Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

[speed-of-heat]

Succellus, i think you misunderstand the funding relationship here ... its not military augmentation, it is civilianisation of a military sim that we are seeing... the military contract pays for the majority of the dev effort as I understand it, which is then translated to the civvy market (e.g. us)

 

And as has already been said DC is hard to get right, so you might pay say 50$ for another plane, but would you pay 150$ for a dynamic campaign? The sim market is TINY, the number of people who want a DC, me amongst them are a small subset of that market... and there are few enough people making decent sims to begin with... this is the kind of thing that could break a company if it is done wrong... I'm in favour of more DC like features being added into the engine over time... rather than someone trying to do it all at once...but I do want them to do it...

[HerrKaputt]

stuart, I think that perhaps the sim market won't pay 150$ for a very realistic dynamic campaign.

 

On the other hand, the gamer market, which is huge in comparison, would pay 50$ for a game that has a compelling campaign (doesn't need to be extremely realistic). ED can get their profit from quantity instead of unit price, since the cost to produce extra copies of an already-developed software is minimal.

 

The full-on Ka-50 sim is too hard to the casual gamer, but with the dumbed down avionics and flight model it's quite accessible. A few extra features, such as a DC, could turn it into a full-on game and make it more appealing to sim fans (and make it competitive with old games like EECH for sim/gamer hybrids like myself).

[Succellus]

Succellus, i think you misunderstand the funding relationship here ... its not military augmentation, it is civilianisation of a military sim that we are seeing... the military contract pays for the majority of the dev effort as I understand it, which is then translated to the civvy market (e.g. us)

 

And as has already been said DC is hard to get right, so you might pay say 50$ for another plane, but would you pay 150$ for a dynamic campaign? The sim market is TINY, the number of people who want a DC, me amongst them are a small subset of that market... and there are few enough people making decent sims to begin with... this is the kind of thing that could break a company if it is done wrong... I'm in favour of more DC like features being added into the engine over time... rather than someone trying to do it all at once...but I do want them to do it...

 

Actually yes i would pay 150 usd for a good DC, especially if it integrate all DCS airplanes and turn DCS to a real Digital Combat Simulator.

As i said at least for me, DCS will reach probably some kind of saturation when a FF hit the shelves. There aren t so many craft i can fill my head with all system etc. So a DC will keep me playing, not a new aircraft (after one or 2 more)

 

I know very well the Civ. version is a Spinoff. of the Mil version.

But our side will never see anything mil. grade, so bringing Mil. grade aint a valid counter argument.

 

But afaik, pilot still have to watch flot, obey order from command center, plan multitask missions,integrate missions, find the best way to achieve goal and come back home with minimum surprise and ho hell factors, and decide if risk with new threats are still worth to go on or run back home, go back to drawning board or not. All that in a constantly moving and live warzone.

If i remember well Military were using janes f18, doom and others tools to train recruits or whatever. Why not a batlefield simulator whith heavy hability to tweak missions ? Test personnel reaction to new imputs, tactical and strategical reactions and doctrine knowledge, (only heavily spraying and praying here) who knows.

Unless i m wrong, all that is in a DC.

I understand that to achieve that is very hard for Mil.

Also, i don t think Civ. audiance will be offended to be used as rat lab.

 

All we need is something fun, that gives us a sense of continuity that mission editors (branching or not)uterly fails to give, with a sense of being there that mission editor only partially give us, and a minimum of freedom, that at least BS afaik (i haven t played it much) didn t gave us.

If its mil grade or not is not relevant in this case. And if i remember well Military were using janes f18, doom and others tools to train recruits or whatever. Why not a batlefield simulator whith heavy hability to tweak missions ? Test personnel reaction to new imputs.

Same way mil sim usually have the hability to induce failures at will to train pilots, we don t have this in DCS, we could have a DC way below Mil. interest.

[GGTharos]

I know very well the Civ. version is a Spinoff. of the Mil version.

But our side will never see anything mil. grade, so bringing Mil. grade aint a valid counter argument.

 

While we will not see anything sensitive or classified, the military version has huge influence on the civvy version for the simple reason that time and effort must be spent on both.

 

Unless i m wrong, all that is in a DC.

 

You are wrong. The use scenarios.

 

I understand that to achieve that is very hard for Mil.

 

No, they do things they way they need to have them done. They're not interested in some sort of 'random input' or anything gamey. It is worthless for reality - they are interested in scenarios that they wish to train for.

 

Also, i don t think Civ. audiance will be offended to be used as rat lab.

 

THe civillian audience is useless for this. They don't fly 'the air force way' and likely never will.

 

All we need is something fun, that gives us a sense of continuity that mission editors (branching or not)uterly fails to give, with a sense of being there that mission editor only partially give us, and a minimum of freedom, that at least BS afaik (i haven t played it much) didn t gave us.

 

This is a better argument than the rest of what you wrote - this is actually relevant.

 

 

If its mil grade or not is not relevant in this case. And if i remember well Military were using janes f18, doom and others tools to train recruits or whatever. Why not a batlefield simulator whith heavy hability to tweak missions ? Test personnel reaction to new imputs.

 

Because it is simply not needed in the way you think of it. They already do all the training they need to do. They don't need to 'test personnel reaction to new inputs', they already know how that works and they know how to train for certain tactical surprises. And for the most part it is all about advance planning. They're in the business of doing war, not in the business of playing your FPS ;)

 

Same way mil sim usually have the hability to induce failures at will to train pilots, we don t have this in DCS, we could have a DC way below Mil. interest.

 

The failures were not implemented in this manner because they are not exactly the most desireable feature ever. You have to choose what you spend your time on. Similarly with a DC - it is a complicated proposition and the military does not need it ... so that knocks it down a notch or two on the priority ladder.

[HerrKaputt]

I think that the position of the DC in the Eagle Dynamics priority list is very correlated with the relative strength of these markets:

 

1)Military market, who cares little or not at all about a DC (probably the latter)

2)The hardcore sim-fan market, who cares somewhat about a DC

3)The gamer or gamer/sim hybrid market, who really cares about a DC

 

As mentioned above, the hardcore sim-fan market is small. Therefore, I think that all arguments claiming "sim fans want a realistic aircraft simulation first, DC is just a small bonus" are correct but very bear little relevance. The most important factor is the relation between markets 1 and 3. There are way more clients in market 3, but each client in market 1 pays way more than $40 or $50.

 

On the other hand, if ED already have their hands full with all the military contractors and adding aircraft to DCS one at a time, there's nothing preventing them from hiring a couple more developers to implement a proper DC. ED is not necessarily a rigid body. Currently, their efforts on DCS are hitting markets 1 and 2 but falling short on 3. They can perfectly hire one or two more people to capitalize on a lot of the work already produced (3D models, cockpit models, physics, etc) and just develop a DC environment that runs parallel to the simulation, updating all units positions and orders in real-time.

 

Since it's something aimed mostly at gamers, it doesn't have to be military-grade, it just has to fulfill its purpose of drastically enhancing replayability.

 

----------------

 

BTW, some of my own experiences from the DC in EECH: for the most part, the DC serves basically as a mission generator and as an entity ensuring continuity. If you were tasked with a Combat Air Patrol around an advanced FARP, and in the mean time detected a column of enemy armor, you can destroy it and it will be reflected on the future of the campaign, because other armor columns will be diverted to fill the gap, etc.

 

The real gem in a DC is those few times where real surprises happen. I've had examples: where I was flying an AH-1Z armed only with Hellfires and the cannon (mission was Close Air Support) and suddenly spot an enemy flight of Ka-52s heading directly to one of my own bases. I'm outgunned (those Ka-52 had air-to-air missiles), but I have the element of surprise as advantage, and that own base had no defenses of its own. So I decided to attack them. Heavy losses on both sides, but that saved the base because an allied SAM took out the only remaining Ka-52 (my flight was destroyed :D ). This is just an example of how a DC can add surprises that no set of pre-generated missions can add throughout a whole campaign.

 

ED could even take it up a notch by improving this. In reality, I'd inform the brass that I spotted an enemy flight and ask for instructions. This way, the decision of diverting from the CAS mission to engage would not be the pilot's, but the simulator's, which is even cooler :)

[winz]

Hiring new persons isn't as easy, as you picture it.

You need to find them first, skilled programmers (and ED needs skilled programmers, not just some fresh C# kiddie).

 

Company I work for is looking for new people all the time, and even though the requirements are quite low (i.e we need generic java programer with some experience in J2EE), we stilll have hard time actualy finding them.

[GGTharos]

I think that the position of the DC in the Eagle Dynamics priority list is very correlated with the relative strength of these markets:

 

1)Military market, who cares little or not at all about a DC (probably the latter)

2)The hardcore sim-fan market, who cares somewhat about a DC

3)The gamer or gamer/sim hybrid market, who really cares about a DC

 

I don't think this is correct. People in cat 3 don't care as much you think they do. Regardless, that doesn't matter.

 

On the other hand, if ED already have their hands full with all the military contractors and adding aircraft to DCS one at a time, there's nothing preventing them from hiring a couple more developers to implement a proper DC.

 

ED does more than just add a new aircraft with each iteration. And yes, there's plenty preventing them from hiring a couple more developers to implement a 'proper' DC. What is a 'proper' DC? Do you have a design or requirements?

 

ED is not necessarily a rigid body. Currently, their efforts on DCS are hitting markets 1 and 2 but falling short on 3. They can perfectly hire one or two more people to capitalize on a lot of the work already produced (3D models, cockpit models, physics, etc) and just develop a DC environment that runs parallel to the simulation, updating all units positions and orders in real-time.

 

No, they can't 'just develop' a DC environment. What a disastrous thing your proposal would be, seriously :P

 

Since it's something aimed mostly at gamers, it doesn't have to be military-grade, it just has to fulfill its purpose of drastically enhancing replayability.

 

I think you might be out of tune with ED's stated desire to achieve certain standards here. :)

 

BTW, some of my own experiences from the DC in EECH: for the most part, the DC serves basically as a mission generator and as an entity ensuring continuity. If you were tasked with a Combat Air Patrol around an advanced FARP, and in the mean time detected a column of enemy armor, you can destroy it and it will be reflected on the future of the campaign, because other armor columns will be diverted to fill the gap, etc.

 

I'm sure you haven't noticed, but A-10C did add a dynamic mission generator. ;)

[HerrKaputt]

Sorry Tharos, I don't own DCS: BS and I'm not a beta tester so I can hardly know what is already in each of them. All I know was from asking around in SimHQ.com's forums because I was considering buying DCS:BS. So your last point is correct, I didn't notice A-10 has a dynamic mission generator and I'll have to wait until it's released to see whether it's good enough or not for my style of play.

 

Other points are a bit wrong IMO though. The words "just develop" weren't meant to sound like it would be like an add-on to the current DCS, which is probably not easy to do. I meant that their job would solely be focused on the DC, while current ED elements can continue to work on what they do now. I just meant to pass the idea that developing a DC doesn't necessarily mean stopping or slowing down other directions. But most importantly, why would my proposal be disastrous?

 

A "proper" DC, in its first iteration, could well be just like the one in EECH. Future iterations of it could improve it. It's certainly feasible -- DCS does not use multicore and EECH is ten years old or so, which means there's plenty of computational power left to run the DC along with the main simulator. Design? Requirements? Do like EECH, it's simple enough and it wouldn't be the first project where the design requirements are just "I want the same as that guy".

 

As for the "certain standards", which standards? As mentioned above, by yourself actually, military grade standards are out of the question. DCS:BS and DCS:W are not military grade simulators, they are gimped versions of military simulators that are still excellent for the entertainment market. That leaves us with top-of-the-line entertainment standards, which are certainly feasible and would certainly improve the DCS appeal to the gamer market, which is huge. Even if only some of the gamers would pick up DCS (the ones who like Jane's Longbow, EECH, Falcon 4, etc), that would be a significant market. Only ED knows the cost of developing a DC environment for DCS, but a good DC would easily be worth a couple of programmer salaries for a year (say, 2000€ per month * 12 months * 2 people = 48000€, which is about 1000 game copies).

 

Lack of skilled programmers... well, that may be. I'm a coder myself but I develop scientific code. In my field there's certainly way more skilled programmers than money to pay them. Imperfect markets at their best ;)

[GGTharos]

Sorry Tharos, I don't own DCS: BS and I'm not a beta tester so I can hardly know what is already in each of them. All I know was from asking around in SimHQ.com's forums because I was considering buying DCS:BS. So your last point is correct, I didn't notice A-10 has a dynamic mission generator and I'll have to wait until it's released to see whether it's good enough or not for my style of play.

 

... so you're offering opinion based on nothing? :doh:

 

Other points are a bit wrong IMO though. The words "just develop" weren't meant to sound like it would be like an add-on to the current DCS, which is probably not easy to do. I meant that their job would solely be focused on the DC, while current ED elements can continue to work on what they do now. I just meant to pass the idea that developing a DC doesn't necessarily mean stopping or slowing down other directions. But most importantly, why would my proposal be disastrous?

 

It isn't wrong in the least - in fact it has nothing to do with whether it is an add-on or not. It just implies that you think something you do not understand is easy in any way, shape or form, and yes, it would stop or slow down other directions, starting with AI as the obvious one.

And it would be disastrous because it really requires the entire game to be re-engineered to handle a DC, again, starting with the AI, in such a manner that each iteration of the DCS engine doesn't require re-developing or major surgery on the DC code. This stuff is COMPLICATED. :D

 

A "proper" DC, in its first iteration, could well be just like the one in EECH. Future iterations of it could improve it. It's certainly feasible -- DCS does not use multicore and EECH is ten years old or so, which means there's plenty of computational power left to run the DC along with the main simulator. Design? Requirements? Do like EECH, it's simple enough and it wouldn't be the first project where the design requirements are just "I want the same as that guy".

 

Ok, 'just like the one in EECH'. That's meaningless to me, having never played EECH but - really - 'just like EECH'? That's lacking in originality and betrays laziness of thought towards such a project.

 

As for the "certain standards", which standards? As mentioned above, by yourself actually, military grade standards are out of the question.

 

No, classified and sensitive information is out of the question.

 

DCS:BS and DCS:W are not military grade simulators, they are gimped versions of military simulators that are still excellent for the entertainment market.

 

The only things that are 'gimped' you don't even know are missing or different. Other than that, the aircraft simulation is exactly as close to a real A-10C as you'll ever get.

 

That leaves us with top-of-the-line entertainment standards, which are certainly feasible and would certainly improve the DCS appeal to the gamer market, which is huge. Even if only some of the gamers would pick up DCS (the ones who like Jane's Longbow, EECH, Falcon 4, etc), that would be a significant market. Only ED knows the cost of developing a DC environment for DCS, but a good DC would easily be worth a couple of programmer salaries for a year (say, 2000€ per month * 12 months * 2 people = 48000€, which is about 1000 game copies).

 

Yes, ED knows. And ED isn't plugging in a DC right now *hint*.

 

Lack of skilled programmers... well, that may be. I'm a coder myself but I develop scientific code. In my field there's certainly way more skilled programmers than money to pay them. Imperfect markets at their best ;)

 

Yeah, I developed some scientific code too. Different ball of wax, though I suppose physical chemistry simulation might be in the ball-park there.

[HerrKaputt]

Physical chemistry won't be far from what I do indeed! I do signal processing of brain EEGs and MEGs, but more "signal processing" than "brain". Which basically means lots of coding in MATLAB and C (more MATLAB lately, thank God) :D

 

I can't really refute all your points without me trying DCS: BS and DCS: W. But please don't think this is a lazily thought thing -- just because I won't detail the loads of ideas I have on this on a single post doesn't mean I didn't think about them. Most ideas are inspired on what I think EECH *should* do (some it does, some it doesn't) in its DC, which is why I summarized it like that.

 

Re-engineering the game is a pain. Restarting any coding project is a pain, I've been there! God knows I've had to start from scratch when developing improved versions of my algorithms to analyze brain signals. Sometimes it's necessary if you want to achieve better results. Like I said previously, I have no idea whether a DC is a desirable investment for ED (honestly I'd say neither does anyone outside of ED, but we can speculate), but I do know this: if ED at any time says "man, a DC would be great, but it will be a pain to re-design all that stuff to incorporate it, we should have done it differently at the start", it sucks, but in my professional experience it happens to every coder. I never coded as part of a team but I'd guess it happens to all teams of coders as well. If I had never started code from scratch to improve my programs I'd have half the CV I have now. It's just a fact that when you start developing code for some purpose you can hardly imagine what you'll want a year from now, and by that time your code might have serious design flaws, not because you thought it out poorly, but simply because your priorities have changed.

 

In simpler terms, ED didn't simply say "let's make a simple mission editor for now [black Shark], improve it afterwards [Warthog], and at some point do a full-on dynamic campaign [??]". That'd be poor design on their part. But after seeing the success of DCS and the many requests from the community they might realize that they can tap into the gamer market. Their goals change, and they might re-design the DCS environment because of it.

 

Please don't be offended by me refuting your points, I'm not trying to get into a flame war here!

[GGTharos]

Physical chemistry won't be far from what I do indeed! I do signal processing of brain EEGs and MEGs, but more "signal processing" than "brain". Which basically means lots of coding in MATLAB and C (more MATLAB lately, thank God) :D

 

Very nice :D I'd be interested to hear what sort of project you are working on; I'm not going to understand a whole lot of it, but I'm always curious.

 

I can't really refute all your points without me trying DCS: BS and DCS: W. But please don't think this is a lazily thought thing -- just because I won't detail the loads of ideas I have on this on a single post doesn't mean I didn't think about them. Most ideas are inspired on what I think EECH *should* do (some it does, some it doesn't) in its DC, which is why I summarized it like that.

 

EECH isn't DCS, and DCS isn't EECH. This puts a very fundamental flaw in trying to translate one to the other, at minimum from the point of practicality. And that's where the details weigh in I'm afraid.

 

Re-engineering the game is a pain. Restarting any coding project is a pain, I've been there! God knows I've had to start from scratch when developing improved versions of my algorithms to analyze brain signals. Sometimes it's necessary if you want to achieve better results. Like I said previously, I have no idea whether a DC is a desirable investment for ED (honestly I'd say neither does anyone outside of ED, but we can speculate), but I do know this: if ED at any time says "man, a DC would be great, but it will be a pain to re-design all that stuff to incorporate it, we should have done it differently at the start", it sucks, but in my professional experience it happens to every coder. I never coded as part of a team but I'd guess it happens to all teams of coders as well. If I had never started code from scratch to improve my programs I'd have half the CV I have now. It's just a fact that when you start developing code for some purpose you can hardly imagine what you'll want a year from now, and by that time your code might have serious design flaws, not because you thought it out poorly, but simply because your priorities have changed.

 

ED would have to deal with a bunch of codebase issues to get a DC going which are non-trivial. This is fact, not guess. It is simply a time and effort thing and time and effort are being directed elsewhere. Yes, I think ED always was and still is interested in a DC, but it will happen on their schedule if it does.

 

In simpler terms, ED didn't simply say "let's make a simple mission editor for now [black Shark], improve it afterwards [Warthog], and at some point do a full-on dynamic campaign [??]". That'd be poor design on their part. But after seeing the success of DCS and the many requests from the community they might realize that they can tap into the gamer market. Their goals change, and they might re-design the DCS environment because of it.

 

Actually that's more or less what they did. They ripped out the old (very simple by comparison) ME, added the new one, and they develop it with each iteration. There is simply not enough time to get it 'up to desired spec' in one go, and therefore DCS is a constantly evolving piece of software.

 

Please don't be offended by me refuting your points, I'm not trying to get into a flame war here!

 

I'm not offended. I'm just saying you're a bit out of the loop ;)

[asparagin]

Different ball of wax, though I suppose physical chemistry simulation might be in the ball-park there.

 

No Way, you study (-ied) physical chemistry?

[GGTharos]

More like it studied me ... I had a relatively short stint working on/with it.

 

No Way, you study (-ied) physical chemistry?

[159th_Viper]

More like it studied me ...

 

 

:P

[asparagin]

..I don't want to know where that violet thing fits..:P

[HerrKaputt]

ED would have to deal with a bunch of codebase issues to get a DC going which are non-trivial. This is fact, not guess. It is simply a time and effort thing and time and effort are being directed elsewhere. Yes, I think ED always was and still is interested in a DC, but it will happen on their schedule if it does.

 

Fully agree, now we're on the same page :)

[Ben Sones]

Random question: they have a random mission generator for A-10C now. Is there any reason why this couldn't be combined with the phased campaign system, so that instead of handful of canned missions in each phase "folder", the game generates random missions instead? Perhaps with some persistent data from previous missions (if that's possible), and configured so that the random missions in each subsequent phase reflect the progression of the conflict?

 

It seems like this would be relatively trivial to do... "relatively" in the sense that it's a much less ambitious project than a fully dynamic battlefield simulation, and all of the necessary components (phased campaign system, random mission generator) already exist. The result would be a semi-dynamic campaign similar to the one in Gunship 2000, with a high degree of replayability.

[Speed]

Well, it may not be a dynamic campaign, but I have begun developing a dynamic tasking system that works within a mission. Basically, the idea is that it will be a lua script that will generate tasks for the players based on current battlefield conditions. These tasks are NOT preset, but they will have preset types... BAI, CAS, forward observer (for artillery, yes), maybe AFAC, strike, etc. The tasks would be communicated to the player through text to screen, (and quite possibly, work in multiplayer only- so a single player would just have to launch the mission as a multiplayer server). So, you might take off, and the script detects enemy units line of sight and within like 15km of a friendly ground unit, so you get a CAS mission. Or if the enemy is within range of an arty or MLRS piece, you might get a BAI/FO mission. Additionally, I'd like to work eventually it so that it gives SEAD and air to air missions to other aircraft. Maybe even carpet bombing missions to B52s. That kind of stuff is possible (you have to have the AI aircraft already airborne though).

 

So anyway, that's my current intention. It's SORTA half a dynamic campaign system- the harder part is making a program that automatically builds a mission that's based off the results of the previous.

 

I can't promise anything, but that's what I'm working on. My intention is to build it up slowly over the next few months. The first basic elements should be released as part of a mission within, maybe a month or so. Who knows how long it will take me to build it up.

 

It's no dynamic campaign, but it's a mission that is not preset, and is based on battlefield conditions. What you do, what other aircraft do, what ground forces do would determine your next task.

[GGTharos]

Ok, do it. And don't complain that you tried to explain it with 'relatively' ... any time you say 'easy' or 'trivial', go ahead and do it, and show everyone how trivial it is. I don't much care what you compare it to, since you're obviously knowledgeable enough to make the comparison and call things trivial.

 

It seems like this would be relatively trivial to do...

[Speed]

Ok, do it. And don't complain that you tried to explain it with 'relatively' ... any time you say 'easy' or 'trivial', go ahead and do it, and show everyone how trivial it is. I don't much care what you compare it to, since you're obviously knowledgeable enough to make the comparison and call things trivial.

 

Whoa there, no need to go off-the-wall negative on him. He just asked a question/suggestion. He clearly said he only ment trivial in comparison to a fully dynamic campaign. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. True, it's not a fair comparison, it's like comparing LEO manned missions to a Mars manned mission and calling LEO manned missions trivial. But still, he's probably be right, it might be trivial in comparison... given that ED seems to have the eventual goal of a dynamic campaign for DCS, this very well may be the direction they take next.

[GGTharos]

The number of people who think that some software development task is 'trivial' compared to 'some other software task' are legion. Heard it before. So if it's trivial? Prove it by doing it. If you're doing the comparison, you obviously must know what you're talking about. I'm not particularly interested in what it is being compared to since it is erm, trivial. The very use of the word suggests something.

 

Whoa there, no need to go off-the-wall negative on him. He just asked a question/suggestion. He clearly said he only ment trivial in comparison to a fully dynamic campaign. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. True, it's not a fair comparison, it's like comparing LEO manned missions to a Mars manned mission and calling LEO manned missions trivial. But still, he's probably be right, it might be trivial in comparison... given that ED seems to have the eventual goal of a dynamic campaign for DCS, this very well may be the direction they take next.

[Ben Sones]

The number of people who think that some software development task is 'trivial' compared to 'some other software task' are legion. Heard it before. So if it's trivial? Prove it by doing it. If you're doing the comparison, you obviously must know what you're talking about. I'm not particularly interested in what it is being compared to since it is erm, trivial. The very use of the word suggests something.

 

I'm not a programmer, and I will gladly admit my error if anyone wants to explain why making a dynamic battlefield simulation would not be a considerably more difficult task. And you seem unusually angry--no offense was intended. It was just a question.

 

The existing campaign system, at least as I understand it, already functions by pulling pre-made missions from a "folder" for each phase of the campaign. And the random mission generator makes missions. Is it really that crazy to consider the possibility of combining the two?

[Stretch]

Speaking as someone who is a programmer ... if you're not a programmer, I don't think your strategy should be "I'm going to say that this is the case" and then later say "but prove me if I'm wrong, because I don't really know what I'm talking about." Probably better to just start with the question rather than make a baseless claim: "Hey, can a software developer tell me why a DC is so hard?"

 

Imagine if non-pilots did the same thing about aviation facts ... like if the news media said, "FLYING IS UNSAFE!" and then later said, "but we didn't really research it, so we don't know, but if there are any aviation safety experts out there, feel free to tell us if we're wrong."

[Ben Sones]

Speaking as someone who is a programmer ... if you're not a programmer, I don't think your strategy should be "I'm going to say that this is the case" and then later say "but prove me if I'm wrong, because I don't really know what I'm talking about." Probably better to just start with the question rather than make a baseless claim: "Hey, can a software developer tell me why a DC is so hard?"

 

How was that my strategy, exactly? I did start with the question. My original post opens: "Random question..." Followed immediately by "Is there any reason why X wouldn't work...?" I didn't make any baseless claims. In fact, I didn't make any claims of any kind. I said that it seems like using the random mission generator to plug missions into the existing campaign engine would be simpler than making a full-blown simulated war-style dynamic campaign from scratch. "It seems like, "as in "to me," as in "I'm speculating here, but feel free to chime in with your thoughts." Which nobody has even bothered to offer, actually. Instead, I just get a bunch of people jumping down my throat for having the temerity to ask the question in the first place, as though I'm somehow at fault for not knowing the answer beforehand.

 

Lesson learned, I guess. Don't ask questions. Don't discuss the game's design unless you can program it yourself. You guys sure know how to make a new member feel welcome! No worries--I won't post here again.

[Speed]

I must say, I agree you guys did treated "Ben Sones" like crap. All he did was a made a comparison (dynamic campaign being trivial compared to a randomized semi-dynamic campaign). If you want more people to join you in the (un?) friendly skies, don't cut someone off at the knees for a harmless question/comparison. :mad: I know it is possible to explain things more nicely than it was done.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Speed