More accessible mission design

[max power 21]

Planning a mission doesn't require 30 minutes. I usually plan what I'm doing on the fly. I just mean you can't run out into the middle of the open with your pants down and expect to survive. If you do that, you will get shot 'out of nowhere' by 'random bullets'.

And for the record, I am no fan of the peak and sneak mission style either. I do appreciate missions that present an intellectual challenge, however. I do really love the OFP style missions, but not so much 'simply lay down and start pegging off everything that moves' style gameplay. In OFP, it was too easy to spot badguys, and high ground was too much of an advantage. You could literally just lay down and start playing duck hunt as the master key solution to almost every scenario. It made the missions where you had to sneak around almost a blessed relief.

[jakerod 254]

The other good thing about your idea is that it will provide a nice middle ground for those who are coming from more action based games before then get into the I died and there are no respawn type maps. Not to mention you could easily make it so that the harder the difficulty that the level is played on the less guys you have to spawn into and perhaps on the hardest you will only have the one guy to play as. The other option is making it so that it is a selectable option at the beginning of the level. Similar to how in Blood, Sweat, and Tears in ArmA you had the option to pick who you play as. Now you could have the option for who you play as or how many respawns/soldiers you get. The game is supposed to be fun and this type of mission can work for both diehard fans and newer players or those who just might like to play that type of mission.

Again though, I think it should be found only in a few cases within Single Player Missions and maybe Multiplayer missions but not in the campaign.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Do you guys notice that the title has no relation with the first post :D

[Haystack15 10]

:o I feel quite embarrassed reading this thread OP.

[rangerpl 13]

The difference between ArmA and CoD storytelling is this: in Call of Duty, the game tells you the story. When a teammate dies, sad music plays and the game goes into slow motion.

ArmA has you, the player, telling the story. If one of your squadmates gets killed, it's up to you how it's going to fit in your "war story".

Also MW2 missions weren't that well designed. You were just mowing down enemies in a corridor-ed path while pretending to complete different objectives which mainly involved going near something and pressing the action button. ArmA has you fighting enemies who are equipped as well as yourself, outnumber you and are intelligent.

Edited September 27, 2011 by RangerPL

[metalcraze 290]

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.

If you are getting instantly killed it's only your fault. A good commander always stays aware of his surroundings.

Also I don't remember where in any of official OFP missions I had to plan and then walk for 30 minutes unless it was one of those "escape" missions.

Besides there are tools like time compression and cheat-y savegame system at your disposal (with infinite savegames at any point) which can be turned on even on Veteran.

If you repel people like those (and me) the series will only lose players.

What about repelling people like those that don't like "instant-action" (and me) - won't the series lose players?

Why people that are always crying about "make ArmA easieeerrr" are so egotistic?

Besides "more accessible" ArmA1 sold very well - oh wait no it didn't?

[ProfTournesol 956]

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

While i somehow understand what you're intending in your posts, i must say that two games can't be more different than ArmA and COD. And because Arma is a sandbox, you can create whatever mission you like, you know this as you created a campaign one day. What's very nice is that you can be killed even by lost bullets, and have to redo everything from scratch (or use several savegames as it's possible now in ArmA2).

[Maio 293]

Some of you are talking like the ArmA series is hardcoded and the only new content we get is 15$ 2X2 km maps once every 6 months.

He was talking about missions design not the overall scope of the game. I for one support the idea for SP scenarios, beacuse it would mean more income for BIS which will hopefully result in more patches and feature development. Features that the BIS team and the communty can put forth to make more complex missions... be they story driven ones with slow motion cut scenes or strategic sandbox style ones.

The tutorial hints and "lone wolf" vs "commander" options in the campaign have shown that BIS is trying to "smoothen" the entry of new players into the series without turning the whole game into a twitch shooter.

"

After they get their dose of casual ArmA they can switch to "hardcore" ArmA and no one has to lose anything.

Last I checked it did not say anywhere that "mil-sim" games have to be "hardcore".

I like ArmA just the way it is... open :)

Relax folks :)

[wiggum2 31]

I can remember starting the BAF campaign, first mission...

I get out of the helicopter and a few seconds later was shot.

Crawling around wounded and screaming for a medic for ~5 minutes the AI ignored my request.

-> EXIT -> never played the campaign again.

In a shooter (yes, ARMA is most likely a shooter) i dont want to die from shots out of the void.

I also can remember many frustrating Coop sessions where after 1h of playing someone got shot from one of those KI AK snipers.

No respawn... -> EXIT

Sure, you can do your own missions and fix that stuff but i really hated all official missions and campaigns.

They dont felt "real" and swere mostly no fun.

Thank god for the editor !

BIS needs to do something with the missions and campaigns for ArmA3, because in ArmA2 they are just bad and sometimes ridiculous (PMC stuff).

[dmarkwick 261]

There's no real reason not to have a whole plethora of mission types, it's not like they take up much room or are difficult to generate. Not every mission needs to be ultra difficult just to show off how elite the game is :)

[metalcraze 290]

In BAF campaign I was shot for the first time only on the 3rd mission. And I've played on Veteran.

If you are getting shot on the very first mission which is beyond piss easy since Apache just blows enemies into pieces you are doing something very very wrong.

Crawling around wounded and screaming for a medic for ~5 minutes the AI ignored my request.

Overexaggerating is bad, mmkay?

And last time I've checked you are getting shot in the very first mission in the "evil" CoD too - I guess in the first mission Takistanis should've been throwing flowers at you.

Edited September 27, 2011 by metalcraze

[wiggum2 31]

[...]you are doing something very very wrong.

No.

Its just bad luck. Thats, together with the very bad mission design, just makes the official missions bad.

[jakerod 254]

I can remember starting the BAF campaign, first mission...

I get out of the helicopter and a few seconds later was shot.

Crawling around wounded and screaming for a medic for ~5 minutes the AI ignored my request.

-> EXIT -> never played the campaign again.

In a shooter (yes, ARMA is most likely a shooter) i dont want to die from shots out of the void.

I also can remember many frustrating Coop sessions where after 1h of playing someone got shot from one of those KI AK snipers.

No respawn... -> EXIT

Sure, you can do your own missions and fix that stuff but i really hated all official missions and campaigns.

They dont felt "real" and swere mostly no fun.

Thank god for the editor !

BIS needs to do something with the missions and campaigns for ArmA3, because in ArmA2 they are just bad and sometimes ridiculous (PMC stuff).

That was actually my favorite campaign from BI I think or at least one of them. It was really well done in my opinion except for a few odd bugs I ran into. I do agree that getting shot from no where does kind of suck but that is why you have to be careful and look around. I would like the ArmA 3 campaign to be more like a BAF plus Resistance maybe.

There's no real reason not to have a whole plethora of mission types, it's not like they take up much room or are difficult to generate. Not every mission needs to be ultra difficult just to show off how elite the game is

Agreed

[metalcraze 290]

No.

Its just bad luck. Thats, together with the very bad mission design, just makes the official missions bad.

You've decided that the whole mission has a 'very bad design' based only on a few minutes during which the only "problem" was that you got shot?

[wiggum2 31]

You've decided that the whole mission has a 'very bad design' based only on a few minutes during which the only "problem" was that you got shot?

No, that was more a general comment about the official missions.

I played the ArmA2 campaign about 6h and the OA campaign about 1h + the PMC campaign ~ 2h.

And all i can say is that they are bad, and the PMC stuff is awful.

[metalcraze 290]

BAF is better than all three of them since by design it's very close to Resistance (with the only real difference being that it's only 4 missions long)

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@Wiggum:

Other than the bugs caused by sheer mission complexity, I loved the Arma2 campaign, and have played it numerous times. Because I can believe in it. Not so much for the OA campaign, although I guess it's okay. Main issue is number of missions, it all ends so quickly.

So you played approx 10 hours from 3 campaigns, and they're all bad, huh? Seriously?

[metalcraze 290]

Actually he didn't lose much. I've played them for much longer and they don't get better. Except for OA campaign perhaps which can be playable since it's the only one out of three that doesn't try to be about 'Speshul Skwad'

[ghost101 10]

BAF was the best, but far too short. PMC was a complete pile of poo and I've got a very bad feeling that ArmA 3's campaign will be similar to it.

Edited September 28, 2011 by ghost101

[jakerod 254]

BAF was the best, but far too short. PMC was a complete pile of poo and I've got a very bad feeling that ArmA 3's campaign will be similar to it.

I think it's going to be more like BAF actually. Or at least I am hoping for that.

@Wiggum- You should give BAF another try. It is a great campaign!

[wiggum2 31]

@Wiggum- You should give BAF another try. It is a great campaign!

I dont play them anymore because i only play missions where i can heal myselfe (medipacks) and/or with a constant leg heal script.

Nothing suck more then getting hit in the legs and crawling...crawling...crawling...crawling

I like to finish missions on the first playthrough. And i hate to get shot from out of nowhere.

Thats why i like to really reduce the overall accuracy and aiming of the AI in my missions. But i give them high courage and commanding.

That way the game plays more like Dragon Rising or other Tactical-Shooters.

I also think that anything above squad level is far to big for the ArmA2 engine to simulate. And ArmA2 also sucks in simulating combined arms warfare...

More then a handful of IFV/MBT's and it is going to suck.

For some reason the BIS guys think their game can simulate that stuff damn well and send you into such mass AI failures again and again.

Carefully done small-scale infantry only missions, thats where ARMA2 shows that i can be fun in SP....oh, and Zombies !

Edited September 28, 2011 by Wiggum

[Tonci87 163]

Dude, somehow I get the impression that Arma might be the wrong game for you... :p

[NoRailgunner 0]

Wiggum try another game eg one of those braindead mainstream (zombie) shooters where you can win missions/campaigns in your first run. If you are only able to whine, moan, jump'n'run, shoot'n'scoot and keen on statistics - GTFO. :D

[ghost101 10]

Carefully done small-scale infantry only missions...

incase you haven't noticed, ArmA doesn't do "small scale"! but CoD does, so GTFO and go play that instead! :D

[hund 0]

Now that we are talking mission design, and what we don't like. I am kinda with Mr. Wiggum, at least half the way. I like what others in this community would call easy missions, because overall the risk of you getting shot, maimed or blowed the hell up are small, if you don't make any mistakes.

However, I'd like to see the mission outcome dictated by different parameters than simply using the pyrrhic approach that seems prevailant. Losing you own men is justv as bad as killing the enemy is good. There are more considerations than just doing your job, no matter the cost.

Mission makers tend to make their creations more challenging by setting up these crazy scenarios that I wouldn't have gone near with a ten-foot pole when I was a soldier. To me, the mission outcome should be determined by the use of tactics, objective completion, casualty prevention, timing, casualty infliction and similar topics. Taking the hill with your platoon, but being the only guy left standing at the end of it, should not be be called a victory.

And please don't tell me to go play something else - it is such a poor man's argument. :D

EDIT:

I like the victory system they have in the oterwise rather bland Combat Mission series. It uses several parameters to give you an outcome.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/-V4p0oI34A1U/Tenwn7b_rdI/AAAAAAAAAmE/j6aPYCV08Dk/CM%252520Shock%252520Force%2525202011-06-04%25252010-16-05-14%25255B5%25255D.jpg

Edited September 28, 2011 by Hund