suggestions noted. it does seem easier to convey in modern/realistic settings, for sure.. maybe less so in your typical quakey blocky medieval/runic map

i think that's one thing much of quake was characterised by though; the mystery of why everything is just *there*, seemingly not functioning or having any real purpose other than providing a gauntlet to run the player through. that said i do think little details like altars can compliment that effect, providing there is still an air of mystery as to why they are there... 

Good and inspiring stuff. I like all these ideas in different ways. Kinda proves the potential is there! 

~Mario/Wario/Zelda inspired monster ideas

Monsters don't go after the player but stay in their area. Some might not even have attacks but they just block the player's progression.

Monster with a shield/forcefield in front of it that damages the player if touched. So it is only attackable from behind. Basic monster in many games.

Monster with a rotating armor of some kind that has a hole in just one place (maybe 1/8 of the circumference). The player can only damage the monster by shooting through that hole (or from above?).

I also wrote "spawn creeps around and explodes" but I have no idea what that was supposed to mean.

Another piece of paper I can throw away. :-)

Also I think some faked multi-part monster could work amazing as either level decoration or boss fight. Think tentacles reaching out of holes, a scrag swarm moving in a bird-like rollercoaster path (like the Boss dragon but sucking less) or someone carefully spawning monsters or throwing things at you (not in an open space like the usual "range-attack monster on top of pillar").

Generally Quake could use some stationary monsters. If you place then interestingly and keep in mind what weapons and how much ammo is around, they would not suck. 

monster spawning monsters is not what I actually meant. Oops. 

kamikaze spawns, from behind? 

A Vore Queen!!! Wheres Kell.....
Necros? 

Also I think some faked multi-part monster could work amazing as either level decoration or boss fight.

i'd love to see a huge monster like this. ironically, there was a really cool boss in WoW called c'thun. it was huge and you only fought bits and pieces of it at a time and it could even swallow you temporarily so that you could damage it while you were in it's stomach. 

Some time ago I played an unreleased Q1SP episode by Kaiser. One of the WIP monsters was a huge blob that spat tarbabies at the player. When killed, it exploded into more tarbabies. It think they were toned down versions, though.

Or imagine a swarm of mini-tarbabies that don't do much damage when they explode individually - firecracker-style. But if they cornered you, boom. 

The mini-tarbaby thing is cool. Shame models can't be scaled...

I can imagine miniature ones combining by touching during their random bouncing to become the regular size, then, later, larger ones that are heavier (slower) but make a louder boom.

Or maybe has to be broken by damage into smaller ones, that then go boom.

Tarbaby boss?

-> Shoggoth 

That posting had some eerie QMD-feel to it. 

this http://quotes.fov120.com/?show=single&quote=631 

i like the idea of small bits being able to combine into a fullsized one. it would be cool to combine the two ideas into one.

fullsized tarbaby that breaks into maybe 3 or 4 pieces. if you don't kill the small ones, they recombine into a fullsized tarbaby again.

you could add something like lightning damage would disperse it by fully vaporizing it without any pieces or something.

if you wanted to go further, you could make it immune to shotgun and nail damage (would need to communicate this somehow like zombies) and only rockets can break it. (the small ones would be killable by normal means). 

Necros I was going to suggest something like lightning stunning it, during which time you could safely kill it without it exploding or something like that. Stop stealing my ideas you warlock >:( 

 

something like lightning stunning it, during which time you could safely kill it without it exploding or something
ohh i also like this! players who are good shots could just ignore this mechanic and blow them away quickly, but others could opt at stunning them so they can destroy them at their leisure.

T1000babies
TOTALLY what i was thinking of too. i love that scene near the end where those little globules are skittering across the floor into a heap that keeps growing ominously. 

Stunning Tbabies / daddies - wobble on the spot animation + sparks?

I don't think it'd work too well for the LG though, since that's a constant high damage weapon. Maybe if it were only whilst 'held' by the electricity and another coop player blasted it then.

Completely different game though.

In a boss context it could be a type of trap - activating a current that runs through metal plates placed in the level, the player having to lure it onto them. Maybe even make the biggest version immune to normal damage, rockets, nails and so on just bouncing off.

Making it a regular monster feature would mean making it spawnflag enabled, so all maps with tarbabies wouldn't automatically start creating minibosses. 

i think that was more along the lines of 'stop jumping around, you mother fucker', but that could just be me. ^_^; 

I was thinking that for the bigger versions - the bigger they get, the heavier they are, so can't go flubbering around the place.

I'm also thinking of Voreling style hanging spawn, maybe a wall version as well, Aliens style. 

Yeah. It could hang on the ceiling and when the player gets near, 'drips' down (upside-down jump animation) like some sort of demolition ball and explodes when he touches it. 

just to confuse the player - the pause before it starts leaping will be less predictable if they're stuck all over the place.

On the other hand, having them lie in wait and then drop on the player's head could be fun as well, nice living trap behaviour. 

of the slime monster from Duke3d that would attach to your face and you'd have to shoot them off (or kick them off? I don't remember if you could do that or not.) 

Micro-Goombas: http://www.mariowiki.com/Micro-Goomba

;) 

let's say a boss fight has two methods to defeat it. the gimmick way and the shoot it dead way. the gimmick way is not immediately obvious and must be discovered. (like telefragging shub)

so, for this example, let's imagine if it was possible to defeat shub by either shooting her or telefragging her.

easy skill: it is easy to telefrag shub but shooting her is more difficult. shooting her might be considered one skill level higher.
hard skill: it is easy to telefrag shub and shooting her is very difficult, bordering on impossible.

in both scenarios, the fight is designed to be defeated via the gimmick but the penalty for not using the gimmick is worse in harder difficulties.

should the penalty for not using the gimmick then always be death so as to not fool the player into thinking they don't need to use a gimmick? or is it better to offer this choice in lower difficulties?

or perhaps makes the gimmick the scaling value instead of the shooting option?

ie:

easy: telefragging shub is simple but shooting her is very difficult.
hard: telefragging shub is difficult, and shooting her is the same difficulty as it was on easy (very difficult)

..and my batteries are running out so i'll just post this. :P 

Scaling sounds right. Easy: telefragging Shub is 'simple', shooting her is more diffcult. Hard: telefragging her is hard, shooting her is much more difficult.

Of course it depends on other factors as well. Like the environment and if/how the boss fights back.

I tried the scaling model in my coag3 tower fights. The monsters are intended to be killed through special tricks/gimmicks, but shooting them is also possible (at the cost of a large amount of ammo). It wasn't done in a very sophisticated way, however, in terms of balancing - still they do take more damage on harder skills - and properly getting the player to realize how to gimmickill them to begin with. 

Personally I wouldn't split it. Just give the player the single path to victory with a boss fight. It must be assumed that a boss fight is going to test the player on what they already know, but with the difficulty cranked up.

In this respect, I'd say the original id1 bosses are somewhat broken since they both require a trick.

If you allow a trick then it must be very clear what it produces. Either it kills the boss dead (and is the only way to kill it) or does massive damage saving the player some time plugging away conventionally.

The worst case scenario of having a trick that kills it or being allowed to plug away for ages is that a player might do the second one for what seems like ages, then accidentally come across the trick and feel cheated for wasting all that time shooting at the thing.

Time is the most important resource of the player and they get pissed if they feel like its been stolen. Same could be said of intricate labyrinths without any guiding factor pointing to the exit, or a seemingly unfair save system.