Please don´t Dominate the Arrowhead...

[Tankbuster 1746]

How can the average Joe player do that with any of the popular servers playing missions like Domination when without access to server admin controls?

Responsibility for this still rests on the shoulders of server admins.

On some servers, they can vote an admin and change parameters, but your point is a good one.

If they want to, any group of players can play with lots of teamwork on any Domi server. I'm saying that if the server admin wants to force some teamwork aspects on players, he can do, mostly with no editing knowledge at all. Xeno has given admins the capabilities to achieve this, yet fuckwits like we see here go attacking Xeno because there's no teamwork on servers running his mission. That's hardly fair.

I think you're saying that admins need to config their servers better and I'm saying players need to find like minded players to play with. I don't think you and I are at odds here.

[Zipper5 74]

On some servers, they can vote an admin and change parameters, but your point is a good one.

Yes but, unfortunately, I've yet to see a successful vote passed on a server in ArmA, Arma 2 or OA.

If they want to, any group of players can play with lots of teamwork on any Domi server. I'm saying that if the server admin wants to force some teamwork aspects on players, he can do, mostly with no editing knowledge at all. Xeno has given admins the capabilities to achieve this, yet fuckwits like we see here go attacking Xeno because there's no teamwork on servers running his mission. That's hardly fair.

I completely agree, Xeno nor Domination are at fault. I'm not very impressed by his reaction though, which he always has to people criticizing his work. I can understand it sucks to see people hate on your hard work, but you gotta expect it from a place as full of trolls as the internet. Plus, as I said before, you should be doing this first and foremost for personal enjoyment, not the satisfaction of others. So long as you're happy with your work, nothing else matters.

I don't think you and I are at odds here.

Me neither, mate. ;)

[Evil_Echo 11]

I'm sorry to see Xeno so upset. He's been a good friend in the past and I really don't see the justification for people bashing him because some gamers are not playing his designs properly.

Sure, Domination could stand "improvement" here and there. But those are opinions, highly subjective, and I can't think of a single mission that is any better - including my own.

It's not his job to be nanny to the gaming world and make his mission retard-proof. Yet everyone seems hell-bent on insisting that Xeno do just that. He's been exceptionally kind in allowing others to mod his mission and provide the framework for customization and extension. Yet the arm-chair generals have to whine and whine and whine.

If Xeno wants to walk away from Domi, that would be sad. But I understand and would just thank him for the many good hours my folks have had.

[Zipper5 74]

Don't continue with something that's massively popular if you can't deal with massive criticism. It's the way the world works. It would indeed be sad if Xeno were to stop working on Domination, but that's his choice alone, and it shows us that he no longer enjoys doing it, which is fair enough. But he should not continue doing it solely to please the rest of us if he can't handle negativity.

This is a hobby, not a job, for the majority of us at least. :p

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

This is a hobby, not a job, for the majority of us at least. :p

Unfortunately alot of people around here don't understand that. The new members even more so.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

To be perfectly honest, the concept of Domination kinda broke after Arma1. Arma2 and OA just doesn't have the bigger cities. With a couple of exceptions in Arma2, most places are tiny villages without the room for the enemy force to operate in. Also most buildings had no interior, and certainly no upper levels to fight from. Made life as an infantryman really hard, and probably why it geared so much toward heavies only. With OA, the places are still tiny, but buildings at least have interiors. Problem now is the mountainous area that makes it hard for them to operate in - any armor is sitting ducks because they have no room to maneuver (with decent speeds). But I don't want to loose the valleys either, because they are great to fight in from our point of view, and do provide excellent hard cover when we need it (as opposed to Chernarus, where trees were your best bet).

Domination was always a hardware orgy. But in Arma1 we had the bigger cities like Paraiso, Bagango, Corazol, Ortego and Dolores. These could hide the enemy, and you had to send in infantry to mop up. Today, you have one M1A2 TUSK, and you can clean out a target without losses with relative ease. Last time I played Domination on a public server I was the only infantryman in town - the rest was flying or tanking. Something is wrong here.

As much as I like the concept of a dynamic coop mission on a persistent server, Domination has some serious flaws (due to the newer islands) that needs some serious looking into. So for me the sad part is not loosing Domination, but loosing Domination when it is the only alternative that have these feature loaded capabilities for coop.

Turkey shooting killing sprees can be easily setup in the editor. I don't need MP for that. Where is the fun when there is no thrill? I don't know. Maybe others can relate, but I sure can't. Xeno complains about lack of players, and to a certain degree I agree - we are a dieing race. On the other hand, I'd rather join a game with 10 players than a game with 40 idiots. Being more doesn't always add to the fun. Personally I don't care if I scare away 30 rambos from the game if I can get 3 decent players to join instead.

One side of me doesn't want to loose Domination, while the other side thinks maybe it's time to rethink the concept a bit.

[galzohar 31]

I at least haven't seen any personal attacks against Xeno... Sure a lot of complaints about domination, some justified, but no actual personal attacks... Xeno, just because people don't like the result, does not mean they don't appreciate the effort.

My biggest problem with domination is also probably one of the main reasons it's so popular - You simply can't lose. No matter what you do, you will eventually complete the mission. In my opinion in order for a mission to be challenging, interesting, and requiring teamwork, it giving the option to lose in one way or another is a necessity. But then again the majority of the players and server admins seem to be looking for other things, such as a mission that just lets you kill stuff with various toys to no end and a mission that doesn't need a server admin present on the server to keep things going, which is why they keep domination running on the servers and why the players are populating those servers. And then the people who are looking for other things that domination doesn't give come to the forums and complain/ask/request - It's only natural... No offense needs to be taken.

[Pain0815 10]

Maybe someone could make the ai use the new buildings and set them into combat mode before attacking them.

- more smaller groups intead of big inf units

- less vehicles

- more static defences

- a bigger radius defended around the towns, instead of a big force driving and running around between the buildings.

Just a few ideas, no need to put them into domi. I dont play it anymore...

[Murklor 10]

My biggest problem with domination is also probably one of the main reasons it's so popular - You simply can't lose. No matter what you do, you will eventually complete the mission. In my opinion in order for a mission to be challenging, interesting, and requiring teamwork, it giving the option to lose in one way or another is a necessity. But then again the majority of the players and server admins seem to be looking for other things, such as a mission that just lets you kill stuff with various toys to no end and a mission that doesn't need a server admin present on the server to keep things going, which is why they keep domination running on the servers and why the players are populating those servers. And then the people who are looking for other things that domination doesn't give come to the forums and complain/ask/request - It's only natural... No offense needs to be taken.

True... I really love Domination, but its just so easy in the end. Its not any "OMG we're gonna loose, put all effort into taking that town!" moment, ever.

Sometimes I imagine what it could be... And I usually end up at the same idea: A warfare/domination/AAS hybrid. You have some towns, the AI have some towns (well, more). A random town is chosen (based on the state of nearby towns) and you have to either attack if held by the AI it or defend it if held by you. Failure to seize/defend a town will end up in a "re-roll" where the AI has a higher chance to attack one of your towns. Repeat until you own all towns, or have lost all towns.

Combine with specific town based awards that you fight for (capture this and that town to get a spawning A10, loose the town and loose the A10), logistics (town defenses added after time, enemy AI becoming stronger, enemy AI reinforcing from enemy held towns, etc), class based rankings and overall more teamplay aimed design (such as no base parachutes). Of course MHQs, lifter helos and wreck handling would all still be there.

But its just a dream.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Murklor

[celery 8]

Assuming that the mission isn't broken at script or core mechanics level, one solution to the issue of Domination being played retardedly would be to simply update the default parameters: disable teleports, halo jumps, excessive vehicles and unrestricted weapons and such by default. That would make it the (possible) server admin's deliberate decision to play the mission like it is being played now.

[Steakslim 1]

A concept I'd like to see used more was the PvP alternative of Domination, where BLUFOR and OPFOR (Human) both fought over the AO and side missions controlled by an Independent party (AI). So much dastardly tactics being attempted it was down right funny. Only problem is the inclusion of MHQ's resulted in a team camping an enemy MHQ if the opportunity arose, but truly it could be enjoyed without the use of MHQ's entirely. I find myself riding transports more often than teleporting, and in less busy servers the parajump flag, though actual insertion via C-130 or Chinook is a fun rarity to have.

[BigMorgan 11]

Sometimes I imagine what it could be... And I usually end up at the same idea: A warfare/domination/AAS hybrid. You have some towns, the AI have some towns (well, more). A random town is chosen (based on the state of nearby towns) and you have to either attack if held by the AI it or defend it if held by you. Failure to seize/defend a town will end up in a "re-roll" where the AI has a higher chance to attack one of your towns. Repeat until you own all towns, or have lost all towns.

Combine with specific town based awards that you fight for (capture this and that town to get a spawning A10, loose the town and loose the A10), logistics (town defenses added after time, enemy AI becoming stronger, enemy AI reinforcing from enemy held towns, etc), class based rankings and overall more teamplay aimed design (such as no base parachutes). Of course MHQs, lifter helos and wreck handling would all still be there.

But its just a dream.

That's actually pretty f'ing brilliant.

[galzohar 31]

Until you try to actually make it and see that defending a town by yourself doesn't work all that well (and if it does, then defending it with 5 players would be too easy). Try make it scale to the number of players and you'll run into plenty of new difficulties. Since you can't lose in Domination, it doesn't need such balance, and can work with just about anything.

[Murklor 10]

Until you try to actually make it and see that defending a town by yourself doesn't work all that well (and if it does, then defending it with 5 players would be too easy). Try make it scale to the number of players and you'll run into plenty of new difficulties. Since you can't lose in Domination, it doesn't need such balance, and can work with just about anything.

IMO that's really not an issue. Simply allow AI recruitment based on the present number of players.

Examples:

If there is 1-5 player on the server (ie "singleplayer with maybe a few friends"), allow say 6 AI squadmembers.

If there is 6-12 players on the server, allow 4 AI units.

If there is 13-20 players, allow just 2 AI units (mainly for crew)

If there is 21+ players, dont allow AI.

And on the other side, enemy AI reinforcements can also be governed by the amount of players (ie the more players, the more amount of troops will be sent in).

Its never going to be perfect, but on the other hand Domination isnt perfect either. Its ass-hard if you're alone and way easy if there's a gazilion sniper/SMAAW combos.

[[asa]oden 0]

Of course you can lose Domination.

Every single time you die and respawn you've lost but Xeno was kind enough to let you try again.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Imo Domination/Evolution/CTI/etc etc are all outdated and dont work like they used to (on Sahrani that is). New ideas are needed, old ideas need to be adapted, a new outlook on the bonus/punishment - Ranks & points system is needed.

Some things that have been roaming around in my head for some time now:

Motivation

Imo just securing towns is not much of a motivation any longer - the WHY is missing. Answering 'WHY we need this town' will give players a realistic reason and stronger gameplay experience. When securing locations you never really want to control old ruins etc.

So instead of big 'secure town' markers put in big 'search town for weapon dealer' for example. Or drugs. Or money. Or a bomb workshop. Something that fits the scenario to boost the atmosphere.

MHQ porting = Single Player gameplay

MP is what is is because you're not alone. Working in teams is the essence of OpF/ArmAX so things like managing transports to the frontline should be in the mission designers focus, not killing, destroying objects every minute. MHQ scripts destroy gameplay and need to go once and for all.

Collecting points to get higher ranks has been a great invention in ArmA MP, but points have to be given for the right reasons.

- very low points per kill. You're after the objective, not after killing 500 terrorists. (there are 200.000 terrorists in the country)

- big bonus when staying together in a group

- big losses when killing civilians/civilian buildings

- punishment for driving around alone (spawning of more attackers / IEDs on roads)

Responsibility

let ppl take responsibility for their equipment: add leasing of vehicles. you give points, you own it. You get it back to a base, you get your points back. Loosing tanks/helicopters should cost a fortune. Suddenly ppl will take less risks.

In order to work this would need to be thought through though, like what happens if somebody steals ur vehicle and wrecks it, or if you die do you still own it etc etc. if you lock it what if a friend wants to drive it?

All in all ppl should be rewarded for staying together, whereas lonely players should constantly be in danger.

[-=Grunt=- 10]

A way to lose domination would be a great addition. Maybe make it so that if your team captures the whole map (or all the objective towns), a massive enemy counter-attack hits your team's base, if all buildings are destroyed - your team loses.

Kinda like Warfare but it's AI thats attacking your team's base.

EDIT: I like the post above a lot. The locking system works pretty well in my opinion, at least in Warfare. (I play that a lot lol)

Edited August 10, 2010 by -=Grunt=-

[Mudkip 0]

Make it so I can't take a whole town by myself. Like I can parachute in with a M110 TWS and MAAWS and kill everyone.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

No thanks to loosing the mission due to some massive counter attack. It should have to be an individual loose instead of a collateral loose. If you mess up, then you take the penalty, not everyone else around you. Remember a good mission has to support the lonely lurker who's waiting for others to arrive.

I agree with almost everything ])rStrangelove says, except some kind of MHQ mechanism need to be there during low playercount. Killings should not be part of the score system at all. When you complete a mission, the complexity of the mission determines how much points are earned, and divided amongst those that participated; how much depends on how close you were. So being a "coward at standoff distances" will take you a long time to earn points. Are tank crews at standoff cowards? No, but they already have their tank so they don't need to worry much about points either.

How to loose? How about autokick when below zero points? You need 100 points to get a HMMWV, but if it is killed you loose 200 points. If you end up below 0, you are automatically kicked and your score is reset when you rejoin.

Some new mechanics are needed, and I'm thinking automatically in the realms of PR Mod. You join as rifleman, and by spending points you can switch into other roles, i.e. a sniper eventually. What kind of roles are available depend on the squad type you're in. You only get to be a sniper if you have joined a sniper team (having a spotter already, as team leader). Limited number of each role, i.e. you might want to limit the game to only have a single sniper team. And what weaponry you can obtain depends on what kind of role you are. Same for vehicles, you can only lease (love that leasing idea btw) vehicles that suit your class. Heavy tanks only for crewmen, attack choppers and planes only for pilots.

But, and this is important; support the lonely lurker. Even if you're not an AT specialist, you should be able to obtain some kind of way to fight off enemy armor. Having an AT specialist around makes the job trivial, but not having him around should not make the game impossible - only more annoying. The M136 should be available in great numbers, people hate it anyways due to the space requirements. For the same reason, limit enemy air operations during low playercount as means to fight them may not be available.

This is very similar to the money system in Warfare, except in Warfare the money is flowing freely. Bring focus to "the mission". When playercount is low, less people will get more allowing them to go tanking early if need be. When playercount is high, getting a tank takes longer unless people are willing to give points to someone they trust.

Lifting and wrecking should stay, but in a realistic fashion; only HMMWVs, M113s (respawn?), and M119s to be lifted - no Strykers or tanks obviously.

Get a HMMWV; -100 points.

Kill a HMMWV; -200 points. Make it hurt!

Get HMMWV back to base; +100 points (what you spent for obtaining it).

Get HMMWV wreck back to base; +50 points (half its value).

Respawn system based on what class you are. If you're a grunt in a normal fireteam, you're considered easy to replace, and may respawn at your teams respawn location. Snipers and specops have longer training, so may need to respawn at closest cleared target, or even at base. If you're a pilot, you respawn at airbase (see below).

Variable base location is also something I'd like to see (similar to Warfare). All you need is a flat space, compared to Dominations need for an airbase. You will have big difficult missions you can choose when playercount supports it. These are based on main mission and include "Take the airbase", "Take the artillery base", and "Take the chopper base". Stuff like this allows for a more "cause and effect" approach. The reward isn't a new vehicle, but the ability to spawn at these cleared bases and use their facilities, and at the same time prevent the enemy from using it. You can't choose to become a pilot before the airbase or chopperbase has been conquered. The enemy will launch attacks on these bases (similar to todays base infiltration) but also using ground vehicles in the support. If we gather the intel (system is already in), we will know when such attacks are imminent and plan against it. You choose a mission why? Because we want to prevent this or allow that - everything has a purpose. Clear what city? The one next to the airbase would be nice, as enemy ground forces heading for the airbase would have to spawn further away giving us more time to prepare.

Just some loose ideas at the top of my head...

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Here's what i call Mini scenarios:

These are random events creating simple tasks for small groups or single units. A script would choose a random location marker, a random scenario and spawns all things that are needed for the scenario. If you want to collect points just go there and do whatever is necessary. Shouldnt take long if the path is clear.

Examples:

- a unit has called in saying a humvee/truck has a flat tire. unit needs transport or a repair truck.

- contact has been lost with a rescue team going after a downed pilot. someone needs to check the last known location of the team and/or find the pilot.

- an elder has asked for military assistance with a civilian uprising in his town. a humvee or armed truck should show up there and check the situation. showing presence should end the uprising.

- a lonely farm being used as a cache has been reported by informants. someone needs to check this info, but it could be fake or a trap.

- satellites have discovered heavy mobile com traffic from a remote location. It seems a secret meeting is set up there. Military presence is low in those areas so anyone nearby is authorized to check.

- 2 bodyguards have defended a local politician from an enemy ambush and are asking for military escorts.

- a civil medical team have asked for assistance while helping several wounded civilians after a terrorist bombing in their hometown. additional medics are needed.

[MengJiao 10]

)rStrangelove;1713580']Here's what i call Mini scenarios:

- a unit has called in saying a humvee/truck has a flat tire. unit needs transport or a repair truck.

I can imagine my experience in a Domination-style game if that was the scenario:

After a tremendous cinematic opening -- Music giant titles etc. -- the heart-wrenching image of a giant flat tire appears and then there I am on a huge empty base full of stuff. Smaller titles appear and tell me "You must be on Speak-easy to change a flat tire. Join us on 87164-988764-98764."

Then it turns out the flat tire is 20 km away and I have to load a tire in a special assault helicopter. I head for a pile of tires, but some player tells you

this is coop team work which means I can't touch the tires because in coop everbody else has something to do and you have to wait while they wander around loading up everything just right to fix that flat like a real army would.

[Tankbuster 1746]

These mini scenarios are the side missions. It's possible to make new ones, I've made a few for an older version and will be doing again soon.

[ziiip 1]

As the current high-end hardware becomes cheaper, so does the day when Domi will becaome the awesome thing to play.