Shiner

One of my goals in assisting the TG community to produce the finest quality of ArmA missions available is to establish a set of community developed standards. These standards are certainly voluntary, but I think a little investment from each mission creator to adhere will help improve the quality and marketability of TG's in-house missions. We are also looking in the future to develop and distribute TG mission packs and will want the submissions to be as uniform as possible.

I am requesting that we adopt the following subject to your feedback:

File Naming Conventions:
(TGMissionTypeSize)_MissionName_version.Sara.pbo || (TGTvT48)_Domination_v01a.Sara || (TGCo11)_SniperHunt_v1-1.Sara

Mission Naming Conventions:
(TG-MissionType-Size) MissionName by Author || (TG-TvT-48) Domination v01a by |TG|Shiner || (TG-Co-11) SniperHunt by SniperH

TG Intro: A short 5-10 second low-overhead scripted intro similar to evolution. I have posted the initial scripted intro and a request for submissions here.

Briefing Notes (anywhere): Mission Description: Please create a paragraph or more mission description in a text file (description.txt) in the root folder of you mission. This might explain the "actors", the "setting", "story" or the "objectives". This description might ultimately be used to populate a mission hosting reference database, so think what you would want to be posted that would get other players interested in your mission.

__________________

Taxi

Will do, btw I understood from the BAS f manual that points in version numbers in filenames are best avoided (something to do with being able to read only one point in a filename or something). I use - so for instance 0-1-6.

Shiner

Good point Taxi, I have removed the period from my example above. No need to change how you version your files either, those dashes are fine.

__________________

Morticus

Hi guys i have new mission thet would fit great for this Arma Server.
Co21_Covert_landing_v1DTatical.Sara.pbo
you can get it from my site
all the WWW dot morticus dot homecall.co.uk/
Thanks guys

Morticus

LCpl. Soto

Just a suggestion I wanted to make for the mission makers out there, it's something me and g rider i think, were talking about. It would be nice to see more missions with only a few objectives, like 3 max. Also in my opinion, sending 26 guys to take on a force of 75 or more enemies is a bit much. Missions with platoon vs platoon size engagements and one life are more enjoyable and feel more natural.

When you have 5 objectives all over the place, 30 guys to do it in one life, and an entire company or 2 to go against it seems a bit too extreme. Those missions drag on forever with 8 guys trying to complete the last 3 objectives because everyone else died on the first 2 objectives. Half the time they end up dead and the map is never won. Missions like those are meant for respawns. Just saying it would be nice to see some more reasonable, one life missions.

fuzzhead

Agreed, theres alot of missions with no JIP and when you join as a seagull, you see its a handful of guys trying to take on objectives that are WAY too big for them to handle, when in a real life situation taking that many causualties means the mission would be called off and would be deemed a massive failure :P

I enjoy largescale missions but they should be JIP friendly.

#1 reason I dont play at TG ArmA as much as I'd like to, is because whenever I look at the server its playing a non-JIP mission that already started and wont finish for at least an hour. So that means loiter in the server until its over or go do something else, I usually do the latter...

Mr.G-C

JIP Friendly means let AI Comarades enabled...
However, this is a problem since you want to achieve TG Communication goals by putting squads together in a group, so when you play the mission then, squadleader must either take AI with him or order them to stay at starting-point.... both can be very tricky and very confusing, since on such a teamplay focused Server like TG, it is already quite challenging to control/maintain/assign/etc. your own squad for a squadleader - now together with some AI in the squad it can become even worse (assumed he takes AI players with him).

How should we cope with this?

WaterIsPoison

We need shorter non-JIP missions so we can achieve a higher mission turnover rate. Additionally, I suggest that the larger non-JIP missions have a maximum casualty percent (20-30%) as a victory condition to reflect real life.

__________________

beita

Respawn, limited number of lives.

For a small, one objective mission, allow for say, 3 deaths. Yes, there can be problems with players leaving/rejoining to avoid the ticket loss, but that is very noticeable and easily corrected via admins.

Jeepo_SAS

Yup, kick/ban, it is against server rules to exploit the game engine like that.

__________________
|TG-1st|Jeepo
TG-1st 2IC | ArmA GO | TG Pathfinder

The Vanguard

"I like our siggy's too. Partially because they are superbly done, but also because they were done by Xmaster whom I have a deep sexual desire for" - Python1

LCpl. Soto

3 respawns for a 1 objective mission is over-doing it in my opinion. One life is fine for those since they won't take long to complete. If you suffer 30-40% casualties, the admin should call it a loss. Larger missions would be fine with limited respawns, just small missions don't need respawns. I think some missions let you jip withouth having ai active or respawns. JIP should be standard for all missions. New joins should report in to their plt lead or squad lead.

WaterIsPoison

The only problem I have is that with JIP missions, often people who join in late are forgotten and are pretty much forced to lonewolf. Additionally, it can be a real pain to get them moved to the front lines because either all the vehicles are being used up at the front or they are destroyed.

__________________

LCpl. Soto

Yeah that can be a problem. People need to start checking in with the leaders when they join. This could be enforced, that will reduce the ammount of people who lone wolf. Also if we conducted a training sessin in the proper use of vehicles and the do's and don'ts of them, that would reduce the ammount of abbandoned vehicles and blown up vehicles in the field. I see leaders have their men take vehicles out towards the objective and ditch them all the time. They just throw away the use of the mounted guns and transportaion they provide.

Mr.G-C

Ok ok guys.... i think we should maybe script our own framework for TG missions.... what could be done is detect whether or not a squad-member is a AI guy.
When he is a AI guy, he will automatically leave the squad/group/fireteam and so the human squadleader doesn't have to care anymore about that unit.
Once a JIP joins into such a AI guy, he gets back added to the group he was before....

WarProphet

With the AI's ability to...
See in the dark, see through flora, detect you at great range, be very accurate, etc, etc.
It's my wish that mission creators won't limit kits and should default troops with binocs, nvg and weapon optics. In RL, with the exception of binocs, most soldiers will have such a kit. Also, emphasize good com protocols, rather than restricting radios. ArmA should still be enjoyable. There is so much sensory deprivation in all fps games that a few concessions in "reality" are required to keep the game fun. Also, have lotsa dumbed down ai nme to keep the game still challenging, but fun for everyone. What happens a lot is you'll have several players in game but only a few will encounter nme. So the majority are caught just being shuffled around on a big map and getting 0 action. Instead, load up the mission with not so uber troops and have big engagements where everyone gets involved.
Just my opinion.
PS: Might not be super realistic-but it's A LOT more fun.