[TrashMan]

YA, need your oppinion on something guys..

THIS IS HOW THE MISSION TREE FOR FOW3 looks ATM

Done missions
- yellow and green indicate branching -

GATE_01

GATE_02

GATE_03
---------------------------> prolouge missions

FOW_CH3_01

FOW_CH3_02  ----> branching here determined by mission outcome

FOW_CH3_03a

FOW_CH3_03b  <--- still needs to be done

FOW_CH3_03bR <--- still needs to be done

FOW_CH3_04

FOW_CH3_04R

FOW_CH3_04RR

FOW_CH3_05
- CHOSE ASSIGMENT -

FOW_CH3_05a

FOW_CH3_05b

FOW_CH3_06


a few more mission here
----------------------------------> possibly split chapter into small parts and make a release here?

3-4 other missions mostly complete



The plan is to have more branchin with two really big and long branches with different endings at the end.
Worth all the extra work or not?

[Deepstar]

I like Branching Campaigns, it was fascinating in the old Wing Commander days, that nearly every failed objective has an effect in later missions.

I remember a Freespace 2 campaign named "Pandora's Box" which was a branching campaign, too. Also you choose only between different assignments which lasted a few missions. (example: Hunt down an enemy destroyer or left behind with your capital ship.)

I like the idea, but there is the possibility that you will create missions that the most players will never play, especially when a few missions (and maybe so a different story development) are only playable when you failed different objectives.
Players like it to win, and who want to loose intentionally to get all missions?

I think it's okay to make a branching campaign with different assignments. In the question with mission objectives i think it depends on how complex the effect should be, when the player don't reach all targets. When the player plays a complete new branch after the failure, i don't think that this is worth the time. But single "Another Attempt" Missions like in your example (so failed 03a and have to play 03b) should be okay.

[Game_Master64]

branching's cool, to an extent. i'm not actually sure if i'd play a heavily branching campaign, since i wouldn't want to replay the whole campaign to get to 1 or 2 missions that branch off near the end. it gets fustrating.

i'm not trying to deter(sp?) you though, if you wanna make one, go for it. i'm sure others will enjoy it

[FlyingBadger]

Branching means you make a lot of missions that most players will never play.  I started out decent at Wing Commander (only played the first one) and never saw the losing missions until I started ejecting at the beginning just to get to them.  Then I had to start the game over when I won in order to keep going down the losing path.  One or two missions is fine, and I like the idea of choosing a couple missions like in Pandora's Box, but don't make the whole thing branched, you get less people playing your missions and it dilutes your effort.

[Wanderer]

Well direct tree like branching system causes a lot of missions that players will never play. However i think sort of wing commanderish way (though not as extreme as in wing commanders) of making the campaign consist of several 'mini-campaings' which can then branch is rather good way to do it.

[TrashMan]

The idea that the branching is in most cases influenced by the player - he'll get a transfer choice or something like that, so it's a mtter of clicking yes/no..

Alltough in one or two places a outcome of the mission will dictate the next branch.


the poll is very even ATM....lol

[Cyker]

It doesn't even have to be that complex - Simple things like the Sathanas missions in the OC where what you blow up in earlier missions determines what you're blowing up in later missions.

[Game_Master64]

that would work. if you have single missions that branch, then go to the same one, and which mission you chose would change the next mission, but not infulence the rest. does anyone know where i'm going with this?

[TrashMan]

I'm not sure I got that...

Can you elaborate, just to be on the safe side?

[Game_Master64]

ok, so, you have 1 main path, call it path A, and at certain points during the campaign you can briefly detour to 1 of 2 a shorts path, call them paths B and C. After path B or C is completed (it would have to be short, 1 or 2 missions) it goes back to the same place it left off in path A (like the SOC loops) except depending on which path you chose to do, something in the mission is different, like objectives, or loadout. esentially you would have to make 2 identical missions, only with slight changes. did that help any? is my idea total crap?

[karajorma]

I say go for it. Branched campaigns add hugely to replayability and you can always play through the missions you missed by playing them in the techroom (or you can release a campaign file pack that allows you to start at the major branch points).

Don't make missions that differ only in minor details between the branches though. If you're going to branch, make the differences big.

[CP5670]

Branching means you make a lot of missions that most players will never play.  I started out decent at Wing Commander (only played the first one) and never saw the losing missions until I started ejecting at the beginning just to get to them.  Then I had to start the game over when I won in order to keep going down the losing path.  One or two missions is fine, and I like the idea of choosing a couple missions like in Pandora's Box, but don't make the whole thing branched, you get less people playing your missions and it dilutes your effort.

I agree. The time and effort it takes to make entirely new missions for alternate branches is better spent in adding those missions into a linear structure. Although branches add to replayability, a lot of people aren't going to play through a campaign more than once anyway. On the other hand, I think smaller differences that carry over between missions (e.g. protecting an extra ship in an earlier mission causes it to help you later on, or the thing I did with the turrets in PI) are a much better idea as they take far less work to do and still give the impression that the campaign is responding to your actions.

[colecampbell666]

One thing that i didn't like about PI is the fact that the GTVA seemed to have increased the power output of their weapons by about 500x.

[TrashMan]

I say go for it. Branched campaigns add hugely to replayability and you can always play through the missions you missed by playing them in the techroom (or you can release a campaign file pack that allows you to start at the major branch points).

Don't make missions that differ only in minor details between the branches though. If you're going to branch, make the differences big.

Usually the missions and their number vary.

I got big plans.. the mission tree will branch and then unite again..and do that several times..and then, near the end you can chose your ressigment - either to a SOC squadron, or your own elite squadron.
Whatever you chose, the next several missions will be completely different.

What I'm worreid about is the last missions for both branches tough.
I think they are gonna push the FSO limits regarding ship counts...the SOC one for 2  reasons, the elite one for sheer shipcount.

[diceman111]

I bet you are making this thread just to make me feel bad about not finishing
FOW_CH3_03b
FOW_CH3_03bR

 

/Dice

[TrashMan]

Not really...I usually end up spending days fixing those mission anyway.. *evil snicker*