More accessible mission design

[hund 0]

I think it is mildly amusing that everyone is recommending other games. There's no reason why you can't have immediate action gameplay using the arma engine, if that is what you want. The question really is whether such gameplay should come out of the box, and I think most people around here don't think that's a good idea.

A "action arma" mod wouldn't be a half bad idea, actually. I can't say that I've ever seen such a thing done before. Hells, I'd play it, if only to get a moment of peace from the anal retentive milsim enthusiasts! :D

[NoRailgunner 0]

You can create simple missions very quickly since 2001, BIS did not take away the editor and scripting features.

You can search & download missions for A2+OA too.

Guess nobody wants to play missions without briefing or at least some basic information about the situation and primary/secondary mission objectives.

BIS said that A3 campaign will gradually ramp up the challenge.

Think A3 will have extra missions where new players can try/practice with ingame stuff & features.

But if you refuse/don't like to learn a bit or something new...

[MoS 0]

The greatest problem in the series is

I didn't buy the game, because my machine couldn't run the demo.

Make it like Flashpoint.

I think this would attract more players -escpecially BF and COD -fans

Most people in this forum like the fact that you have to be extra careful and constantly on guard, but I don't. I prefer straight action. People like different things.

And finally, it saddens and angers me to see how much hate there is on these forums

Bottom line: the engine is great for war , but it's being used wrongfully.

You come here to unload your huge pile of **** and then wonder why people rage?

Bottom line: Troll somewhere else cause you can´t be serious!

[metalcraze 290]

In the end of my post I said there is a lot of hate in these forums.

There's no hate. There's only people disagreeing with you - a terrible thing I know.

"Accessibility" you want is what destroyed AA2 campaign and even more so - PMC.

Nobody stops you from running into the middle of the enemy base even on stealth missions and kill everyone there if you have enough skills.

And ArmA2 already features more than "accessible" savegame system which you can exploit to no end.

[Tonci87 163]

There's no hate. There's only people disagreeing with you - a terrible thing I know.

"Accessibility" you want is what destroyed AA2 campaign and even more so - PMC.

Nobody stops you from running into the middle of the enemy base even on stealth missions and kill everyone there if you have enough skills.

And ArmA2 already features more than "accessible" savegame system which you can exploit to no end.

I don't think that it destroyed the AA2 campaign, making the last mission warfare did that. But it sure as hell destroyed the OA campaign. It was wayyyyy to easy and to some extend even uninspired (The giant Tank flashmob at the nothern airbase for example). PMC was also not the best thing I played. I fear that the Arma3 campaign might become something like PMC.....

[GepardenK 0]

Last time I checked there was a lot of village sweeps and all out war mission in both Arma 2 and Operation Arrowhead, so no worries there peter_bullet

Also, if you like fun casual gaming then there is always the mission editor. Just put a bunch of units at one side of town and a bunch of enemy units at the other - then watch armageddon happen. Possibly put yourself in a helicopter and rain death from above to both sides. It doesn't get simpler or more fun oriented than that

They said in some interview that arma 3 would focus more on accessibility for new players. And in my book thats only good news

[colosseum 34]

My father is one of the wisest guys I know, and he plays COD and BF2. He doesn't want to play games that involve thinking, because he has other hobbies to develop his mind, just like me. So don't call us kids because of that.

You and your father are children because you play COD and BF2. Simple as that.

[jakerod 254]

I actually really like your idea of having missions with say a platoon attacking an objective and being able to teamswitch to other guys. If you combined that idea with the one BAF SP mission where as teams take too many casualties they retreat I think it would be a great mission. I think it should stay in the SP mission realm and maybe MP realm though and not the campaign. It wouldn't hurt to have a few like that anyway.

[ghost101 10]

Peter_Bullet:

pha! you speak of "action" and "drama", but your underline motivation speaks of wanting a simple arcade shooter where everything is handed to you on a plate. You even admit that "you don't like to THINK while playing a game" (which is an outragous statement, imo). As Hund said in his post, it's possible to create a dumb arcade mission in ArmA, but BIS should not encourage that aspect of gameplay out of the box. They don't, because ArmA is a consumer MilSim, they know their audience and you are not it. (thankfully)

If you want Hollywood drama, BF3 will be out soon. If you want heart stopping but relistic moments like this, which result from poor-planning and tactical awerness - ArmA is your game.

ArmA is full of drama, the difference is it's all unscripted and indeterminable - sometimes you may get those magic moments, sometimes you just have to be happy that you and your squadmates made it through the mission alive. The dynamic emergent gameplay enables the possibility of drama, but it's not a given that it will happen. That's one of the major features of ArmA that you have to be willing to accept.

No game with heavily scripted events could come close to some of the "scenes" I've experienced while playing ArmA. So please quit whining and go away - your typical lazy gamer mentality is really annoying me.

---------- Post added at 03:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 AM ----------

They said in some interview that arma 3 would focus more on accessibility for new players. And in my book thats only good news

I don't see why catering for people like Peter_Bullet is such "good news" tbh. And I'd like someone to give me a precise definition of "accessibility", because in my book it generally means "retardation".

There's a difference between "perfecting/improving" something and making it "accessible". I'd rather BIS used terms like perfecting and improving, than accessibility.

Edited September 26, 2011 by ghost101

[Bee8190 10]

You and your father are children because you play COD and BF2. Simple as that.

You're gotta be kidding me

I also know ppl who play COD or other games becouse they simply have no time for proper games like arma, they spent most of their time taking care of business or family for instance. I dont judge them, why should I?

(no im not talking about myself here)

So hey, don't choke with your infinite ego next time you make your shitty little comment you teenager

@peter bullet - if you're looking for something more action packed yet with realistic gear and stuff give a go to Xeno's Domination2, its fun and even more when running ACE

Edited September 26, 2011 by Bee8190

[Tom1 10]

who cares who plays CoD, stop arguing and insulting each other.

"argueing over the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you're still a retard".

Now peter_bullet, if you want an action game like cod, play cod or bc2 or bf or halo or gears of war or killzone or brink or bullet storm or... well you get the idea. Arma was made not to be like those other games on purpose.

Think of it this way, next time your watching internet porn, when the little option for gay porn shows up, you wouldn't click it and tell them all to be straight because it's what you want, as you already have countless loads of straight porn to watch.

Same with arma... arma is not cod or bf. If you want the kind of action you were describing you should play cod or bf2.

At the end of the day, peter_bullet arma is obviously not your desired genre so instead of complaining about it, buy one of the countless games from your desired genre and play them instead. Everyone else who is insulting him, step back and look at yourselves, you are arguing over the internet over a game. And it's not like he is going to get his way anyway so this is not at all a big deal.

[paecmaker 23]

To me it also looks like you would enjoy bf3/modern warfare3 much better than arma 2/3.

But if you dont want sneaky missions that is slow and tactical, you can just make missions thats not. I love arma 2 and the hard tactical mind you are forced to have, but sometimes when I get bored I just do a braindead explosive mission I can just walk around "having fun" in.

And there are already lots of missions that arent spec ops or similar.

[Gunter Severloh 4065]

Guess I'll comment again.

so why couldn't bis just make EVERY soldier on your group PLAYABLE. That way, if one guy died, you could

simply take control of the next soldier and the battle would continue.

Its not realistic, I believe BIS's intention was to have the campaign realistic are somewhat close to it.

But its not like you couldn't make your own sp/mp missions with the team switch option, personally i dont see the

point of team switch in mp when ou can just respawn.

In Sp when Im commanding or part of a squad, i always make all units playable, that way i can keep playing.

Otherwise there is a SP respawn script out that can be used.

[kylania 568]

It's so depressing seeing all these console kids coming in here with their arcade gameplay ideas.

This is not the simulator ('game' you'd say) for you people and I truly hope it doesn't turn into one.

[Guest]

You and your father are children because you play COD and BF2. Simple as that.

You are a troll, simple as that. +1 infraction.

If you can not respect the things other people like you should reconsider your thoughts of who actually is the child here.

If people here can not respect the ideas others have on what they would like to see in any missions ......... just don't post. Really, its as easy as that!

Wether you agree with those ideas or not is something different and you can discuss your disagreement in a respectfull manner.

[hund 0]

who cares who plays CoD, stop arguing and insulting each other.

A wise man right there, with wise words to share. At the end of the day we are talking about a game here, and how people think it should be played. It is not the end all, be all of the world, so why don't you guys take it down a notch and agree to disagree? Or even better, put forth some valid arguments instead of insulting each other?

It is very disparaging how partisan the gaming world has become, and nowadays it is not the MMO crowd vs the shooter crowd, but the shooter crowd versus itself. Everyone is convinced that everyone else is in his early teens - it just gets silly after a while.

EDIT: Or just listen to the moderator who just ninja'd me... :D

Edited September 26, 2011 by Hund

[ghost101 10]

Games are certainly not the end of the world but for the few hours a day we spend playing our games and participating in their forums - they are important because they affect our "gaming world".

If this thread was just about personal preference, OP would simply accept the fact that ArmA is not a game for him and play something else. It is about one guy who clearly does not appreciate the concept of ArmA and wants everyone to know it. He does not like it very much because of its difficulty and brutal realism and is basically demanding that it conforms more to modern generic FPS standards.

ArmA is not unique to this. Most of my favourite games are considered by many to be the "most difficult to play" in their genres. For example: Men of War, Hearts of Iron and Supreme Commander are loved by fans for their genuinely challenging gameplay which is unusual in today's market where developers fear to make games beyond the level of an 8 year old girl's comprehension.

And on each of the forums for these games you see threads very similar to this one where someone who is attracted to the themes of the games (but does not like their difficulty and complexity) states that the games should be more like other RTS and grand strategy titles. Their basic argument is _always_ that they should be more like the titles they're used to - that is essentially what they are saying.

Of course that aggitates fans of these titles because they know what is at stake. Their challenging gameplay is guarded by fans, not because they feel "superior" but because GENUINELY challenging games are few and far between today and it is all too easy for a developer to be convinced to drop the challenging game-play of a popular series to make the "more accessible" to people like OP. For example, this was done in the most recent version of Supreme Commander. This game was diluted to such an extent that they were able to port SC2 to consoles. It was a complete failure because they could not simplify it enough for the mainstream market and it was to simple for original fans. No one ended up liking it.

I don't agree with direct personal attacks but I understand the accusation of OP being childlike. He may not actually be a child but he certainly doesn't seem to like mature games and prefers simple games made to be accessible to the average 8 year old.

Edited September 26, 2011 by ghost101

[dm 9]

Another topic contributed to by the "mature" community that is this forums members...

If any of you actually took 5 seconds to read the OP, you'd see that he doesn't want it turned into CoD/BF, just to be more accessible.

OFP and OFP:R had some of the best combined arms missions ever. You were just one lowly soldier, ordered to go there and shoot at that. You weren't some kind of super-ninja-awesome-one-man-army (which you essentially are for most of A2).

You were a cog in a machine. You couldn't go rambo, because you'd be killed. You also didn't have to (except for a smattering of missions) crawl everywhere on your belly, in the dark, trying not to alert sentries.

I agree with the OP, the heart and soul of the franchise has been lost since Resistance. Gone are the missions where you run into battle with 50 guys either side of you, tanks, ifv's, helicopters and what else roaming the battlefield.

Now are the times of the "we're going to sneak around and kill 50+ bad guys with a silenced G36/M4 because its realistic" crowd.

And its sad, especially when they all jump down the neck of some guy that wants things to be more like OFP times than they are now, because they are more CoD/BF than he will ever be.

[PuFu 4600]

i love missions in A2 where gear is restricted, and the battles are similar in number. No more 20 humans pawning 2000+ Ais...

If A3 turns to be more stealthy, where taking head on even 5-10 AI by yourself would mean suicide, i say bring it on...

[metalcraze 290]

But it sure as hell destroyed the OA campaign. It was wayyyyy to easy and to some extend even uninspired (The giant Tank flashmob at the nothern airbase for example).

True that. OA was closer to AA1 campaign which is not a good thing. Too much action, no challenge, no freedom. Too rushed.

I fear that the Arma3 campaign might become something like PMC.....

I doubt that. From what I understand PMC tanked. One of the devs said that the campaign will be closer to BAF. While it looks like BIS aims to achieve just that (limited army for the player) they also seem to aim at a lowest difficulty possible you can achieve with this game. As per "you can complete the whole game alone" - worrisome considering that ArmA is a team game and "lonewolfing" was always very deadly.

[Tonci87 163]

True that. OA was closer to AA1 campaign which is not a good thing. Too much action, no challenge, no freedom. Too rushed.

I doubt that. From what I understand PMC tanked. One of the devs said that the campaign will be closer to BAF. While it looks like BIS aims to achieve just that (limited army for the player) they also seem to aim at a lowest difficulty possible you can achieve with this game. As per "you can complete the whole game alone" - worrisome considering that ArmA is a team game and "lonewolfing" was always very deadly.

Yeah, that makes me worry

[Tom1 10]

Another topic contributed to by the "mature" community that is this forums members...

If any of you actually took 5 seconds to read the OP, you'd see that he doesn't want it turned into CoD/BF, just to be more accessible.

OFP and OFP:R had some of the best combined arms missions ever. You were just one lowly soldier, ordered to go there and shoot at that. You weren't some kind of super-ninja-awesome-one-man-army (which you essentially are for most of A2).

You were a cog in a machine. You couldn't go rambo, because you'd be killed. You also didn't have to (except for a smattering of missions) crawl everywhere on your belly, in the dark, trying not to alert sentries.

I agree with the OP, the heart and soul of the franchise has been lost since Resistance. Gone are the missions where you run into battle with 50 guys either side of you, tanks, ifv's, helicopters and what else roaming the battlefield.

Now are the times of the "we're going to sneak around and kill 50+ bad guys with a silenced G36/M4 because its realistic" crowd.

And its sad, especially when they all jump down the neck of some guy that wants things to be more like OFP times than they are now, because they are more CoD/BF than he will ever be.

Yes, the OFP style's of missions were great, so few servers play these types of missions anymore. It's all about waiting 40 minutes at a weapons crate and killing lots of ai as a foot patrol on the same map with your favourite weapon. I always aim to create missions like OFP, but with the arma 2 crowd, having no respawns is a big no no :(

[[evo] dan 79]

Having respawns is good in case of accidents/ to make up numbers, but having a long respawn time makes people be more careful with what they are doing. I have made quite a few missions for my clan (might release some of my own at some point) and I generally get a good reception from my clanmates about missions. Its all about making them fun and actually having a point to the mission that will make people want to play it (pretty much any type, from a COP sangin style mission to black op's to all out assaults)

[colosseum 34]

I could really care less who plays CoD or BF2 or ArmA2. This entire argument is retarded, guess my sarcasm didn't come through the tubes of the internet.

Serious internet people are the best.

[Peter_Bullet 0]

In my opinion I at least tried to be mature in my TWO posts. And it really seems that most of you didn't even read them (those who did actually posted something positive).

And I'm not saying arma should be COD. I was just saying that those games are not so different after all.

Okay, planning how to attack a town could be fun, but if it takes 30 minutes to walk to the other side and then get instantly killed and having to take the walk again -it's not worth it. I'd rather take the direct route to get straight to the shooting. I have school, work and a social life -I can't spend 3 hours on a simple mission. But that's why it is good that BIS has given us a chance to save before entering the battle.

Has anyone of you played "range of death" for Arma? Or "Gargat Force" for OFP? Those were awesome campaigns. But those were made by people. If you repel people like those (and me) the series will only lose players. Having more players would mean more money for BIS and in the end you guys would get a better engine and continue developing ACE, etc...

After all, casual players usually don't have time to make missions or mods, it takes loads of time. I should know (I used to be Epeli, and I made "Forced To War" for OFP).

The guy who said that arguing in the internet is like competing in retarded olympics... I second him :D. Though I wasn't trying to argue, only present a new point of view.

EDIT:

Some guys posted pretty productive comments. You have my compliments! :)

Edited September 26, 2011 by Peter_Bullet