What Makes a Good Arma Campaign?

[IndeedPete 1038]

First of all, there is no "ideal" set of missions. You will never be able to create a result that fits all players' preferences.

 

I tend to agree that a strong lore can be quite limiting to the mission design. Often, you're faced with having cool places or concepts which cannot be used because they would be somehow inconsistent with whatever happened before. Thus, I found a lot of story-driven content turns out to be little more than walking from cutscene to cutscene.

 

I like some cinematic breaks in Arma but they're often overused and way too long. For example, the MANW winner Defiance is nothing more than an interactive cutscene for the most part. It even starts with a (perceived) ten minute intro of some guy writing a love letter - in Czech. I found that to be highly contradictive to Arma 3's sandbox nature, even if that particular campaign certainly was well-executed. Another campaign with insanely long cutscenes is Dying Ember, which came with minute-long cutscenes voiced in German. (Not a problem for me, but still, it was a bit too much.) But maybe I'm just sick of all this cutscene bullshit in AAA titles these days. Jumping over a ledge? Cutscene! Opening a door? Cutscene! Putting on equipment? Cutscene! God dammit, I'm playing a game, not watching a movie!

 

Multiple characters on the other hand are a thing I strongly welcome. If a story is based around several characters, why not making them playable? It's even more interesting when said characters are actually hostile to each other, and cross paths from time to time. It would be very cool running into yourself on the battlefield by surprise.

 

Edit: I forgot something on cutscenes in Arma. I feel the game doesn't really support this sort of high quality character presentation. There are no facial animations for example, making it hard to show emotion in characters. Also, the available animations are not particularly bright anyway. There's a few useful briefing animations and stuff. But without MOCAP, it will be very hard to get spot-on animations for certain scenes.

[Kydoimos 916]

 

Would this be something people are interested in? Am I being hampered by my need to be lore friendly for the sake of story (revolving around factions and the geographical and geo-political landscape)?

 

Hi mate! I think a well-crafted story, written around Arma 3's canon, is a very good move. I have the feeling that one of the big reasons the campaigns and overall Armaverse narrative is so nebulous, is because it allows mission-makers the scope and freedom to create stories of their own. If you're wondering about exploring different roles, I personally prefer seeing events through the lens of a single character (others will not feel the same, no doubt). But then, a 'Jack of all trades' approach, wherein the protagonist can drive a tank, fly a tank, and conduct infantry operations might feel a bit far-fetched. One workaround is to concentrate on two roles, rather than three or four (land / air / sea / ground). Any member of the armed forces will have a degree of basic training, meaning, they can fight on the ground; so, scenarios featuring ground operations are easy enough to include (a pilot is shot down, story then focuses on guerrilla warfare group / a tank driver loses their tank, has to join infantry assault etc.). Perhaps then, choose between a character with piloting skills, or a character with combat vehicle skills and write your story around that.

 

Anyhow, I'm guessing from your post, you like your Arma campaigns to be strong on the narrative side of things, with authenticity and cinematic immersion? :) Good luck on your campaign! 

 

Edit:

 

 

Multiple characters on the other hand are a thing I strongly welcome. If a story is based around several characters, why not making them playable? It's even more interesting when said characters are actually hostile to each other, and cross paths from time to time. It would be very cool running into yourself on the battlefield by surprise.

 

As IndeedPete says, this approach works too - there's no right or wrong way. And as for breaking with Arma lore, this can work too - and really, really opens the door for differing play styles and experiences.

[TomMack 28]

First of all, there is no "ideal" set of missions. You....

So implementing playable cutscenes be more interesting? For example, my first mission revolves around a secret meeting where a NATO liason (the Player), Cpt. Miller of CTRG and Nikos of the FIA discuss how the FIA will take back Altis from the AAF. (CSAT was abolished after the Apex protocol papers, but many remain loyal to their qualities) oh sugar, that's the plot, oh well.

This meeting and the whole set up to the "Event" would consist of heavily scripted story missions akin to tell tales game where gameplay is injected at intervals. This would only consume maybe 20-30 minutes of a full 3-4 hour campaign.

I like the idea of meeting yourself, although in my case you won't be on different sides of the war but you will be on different factions.

It's so difficult to get an idea if the community would like it as I don't want to spoil it.

Thanks for the response!!

[ineptaphid 6413]

EDIT :: a quick side note - I hated the ADAPT campaign due to the control of units. Is this something treasured by the arma community in single player campaigns though?

An amazing thread and very timely too.

I would love to see whatever you make. However regarding control of AI units, I feel this is essential to any campaign. Unless the campaign is coop focused,the only way to have any freedom or planning responsibility is to allow the player to command ai. In my opinion commanding ai is far better than following them-that becomes so dull so fast. The only other option then is a campaign of lone wolf missions...which i dont think many people want.

[TomMack 28]

Perhaps then, choose between a character with piloting skills, or a character with combat vehicle skills and write your story around that

Thanks for the response... I too would much prefer just a single protagonist, but as we've discussed this becomes limiting to the roles they can under take. I like the idea of limiting the story to 2 roles. Perhaps a spec ops operator who also dabbles in peacekeeping ops and a pilot.

As for cutscenes which I think indeedpete mentioned, the one at the start of deliverance was particularly something I wanted to avoid.

I'm going to undergo a rethink on many concepts thanks to this thread.

In my opinion commanding ai is far better than following them-that becomes so dull so fast. The only other option then is a campaign of lone wolf missions...which i dont think many people want.

Understood, I think the reason why I felt so angered by it was because that was my first real experience of commanding units in that way. But I understand this is a huge part of the arma sandbox experience.

So many trade offs have to be considered.

I wonder if anyone aspiring to create a campaign would be interested in some sort of progress log?

The only other option then is a campaign of lone wolf missions...which i dont think many people want.

I have to agree also. I hated the missions in the official campaign for instance when you returned to Stratis for some reason and had to scour the southern coast avoiding enemies. I think I extracted the mission and ran it in 4x speed and with allow damage false 😂

Thanks for the great responses!! I may be new to contributing on the forum but I know of all your works and have been huge inspiration.

[lexx 1363]

I like some cinematic breaks in Arma but they're often overused and way too long. For example, the MANW winner Defiance is nothing more than an interactive cutscene for the most part. It even starts with a (perceived) ten minute intro of some guy writing a love letter - in Czech. I found that to be highly contradictive to Arma 3's sandbox nature, even if that particular campaign certainly was well-executed. Another campaign with insanely long cutscenes is Dying Ember, which came with minute-long cutscenes voiced in German. (Not a problem for me, but still, it was a bit too much.) But maybe I'm just sick of all this cutscene bullshit in AAA titles these days. Jumping over a ledge? Cutscene! Opening a door? Cutscene! Putting on equipment? Cutscene! God dammit, I'm playing a game, not watching a movie!

 

Long cutscenes aren't the problem. The problem are *boring* cutscenes which you are forced to watch, because you are unable to skip them. That's exactly why I stopped with Dying Ember and exactly why I stopped with Defiance. Sorry, it's just a huge timewaste. Especially if the presentation is mostly bland-- which is what you will get without using custom animations and relying on people sitting stiff on a chair for minutes, no matter how often you change the camera perspective.

[Kydoimos 916]

Interestingly, I suppose this leads to another point in what makes 'A Good Arma Campaign'; custom animations. Tricky when most of us don't have access to MOCAP equipment. Perhaps we should pool our resources and hire out a motion capture studio together  :P

[IndeedPete 1038]

At the moment, I tend to disagree with the statement that good campaigns should involve AI commanding. Having played with real people, there's not really a going back to play with AI. The interface is so insanely tedious, it becomes annoying quite fast. I cannot really enjoy the game because I'm constantly fiddling around with the command menu to get my AI mates to do things. In co-op sessions, all this is simply handeled through voice communication (and some cool mods like the ACE finger pointing). Another problem is the radio protocol which is just garbage. "Enemy, 75m, front." only really works if you're walking in a straight line. If you get that info while turning around for example, it's basically useless. That's why most clans use compass bearings and pointing and stuff. And even if you don't see an enemy your human mate spotted, you can always ask for more details. Sadly, it's impossible to ask the AI for targets. (Or it's very complicated and burred under several sub-menus, I don't know.)

 

Pacing is yet another issue. If you tell another player to sprint across a street in a heated situation, he'll do that. Try telling that to an AI in combat mode. It will take minutes and probably get killed as a result. Things like these are killing fast-paced missions. Like the last mission of the Survive episode for example. Even if your squad mates are still alive when you reach that last mortar sprint section, they will most likely die there. Why? Because they randomly get in combat mode, go prone and slow, and then get killed by mortars or paratroopers. It absolutely destroys any form of immersion or pacing in that section.

 

Then there's your typical AI stupidity. They constantly get shot, they crash vehicles, and random AI stucking has become a severe problem. Just now, I played Bingo Fuel again and had AI members getting stuck multiple times, both in vehicles and on foot. It's really annoying and immersion breaking. Sure, humans make mistakes as well, but after a few missions together people are getting the basics and can decide themselves when it's time to shoot, and when it's better to hold fire. The AI needs very precise orders; assigning targets in the heat of the battle is just horrific.

 

So, unless Arma's AI interface and the way the AI acts around the player isn't throroughly improved, I'd rather avoid AI commanding in the conventional sense. Fortunately, there are more creative ways to simulate the player being part of a squad. But that usually involves a ton of scripting.

[TomMack 28]

At the moment, I tend to disagree with the statement that good campaigns should involve AI commanding. Having played with real people, there's not really a going back to play with AI. The interface is so insanely tedious, it becomes annoying quite fast. I cannot really enjoy the game....

totally agree, hit the nail on the head. I think I'm going to play around with a custom function for unit capture for infantry I found on armaholic and see what use I can get out of that, makes it very hard to do anything team based without going coop, which sacrifices some of the storyline and cinematics.

In response to those who wish to command, perhaps on some missions (for example, you have to sweep the streets of Kavala and kill a load of greenbacks) you give the option at a hub mission to command or follow a leader. I think this is something I'll explore as I really liked the implementation of hubs in the campaign, although I'll have to read into how transferring gear from one mission to the other works :/

[IndeedPete 1038]

To befair, what might work are buddy teams. If you as a player just have one AI to control, it becomes a bit easier. Or the completely different opposite: the high command system. It's not brilliant but at least you don't have to micromanage individual AI units.

[lexx 1363]

I found that a team of 4 people (1 player, 3 ai at max) is still ok to handle. Every single ai mate more after that just means more tediousness for the player.

[TomMack 28]

Another point that I don't think is categorised in the poll is side missions. I myself never participated in any of the side missions from the main campaign, a because I didn't know they were there and B, I think i felt that I wanted to just to do the main story. Do you feel like side quests / mission are under valued? If so, what sort of missions would they be to make them worth using?

[ahmedslimkw 223]

Well, To be honest I find cutscenes relatively fun to watch sometimes (But not if it's over used) but what's the problem ATM with cutscenes is a lack of animations! I mean we don't have a couple of good falling animations... Sleeping animations, Melee animations (it's in arma 2 but not in arma 3???) fall animations and all that stuff. I

I found arma 2 cutscenes somehow great especially when the marines infiltrated the compound shooting the guy while he plummets to his death. And also... Well the complete lack of custom animations tutorial from scratch. I searched on youtube for quite a long time and never found a step by step tutorial to create a basic cutscene, all are just on how to export it from blender.

Apparently I'm making a gang warfare styled campaign with complete freedom on the player to choose missions greatly inspired by the GTA franchise, however I am worried people won't enjoy these stuff cause the milsim fans may deem it "Unrealistic" even though I love realistic milsim stuff.

As for the side quest part IMO i think it's undervalued as there is definitely some reward like chasing a recently downed supply helicopter, Patrolling the seaside and a sunken boat with goodies near it and dead guys. It really gives me the "Aww yeah! Bingo!" Moments. If the player could comment on its findings then it's sold for me :D

On the other hand, i don't like utterly insane rambo styled missions (Even if my campaign will have one, such as fending off a police responding to a robbery) That has the player to do "Hey, go blow that tank over there and defend the town while 30 soldiers annihilate you all alone"

Great post Kydoimos btw! It really is nice to hear people opinion :)

[IndeedPete 1038]

Another point that I don't think is categorised in the poll is side missions. I myself never participated in any of the side missions from the main campaign, a because I didn't know they were there and B, I think i felt that I wanted to just to do the main story. Do you feel like side quests / mission are under valued? If so, what sort of missions would they be to make them worth using?

 

I've also never really done the scouting missions in East Wind. In my first playthough, I didn't even know they existed. And once I learnt about them, I felt they were a bit out of place. A single soldier leaves the camp to go roaming the enemy-held AO? Not really convincing. I still liked the idea though and actually tried all of them in the end. However, I cheated and teleported myself around the map (with invincibility on as well) to discover them all.

[TomMack 28]

Well, To be honest I find cutscenes relatively fun to watch sometimes (But not if it's over used) but what's the problem ATM with cutscenes is a lack of animations!

Could this be "fixed" with indeedpetes arma 2 animation add-on for arma 3... However this brings around a whole new debate... Are people willing to play a campaign where you have to install add-on.

Surely with new workshop system and loader its more accessible, but judging by the poll, it's not favoured regardless.

Would a simple Animation mod or Eden objects be acceptable to install for a campaign or should it be vanilla as possible. I myself have always gone toward totally vanilla (also to keep it lore friendly).

[IndeedPete 1038]

The A2C addon source is free for everyone to use and expand. So technically, one can just grab the .rtms and config samples for just the animations needed and directly include them into the campaign. No additional downloads required.

[Wiki 1558]

Lone wolf missions in ArmA are, IMHO, far from the realistic spirit.

In reality, guys never go alone.

 

The only missions I could agree with (as I make some also) is where you must have specops missions in which you have recon or demolitions objectives - simply because it's more playable with 1 guy rather than with a team (annoying to handle for such missions).

 

I also agree, 5 men team (1 player + 3 or 4 AI) is the maximum (to have a range of specialist (team leader, medic, marksman, machinegunner, AT).

In my last campaign TOTG, the missions during which you were in charge had more (8 guys - player + 7 AI) because you were a regular platoon, but the objectives were not very complicated to handle with.

[TomMack 28]

The A2C addon source is free for everyone to use and expand. So technically, one can just grab the .rtms and config samples for just the animations needed and directly include them into the campaign. No additional downloads required.

On further thought i suppose similar localisation is possible with eden objects... Just needs some serious pre thought into the campaign file structure.

[froggyluv 2135]

 @solo missions: Disagree. After Montignac will always be one of my favorite OFP memories. Also the mission in East Wind where you wake up on the beach needing to find some allies is pretty sweet. Hell, I might even load this game up again to play that

 

 Edit: that doesnt mean I approve of entire campaigns being solo!

[ahmedslimkw 223]

Could this be "fixed" with indeedpetes arma 2 animation add-on for arma 3... However this brings around a whole new debate... Are people willing to play a campaign where you have to install add-on.

Surely with new workshop system and loader its more accessible, but judging by the poll, it's not favoured regardless.

Would a simple Animation mod or Eden objects be acceptable to install for a campaign or should it be vanilla as possible. I myself have always gone toward totally vanilla (also to keep it lore friendly).

Hey! Yep I currently am using indeedpetes animation stuff but it's simply placeholders (Or maybe?)

As if people will play where you gotta install An Addon, Most vanilla campaigns have a lot of downloads and it's true, dependency type campaigns usually have lesser players but for me, If it's good il download it! No matter the size :D

I'm working on educating myself to grab the A2 animations and make it an Addon for my personal use (It worked somehow but I got walking animations broken)

So if you would like to have a campaign with a lot of players to play, Vanilla is the best way to go IMO (Yeah this has boundaries sadly. I always wanted a campaign utilizing A2C by indeedPete and only then did I realize that almost all the best campaigns E.G resist, MERCS, green draw and other non-MANW Vanilla campaigns to have a lot of players to download em. I also confirmed this too once i went to Steam Workshop, Campaign, most subscribed and almost all of them are vanilla (Tried this with mission category too!)

Good day! (Well, I wish it is day in the Middle East)

Only include mods if it's absolutely needed for your type of campaign (E.G Zombie styled campaign, Altis gets invaded by the Russians)

DLCS on the other hand... It's like mods but you gotta pay for it. So almost all people won't have it will not be able to play your campaign, effectively reducing the popularity (Need confirmation?)

(Pardon any autocorrect bollocks, I'm too sleepy! :P)

Cheers!

[TomMack 28]

Only include mods if it's absolutely needed for your type of campaign (E.G Zombie styled campaign, Altis gets invaded by the Russians)

DLCS on the other hand... It's like mods but you gotta pay for it. So almost all people won't have it will not be able to play your campaign, effectively reducing the popularity (Need confirmation?)

(Pardon any autocorrect bollocks, I'm too sleepy! :P)

Cheers!

Oh yh I've seen the numbers. Makes me a little worried to even add apex content like the blackfish and prowler... Although on second thoughts, if you want to understand the storyline to my campaign you need to play apex.

[Wiki 1558]

@solo missions: Disagree. After Montignac will always be one of my favorite OFP memories. Also the mission in East Wind where you wake up on the beach needing to find some allies is pretty sweet. Hell, I might even load this game up again to play that

 

 Edit: that doesnt mean I approve of entire campaigns being solo!

Yes, but in both cases, it is logical and it serves the scenario / story.

Plus, in both missions, you're on the run, not going rambo style - unlike other solo missions.

[IndeedPete 1038]

On further thought i suppose similar localisation is possible with eden objects... Just needs some serious pre thought into the campaign file structure.

 

Technically, you can integrate any third party content into your project. However, keep an eye on how authors license their work. Redistribution of some mods might not be allowed.

[lexx 1363]

I've also never really done the scouting missions in East Wind. In my first playthough, I didn't even know they existed. And once I learnt about them, I felt they were a bit out of place. A single soldier leaves the camp to go roaming the enemy-held AO? Not really convincing. I still liked the idea though and actually tried all of them in the end. However, I cheated and teleported myself around the map (with invincibility on as well) to discover them all.

In chapter 1 it is more about roaming the local area around the camp- everything else will get you mortar'd anyway. In chapter 2 you have a few ai team mates (unless you get them killed, I think). All in all I really like the system, as it is giving you a bigger sense of freedom (which is exactly what people want, going by posts in this thread here). Additionally, you aren't part of the big military in chapter 2, so it makes even more sense to be able to just wander off a little bit between missions.

[TomMack 28]

In chapter 1 it is more about roaming the local area around the camp- everything else will get you mortar'd anyway. In chapter 2 you have a few ai team mates (unless you get them killed, I think)....

What sort of missions would people like to see as side mission/side quests. They don't have to be combat missions as such, but what would you guys like to see??