Posted: 01-06-05 In: Interviews By: Munro2 |


Today we speak to the project leader of the impressive looking Operation: CO-IN modification for the Half-Life 2 engine.

Halflife2.net: First do you mind introducing yourself and your role?

Argyll: I am Argyll: the Project Leader and Founder of Operation: CO-IN. I also design/maintain the website, map, 2D Art, and any other jobs that need filling in.

Halflife2.net: Could you describe your mod in a short sentence?

Argyll: Op: CO-IN is based on Modern Infantry Combat, primarily the Sub-Conventional warfare between a Paramilitary or Guerrilla unit and a larger and more high-tech Nation (such as the USA or Great Britain).

Halflife2.net: You mention on your site that it is set in modern times (post 1945). Do you have any plans on including events and actions from these earlier years? (Pre 1970s, say)?

Argyll: That is a possibility, but the primary focus is around the last decade and a few years into the future.

Halflife2.net: You mention that realism will be a major focus of the mod... could you give an example of the trade offs that you are making between that and game play?

Argyll: Game play is also a very important aspect along with realism in the mod. How we envision the game play is to have a high replayability factor and promotion of teamwork. We will not sacrifice fun or other essential game play elements for the sake of 'realism.'

Halflife2.net: But to what extent will the mod be realistic?

Argyll: When we say 'realism,' we are referring to the style of game play rather then the features commonly associated to a 'realistic' game such as Iron Sights or weapon damage. We will include those features, but also the promotion of Teamwork along with objectives that would be seen in an actual combat scenario (i.e. capturing certain ground or structures instead of flags or other items seen in most games). We will encourage teamwork and real tactics as much as possible in order to create a 'realistic' experience in a game.

Halflife2.net: How will the different nations "packs" integrate and affect the game? What purpose do they serve?

Argyll: Myself being Canadian, I am tired of always having to play as the Americans in games. So, we are developing a system where players will be able to customize their team to appear as they are playing as a soldier from their nation. We plan on adding additional nations in the future. For the first release, we will have the U.S.M.C., British Royal Marines, a Paramilitary Force, and Guerrillas. We plan for the future: Canada, Russia, Australia, and Germany.

Halflife2.net: So will some players see themselves as American, and some as Canadians?

Argyll: That is correct, but they will still be able to play in the same game at the same time.

Halflife2.net: Will someone who is playing as the USMC see the other players as USMC players, even if they see other players as Canadians?

Argyll: If a player would like to play as USMC, they will see all that team as the USMC. If a player wants to play as Canadians, they will see all that team as Canadians.

Halflife2.net: Will this have an affect on weapon selection and effects?

Argyll: The weapons will have general characteristics that are similar with multiple weapons. A British SA-80A2 is a Full-Automatic, 30 round, 5.56mm Rifle with a scope; the Canadians use the C7A1 which has the same characteristics.

Halflife2.net: Your mod seems similar to America's Army: Operations could you describe how OP: CO-IN differs from it?

Argyll: I find it actually hard to compare the two. At first glance, they do seem similar, but the details are quite different.
1. AA:O you are always the Americans, no matter what team you are on. We are having separate teams.
2. More realistic objectives in Op: CO-IN.
3. We are more based on the Infantry, but AA:O does concentrate greatly on Special Operations.
4. We will include more nations than just America, to appeal to a broader audience.
5. Vehicles transportation including Truck, Jeep, APC, and Helicopters.
Those are just the main points. The overall style and way that it is played we intend to be much different.

Halflife2.net: Well, many of those differences you mentioned seemed like cosmetic differences, such as the different nations. Will these differences provide a major difference in game play? Also, what do you mean by more realistic objectives?

Argyll: Realistic objectives are more like what the Infantry would do. For example, instead of having to rescue hostages, or reaching one point, or capturing a flag... you have to work more as a team rather than an individual to gain control of certain areas of a given map. This could be anything from a single, but large, building (apartments, government, etc.), to a city block, or a small town/village.

There can be multiple objectives on the maps as well. But, not only just capturing and holding areas... the Guerrillas will need to rely on weapons caches in order to resupply, so that becomes another priority in order to win.

Halflife2.net: Your "Squad based Teams" feature interests me. Could you describe how it will work?

Argyll: We are modeling the teams around a Platoon. There will be a Platoon Commander that will co-ordinate the different Squads. They are basically there to have a general picture of the battle and how the team should carry out the mission. There will be Squads of 8 soldiers. Two fire teams of 4 within that Squad and controlled by a Commander. They will take orders from the Commander and carry them out as the situation determines. We believe that this Squad based system will be ideal for clan and League play.

Halflife2.net: These systems sound ideal for clan play, but how do you foresee it will hold up on public servers?

Argyll: We realize that this ideal will not always work out in a Pub server, but the overall objectives of the map will require the necessary teamwork. Objectives will require a minimum of 4 soldiers to be in the designated area for a certain amount of time. So, if the members of the team are looking to win, they should use this system to their advantage.

Halflife2.net: Sounds good in theory, but I’m still not convinced. I've played a lot of online games in my time, and it strikes me that the majority are playing to be the highest in the scoreboard. There will of course be a great following of team play lovers I’m sure, but have you any plans to help enforce team play over personal frag count?

Argyll: We are aware of that, because even I'm guilty of pursuing a high kill count in DoD. However, we plan to not have stats (kills, deaths, etc.) while the player is alive. What we are going to do is have either round-based games or very few reinforcement waves (map determined) and once the round is over or the player has been eliminated for good, the stats will be available to them, so they can evaluate their performance.

Halflife2.net: Excellent, I was hoping for something along those lines. Best of luck to you and your team. Well, I don't have any further questions, do you have anything you'd like to say in closing Argyll?

Argyll: I would just like to thank the Op: CO-IN Dev. Team... they are absolutely outstanding! They can pull off great quality work and meet the deadlines. Also, would like to thank our very dedicated Community on the Forums (http://forums.opcoin.net) and GameSurge IRC Channel: #opcoin.

We are also hiring positions in the following areas: Map Prop Modelers, Vehicle Modelers and Skinners, 1 Weapon Skinner, Mappers, and of course... Programmers. More details can be found at our website: www.opcoin.net.

We would like to thank Argyll for taking time out to give us this interview and wish  the Operation: CO-IN team good luck in the future.