[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

*To*: crimson-users@seul.org*Subject*: Thoughts on two-player campaigns*From*: Dave Fancella <davidfancella@davefancella.com>*Date*: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 12:25:42 -0400*Delivered-to*: archiver@seul.org*Delivered-to*: crimson-users-outgoing@seul.org*Delivered-to*: crimson-users@seul.org*Delivery-date*: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:25:55 -0400*Reply-to*: crimson-users@seul.org*Sender*: owner-crimson-users@seul.org*User-agent*: KMail/1.6.1

All, Most of this is about branching. ;) If we assume that for every map there are two possible outcome (with two players), and that each map completely changes the timeline so that each possible outcome requires its own branch, then the total number of maps needed for a campaign can be determined by raising 2 by the depth of the campaign. So if a campaign has a depth of 16 maps, then 2^16-1 gives us the total number of maps needed: 65,535 (familiar number? Largest unsigned 16 bit int, so this math should look familiar ;) ) My math might be off a little bit. It's safe to assume, though, that a campaign would be regional in scope, and while there may be that many different possibilities, it seems like all the branches must converge upon each other at various points. With this taken into account, it doesn't seem possible to come up with a formula to account for that in a way where I could accurately estimate the number of maps needed to make the story in a campaign work with branches for two players. The goal, of course, would always be to keep the number of maps needed to support branching small enough that it's reasonably achievable. I came up with two alternatives. One is to just rewrite the stories for each map (no unit changes, nothing) to accomodate who wins each map, a reasonable goal since it means you need twice as many mission briefings as you'd ordinarily need, and you already need twice as many mission briefings as maps, so 64 mission briefings for a campaign with a depth of 16 maps. The other is to just have some sort of scoring system (possibly just a standard one, where the first map is 1 point, the second 2, the third 3, the fourth 4, and so forth), and just say "The story doesn't make sense for two players, so for two players the campaign is 'Play every map and the highest score wins'". This is the simplest solution, I think, because it requires the smallest amount of programming and no additional map/story design. ;) Dave -- Visit my website! http://www.davefancella.com/?event=em God shows his contempt for wealth by the kind of person he selects to receive it. -- Austin O'Malley

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Thoughts on two-player campaigns***From:*Jens Granseuer <jensgr@gmx.net>

- Prev by Author:
**We're totally screwed** - Next by Author:
**Re: Thoughts on two-player campaigns** - Previous by thread:
**We're totally screwed** - Next by thread:
**Re: Thoughts on two-player campaigns** - Index(es):