- Mini-Pod Group & Cutscene Triggers
We’ve found a rare difference between 1.10 and the 2.x - 3.1.x wzscript campaigns.
First with 3.1.5...
My starting position for this experiment:
Some things of note:
- ”You will be punished” cutscene has not yet triggered
- Cannon units bottom right of frame (so tech has been retrieved)
- Scav units to the NW have not yet moved (probably not relevant)
- Both commander and mini-pod groups are in their starting positions
- Both sensor units are locked onto targets (so opposing units are in range)
- A single tower of the Scav base remains (the separate one that overlooks the base on the ridge)
I then drove my sensor into the base:
Even after getting close enough to the base to be shot at, still the cutscene had not triggered. The mini-pod group (and commander group) only started to act when my sensor unit came within their direct visual range. Shortly afterwards my sensor unit was destroyed (inside the base). Even then the cutscene has not triggered. It clearly needs me to be landing hits on them to do so.
Attempting to recreate the above scenario turns out to be impossible. While scav movement and behaviour is consistent between 1.10, 2.3.8 and 3.1.5, the mini-pod group isn’t. In 1.10, when the factory containing the cannon tech is destroyed (specifically), the NP mini-pod group exits the base to investigate. It then sits in the position shown in the 3rd screenshot and doesn’t attack further unless you have units in range. This doesn’t occur in 2.3.8 and 3.1.5. For the full situation, it’s best to look at the mini-maps because of the constrained resolution:
Because they hold position and don’t attack further, it’s entirely possible to destroy the scav base without angering NP in 1.10 too (4th screenshot), but it’s more difficult to retrieve the cannon tech without triggering the cutscene than in later versions because whatever tries to is going to take a beating from the mini-pod units.
Back to 3.1.5, Round 2…
From the same starting position, I destroyed the final tower to eradicate the scavenger base. This triggers the NW scavs to start moving:
However, unlike 3.2.x and master, they only move this far then hold pattern (so the NP sensor and the NW scav group share the same destination):
(on 3.2.x and master they attack the LZ instead, which is incorrect)
I managed to destroy them all while still not hitting the sensor. Still no cutscene, and still no mini-pod group. That’s the last of the scavs on this stage. Looks like the difference in behaviour with the mini-pod group was introduced early in the version history.
The NW scav group movement is the same on 1.10 and 2.3.8:
They’re more spread out than the weird bunching in 3.1.5 however, so it’s harder to destroy all the Scavs on the stage without upsetting NP (in my 1.10 screenshot above I still haven’t landed a hit on an NP unit, but it feels inevitable under normal conditions, given the inherent inaccuracy of artillery in earlier versions).
With some careful mucking about with a mobile sensor and a few reloads, I managed it, however. This then enabled me to sneak past the mini-pod units and replicate the earlier proximity-to-base test:
Again, I was able to drive the sensor into the base, wake up the units inside and have it destroyed by them without triggering the “you will be punished” cutscene, so that’s consistent across all of 1.10 - 3.1.5. It’s quite clearly only actual attacks on NP that elicits the response about attacks (as you’d expect it should).
Personally, while I think 3.1.5 -> 3.2.x/master regressions should be a no-no, I’m more ambivalent about changes from 1.10 introduced earlier in the version history (as is the example of the mini-pods). I guess the purist view is the campaign should reflect 1.10, but I think differences introduced in the conversion to jscam should be the priority (indeed this shouldn’t be a reason, in its own right, for differences at all - that would just seem careless - for this reason, I’m more worried about the differences in Scav behaviour). Suggest we leave it to @Beserk Cyborg to decide how important the 1.10 - 2.x differences are?
That said, I did find the way 1.10 played out marginally more interesting...