Portal 2

Portal 2

Excellent Partnership 4 - Assembly
< >
Deputy Dog Dec 1, 2016 @ 11:22pm 
I have no problem with forced deaths as long as that requirement is spelled out in the map description. Otherwise one could spend inordinate amounts of time trying to solve the map without dying as one would expect to normally be the case. Fortunately I read a few comments ahead of time and knew self-destruction was a requirement.
Elenesski Jul 25, 2015 @ 1:56pm 
Played it gave it a thumbs down because to solve it you have to die a lot :(
TS_Mind_Swept Jan 31, 2015 @ 9:39pm 
I found you're map where we're supposed to die, and even though it was the solution many times, its still a better map than the rest. :p 8/10
wildgoosespeeder  [author] Jun 8, 2014 @ 9:08pm 
Laser issues fixed.
p0rtalthumper Jun 4, 2014 @ 1:03am 
Well, a part of me (under your influence) says that there has to be some good puzzle out there that requires death, but another part of me says that voluntary death is too unnerving (nothing to fear though). It can also be quite punishing under certain circumstances.

Anyway, judging by the ratings, it looks like most players actually like the concept, so congratulations.
wildgoosespeeder  [author] Jun 3, 2014 @ 10:35pm 
Also remember that sacrificing a cube isn't required either in the official maps.

Trust is one of the themes in the official coop campaign. Committing robotic suicide is an extension of existing knowledge of how coop works, which is putting a lot of faith and trust in a lot of things, including your partner. Also remember that GLaDOS will kill the robots on command. Death should not be feared if you are a robot. That is what the campaign has taught me. Ever accidently killed your partner and laughed?

Ultimately, I realized that my map hasn't mixed well with some people but others find it fine so to make matters better, I never revisited the concept.
p0rtalthumper Jun 3, 2014 @ 8:34pm 
You have some valid points, but consider this: in any of Valve's maps, killing yourself is never a requirement. It seems even GLaDOS abhors it (and even threatens to disable to disassemblers; then there's the Art Therapy course...). If it's done automatically under certain circumstances in a Hammer map (e.g. the final maps in coop courses 1-4), I might say it's OK, but that's the only legitamite case I can think of.
So again: players should never have to voluntarily kill themselves. If a non-player is killing the robots it's fine, but otherwise, it's rather unnerving.

...and now that I think about it, I wonder how a coop map where you have to kill your partner (instead of yourself) would work out... >:D
wildgoosespeeder  [author] Jun 3, 2014 @ 3:42pm 
Have you seen Aperture? They are wasteful! I think purposely breaking robots isn't that big of a deal since they are very willing to allow you as a human to get yourself killed.

How do you get trapped?
wildgoosespeeder  [author] Jun 3, 2014 @ 3:42pm 
Think about what you are saying p0rtalmaster. GLaDOS doesn't understand humor nor sarcasm (as far as I can tell). Then again, "I was in it for the science." Not so much the story or dialog

Google "define consequence". It's not like single player where death means you forfeit your chance to solve because you are human. For robots, they aren't people. The way the game works, no progress is lost if any of you die. I'm just taking advantage of that. I played a few coop maps that were designed by camerson1313 that deal with this sort of thing and they are really interesting how he uses this mechanic. There is only one "you" and hundreds of robots.

It's OK to sacrifice cubes and kill turrets but not coop robots? Then again, this is just an idea to think about coop-ing with robots differently.
p0rtalthumper Jun 3, 2014 @ 3:27pm 
I'm pretty sure when GLaDOS said, "How is this even Science without the consequence of death?" she was being sarcastic. Penalty or not, coop or not, suicide shouldn't be a part of the solution. In fact there's an equivalent of the laserfield trapping incident in this test (both chambers).
The bottom line: players should never have to voluntarily kill themselves.
moneykid Dec 29, 2013 @ 2:10pm 
wildgoosespeeder  [author] Feb 12, 2013 @ 5:45pm 
I wish I had an in-game, non-hammer entity that can reposition portals to line up better, kind of like some of the official Valve test chambers.

That is the point of this puzzle. The robots are disposable and no penalty for death unlike single player puzzles. This is similar to some test chambers on the workshop where you have to sacrifice the cube to proceed by obtaining a new one (Mevious's Cache and Azorae's Entanglement for example). The first room is for "training" the concept. In fact, at minimum, a total of three deaths are required for solving this test chamber (both sections combined).
Necromantic Feb 12, 2013 @ 1:08am 
Lazer issues like mad... i think it's cause it's going though glass. Also - you shouldn't have to kill yourself all the time to complete a puzzle - really bad : \ so i'm rating this down....sry
Nera Feb 11, 2013 @ 1:14pm 
we had lots of problems with the lazers @_@
wildgoosespeeder  [author] Dec 15, 2012 @ 12:11am 
You got it.
KennKong Dec 14, 2012 @ 3:45pm 
I'm guessing that "some assembly required" is a hint that suicide is a necessary part of the solution . If I'm wrong about that, let me know and I'll try again.
wildgoosespeeder  [author] Dec 5, 2012 @ 4:46pm 
Fixed and also enhanced.
wildgoosespeeder  [author] Dec 5, 2012 @ 12:10pm 
I had a feeling those things would happen. I'll tweak the puzzle.
Adam Dec 5, 2012 @ 5:24am 
Comment Part 1: Hi, my co-op partner and I played this series today. As this one is the newest, there was a couple of issues me and my partner found. These did not stop us completing the map but added unnecessary difficulties to the puzzle. The faith plate did not get us up to the buttons each time, it would work sometimes but other times it wouldn't. For this if you could just readjust the faith plate's target such that it shoots you at the wall a bit faster, it would really help a lot. Using the laser and platforms to get to the cube was also a bit tricky - not because of the design, but because of the engine.
Adam Dec 5, 2012 @ 5:24am 
Comment Part 2: The laser would move about on its own when the second player placed portals (not the one who had the portal under the laser emitter). It was quite possible to do it with this engine problem, but it was difficult. Possibly reducing the laser relays to 1 for both platforms (instead of 1 for each) would help in this regard. Neither of these fixes are necessary to complete the map, however they would help with the frustration you get when you already know the solution. Thanks for this series, we had fun! Will keep an eye out for more.