Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MarkShot
Interesting point. I had not considered that dynamic behavior and challenge or pulling in opposite directions, but you are right.
Also, there are mainly two ways to challenge the player:
(1) Overwhelm - numbers exceed the players ability to counter or events happen too fast.
(2) Outclass - the player is at a disadvantage; maybe has a platform with half the sensor range as the enemy.
|
If you want to see a perfect example of all three factors I mentioned before used to screw a SP player in the ass, hard, check out Bill's Race of the Cripples. Use LW/Ami so that the helo that launches has a working MAD and so the Udaloy doesn't overshoot when it fires its Silexes.
Quote:
|
So, going back to dynamic that leaves the designer with not really using dynamic creation/placement of objects, but instead having a small fixed set precisely scripted missions where only one is actually instantiated and the player doesn't know and cannot quickly determine which.
|
I tried using this design philosophy for an MP FoF scenario about sinking supply ships... after sinking more than 12 hours into it to complete only about 1/6 of the work (just to set it up, not counting testing and revisions) I tabled it indefinitely.
I think RSBs and DLs are great time savers whenever you can use them, but obviously their utility is very limited, especially when you have a specific destination in mind (including moving targets) or when you're trying to spawn formations instead of lone platforms. Thus, DGs tend to be the best option for creating different starting positions. Rather than create entirely separate instantiations, whenever possible, I would try to use layered DGs and probability inclusions to randomly select dynamic design elements individually. You get more dynamicity (yes, I made that word up) for your buck that way.