Zarel's Improved Campaign planning

[Assault Gunner]

Brick. Misread. Sorry.

[zimboptoo]

1. I like the idea, mentioned above, that there can be a "soft time limit" for some missions. Once the time is up you stop producing power and research stops, but you can still build, produce, and attack. This cuts out the turtling for cash and tech while still allowing a more conservative style of play without worrying about running out of time. Of course, as you say, there should be hard time caps on some levels like "Evacuate!"

2. Exactly what you said about campaign and skirmish balancing. I believe that, barring awful balance problems, things should be as close as possible between campaign and skirmish, to make it easier to switch back and forth.

3. This. Oh man. Exactly what you said. Campaign is a really interesting way to get some experience with the higher-tech weapons, since you generally have time to research and try everything at the same time, and missing out on some of the coolest stuff is disappointing.

4. Yup, this one got me the first time too.

Other: Alpha 11 (Where you have to ambush the NP before they escape) is almost impossible to beat the first time you play it unless you've read about the mission beforehand. You get a 30 minute timer, but if you take a bit too much time wiping out the scavenger bases, you won't know you've lost until you get within sight of the NP base, when they just fly off no matter what you do. It's a gimmick level, and it's a bit annoying. I would suggest shortening the mission time to 20 minutes and setting it so that the transport flies in and picks up the NP tanks at 19 minutes in, unless you kill all the tanks or destroy the LZ first. This way, you don't lose the mission without knowing it in the first 5 minutes. Also, this mission should end on mission objective complete rather than returning to LZ, as the trek back from the enemy LZ is a long one with our new heavy tanks, especially with such a short mission timer. I know that I "failed" this mission several times after completing the objective because it took my tanks too long to wind their way all the way back across the map.

I also like the idea of giving the enemy resources on more missions, so that they don't just sit there waiting to be picked off a few at a time. The missions that are the most fun are the ones where a squad of 6-8 heavy tanks shows up at your LJ every few minutes to keep you on your toes.

Finally, the AI in campaign should probably build more air defense, at least in Beta missions. 4-6 AA turrets for an entire base is pathetic, and you can steamroll most later Beta missions with a bunch of Medium Lancer VTOLs and some trucks to build rearming pads and LZ defenses; take out the AA in the first couple attack runs and you're golden.

[Tenoh]

Ok,my turn now!
Lets see....
1.power caps.replacing time limits is a good idea,like others i agree with it cause i had my share of frustration with it.
As for power caps, i got a small idea.Why not introduce a structure that gives .. lets say +3k to power cap? that way you can limit the structures and have your power cap.Other small idea is to give player reward at the end of the mission ..say 1k power?
2.Balance.WEll i wont argue with that and leave it in your hands.I'll take what you give here.
3.Skirmish tech is awesome lol,i have been adding to single player for long time now.Sure not everything should be added but auto repair should be added after you destroy first nexus base in my opinion.Uplink sensor wont do any harm as well.
4.As for a7 map... i would rework the whole map making it bigger, then it would be a real race for the artifact,would be much more fun.As for scav base,sometimes i remember it some times i dont. Do as you like.


oh.. almost forgot,is it possible to change display when you click on the defense structure or units so the stat can be displayed? a range circle would help allot as well.

[ragnar]

"1. Replace time limits with lower power caps."

No. Instead if you finish a mission early, you get the time left added to the next one (or half the time or whatever).

"2. Apply balancing from skirmish."

Personally I prefer to get the NP hardpoints with the newly acquired mortar tech. I always assumed that's what it was for.

"So those are my proposals. What are your ideas for what an improved campaign should have?"

I'd prefer a new campaign altogether. Or just single map scenarios. How hard exactly is the scripting required?

[Zarel]

No. Instead if you finish a mission early, you get the time left added to the next one (or half the time or whatever).

Tell me why you think that's better, and I might consider it.

I'd prefer a new campaign altogether. Or just single map scenarios. How hard exactly is the scripting required?

No idea. Presumably fairly complex, since I haven't found anyone who's tried it...

[ragnar]

No. Instead if you finish a mission early, you get the time left added to the next one (or half the time or whatever).

Tell me why you think that's better, and I might consider it.

It's better because it achieves the same things you want, but easier:
1. players won't run out of time as often (probably never) If they do, they suck and *should* start over.
2. quitting early gives time and time gives less power now than it does later, so instead of outright outlawing it, it adds a drawback to turtling;
3. it adds another way to keep score ("what's your campaign time?");
4. it´s less artificial than something like a power cap;

Oh, and please ad a time limit to all the early alpha missions, it's too darn tempting to abuse that to get 30 Regulars and 100000 power before actually starting the campaign.

[Zarel]

1. players won't run out of time as often (probably never)

The same is true of my plans.

If they do, they suck and *should* start over.

So what if they suck? Does it make it more fun for them to start over? Do you derive some sort of sick pleasure from making them start over? (Because that's no reason to make other players have less fun)

2. quitting early gives time and time gives less power now than it does later, so instead of outright outlawing it, it adds a drawback to turtling;

We already allow enough time for anyone who wants to turtle to turtle, anyway. Especially if we go with your plans.

3. it adds another way to keep score ("what's your campaign time?");

We do not need to implement a time limit to keep track of campaign time.

4. it´s less artificial than something like a power cap;

A time cap is far more artificial than a power cap.

What is your rationale for a time cap? "Oh, look, my watch alarm just went off. Time to pack up our bags and go home. Who cares if we were just about to win, my clock says go home!"

Oh, and please ad a time limit to all the early alpha missions, it's too darn tempting to abuse that to get 30 Regulars and 100000 power before actually starting the campaign.

I still prefer my own solution.

[ragnar]

Ok, I'll be less subtle. I' fear you've completely failed to grasp the role of limitations in games.

The time limits serve only two purposes: first, to force you to reload your save from the beginning of the mission if you run out of time, and second, to prevent you from turtling for power.

The first is nothing but an annoyance, and adds nothing to the game, and the second can be achieved with a low a power cap.

There's nothing weird or shameful about a (partial) do-over. Yes, this is annoying. Losing should be annoying, because if it isn't, there's no point in winning. If you remove the time limits, completing many of the missions becomes meaningless. Rarely does the enemy try to overrun you, let alone succeed. Survival is therefore meaningless. Remove the time limit and you remove the only challenge there was.

The mission timers are distinctive of WZ2100. So to some extent, they are what the makes the game unique. I don't see time limits as artificial at all. To me it enhances the campaign experience. I think it's completely believable that after X minutes, the NP notices my presence and starts the assault. Perhaps this should not be a fixed amount of time, but it certainly should not be a potentially unlimited amount of time.

It's not a good idea to remove a time limit and replace it with a power cap. That will only encourage players to build hundreds of structures and units before completing a mission or simply holding a line against the enemy for hours just to amass kills, which are all far worse forms of turtling than waiting out the timer to collect some extra power, which is relatively harmless.

In conclusion: running out of time, while annoying, defines the game in an almost fundamental way. To make up for taking that out, you'd have to rewrite every mission to ensure it still provides a challenge. If you absolutely must remove them, then it's better to give players some sort of a bonus for finishing early and a penalty for finishing late, that way the challenge of completing a mission is still linked to the timer and the game won't start to feel weird.

[Zarel]

There's nothing weird or shameful about a (partial) do-over. Yes, this is annoying. Losing should be annoying, because if it isn't, there's no point in winning. If you remove the time limits, completing many of the missions becomes meaningless. Rarely does the enemy try to overrun you, let alone succeed. Survival is therefore meaningless. Remove the time limit and you remove the only challenge there was.

Well, the question is, why does adding a time limit make it any less meaningless? Survival is meaningless either way, beating the opponent is the only thing that counts. The time limit was never a challenge in the first place, so removing it doesn't change anything except remove some annoyance.

The mission timers are distinctive of WZ2100. So to some extent, they are what the makes the game unique. I don't see time limits as artificial at all. To me it enhances the campaign experience. I think it's completely believable that after X minutes, the NP notices my presence and starts the assault. Perhaps this should not be a fixed amount of time, but it certainly should not be a potentially unlimited amount of time.

That's why the mission timers will be retained for around half the missions. Gives the old Warzone feel while not having them for missions for which they are superfluous.

It's not a good idea to remove a time limit and replace it with a power cap. That will only encourage players to build hundreds of structures and units before completing a mission or simply holding a line against the enemy for hours just to amass kills, which are all far worse forms of turtling than waiting out the timer to collect some extra power, which is relatively harmless.

That's true, but I don't think a time limit is the right solution.

In conclusion: running out of time, while annoying, defines the game in an almost fundamental way. To make up for taking that out, you'd have to rewrite every mission to ensure it still provides a challenge. If you absolutely must remove them, then it's better to give players some sort of a bonus for finishing early and a penalty for finishing late, that way the challenge of completing a mission is still linked to the timer and the game won't start to feel weird.

In conclusion: There will still be missions in which there is a time limit, so also having ones that don't will just make the game more interesting.

[guciomir]

And what do you think about adjusting the timer according to the difficulty?

I start feeling that you don't care about other people arguments, as many people gave the reasons why timer should stay and you did not say precisely why your point of view is better.

[Zarel]

And what do you think about adjusting the timer according to the difficulty?

It's a good idea.

I start feeling that you don't care about other people arguments, as many people gave the reasons why timer should stay and you did not say precisely why your point of view is better.

This is patently false.

I have said precisely why my point of view is better:

• The time limits serve only two purposes: first, to force you to reload your save from the beginning of the mission if you run out of time, and second, to prevent you from turtling for power.
  
  The first is nothing but an annoyance, and adds nothing to the game, and the second can be achieved with a low a power cap.
  
  In some campaign maps (like Evacuate), a time limit makes sense; I'm just removing time limits from the other ones.

(Look familiar? That's because this is the first post in this thread.)

On the other hand, none of the other arguments have given any real reason for why a time limit is a good idea for all maps.

I am, as always, willing to compromise. As mentioned, I will retain time limits on approximately half the campaign maps, allowing people who like time limits to have their fun.

You, however, seem to think that I have to do either exactly what you say, or I am "ignoring everyone else". Such attitudes do not belong here, in a thread where we are trying to discuss what the best solution for everyone is, not the best solution for you, personally.

[TVR]

... The time limit was never a challenge in the first place ...

The time limit is designed to prevent players from winning missions by structure creep, massing reinforcements, base-to-base artillery, or endless VTOL sorties.

This requires strategic balance of time, between softening up the defences in the sector with artillery and VTOL, and pushing forward with tanks.

[milo christiansen]

The time limit is designed to prevent players from winning missions by structure creep

But I like structure creep.

[Zarel]

But I like structure creep.

This pretty much sums up all the arguments for no time limit.

If someone else wants to play a different way, what's wrong with that? If you want a time limit, look at a clock and time yourself... Or play "Classic Campaign Mod"...

[GooglyBoogly]

with infinite time, you still haven't addressed the 'research everything' issue