Mining

[SeaQueen]

Hi Guys!

I wanted to create a mission where the goal was to mine an area to a certain level of effectiveness. I didn't see any triggers, though, that would trap the placement of mines in a certain area. Has anyone had any luck with this sort of thing?

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

Hi Guys!

I wanted to create a mission where the goal was to mine an area to a certain level of effectiveness. I didn't see any triggers, though, that would trap the placement of mines in a certain area. Has anyone had any luck with this sort of thing?

Destination trigger. The mines will be listed on the object to complete page under Civilian--Torpedo.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Destination trigger. The mines will be listed on the object to complete page under Civilian--Torpedo.

Excellent. Now... the question is how to make it have to be triggered by 16 different mines in order to be true...

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

Excellent. Now... the question is how to make it have to be triggered by 16 different mines in order to be true...

I don't know for sure if this will work, but if it does, the easy way would be to allow the trigger to refire sixteen times; I think there is a doctrine that will count the number of refires. The reason this might not work is that the same mine might cycle the refiring trigger all 16 times.

The sure way to do it is more labor intensive. You copy the trigger 15 times, and place every trigger in its own dynamic group that spawns only when the previous trigger is completed. An aggregate goal trigger would be used to test for the completion of all 16 destination triggers. Edit: no, wait, that doesn't solve the uniqueness problem...hold on, still thinking.

...I don't think there is a way around the uniqueness issue. Assuming the first technique doesn't work, there are no conditions that can be used to distinguish the first mine, e.g., from setting off the second trigger, with the possible exception of speed. But speed doesn't get you very far. So, I think the method you might be stuck with is having to specify places where the mines would be placed rather than just designating a large area. This doesn't necessarily have to be precise coordinates, but could also take the form of intervals, as long as the "line" upon which they will be placed is known to the player. The idea would be that the player is required to spread the mines out a certain amount, stacking them on top of each other would only count for one mine deployed.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

I don't know for sure if this will work, but if it does, the easy way would be to allow the trigger to refire sixteen times; I think there is a doctrine that will count the number of refires. The reason this might not work is that the same mine might cycle the refiring trigger all 16 times.

Yeah... honestly the way it's set up right now, I'm not sure if it's firing at all, but I digress...

So, I think the method you might be stuck with is having to specify places where the mines would be placed rather than just designating a large area. This doesn't necessarily have to be precise coordinates, but could also take the form of intervals, as long as the "line" upon which they will be placed is known to the player. The idea would be that the player is required to spread the mines out a certain amount, stacking them on top of each other would only count for one mine deployed.

Rats... I was hoping to avoid that. I don't like to micromanage players like that. I was hoping to make a scenario where people could use mines realistically rather than as just another slightly eccentric torpedo.

[Molon Labe]

I know how you feel. As many features as the editor has, it just feels like they never "filled out" all the possibilities that should logically (to me anyways) follow the features they implemented. If you have the capability to test for the presence of an object, why not have an argument that allows you set the # of those objects to test for? If you can test for the presence of an object in a circular area, why not be able to test for one in a retangular area? If you can test a platform for relative position, why not include an argument to restrict its bearing? I can go on..... It's really frustrating because inevitably any great idea you get will probably have to be dumbed down in some way to get it to work, and even then it only works so well. We just have to do the best we can with the tools we have.