View Single Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
04-25-2011, 11:28 PM
Originally Posted by
The best you can do is artificially create less desirable routes where combat would happen or have lengthy dialogue trees that vary dramatically (but, obviously, the dialogue would be self-contained, you couldn't have choices in that dialogue tree affect future conversations directly).
Here's one example of "branch" mission i fudged during closed beta:
You break into a Klingon Interrogation Facility on Rura Penthe.
You officers note that you can:
go across the ridgeline in the dense snow (and try not to fall off the catwalks into the mobs below) or
take the direct "spray and pray" approach through the valley.
I created a sufficiently large volume to exit out of that players could either exit through the roof or ground level entrance to the facility (cleverly placing rocks to prevent entry through non-sensical areas)
It had the illusion of choice (but no branching objectives). Players got to choose how they entered the facility but, nevertheless, had to enter it somehow.
Does that make sense? It's not unlike a modern FPS where you can do the stealth option or the combat option (killing the KDF patrols wasn't an objective but it's one players would assume if they wanted to enter the facility through the valley)
Actually, I used that on the first groud part of the mission I wrote. Your officers advise you you might be able to get by without engaging the enemy at all.
I often design missions that way. Combat should be a means to an end, not an end in itself (unless you're Klingon).
Well. I suppose I'll have to shelve futher work on the mission for now until they provide me with tools to do it right.
I can't help feeling like this is ALSO unfinished on release. There's so many basic tools the Foundry just doesn't have, like ambushes, allies that will move with you, and so on. They really need to take a long look at the Architect system in City of Heroes. It's FAR better made, if you ask me.