Super Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,687
I'm in the process of expanding a mission I authored awhile back. It was way too short to qualify for rewards and needed some more oomph, so I'm adding more to the story.

What I wanted was to give the player the option to follow a safe course and avoid combat, or to choose sides in a battle and have the other side attack the player. I also wanted to fix it so that once the player chose sides, they couldn't go back and also choose the other side. I also wanted to preserve the option to just make a break for the planet.

I tried to keep it simple, I really did. But I kept running into limitations and had to keep reworking the objects, triggers, states, and dialog success/fail.

I finally set it up so that the player has a choice of three satellites to interact with (or even none!), instead of just talking to one contact to set up the logic that triggers the events I want based on a conversation tree. After two days of this, I finally got the basic logic working. I still don't know yet whether I will be able to successfully spawn the friends and enemies the way they need to be. I think it will work -- I hope it will work, because I really don't want to have to tear this down again.

What it boils down to is that the Foundry elements of components and objectives are rather restricted in how they can interact with each other. Component A can change state based on triggers X and Y, but not Z; Component B can only change state with triggers Y and Z, but not X, etc.

We really need better (and less frustrating) ways of setting up branching and optional objectives and to set up decision-making trees in a more logical and less roundabout way. I will say that, in some ways, the Foundry has greatly improved over earlier iterations and I look forward to even greater flexibility and usability in the future. But the limitations are driving me nuts...
Volunteer Community Moderator for the Star Trek Online forums -- My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. If you wish to speak to someone on the community team, file a "forums and website" support ticket here, as we are not able to respond to PMs regarding moderation inquiries.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,498
# 2
01-04-2013, 11:13 AM
I honestly have no idea what any of that stuff means (lol, I am not too great with the foundry), but I do agree on the less frustration/more flexibility. Like I am making a mission where I want the player to warp through a transwarp gate and into a planet (it's actually intended as something else), but it always faces the player away from it and warps them into space. I wish I could set which direction I want to warp through. And then I'm trying to set triggers for some invisible walls, but I don't want to go into that nightmare.

So, um, yeah.
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,687
# 3
01-04-2013, 12:02 PM
If I get the chance I'll go back and give some specific feedback about the specific limitations that gave me problems and why.

At the moment, I don't have the luxury of being able to open the Foundry to review and I don't recall exact details because I'm a little sleep deprived

Some of it was various components that you can trigger to become visible, but can't trigger again back to hidden. Some of it was not having the full range of triggers available on every component. Some of it was not remembering what I had to do to make optional interactions on components. Some dialogs I couldn't set to fail. Fun and games with Reach Markers I thought would work as the triggers I needed, but didn't and finally ended up taking out as unnecessary.

The ability to trigger state on objective/component failure would be nice, too.

Oh, and slightly off topic... why the heck don't nav beacons show up on the map during mouse-over with their given names instead of 'nav beacon'?
Volunteer Community Moderator for the Star Trek Online forums -- My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. If you wish to speak to someone on the community team, file a "forums and website" support ticket here, as we are not able to respond to PMs regarding moderation inquiries.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 514
# 4
01-04-2013, 01:00 PM
Amen about nav beacons. It'd make SUCH a great way to direct people and shape a mission to have 'points of interest' like that.


Meh.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 845
# 5
01-04-2013, 04:33 PM
At one point Nav beacons actually had a radius around them on the map (it was colored orange instead of yellow for normal objectives). I don't know why that was removed. It made it easier to show players where to go for optional objectives.

Anyway, if you want to branch you're better off using dialogue prompt reached with a map dialogue. It works a lot better than interacting with objects because with interacts you're limited to only one thing that can hide the object. That means you're stuck with basically a binary choice.

Using a map dialogue you can have a lot of different options.


Click here for my Foundry tutorial on Creating A Custom Interior Map.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 363
# 6
01-05-2013, 02:59 AM
It is possible to base multiple trigger paths on a single dialog. However the Dialog in question has to be a map object dialog that has to be triggered. It cannot be a default dialog, a talk to contact objective dialog or a popup dialogue.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:23 AM.