[MP]A call for engaging mission design: inspired by objective-based multiplayer games

[KorJaxico 10]

TL;DR at bottom, if you really can't read the below analysis on the issues with current multiplayer mission design philosophies in Arma games.

I've been playing Arma since when ArmA2 first released, and have been a big fan of tactical/mil-sim style games and a lot of the thrill that comes from the authenticity such experiences provide.

Arma, especially Arma3 offers so much incredible potential for multiplayer scenarios with all the features it has, the giant landmass, the variety and authenticity of all the optionals available to designers and players. Which is why it's always saddened me that the only way to be truly engaged in the game is to play organized with friends or play custom missions in single player. Often times I itch for a game of Arma3 online, but my friends or people I play with aren't online, or might not play the game anymore. This means I have to join public servers - which is fine, I play on public servers all the time for a bunch of games and have no issues.

The problem is, Arma mission design for public games seems to be very stale, by the numbers, and not very interesting. This is a problem, when the game has so much potential depth, but the depth sits unrealized because its being driven by such a shallow or simple mission design. The missions that aren't like this require you to be with a coordinated group in order to play, making it impossible to just casually join on a server as no server would run such missions.

Look, Domination has its place. Invade and Annex has their place too. The missions are well made, they work, and provide the players with something to do.

The problem is, these missions lose a lot of the authenticity that Arma provides by having such a game-y goal and trivialization of core features in the game. For me, there is nothing fun about constantly hopping from zone to zone with my objective being "Kill all the AI dudes in the area, optionally blow up the radio tower" to win. Arma2 had the same issue- public gameplay was not engaging at all because almost all the missions that servers had hosted were very by-the-numbers "I guess we need to give players something to do with these guns" type of missions instead of missions where you actually do something.

This is one of the reasons why I still hold America's Army 2.8.X as one of the best multiplayer gaming experiences out there, and one of the most engaging "tactical" multiplayer games out there as well. The biggest contributor to this. Say what you want about the game itself, you can't deny that the scenarios your squad was put in when you play a multiplayer match of AA were not only authentic, but engaging. It was a very focused, but fun design.

Such as, classic Pipeline. If you were attacking, BLUFOR forces had to enter and occupy an alaskan pipeline station. The objective was not to kill all the baddies, but it was instead to complete the entire reason why you were entering the AO in the first place - to deactivate the pipeline valves to prevent them from being sabotaged by the OPFOR forces occupying the complex. Victory was achieved by eliminating all opfor in the area, or by completing your main objective by deactivating all three valves.

SF Hospital was another interesting mission, that took place an area of a middle eastern downtown area featuring a large hospital complex. The OPFOR group had to find and kill the VIP player, while the BLUFOR group had to find this player and escort him to an extraction point.

Then you had missions like defending a bridge from being crossed by OPFOR, blowing up a downed helicopter to prevent it from being captured by the opfor, etc. Each mission had a specific objective and specific things you did that had real authentic premise behind it.

We need more mission design like this, and less "kill all 100 enemies in X area". Its authentic, brings you into the experience more, and with the power of Arma3 we can really take advantage every aspect of warfare that Arma3 provides to truely let players enjoy public, engaging multiplayer games without needing a dedicated group and by doing it better than any tactical/milsim game before has done it.

-----------------------------------------

So here is my plea: we need to organize and develop more engaging, involved mission designs that players can enjoy, that take full advantage of the authenticity the Arma experience provides, taking inspiration from multiplayer games that focus more on accomplishing objectives than "killing the dudes". In many real-life engagements, killing is a consequence that must be done to ensure the objective gets completed, rather than something you just do because you have a gun.

A possible solution would be a mission that features a meta-game similar to domination, but with completely different rulesets.

Basic structure of this new game mode:

• The game mode will take place on all of Altis
  
• PvP focus, but I suppose there is potential for AI involvement.
  
• There will be 4-6 possible "campaigns" that take place within this game mode.
  
• Campaigns are region-specific, and not tied to each other in any way. The overall goal of the game mode is to win whichever campaign you are currently on. Once a campaign is won, everything is reset and a new random campaign is started (or the next campaign can be voted on?).
  
• Each campaign is comprised of a handful of missions and engagements that must be completed before the campaign is completed. These missions are laid out in the campaign-zone in a similar fashion to Domination. If a mission is won by one team, they win the "mission" and the campaign continues onto the next mission.
  
• Victory of the campaign is decided when all missions in that campaign have been completed. Whichever side has the most score at the end of a campaign wins the campaign. You earn score for your team by completing objectives within missions, per friendly unit that is still alive at the end of a mission, and winning a mission itself. Killing enemies does not give you score... but it can deny the enemy from earning a bigger score. So while your team might get 20 points for completing a mission, and 10 points for completing the objectives in the mission, they might only get 1 point for only having one guy left alive on the team at the end. Meanwhile, even though the enemy team lost the mission, if nobody died on that team they might still earn 20 points from that alone. This means even if a team has won the majority of their missions, they can still lose if they win those mission recklessly and the enemy team does a good job on the remaining missions left in the campaign.
  

Basic structure of the missions inside this game mode:

• The missions themselves will all be "round-based" affairs, and should take within 30 minutes to complete, if not shorter
  
• Players only have one life, per mission. If you die, you can't be an active participant in the remainder of the mission until the round is over and the next mission starts (this is why missions must be completable within 20-30 minutes time). However, you might be able to potentially respawn as a support role of sorts, such as gunner for a helicopter driven by AI, or as a member of the extraction team? The idea though is your mission goes in with X amount of assets and must complete the mission with those assets instead of an infinitely respawning pool of man-power.
  
• Missions are all objective based, with either the OPFOR or BLUFOR having to attack or defend a key objective. Objectives could be anything from crossing a chokepoint, sabotaging a key objective in the area, getting rid of evidence, escorting a VIP (player or AI controlled?), etc. Each mission will have its own situation, setting, time frame, etc, and will play out like you might expect different maps from ET or AA to play out.
  
• Victory for attackers happen if they complete all their objectives, or all the enemy players are dead. Victory for defenders happen if time runs out before the end of the mission, or the defenders kill all the attackers.
  
• When a new mission starts within this campaign, all players respawn at a designated starting point for that mission. This could be in a safe area right outside the building an objective is located in, within a KM out near the objective letting players choose their own approach, depending on the mission. Some missions will be restricted in what the players can use, while other missions might be more open ended.
  
• Players will not be able to choose any gun or loadout they want for the mission, but they can select from predefined loadouts from a pre-mission area the players spawn at before they spawn in the mission AO. Loadouts will be limited per team - for example, there might only be 2-3 marksmen/snipers allowed per side, 6 medics allowed, but an infinite number of riflemen allowed. To prevent everyone from going rifleman a mission might require at least one sniper or atleast two medics before starting, etc.
  
• Some missions could potentially be against AI forces. If such a mission were to happen, the BLUFOR and OPFOR would both be on separate missions from each other, and victory is determined by which team can actually beat the objectives and the AI first (or beat the objectives the best, or without all dieing?).
  

So that's the basic concept I've put together. The game mode itself holds 4-6 campaigns, all comprised of simple PvP focused missions that are all one-life-allowed, short, and objective-based. Campaigns are won by whoever team has the most points by the time all the missions within a campaign are completed. The most important fact is that all the missions are objective-based, and focused around an actual "scenario", instead of doing what most people who play arma online publically do now: playing a game of "ferry to the AO" to generically kill a bunch of generic OPFOR.

While I'm not working on such a mission myself, I'm very prepared to do the undertaking. I've never used the tools in an Arma game before but I'm no stranger to mission design from other games, so I can't imagine its too hard. I was a level designer and scripter for Mechwarrior: living legends - http://www.mechlivinglegends.net (2009 Mod of the Year at ModDB.com), I am currently working on a script-intensive combat+perk+skill overhaul gameplay design mod for Skyrim (using the Papyrus script language, heavily based off Python), and have had prior experience mapping missions for Crysis before all of the above, among other small games.

I'm posting this thread as a PSA, so I can see how much support such a concept might actually get among the Arma player base. I love Arma, but I don't love the public multiplayer game experience the Arma series has - and it has everything to do with the mission design and rather than "playing with dirty pubbies" for me. Who knows, maybe i might even be able to get a group of people to help out (I know I'd have to get learning the Arma mission editing tools intimately first though before I'd be comfortable with that).

EDIT: Also, I've been active on these forums as the user "KorJax" but unfortunately these forums decided to throw out all my login info and that account is tied to an email I no longer use so... that's why I'm posting this on a new account.

Edited August 11, 2013 by KorJaxico

[Mr. Tripp 10]

Sometimes when I play Warfare or Domination I try to get my heli shot down on purpose just so that people have to come rescue us because of how dull some of these missions are, I certainly hope someone makes this for real.

[Fushko 59]

All of my yes. Going from place to place in Domination and I&A just to kill some AI is getting boring

[tark 10]

I couldn't agree more, ArmA's open-multiplayer environment has really gotten into a lull over the years even when it could grow into something so much more. I would be thrilled to be able to support this project, even if I am just a small-time mission maker.

[KorJaxico 10]

Well I'll see about trying to organize something or at least get something started myself once Arma3 releases with Altis. This is the type of multiplayer game mode I'd love to play in an Arma game, instead of the stuff we usually get on public servers (domination and its various spin-offs).

[Ezcoo 47]

The idea is very nice, I planned something like this myself also... For example a (COOP) mission where there is a constant (but still dynamic) front line where there is the "basic fight" for those who just want to fight, and then plenty of diverse missions behind the enemy lines that have an actual effect to the enemy. Eg. destroying the service points of enemy would decrease the number of vehicles that enemies bring on the battlefield, and some successful EW / interfering their comms will make their high lead less efficient etc. Actual TvT missions, for their part, could be more mission-oriented.

[Ghost0815 1]

we playing something simular since 2009 - 2012 on Charlie Foxtrot (www.cfarma2.com) and since 2012 on ArmA Wargames (http://arma-wargames.com)...

[call_911 10]

TL;DR at bottom, if you really can't read the below analysis on the issues with current multiplayer mission design philosophies in Arma games.

I've been playing Arma since when ArmA2 first released, and have been a big fan of tactical/mil-sim style games and a lot of the thrill that comes from the authenticity such experiences provide.

Arma, especially Arma3 offers so much incredible potential for multiplayer scenarios with all the features it has, the giant landmass, the variety and authenticity of all the optionals available to designers and players. Which is why it's always saddened me that the only way to be truly engaged in the game is to play organized with friends or play custom missions in single player. Often times I itch for a game of Arma3 online, but my friends or people I play with aren't online, or might not play the game anymore. This means I have to join public servers - which is fine, I play on public servers all the time for a bunch of games and have no issues.

The problem is, Arma mission design for public games seems to be very stale, by the numbers, and not very interesting. This is a problem, when the game has so much potential depth, but the depth sits unrealized because its being driven by such a shallow or simple mission design. The missions that aren't like this require you to be with a coordinated group in order to play, making it impossible to just casually join on a server as no server would run such missions.

Look, Domination has its place. Invade and Annex has their place too. The missions are well made, they work, and provide the players with something to do.

The problem is, these missions lose a lot of the authenticity that Arma provides by having such a game-y goal and trivialization of core features in the game. For me, there is nothing fun about constantly hopping from zone to zone with my objective being "Kill all the AI dudes in the area, optionally blow up the radio tower" to win. Arma2 had the same issue- public gameplay was not engaging at all because almost all the missions that servers had hosted were very by-the-numbers "I guess we need to give players something to do with these guns" type of missions instead of missions where you actually do something.

This is one of the reasons why I still hold America's Army 2.8.X as one of the best multiplayer gaming experiences out there, and one of the most engaging "tactical" multiplayer games out there as well. The biggest contributor to this. Say what you want about the game itself, you can't deny that the scenarios your squad was put in when you play a multiplayer match of AA were not only authentic, but engaging. It was a very focused, but fun design.

Such as, classic Pipeline. If you were attacking, BLUFOR forces had to enter and occupy an alaskan pipeline station. The objective was not to kill all the baddies, but it was instead to complete the entire reason why you were entering the AO in the first place - to deactivate the pipeline valves to prevent them from being sabotaged by the OPFOR forces occupying the complex. Victory was achieved by eliminating all opfor in the area, or by completing your main objective by deactivating all three valves.

SF Hospital was another interesting mission, that took place an area of a middle eastern downtown area featuring a large hospital complex. The OPFOR group had to find and kill the VIP player, while the BLUFOR group had to find this player and escort him to an extraction point.

Then you had missions like defending a bridge from being crossed by OPFOR, blowing up a downed helicopter to prevent it from being captured by the opfor, etc. Each mission had a specific objective and specific things you did that had real authentic premise behind it.

We need more mission design like this, and less "kill all 100 enemies in X area". Its authentic, brings you into the experience more, and with the power of Arma3 we can really take advantage every aspect of warfare that Arma3 provides to truely let players enjoy public, engaging multiplayer games without needing a dedicated group and by doing it better than any tactical/milsim game before has done it.

-----------------------------------------

So here is my plea: we need to organize and develop more engaging, involved mission designs that players can enjoy, that take full advantage of the authenticity the Arma experience provides, taking inspiration from multiplayer games that focus more on accomplishing objectives than "killing the dudes". In many real-life engagements, killing is a consequence that must be done to ensure the objective gets completed, rather than something you just do because you have a gun.

A possible solution would be a mission that features a meta-game similar to domination, but with completely different rulesets.

Basic structure of this new game mode:

• The game mode will take place on all of Altis
  
• PvP focus, but I suppose there is potential for AI involvement.
  
• There will be 4-6 possible "campaigns" that take place within this game mode.
  
• Campaigns are region-specific, and not tied to each other in any way. The overall goal of the game mode is to win whichever campaign you are currently on. Once a campaign is won, everything is reset and a new random campaign is started (or the next campaign can be voted on?).
  
• Each campaign is comprised of a handful of missions and engagements that must be completed before the campaign is completed. These missions are laid out in the campaign-zone in a similar fashion to Domination. If a mission is won by one team, they win the "mission" and the campaign continues onto the next mission.
  
• Victory of the campaign is decided when all missions in that campaign have been completed. Whichever side has the most score at the end of a campaign wins the campaign. You earn score for your team by completing objectives within missions, per friendly unit that is still alive at the end of a mission, and winning a mission itself. Killing enemies does not give you score... but it can deny the enemy from earning a bigger score. So while your team might get 20 points for completing a mission, and 10 points for completing the objectives in the mission, they might only get 1 point for only having one guy left alive on the team at the end. Meanwhile, even though the enemy team lost the mission, if nobody died on that team they might still earn 20 points from that alone. This means even if a team has won the majority of their missions, they can still lose if they win those mission recklessly and the enemy team does a good job on the remaining missions left in the campaign.
  

Basic structure of the missions inside this game mode:

• The missions themselves will all be "round-based" affairs, and should take within 30 minutes to complete, if not shorter
  
• Players only have one life, per mission. If you die, you can't be an active participant in the remainder of the mission until the round is over and the next mission starts (this is why missions must be completable within 20-30 minutes time). However, you might be able to potentially respawn as a support role of sorts, such as gunner for a helicopter driven by AI, or as a member of the extraction team? The idea though is your mission goes in with X amount of assets and must complete the mission with those assets instead of an infinitely respawning pool of man-power.
  
• Missions are all objective based, with either the OPFOR or BLUFOR having to attack or defend a key objective. Objectives could be anything from crossing a chokepoint, sabotaging a key objective in the area, getting rid of evidence, escorting a VIP (player or AI controlled?), etc. Each mission will have its own situation, setting, time frame, etc, and will play out like you might expect different maps from ET or AA to play out.
  
• Victory for attackers happen if they complete all their objectives, or all the enemy players are dead. Victory for defenders happen if time runs out before the end of the mission, or the defenders kill all the attackers.
  
• When a new mission starts within this campaign, all players respawn at a designated starting point for that mission. This could be in a safe area right outside the building an objective is located in, within a KM out near the objective letting players choose their own approach, depending on the mission. Some missions will be restricted in what the players can use, while other missions might be more open ended.
  
• Players will not be able to choose any gun or loadout they want for the mission, but they can select from predefined loadouts from a pre-mission area the players spawn at before they spawn in the mission AO. Loadouts will be limited per team - for example, there might only be 2-3 marksmen/snipers allowed per side, 6 medics allowed, but an infinite number of riflemen allowed. To prevent everyone from going rifleman a mission might require at least one sniper or atleast two medics before starting, etc.
  
• Some missions could potentially be against AI forces. If such a mission were to happen, the BLUFOR and OPFOR would both be on separate missions from each other, and victory is determined by which team can actually beat the objectives and the AI first (or beat the objectives the best, or without all dieing?).
  

So that's the basic concept I've put together. The game mode itself holds 4-6 campaigns, all comprised of simple PvP focused missions that are all one-life-allowed, short, and objective-based. Campaigns are won by whoever team has the most points by the time all the missions within a campaign are completed. The most important fact is that all the missions are objective-based, and focused around an actual "scenario", instead of doing what most people who play arma online publically do now: playing a game of "ferry to the AO" to generically kill a bunch of generic OPFOR.

While I'm not working on such a mission myself, I'm very prepared to do the undertaking. I've never used the tools in an Arma game before but I'm no stranger to mission design from other games, so I can't imagine its too hard. I was a level designer and scripter for Mechwarrior: living legends - http://www.mechlivinglegends.net (2009 Mod of the Year at ModDB.com), I am currently working on a script-intensive combat+perk+skill overhaul gameplay design mod for Skyrim (using the Papyrus script language, heavily based off Python), and have had prior experience mapping missions for Crysis before all of the above, among other small games.

I'm posting this thread as a PSA, so I can see how much support such a concept might actually get among the Arma player base. I love Arma, but I don't love the public multiplayer game experience the Arma series has - and it has everything to do with the mission design and rather than "playing with dirty pubbies" for me. Who knows, maybe i might even be able to get a group of people to help out (I know I'd have to get learning the Arma mission editing tools intimately first though before I'd be comfortable with that).

EDIT: Also, I've been active on these forums as the user "KorJax" but unfortunately these forums decided to throw out all my login info and that account is tied to an email I no longer use so... that's why I'm posting this on a new account.

Just wait for full release an than Gits Evolution to be released, that's all the mission you'll ever need 8)-

[Tuskegee_99th 43]

Did anything ever come of this?

 

I am a former America's Army 2.8.x player myself for many years. I always really enjoyed the game mode design where you were rewarded for focusing on achieving objectives and keeping yourself and your teammates alive. You would receive points for killing an enemy but it was very small amount compared to the points earned for completing objectives and, for team leaders, keeping more of your team alive.

 

I only got into Arma with Arma 3 about 6 months ago as a replacement for America's Arma 2.8.x. I have been working on learning mission design in and effort, hopefully, to replicate a lot of what America's Army had to offer. So I'd be interested in hearing what happened to this idea for from anyone interested in similar types of game modes.