Well, again, I think it sounds great on paper but won't work in real gameplay. But go ahead, it'll be fun to code at least. 

When's the last time you thought in a modern game 'Why are the monsters following me so well, they don't need to!' 

I can't remember the last time I thought a monster had really great path finding. Generally things either go down quickly or they hunker down behind cover and I need to flush them out.

Maybe it's my play style ... I tend to kill things rather than try to get past them and have them follow me. 

And Quake's minions do go down quickly, but its leaving the options open for more open play styles.

Example:
Having an empty map with only a Shambler in it and an unarmed player. Since even allowing an axe would let some players (Sielwolf) break the progression. They have to run around the level escaping until the 1/3 point at which they find a weapon and a load more monsters spawn in.

Even if that setup or similar never happens (I'm planning on something like that for e3m7rq) the benefits of improved AI will still be seen in the rest of the levels that don't exploit the feature.

AI in modern games tends to be cut down (fuzzy completion date, lots of debugging needed) although still better on the whole than what Quake has. The luxury we have in RMQ is that we can spend the time on these kinds of details. 

"The luxury we have in RMQ is that we can spend the time on these kinds of details."

Eh, what you call luxury others might call a lack of focus. :) Not starting a fight, just saying - different goals, different methods. 

But all depends on the design goals ;) 

Explanation of thought process is a weakness in the project.

They who march to a different beat. 

well, your example above is pretty specific and would definitely fall under the category of gimmick map (this isn't a bad thing, even though 'gimmick' has negative connotations, the idea sounds pretty cool). what i'm saying though is that something like that should just be scripted up in a simpler way instead of building a 'robust' system for only 1 or 2 maps.
it's a waste of resources. 

Gimmick is just a label. There are no bad ideas, only ideas badly done.

A robust sytem will work under a specific idea that I thought of when putting it together in my head, but it'll definately work for others.

Scripting doesn't exist in Quake, so I'd like to remove such a need.

I understand where the objections are coming from, but would like to remove the need for them to be made in the first place.

We're adding flexibility and adaptivity to the game. The only valid objection might be 'but you spoiled it!' which is pretty much invalid ... por hecho. By existing?

Those who don't like what we're doing can play the original game. Those who wanted something else from a remake project can do their own one.

<shrug> 

You can obviously work on whatever you like, no objections there. I just take issue with your defense of spending time on something that nobody except you will ever notice because it takes time away from other things.

In a hobbyist environment, that's fine I suppose, since you don't have to ever ship really. You can work on it indefinitely.

I just find it hard to think that way anymore after 10+ years of making retail games. I can't reconcile spending time on a feature/content that nobody will notice. 

Oh, and this:

"There are no bad ideas, only ideas badly done."

Is flat out wrong. Please. :) 

Yeah I agree. There are most definitely bad ideas.

"Hey let's play Russian roulette!" is not an idea done badly, it's just a bad idea. 

PlanetQuake Neharah page is dead: where can I get Neharah pack and tutorial for mapping ? 

I disagree that nobody will notice the AI enhancement discussed - monsters that don't wander in circles underneath you but instead navigate to your position, or can follow you across a map is a noticeable feature.

Ok, bad ideas do exist. 

@JPL: The Nehahra pack should still be downloadable from Quaddicted (http://www.quaddicted.com/). 

"I disagree that nobody will notice the AI enhancement discussed - monsters that don't wander in circles underneath you but instead navigate to your position, or can follow you across a map is a noticeable feature. "

Not to belabor this too much longer, but the point is that you'll never be watching that unless you're out of ammo and the monster is in your way. Otherwise, the monster would be dead. 

 

 

Oh come on. You know anyone who tries to trick monsters and have them hunt you instead of just blasting them? I have serious doubts. 

Well IF monsters behave differently then so does the player - the reason you play the way you do is because of the current monster behavior, but if that were suddenly to change in drastic ways then I would imagine the player would adapt his/her play style to the new monster behavior as well. If monsters are likely to seek me out now, perhaps I can use that to sneak by them (they notice me, so run up the stairs to where I'm at, but then I drop down to the stash of items they were guarding) without a fight. Or lure them into a squishy floor and then push the button. Or whatever other different things you can do with monster behavior. 

This discussion is killing my brain. :) You'd have to redesign the entire game for that to happen. You can't just give the monsters this new seeking behavior and then expect that players will suddenly start sneaking around and tricking monsters. Rocket to the face, done. 

Thanks ! I'll check Quaddicted !! 

That was merely an example (you should know that!) The point being new behavior alters the player's reactions. And yes, new behavior would mean changing the game. 

ijed : I think you should do whatever you please. It's up to you how you spend your time, so don't let others dissuade you from your vision. On the other hand, there are a grand many things in Quake coding (i.e. complex navigation routing) which are much easier in theory than in practice. 

I'm more designing than coding it - on that side I'll be support. Which means I have to be extra certain its not a waste of time.

I tend to be pretty hard-headed about a design I believe in - I've seen too much stuff go to pot because the leadership (or design ideals) weren't there to keep the game design clean.