Shared Custom Mission\Campaign Formats

[arraamis]

Why, isn't there a LOMAC based community format established for shared custom missions\campaigns ??

 

I as well as others, use a lot of peoples custom missions {And this is a great thing}. But, I get somewhat frustated when I come across a really kool mission originally made for a SU-33 and its classified. So, it can't be converted to use a SU27, or a MIG or anything else. Look, if a really great mission\campaign is created and someone wants to convert it to use a mig29 as an example .... why wouldn't anyone want that??

 

Some people don't like the SU27 or the SU33, I know its hard to believe, but its true. So, why not allow others to mod your mission\campaign to satisfy the mig lovers, or the SU25 lovers??? Nowadays, the first thing everyone wants to know, is if the game is moddable. Because everyone is different and everyone has something to add.

 

Skins are shared and are not classified ..probally because you can't classify textures ... lol!! .... And its apparently ok for others to modify it and re-share it. {or course, giving credit, where it is due}

 

I don't think anyone in the community is that much of a sleeze to re-share your work and pass it off as their own. As long as credit is given to the original maker, all shared missions\campaigns should be de-classified and allowed to be modified and re-shared. As a sharing community of flight simmers, presently using a proggy i.e. {lomac} that doesn't have a dynamic campaign, and probally won't ever. {it would have been great if the FC 1.1 add-on included an early beta of a dynamic campaign} So, it is overwhelmingly evident that we need all the variety we can get, because it doesn't seem to be any plans on the drawing board to expand lomac's capabilities, other than patches and aircraft additions.

 

So, why do everyone feel a need to classify their missions\campaigns, when, no one thinks twice about sharing skin\cockpit\tile modifications ... etc...

 

So, I recommend a universal community format for missions & campaigns. So, that we all can benefit from variety and diversity.

 

Suggestions:

 

1. all missions\campaigns are to be shared as de-classified.

2. any modifications to an established mission\campaign, must be pre-approved and credit given to the original designer.

3. all briefing's should follow a format that is concise and well defined.

4. all shared work, should be thoroughly tested for bugs and other maladies that prevent it from running smoothly.

 

*** Just a thought ***

[Ironhand]

Why, isn't there a LOMAC based community format established for shared custom missions\campaigns ??

 

(snipped)

 

So, why do everyone feel a need to classify their missions\campaigns, when, no one thinks twice about sharing skin\cockpit\tile modifications ... etc...

 

So, I recommend a universal community format for missions & campaigns. So, that we all can benefit from variety and diversity.

 

Suggestions:

 

1. all missions\campaigns are to be shared as de-classified.

2. any modifications to an established mission\campaign, must be pre-approved and credit given to the original designer.

3. all briefing's should follow a format that is concise and well defined.

4. all shared work, should be thoroughly tested for bugs and other maladies that prevent it from running smoothly.

 

*** Just a thought ***

 

I suppose most people, myself included, classify missions not to keep them from being shared but so that they will be flown in the intended manner with the designated payloads. In my own defense, any missions I classify always include the password at the bottom of the mission briefing. I figure that, if you can't be bothered to read the briefing, then you probably don't deserve to alter the mission. :) But, if you do, then you've earned the opportunity.

 

Rich

[SwingKid]

Why do you think?

 

I classify my missions in order to inspire complaints like this. It should be possible to change our own payload and waypoints, even if the mission is classified!!! If nobody complains about it, how will it ever be fixed?

 

It should not be necessary for me to see everything the enemy is doing, just for the ability to change my own waypoint. Say it with me: We should be able to change our own payload and waypoints in classified missions!!

 

-SK

[Ironhand]

I classify my missions in order to inspire complaints like this. It should be possible to change our own payload and waypoints, even if the mission is classified!!! If nobody complains about it, how will it ever be fixed?

 

It should not be necessary for me to see everything the enemy is doing, just for the ability to change my own waypoint. Say it with me: We should be able to change our own payload and waypoints in classified missions!!

 

-SK

 

Absolutely not! Blasphemy! Blasphemer! Get thee behind me satan! :)

 

Actually an excellent idea. Although simply hiding anything you didn't want people to see with the HIDE button would work just as effectively. (Though, of course, they could make things visible if they wanted.)

 

I think arraamis' concept, though, is that everything should be available to change so that missions can be tweaked or used as a basis for an "improved" mission. Of course, some mission designers might feel that these "improvements" have ruined their work, especially since well designed Flanker/Lock On missions are more works of art than anything else.

 

Rich

[coldcrew]

isn't the point of classifying missions so that people can't change their loadouts? especially good in multiplayer games where you want people to stick to their set tasks? if you want loadout changes don't classify.

 

I'm disappointed with the way the mission loading screen especially in multiplayer. The game should at least show the mission briefing and player waypoints and expected tasks rather. The convoluted button thing with coalitions, briefings and loadout changes is poorly done. There isn't even a key to show the briefing text when you enter the game.

[SwingKid]

I wouldn't mind letting users make their own payloads and waypoints, I just don't want them to play with the AI. Once a mission designer has the AI behaving correctly, he doesn't want anybody to breathe on it.

 

Ironically I think this is one of those few things that Flanker 2.0 actually did better than Lock On. There were three levels of classification - the player could change payloads and waypoints for all friendly flights, or only the own flight, or nothing at all, depending on how the mission designer created the mission. In Lock On, there seems to be no "mission planner" function for the player at all. Just a "mission editor", including control over the enemy units.

 

BTW, you do realize that if you really want to declassify the mission, there are some very easy ways to do it, without needing any help from the mission designer? The password provides almost no real protection at all - just press Ctrl-Shift-C and you can change any password yourself, to whatever you want.

 

Say it with me: The password should actually protect the mission!!

 

:)

-SK

[ZoomBoy27]

.....

So, I recommend a universal community format for missions & campaigns. So, that we all can benefit from variety and diversity.

 

Suggestions:

 

1. all missions\campaigns are to be shared as de-classified.

2. any modifications to an established mission\campaign, must be pre-approved and credit given to the original designer.

3. all briefing's should follow a format that is concise and well defined.

4. all shared work, should be thoroughly tested for bugs and other maladies that prevent it from running smoothly.

 

*** Just a thought ***

 

De-classifying:

For me I want the classified for the ability to hide things. I want the Briefing to be the main focus with the map being the way I control the information for the 1st time. After the 2nd time it doesn't matter much. Payload control is not a high priority.

 

pre-approval for established mission\campaign modifications

Not needing it but I want the credit for the base and not to be held responsible for the errors.

 

Shared work testing

We need a centralized place

 

Format

I had to make a linked mission pack and needed a format. We can start there.

 

Political:

Previous mission(optional):

This Mission:

Air Superiority:

Air Defence:

Meteo:

=====================

Mission Title

by ZoomBoy27

 

Based on XXXX by JohnDoe27 with/without consultation

or

Original Mission

Password: gilliguck

 

Mission Version 1.00

LOMAC Version FC1.1

NOTES: (Explanations of jargon, the various waaaah! points.)

[arraamis]

I agree totally, the concept of leaving mission particulars intact, while allowing aircraft, loadout and route changes makes sense and should be allowed.

 

I can understand the point made by ZoomBoy27, "De-classifying:

For me I want the classified for the ability to hide things. I want the Briefing to be the main focus with the map being the way I control the information for the 1st time. After the 2nd time it doesn't matter much. Payload control is not a high priority."

 

After you run through the mission a two of three times, you know what to expect and that's where variety needs to be introduced. Allowing owned assets to be changed shouldn't be a big problem, as long as the primary objectives are met.

 

This is the greatest point and best feature of a dynamic generator, you don't know what to expect during the course of the mission. But, with static missions, after I run through a mission a few times, I know where all the targets are and the best route to take to give me an advantage. {This takes the fun out of it}

 

So, something needs to be done to remove the predictability of missions giving them more than a two use, shelf life.

[ZoomBoy27]

...

So, something needs to be done to remove the predictability of missions giving them more than a two use, shelf life.

 

I remember reading in the feature/changes list something about a Time Start randomization. Anyone seen that take effect?

 

EDIT:

After testing, it does not appear to be defaulted ON and there's nothing in the Difficulty Options.

 

EDIT after Searching:

Shepski the Moderator in a thread said

Regarding random events... this is from Valery:

 

"RandomMissionEvents = true makes all simulation random generators to start from random initial values for different mission starts. So simulation events and results may differ from start to start. If RandomMissionEvents = false then all simulation events and results will be the same for every mission start. Track events and results don't depend on the RandomMissionEvents value - they are always the same."

 

So, I don't know if it can be called "semi-dynamic".

 

the 1.1 ReadMe document says:

Random events have been introduced; the same mission can be played multiple times with very different results. You can turn off the randomizer in the LUA script line: RandomMissionEvents = false in the file Config\World\World.lua

 

Maybe we should include the RandomMissionEvents info in the Mission Standard Format??

And to press ED to put it on the Difficulty screen in 1.2.

What do they randomize?

Sounds like a plan