Co-op / play distinction

[ThatOneReaper 51]

After talking it over with Soeb, we both agree that the current table needs some work. Although we can't go back to the original layout, we can at least refine it.

 

A proposed update for the table:

 

The table wikitext stays the same. The table columns need some modified behavior.

 

A list of all the columns in the table:

• Type: Same as before
• Native: Same as before
• (NEW!) Modes supported: The way modes are currently stated are not exactly the most clear. Rather then text, why not copy the style of the DLC table OS column? Represent all supported modes with an icon.
• Players: Each game mode will have a different max players limit. Showing the overall limit and specifying other modes in the Notes section defeats the purpose of the column to begin with. Instead, put down all the max player limits for each mode (separated by commas), and use an internal layout to present the values

 

Ex. 16, 4, 8 becomes

16 (Versus)
4 (Co-op)
8 (Hotseat)

• Notes: Same as before

 

Thoughts?

[Guest]

I don't know, what does it actually look like on an article? I still don't understand what the main change is all about, I'm really confused for the most part.

 

I'm not sure how to really help, this is probably one of those things you guys have to figure out by yourselves.

[Mirh 103]

Specification sum up for Network table

 

Some ideas of the yesterday discussion on IRC. With "Type" I'm going to distinguish between different attitudes of playing (coop/versus/whatever). "Mode" is going to refer to each different kind of set of game rules (eg: Search&Destroy, Deatmatch, "Free" mode)

Network table should ideally be able to:

• Differentiate between types.

ThatOneReaper would just like to enumerate maximum number of players for each either versus and coop. This value is the one of the game mode with the higher number of player, or the most "normally" (like in common I believe) used.

Personally, I think there might be the risk to write too much useless information with this, but I even see his point.

You'd like to know if Left 4 Dead Survival mode can be played by as many player as Versus, in the same way as you'd like to know game video settings.

But how to claim which type every mode is? For example, team deatmatch is not difficult to catalog as "Versus".. but what about Left 4 Dead Versus? You can be both against and together computer, and against or together with different players.

What about "free" modes like in GTA:SA (thinks more or less to DAY-Z)?

 

Given his idea is a bit too.. liable to personal opinions, I had another idea. Hopefully I won't set off hell, but I'd say we need some way to list every mode.

• Complete range for number of players.

Not only maximum one, Marioysikax suggested that even minimum number of players is something that could be informative (and indeed, sometimes matches just refuse to start below a given number of players)

Speaking of which, what about those games like call of duty (officially 32 or 64 player, can't remember) that can have them extended up to a hundred and more?

• Incorporating shared modes between connection methods.

Most of times LAN, online (and sometimes even local) modes are basically the same, and repetitions tend to be very frequent. "Merging" common one would streamline this.

 

EDIT: I now remember Marioysikax gabbled something about Evolve and the number of its player (or its modes).. but I don't know what's special in that game

[Pilzsuppe 4]

As I said in IRC, I like the second solution the most. It's easy to understand and edit, and doesn't require looking it up or fiddling around with it.

[Mirh 103]

Actually the last option seems the one easier to understand.
I mean.. it's probably the more "verbose" but separated field helps defining arguments.
 
Back to hard stuff.. yeah, I know it's easier said than done.
Anyway, I'm not going to abandon the utopic ideas train d:
 
Putting aside the graphical implementation (collapsible classes can fix the world), what if we had something as simple as

 

 

Ok after some brainstorming I realized I really wouldn't know how to implement "hackable" concept so that somebody would be able to tell if it's referred to player number, the game mode itself, the whole local/lan connectivity or else.

 
Regards
a failed philosopher
 
Last but not least, I couldn't understand your point versus vs co-op.
Assuming you was implying co-op is when you are against computer, this still doesn't mean you can't sneak other human players.
And just because you are in a open world game (with no primary objectives perhaps) I don't see why you couldn't kill NPCs.
I'd say the boundary between games like GTA:SA and DAY-Z is pretty slim.
 
EDIT: deleted

[Mirh 103]

And while I'm the one doing the implementing, it better be a damn good idea for me to be convinced.

 

The idea you're proposing sounds odd, to be honest. I have no idea how do you imagine that might be handled - is that supposed to be "campaign mode works in local/lan/online" and so on? Either way, doubtful that's doable in a working way.

 

Quite simple. Team deathmatch is not co-op, it's versus. Open world is not co-op, it is versus (though I guess we could just make it into it's own category, but why?).

That was before I realized my ideal world has something to notice the reader that the specific number of players is hackable.

So, well, I'm just hoping for an epiphany to come

 

God no, open world means really nothing. I just wanted to point out how I couldn't find a proper borderline

[Guest]

I could get a better idea if I saw what they actually looked like, otherwise I don't know what to say. It's too much of a wild guess in my mind as I don't really understand what you guys are doing anyway.

 

Like I honestly was okay with the way the template was setup before. It seemed perfect to me. The second one just looks dumb to edit but I don't know, as I said I'd rather just rollback to the old design.

[Guest]

As to the appearance, it will be the same for all three:

A column with type icons, hovering shows the number of players. This is to keep the size down.

 

Why exclusively hide the play numbers in a tooltip? You could, in theory, supplement this by making it such that only the type and native fields are always shown, and allow the user to un-hide the remaining fields. That way, it keeps it brief while allowing the user to decide how much detail they want. I believe it could look something like this when fully expanded. (I'd have added the tooltips, but the way PCGamingWiki does it is different than Semantic MediaWiki's default, and I'm unable to find documentation for the former.)

[Mirh 103]

Ok. Another mind twist.
 
Is there any game where LAN and online modes differs?  provided LAN is supported in the first place of course
Which might imply: could they be merged?      and LAN be moved to a.. boolean property?
 
And then speaking of this boolean property: may self-hosting and LAN be different words for the same concept?

Or better: is a game where self-hosting is true always a game where LAN is supported, and viceversa?

[Guest]

Ok. Another mind twist.

 

Is there any game where LAN and online modes differs?  provided LAN is supported in the first place of course

Which might imply: could they be merged?      and LAN be moved to a.. boolean property?

 

And then speaking of this boolean property: may self-hosting and LAN be different words for the same concept?

Or better: is a game where self-hosting is true always a game where LAN is supported, and viceversa?

Every game where LAN is used inherently has differing LAN and online modes. The "why" is due to the reason LAN and online are separated in the first place: LAN typically can be played offline, but always with multiple players, each on their own computer, over a local area network (LAN), not a MAN (Metropolitan Area Network) or a WAN (Wide Area Network). Anyone outside the network is unable to connect since the LAN games expect internal connections. Online, while similar, means the players can all be on separate networks, yet still play with each other.

 

In regards to your question on the connection between self-hosting and LAN, not so if the game uses P2P. Self-hosting requires one user to be able to create a non-dedicated server - that is, be a host who is also a player - while everyone else are just players. P2P means ALL players host and play the game. Small differences, but important ones.

[Mirh 103]

Every game where LAN is used inherently has differing LAN and online modes. The "why" is due to the reason LAN and online are separated in the first place: LAN typically can be played offline, but always with multiple players, each on their own computer, over a local area network (LAN), not a MAN (Metropolitan Area Network) or a WAN (Wide Area Network). Anyone outside the network is unable to connect since the LAN games expect internal connections. Online, while similar, means the players can all be on separate networks, yet still play with each other.

I'm not asking if LAN is different from online.

I'm wondering whether there are games out there where LAN is supported and you can't play on it some online modes (or viceversa)

 

Besides, it's not like servers which can accept both lan and wan connections don't exist.

In regards to your question on the connection between self-hosting and LAN, not so if the game uses P2P. Self-hosting requires one user to be able to create a non-dedicated server - that is, be a host who is also a player - while everyone else are just players. P2P means ALL players host and play the game. Small differences, but important ones.

Imo, self hosting just means you can host a game. Example: Battlefield 2 is a game where you can. Battlefield 4 is a game where you can not. 

Dedicated or non-dedicated doesn't matter.

 

I mean, it's not like you can't also join your own dedicated server.

[Guest]

Did you guys ever manage to come up with an agreement on this?