Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter_Bullet

More accessible mission design

Recommended Posts

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

...yeah, and sucks at "large scale" pretty bad. :p

Overall i still think ArmA is the right game for me, it can be pretty cool if you play good missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there are many players who don't like to practice or learn something. Perhaps the tutorial/training missions could be more accessible and made for SP + MP?

But somehow I doubt that these people do even try them at all. Kinda sucks if you know that certain things are covered by such missions and people refuse to play them because they are too l33t... :rolleyes:

Imo a great campaigns would need a good mix of mission types and a very good (believable) plot/story. If one would like it easier or harder he just switch to another skill setting. Of course its a no-brainer if the mission tasks can be achieved anyway - no matter how the player plays. It should be up to the player to decide and to face the outcome of his actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:j: bickering over what arma does and doesn't, you either like the game or you dont, if you got issues with missions ingame,

or how it plays then change it, you can make your own missions, in many more ways then one.

Theres also a ton of missions out there for every version of the game.

I really dont understand why the game could suck when you have access to such a huge arsenal of mods, scripts, tools, editors,

and what not to alter your game.

Get it out of your head that arma has only one way to play, combined ops isn't the same for everyone.

Change how you play your game or find another one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:j: bickering over what arma does and doesn't, you either like the game or you dont, if you got issues with missions ingame,

or how it plays then change it, you can make your own missions, in many more ways then one.

Well yes, I just find it deliciously ironic that all the people saying "lol go play CoD" are the same ones that like the new-style "lead a small team of spec ops to massacre whole platoons of enemy in a sneaky-sneaky ninja style" (which is, in essence, the way CoD plays)

A lot of us haven't touched any of the official campaigns (beyond the painful first missions) since Resistance because the have gone this [almost] lone super-soldier route. Unlike OFP where you were part of something much bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well yes, I just find it deliciously ironic that all the people saying "lol go play CoD" are the same ones that like the new-style "lead a small team of spec ops to massacre whole platoons of enemy in a sneaky-sneaky ninja style" (which is, in essence, the way CoD plays)

All the people? I say "lol go play CoD" but missions I love the most are combined operations with multiple teams.

Also "lead" is not the word you can use for CoD where it's the player that's being led with constant "Captain McObvious: Soap quickly run another 5 meters in this linear corridor!!1" - which looks like some people want with them complaining about "zomg not accessible to schoolkidz who spend too much time in school and don't have time to learn the game" like in the neighbouring thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's really no reason not to have a whole mess of all kinds of missions. Loads of them, all kinds of them, it's not like they take up any space or are difficult to generate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as long as they include one (preferably two :) ) long and well produced campaign which is a showcase for ArmA features and tactical play, I will be happy. They can include a crappy FPS-like mission for the people who mistakenly purchased the game thinking it was a CoD-clone...I don't really care. But I demand one hardcore mission, which involves intensive use of squad level tactical play, preferably with some clever HQ level play too.

I don't want a bloody hybrid mission where for half the campaign I'm forced to play as some "lonewolf" character "learning the ropes" and eventually progressing to a Commander right at the end. That really sounds annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, if the ArmA3 would came with a Comm-Ref and some basic scripts then the mission design would be more accessible; rightnow it's almost impossible to do a working MP mission, a SP mission that don't be a simple firefight and much less a Campaign with just the game and the editor.

Give a Comm-Ref with the game (as .pdf) should improve this and extend the existing MP missions, in other words; the fun and game's life. Let's C ya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, if the ArmA3 would came with a Comm-Ref and some basic scripts then the mission design would be more accessible; rightnow it's almost impossible to do a working MP mission, a SP mission that don't be a simple firefight and much less a Campaign with just the game and the editor.

Give a Comm-Ref with the game (as .pdf) should improve this and extend the existing MP missions, in other words; the fun and game's life. Let's C ya

Well, the comref is easily accessible on the wiki, and it is very possible to make complex missions without any scripting, only with synchronizing, Game logics, WP and triggers. But you're right that basic and less basic mission tutorials should be included in the game.

Edited by ProfTournesol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you're right that basic and less basic mission tutorials should be included in the game.

Few reads the manual.

Fewer wants to.

A great product is a self-explanatory one. Not one that comes with a ringbind.

If you want people to make quality content, you must give them tools that lets them -- with ease.

Elementary things that are currently not simple to do (like task objectives, changing loadouts, and such) should be made childsplay.

Apple-fication might scare some users, but BIS doesn't seem the type to remove features or dumb down things at the cost of functionality. So I think the quality of missions would only be raised, and everyone wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A great product is a self-explanatory one. Not one that comes with a ringbind.

So this is a manual for a bad products then? ;)

Sorry, but I disagree. Size of manual should reflect the complexity of the game. When complexity grows, self-explanatoryness (?) kinda looses out. Even if Elite 2 Frontier was fairly self-explanatory back in the day, I loved the manual(s) for in depth description and even explanation on how newtonian flight worked.

Arma is not a simplistic game with limited controls, in case you haven't noticed. There is so much you can do which isn't really explained anywhere, that due to the sheer scope of customization, makes it hard to accidentally locate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would say that new players need something like a great drill master/guide to get through all the important things one can use. Of course some better ingame (step-by-step) explaining features could work well too.

On the other hand today too many players just skip tutorial/training to get familiar with a game and click MP for some tacticool instant-action-respawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand today too many players just skip tutorial/training to get familiar with a game and click MP for some tacticool instant-action-respawn.

Well, if anyone skipps on BF or Cod etc. is fine i guess.I mean would you really need one? ( having played BF2 i didn't )

I however did exactly that - after I found the manual utterly disappointing and being tired of all youtube videos etc my next choice obviously was to hop straight in MP, not becouse of insta pwning but naturaly becouse of frustration.

That said, if people having trouble with how to exactly use sickboy's excellent six updater, (Well like me in the beginning) how can we expect new-ish players to get into such games like arma is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did I get into OFP? Oh the horror - it must've been pure luck!

Or did people suddenly started to have an IQ of a wooden door 10 years later?

BIS should dumb down ArmA to the "complexity" of BF otherwise poor new players won't be able to get into it. Instead they will not play it at all because they already have one BF

God forbid a game being more than a run and gun - that's too frustrating for housewives, BIS must think of everyone.

I think the problem with people crying the most who seem to care about the poor new players who will never be able to get into ArmA (when BIS created ArmA clearly they also created a special human race to play it which has a constant number) - is that the game is too hard for them. They couldn't care less about the new player.

Is it so hard to understand that ArmA is targeted at an audience that likes tactical shooters with realism and multiple possibilities - and if you don't like it you have dozens of other alternatives?

Edited by metalcraze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How did I get into OFP? Oh the horror - it must've been pure luck!

Or did people suddenly started to have an IQ of a wooden door 10 years later?

BIS should dumb down ArmA to the "complexity" of BF otherwise poor new players won't be able to get into it. Instead they will not play it at all because they already have one BF

God forbid a game being more than a run and gun - that's too frustrating for housewives, BIS must think of everyone.

I think the problem with people crying the most who seem to care about the poor new players who will never be able to get into ArmA (when BIS created ArmA clearly they also created a special human race to play it which has a constant number) - is that the game is too hard for them. They couldn't care less about the new player.

Is it so hard to understand that ArmA is targeted at an audience that likes tactical shooters with realism and multiple possibilities - and if you don't like it you have dozens of other alternatives?

Define "tactical shooter with realism and multiple possibilities" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why the same point must be made over & over again - that "more accessible" does NOT mean dumb the whole game down completely, or even in any way. And even more, having a set of different styles of missions does not even impact on ArmA in ANY WAY AT ALL apart from some easily ignorable extra content, in the form of default missions.

There is an irony evident here, that the habits of some posters are entrenched to respond the same way to the same stimuli regardless of explanation, almost like an inability or unwillingless to learn. Isn't that what the common complaint often is, that people who don't like ArmA are unwilling to learn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Size of manual should reflect the complexity of the game. When complexity grows, self-explanatoryness (?) kinda looses out.

Carl, I also liked those games, and their manuals, and I can't quite shake my fondness for games in carton boxes either, but it's time to leave the 80's behind. We've since discovered that the value of products is pretty much directly proportional to their convenience.

Windows made computers convenient.

Google made the internet convenient.

Facebook made socializing convenient.

Steam made game distribution convenient.

and...

Arma editor made mission design convenient.

Great products are easy to use and as much as possible self-explanatory.

Arma will always need the wiki, tutorials, forum and so on, but a manual of any significance won't encourage anybody to make missions, nor improve quality of those who do. Not in any significant way. Making the editor more convenient however, will.

Manuals will much sooner scare people away. Say goodbye to the information age, and welcome to the age of .. ideas, maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DMarkwick: I've never found a single mission that I didn't understand and couldn't find approach to in the whole series, both SP and MP (the only frustrating missions for me were those when enemies outnumbered me & Co 10:1 but that's just poor design). So excuse me, maybe I'm being too stupid to understand something - but I don't get the complaints. Unless the mission has no briefing what can be the problem?

However as you can see the complaints aren't about just missions. In fact missions are not the main thing by far people complain about. They complain about the game being too hard simply because, unfortunately, many people think that all shooters are alike and ArmA is just another CoD on a big map (no puns here, people do think so - because ArmA has modern armies, the fact that BIS did that before even "WW2 shooter" became a genre completely escapes them). Of course the first minute of the game shows them the harsh reality and instead of trying to understand what the game is all about (and it isn't about shooting) they come here and complain, complain, complain. Too many buttons! AI shoots me through bushes and walls! Weapon being a real object and doesn't seem to clip through every wall! Soldier making steps, not camera flying above ground! Too frustrating! Please cut everything out, make AI blind and deaf etc.

Edited by metalcraze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know why the same point must be made over & over again - that "more accessible" does NOT mean dumb the whole game down completely, or even in any way. And even more, having a set of different styles of missions does not even impact on ArmA in ANY WAY AT ALL apart from some easily ignorable extra content, in the form of default missions.

There is an irony evident here, that the habits of some posters are entrenched to respond the same way to the same stimuli regardless of explanation, almost like an inability or unwillingless to learn. Isn't that what the common complaint often is, that people who don't like ArmA are unwilling to learn?

Most sensible post of the last forever.

I like that we're still focussed on the "anyone who wants better missions must be an idiot and the game is too hard for them" thing, rather than addressing the actual issue.

The ArmA missions/campaigns (1 and 2) are AWFUL, theres no 2 ways about it. The OFP missions had a sense of scale, yet were still easy to get into. The ArmA missions are just... well... yeah.

Can we forget about all this "OMG you're a dumb CoD kiddie" bullshit (because everyone who posts that as an excuse is just as dumb as the CoD kiddies supposedly are) and just focus on the point in hand: We want better missions that are easier to get into (which is not the same thing as easier to complete).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@DMarkwick: I've never found a single mission that I didn't understand and couldn't find approach to in the whole series, both SP and MP (the only frustrating missions for me were those when enemies outnumbered me & Co 10:1 but that's just poor design). So excuse me, maybe I'm being too stupid to understand something - but I don't get the complaints. Unless the mission has no briefing what can be the problem?

However as you can see the complaints aren't about just missions. In fact missions are not the main thing by far people complain about. They complain about the game being too hard simply because, unfortunately, many people think that all shooters are alike and ArmA is just another CoD on a big map (no puns here, people do think so - because ArmA has modern armies, the fact that BIS did that before even "WW2 shooter" became a genre completely escapes them). Of course the first minute of the game shows them the harsh reality and instead of trying to understand what the game is all about (and it isn't about shooting) they come here and complain, complain, complain. Too many buttons! AI shoots me through bushes and walls! Weapon being a real object and doesn't seem to clip through every wall! Soldier making steps, not camera flying above ground! Too frustrating! Please cut everything out, make AI blind and deaf etc.

The complaints aren't just about the missions no, but it is the focus of this thread. I cannot see any downside to more, and more diverse, default missions.

Back in OFP the one single mission that taught me more about the way to play OFP more than any other, was a dumb little paintball mission set in an artificial enclosure with sandbags & vehicles set around the place. I still play it even now, it was a quick-fire round, 4 people per side, one life, you bolt out and the last man standing's team was the winner of that round, and straight back into it again, over and over and over. It quickly taught me how to move, how to use cover, and how to watch. Not realistic in any sense, and out of context perhaps even sounds like quite a dumb idea, but it was by far the best OFP training mission I ever had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ArmA, especially with ACE.

ArmA is a sandbox FPS that is more realistic then current day mainstream FPS in its vanila form. Even though missions design goes hand in hand with game features development it dont see how a bunch of less "Hurr Durr, I spent 30 mins sneaking around , got connected with my platoon and developed a flawless plan to assult a vilage" can affect the overall sandbox element of the game, which in my eyes makes ArmA the great experience it is.

Vanila ArmA is targeted at players who enjoy open tactical operations. This category does not have a set nr. of players. Players who thought COD or BF is the best a FPS can offer might change their mind. They might say ... " Hey, I want some diversity, I think I am going to try ArmA. OK I got the hang of it, thanks to this missions here, I think I am ready to try something a little harder now". So not only that said person decided to stick to the game because he had more diversity in terms of mission design, but he might recomend it to someone. The community grows and BIS earns some more cash. Happy times :)

ArmA+ACE is targeted at tactical FPS fans that want more realism in their experience. The fictional person above might become a "hardcore" player because of those missions that allowed him to slowly get into the game. Again ... happy times :)

So ... how is more accessible mission design for vanila ArmA a bad thing for the already established ArmA community who already know what ArmA is about?

I see nothing wrong with it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@DMarkwick: I've never found a single mission that I didn't understand and couldn't find approach to in the whole series, both SP and MP (the only frustrating missions for me were those when enemies outnumbered me & Co 10:1 but that's just poor design).

There is nothing to understand in most/all official ArmA missions.

You and your teammates have guns, the enemy has guns...lets start the action.

There is a issue with the missions and campaigns because they are just bad !

They are bad and no fun, thats all.

You could expect a company like BIS to at least get a good campaign working.

What did they say, they focused on the campaign...should i cry or what ?

If ArmA3 has a well done campaign with some good action, without the hole "wounding module" and "high command" crap then some new players will get into the hole ArmA world much easier.

Just give them a campaign that has a strong focus an good old shooter action with some good ingame tutorials.

Then, after playing the campaign they may will dig deeper and find some Mods and user missions and become a fan of the game.

But if you instead throw such crappy stuff at them like the incredibly worse ArmA2 campaign...sure, why play such a game if you could instead play BF3 ?

Because of the editor and the mods ?

Most new players dont know about that, they bought a game for 50$ and want some fun with it without the need to download 10 mods to get a "better" game.

Edited by Wiggum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't BIS said that A3 campaign(s) will be more accessible to new players?

One can only hope BIS didn't made it too easy and/or too movie-tunnel-shooter like:

fpsmapdesign.jpg

Imagine the map design in 2020 :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How did I get into OFP? Oh the horror - it must've been pure luck!

Or did people suddenly started to have an IQ of a wooden door 10 years later?

God forbid a game being more than a run and gun - that's too frustrating for housewives, BIS must think of everyone.

BIS should dumb down ArmA to the "complexity" of BF otherwise poor new players won't be able to get into it. Instead they will not play it at all because they already have one BF

@Metalcraze, you're obviously a hardcore arma fun.Thats great and i respect that but such elitism won't get as (BIS?) anywhere in my opinion.

So why don't we put aside the sarcasm or some IQ prejustice as not everyone who has recently joined is 16-ish and we focus on how to help this very potential developer make their games awsome just little more instead?

Its not only missions what is being talked about here, it is the lack of manual and basic guideance for new players.I for one trully don't believe its becouse controls are too complex or missions are too hard opr reloading animations take too long..(make them twice that long for all I care..) but becouse of too many bugs, errors etc..( Deleted CAwheeled error took me over month to figure out and I googled and googled...)

Heck, even if newbies end up playing arma domi coop (or similar)for years, so what? Everyone's happy right?

Where the pain begins however, when they might wanna move on and start to download addons and such.It's not too long ago when i heard that some players doesn't even know of armaholic or tools like six updater.Things like this should be made as easy as possible. (six updater integration for ex..)

It might not be too long before they become mission or even addon makers themselfs, if they're given the (at least proper basic) instructions.

As of BIS not welcoming new players, that must plain wrong, else why would they even consider something like ''incoming bullet indicator''?

Edited by Bee8190

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×