Really long and "story-driven" MP missions. Are they wanted???

[laggy]

Hi,

I know that the campaign in ArmAII is playable as hosted COOP, but since creating a MP compatible campaign seems very difficult (even BIS struggles), I have decided to wait with that project until solid information on how to do it well becomes accessable. For OFP I made some MP missions that kind of gave that "campaign" feeling (I think). Please stick with me as I try to explain my topic. The one mission I think of was a really long MP mission that had three separate parts. It was called "Operation Underdog".

Part 1. During night, as Delta Force units you had the objective to attack and take control over an airfield (on Tonal Island). The airfield had to be seized to enable an invasion force to land. When the airfield was taken a cutscene started where you saw U.S Chinook helicopters advancing on the airfield, music and texts saying that the airfield was now your camp of operations. A briefing scene followed, with an officer describing the next mission/objective.

Part 2. Time now switched to day. The airfield is now completely converted into a U.S forces base. Now you've got the new mission/objective to take out an enemy convoy that was transporting insurgents through Tonal. You had to plan an ambush in the desert and succeed. New cutscene with briefing and info after returning to base.

Part 3. Time switched to dusk. In this last part your task was to kidnap a "warlord" that was the source of all the problems. You had to infiltrate a town, find and kidnap the badguy, then take him back to base. If succeeded... Mission Completed.

In this three part, quite complex mission you also got your group filled up after every part, static objects were deleted and added to give the impression of time passing. Several scripts to add gameplay, as well as a lot of sounds.

My question is this:

Does this "concept" sound interesting to any of you as a MP mission, even though the total time for completion would be at least 2-3 hours ? Is it too long to be of any interest ? I personally prefer these kind of "story-driven" MP missions, that keep you busy half the night. In MP I loath anything but "group respawn", but I have no clue what the general opinion is. Finally, in ArmAII the save game function is present even in MP, so a suspended session is not a problem.

Before spending weeks on designing such a mission I would like to hear your feedback.

Thanks for any comments,

Laggy

[_Pi_]

Sounds Interesting, although don't like long cutscenes. I like more forced Coop, so for example try to complete 2 objectives at distant sites but at same time or you fail :cool:

I think also it depends if that MP Missions are set to large groups >=30 (or 40,50) players or for <=10 (or 5) players.

If there are ranks ppl tend to rush (I do) if spawn is fast (spawn vehicles) or set some roles, so if you play as a team you have 75% of success.

[EBass]

I would be very interested in these type of missiosn. Very interested indeed.

Considering everyone seems to play nothing but domination/evolution which can take 5 or six hours or more I don't see the length being a problem.

[Mr Fenix]

I was going to vote no but then I read your idea and thought it sounded pretty cool. Just bear in mind that if your mission starts with an intro sequence I wil hate you forever. That goes for the rest of you editors. Nobody gives a fuck about intros, especially with JIP. Cut scenes at the end (between mission stages) would be acceptable :).

[Starlight]

I have to say I think using the Revive part only from Norrin's Revive Script is great for this type of mission. Respawning reduces the sense of realism where as reviving increases the tension of securing the area and reviving a team mate before he dies.

[laggy]

Thanks for your opinion guys.


I have to say I think using the Revive part only from Norrin's Revive Script is great for this type of mission. Respawning reduces the sense of realism where as reviving increases the tension of securing the area and reviving a team mate before he dies.

Agree, forgot to praise Norrin's creation regarding respawn :whistle:


Just bear in mind that if your mission starts with an intro sequence I wil hate you forever. That goes for the rest of you editors. Nobody gives a fuck about intros, especially with JIP. Cut scenes at the end (between mission stages) would be acceptable :).

Not even a short teeny-weeny "get in the mood" kind of intro ? :couch:

Laggy

[Stridergg]

I definitely prefer story-driven coop missions. Missions like Domination and CTI are great and awesome but my friends and I usually play them when no new story-driven missions are available.

[Starlight]

Have to say I like the intro in "Behind Enemy Lines" :icon_eek:

And I think that any single mission long or short can be enhanced with a nice intro.

[TheRookie]

I think its a good idea, but i suggest to create it first for smaller groups of players - i really love smaller but storydriven coops especially when you play it on lan with friends.

[laggy]

Have to say I like the intro in "Behind Enemy Lines" :icon_eek:

And I think that any single mission long or short can be enhanced with a nice intro.


1 -Thank you *bow* Thank you !!!

2- That is exactly it, in a story-driven mission with few players it is always nice to get to know your character, I think. I'm quite surprised (in a good way) over the poll results so far.

[galzohar]

It would be awesome IF you could pull it off in a realistic, playable and fun manner. And that's a very big IF.

And I'm assuming you're speaking of coop, right? As I really can't see how you can pull this off PvP.

[laggy]

I am speaking mainly of COOP yes, even though I don't think a deathmatch would be non doable either.

Laggy

[MadRussian]

Sounds awesome laggy! Good luck with it.

(btw - Loving your behind enemy lines mission!)

I've been thinking on something like this for some time.
A few features I'd love to see (probably beyond your intended scope but what the heck):

1. A strategic, turn based meta-map system, ala MTW2. Gameplay alternates between:
a. Map phase where you receive updates on the situation and plot out your next move.
b. Real-Time phase where you attempt to complete missions / fight out battles in real time.

2. Multiple characters per player that can die and/or be captured. No respawn, highly limited revive. Players control one of their characters at a time, and can obtain new characters by completing certain objectives. Fear of death is prevasive.

3. Overall victory/defeat system (revealed to the player up front).
a. Victory condition goes beyond simply taking over the entire map (i.e. You can get extremely creative here.)
b. Overall defeat condition goes beyond the possibility of losing all player characters. (i.e. Again you can come up with some excellent theme based overall defeat conditions here.)

4. Non-linear Mission structure. Dynamic objectives / events... some of which the players can directly affect, others which they can unwittingly bring on, and still others occurring beyond the player's control entirely. The players only experience a subset of the entire set of possibilities with each playthrough.

5. An overall external yet organic force driving the mission to completion (through victory or defeat). Overall mission duration maximum targeted at about five or six hours. Shorter if the players lose quicker. As opposed to a traditional long, narrow, and linear mission, the model here is short, but extremely wide with possibility.

6. Mission is geared so that the players will likely not achieve overall victory on the first play through. Because of the highly dynamic structure, players won't dread starting over. Indeed, they will actually look forward to it.

This is my ArmA2 dream in a nutshell. :icon_twisted:

[Mr Fenix]

Not even a short teeny-weeny "get in the mood" kind of intro ? :couch:

Laggy

I joined the server because I was in the mood. What I want is a load-out and a sit rep. However, I would not lose my war boner :yay: if the intro lasted less than 5 seconds.

[galzohar]

2. Multiple characters per player that can die and/or be captured. No respawn, highly limited revive. Players control one of their characters at a time, and can obtain new characters by completing certain objectives. Fear of death is prevasive.
When all your characters die, you disconnect from the server and come back next week when the campaign is restarted? Or what?



5. An overall external yet organic force driving the mission to completion (through victory or defeat). Overall mission duration maximum targeted at about five or six hours. Shorter if the players lose quicker. As opposed to a traditional long, narrow, and linear mission, the model here is short, but extremely wide with possibility.
What happens when I have to go to lunch? We pause the war until I come back just to find out someone else has to go? What?



6. Mission is geared so that the players will likely not achieve overall victory on the first play through. Because of the highly dynamic structure, players won't dread starting over. Indeed, they will actually look forward to it.
What happens when a couple players decide that victory ain't gonna happen and want to restart, and leave when they realize others want to keep playing?


Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see something like this, but you really have to think through these stuff before you even think about actually making them. At the end people need to play your mission.

[laggy]

I joined the server because I was in the mood. What I want is a load-out and a sit rep. However, I would not lose my war boner :yay: if the intro lasted less than 5 seconds.

How about a cymbal crash for atmospheric music and your leader screaming "FIRE" to get you into the story ?
I think that's doable in 2 seconds :292:

[MadRussian]

@<hidden>
I've actually spent way too much time thinking all this through. :p

IMO, such a dynamic campaign would achieve the perfect balance of fear-of-death, dynamics, possibility, and high stakes game play many of us are craving. :)


When all your characters die, you disconnect from the server and come back next week when the campaign is restarted? Or what?
As far as your last character dying, there are many possibilities.

First of all though, note that you control one character at a time. During a battle (occuring as part of the battle phase), when your character dies, you go into a death-cam mode until the end of that battle. From death-cam mode, you can monitor other players. When the battle is over, any other battles are played out (where you may or may not have another character engaged). After all battles are resolved, back to the map phase.

Most likely, during battles where you have no main character, you can enter the battle as a pawn of another player. (i.e. a minor generic character that you only control for that battle). In addition, perhaps other players can hand over ownership of one of their characters to you, if they choose.

Constrast this to a standard coop, where when you lose your last soldier, you are stuck as a spectator from that point on with absolutely no hope of returning to play!

Also note the campaign length has an upper max measured in hours... so no worry about coming back the following week.


What happens when I have to go to launch? We pause the war until I come back just to find out someone else has to go? What?
Not sure exactly what you mean here. That feature point again:
5. An overall external yet organic force driving the mission to completion (through victory or defeat)...

What I mean here is something along the lines of having a built in mechinism so that the mission does not go on indefinately (which is usually frustrating. as we are all limited in the amount of time we have to play these games). If the player can expect the mission to last approximately X number of hours, he can plan accordingly.

Couple of other points that may relate:

My ideal mission would be geared for a small number of players (1-6?) and yet perfectly playable by a single player.

I know how much people seem to love JIP and persistant servers, but imo JIP has had a hugely negative impact on mission making regarding ArmA and ArmA2 in general. In the old days of OFP, mission designers churned out large numbers of wonderful small story-based coops. Since the advent of JIP, so many mission designers have turned to making CTI type missions (which are not at all appealing to me). IMO, the only place for JIP should be for when your connection goes bad, and you need to reconnect.


What happens when a couple players decide that victory ain't gonna happen and want to restart, and leave when they realize others want to keep playing?
Again, I'm thinking of a small number of players that know each other (LAN gaming etc), so this shouldn't be an issue. But to answer your question more directly, either the AI would take over for the departing player's character, or ownership would be handed over to the player who wished to remain to slog it out.

---

One day I will create my dynamic turn-based mission. But currently time is constrained by full time job and all those RL responsibilities (don't we love em). :D

In any event, much of what I'm talking about is based on extremely advanced scripting though, so no breathe-holding here... But just maybe Laggy can incorporate some of this in his upcoming masterpiece!

[galzohar]

Everything you're mentioning makes your ideas look more and more like a full time job mission.

One of the most important things to remember when making missions: In an actual combat where you're facing a decent enemy, you're not going to live long. If you can live through even 30 minutes of a mission, either that mission has no action, or that mission has very poor enemies, or that mission is purely a "find a way to trick the AI so you can wipe the floor with them" which may not be easy but it's not exactly a battle either, more like a problem-solving game.

I don't think many people would jump into playing a 1 hour mission when they can die in the first 5 minutes, and I don't think anyone will play any mission where they have very little chance for dying for 5 full minutes. The former is boring because of spectating and the latter is boring because of no action. That is the #1 killer of long missions with no respawns, which means a mission that's not either short or has respawns will have a very very hard time to be made as a playable mission.

Again, remember, people need to want to play your mission.

[nichevo]

If your mission has three distinct parts... why not make them different missions? You could release them as a bundle.

The first problem with an epic long mission is that if I like part 3, I can't play it without slogging through parts 1 and 2.

Also a huge mission like you suggest has more scope for bugs. All that object spawning, time skipping... mix that in with JIP and you have a testing nightmare.

I guess I'm trying to say don't bite off more than you can chew! (If you think you're good at chewing, all well and good.)

[Alpha-Kilo]

Laggy,

your idea sounds like a very challenging mission. Challenging to make and challenging to play.

The problem with intros is that the mission makers seem to like them a lot, but most players want to start playing as soon as possible. If you want to make a lengthy intro to your next mission, you might want to provide an incentive for watching it: The intro could reveal some information which is not presented in the briefing. (A simple example: You have to search and destroy an enemy camp. The briefing says: The camp can be anywhere. But in the intro you could see the camp in the forest with a castle in the background. Now you know where to look.)

If an intro is made well, I will watch it once or twice, but what I don't like is an outro. I would rather walk around the area after completing a mission. ArmA2 with the modules and the dialogue system is perfect for free roaming without a specific task. After "Behind enemy lines" I could imagine to start a little punitive expedition but the mission is not designed this way.

In your next mission you could let the player choose which ending he wants: Suppose an officer congratulates the character on the successful completion of the mission. Then, the player may walk to a tent --> end mission or he walks to an ammo crate and chooses fresh gear --> start free roaming. At any time he can return to the base to either pick up more ammunition or to go to his tent and exit the mission.

[MadRussian]

To quickly weigh in on intros...

I personally think intros/cutscenes in general add a lot of atmosphere, especially if they are well done. If they are too long, that can get a bit frusterating. How long is too long? Well that depends on the cutscene I guess and the information it needs to convey. I don't think you could ever get by with just five seconds... that's just way too short.

It is important to make the cutscenes skipable. Once we've seen a cutscene, we may want ot skip it upon another playthrough. Plus apparently there are those we don't appreciate a good story and want to get straight into the action. Thus skipable cutscenes will please everyone!

Regarding end of mission, I personally like the mission to end with a cutscene. But I guess there's nothing wrong with making continuing the mission optional. More options is generally better.

[Alpha-Kilo]

Mad Russian,

I agree with you as far as single player missions are concerned: If an intro is good, it's nice to watch it - otherwise it can be frustrating. And 5 seconds is too short to tell a story (apart from Cymbal and "Fire!").

I don't know what makes a good intro but I know what makes a poor one: Boring stereotypes which remind us of old Hollywood B-movies. And long battles filmed from strange camera positions. And scenes which appear random and out of sequence.

Another problem is language: If you don't understand the intro it becomes frustrating frustratingly quick - even if it is made well and contains important info and everything! That's why I am quite sure that most or all intros/cutscenes will be skipped when we play this mission in my group. Even the short intro to "Behind enemy lines" was skipped.

To Laggy: If you intend to include German subtitles or dubbing I volunteer. Just send me a PM!

[laggy]

If your mission has three distinct parts... why not make them different missions? You could release them as a bundle.

The first problem with an epic long mission is that if I like part 3, I can't play it without slogging through parts 1 and 2.


I see your point, but that kind of kills the immersion (I think). I wouldn't feel much for my character if he had just died in the previous mission, to then just resurrect in the next one. That was the immersion killer in original CWC, if I remember correctly. One solution would maybe be to include a cheat (like endmission) in every part.



In your next mission you could let the player choose which ending he wants: Suppose an officer congratulates the character on the successful completion of the mission. Then, the player may walk to a tent --> end mission or he walks to an ammo crate and chooses fresh gear --> start free roaming. At any time he can return to the base to either pick up more ammunition or to go to his tent and exit the mission.

Great idea and I have considered this option before, just didn't think anyone would care for it. Good feedback.



It is important to make the cutscenes skipable. Once we've seen a cutscene, we may want ot skip it upon another playthrough. Plus apparently there are those we don't appreciate a good story and want to get straight into the action. Thus skipable cutscenes will please everyone!


Great idea as well, how about a standard action or radio channel for this option?


Even the short intro to "Behind enemy lines" was skipped.

WHAT!!! :drinking:

Thanks for the interesting and informative feedback everyone.

Laggy

[_Hurricane]

Seems promising this mission. You should definately make it if you want to!

As for feedback, I can't come up with anything that hasn't already been said.
I'd definately include the Revive script in a mission like this.

First aid, like in the ArmA 2 campaign, would also be a great option.

[Scimitar67]

I am mainly interested in SP missions. IMO best to concentrate on mission quality and originality. Intro not necessary. I prefer infantry missions. I don't think ARMA I and ARMA II do helicopter and aircraft very well and best to leave that to more developed sims.

[B|oodThorn]

Yes they are welcome as are any other missions .....variation keeps the game alive!

[laggy]

Seems like the poll results are pretty clear.

Thank you for voting.

Laggy

[MadRussian]

Regarding skipable cutscenes:


Great idea as well, how about a standard action or radio channel for this option?

IIRC, in general for intros in ArmA you can usually just press any key to skip them. I've also played missions where you could not skip intros... very frustrating on the second go-around.

For cutscenes midway through a mission, I'm not sure if a press-any-key option is even possible. Having said that, how would the player even get to his action menu or radio during a cutscene? If you can make it work though, cool!

If I was choosing between the action menu and the radio for skipping, I'd defiantely go action menu. But press-any-key trumps them both, imo.

Good luck with the mission! :)

[Jakerod]

I don't know if its possible in multiplayer now or not but having an auto-save after cutscenes is normally a good idea.

[laggy]

I don't know if its possible in multiplayer now or not but having an auto-save after cutscenes is normally a good idea.

Another great idea, thank you!

[MadRussian]

btw Laggy-

Many of us are really looking forward to your new creation. Any preliminary teaser-style details? :)

[laggy]

btw Laggy-

Many of us are really looking forward to your new creation. Any preliminary teaser-style details? :)

Thanks for the kind words!

Well, it will be inspired by an old classic war movie called "Kelly's Heroes".
You will play a group of "rotten apples" who wish to gain some personal "wealth" during the war in Chernarus.
Humor and playability will be an ingredient again, I hope.

Hope that gives you an idea.

Laggy

[kozzy420]

I would like any singleplayer campaigns hehe. The longer the better, more story the bettter (:


If anyone needs any VOICE work let me know I can do some. Also if anyone needs ORIGINAL Instrumentals/Beats for there mods!

[Tophe]

Me and my mates would definitively play that mission... many times if it is executed well. A good story could really enhance the experience... so does some nice cutscenes (as long as they stay around 1-2 minutes).

[St!gar]

That goes for the rest of you editors. Nobody gives a fuck about intros.

Bullshit. I love intros. If done well, they can pretty much set the tone for the whole mission.

[laggy]

Bullshit. I love intros. If done well, they can pretty much set the tone for the whole mission.

My personal opinion as well :)

[the unknown]

This is one of the things the community needs old fasion co-ops where you had a short intro a briefing with a bit of a story and a couple of objectives to take. In the OFP times I made nothing els but these kind of missions, the problem with making them is that you have to make up story's and that aint one of my strong points.

Not sure how you are planning on making this laggy but maybe its a good idea to make 3 separate missions and make it into a little campaign kind how the band of comrades missions for flashpoint where made.

[nominesine]

I liked Operation Underdog a lot and I gladly help you fine tune your next mission before it's released. Another idea that I like is a story driven death match, where the opposing players have separate agendas, but the mission doesen't require them to confront each other. Albeit if one player fulfills his main objective, the other player should fail a minor objective. Thus giving the players an incitament to hazzle each other during game play, but not necessarily exterminate one another. With multiple slots on both sides you can then have two Coop missions running at the same time on the same map. Or you can play it as a randomized SP or MPcoop mission, if you lack others to play with. Very good for replayability.

EDIT: I voted yes, BTW ;)

EDIT 2:

Nobody gives a fuck about intros

Grow up and get some manners, will you? If you don't want to watch the intro you can always disable it at MP setup. JIP or not. There's no need to be rude because some people likes to spend time pleasing other people with top notch missions, that they hand out for free for you to enjoy.

[[APS]Gnat]

If your mission has three distinct parts... why not make them different missions? You could release them as a bundle.

Yep. My popular "Island" trilogy for OFP was done that way.
Each had its own general location, each had different chalenges, each with different resources and target (or attacker) types.
One tip, don't give to many weapon or vehicle choices .... mean and lean. That promotes more interest in reviving friends ..... they'll need every body to make it through.

[Binkowski]

I think a good variety of both would be good. In my missions I use the "Situation" note in the briefing to go into very good detail about what is going on around the time of my mission.

[sirex]

really, really, hate intros.

i start the game with -nosplash and -world=empty, just to get greeted by a damn non-skippable intro movie ? if the mission has respawn its not too bad, but otherwise it'll pretty much remove all chance of me playing the mission again.

[LockJaw-65-]

This poll should have another option if you like both. I personaly like both options and this depends on what time I have, what mood etc. :-)

[laggy]

Well, I guess you do belong to the people who are interested in those kind of "long, story-driven" missions.

It doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't be interested in CTF or CTI.

I just wanted to see how many that would actually like to see a mission like the one I explained.

Cheers,

Laggy

[Lonestar]

I voted yes but i have one fear : wouldn't it become repetitive after a while?

At least with regular missions ( domi, evo) it's hard to explain but you have the impression that you're in command beacuse the targets can be set randomly and in domi especially you have side missions that prevent you from getting bored. Plus there are counterattacks and the cities can be re taken by the enemy.

I don't know if i'm making a point here but this is what i feel.

Cheers

LoneStar

[Dalia]

Intro are good, but in Mp i think it's better to modify mission and delete intro, and keep the cutscene mission only. We can't make a SP mission and add only Player slot for transform a Sp to MP Mission, theres is many works for transform a Sp to Mp mission.

But in Sp, it's interesting to add many intros with save behind.

[laggy]

@<hidden>

Yes, creating a MP mission with a SP (story and atmosphere) feel is a real challenge.
You have to be really careful with the timing of cutscenes and their execution, otherwise you can achieve really weird stuff.
Adding variety is also hard, since you have to relate to multiple players, that can do their own thing.

I guess that's why my missions take such a long time to complete.
In SP only, you could do them in a couple of days, including custom scripts and sound.
To make them work well in MP takes many hours of planning, bug-tracking and tweaking.

I haven't been able to create more than one MP mission in ArmA2 yet, but I made several for ArmA1.
If you have that game installed, you can try out these to see what I mean:

http://www.ofpec.com/missions_depot/index.php?action=details&id=204
http://www.ofpec.com/forum/index.php?topic=33240.0
http://www.ofpec.com/forum/index.php?topic=32824.0
http://www.ofpec.com/forum/index.php?topic=33359.0
http://www.ofpec.com/forum/index.php?topic=33358.0

Laggy

[[GLT] Legislator]

I don't prefer cutscenes in mp games. They should stay in SP missions. Especially when using random mission elements it's a pain to create a cutscenes that fits the mission and is synchronized on each client. That's why I'm outsourcing cutscenes of my missions to Youtube :p

Here's the beginning of a huge piece of work that will be released "when the beginning is done" :p

lZ5omqULhec

Divided into separate missions it'll be a long story driven mp campaign :) Right now I'm getting myself into stringtables so people who don't speak german can use them as well. There will be some addons needed which have to be released at the same time including example missions and a documentation. It'll take a while, especially after the new patch 1.04. Some things have to be retested again :o

[CarlGustaffa]

No cutscenes in MP. No delayed start due to long heli insertion etc. If anything, the possibility for the player to play "unlocked" cutscenes at own leisure, i.e. when bored during guard duty :)

Not all about the constant heavy fighting. Parts could be convoys, quick logistics runs etc.

Don't like the proposed dying. I prefer respawn, but where staying alive is rewarded with shorter respawn times. Could even have magical teleporters for all I care, as long as inexperienced players isn't immediately thrown off to spectate mode, and rambo players gets penaltized for not being interrested in team playing (die a lot = wait a lot). With time, the effect normalizes.

A dynamic conflict system that scales in difficulty with the amount of players. If there is only a few players left, give them suitable missions, even SOM (SecOps) would suffice.

If rewards, keep them small. Not a hardware fest.
---
One idea I played with once was this mission: "Create an MSR from random point A to random point B", starting somewhere along the top left of the map ending at the ocean. Your FOB would be located at point A, meaning there will be lots of different starts. Along this route/corridor, you are tasked with clearing neaby locations.

A lot of PR features to be considered to avoid loners, exploits. I.e. a kit system would be brilliant to avoid having only anti tank guys.

[MadRussian]

The problem imo with continual respawn is that you can't ever lose the mission by losing all playable soldiers. To each his own though, maybe the best is make it all optional.

As far as cutscenes goes, Laggy has indicated a desire for some level of cutscenes in his upcoming MP missions, and I so I say for him that's the way to go. (i.e. Because he's passionate about making those kinds of missions.)

Great thing about OFP/Arma though is the large productive community. No matter what our individual preferences, chances are there's someone making a mission that suits us. In fact, I can think of no other game engine that allows the sort of custom respawn I'm dreaming up.

EDIT-
btw Laggy, I reread the choices in you're poll and it's actually a pretty loaded question, to an extremely humerous fault. Based on the words "long story-based mission..." in the topic title, you're definately gonna get a slew of people that are interested in those types of missions. btw- I think I mentioned this before, but - Count me in! :D

[CarlGustaffa]

Revive system then. My biggest problem sometimes is how one stupid move, or simply by being a natural jinx, can ruin the evening. That ONE shot putting you as a spectator for the remaining two hours of the mission. It just sucks. There is no sense of reward for playing it uber safe, when that bullet tracks you down. You might as well play rambo style.

Yes, you can't imagine how sore a loser I am, or how much I hate getting killed when I felt I didn't deserve it. :D

But it would be nice for a change if winning was determined by something else than destruction of the enemy.

I'll take Domination as an example. By default, the radio tower can appear anywhere within a circle. In public games at least, the general playout is that the tower is the last thing to go. I modded the mission (back in Arma1 days) so that it would appear somewhere on the boundary of the circle. Now it became a clear objective that you could actually get to in order to make the rest of the target easier.

As for optionals, what I miss since we are a very small unit, is for missions to have a parameter control in the lobby that sets the amount of enemies, for those private moments. Many missions look awesome to play, but are totally unrealistic for our small unit to even attempt. So, number and difficulty controls would be very nice to have.

"Real" missions would be very nice, especially some deep recon elements. Maybe you don't even fire a single shot and still nails the mission (objective)? That's the kind of playstyle I love the most.

Not "dictating" what must and must not be there, just providing feedback and wishes, because I love the idea.

[Pandy]

I love the MP missions to which players per take in a story driven missions. It gives a campaign feel, and boost activity for Arma2 units.

Great idea.

[MadRussian]

My biggest problem sometimes is how one stupid move, or simply by being a natural jinx, can ruin the evening.
Isn't that somehow the essence of OFP/ArmA though? :)


That ONE shot putting you as a spectator for the remaining two hours of the mission. It just sucks. There is no sense of reward for playing it uber safe, when that bullet tracks you down.Agreed, it's pretty crap to be completely out of it far from the end of the mission and have to sit and watch as your buddies complete the last two or three objectives. I call that Terminal Death Syndrome, and it often rears it's ugly head on longer coop missions. Revive, as you mentioned, is a nice way around this problematic scenerio (imo provided it's limited). Another method might be keeping the spectator, but giving the players playable reinforcements upon the completion of objectives (that make sense based on the mission), thereby giving the players limited opportunity to get back into the game. Haven't installed it yet, but Left For Dead works like that, right? In any event, I think we need to preserve the tension and fear or death this series provides, and without the possibility of getting wiped out early (all players dead), imo we lose something extremely fundemental.


Yes, you can't imagine how sore a loser I am, or how much I hate getting killed when I felt I didn't deserve it. :DI know that feeling. :p


But it would be nice for a change if winning was determined by something else than destruction of the enemy.

Agreed, not enough mission makers attempt anything other than Destroy targets A, B, and C. Or worse yet, kill all enemy! (even that guy hiding in the shed that you'll never find.) :D


As for optionals, what I miss since we are a very small unit, is for missions to have a parameter control in the lobby that sets the amount of enemies, for those private moments. Many missions look awesome to play, but are totally unrealistic for our small unit to even attempt. So, number and difficulty controls would be very nice to have.I strongly agree here about the optionals, and on the importance of being able to adjust enemy numbers. Way too many missions with unrealisitc expectations out there. Letting us adjust enemy numbers also has a huge added benefit for coop, as we can then scale the mission to the number of players.

Good points throughout your post.

[galzohar]

You're asking for having a fear of death without losing because you died. There is no way to have both, as unlimited respawns mean never losing, and any number of respawns from 0 to a lot will either result in a mission that is way too easy or result in a mission where you still lost because you died too much and again you get stuck watching the mission. A mission that is balanced for 1 life (shorter) will put you in the same position (in terms of how much time you spend "out of action" and how many times you "fail because you died") as a with multiple respawns that is balanced for that.

Of course, most mission makers seem to completely ignore balance and make it so that either it's just way too easy or you have to learn enemy positions in order to succeed. In that case having (unlimited or too many) respawns can reduce frustration a great deal (as the mission wasn't even designed to be possible with no respawns) but ruins the "let's do our best so we can win" as you can't realistically lose.

IMO missions should simply be designed so that they're challenging but not impossible, and in a way that prevents you from "learning" the mission by randomizing enemy positions. Long missions are often not a good thing - When was the last time you played a long mission that was actually both not boring (had enough action) and at the same time was challenging (required more than 1 attempt to complete but did not allow you to "learn" it)?

[MadRussian]

You're asking for having a fear of death without losing because you died.
Yes, I do prefer more than one life on long missions. But only in the context of limited lives. The reality is that I want something I've not seen yet in any OFP, ArmA, or ArmA2 mission. More on that later.


There is no way to have both, as unlimited respawns means losing,
Huh? Did you mean to say that unlimited respawns means always winning?


...and any number of respawns from 0 to a lot will either result in a mission that is way too easy or result in a mission where you still lost because you died too much and again you get stuck watching the mission.

IMO, getting "stuck watching the mission" is only a bad thing when there's a lot of mission left, and you have no chance at getting back in. Even worse is no fear of death at all (i.e. unlimited respawn).


A mission that is balanced for 1 life (shorter) will put you in the same position (in terms of how much time you spend "out of action" and how many times you "fail because you died") as a with multiple respawns that is balanced for that.
IMO, there is a huge difference between "out of action", and "out of the game". If you're in a death cam mode but there's still the chance to get back in, that keeps you rooting for the living members of the group to keep going, because your getting back into the game hinges on their success.


Of course, most mission makers seem to completely ignore balance and make it so that either it's just way too easy or you have to learn enemy positions in order to succeed. In that case having (unlimited or too many) respawns can reduce frustration a great deal (as the mission wasn't even designed to be possible with no respawns) but ruins the "let's do our best so we can win" as you can't realistically lose.
Agreed with all points here. I personally won't go for unlimited respawn or unlimited revive because without the possibility of losing, I just get bored. :rolleyes:


IMO missions should simply be designed so that they're challenging but not impossible, and in a way that prevents you from "learning" the mission by randomizing enemy positions. Long missions are often not a good thing - When was the last time you played a long mission that was actually both not boring (had enough action) and at the same time was challenging (required more than 1 attempt to complete but did not allow you to "learn" it)?
Cipher does a pretty good job on all fronts here.

1. The terrain you are fighting on is completely different every time.
2. It is impossible to predict enemy positions. Sometimes you even run into them outside the markered "mission area". You'd be hard pressed to "learn" Cipher.
3. It's definitely NOT boring. There's an appropriate level of buildup on the way to the mission zone. And, as mentioned earlier, you have to keep your eyes open even on the way there.
4. There's a difficulty adjustment (among others) that adjusts enemy numbers. Important note here is that what may be balanced and enjoyable for one person may be frustrating for the next guy. The ability to adjust difficulty (enemy numbers and enemy accuracy) go a long way towards getting a good experience in this regard.

But even the mighty Cipher (in coop) still has the problem of the group getting down to just you and your buddy, you kick the bucket, and now you're out of the game and waiting to see whether he makes it through or not.

My proposal is to give the players a limited number of men (no respawn, no or limited revive), and give them more men upon completion of objectives. As players die, provided there are no friendly AI to take over as, they go into death cam, but they are by no means necessarily out of the game. If their remaining living buddies can pull through and complete the remainder of the current objective, extra men are added to the group (in a way that makes sense per the mission), and the players watching from death cam get to return to play in fresh bodies.

For LONG missions, this is by far the best way I've been able to come up with to strike a balance between Terminal Death Syndrome (which again is no fun on long missions when you go out early), and what I personally view as the absolute worst, Respawn-O-Matic, where you just keep playing until you win (and you win every time).

Now, why haven't we ever seen this balance between fear of death and frustration for longer missions? Well, the system I propose is not without some difficulty in implementing.

1. You have to come up with story or objective based reasons why the players are getting new group members.

2. It's not trivial to write the code for this system the first place. (i.e. It's much different than default group respawn, which does NOT allow you back into play once you're out. And TeamSwitch apparently does not work in MP.) I created something like the system I describe for OFP, but without the switchPlayer command offered starting with ArmA, the system was extremely complicated and had some visual glitches. (swapping units, etc). It did work though, and was not difficult to apply to missions. Just hard as hell to write the thing in the first place.

edit:
corrected spelling - including Cipher

[galzohar]

Cipher is highly random which is very nice, unfortunately it also has a totally random difficulty, so nothing guarantees that it's neither extremely easy nor impossible (on the same settings). Besides, not all places on Chernarus make up a good mission - imo most of the map is pretty crappy, and to make a good mission you have to hand-pick a location and then put as much randomness as you can into it. But other than that cipher is definitely a great idea.

I've seen someone posted a big platoon mission where you'd get your men back and rearmed after each objective is compelte. However when asked "what's the difference between this mission and a bunch of short missions?" the answer obviously was "there isn't any". Why work on a complicated respawn system when the end result is a bunch of smaller missions you could just make separately? Less scripting, same (or better) experience, and less constraints on stuff that your mission has to include/exclude.

[CarlGustaffa]

Well, I for one enjoy playing (modified, not with a lot of armor to defeat, not awesome rewards) Domination. Longest single session time was about two full days. This was Arma1. On our MHQ relocation our chopper was shot down by strela soldier, near Mercalillo. MHQ and squad survived, and we had to walk towards a main target north of Passo Epone (not in default). 4km by foot iirc. Took us 3 hours just to get there due to multiple footmobile contacts. Tension was up the roof. Bloody awesome. And no casualties at this point.

So yes, missions can be long. And here I only talk about a single objective in a highly dynamic world of missions. I guess we all agree that mentioned mission (and similar) endorse stupid gameplay. I don't mind unlimited respawns or teleport at all. I wish there was a holding cell with a spectator script where you would sit after respawn. A timer governs how long you need to be here. Players that die alot will spend a lot of time here. Players that play safe, are rewarded with shorter respawn times. Timer could be based on class, i.e. sniper would have a lot longer base time than a SAW gunner. And for teamplay, an option to transfer respawn time to that player that really tries really hard but is just not very good. Mr. Solo Rambo Die-A-Lot would get annoyed with his increasing respawn times and find something else. Better for those trying to play serious anyway. Today such players aren't punished at all.

In our (not so) yearly main events, a single mission can take two to five hours to complete, during 4-5 days worth of gameplay campaign. This group consists of good gamers to ex military with very little computer skills, and have a hard time "grasping" Arma (well, only OFP so far). Even hardcore CS gamers that doesn't have a clue about tactical milsim gaming - but team leaders will guard and instruct their actions. We play with respawn here so that everyone can have a blast of a time, even the really bad players. It's up to the team leaders to make sure everyone plays safe and stick together. These games use other mechanisms to determine a lost objective than simply killing everyone in it. We might lose an objective if i.e. the enemy is able to reinforce a point, in which our force wouldn't be the one to tackle them anymore. If we lose too many objectives, or any key objectives, the mission is lost. This is usually materialized as lack of hardware when we start the next mission. The "game master" may enter a special menu where some hardware are removes, but in turn makes us fight less enemies (which none of the players know about). You get a sense of accomplishment when you do something right, and a sense of disappointment when you fail. But when you fail, the overall difficulty remains the same by removing some enemies if we now doesn't have the means to tackle more.

Win, and fight tanks with tanks.
Fail, and fight infantry with infantry.
You don't ever have to fight tanks with only infantry.
Which is important due to roleplaying and realistic gear availability.

So, for that group it is more important to have a hell of a time together, being social within the premises of a game, than doing everything by the book and trying to be uber serious and realistic. The more regular group I play with is only a tiny unit. Here the goal is completely different.