Talk:Battle of Endor Syndrome

"Scheme" isn't really an appropriate wording for this subject - Black Wolf

What about "Disease"? Figuratively, I mean - TopAce

It's traditionally been called "Battle of Endor Syndrome" AFAIK. - Black Wolf

I did not want to use that title, I wanted a new one. - TopAce

Why? - Black Wolf

Only to differenciate the two articles. - TopAce

Article moved. - TopAce

I question the validity of this article in this day and age; most of the anti-BOE resources cite FS1 limitations. I can cite several campaigns that have had well-executed Endor-esque situations off the top of my head. If the mission fell apart it was for other reasons. I'll agree it's not for the novice FREDder, but unless and until you can properly execute a large mission, you haven't really earned your spurs.-ngtm1r

In my opinion, the modern-day objections about BOE missions can be boiled down to two points:

• The complexity of a BOE mission requires a very skilled FREDder to pull off effectively
• Because of scale, it is difficult or impossible for the player to affect the outcome of a BOE mission in any way, something that is usually desirable from a gameplay standpoint

I think these points adequately justify the continuing prejudice against these kinds of missions. This, of course, does not imply that it cannot be done, only that it is very difficult. I can cite the penultimate mission of Inferno as an excellent example of a BOE mission done right, IMHO. --Goober500000:43, 1 January 2007 (CST)

Altered the article, and considering further alterations, considering that we're basically agreed upon that A: such missions are possible and B: it isn't technical limitations holding the game back from them anymore. --ngtm1r 10:21, 2 October 2007 (PST)

Whether you consider it possible or not there have been many, many user-made campaigns featuring decent BoEs. The main reason for prejudice against them is that someone who didn't know how to use FRED tried to make one, then wrote a VolitionWatch article a long time ago about it. 'Bout time, nghtm1r, and thank you. Mustang19 13:39, 2 October 2007 (CDT)

As the person who wrote the Volition Watch article and had 2 missions on the Game of the Year edition, I disagree and removed the uninformed slur. Back at the creation of FS1, there were significant technical constraints and Volition programmers put limits into place to restrain their mission editors. The initial FRED discussion list (FDL) was concerned with how poorly designed missions were impacting user reaction to FreeSpace, and making the community difficult to gain respectability among all the trash missions that were released. That's why I worked with Peter Drake on explaining the initial FRED docs and pioneered a community peer-review system. While technology has advanced even in FreeSpace 2, such missions are not just difficult to appropriately test and balance (as those at Volition Watch who worked on Inferno were well aware). A well-crafted battle and story relies on specific set pieces, rather than just letting the AI simulation cover up the lack of design. It's not prejudice, it's a recognition of good design. - Zarathud 6/13/08 10:00 CT

Beg differ. It is extremely difficult for what you say to take place. A mission where it does will have bigger problems then this; indeed, a campaign where it does will have problems even in non-Endorish missions. As observed before as well, a well-crafted battle relies on suspension of disbelief just to get there; capitals moving and attacking in groups helps establish this. And more to the point, you are speaking from an FS1 sensablity in regards to not only mission design and technology, but also storytelling. In FreeSpace 1 it was much more acceptable for such things to occur. The Shivans were overpowering the PVE and GTA. You fought without support, without reinforcements, because all available assets were commited already. Things were stretched beyond the breaking point. As for the Shivans, they didn't need more than one or perhaps two capitals to wreak all the havoc they wanted. FreeSpace 1's missions are also designed to reflect a degree of desperation; a fight for absolute survival.

These things aren't true in FreeSpace 2 for the most part, and that fact made the game's sins as mentioned in the article much more grevious. It placed opposing sides on much more equal footings, where both sides had more than single capital ships available to commit and could have made good use of those extra ships. Also, though things certainly got desperate, they never deterioriated to the point they did in FS1; there was always a plan, and it was always feasible. These points also hold true for the vast majority of user-made campaigns and missions as well.

It is a prejudice. It is a prejudice against the recognition that letting the AI work for you can be good design (Clash of the Titans, the first one, called). It is a prejudice that conveniently forgets missions like Evangelist and the one that followed it, or Clash of the Titans, all the way back in FreeSpace 1. It is a prejudice against expanding the scope of your story so that it is clear Alpha 1 is not the sole savior of the universe and the Terran and Vasudan races, but part of a team; it could not have been done without him/her, but they could not have done it alone...or even that perhaps it could have been done without them, but at greater cost. It is a prejudice, in short, from telling a different story or telling the same story differently. And that in the end will be far more deadly to the community then bad design.

Reverted.- Ngtm1r 03:35, 14 June 2008 (CDT)