[SUGGESTION] Ideas for singleplayer gameplay

At this point, there isn't much more I can say without repeating myself. If you want to know what my 'issue' is, you'll have to actually read what I wrote. You don't even have to agree with it. But if you want to know why I am spoiling your fun, asking over and over won't do any good when you won't read the answer. It's right there at the top of my first post in this thread.

It's not surprising that you won't allow yourself to see it, but it is disappointing, because if you keep making the same mistake, I will have to come back again and again. I don't want to have to do that because I don't want to be any more of a party pooper than I have to. For that same reason, I'm also not going to keep repeating myself over and over in the faint hope you might actually read it.

Again with the goddam aloofness. I read your post, and saw that you clearly don't understand what we are trying to do. You also are apparently not going to read my post, saying that, "derp derp derp, yes singleplayer will be bot matches." Instead, it seems to me that you would rather act superior on a public internet forum and be a hypocrite than to actually read what other people write.

(UPDATE)

Right, I'm no longer busy any more, so now I can get to work!

The first thing I'll do is think up a couple of questions and post them on the forums, to see what exactly players would like to see (or not see) in singleplayer.

I would like to see character classes.

The questions can be found on this thread

By the way, LJFHutch and I have come up with a new story concept: the "Tech Conglomerate" concept

By the way, LJFHutch and I have come up with a new story concept: the "Tech Conglomerate" concept

I like it, but there are a few things I would want to change...

1) The "pacifists" started a strike group? What the frick? That's not pacifism.

2) Initially, the player would be taking down what they assume to simply be rogue elements within one faction's leadership, but when they reach the top of the chain of command, they find evidence that this faction is working with another faction, so they decide to go clean house there too. Once they reach about midway through their strike on the second faction, the whole story comes together and they realize all four(?) factions are working together in a massive corrupt system, driving the war from all sides behind the scenes in an effort to not only get rich, but also gain control of the entire system. The story would come together slowly rather than just saying "Hey, everyone is in on this together, so kill them all." I don't know why, but I just prefer it that way. Maybe even have a faction offer to help you secretly at the beginning, but then eventually be discovered to be working both sides (hence the reason the bad guys always seem so well prepared when you get there). You have to turn on the faction that assisted you through most of the game (or they turn on you, rather) and destroy them (maybe even have them be in charge of the whole evil operation?)

3) It wouldn't take place in this solar system. Don't know why, I'd just like to see it a little further out.

4) The Oppressor gameplay could be totally different and could be an unlockable secret mode at the end of the Underdog campaign. It would be basically playing the opposing side in each battle that you take part in during the Underdog campaign (think "Dark Mode" where you play as the bad guys and win every time, thus plunging the galaxy into an oppressive, coroporate-controlled government). By "win" I mean you kill MOST of the good guys, but some always get through. When they do, you move after them, thus progressing through the main storyline from the Underdog campaign, but as the bad guys chasing the good guys. In the final confrontation, whatever form of boss/ending battle takes place at the end of the Underdog campaign is flipped, and you play as the boss/final wave of enemies. You win and kill all the protagonists, and the game ending is different than the Underdog ending.

Oppressor gameplay could give each side a number of respawns and play out like TDM. When all of a team's respawns are used, they lose. The massive armies of the evil factions would be a good way to explain this, as would the limited number of resistance fighters.

I'd like to see Underdog feature a whole new gameplay system with objectives, like retrieval of items, hacking computers, destroying targets, getting to specific places, surviving certain attacks, saving certain allies, etc, when dictated by the story.

If it's going to be a campaign, I really would rather not see it play out like a bunch of TDM matches (except in the case of the bonus Oppressor Mode), since that's basically what the tutorial Single Player Mode was in Nexuiz.

And I'm still ready and willing to do voiceovers for the single player campaign. Got a nice recording setup and stuff.

1) The "pacifists" started a strike group? What the frick? That's not pacifism. ;)

Well, being like "lol dudes stop the war" didn't work, so they resorted to more... active pacifism.

2) Initially, the player would be taking down what they assume to simply be rogue elements within one faction's leadership, but when they reach the top of the chain of command, they find evidence that this faction is working with another faction, so they decide to go clean house there too. Once they reach about midway through their strike on the second faction, the whole story comes together and they realize all four(?) factions are working together in a massive corrupt system, driving the war from all sides behind the scenes in an effort to not only get rich, but also gain control of the entire system. The story would come together slowly rather than just saying "Hey, everyone is in on this together, so kill them all." I don't know why, but I just prefer it that way. Maybe even have a faction offer to help you secretly at the beginning, but then eventually be discovered to be working both sides (hence the reason the bad guys always seem so well prepared when you get there). You have to turn on the faction that assisted you through most of the game (or they turn on you, rather) and destroy them (maybe even have them be in charge of the whole evil operation?)

This doesn't make any sense - war isn't in the best interest of any faction, as the death toll is insanely high (war does not make anyone rich except for the people who supply it - for a price). Besides, working together to stage a war isn't the best way to gain control of anything - an alliance or merger would be quicker (and, most of all, ultimately cheaper - think of all the guns they don't need to bother to make).
A perpetual war would bein the best interest of a tech conglomerate, which profits from massive arms sales and personally is not losing anybody in the bargain. They don't hunger for territory, which makes and defines an nation, they hunger for money.

3) It wouldn't take place in this solar system. Don't know why, I'd just like to see it a little further out.

You're in luck, because the phrase "solar system" was never even in the draft (the setting is "Milky Way Galaxy") :P

4) The Oppressor gameplay could be totally different and could be an unlockable secret mode at the end of the Underdog campaign. It would be basically playing the opposing side in each battle that you take part in during the Underdog campaign (think "Dark Mode" where you play as the bad guys and win every time, thus plunging the galaxy into an oppressive, coroporate-controlled government).

This is what I intended it to be, basically the flip side of the invisible war (though the unlockable campaign is the best idea for distribution, had not thought of that).

By "win" I mean you kill MOST of the good guys, but some always get through. When they do, you move after them, thus progressing through the main storyline from the Underdog campaign, but as the bad guys chasing the good guys. In the final confrontation, whatever form of boss/ending battle takes place at the end of the Underdog campaign is flipped, and you play as the boss/final wave of enemies. You win and kill all the protagonists, and the game ending is different than the Underdog ending.

This limits the sort of things that can take place in the Underdog boss fight - for instance, you can't have a giant mech shooting up the player's team, because there would be no place for an actual corporate agent. However, I agree with each campaign ending more or less positively for the player, no matter what side they are on.
Perhaps in the penultimate battle in dark mode, the player's whole squadron is killed, but then the boss kills the resistance (what's left of them), plunging the galaxy into eternal war.

Oppressor gameplay could give each side a number of respawns and play out like TDM. When all of a team's respawns are used, they lose. The massive armies of the evil factions would be a good way to explain this, as would the limited number of resistance fighters.

But the campaign should give the player a sense of individuality, of importance - the player isn't just some random character, the player is the same player from battle to battle, and when they die, they die.

I'd like to see Underdog feature a whole new gameplay system with objectives, like retrieval of items, hacking computers, destroying targets, getting to specific places, surviving certain attacks, saving certain allies, etc, when dictated by the story.

This is more or less what I intended it to be - it can't just be shooting lots of people and moving from room to room (that would make it sauerbraten). Each mission needs to have a concrete goal - destroy this object, kill this many guards, get to this point, raid this warehouse and retrieve these guns and so much ammo.

If it's going to be a campaign, I really would rather not see it play out like a bunch of TDM matches (except in the case of the bonus Oppressor Mode), since that's basically what the tutorial Single Player Mode was in Nexuiz.

I agree, see above.

And I'm still ready and willing to do voiceovers for the single player campaign. Got a nice recording setup and stuff. :D

Glad you are willing to help :D

Edit: I've updated the wiki to reflect your ideas.

1) The "pacifists" started a strike group? What the frick? That's not pacifism.

Well, being like "lol dudes stop the war" didn't work, so they resorted to more... active pacifism.

LOL.

The phrase "active pacifism" must appear NUMEROUS times in the campaign.

2) Initially, the player would be taking down what they assume to simply be rogue elements within one faction's leadership, but when they reach the top of the chain of command, they find evidence that this faction is working with another faction, so they decide to go clean house there too. Once they reach about midway through their strike on the second faction, the whole story comes together and they realize all four(?) factions are working together in a massive corrupt system, driving the war from all sides behind the scenes in an effort to not only get rich, but also gain control of the entire system. The story would come together slowly rather than just saying "Hey, everyone is in on this together, so kill them all." I don't know why, but I just prefer it that way. Maybe even have a faction offer to help you secretly at the beginning, but then eventually be discovered to be working both sides (hence the reason the bad guys always seem so well prepared when you get there). You have to turn on the faction that assisted you through most of the game (or they turn on you, rather) and destroy them (maybe even have them be in charge of the whole evil operation?)

This doesn't make any sense - war isn't in the best interest of any faction, as the death toll is insanely high (war does not make anyone rich except for the people who supply it - for a price). Besides, working together to stage a war isn't the best way to gain control of anything - an alliance or merger would be quicker (and, most of all, ultimately cheaper - think of all the guns they don't need to bother to make).
A perpetual war would bein the best interest of a tech conglomerate, which profits from massive arms sales and personally is not losing anybody in the bargain. They don't hunger for territory, which makes and defines an nation, they hunger for money.

Let me better explain what I meant... the Tech Conglomerate is just a tool being used by a certain faction attempting to manipulate the others with promises of power into creating what the other, dumber factions believe will be an infinite war, where they gain power by using their control of the weapons market.

"Don't like what we're trying to do? Fine, disagree. See if we sell YOU any weapons. Good luck without them."

In reality, the powerful lead faction is using the others to try and gain total control of... whatever the the setting of the game ends up being.

3) It wouldn't take place in this solar system. Don't know why, I'd just like to see it a little further out.

You're in luck, because the phrase "solar system" was never even in the draft (the setting is "Milky Way Galaxy")

Har har har. You know what I meant.

4) The Oppressor gameplay could be totally different and could be an unlockable secret mode at the end of the Underdog campaign. It would be basically playing the opposing side in each battle that you take part in during the Underdog campaign (think "Dark Mode" where you play as the bad guys and win every time, thus plunging the galaxy into an oppressive, coroporate-controlled government).

This is what I intended it to be, basically the flip side of the invisible war (though the unlockable campaign is the best idea for distribution, had not thought of that).

Glad I could be of service.

By "win" I mean you kill MOST of the good guys, but some always get through. When they do, you move after them, thus progressing through the main storyline from the Underdog campaign, but as the bad guys chasing the good guys. In the final confrontation, whatever form of boss/ending battle takes place at the end of the Underdog campaign is flipped, and you play as the boss/final wave of enemies. You win and kill all the protagonists, and the game ending is different than the Underdog ending.

This limits the sort of things that can take place in the Underdog boss fight - for instance, you can't have a giant mech shooting up the player's team, because there would be no place for an actual corporate agent. However, I agree with each campaign ending more or less positively for the player, no matter what side they are on.
Perhaps in the penultimate battle in dark mode, the player's whole squadron is killed, but then the boss kills the resistance (what's left of them), plunging the galaxy into eternal war.

Mayhaps. Works for me.

Oppressor gameplay could give each side a number of respawns and play out like TDM. When all of a team's respawns are used, they lose. The massive armies of the evil factions would be a good way to explain this, as would the limited number of resistance fighters.

But the campaign should give the player a sense of individuality, of importance - the player isn't just some random character, the player is the same player from battle to battle, and when they die, they die.

I was thinking this more for just the "faceless army of the corporate giant" type of campaign. For the Underdog campaign, you would be one person throughout the whole thing. But with Oppressor being more of a "bonus mode," I was thinking switching up the gameplay style would be cool (like I said, "vast, faceless army"/stormtroopers kind of thing. The Tech Conglomerate is rich and has a huge army.)

I'd like to see Underdog feature a whole new gameplay system with objectives, like retrieval of items, hacking computers, destroying targets, getting to specific places, surviving certain attacks, saving certain allies, etc, when dictated by the story.

This is more or less what I intended it to be - it can't just be shooting lots of people and moving from room to room (that would make it sauerbraten). Each mission needs to have a concrete goal - destroy this object, kill this many guards, get to this point, raid this warehouse and retrieve these guns and so much ammo.

Awesome. We're on the same page.

The phrase "active pacifism" must appear NUMEROUS times in the campaign. :D

It will be no good without it.

Let me better explain what I meant... the Tech Conglomerate is just a tool being used by a certain faction attempting to manipulate the others with promises of power into creating what the other, dumber factions believe will be an infinite war, where they gain power by using their control of the weapons market.

"Don't like what we're trying to do? Fine, disagree. See if we sell YOU any weapons. Good luck without them."

I see what you mean, but wouldn't the faction owning the tech conglomerate just destroy every other faction (or just stop selling them arms, crippling their defense structure?)

Har har har. You know what I meant. ;)

Oh, okay, we can set it in the Andromeda galaxy or something :P

Mayhaps. Works for me.

It will probably come down to technical limitations - going your way may be the best/easiest.

I was thinking this more for just the "faceless army of the corporate giant" type of campaign. For the Underdog campaign, you would be one person throughout the whole thing. But with Oppressor being more of a "bonus mode," I was thinking switching up the gameplay style would be cool (like I said, "vast, faceless army"/stormtroopers kind of thing. The Tech Conglomerate is rich and has a huge army.)

Perhaps this might be better, it could be decided once we start going into detail.

The phrase "active pacifism" must appear NUMEROUS times in the campaign.

It will be no good without it.

Of course.

Let me better explain what I meant... the Tech Conglomerate is just a tool being used by a certain faction attempting to manipulate the others with promises of power into creating what the other, dumber factions believe will be an infinite war, where they gain power by using their control of the weapons market.

"Don't like what we're trying to do? Fine, disagree. See if we sell YOU any weapons. Good luck without them."

I see what you mean, but wouldn't the faction owning the tech conglomerate just destroy every other faction (or just stop selling them arms, crippling their defense structure?)

Hmm... what if the one faction wasn't so "powerful" but more "sneaky and intelligent," but lacking manpower. Think of a small smart kid manipulating a big dumb jock into doing things for him by promising to do his homework for him with no intention of actually doing it... not that the dumb jock will ever catch onto his plan.

Har har har. You know what I meant.

Oh, okay, we can set it in the Andromeda galaxy or something

That works too.

Mayhaps. Works for me.

It will probably come down to technical limitations - going your way may be the best/easiest.

I guess we'll see when we move forward with the project.

I was thinking this more for just the "faceless army of the corporate giant" type of campaign. For the Underdog campaign, you would be one person throughout the whole thing. But with Oppressor being more of a "bonus mode," I was thinking switching up the gameplay style would be cool (like I said, "vast, faceless army"/stormtroopers kind of thing. The Tech Conglomerate is rich and has a huge army.)

Perhaps this might be better, it could be decided once we start going into detail.

Agreed.

Hmm... what if the one faction wasn't so "powerful" but more "sneaky and intelligent," but lacking manpower. Think of a small smart kid manipulating a big dumb jock into doing things for him by promising to do his homework for him with no intention of actually doing it... not that the dumb jock will ever catch onto his plan.

Hm, so perhaps a faction that used to be powerful in the good old days (to explain its residual position of power) controls a small amount of territory, yet has its people installed at the head(s) of the tech conglomerate and holds the other factions by the short hairs, making them fight and drive profits to the tech conglomerate (no doubt embezzling a bit off the top of weapon sales)?

Hmm... what if the one faction wasn't so "powerful" but more "sneaky and intelligent," but lacking manpower. Think of a small smart kid manipulating a big dumb jock into doing things for him by promising to do his homework for him with no intention of actually doing it... not that the dumb jock will ever catch onto his plan.

Hm, so perhaps a faction that used to be powerful in the good old days (to explain its residual position of power) controls a small amount of territory, yet has its people installed at the head(s) of the tech conglomerate and holds the other factions by the short hairs, making them fight and drive profits to the tech conglomerate (no doubt embezzling a bit off the top of weapon sales)?

Exactly. I like where this whole thing is going.

Maybe later this week I'll whip up a basic script and post it to see how people feel, then flesh it out/get input/take other people's stuff and add it/etc

Okay, I'll add that to the wiki now that we agree.

My current draft of the script uses three factions and a behind-the-scenes tech company. It also involves the phrase "Active Pacifism" as a new school of thought in the pacifist movement.

I've put together a script for what I think is a pretty nifty opening sequence, but it would require use of pre-rendered cutscenes. I know there was discussion of adding this to DarkPlaces (it was in there before apparently), so hopefully that can get added back in. I want to use the pre-rendered cutscenes for just a few major events and stick with in-game/engine cutscenes for small things (such as the second part of the opening cutscene, with guys meeting and talking. Very simple, doesn't need any fancy work. The first part involves a ship being destroyed while docking with a space station, so it would pretty much involve a lot of work the engine isn't equipped to handle.)

Later, when I have some more stuff finished, I'll post up a first draft of the script. I'm about to lay out the basic requirements for the first mission. I obviously won't script the whole mission, but I need to lay out objectives, etc, to move the story forward. Most will be based on current gametypes (search and destroy, ctf, etc type of things). It shouldn't be too hard to implement them.

How many missions do you think we need?



Here's my ideas for the factions in the meantime:


Two factions, the UAF and the AC, are engaged in a war to dominate the galaxy.

--------------------------------------------------------

United Armed Forces (UAF)
Color: Red
Base Planet: Darhkor

Bio
Made up of several weaker planets of varying race who could not defend themselves alone. These planets formed a faction late in the war, several decades after the AC began their conquest, to protect themselves and each other from the larger faction. Eventually, after several hundred years, they gained enough member planets to become one of the most powerful and diverse factions in the galaxy. The UAF's goals evolved over time. As leadership of the group changed hands over the decades, new plans to control the entire galaxy began to emerge in private, closed-door meetings, the likes of which had previously been unseen in the UAF.

--------------------------------------------------------

Android Confederacy (AC)
Color: Blue
Base Planet: Unknown

Bio
The Android Confederacy is a faction that consists solely of mechanical soldiers. The faction is driven by a central computer system, which was originally designed as an advanced weapon prototype by Techron Industries. The main system, known as C.A.I.N.E., gained control of system components that were originally supposed to be off-limits, due to the fact that they were only partially completed and were not yet ready to be released to the system. C.A.I.N.E. exploited holes in the unfinished components, gained control of Techron's major technological systems, took over control of their factories and began constructing an army of androids. It is widely believed that C.A.I.N.E. killed most of the Techron leadership. A few members of the original C.A.I.N.E. development team have come forward to try to assist the UAF in destroying C.A.I.N.E., but all of them have been intercepted and killed in transit to the UAF base planet. It is unknown if there are any remaining C.A.I.N.E. developers left alive at this point.

--------------------------------------------------------

Techron Industries
Color: None (company, not a warring faction)
Base Planet: headquartered on KelDar IV (fourth moon of Telikas) / manufacturing plants galaxy-wide

Bio
Techron Industries is the largest supplier of weapons in the galaxy. Their handiwork can be seen on roughly 75-90% of the inhabited planets in any given star system. They are currently supplying weapons to both sides of the war, claiming to remain neutral. However, they have made secret deals with both factions, trading weapons for control and influence, and are currently in control of both sides of the war. They are prolonging the war to gain as much control of each side as possible. They ultimately hope to gain control of the entire galaxy, but because they don't have an actual army, they are using the two factions as proxies for their conquests.

--------------------------------------------------------

Pacifists
Color: Green
Base Planet: Micarais

Bio
The original goal of the Pacifists was to create a diplomatic solution to the war upon which both sides could agree. However, due to the involvement of Techron, neither side would agree upon any form of agreement. The Pacifists evolved over time, and with this evolution came a new school of thought: "Active Pacifism." This new view of pacifism stated that in order to create or promote peace, some action (even violent action) must sometimes be taken. With this new view in mind, the Pacifists slowly reorganized into a militia of sorts, rather than a pacifism activism group. Small strike teams have been created for carrying out covert "black-ops" missions, oftentimes behind enemy lines. These highly trained teams make up the backbone of the Pacifist movement.

I think we should have at least one more faction - particularly if the "weak faction" is going to be robots, they have theoretically infinite manpower, the'll need more than one faction to fight against. The company should definitely have a color if the player is going to fight their guards later in the game. Colors for factions may be forsaken, as they could be chosen depending on if the faction is playing or not (we'll have to do it this way if we have more than these four factions).

I think we should have at least one more faction - particularly if the "weak faction" is going to be robots, they have theoretically infinite manpower, the'll need more than one faction to fight against. The company should definitely have a color if the player is going to fight their guards later in the game. Colors for factions may be forsaken, as they could be chosen depending on if the faction is playing or not (we'll have to do it this way if we have more than these four factions).

You're right. I wrote that at midnight or 1 AM or something so I didn't really have a whole complete thought going on.

I'll come up with a fourth faction and give a color to Techron.

I added that information to the wiki and added another faction.
Should there be several tech companies? Or just one? If we have several, we can have a longer campaign.

I added that information to the wiki and added another faction.
Should there be several tech companies? Or just one? If we have several, we can have a longer campaign.

Let's have more than one. That was my original intention before a 1AM brain cramp I'll get the info on the new faction and add it to my notes. Thanks.

EDIT: Do the Red Legion and UAF intentionally have the same color? And just making sure that the Resistance is supposed to be Pink rather than Green.

The problem is, we only have four colors to work with (which are red, yellow, pink and blue) - so we can't have all of the factions in one game. So there will be some overlap in colors on the table, but we can still have both the UAF and the RL in the same mission, but they will have different colors.
I agree that green is a much more appealing color, but unfortunately we don't have a "green team" (why was pink chosen? it's too close to red)

The problem is, we only have four colors to work with (which are red, yellow, pink and blue) - so we can't have all of the factions in one game. So there will be some overlap in colors on the table, but we can still have both the UAF and the RL in the same mission, but they will have different colors.
I agree that green is a much more appealing color, but unfortunately we don't have a "green team" (why was pink chosen? it's too close to red)

Ah OK, I was thinking we DID have green and didn't have pink lol. That's fine.

UPDATE:

I've got a rough version of the opening intro scene plus the first mission. A few notes before the link to read...

(contains spoilers)

1) This mission was designed to give the player character a personal involvement in the war. His entire team (which we don't get to see much of) is killed (with one exception, which I'll actually be taking advantage of later in the game). It also sets up the rest of the game. The AC will use the data they find in this mission to propel the rest of the story. Recovering the hard drive lost in this mission (and any copies of its data) becomes the reason for initially infiltrating the AC, where the links between Techron on the other factions is discovered.

2) None of the characters have names yet. That's not a huge priority for me. I'll do a find-and-replace with their current stand-ins when I do eventually name them. Currently, we just see MEMBER1, MEMBER2 and MEMBER3 for Strike Team members, PC for the player, etc.

3) I'm leaving as much as possible up to the level designers. Level design is their area, not mine, so I'm just giving the basics of what needs to happen here.

4) Each mission has two parts to the script. One is the actual script, which tells what happens (obviously) and the second part is the Objective Sheet. This is where all the info on the objectives will be listed. These objectives will be referenced in the script by the numbers given here.

-----------------------------------------

Opening cutscene and first mission:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/da6e3h312hk79cd/draft1.pdf

Very nice, very complete. Next time, you should go ahead and post it on the wiki, since I'll do that anyway
Note: Page 13: It's said not to transmit anything, yet MEMBER1 is transmitting something via radio...
Also, perhaps we need a secondary objective to get the player to get out of the server room. I'll upload to the wiki later.

Very nice, very complete. Next time, you should go ahead and post it on the wiki, since I'll do that anyway
Note: Page 13: It's said not to transmit anything, yet MEMBER1 is transmitting something via radio...
Also, perhaps we need a secondary objective to get the player to get out of the server room. I'll upload to the wiki later.

Thanks, glad you like it.

I should have been more specific. The data recovered from the satellites is not supposed to be transmitted. They don't want to risk beaming the data across whatever expanse of space is between the Control Center and base. Short-range radio comms are ok.

I considered making escaping the server room a secondary objective, but I realized that it was basically all non-user-controlable events leading to the opening of the path. A panel explodes, the wall collapses, an obvious path opens. There was nothing for the player to do. As soon as the objective was given to them, it would be accomplished. Also, it seemed redundant to have escaping the CC and the escaping the server room as two separate objectives. Escaping the CC entails escaping the server room. That was my logic behind not making it a secondary objective. I needed MEMBER1 to be left inside the building and kill him in a way that he could have theoretically survived... for purposes that should be slightly apparent at the end of the level.

But yeah, I'll add it to the wiki page next time as well. I just wanted to make sure I had something that would be acceptable and make sure I was on a pretty good path with the writing/story. i see that I am, so I will continue. Tonight, tomorrow or the next night I'll try to map out level two as well as make a larger "mind map" of what I how I want the rest of everything to play out. I've got a pretty general idea, but I need to solidify it before writing further.


EDIT: For the life of me, I can't figure out how to edit the freaking wiki page. I've looked all over and I can't find a button. I'm probably doing something wrong, but at this point it's probably just best that I ask where the button is.

I should have been more specific. The data recovered from the satellites is not supposed to be transmitted. They don't want to risk beaming the data across whatever expanse of space is between the Control Center and base. Short-range radio comms are ok.

Oh, I see.

I considered making escaping the server room a secondary objective, but I realized that it was basically all non-user-controlable events leading to the opening of the path. A panel explodes, the wall collapses, an obvious path opens. There was nothing for the player to do. As soon as the objective was given to them, it would be accomplished. Also, it seemed redundant to have escaping the CC and the escaping the server room as two separate objectives. Escaping the CC entails escaping the server room. That was my logic behind not making it a secondary objective. I needed MEMBER1 to be left inside the building and kill him in a way that he could have theoretically survived... for purposes that should be slightly apparent at the end of the level.

Hm, I see what you mean.

EDIT: For the life of me, I can't figure out how to edit the freaking wiki page. I've looked all over and I can't find a button. I'm probably doing something wrong, but at this point it's probably just best that I ask where the button is.

First you need to register/log in, then the button should be to the right of the page title (in this case, "Tech Conglomerate").

First you need to register/log in, then the button should be to the right of the page title (in this case, "Tech Conglomerate").

I have Watch (actually, Unwatch) and History. No edit button.

D'OH. Found an edit button after going through to history > annotate on one of the edits. It 403'd me.