Campaign Add-on Proposal - Need Ideas & Production Help

[Emdek]

It's only kind of competition or tournament.
But yeah, this needs more discussions and ideas.

[Olrox]

It's only kind of competition or tournament.
But yeah, this needs more discussions and ideas.

I think we don't need multiple project teams on the same map.

Multiple groups would be sent to search for those crucial artifacts in the vicinity, to different sectors (makes much more sense). You happen to be commanding the team that has found the transports

The base structure technologies should be already available on the before-the-last mission, where you have to hold your base against mad scavs, IMO. All the techs to begin Alpha campaign would already be available once you get to the base (you get to the research facilities and have to research them) - a rush to gain control of the capabilities of the base while you hold off against the scavenger raids, would be certainly a thrilling experience that would fit the adaptability necessity of the scavs that would form the project. After you've defended the base and gained control, you have to search for the Airfields (there were some 3 around the base, as some maps from the base indicates only one is still operational after the collapse, which is the one you've found).

What about this?

[Emdek]

Looks good for me, but this don't exclude my suggestion.
It would make bigger diversity in missions which is good in making it more interesting, that's my opinion.

[Rman Virgil]

.

Olrox: Good mission structure proposal & more in line with the skill level of scripting Pumpkin implemented in the entire Alpha Campaign.

Emdek: One word - feasibility. Almost anything can be done given time & masterful skills.

What you propose is a level of advanced scripting that Pumpkin themselves didnot employ until the 3rd Campaign - & even then it was a fair bit simpler than this proposal.

This effort has not even reached the stage of successfully spawning Scavs at different map locations as a conditional sequence - the most basic thing you can do as you can just about lift the scripts verbatim from the original campaign.

So the analogy would be that while your still learning basic arithmatic your asked to do differential calculous.

- RV

.

[Emdek]

Emdek: One word - feasibility. Almost anything can be done given time & masterful skills.

What you propose is a level of advanced scripting that Pumpkin themselves didnot employ until the 3rd Campaign - & even then it was a fair bit simpler than this proposal.

This effort has not even reached the stage of successfully spawning Scavs at different map locations as a conditional sequence - the most basic thing you can do as you can just about lift the scripts verbatim from the original campaign.

So the analogy would be that while your still learning basic arithmatic your asked to do differential calculous.

Right... It's good that it's scripted and not hard coded.
Maybe I'll find later some time to analyze scripting basics, as it could be interesting.

[XboxJosh]

I like your ideas, Olrox. It appears it's possible to switch structures between teams (Beta mission with the Sat Uplink as an example). Perhaps we could have the research facility, factory, and the like at the end of the first map, and have mission 1 (or 3? whichever was the end of the map) end just before the base, and mission 4 be gaining control of the base whilst defending, as Olrox mentioned.

I also like having to search an airfield for Transport technology. I would think a find that large would be enough for the Project to promote you to Alpha commander.

[XboxJosh]

While Olrox is busy with the map (thanks ), I'll set to work on the Mission 5 (Transport) map.

It's relatively small (64x64) and has a Project starting point in the south-east, and scavenger outpost due north of that, and an airbase in the north-west, defended by some scavs.

The airbase has a "Downed Transport" struct in it to simulate a transport, and an artifact for it nearby.

I'm also thinking about adding a "VTOL Factory" Feature to the mod, and placing it nearby to go with the airbase theme, along with other things such as destroyed factories and such.

EDIT: Here it is. The promised screenshot

[XboxJosh]

OK, I've started with scripting.

Rman Virgil, I'm sorry but I think I'll go with scripting in campaign instead of multiplayer mode. This is the end result I wish to get eventually anyway, and there are a few things that I would like to do that probably aren't possible in Skirmish/Multiplayer. Please forgive me .

Seeing as though I am scripting for campaign, I would like to ask how to change the campaign start point (if that's possible).

[Olrox]

While Olrox is busy with the map (thanks ), I'll set to work on the Mission 5 (Transport) map.

It's relatively small (64x64) and has a Project starting point in the south-east, and scavenger outpost due north of that, and an airbase in the north-west, defended by some scavs.

The airbase has a "Downed Transport" struct in it to simulate a transport, and an artifact for it nearby.

I'm also thinking about adding a "VTOL Factory" Feature to the mod, and placing it nearby to go with the airbase theme, along with other things such as destroyed factories and such.

EDIT: Here it is. The promised screenshot

Hmmm, isn't that supposed to be still in the mountains, near the captured base?
I can make all those maps for the CAM0 if you like, they're few anyway

I mean, I'm really good at flaME right now, and used to the Rockies tileset

Nevermind me if you want to improve your skills, in this case I'll still be available to tell you what I think - again, if you want me to

~Olrox

[XboxJosh]

Oh, ok, that'd be great. I didn't want to burden you. I'm not one to take advantage of individuals. I don't know what I was thinking on that, I guess I forgot that we had settled on Rockies tileset.

Thanks, XboxJosh.

[Olrox]

Oh, ok, that'd be great. I didn't want to burden you. I'm not one to take advantage of individuals. I don't know what I was thinking on that, I guess I forgot that we had settled on Rockies tileset.

Thanks, XboxJosh.

Well - I think that if I put some 4 evenings of serious work on it I can finish both maps. It's just a question of me taking the responsibility. I'm actually ashamed because I said that I'd make the map for you and I know that it could be ready long ago

If you want me to help you with something, just ask - I can say "yes" or "no" without any hard feelings

I'll leave The Lost River for when I have the greatest inspiration and plenty of time - day 21 probably, as it's a holiday. Definetely no problem with that, I can assure you - it's a choice I make by my own will, free of pressure

~Olrox

[Rman Virgil]

.

XboxJosh: However you choose to do this work is your prerogative 100% without a doubt.

There's an old adage that says it best: "You can lead a thirsty horse to water but you cannot force it to drink."

Inserting missions into the existing Campaign structure is never something I did because all the working missions I've created take place in time after the last mission of the original campaign.

Actually, having created working missions with both techniques, I can tell you that with the MP method I described you can do all the immersive GPMs that were done in the original campaign PLUS some more GPMs that you can't effectively do within the original campaign mode structure (like for example "Dynamic Mission Branching" which is a very powerful Cam GPM - but that's going off on a tangent of no relevance here.)

Anyway, like I said, you're proposing to do the work so the how-to get it done choices are all yours irrespective of any feasibility considerations I may perceive.

I will say that though I never inserted missions before the start of the original campaign I do understand the structure enough to be able to glean the level of complexification it will involve work-wise & while I do sincerely wish you all the best with it, to be bald-faced candid, I couldn't bring myself to go about it in that way - not that this last really matters even a wee bit since I'm not putting any energy or time into it.

Regards, RV
.

[Rman Virgil]

.

BTW: I re-read this entire thread because I found the last few posts confusing to the point of asking myself -

"What the heck have I missed here ?"

Don't think I missed anything. It just ain't there to be missed.

To wit - what has happened is a 180 degree turn in your production feasibility strategy. Going from imminently doable with novice scripting skills and masterful mapping to multiple maps & the emergence of a Mozart of scripting.

Interesting because, for one, there was no transition discussion were in it was evident that these fundamental logistical reversals, & the the journeyman level scripting they represent, could be handled & that, two, there were clear and compelling gains over the earlier approach which was markedly elegant without a doubt. What I mean is that essentially you all are currently making this project quite a few orders of magnitude more difficult to achieve than just a couple weeks ago.

Intriguing and somewhat revelatory, I dare say. But again, my thoughts on the matter are moot, so I shall button up my lips and revert to being an absolute silent bystander going forward; a curious lurker but mainly focused on what I'm actually up to with WZ.

- RV


Side Bar: While not terribly important, as a dedicated wordsmith these sorts of language matters are glaring to me which is why I would suggest a more accurate topic heading like for example -

"Campaign Add-on Proposal - Need Ideas & Production Help"

I say this because you are NOT rebuilding the original campaign (a rather grandiose over-statement, IMO) ergo instead suggest the more accurate "Campaign Add-on Proposal" for your prequel idea.

And the word "advice" means "a proposal for an appropriate course of action" which you have received from the very beginning in the form of implementation pragmatics but in truth, from what I can see, you have rejected all of that advice, following through on none of it and have instead latched onto the "Need Ideas & Production Help" aspects.

Definitely feel free to ignore this suggestion or advice.
.

[XboxJosh]

Sorry you feel that way, Rman Virgil.

Yes, I think we're gonna go through and make this a solid prequel to Campaign 1.

Afterward, I'll begin work on a Campaign 4 (If I haven't decided that this business isn't too difficult for me to support with my limited time )

I've decided to make this an add-on the the actual campaign because of unit transfer, and victories upon reaching a location. I'm not aware of this being an option in Skirmish.

[Rman Virgil]

.

Sorry you feel that way, Rman Virgil.

Well, let's just say it's a difference in PoV. Just being candid which is not a prob really. I do believe ppls can disagree without being obnoxiously disagreeable. Just life really, lived with a certain gusto, empathy & cosmopolitanism.

Yes, I think we're gonna go through and make this a solid prequel to Campaign 1.

Could be that that will be what emerges in the end. What I know for sure is that Olrox can create masterful maps and that his creative grasp of narrative translated into mission structures (& corresponding mapping) is more than up to snuff, rock solid actually.

Here let me tell a quick anecdote of relevance here...

The first time I worked on a new WZ Campaign Mission sequence add-on of 12 Missions I did everything but the scripting: storytelling, mission translations from narrative, technical breakdown docs, mapping, new GFX, music, cut scene briefings, etc... I spent a solid year plus on it, countless man-hours. At the end of that year plus of tireless work the fellla doing the scripting came to me and said - "Sorry Rman, but RL has caught up with me and I cannot do the scripting." Crushing, to say the least. I didn't hold it against the dude - chit happens, this ain't a paying job to say the least - but here i was stuck with all this work and more than a year of my life seemingly wasted on the effort. After some time passed I was able to go back, learn scripting, script about 50% of the missions before RL caught up with me. Chit happens.

I'm sure you can draw your own inferences from this anecdote.

Afterward, I'll begin work on a Campaign 4 (If I haven't decided that this business isn't too difficult for me to support with my limited time )

Making quality, working, Campaign Mission sequences is without a doubt the most challenging and time consuming effort you can engage in with WZ. Make no mistake about that.

I've decided to make this an add-on the the actual campaign because of unit transfer, and victories upon reaching a location. I'm not aware of this being an option in Skirmish.

You mean unit transports / away missions ? Conditional achievements based on getting from point A to B to ...Z ? You absolutely can, on both counts. For the Unit Transport involvement, it's a very minor code change. This Project decided to lock it out, which to me is just way too paternalistic and, well, I march to my own tune and do not have to abide that decision (which Pumpkin did not implement, btw).

One of the reasons I have not gone the route of releasing my created missions with the slightly modified binary is that I judge my work emulating the original CAM in this respect as a down & dirty gimmick to meet the commercial deadlines posed by Pumpkin's publisher Eidos.

I have found that there are other, way more compelling techniques, rich in RL military tac & strat GPM opportunities, VR immersion & verisimilitude, but these require more creative ingenuity and time to implement (which Pumpkin didn't have). Personally, I'm not interested in copying those shallow gimmicks anymore because I do have creative ingenuity and the time I need to take to implement GPMs that go beyond the one dimensional techniques Pumpkin was forced to employ because of publisher constraints and rush to market deadlines.

The main difference between us is that I have done all this stuff that works already and you have not from what i can see. I speak from the experience of doing - over and over - achieving creations that definitely function and don't crash but in some results, not quite satisfying the level of artistry I'm after.

But then again, one of the very best ways to learn anything is by doing a lot and the deep proficiencies that can only grow out of effectively dealing with, and assimilating, imperfections & "failures". And I have certainly done a bunch of that.

The point here being that to effect that process of mastery you have to make stuff that at least runs-works on the most basic level - learning to crawl with gusto before you can walk proficiently, walking without staggering before you can sprint with grace and jogging a few miles before attempting a hundred mile Ultra-Marathon.

Anyway, I'm genuinely wishing you the best in all that you are trying to do here. I just don't have anything more of value to add to the discussion and feel my time and focus is best invested in completing my own WZ work, fulfilling my current artistic vision and goals, deeply informed by past efforts done that at least run without crapping out on loading.

- Regards, RV
.