has 3 - 5 “lives” at the beginning of the game. Whenever you reach a respawn point, you not only activate it, but if you’ve lost lives before reaching it, it will replenish one of the lives you had lost. Obviously these shouldn’t be EXCESSIVELY placed, but 1 - 3 per map (depending on map size and difficulty) could make things much more bearable.
When you die, you respawn at either the beginning of the map, or whichever latest respawn point you’ve activated. You would have full health, and your suit power would be the average of all the other players on the map (it would not drain their suit power at all though) and you would still have whatever ammo you had when you died (though maybe give you a single ammo refill for each of your weapons, 1 grenade, 18 bullets if you only have the handgun, 50 bullets if you have the rifle, 8 shotgun shells, 1 rocket for the rocket launcher, 20 gauss gun energy charges, etc)
If you burned through all of your lives, you would have to wait until the other players finished the level, but then you would join back in with both full health, average suit power, but limited ammo. If you needed more ammo, you would have to count on other players to provide you their excess at that point.

yay, politics
(them be dangerous words 'round these parts)

Yes, it makes other players more likely to die. It’s as if every player has one full life. If your one friend dies, you both may continue to play with one half-life. . But it’s not as if it kills them, they’re still just as lethal to monsters. And more players means it’s easier to find every ounce of health in a level, while the enemies in a game are dying more rapidly and dealing no more damage than usual.

I understand your worry, though, about how harsh it can be. The loss can be pretty dramatic. I wanted to make one additional consideration (but needed to hurry my post before class):

  • I wanted to consider the same penalty, but halved for the living ones, who become M*(2N-1)/(2N).
  • So, no more than 50% of the revived’s HP is taxed from other players.
  • So players with[list][]{0, 50, 70, 90}
    become
    {53, 44 ,63, 79}
    [/*:m][/list:u]

It’s a beautiful compromise, between HP-conservation and the overwhelming advantage of respawned health. (I don’t know why anybody would prefer a 3-life method. You may as well have one life each, with 300hp.)

The idea is, in a co-op you should want to treasure the lives of your mates and want to keep them from dying. For the common good. It works great in family-sized units.[source][/SIZE]

You may say there’s still room for grievance, but with three non-hosting players I can’t see that as a huge problem. The effect is, furthermore, halved… so little Billy falling off of a cliff won’t be quite as annoying. Games with Friendly-Fire provide equal room for griefing, and are usually more enjoyable than they would be without it… since teamwork has more of an impact on what plays out.

By the way, guess what my t-shirt says today:
[COLOR=‘Red’]AN INJURY TO ONE IS AN INJURY TO ALL :awesome:
(like this logo)

Thank you for clearing this up, I did misunderstand. It’s very difficult to judge who’s far ahead in the level, so I was guessing you meant “far ahead” in score… I understood this to be that one guy who always runs ahead, is first into every room, and who takes all the kills.

You must admit, culling a leader’s effectiveness is an interesting way to promote an even distribution of action. It’s a wonderful feature but it would need to be optional.

And then the other players fight their own beasts when they get there… I’m sorry, it still seems like an un-singleplayer-like obstacle between the two groups. If we did hamper the rambo’s damage, this would never be necessary. And for my largest hesitation, it sounds like a nightmare to implement through the whole game.

I like the name, and the purpose is fine, but it would still feel like a new “weapon”. Like one of the extras added into TFC by NeoTF… it wouldn’t feel kosher. And if every server gets to modify it to their liking, which as an occasional host I like, it will confuse most everyone who plays it.

Like capitalism, you want a complex system of laws and tools to sell goods through, instead of just accepting the mutual benefits each comrade may provide. :stuck_out_tongue:

I would too, but it’s over a level transition. You’ll never notice.

That’s too much like having one-and-only-one life, with 300hp. Or quitting the game and re-joining. I don’t see the point.

And finally, jumping back to the respawn idea:
With my proposed method, should everybody be reckless and suck terribly, they may have infinite respawns… with 1hp each until health is found. If you’ve ever quicksaved with very low health, it will be like that (except you don’t come back right in the middle of a nova-prospekt combine invasion…).

Everybody here keeps their ammunition across deaths as they use it, as a single player (upon quickloading) does not lose ammunition from their alternative-future-failures.

[color=’#202020’]But seriously, Nova Prospekt, where you have to set up the turrets. I finished that section by hiding in the turret-cubby waiting for each and every soldier to walk by, quicksaving after each kill and quickloading when one got a shot off too quickly, giving me the psychic knowledge of when he’ll come by. Those turrets didn’t stand up worth shit!

A lot of these issues can be easily resolved by playing with people you know and trust. Left 4 Dead is a pretty good example of this (being four player online Co-Op), where, if someone wants, they can pretty much ruin the game for the other three players. It is this fact that has driven me away from playing L4D with random people. I only play if my friends / steam acquaintances organise a campaign. Versus mode is pretty much unbearable in any case :stuck_out_tongue: .

Judging by the amount of morons (none of you ^_^) on the forums I doubt I’d be playing with any randoms when/if the Co-Op section for BM comes out.

I stand by my previous^ suggestions. Sven Co-op seems to have done it fine for me.

Keep in mind, my idea was to also have enemy spawns increase based on the number of players. Hence with more players enemies DON’T die more rapidly.

You’re right, it’s not THAT bad, but I still can’t help that notice that the one guy now has less HP than the guy who died.

Well, i also mentioned that a new life should also give a small ammo boost, but the primary purpose is actually to get you OUT of an area that is currently killing you. Whereas a 300HP health would make it so that if you fell to your doom, you still lost everything instead of only losing ONE of your 3 or so lives.

In my experience, forcing this effect by taxing other players only fosters resentment, as the disadvantages are coming from your fellow players. In order to encourages teamwork, the disadvantages to losing teammates need to come from an external source(ie, the enemy).

You could be right. I just find that the biggest weakness that any multiplayer game has is supporting anything even approaching a decent pickup game. You either spend half your time searching for players who are actually decent and can fit into your schedule for playing together, or you spend half your time in ass crap games banging your head over how frustrating other players are. If Black Mesa is going to do co-op. I think they should take the opportunity to really push the envelope, and not just say “well, it’s as good as anything else out there, so it’s good enough” when they could be making it better.

I honestly don’t think it should be that optional. If you’re racing that far ahead, it means you’re either taking down enemies like a blur and can handle, or even welcome, having the damage you do cut down a bit, or you’re not even bothering to shoot at the enemies and just flying through the level, so it’s not even going to matter. If you just want to race through a level and forget the rest of the team, you might as well just play single player.
UNLESS it’s a RACE. Race Mode would be awesome. You could have stats based on how fast each level is completed and players can gain stats/achievements based on winning the most races or having the fastest total time, or the fastest time for an individual map section.

Not entirely true, at least if it can be implemented properly. The enemy spawn itself would simply have teh number of enemies in that spawn change dynamically based on the number of players who are within a specific distance of that spawn. It shouldn’t be much harder than placing the spawn point itself. If “Rambo” is being kept with the rest of the group, then this method of individual player based enemy spawns will simply cause a larger enemy spawn that is more like the game being scaled to give an equivalent challenge level to the larger number of players.

Sven coop had an item that allowed you to heal other players, it wasn’t hard to figure out, I just didn’t like how it only did 1 thing when it would have been more convenient to handle everything. I found Synergy’s method of simply having extra buttons to be annoying. I ended up never healing or giving ammo to anyone else, simply because I had to reach for buttons I wasn’t used to pressing, and usually in situations that I was being pressured by the enemy myself and didn’t really have time to leisurely get to the buttons I needed. There are other mods out there where servers modify the mount of health and ammo you can keep, so changing how much this will hold really isn’t that big of a deal.

yeah, the few times I have done that have not been by choice. IT SUCKS! If I have any type of older save to reload from, I usually do that instead.

Actually, that’s what I had initially wanted to do, but forgot about it as I was typing. I wanted it to be set so that at the beginning of maps and respawn points, your health and ammo would be recorded, if you got killed, you would reappear at the respawn point with the health, suit power, and ammo you had when you reached it. Much better idea than what I had put down of fully replenishing health and ammo and whatnot.

I’ve got class in five minutes, but I had to make one quick remark:

In-ter-est-ing observation… I’m going to be pondering the ramifications and outcomes if lower-than-average-healthed players are not affected.
(I will probably reply to more of that post in the future)

Also, what happens if 3 people die at once from a bad grenade bounce? :stuck_out_tongue:

Depends on the order they respawn in, and what HP any poor survivor has :lol:
The Halftax-Method: {0, 0, 0, 100} -> {25, 0, 0, 88} -> {22, 29, 0, 77} -> {20, 26, 32, 68}

Well that’s not so bad, is it? That’s the price of widespread death. One player with 100% becomes 4 players who have 146% [exceeding the expected square root of 2 (141.42%) due to ceiling at each calculation]. Keep in mind Barneys don’t have more than 35, Barneys have little human skill, and Barneys don’t able to pick up health and armour.

I’m going to propose players have to restart a level the moment the average health drops below the number of players. If any one player retains 1hp (alone), 2hp, 3hp, or 4hp, the family may keep respawning. If everybody is worked down to 1hp and somebody dies, you lose - try again.

As for my previous post, here is what would happen if we don’t punish those below average:
The Charitable-Halftax: {0, 0, 0, 100} -> {25, 0, 0, 88} -> {25, 29, 0, 77} -> {25, 29, 33, 68}

One player with 100hp becomes 4 players who have 155hp. I like this method. It’s especially noticeable in this example, as the first one to respawn is not punished… they are simply not rewarded by the additional benefits a healthier-than-thou team would provide them with.

Comrade Tiki is a strong proponent of the Charitable-Halftax approach,
where a living player’s health is not deducted to lower than the average,
where healthier players make small sacrifices to keep the family afloat,
where the overwhelming injury and death of all players is akin to defeat.

True, but with all due respect I must operate under the assumption that idea won’t come to fruition. I must do this because I recall a developer commenting that enemies will not be increased in number or difficulty (although a server-operator has the option of modifying their skill-configuration file to increase the health/damage of enemies).

Resentment… RESENTMENT!?! I resent only my inability to keep them alive… WHY couldn’t I have done better…[/size]
ahem
One resents their friends for shooting them, and this happens. One resents their friend for dying frequently in a game where you may revive their body. One also resents their friend if they are unable to reach one’s own body for revival. This is a natural part of games with close-knit players. (I almost want to avoid saying “team” to stress this aspect… You may notice me using the term “family”.)

It is difficult, or impossible, to cast the disadvantage of a friend’s death as coming from the enemy, since many of the players will have plenty of experience fighting through Black Mesa by themselves.

Continuing onto your next point about great pickup games, I am reminded of a round of Battlefield 2. I was a medic, and there was a special forces on my team. The server was not very dense… but I had joined in a squad with this man and followed him around. I followed the crap out of him, killing enemies and covering his back, and we went about whatever petty objectives were listed for that map, together as an unstoppable force. Together we were a vector of immense magnitude. When he would die, I would catch him. When we were injured, I would heal us. When it was my turn to be murdered, he would take the role of a medic and revive me. I’ve never felt such a close relationship with another player as I did that round, and it was a stranger on one map. My brother in arms and I had mastered urban combat in enemy territory, not with constant communication or microphone usage but with pure intuition as an army of two. Very rarely did we feature any true deaths with this self-support system.[/size]
Erm, what was the point here… ah, yes:
If you stick close to another player, and your life is dependent on another’s survival, you might be able to find this incredible bond. The quasinonymous nature made it all the more unlikely, but kept chatter to a bare minimum, and that usual chatter was replaced by pure determination to protect one’s comrade from harm.

I will avoid commenting on your race-mode suggestion, as it’s not my field… I play patiently and defensively.

I agree that many new buttons (as found in Synergy) let most of the convoluted features go underused. Only one feature should warrant a button, and that would probably be dropping ammunition.
SvenCoop’s medkit (a rip from TFC’s medic) was, I found, very peculiar. It didn’t mesh well while trying to incorporate things into a singleplayer campaign. The whole idea of a supportive weapon feels as if it’s borrowed from games with conflicting teams. +Use-ing another player feels less out of place, although I’m not quite sure what it should accomplish.

The whole reason I suggested the larger enemy spawns (not all at once, but such that the spawn period lasts longer in order to go through the larger number of enemies) was to have that disadvantage from the enemy. If they were to die in the middle of combat, that would leave whoever else was there to deal with the remaining enemies alone. It might not be a HUGE disadvantage, but it’d still be a disadvantage.

I totally understand where you’re coming from. I had one guy hop in a random game of Decay with me. No clue who he was, but we made HUGE progress. Eventually he left to do something else. I never saw him again. Kind of a shame, really.
Still though, just because the game mechanics I’m talking about are intended to keep games from being utterly abysmal when you have crappy teammates doesn’t mean that they will stop games from being awesome when you have good team mates.

Just meant to be a little something extra. Nothing too serious.

I think it makes complete sense for health and suit power to be covered as well. In HL2, the citizens could provide both ammo and health. Other scientists could also give you a health boost in HL1. Seems strange that other team members couldn’t do the same. It makes sense that you would be able to supply suit power as well, but not other citizens and scientists, as you have an HEV suit, but they don’t.

Wouldn’t it be physitastic if crowbarring a comrade distributed HEV power evenly between the two?
With a spark, of course… wait, the gloves do not absorb power… Nevermind then. :slight_smile:

It would’ve provided an interesting method of battery exchange. But only when the hitter has more charge.

actually, that would be interesting. Make alt fire while holding the crowbar = give health kit, and reload while holding the crowbar = give extra ammo for whatever weapon the other person is holding. I’d personally prefer to have the ability to give suit power as well, but the health and ammo are really the most important parts and give functionality that is equivalent to what has been seen in HL1 and HL2 from NPCs.

Hey, if you want intuitive, add in the “B’MARPEK” I was just offering a method by which no new buttons needed to be mapped, yet no new “weapons” needed to be added. I just said it would be interesting if you did it that way, not intuitive.

you know I really can’t imagine the main game working as a co-op. I theorised that the devs are secretly making a source version of Decay to go along, but ram destroyed all my hopes. But now I’m not so sure, it should be BM’s conspiracy theory.

I am going to go through this whole subforum and compile a short and sweet list of suggestions people have already given.

I will also try, within limits, to categorize them into several sections based on the possibility of their implementation, and try to give a comment on each of them.

Template

Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.