[COMPLETED - Thank you] Campaign 4 Mission 8 Balance Testing

[Rman Virgil]

.
Sorry I didn't make myself clearer because that was not what I was asking.

I know what you can do with CAM scripting - I've scripted a few original missions myself for v.1.10 - but what I was wondering here was what was specifically gonna be campaign scripted to this Mission 8 that effectively changed the game play from just running & playing against a particular skirmish a.i. with extensive pre-builds (which I've also done) ?

In the Missions I've made EVERYTHING was driven by Campaign scripts ('cept for Pre-builds out of map making) - even stuff like the Player's Units Mission 1 starting ranks & health states besides the usual composition (like from after a transport crash) ... as well on-screen scrolling text of the mission briefs, the FMV files, spawning composition/ position / cycles, complex victory conditions, etc....

I must confess I'm in a bit of a quandry about how to accurately judge balance without the campaign scripting. I can judge what's happening vs. various skirmish a.i.s at different difficulty settings (along with the common thread pre-builds) but THAT is not the same thing.

- Regards, RV

.

[Goth Zagog-Thou]

Sorry Rman.

I just wanted some different trains of thought about specific areas of the map. Those shouldn't play any differently compared to CAM mode.

My logic concerning this map has more to do with the player controlling waypoints and areas of interest. Securing the zone, in other words. The campaign scripting will initially show the various points of interest (flashing red dots) that the player needs to control, and the strength of the forces the player will encounter will vary. It's also in reverse direction compared to what the player had to do in Campaign 1, at least partially. I'm still working a couple of things out to make the map more of a gauntlet. What I was looking for in this round of testing was the strength of the bases that NEXUS has under his command.

Probably a strange way of going about testing it, and if my approach to having it as a skirmish is inappropriate then I'll admit I was wrong. But I *do* have a plan, and this here was the first step.

[Iluvalar]

Beware ! The stock AI have 2 different branch it can go on air or by ground it's randomly chosen at the beggining of the game. For what i can juge, the air branch might be just too strong.

[Rman Virgil]

Sorry Rman.

I just wanted some different trains of thought about specific areas of the map. Those shouldn't play any differently compared to CAM mode.

My logic concerning this map has more to do with the player controlling waypoints and areas of interest. Securing the zone, in other words. The campaign scripting will initially show the various points of interest (flashing red dots) that the player needs to control, and the strength of the forces the player will encounter will vary. It's also in reverse direction compared to what the player had to do in Campaign 1, at least partially. I'm still working a couple of things out to make the map more of a gauntlet. What I was looking for in this round of testing was the strength of the bases that NEXUS has under his command.

Probably a strange way of going about testing it, and if my approach to having it as a skirmish is inappropriate then I'll admit I was wrong. But I *do* have a plan, and this here was the first step.

That's cool. Just trying to understand your modus operandi - which you've explained well here.

In my own head I am more comparing the NEXUS base strength in this Mission 8 by harking back to the very last sequence of missions in the original campaign which I thought fizzled out to a very NON-epic ending.

However, Pumpkin did some interesting things in that last sequence. One of those being their placement and balance of T-3 AA - I think they did a beautiful job of that. Now how this relates to your Mission 8 here is that my gut sense, so far, is suggesting that the AA is too formidable. I could be wrong of course; however, something is telling me that this is an area that needs to be looked at more closely. I'll see if I can come up with more concrete insights and suggestions.

An other key thing that comes to mind - the Player Carry-Over Force Strength from previous missions leading up to Mission 8. Or is the Player starting from T-1 scratch in their research and having NO Unit carry-over ?

Beware ! The stock AI have 2 different branch it can go on air or by ground it's randomly chosen at the beggining of the game. For what i can juge, the air branch might be just too strong.

Good point. I didn't know that. I wonder if you can set the focus branch like you can with DyDo players ?

- Regards, Rman.

.

[Goth Zagog-Thou]

An other key thing that comes to mind - the Player Carry-Over Force Strength from previous missions leading up to Mission 8. Or is the Player starting from T-1 scratch in their research and having NO Unit carry-over ?

Yes, I'm expecting (because the player will finally have a base in Mission 7, and will be able to research and build all the way up to endgame T3) the player to ENTER the zone already at full T3. The AI seems TOO strong because the player still has to do full research in the testing version of the map. It's all about how you end Mission 7. I consider the "Challenge Mode" of Mission 8 to be whether the player has researched up to at least T2. Remember the "minimum Research level" that I spoke of in order to proceed? This is it.

We're testing this map on THE "hardcore mode" -- the player having done little or NO research in Mission 7. That's why I'm all fussy about how strong the AI is here. I want to make sure the player CAN do it this way. We know that full T3 research will make dealing with NEXUS pretty straightforward, just costly (as witnessed by the overzealous AA defenses).

Hope that explains the logic a bit more.

[Goth Zagog-Thou]

Oh, I should note that the player, upon entering the zone (and this is intended) will seem to have power issues at first, especially building T3 gear. Remember, this base is under imminent attack by NEXUS forces operating in the area. The *unnamed ally* will transfer control of the existing base to the player, its' five or six oil derricks and VERY conservative base defenses.

(The player will learn the circumstances from the "Halftime Briefing" at the beginning of Mission 7 of why we're back in Arizona. It's a good reason, believe me. )

[Per]

I am a bit confused. Why are you using a skirmish AI in a campaign? I would think that would be inappropriate, given that it is meant to build bases and apply random tactics, while in campaign, I would suppose that bases already exist and deterministic behaviour would be essential both for testing and story. Cheating also to me has a different meaning in campaign - as you are not beating a player, who operates under the same limitations as you are under, you are beating a story, which just has to be somewhat plausible.

[milo christiansen]

The AI is going to have to be 100% custom, testing with the SK AI is a little pointless as far as general balance goes. The real testing will have to wait until the mission scripting is almost done, and that won't be for a while because I can't get my 1 & 1/2 mission test cam won't even start

If anyone wants to help, the current problem seems to be template based.

[Goth Zagog-Thou]

Remember, folks, we're testing certain areas of the map under the most extreme circumstances. There were/are some questions I wanted answered, and I'm getting a pretty good idea so far of what is working as intended and what isn't. It isn't the whole map itself that's being tested yet, just the "waypoints" the player will have to deal with in the campaign.

Milo, is the problem still just the player units?

[Flail13]

I don't know exactly what problem Milo is having either, but I could guess that before he can fix his template problems, Goth or someone needs to decide what stats files we are going to use to begin with; either campaign or MP. Campaign stats are keeping more in line with the original campaign, but doesn't include Dragon, Wyvern, many of the templates, and whatever else is missing - the missing text lines might be able to be copied into the stats files... Or we can use multiplayer stats. Whichever we use, Milo will need to include those stats files in the mod before it will work.

Goth, you keep mentioning research being done. Have you thought about what research this is? If you mean new research just for this campaign, I might be able to make some using flaTE, if we get that far.

I read in the mission overviews that an area of the map gets expanded to with scroll limits, then it is removed again. Has it been tested that this is possible without unit-off-map errors? I can't remember if it ever happens in the original campaign.

I get the feeling we're being too ambitious, with the number of missions and the size of the main map. I can't imagine how a player is going to navigate when most of that map is revealed.

[Goth Zagog-Thou]

Actually I've been thinking about that being the possible cause of Milo's error. For the sake of simplicity, we might have to use the multiplayer stuff if it'll solve the problems. Sounds to me that's what it is.

The research is likewise the multiplayer stuff. Full tree up to T3. (Hey, that rhymes...)

I'll check the overviews but I'm pretty sure it'll cause a huge number of issues if the scroll limits get reeled in like that. If I have indeed done that, I'll need to rewrite that part. If it clashes with something else, the map will have to be altered again.

[Goth Zagog-Thou]

Well, some template testing with the main map in MP mode is spitting out the same errors Milo is getting. The code is correct, the files that needed to be changed are correct (names, assignweapons and templates). I've even merged them with WZBase, and it still happens. The log says it can't find the templates.

And yes, I've cleaned out my prefetch folder also.

There's something we're missing, or some finer point that we've overlooked. It should work and it isn't.

I'm going to take apart NTW and see what the difference are with file placement and stuff. Maybe that group figured out something that we've missed.

[Flail13]

Have the new stats been linked to with a wrf (like stats.wrf) inside the new mod? If the campaign dataset in the gamedesc.lev file still refers to "wrf/stats.wrf", and it isn't included in your mod, then it would probably load the stats.wrf and all the stats from base.wz.
If you haven't already, I suggest making a unique folder for this mod's stats and a unique stats wrf, and link to them from the gamedesc.lev, to avoid getting the game confused about which files it should be using.

If you've added a wyvern template you'll also need new entries in the body and bodypropulsionimd files.

[milo christiansen]

Have the new stats been linked to with a wrf (like stats.wrf) inside the new mod?

I THOUGHT I was forgetting something. Super Flail to the rescue

[Goth Zagog-Thou]

Woot! Flail to the rescue, indeed.