Is a Dynamic Campaign really needed?

[Weta43]

There's a lot of feeling that LO/FC needs a DC to increase immersion & give a sense of consequence to performance in missions.

This seems to be a job big enough to put everyone off tackling it.

I was thinking that a simpler option might be simply adding the unit start time randomiser that already exists, adding triggers (which I realise probably isn't a trivial exercise in itself), & - most importantly - allowing saves mid mission.

I think this would address lots of what you're talking about (what I do this session having no bearing on what happens next time I play).

Think of newer FPS games like Far Cry vs. the old. Old fps's had similar problems to those leveled at LO/FC. The difference with new games is that rather than missions lasting 5 - 15 min (excluding transit time) between single must finish objectives & saves, then off to a new map (as we now have in LO/FC), there are several consecutive objectives that you get handed in a single long mission (MAP) & the way you handle earlier goals them impacts on how you have to approach the next, but not because it's dynamically generating campaigns, just because you don't have a single objective per mission & save, & the various units on the map are relevant to more than one of the objectives.

If you don't get the keycard at once from this building, you still wander around & kill or be killed. If you kill someone guarding a later objective for that map as you pass, they wont be there when you come back.

If you sneak into the building to get the card without killing the "people" guarding it, they will perhaps hear or see you when you move on to the area where you actually use it.

Blow up a 4 wheel drive & it can't be used to chase you later - or to get away in.

If LO units could be triggered to scramble by EWR / AWAC & could be given consecutive task (take off at start time + time 0 patrol, land at start time + time 1, park, refuel 7 re-arm, take off at start time + time 2 escort flight 2, land here at start time + time 3 where the times 0 & 2 are generated by the random start time utility), then rather than 20 single objective single save missions, we could have a mission 3 or 4 days long with multiple objectives & do saves along the way as you come & go from the computer (make it a single overwrite file to stop people going back & doing the task over till they're happy).

Of course there would be periods of time in there which you would want to fast forward over & watch on the map view - your tanks move up to take an airfield - if you already took out the defenses they'll succeed, if not they'll fail meaning you'll have to fly over hostile territory to achieve your next objective - unless you jump in a plane & take them out now..

Players could just takeover the lead plane in any of the scheduled flights taking part (ALT J) - fly the SEAD, fly the fighter escort, rather than spawning as a separate class, and so there would be attrition to the sides as the war progressed, offset by new units with start times later in the game arriving as reinforcements. As the game already stands, if they were at a base held by the opposition prior to their start time they'd be safe, but at their start time would become visible to the enemy. If you hold the base at that time they're of use, if not they're gone. As at present if the player is not in a plane the game continues

 

 

Much better Coms would be needed - & like I said - triggers & the ability to give a flight multiple separately timed missions (which means they'd be sitting around between missions vulnerable to vulching - if their triggers didn't get them up in the air fast enough).

This wouldn't be a DC as all the units & tasks are scripted beforehand, but I think this would allow much more variation on replays & much more immersion & consequence without needing to do radical things to the campaign engine.

[Coffee999]

I must admit, I didn't read

 

your entire post. But to answer your question.

 

A DC would insure that LO lives a very long life. In addition, a DC combined with a clickable cockpit, and you would have a great start to make sure LO lives as long as F4. F4 may never die. Mostly because of the DC though.

 

Coffee

[Shaman]

I'd be happy with linear campaigns as long AI planes and air defenses are not as stupid as they are now. And if there would be also scripted events and some random events.

[Andrew_McP]

A full dynamic campaign, no? But LOMAC *badly* needs some tactical elements adding to the core gameplay.

 

Still, this is very old ground. The community's been having this discussion since Flanker 1.5. I just accept LOMAC for what it is rather than what it might be at some point in the indefinite future. I fly EECH if I want involving tactical gameplay, I fly LOMAC if I just want to enjoy flying. There are worse fates! :-)

 

Andrew McP

[504MrWolf]

i agree with you weta.

 

I dont want or care about a DC ive played F4 and its DC and it doesnt interest me, its time consuming and complicated thats why i bought Lockon and love lockon because it is fairly simple to play. Which is the reason most people bought it as a DC was never advertised to be in Lockon. If you bought Lockon and bitch about a DC then why did you buy it ?

 

The best thing for Lockon would be triggers and the ability to have AI launch a CAP instead of you having to add it, just adding say 4 hornets as standby with a trigger to launch if AWAC or ATC spots enemy aircraft would greatly enhance mission building. Carrying this theory over to the ground units would be perfect for me as im a Frogfoot lover and dont fly any other plane.

 

A DC will never happen in Lockon not from ED anyways they will probally work this in to their next projects but for lockon...........i doubt they have time or want to add triggers etc as the testing time would cut in to their schedule on 1.11 and 1.2, but who knows !?

 

I hope the DEV's take a look at this thread !

 

Wolfie

[Asterix28573]

Hi,

From some time ago I've been thinking in "3rd" way that maybe would interest ED about the DC subject. ¿What if they implemented some kind of mechanism that allowed "external" control of LockOn?

 

What I mean is: expanding the current LUA interface or even create a new one (through a DLL interface plugin, i.e.) that allowed a 3rd party executable to monitorize all the events ocurring inside LOMAC's 3D world, and according to how they're developing then, in RUNTIME, add / remove the proper elements inside it (i.e. launching a CAP flight when you are detected by an EWR station, i.e.).

 

At the very same time, this external engine could throw off of the LOMAC 3D world those objects / planes / whatever out of the scope of the player, thus creating an effect similar to the famous Falcon 'bubble', where all the "war" out of that player bubble is only statistically simulated according to player's rating ("2D-war" in Falcon terms).

 

I think this could be a good approach for the following reasons, i.e.:

• creating a Dynamic Campaign engine from scratch is a VERY hard task. Look at F4 campaign engine: after near 10 years there's still a lot of bugs in it. For instance the "bubble" mechanism wouldn't be necessary, as the game itself would be the bubble, and all the 2D calculations would be run in background by the Campaign Generator software.
  
• there's a number of 3rd-party "Campaign Generator" projects in development out there (I think SwingKid had one, IIRC...). AFAIK currently they only can generate missions according to the debriefing of the previous one, but not interact with them in runtime (which is the cool part of Falcon DC). Maybe if such a mechanism was designed they could, thus creating a new interesting "market" for add-ons.
  

 

 

Just my 0.02@ idea ;).

 

 

Best regards,

Asterix

[Coffee999]

Well, some don't care about a DC. Others won't buy it without. I have it and it's the only sim I fly currently. I love it. But here's the thing:

 

LO would be sooooo much better if I could load up the game, pic a campaign, and go. I won't know what's about to come my way. It may be a simple mission or not. Now currently, if you've had LO for a long time, you have probably played most of the mission by now. And probably most of the ones you can get online. It does take some doing to keep it fresh. Online is great, but most don't for many reasons.

 

The bottom line is with a DC, things will NEVER get stale. There will always be new challenges with a click.

[Floyd]

I dont want or care about a DC ive played F4 and its DC and it doesnt interest me ... Wolfie

 

And that is exactly the point. The answer to the question depends on your

preferences and what you expect from the sim. The influence from the

community - well, the people we hear about on internet - isn't that big

if it comes to fundamental changes like DC etc. Good if someone (like Swingkid

http://lockoncampaign.com:8811/board/index.php?a=forum&f=11) is working

something out, but don't expect too much enthusiasm from the developers.

Take the sim as it is and hope that you'll like future addons/extensions.

 

The other side of the medal is the (re)playability of the sim. You can play

F4 all the time, you have new theaters, modified campaigns etc, if you like

the sim and the concept behind it. F4 delivers a "dynamic universe" to the player:

start/load the campaign and the clock starts ticking, the ATO is developed, based

on what happened so far - if a SAM site couldn't be destroyed, a new package

might be generated. All F-16's might be flown by humans or AI, you can even

join a server and "push away" and AI pilot from a flight airborne. If you like

flying online, there is no difference (design wise) for single missions or coop's.

If you don't have enough humans to man the planes, you fly with AI pilots.

 

The concept behind IL-2/DCG is this: single missions are generated

by the campaign engine, results (and ranks, kills etc) are tracked and have

an effect on the next mission. A document about the "inner workings"

can be found there: http://www.lowengrin.com/news.php

Destroyed units, for example, have a probability to "respawn" at a supply

area and can be moved to the front by transport.

 

In the end it all depends on your preferences if you "need" a DC or not and F4's

system is of course not the one and only possible implementation. Fact is it

would be nice to have a DC (of any kind), but i think it's not realistic at the

moment.

 

I would be happy if one could play missions/coop online and AI pilots fly the

plane if not enough humans join. Now each flight must be designed as "client"

in the mission and will not spawn if nobody joins. This concept is REALLY bad,

but can't be changed as it is implemented deep, deep in the code. I'm still

wondering how somebody can design something like that in the beginning?!

I mean F4, Jane's F/A-18 and IL-2 have it. Hwg, would be fun to fly online

on the big servers against all the "Ai bots".

[Vosxod]

...Think of newer FPS games like Far Cry vs. the old...

Hmmm... let me think... I played DOOM II 5 days. Finished all levels and that's it. No more interest in the game. Now, I played Far Cry 10 days. Finished all levels... No more interest in the game. I think it's really bad example to prove that DC is not needed! In fact this is the proof of opposite! New first point shooters are NO DIFFERENT than old ones.

Anyways Weta do you have and idea of what DC really is? Do you play Falcon?

[britgliderpilot]

Anyways Weta do you have and idea of what DC really is? Do you play Falcon?

 

He may be attempting to make a point I'm very fond of - that not all of Falcon 4's good points are directly attributable to a Dynamic Campaign.

[coldcrew]

There are some of us who don't like a DC. I played F4's DC and after a while it's just the same old boring DC, just like the same old boring missions you get in pretty much every game. Play GTA enough times and it will become boring too.

[GGTharos]

Nothing's a herculean task, until you decide you want to do it right.

[britgliderpilot]

Nothing's a herculean task, until you decide you want to do it right.

 

Which explains, obviously, why Falcon 4's campaign is now perfect.

[Oceandar]

If you bought Lockon and bitch about a DC then why did you buy it ?

Err...to support flight sim developer maybe ?

 

A DC would insure that LO lives a very long life. In addition, a DC combined with a clickable cockpit, and you would have a great start to make sure LO lives as long as F4. F4 may never die. Mostly because of the DC though.

Couldn`t agree more ;)

 

There are some of us who don't like a DC.

Let me guess most of them are onliners, aren`t they ? Would you please with sugar on top think about us (offliner) too ? make it happen in the next project won`t hurt IMHO, don`t like the DC then don`t fly it ;)

 

BTW not a chance we have DC in lockon in any version 1.2 1.3 etc as has been said by Valery Blazhnov (sorry for misspelling) in the other thread, so I`m not bitching about DC in lockon but I hope they`d (ED) make it in their next project ;). Good luck ED :)

 

Cheers :)

[GGTharos]

Actually a lot of us onliners WOULD like a DC, too - just look at some of the projects out there like Crimean Air Wars. This cries out for a DC.

 

And, BGP, no, it isn't. It has some issues still. I'm sure you'll run into them ;)

[Oceandar]

Actually a lot of us onliners WOULD like a DC, too - just look at some of the projects out there like Crimean Air Wars. This cries out for a DC.

Well I said MOST of them, but glad to hear that :D

 

Cheers :)

[Weta43]

I think GG, that's what he meant (Herculean task - years of devoted effort & still not right...)

[192nd_Erdem]

There are some of us who don't like a DC.

 

Yeah they're the ones that like play "deathmatch" or "dm_crimea" in 20+ players servers,and most of them don't care about immersion.

 

DC should be IN if Lomac wants to stay longer.Creating a dull mission of mine and playing my mission doesn't add anything to game(plus,if I want to make anything complex to add immersion;the game gets a big hit from performance,they should think about this too or we can play DC with 2 FPS :) ).

 

I'm hoping devs will see this.

[GGTharos]

Well, personalyl I would prefer to see AI and Mission editor enhancements before a DC - I believe that a very solid foundation is very necessary for a DC.

[Weta43]

True..

[GGTharos]

I will elaborate a little more:

 

If a DC gets throwin in NOW, and we ask for AI etc enhancements later, we'll hear 'awwh but now we have to redo DC as well' ... so it's very important for all this to be done in the correct order ;)

[Oceandar]

If a DC gets throwin in NOW, and we ask for AI etc enhancements later, we'll hear 'awwh but now we have to redo DC as well' ... so it's very important for all this to be done in the correct order ;)

Heheh as ED tester team you know that they`ll hear you.

BTW where`s Caretaker when we talk about AI, is he alright ? haven`t seen him lately.

 

Cheers :)

[S77th-GOYA]

LOMAC, in it's current state, would benefit from the addition of a trigger system more than a DC.

[Starlight]

A DC is not really needed.

The point is that if the developers want to make a "Falcon4 killer" as they said, they should build one, for at least two reasons:

 

- F4 does have one, which apart some bugs, works well. (but which complex programs doesn't have any?). A F4 killer without a DC, won't be an F4 killer ;)

 

- A complex project like the one that is being planned for the future will cry for a DC. A super-iper-mega realistic F16 simulation with the same AI and same mission system used today in LockOn, would plainly suck... as I stated in one of my previous post, that would be a waste of resources... imagine, you would have a 1:1 working copy of the APG-68 radar, yet tracking stupid AI bandits. That wouldn't make sense.

 

There are however "cheaper" ways to get to a better system than the one used today in Lomac. An event-driven mission system would be a good starting point. Another thing that would be useful are missions that "remember" previous events (buildings and units crushed and so on).

And better AI than today is badly needed in Lomac. Coordinating missions with other flights/packages is close to impossible in Lomac, and that's light-years away from RL.

 

Yet the dynamic campaign IS what a serious sim should have. With all my respect to those who consider it useless, I think they don't appreciate it because they've not played enough (if nothing at all).

I once used to play Falcon4 on my K6-200 Mhz with Voodoo2 accelerated graphics, that is with all graphics turned off. No hotas, nothing. Yet immersion was far greater than any campaign/mission in Lomac, on a X800XT+Hotas equipped Athlon XP 3.2.

I remember some F4 missions like I really did them in RL! (I know I'm exaggerating a lot... it's just to give an idea!). Aircraft popping up from nowhere, enemy flights taking off for the FLOAT (or FEBA, call it as you like it), allied aircraft coming back home after a mission.... that was great!

 

Today Lomac developers have focused on details. Yet very important details, because an advanced flight model is another thing if compared to a scripted flight model. Would you trade a high fidelity FM for a simpler one? No.

Same goes for the mission engine. The DC is like the advanced flight model compared to "lomac mission engine" which is like a totally scripted FM.

 

If in the future ED projects will have better flight models with today's mission engine, they would be VERY unbalanced sims.

[yamangman]

I think a DC is needed. It give you a purpose in nursing that wounded plane all the way back to base after only partially damaging the target.