[suBB]

Hey,

this is my 1st run of dynamic mission objective multiplay, as a 2nd time mapper.

The concept makes sense in my mind and others who are helping me test it. But I’d like to hear of thoughts from others on this.

I’ve played some miss obj, such as blackmktboomer, baltic break in, and some others(there's less than 25 out), so I dunno if dynamic miss obj is an old hat... But I guess ill find out after this post

In short, dw has so much more to offer than routine platform vs platform 'i sunk you, have a nice day' gameplay. I’d love to see something different, plain and simple, and experience dw at its utmost potential.

Game settings - depends on host - but scenarios were/are intended for 1.03 official patch, no autocrewTMA/actInt optional, luami 3.XX(minimum 3.02 and future releases)

features(in my mind) will include:

1.. Practical scenarios that justify all playable platforms - 6 ssn21s in a versus dive.. cmon.... AND scenarios that require 100%(and beyond) of what your platform has to offer

2.. 0% or minimum predictability - which equates to 100% or optimal dynamics - mission outcome depends on the choices made by the player and at anytime could change the tides
In favor of/against the player

3.. Offers a 'cold war' style of gameplay on a mulitplay level, where resolve isn’t 1contact + 2 uuvs = 6 torpedos, but instead how well/poor you undergoe planning/strategy, use of stealth, use of available resources/assets, navigation, etc.. However if worse comes to worse you will have to defend yourself to complete your mission tasking

4.. Reasonable traversal routes (travel distance between sides) - are neither too far apart where map isn’t playable nor too close where map will become short lived, BUT reasonable for 1-way and/or round trip. And due to dynamics, success rate is no more than 50%. The other 50% depends on you, the player.

5.. Simulated ELF messaging and radio comms for all playable platforms w/ audio capability(elf.wav, copy_broadcast.wav) - real-game time intel upates for each side, depending on progress of player - see also item 7

6.. Due to luami 3.02, aggressive AI poses a vital threat, so coordination with AI platforms also introduces an unexpected twist, thus contributing to dynamics MPO. Coordinated attacks (between AI or allied players)will be done by radio from comm depth via radio antenna transmisson, or received by radio antenna/floating wire.

7.. Intel update(via radio/ELF) on a private basis, and not globally - your live opponents will never know your and allied AI/player intel gathered throughout progression, and vice versa. However end mission messaging will be sent globally to inform players that mission objectives have been fulfilled by the winner, and the mission is over.

8.. In time of writing - need to prevent premature winning - could be a form of cheat - one might know outcome of mission before carrying out tasking then try to trigger the win - this is a WIP

9.. Requirement of securing general qtrs - once objective is achieved, ownship must reach minimum safe distance to win
or goal simulating that ownship is out of harms way

10.. Mission status goal messaging(123 goal complete /incomplete by xyz) deliberately left out - once a mission goal has been completed by a live player, its easy for the opponent to plan around his/her next objective. With goal messaging in mission status left out, which is also provided globally, this will no longer be the case.. It is only through item 7(see above) that any form of mission completion is made globally informing all players that somone won and mission is over - one persons mission success, will be your mission failure(if not allied)

11.. Multistation compatible - WIP - need target assignments, waypoints, triggers, etc, but this isn't a show-stopper.

12.. Random spawn of all units, platforms, neutrals in effort to contribute to dynamics - are within reasonable means(not too close and not to far) between opposing sides, but within traversal routes. Actual mulitplay over time will determine performance. Traversal routes, I should say distance and coverage areas, are determined mainly by platform.


XX.. Anything else for the better

So, what do you think about all this?

thanks for listening ....


suBB

[Wildcat]

I had the pleasure of playing this initial test mission with 4 people today in multiplayer. Though the actual game crashed after I sank a sub with a helicopter, it was an interesting experience.

I definately enjoyed the fact that the mission was not an excersize in a - b - c type logic. There seemed to be a very nice level of freedom on how to actually execute and complete the mission.

It's my understanding that all start positions are random as well. That is something I thoroughly appreciate and it will really help with map replayability.

Basically the nice thing about this mission was that it really did not give much information about what was happening or what was going to happen. This is more realistic and I appreciate all efforts to develop it further.

Good work.

[drEaPer]

Well you want comments and opinions on this.

My opinios is that this is exactly what SCS would have done if they had the time and ressources for it. Unfortunately this a niche product and there is a limited amount of workpower. As Luftwolf pointed out many many times, this game is capable of so much more, if there are only people like you, willing to spend time using the tools given to reform the content and make use of all possiblities to enhance the gaming experience.
I welcome all your ideas and think thats its exactly what makes DW outstanding compared to SC. It only has to be done by somebody.
Reminds me of a conversation at a games company I once worked for:
After asking a coder something about some sort of missile behavior, he said: I have no clue! I just provide the tools, you guys have to make use of it (The content designers).

[suBB]

hey guys,

I appreciate the responses, and the helping hand, ill make sure to keep an eye open for later playtesting.

Found some other minor bugs and things needed to be changed - so that's done. Just want to make sure I’ve done all I can do in the editing process and solo testing(triggers) before the next round of playtesting.

I think the important part now(or when all the bugs are resolved) is actual playtesting at full tilt. Might be interesting to turn show dead platform off!?!?

Actual data will determine the overall performance and what direction to take next.

There are some short term goals(maps, infastructure, scripting) but until we gather actual data, we shouldn’t worry about those just yet.

However, if/when you have ideas for maps, jot them down for later discussion, I know I’m doing the same

@ drEaPer
Travel distance(depending on platform) is determined two ways:

1.. Arrival - which we figured at 1st < 40nm, +/- tolerance due to random spawn.. In the mission we played, the 688 simulated arrival distance - 1 way trip - your misson was to depart for sea w surface escort & weapons cold, as it said in radio comms. Win trigger is 688 to arrive and ownship survives, of course, or hostile subs intercepted and taken care of, whichever comes 1st

2.. Return to general qtrs - the requirement as a win trigger to bring ownship out of harms way and return to safety - round trip ticket We figured same TOTAL distance but nav/interception = 1/2 + travel to safe minimum distance = other 1/2. In the same mission the akula/kilo are weapons hot looking for 688, if she is found and sunk, the akula/kilo are ordered to disengage(if you choose to do so) and return to safe distance.

Ultimately the travel distance(1 way and round trip) should be as such to balance gameplay & real-time..we all have lives to live lol

[suBB]

can someone tell me the difference between AUTOMATIC event and AUTOMATIC goal triggers..

I dont see a difference in them, they seem to work the same way...

[OKO]

difference beetween EVENTS and GOALS (nothing to do with automatic or aggregate or destination) are just a simple thing :
GOALS will appear in the mission status, EVENTS will not.