[General Battuta]

Good write-up, though. This formula was always my target, but in the long run my determination usually gets bugged down by the complexity of having to make quality missions; you'd have to set "has-time-elapsed" triggers to countless messages (arguably the longest, most boring thing to do usually in any mission), triggers, goals, etc. It's really a rather tough job even to make a single mission.

Use chains. Has-time-elapsed is a terrible idea.

Why not open a quality mission and see how it does things?

[Vidmaster]

me = sad, my characters not mentioned :-)

[Slasher]

They would be at the top of the "Babylon Project Characters 101" thread, dude.

[Marcov]

Oh thank you. I never really got the idea of Chain-Delay, but now I'm going to use them.

Oh wait, how do you stop a set of Chained SEXPs?

[Nuclear1]

Yeah, there's two practical ways you can do messages:  send-message-list or chain events with messages together.

I used to use send-message-list a lot, but there's plenty of merit in the second method too.

[Marcov]

Yeah, there's two practical ways you can do messages:  send-message-list or chain events with messages together.

Doesn't that require all 3 fields?

[Nuclear1]

send-message-list is best used with four...sender, priority, message, time delay.

[Scotty]

Oh thank you. I never really got the idea of Chain-Delay, but now I'm going to use them.

Oh wait, how do you stop a set of Chained SEXPs?

To stop, add a second argument that must become true for the message to fire.

[karajorma]

I used to use send-message-list a lot, but there's plenty of merit in the second method too.

It becomes more important when you have voice acting in a campaign. For instance you can time one character interrupting the other to the millisecond using send-message-list (well you can enter it, when it actually interrupts depends on frame rate but that's good enough). Using message chains it's easy to have a pause of about a second between one character stopping talking and the other person interrupting them.

[Axem]

It'd be nice if you could interrupt a send-message-list. The only downside to using them its that you can't stop them. 

[General Battuta]

Agreed, that's the main reason I steer clear of them.

[Slasher]

I like send-message-list because when characters die, Command will step in for the deceased and say their lines! 

[Nuclear1]

Because Terran Command cares.

[TopAce]

I like send-message-list because when characters die, Command will step in for the deceased and say their lines! 

Send-message behaves the same. It's not a matter of which SEXP, but which priority is assigned to it. If it's High, then the engine will assume that line is very important for the player. That's why I've always used priorities.

[MatthTheGeek]

Guardian wingmates until they have said all their lines. Problem solved.

[TopAce]

And that's the tough part.

If you do what Matth said, you introduce an exploit and a balance issue as well. If players notice it, that guardianed wingmen can be used for anything. It may not cause much of a problem in some missions (e.g. escort missions), but for assault missions, this wingmen could be used (exploited) to do anything. So unless you have all your wingmen-sent messages early in the mission, this method isn't as good as it seems.

Now, you can script the messages so that if X dies, then Y will say the lines, and if Y dies, a third wingmen will say the line. <Any wingmen> is straightforward, but the wingmen closest to Alpha 1 in designation will send the messages. If Alpha 2 is alive, he will send all <any message> lines. I prefer this solution for individual messages that any wingmen can send, for lines such as "We're getting overwhelmed." By individual message, I meant messages that are not sent as part of a conversation. However, as soon as you want a dialog to take place between two wingmen, things get more complex.

Also no one will notice how much effort you placed in getting your lines right, no matter how complex the "send-message" events are. One malevolent hate-mongerer will always point out a single flaw in the mission, go "this sucks you noob" all over the place, implying that the mission is badly constructed, you're a noob, and your campaign must disappear in the trashcan. At that point, it's already too late to say anything, everyone will view your work as a piece of garbage.

Long story short, unless a message MUST be sent by a wingman/pilot, have Command send that message.

[MatthTheGeek]

You can't exploit those wingmates if you can't give them orders. From that, it's all down to mission design.

[Snail]

You can't exploit those wingmates if you can't give them orders. From that, it's all down to mission design.

That's a valid solution, but it's also a huge gameplay restriction.

[Nuclear1]

Also no one will notice how much effort you placed in getting your lines right, no matter how complex the "send-message" events are. One malevolent hate-mongerer will always point out a single flaw in the mission, go "this sucks you noob" all over the place, implying that the mission is badly constructed, you're a noob, and your campaign must disappear in the trashcan. At that point, it's already too late to say anything, everyone will view your work as a piece of garbage.

Haters are gonna hate, it's how you deal with that criticism that means everything though.

[ssmit132]

<Any wingmen> is straightforward, but the wingmen closest to Alpha 1 in designation will send the messages. If Alpha 2 is alive, he will send all <any message> lines.

Although if you set a persona for the message, doesn't it try to send it from any wingman who has that specific persona?