Playing in editor mode

[thewood1]

In three years, I have never played in non-editor mode. I am curious why would one not play in editor mode. There are tools to do things that give a lot of insight into the game without giving away any spoilers. You can easily avoid any selections that would be considered a cheat.

So what is the attraction in playing in regular game mode?

[Excroat3]

I rarely don't play in non-editor mode, but when I do, it's so I try to fight the urge of enabling "God's Eye View" during a lull in the fighting and it helps increase the feeling of authenticity for me, especially during scenarios with lots of messages and commands. Otherwise, I keep editor mode on so I can make quick changes to units if I have made a mistake or misclicked while selecting a loadout, or some unit runs out of fuel or a patrol drives it right into a SAM site, something that would never happen IRL that I can fix in the editor.

[Randomizer]

The Editor mode only if doing Beta work or testing/modding a scenario for personal or public use. Otherwise never since in my opinion there are no good reasons to do so since I accept errors and use extensive house rules. Seldom use time compression at more than x5 either. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

-C

[dcpollay]

I have never played in Editor Mode. Why would I? I'm just playing the game as it is, and have no need to edit anything. And I have yet to design any scenarios. Access to that stuff is just tempting.

What types of "tools" are you talking about? If they are useful for play but not "cheating," why are they not available in regular mode? Should they be?

[Gunner98]

One thing I can think of is if playing in editor mode (which I do often) missions that the designer has set as 'Scrub if human' will all be active for both sides.

B

[thewood1]

That is the first thing i check. But ha always seemed minor.

[mikmykWS]

Lots of people use editor mode as a Sandbox to play in similar to Arma etc. You drop in things our use Lua scripts to cause random events to occur etc. Most of Baloogan plays videos are him doing exactly this.

I think everybody gets the editor lets you see everything if you actually call that functions that do that. So its kind of up to you to decide whether to cheat or not.

Mike

[Sniper31]

I am happy that we as players have the choice to play in either mode

[Filitch]

I play in Editor mode very often. For examine some tactical ideas or simulate situations "what if". Main advantages: I know - what exactly the opponent sees, I can play for enemy and change situations.

[kevinkins]

I am playing and designing like crazy these days (just posted a my first "final version" in that thread) and spend 80% in editor mode. I reserve non editor mode for final play tests or for the "final" scenarios from other players. On the occasion where I beta test, I will run through in non editor and then in editor mode. I guess playing in editor mode allows you to save periodically and go back and look at both sides during play which helps with AARs. I also guess it may be best to play really looooong scenarios in editor mode to retain that option.

[Dysta]

I treat the non-editor mode as "story mode". It always make me feels "spoiled" if I can see everything during the scenario and its outcomes.

This is why I have urge for making a multi-scenario campaigns.

[thewood1]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

I treat the non-editor mode as "story mode". It always make me feels "spoiled" if I can see everything during the scenario and its outcomes.

This is why I have urge for making a multi-scenario campaigns.

I don't understand this philosophy. You don't have to "see" everything. You can play just like in "play" mode.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I don't understand this philosophy. You don't have to "see" everything. You can play just like in "play" mode.

Aye I do, after one game and I replay them with editor mode.

What I said spoiled is a long list of pre-planned missions right at my view, which will not be scrubbed at editor mode. You can delete them all at the beginning, but I prefer to have myself completely oblivious (an empty mission list), then try to plan my own missions.

Those reference points are still appears for both modes, but at least it is not giving way for their purposes (unless they are named).

[kevinkins]

Oh, one thing about editor vs non editor. If I am not mistaken, it's only by playing in editor that the player can change load outs at the start without incurring a delay since they can set the ready time to 00:00:00. But I may have missed something along the way. Please let me know since it would help in a mission I am creating. Thanks.

[mikmykWS]

I'd like to add that playing in editor mode also teaches players a lot about the game and how it works. Its particularly useful when you're trying to determine what happened.

We've also got a recorder that lets you pick up and play anywhere along it.

Thanks!

Mike

[thewood1]

I guess that was part of my point. There are new players who jump into some of the more complex scenarios. If you are not going to try to learn the game, playing in the editor mode will help figure out what is going on if you want to learn that way.

[Dysta]

Understandable for the teaching part.

For me, being helpless at the first game and see how myself win or lose it is also a great fun. Then I load the savefile in editor mode to see what mistake I made. It is also very useful (essential, actually) to discover bugs that way.

[Gunner98]

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

Oh, one thing about editor vs non editor. If I am not mistaken, it's only by playing in editor that the player can change load outs at the start without incurring a delay since they can set the ready time to 00:00:00. But I may have missed something along the way. Please let me know since it would help in a mission I am creating. Thanks.

You are correct. Playing in editor mode, if a player wants to change the loadout without penalty or completely ignore the ammo limits he can. In game mode the player is limited to the starting loadout and magazines that the designer has crafted.

I hope that designers put some thought behind those loadouts and magazine contents to add realism (national doctrine, enemy deception, likely tasks etc), story flavour and sometimes to challenge the player in a certain way. In editor mode that can be ignored, which may or may not be a downside. I don't think its cheating but it is modifying the designers script. There are some good reasons to do so - like learning the game, experimenting etc.

B

[kevinkins]

[/quote]

I hope that designers put some thought behind those loadouts and magazine contents to add realism (national doctrine, enemy deception, likely tasks etc), story flavour and sometimes to challenge the player in a certain way.

Actually, I have learned the basics including lua but the culling of magazines is not for the faint of heart. It opens the designer up to all kinds of second guessing, I am leaving mine open for now. I just don't have a good understanding of what is the most common weapon deployed against a particular target. From what I have read, most editor players use the designer's setup for the first run which helps a lot.

[thewood1]

This...is one of the biggest issues and headaches in designing a scenario. I have spreadsheets and handwritten notes all over the place on just VLS loadouts based on mission. Nothing is more frustrating than getting part way through a scenario while forgetting to check VLS loadouts...and finding you have 62 tomahawks as an airstrike bears down on you.

If I spend an hour building the OOB, an hour on missions, and an our on the misc. stuff, I spend 4 hours on loadouts.