58 replies to this topic

[TheOtherXtremeRoflcopter]

Okay, did some more research and found out some things:
1) Since I last checked the functionality some 3 or 4 years ago, they've updated Galaxy Forge and allowed for team specific spawning (follows the numbering system)
2) We can actually update existing maps to turn off randomized spawning now.

This kind of opens the door for us a bit, actually.

So theoretically it is possible to create a campaign of sorts?

[CanadaMan7]

So theoretically it is possible to create a campaign of sorts?

I would call it that very loosely, but perhaps something similar to one.

[TheOtherXtremeRoflcopter]

I would call it that very loosely, but perhaps something similar to one.

Works for me.

[Rovert10]

Event system? Can you elaborate upon this?

If you look at Galaxy Forge and look at the top left you'll see a menu with the label of "Triggers".

Supposibly this would allow you to create events able to be triggered by a set of conditions. As of right now it is just sitting there not being used for anything. So it appears to be incomplete. Since well... there arn't any conditions to even choose from.

[D4RKST0RM99]

Does anyone else remember how simple the Startrek Armada campain was?(ouch, just reminded myself how old I am) in some cases it was one square map and you slowly advance destroying each enemy outpost until you cover the whole map, sort of the same formula for every rts since, the same formula could be applied here, the campain idea does give the added advantage of specific set peices like an ark or halo ring with AI controlled units, pre built just for that map/mission that would produce a more strucrured play though-
objective 01: capture surrounding planets for rescources.
objective 02: move to next star and engage enemy forerunner/covenant/rebel unsc etc
objective 03: discover portal generator and enter
objective 04: exit slipspace inside forerunner structure halo/ark/sphere/homeworld (can only be entered through portal, no connected phase lanes)
objective 06: destroy forerunner/flood presence

perhaps faction specific mission maps are a better option and only down to player choice whether they select the appropriate faction.

if 313i can covert a couple of multiplayer arenas into a spartan ops mission then this shouldn't be too impossible.

[CanadaMan7]

Actually those ideas aren't possible with our current version.
We might see Ironclad expand on the triggers selection with the Rebellion galaxy forge to do things like capturing specific planets or killing specific ships. But dunno, need to check that out more.

[Emberblaque]

Okay, did some more research and found out some things:
1) Since I last checked the functionality some 3 or 4 years ago, they've updated Galaxy Forge and allowed for team specific spawning (follows the numbering system)
2) We can actually update existing maps to turn off randomized spawning now.

This kind of opens the door for us a bit, actually.

I know about teamIndex. To my knowledge that only makes it so that people on the same team will spawn on planets with the same team index, but it's still random which side of the map you end up on. With two players the game would behave exactly the same way, unless I'm misunderstanding. You'll be next to your allies if a group of planets close to one another have the same teamIndex but to my knowledge what index you get is random.

[CanadaMan7]

I know about teamIndex. To my knowledge that only makes it so that people on the same team will spawn on planets with the same team index, but it's still random which side of the map you end up on. With two players the game would behave exactly the same way, unless I'm misunderstanding. You'll be next to your allies if a group of planets close to one another have the same teamIndex but to my knowledge what index you get is random.

So

randomizeStartingPositions FALSE

does nothing? That's disappointing.

[Rovert10]

Can't you just override that by setting planet owner as well as teamindex. You'll have to be in a certain join order on the list but still doable I believe.

[Fleet Admiral agigabyte]

Can't you just override that by setting planet owner as well as teamindex. You'll have to be in a certain join order on the list but still doable I believe.

I think someone did that in galaxy forge in a video I watched.

[Faced]

With all this, we could recreate all the space battles, My favorite will be the Fall of Reach, cuse you can't win ahaha, but re-creating the battles of earth will be good. But Campaign... eeeehhhhh, it's sound like a good idea, but you'd have to think up an entire story (cuse most halo things occur on foot). But it could work, if someone would want to work on it.

[Grogoholic0142]

I think this is the most appropriate place for this post. Originally I had this idea for multiplayer but it would probably work better as a multiplayer vs computer campaign. The 'State of war' and '2542' are a "cluster fuck" of way too many planets for a single person to handle. I tried it on easy and couldn't visit every star system to build the ore harvesters before I was being attacked by the enemy and the controlled but undeveloped planets kept my credits at a nice and even 0 for too long.

 

So why not have several players (1 player for every 2 stars maybe) control certain star systems and the buildings within those systems. After a few minutes to build up planets and fleets the Covenant comes in and starts destroying planets starting with Harvest and working their way through the systems toward Earth.

 

Players can send each other resources and transfer control of ships to help 'Admirals' who have had their battle groups destroyed. When an 'Admirals' system has been conquered by the Covenant, that 'Admiral' then gets to help with the fleet co ordinations of the other players but they can no longer control any planets and can only control ships that other players have given them control of.

 

since it wouldn't be canon to defeat the Covenant the players would only be able to stall their advance and play out critical battles that appear in the Halo lore.

 

Not sure if the whole Idea is even possible or not, but if it is would it be too OP for all the players to share the same tech tree or have their own individual tech trees? 

[Faced]

I think this is the most appropriate place for this post. Originally I had this idea for multiplayer but it would probably work better as a multiplayer vs computer campaign. The 'State of war' and '2542' are a "cluster fuck" of way too many planets for a single person to handle. I tried it on easy and couldn't visit every star system to build the ore harvesters before I was being attacked by the enemy and the controlled but undeveloped planets kept my credits at a nice and even 0 for too long.

 

So why not have several players (1 player for every 2 stars maybe) control certain star systems and the buildings within those systems. After a few minutes to build up planets and fleets the Covenant comes in and starts destroying planets starting with Harvest and working their way through the systems toward Earth.

 

Players can send each other resources and transfer control of ships to help 'Admirals' who have had their battle groups destroyed. When an 'Admirals' system has been conquered by the Covenant, that 'Admiral' then gets to help with the fleet co ordinations of the other players but they can no longer control any planets and can only control ships that other players have given them control of.

 

since it wouldn't be canon to defeat the Covenant the players would only be able to stall their advance and play out critical battles that appear in the Halo lore.

 

Not sure if the whole Idea is even possible or not, but if it is would it be too OP for all the players to share the same tech tree or have their own individual tech trees? 

For this, you could assign peoples ranks, and who controls who, telling people what to do when and stuff?

[Grogoholic0142]

not sure i understand your question faced. But i guess the leader would be who ever controls Earth.

 

Although I was thinking all the players be the same Rank and just work together to fend off the Covenant for as long as they can. The advantage of losing planets would be that the smaller fleets get split up among more players thus increasing the amount of control the players have over the real time tactics of their fleets. 

[Faced]

not sure i understand your question faced. But i guess the leader would be who ever controls Earth.

 

Although I was thinking all the players be the same Rank and just work together to fend off the Covenant for as long as they can. The advantage of losing planets would be that the smaller fleets get split up among more players thus increasing the amount of control the players have over the real time tactics of their fleets. 

A vote to someone who commands the other players (for each team 1 leader). call them like Admiral or something

[Grogoholic0142]

Oh, you mean one player that tells the other players who to send resources to, who to give ships to and what strategies to use. It sounds good but you would have to limit that player's authority other wise they will take complete control of all the ships and leave the other players to just manage planets.  

 

This should be the player that controls Harvest since that will be the first system to be lost. We can call that player "Admiral Cole". (muahahahahahaha *cough cough* why am i laughing?)

[Faced]

Oh, you mean one player that tells the other players who to send resources to, who to give ships to and what strategies to use. It sounds good but you would have to limit that player's authority other wise they will take complete control of all the ships and leave the other players to just manage planets.  

 

This should be the player that controls Harvest since that will be the first system to be lost. We can call that player "Admiral Cole". (muahahahahahaha *cough cough* why am i laughing?)

Not total control, just telling people where to send things and more like.... advising, so it would be best to vote the most skillful as leader

[Grogoholic0142]

well this would work best if all the players had mics, but the advising player (i'm gonna call this player 'Admiral Cole' from now on) can also request control of ships. They might get too bored otherwise. Maybe all the players share their tech tree and only Admiral Cole can make the tech upgrades.

[Faced]

well this would work best if all the players had mics, but the advising player (i'm gonna call this player 'Admiral Cole' from now on) can also request control of ships. They might get too bored otherwise. Maybe all the players share their tech tree and only Admiral Cole can make the tech upgrades.

There's always chat in-game