[Dilmah G]

Both options were available for X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter, but I can't think of another game with a similar option.

Jane's WWII Fighters let you used ALT-P to 'hotswap' between aircraft in mission, from memory.

[Goober5000]

It could be done 5 years ago. I know cause I did it for a MindGames mission.

You explicitly told me to keep that a secret.

[karajorma]

Yeah, but since people are talking about doing it again it doesn't hurt to tell them that it's not a new idea.

Besides, I remember someone posted a similar subject a few years ago.

[Nnexxus]

From a gameplay point of view, I think this makes sense. It can be pretty frustrating to restart a mission several times because you keep dying near the end. But it's also what creates this great sense of achievement once you get through a tough mission.

As for the immersion, if a campaign is specifically designed with that feature in mind, I think a few tricks could make it work. Things like a pilot ejection system and a recovery mission could explain why the wingmens that have been blown out of the sky in previous mission now seat right next to you in the briefing room. Of course, as a player, you get to incarnate several characters at once, but I can deal with that, it's the case in quite a few games.

Or, for a more radical change, a campaign could tell that a technological breakthrough allows for remote controlled fighters. Pilots would stay inside capital ships, and could switch from a fighter to another at will. This would completely justify the new feature, but it would also completely break the sense of achievement and the whole pride of being on the front line. Maybe it could fit in a Total Conversion though.

[S-99]

FS doesn't need this. There's already being able to restart missions, lower the difficulty, and being able to skip a mission after 5 deaths.

Adding checkpoints/autosave would detract from the novelty and difficulty of game play, not to mention accomplishment and pride in finishing missions.

I don't like this idea at all. It's also my opinion that checkpoints in video games today have gotten excessive. A good example being the call of duty series. Adding checkpoints would ruin the zeal of all missions and campaigns.

Just imagine it, a checkpoint for each reactor on the lucifer.

Checkpoints also in my opinion make games dumb easy. Checkpoints can remove penalties for players. With no penalties for the player to worry about, players can do the minimum to reach the next checkpoint (checkpoints will change a game's progression). Which turns game play into nothing more than an easy checkpoint to checkpoint journey. Checkpoints can also detract the players attention from game because the game is doing stuff for the player where as the player should be doing these things themselves (in this case what's in the spot light is saving a games progress).

This all (in my opinion) adds up to players who would get bored with a game very fast because they played it for nothing more than just the game play. Playing for nothing more than just the game play can make certain games get old real fast because players are just concerned with getting to the next checkpoint and the game play; immersion in a game's details, story, and other fine qualities will be ignored or less comprehended and appreciated (less or no novelty, appreciation, and accomplishment).

If we had checkpoints in fs i would probably stop playing the game. Mission by mission progression in fs is the way it was meant to be and should stay. The moment we add checkpoints, it will ultimately change how players progress through the game to nothing but checkpoint progression (probably something like call of duty checkpoint progression  ).

From a gameplay point of view no. From a progressing through the game point of view, hell no! Checkpoints for all the reactors on the lucifer?

[General Battuta]

Adding checkpoints/autosave would detract from the novelty and difficulty of game play, not to mention accomplishment and pride in finishing missions.

I don't like this idea at all. It's also my opinion that checkpoints in video games today have gotten excessive. A good example being the call of duty series. Adding checkpoints would ruin the zeal of all missions and campaigns.

So you enjoyed Delenda Est without checkpoints?

[Klaustrophobia]

actually, yes. but i played on easy i think .

[Pred the Penguin]

Checkpoints in BP are invaluable, especially the dialogue skipping ones.
But I agree that in most modern games checkpoints are excessive.

[Dilmah G]

Adding checkpoints/autosave would detract from the novelty and difficulty of game play, not to mention accomplishment and pride in finishing missions.

I don't like this idea at all. It's also my opinion that checkpoints in video games today have gotten excessive. A good example being the call of duty series. Adding checkpoints would ruin the zeal of all missions and campaigns.

So you enjoyed Delenda Est without checkpoints?

I did, actually. I can proudly say that I've never used them once.

[MatthTheGeek]

"Haters gotta hate" situation detected !

[Black Wolf]

Checkpoints are really, IMO, only useful for skipping dialogue heavy bits, which is easy enough to do anyway. i guess I kind of like the fact that FS punishes you for dying, and makes you refight your battles, but I really hate sitting through dialogue I've already heard(/read). As for swapping on death... well, I could see its value in something like windmills (i.e. a distinct simulation, not the RTS aspect, obviously) but in most missions I think the way FS handles things is a bit better. If you fail, try again until you don't fail any more. Makes you a better pilot, too - forces you to be careful and conserve your own hull rather than just allowing yourself to die killing that turret or achieving that objective,  knowing that the consequeces wont matter in a few minutes.

[headdie]

ok how about this some one looks at how much effort would it take to write the SEXP and or mission spec toggle code to do this? If it's just a couple of hours work then why not implement it regardless and see if anyone uses it.  Ok if it is more than that then then we need some one to say "hey I/we want to use a feature like this in a mod I/we are doing".

At the end of the day if a feature is there then it can be used but it don't have to be and if it's a feature that has to be activated then you wont break anything and who know it could make for some fun player wing(s) VS enemy hordes missions

[The E]

Headdie, everything discussed here is possible using existing functionality. Therefore, it's unnecessary to code it in.

[headdie]

ahhh, ok

* headdie goes back to casually watching the thread

[General Battuta]

Adding checkpoints/autosave would detract from the novelty and difficulty of game play, not to mention accomplishment and pride in finishing missions.

I don't like this idea at all. It's also my opinion that checkpoints in video games today have gotten excessive. A good example being the call of duty series. Adding checkpoints would ruin the zeal of all missions and campaigns.

So you enjoyed Delenda Est without checkpoints?

I did, actually. I can proudly say that I've never used them once.

Remind me not to let you test anything any more. 

[Dilmah G]

Not needing to use the checkpoints =/= Not wanting to test said checkpoints.

I believe I made it clear that the only part of the mission I found difficult was the beginning, involving maxim armed bombers.

[General Battuta]

Not needing to use the checkpoints =/= Not wanting to test said checkpoints.

I believe I made it clear that the only part of the mission I found difficult was the beginning, involving maxim armed bombers.

Unfortunately the beam overload bit got added in fairly late and never got tested adequately, and ironically the biggest issue it had - eventually requiring a patch - was that its interaction with checkpoints made it much harder.

[Dilmah G]

Well it certainly got tested at the beginning and end phase of its implementation by myself. If you'd recall, I always disarmed those beams anyway, and the introduction of the beam overload really wasn't too big a deal for me. I'll acknowledge I wasn't the best person to test that segment.

Anyway, this is a different topic for a different thread, in my opinion. End of the day, I didn't use the checkpoints because I was never in a position to get full use out of them. My testing behaviours are a subject that should be discussed elsewhere.

[Polpolion]

ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL

[General Battuta]

My testing behaviours are a subject that should be discussed elsewhere.

This is true, but I wanted to take it as an opportunity to put out a general word to testers - playing missions 'normal way' the first time through is great, but remember to explore and mix things up in order to try to break the mission.