Would You Make Dedicated LWAMI Missions?

[LuftWolf]

If I spend my time making features that need to be enabled by the mission designer, are you guys going to actually use them, even if that makes the missions incompatible with the stock game (like what was done for SCX)?

And if "yes", what kinds of things would you want me to add to DW the mission designers?

I need to know this so I can plan the aspects of LWAMI4 that aren't torpedo-related.

Thanks.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Perhaps when the mod team is officially formed, it will be a good idea to have mission designers "on-staff", so anyone who is interested in being a mod-team mission designer, please let me know here.

Anyone who has already talked to me about being on the team in some other capacity, I assume will make missions as well if you have time, and don't worry, I know who you are and you will be contacted when the playtest containing the full torpedo mod is released.

Thank you!

Cheers,
David

[Miika]

Although I´m not part of the mod team, you can count on me using (and modding my missions) to mod number 4.

Although it might take some time...:hmm:

I'm working on some new missions, which I will send after balancing them according to your next mod.

Keep up the good work!

Miika

[Molon Labe]

My attitude is to design the mission "optimized" for performance with LW/Ami. If it happens to work well in stock too, that's an added bonus, but not essential.

[Qppralke]

Ahoy there.

I create missions for LWAMI i got group of people to play DW together. And we just use LWAMI for our diving.

Any chance you could make flooding the torpedo detectable in mission editor ?
I thought it is possible as it was in Sub Command (I don't know if that acctually worked before, but it was there).

[LuftWolf]

That would require the "user action" command, which was most likely taken out of the civilian version of the DW mission editor at the government's request (because it's OHH so dangerous [find osama first, worry about us second] for all of us to have the user action command in DW).

[Fish]

Could you make the hull popping sound detectable? IIRC it was in 688(I), as the implosion sound was.

[Qppralke]

I thought i might be possible to simulate sub damage from flooded torpedoes.

Detect torpedo flooding , and if depth has been changed without equalization . . . damage.

It could be done on some layers (triggers) , detecting the sub moving thru the layers.

[LuftWolf]

Tusiplex and Fish, we can't do either of those, unfortunately.

[suBB]

Black Market Boomer by Molon Labe on LWAMI 3.02 was by far the best mission objective MP map I’ve yet to play, far better than every last one of all those +100 vs map packs combined. Maps like BMB forces you to think about what you are doing :hmm:and not just go in there with guns blazing.

Yes I’ve witnessed would-be 688s and seawolves doing this only to get owned by a promoted link from the helix or bear followed by an asw barrage from my akula cruising at launch depth with floating wire streamed , combined with Maritime ordinance – it’s a funny sight.

Or infiltrating Maritime Patrol prosecution and sneaking past kilos and akulas as the 688, only to end up within optimal firing range and a master solution of the deltaIV .

Maps like this represent quality and I would love to see more stuff like this from mission designers.

I think as long as people continue to play plat vs plat, they will continue to fail to see DW for the potential it has. Then at that point DW is uninstalled and is now your most favorite coffee mug coaster.

Then there are guys like OKO and Luftwulf and Amizaur who create random events that could add an unexpected twist to the mission at hand and a realism mod that works wonders!!!

I’ve never made maps before, but the fruits your labor inspired me to create a MP mission objective map, including random events on platforms, ROE violations, and hopefully with a sense of dynamics, amoung other things.

I also plan to make maps that focus on either individual platforms(controllable) or two opposing platforms(controllables), while in the same time other controllables will affect the chances of success or failure of the mission on hand. I wish there was scx or something of the sort for DW.

These maps will be made strictly for LWAMI only. That may seem one sided but this is where I draw the line. I know of too many people who share the same frustrations as I do, in fact, some even stopped playing altogether.

My main area of concern is making maps that justify having platforms: It doesn’t make sense nor it is practical in my mind to have a 688 up against a FFG, or a 6 seawolves in a showdown, better yet a kilo SAM hunting a p3 – that makes no sense to me.

Instead I’d rather see(on the MP level) a kilo transiting(attempting to) through enemy waters to pick up a seal team or something, while avoiding detection of the p3, or the 688 sneaking through a polar region to deliver some TLAMS, disengage and return to safety, or a akula on photo/intel gathering, etc

Another concern I have is reasonable game time playing under these conditions, as well as some others. I’m trying to find a balance of short lived/long drawn out MP. And I’m hoping that when my map is finished and after some actual play testing w/o hang-ups, it will address them as such and shine light on the direction I’m heading with all this.

So yes, count me in and lets have some fun


-----


@ LW

As far as my suggestions for LWAMI 4.00, well.. I dunno

As long as you and Amizaur keep enhancing the experience then that’s fine by me.

I’m not really clear on how LWAMI could offer more resources to mission designers, or what features you could make available, maybe if I understood this I would know what to suggest.

I can tell you what I would like to see: RU controllable surface and maritime craft.

I’m thinking this is a database workaround. Why can’t you assign a particular hull of the FFG, P3 and helo to sport RU sensors, weapons, etc. But a mental note must be made not to get them confused. The interface would be the same I guess(would be nice to change those as well) and the voices would need to change.

Umm.. some additional doctrine and scripting commands, what actual commands and conditions, I’m unsure of at the moment. For example, if a sub somehow took damage and lost propulsion(not reduced) on a dive, then the sub is locked into a descent downwards until propulsion is restored.

@ drop bear:

The missile sound is included as a WIP when I get to it. The next map on que is a 4 player MP photo/intel gathering op. and molon has already shared some cool stuff to run with and build upon. See this thread for more information.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=93879

[LuftWolf]

Here is the problem with creating new playables.

1) SCS asked us not to pursue it

2) The interface and database are coded so that certain things being changed in the database results in a crash.

That's about all I have to say about what I've done to try to verify the "no new playables" restrictions for myself.

I think a lot of people forget that SCX and the SCU were indeed hacks that broke the EULA... the fact that a functional agreement was worked out between the parties doesn't mean it didn't create a very bad situation. Now this was all before my time, but the proof is in the fact that no one centrally involved in the modding aspects of SCX/SCU is still directly involved with SCS or actively a member of Subsim, which, frankly, sucks a big donkey-kong for ALL of us who have any stake in DW.

[FERdeBOER]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

If I spend my time making features that need to be enabled by the mission designer, are you guys going to actually use them, even if that makes the missions incompatible with the stock game (like what was done for SCX)?

First answer: yes.
What sort of features are you thinking about?

I offer myself for creating missions for your mod... well, in fact I'm begining a campaign so, It will be a pleasure to make it for your mod. I like your mod very much, specially the IA is MUCH better and agressive than stock game and makes the single player experience much interesting.

Note: due university tests, I will be "avaiable" from june 27th.

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

I think a lot of people forget that SCX and the SCU were indeed hacks that broke the EULA...

Good to know. I knew all the problems SCU caused to the creator, but thought that SCX was "legal" :hmm:

Originally Posted by Fish

Could you make the hull popping sound detectable? IIRC it was in 688(I), as the implosion sound was.

It can be "simulated", but will be a bit tricky.
A trigger can be done alerting or making a sound when the enemy sub pass xxxxdepth, but can't be represented on the sonar screen.
Is possible to make a trigger about if the enemy is detected, and sub depth=xxxx feet and the player is close enought... and then alert the player somehow but, when the player should be alerted and when not?
And, that wouldn't give the player an advantage? I know how important is the popping but, as the SC option of making a trigger "if the player goes to sonar screen..." no longer exists, I think that alerting the player if he/she's (politically correct ) not looking at the sonar screen...

The other problem will be the hull popping depth: it must be estimated by the mission creator and may not coincide wich the real hull popping depth in game...

A complex thing.

[Rob86TA]

While I haven't released anything I'm working on, since I only use LWAMI, of course I'm all for creating/releasing them for LWAMI4

[LuftWolf]

Good to know. I knew all the problems SCU caused to the creator, but thought that SCX was "legal" :hmm:

Yes, but they are integrally related, and as far as I can tell, it's not really a useful distinction to make.

I'm not even trying to get political here, and like I said, I wasn't around back then, so... let's not really go any further because it's in the past.

[LuftWolf]

The other problem will be the hull popping depth: it must be estimated by the mission creator and may not coincide wich the real hull popping depth in game...

A complex thing.

My suggestion for something like this would be to just pick a moment when it happens and use a report message.

To keep things realistic, you can make an area trigger which enables the script to run at a certain time so that the player has to be within a certain distance of the target, or not run at all if he fails to make it within detection range in time.