Random mission editor thoughts.

[PFMM]

I realize that more options are easier to state than program, and this is more of a wish list than anything else.

 

One of the frustrations I have with the mission editor is the limited number of mission goals (ie destroy or survive), and this is my list for more variable missions.

 

The ability to target one part of a group. I prefer using groups when making missions, but the limitation is that the goals apply to all of that group.

 

Damage/Prevent damage goal : This would be usefull with naval vessels and buildings to represent withdrawal or area bombardment policies respectively. Applied tor groups, say twenty five percent destruction.

 

Goal time limits : Self explanatory.

 

Any thoughts or criticisms?

[britgliderpilot]

More flexible mission goals and triggers are the beginnings of a much more capable mission system - and yes, it would make the missions much more interestin.

 

 

Are you aware that a new mission editor is being written for Black Shark?

 

I've seen part of the wish list for features on the new one, and it seems to me that ED have a pretty solid idea about what can be improved over the current editor :)

[Weta43]

If it doesn't break any NDA's - have they sent the new ME out to the Beta testers yet?

[PFMM]

Well, thanks for the information as hope springs eternal.

 

One of my pet peeves in presentation is the mission success title. It doesn't matter that you lost three of your wingman to shoot up a truck, it's still a success.

 

Some form of levels of performance, especially in the progress of campaigns would be appreciated.

 

I'll stop there as we'll be here all day otherwise.

[ZoomBoy27]

There are 2 ways I use dummy objects for mission completion

1) I sometimes place a dummy static object directly behind a building. The OpFor has it as a target and usually has to arrive at the site in the village. If they do not destroy it, then even if they survive, their mission still might not be completed.

 

2) My own land forces have to arrive at a point to destroy a dummy enemy object. They might survive the mission but not reach the target(blocked by a bridge being destroyed etc.) or not have enough fire power left to "hold" the position.

 

I've flown a number of missions which required mission completion by land forces but I didn't know the results until I arrived back at base.

[MBot]

I hope that ED is looking at the AreaGoal in my Static Objects Pack. That object was a 5 minutes job to make but is a highly important goal for ground pounders in my opinion. It should be fairly easy to implement in the new editor.

 

For those that don't know how AreaGoal works:

Basicaly this is a mission goal that is fullfilled if a weapon detonates within a 500x500m area on the ground. This is very usefull for creating ground attack missions where you don't need the player to destroy a very specifical target, but rather want him to attack a enemy position that is not clearly visible fro the air or a group of targets, like a concentration of vehicles, a sam site or a camp. With AreaGoal the mission is triggered a success if the player ( or anyone else ) launches his weapons on the designated position, regardless of what he destroyes. This makes ground attack missions more realistic, as often the pilots will not have much influence on the damage they cause, all they can do is drop their bombs where they have been told to do. Wether a specific truck gets destroyed or not is not it the pilots hands, and the princip of AreaGoal honors that.

[ZoomBoy27]

I hope that ED is looking at the AreaGoal in my Static Objects Pack. That object was a 5 minutes job to make but is a highly important goal for ground pounders in my opinion. It should be fairly easy to implement in the new editor.

 

For those that don't know how AreaGoal works:

Basicaly this is a mission goal that is fullfilled if a weapon detonates within a 500x500m area on the ground. This is very usefull for creating ground attack missions where you don't need the player to destroy a very specifical target, but rather want him to attack a enemy position that is not clearly visible fro the air or a group of targets, like a concentration of vehicles, a sam site or a camp. With AreaGoal the mission is triggered a success if the player ( or anyone else ) launches his weapons on the designated position, regardless of what he destroyes. This makes ground attack missions more realistic, as often the pilots will not have much influence on the damage they cause, all they can do is drop their bombs where they have been told to do. Wether a specific truck gets destroyed or not is not it the pilots hands, and the princip of AreaGoal honors that.

 

Good and simple. Me likey!

[Trident]

Some more ideas:

 

- cut/copy/paste functions for flights, units etc., this would speed up certain mission building tasks

 

- more accurate ETA values for waypoints, this would dramatically cut down on the amount of testing required to get the timing of various events right

 

- flight groups with multiple human pilots, without a doubt a tremendous improvement when creating multiplayer missions! In general, the editor should preferably stop treating human pilots any different than AI pilots.

[MBot]

- more accurate ETA values for waypoints, this would dramatically cut down on the amount of testing required to get the timing of various events right

 

While I agree with all above, I like that point in particular. Have the option to lock flight speed at a given waypoint wich results in a certain Time over Waypoint, or lock ToW wich the AI tries to meet by adjusting speed.

 

 

The ToW values we currently have in Lock On are totaly bogus as they don't take into account the time spend on taxing/takeoff etc. So they are always 5-10 minutes wrong. This means if you make a mission, you always have to play it trough and note down manualy wich unit is where at what time and do the adjusting later ( and replay the mission again to test ToW's... ). This is very time consuming and fustrating.

[Trident]

I can't say I'm surprised that you'd like that one - you first brought it up yourself a few months ago ;)

 

I just allowed myself to bring it back onto the collective agenda, with a new editor actually being worked on now :)