No announcement yet.

What Missions do you want!!!!!

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What Missions do you want!!!!!

    I speak for myself, but I enjoy others input into my missions. What I would like is general ideas from you guys who haven't taken the plunge into mission building yet. What would you all like to see? From here perhaps I can find some fun projects. Think cool places you have found on the maps, interesting senario's, ect....
    May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won’t.
    -- Gen. George S. Patton

    |TG189th| Cody

  • #2
    What I'd like to see more of (but clearly not enough to actually make them myself!) is missions like Unkl used to make under the Tactical Strike style. Missions designed for 5-8 players to complete in 30-45 minutes. Load outs preset so no Ammo Crate time (or minimal) and no revive or respawn. I love having to walk the line between playing super cautious with my one life and working against the clock. The tension makes for a fantastic game play experience.


    • #3
      I think we could use a little more cowbell.

      Other than that, missions suited for 14 or less players. Raids, Attacks, Ambushes. The lower the player number the more assets and intel provided. Quick hits and turn around if no respawn. I think there should be EVENT Missions (bigger, in-depth) and Quick Hit Missions for when there are only a few players on who want to play and succeed.


      • #4
        This turned out to be long rambling. Like an explosion of build up of my own thoughts regrading TG-Arma which accumulated overtime. If you read through them all, I thank you for the privilege of your time. If you are discouraged at the length of this, I put a TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't read) on the bottom.

        What I enjoy.
        I am glad we have several mission makers who are learning as they go and molding their own ideas and philosophies into their missions. I am enjoying some of the variety of styles that are being offered nowadays, including the hardcore setup without respawn. I enjoyed playing one of my old ones recently where optics were limited to vanilla gear = no high powered scopes. Firefights were longer as AI and humans exchanged fire and we burned through our ammo super fast, consequently more chaotic gunfire, figuring out how to resupply - etc...

        With what I write and propose in the next section, I would like to see some smaller missions in the main server also. We can have mission makers' agreement to make sure that if people are waiting in the TS for a bigger game to start, they do not have to wait for long... Meaning smaller missions must have time limits built in, or TG players should agree upon being pulled out of a mission if enough people are waiting... or something. The smaller missions that we used to have disappeared into some server that is not up all the time or not available at the spur of the moment. Because of it, the seeders are stuck with large dynamic missions.

        What I have realized.
        I have imported some larger and more dynamic missions as seeder types of missions. We have been playing some admin controlled series of smaller and shorter missions lately and I love it. Missions like Enemy Assault, Liberation etc... are logistical nightmare as we all know it. Plus it seems to kill a server after a while because of its difficulty to get a new leader operating. I also discourages population growth as these missions are unlikely to be changed into something else.

        For example, I might wanna keep playing but I am definitely tired of leading. But the dynamic and persistent missions seem to force me, a player who wants to give up leadership and still stick around to play, out of the server. Because once a player has been leading for a while and he asks for somebody else to step up and take over, often nobody does... He disconnects and since nobody else stepped up, everybody else disconnects.

        Now another reason on why I think we should do away with these bigger missions with intricate scripts and non-ending nature is that they are played way too much. So much that some players are tired of them while others simply choose them because it is one that they know. Seeders choose the big missions, the potential players see that mission being played and they decide not to join. I know I have done this a couple of times.

        Fro example, I get terrible frame-rates in some of these persistent missions. If that missions is being played, I decide not to join for the night and do something else because I know it is not likely to be changed even after I join and suffer through low FPS gameplay.

        Now if we play smaller missions that have an ending, then, I would join as I know the leadership will change as well as the mission pace and style will change sometime in the evening. I can join the game and see if I can experience a great moment.

        This policy against the persistent missions has been brought up before and I was on the other side at that time. BigC, when he took over the GO position in the beginning of Arma 3, had a vision of a server with nothing but smaller and fast paced missions which are guaranteed to finish with a success or failure within a certain time frame. Now this meant some of the missions I worked on would be removed from the server and I spoke out against this policy at that time. At this time though, I see my fault and I would like to propose restrictions on the availability of persistent and non-ending dynamic missions. As the person who did the editing I also give permission if the following missions are removed from general availability (in addition a lot of these are quite outdated):

        - Enemy Assaults
        - Liberation
        - Battle Zone
        - Resistance
        - Aggression
        - Patrol Ops

        If we have only in-house built missions that are available, then the player-base will only play the missions that are built by their peers. This in turn, gives motivation to the mission makers to create new stuff or perfect their existing ones. On the other hand, these dynamic, big missions without end will result in missions that are made by our peers being played rarely or in some cases only once.

        Choosing a mission
        Although the OP asked for general style of missions that I enjoy, which I have answered, I thought this was a great chance and topic for me to express what I have been thinking about for a while.

        So, although there is a voting system for the next mission to be chosen, there is timeout and quite a lot of people are not familiar with the waiting that is involved with going through this process of voting, slotting and pressing OK and going into the map, which another timeout happens unless everybody presses Continue,..., Some people think they are stuck or crashed and they leave the server and come back again... The whole thing is a great confusing mess without an admin-logged in or admin-voted.

        Then again, voting for an admin is also quite user-unfriendly as you have to know certain command line commands and this concept of controlling the server with shell commands. Once we have an admin, that admin who was voted also needs to know all kinds of command line keywords to control the server and select a mission.

        All this can be fixed by classes on how to do it. Forum posts for reference also help. Once we have enough people of TG who knows how to do this, more people will be able to start a game and seed the server.

        I propose removal of persistent missions to support our mission makers and their missions. I support timed smaller missions which should be available with the main server for seeding purposes. I support educational effort to get more people familiarized with command line commands (#userlist #vote admin xxx, #missions,) to choose the mission they want to play.


        • #5
          What no pictures? Nice post B!
          May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won’t.
          -- Gen. George S. Patton

          |TG189th| Cody


          • #6
            I really like some of the persistence missions so long as they have true persistence like Liberation. I personally enjoy jumping on for a quick assault and being able to throw together our own mission on the fly essentially as we try to attack certain targets. Then log in the next day and get the next area. But i can see where B is coming from and i would like to see more smaller missions in spirit of TG.

            That said i have been writing down some missions and started putting them in to word documents. I have bad habit of getting a story in my mind and not getting it out of my head for a few days. I Just did one the other day that takes longer to tell the back story than the actual mission will take (30min max). but i don't really have the time or skills to pull off mission creating at this time. Oh well. I'm sure i will get around to it someday


            • #7
              I find persistent missions to be a blessing and a curse at the same time.

              I am around 6 hours in front of most Arma Players across the pond. So basically the only option for me is to play Insurgency or Liberation and wait for someone to hop in on the server. I understand that those missions can be boring for some and it gets worse when your frames drop. So if you ever see me playing insurgency/Liberation/EA, feel free to change the mission. I think most of us are mature enough and will understand if there is a reason for the wish to change.

              Also, those missions are quite popular. I think there are definitly more "foreign" JIPs when playing Insurgency/Liberation like missions. Of course not all of them fit to the TG way of playing, but some might adapt or learn a thing or two. That's the way i came to know you in Arma 2 while playing Domination and raiding towns with Unkl leading us. Removing them completely will definitly impact the amount of players.

              On a different note, I also enjoy playing smaller missions that can be completed with one or two fire teams in a rather short time (~1 h). I can imagine things like assaulting an enemy position, patroling, setting up a trap for a convoy and so on. In my opinion, these are the best in a "daily" rotation when there aren't too many people online, for example on working days.
              I really enjoyed the last few weeks announced event missions. All I can say is thank you for them great missions and keep up the excellent work!


              • #8
                This whole thread is full of great comments and insights. Thank you all for participating in this discussion!

                I've been hanging back to soak up the perspectives as I'm sure the rest of the admin team has been doing as well.

                One thing we all would like is the availability of the Small Missions Server to be up more often. This is a project I just haven't committed to setting up. It is really close to ready. We'd like to run this on scheduled times once I get it set up. Perhaps Wed to Fri, perhaps weekends, perhaps one week per month. Dunno. I will get this configured tonight so it is ready to start up or at least, know what is needed next. One thing I'd like to do with it is leave it for missions that are a max of 8 players. The idea is to offer variety without impacting player counts too badly on our main instance. Another thought was to also put on some modded content on it such as additional vehicles and weapons. However, this adds a burden to mission makers to keep updating content as mods update. Regardless, we can test out some configurations and see what is best for us.

                A second reoccurring topic is the idea of persistent missions. I understand the pitfalls of them too. I also like them when they create the kind game you can join and go play easily. The Insurgency or Liberation mission where you can go attack the small objectives without needing to kill the growing player count with the slot screen. Face it, the slot screen can kill the momentum. All the points that B brought up are brought to bear as well. (Side note: this is why we have rules about AAR is for the AAR thread...move the next game and get the fun going again!) What drives me crazy is players who may see a mission as being the source of their experience instead of the tactics, communication and fun they bring to it. I think persistent missions are another tool we will need in the toolbox. If they are overused, then like anything else, they become a barrier. Choosing a mission is one of the skills that can help or hinder our player attraction and retention. There is no easy answer here imo.

                Now...back on the original post point: Which is where we should be directing this discussion back to...

                Still want to see more of our great missions from our in house editors. We have really come a long way and have some excellent mission designers! Pretty great considering there was a time when there was only one or two of us active. I'm big on the small and medium sized missions for now. I think there is room for creativity in scenarios and there are some in production right now that are very very promising (Scout, Badstache). I feel bad, don't have specific suggestions cuz if I do....I just make 'em.

                Please keep the ideas coming and this thread is being perused for all the gems and duds. Great thread indeed.
                |TG-189th| Unkl
                ArmA 3 Game Officer
                Dean of Tactical Gamer University
                189th Infantry Brigade Member
                "We quickly advance in the opposite direction and take cover in a house on the SW side of town." - BadStache


                • #9
                  Great suggestions by all here. Whilst I do not have a specific mission request. What I would like to see of are the 'flexible set choices' for the individual rifleman. The basic fundamental of infantry. To be able to shoot, move, communicate effectively.
                  The tools to assist are (all depending on the mission/mission dependent): weapon attachments, suppressors, combat optics (up to 4x magnification), in squad radio (preset), sufficient rounds, frags, smoke grenades, markers, to fit into combat vests, head protection, GPS, personal aid kit, unified fatigues. All these are for the basic minimum required to be able to fight.
                  The leaders (Fireteam leader, Squad leader), would have in addition to above; map, binocular/range finder/something that has 4x plus magnification), means to communicate between sister squads or higher (preset) if needed.
                  Naturally, it will scale up as the mission requires.

                  I really like the idea of the "short/er" missions. Heck, to allow for quicker recycle of missions. Include, either tickets or no respawn.

                  Also, we are in the habit of the kill/death ratio type of mindset. Attacking a known or unknown, should still be in the favour of the attackers.
                  For the sake of brevity; lesser AIs, targets, etc vs human players. We can promote tactics more, rather than being in the mess and trying to rinse and repeat the revive, until we all end up in wiped out/win scenarios.

                  TGU Instructor · TG Pathfinder

                  Former TGU Dean · Former ARMA Admin · Former Irregulars Officer

                  "Do not seek death. Death will find you. But seek the road which makes death a fulfillment." - Dag Hammarskjold


                  • #10
                    I'd like to see a specific type of campaign. I'd like to see a doomsday type of scenario where CSAT is on the brink of total victory in the region, and BLUFOR has to join forces with independent factions, resorting to insurgent tactics. Basically the singleplayer campaign, but the outcome of each mission determines the premise of the next.


                    • #11
                      Seems deleting BL1P's Patrol Ops not teach if you are ready repeat same. How many players you lose by this step?
                      Totally agree with Bedamichl post.Every evening you have 1-2 players (at start as minimum) and 0 missions for this count of players but tons for >10 people while you havent this count every day. If you delete dynamic content missons you have to put something on same place. Probably 2-3 NEW missions for 1-2 players EACH WEEK or players will stop join your server to wait here enough count of players. Also those missions allow JIPs, to join your missions players have to wait 0.5-1 hour + 0.5 hour to select mission/take roles/rearm. To not waste this time players will find other servers or will do other things. Repeating this situation several times and players automatically will forget about TG. Also nobody stop you complete tactically dynamic content missons. Yesterday we play insurgency and every 2-3 JIP vote to stay or start new mission. 0 votes to start new from about 10 players.
                      Sorry my English


                      • #12
                        Last edited by hedgehog; 01-07-2017, 06:12 PM. Reason: Out of line post with flaming in mind with just nasty intentions. Apologies.


                        • #13
                          B, why your point of view is declaration like any democratic system but mine is ironic?!

                          I really can't understand this "I do have to point out the irony of Chichco of all people who brings up how Blip was outcasted... Chichco's very post led to the CAA discussion that led to BLIP and his crews' banishment." with google or dictionary - didnt help. Do you mean i was reason you delete BL1Ps missions? I hope now im not reason you plan delete others like those?


                          • #14
                            Well, this went off the rails.

                            First of all let us simmer down a bit. Chichco and B please. Sit back and relax a little. We have come a long long way from the old days of forum flaming. NONE OF US want to go back there.

                            We have been able to sort things out in a very civilized manner for a long time now.

                            I have no interest in bringing up the distant past and airing it out either. Patrol Ops was removed a long time ago for situations that were for a long time ago. Removing that mission back then had nothing to do with any one person. It was more of a decision for removing all persistent missions. The reasons included all of B's current criticisms and those are all good points.

                            I think it is distasteful to throw BL1P's name around in here with a reference to him being banished. He is not for the record.

                            For the time being, we have no intent from the admin team to remove persistent missions. They do provide the ability to easily set up and play when you have a limited time to play. Or have limited players. They offer that chance to have the player count grow and you can choose your own objectives based on the player count and resources you have at hand.

                            We have no intent on squashing any discussion as long as it remains respectful and kind. We are the premiere mature online gaming community. Let's stick to that standard gentlemen.
                            |TG-189th| Unkl
                            ArmA 3 Game Officer
                            Dean of Tactical Gamer University
                            189th Infantry Brigade Member
                            "We quickly advance in the opposite direction and take cover in a house on the SW side of town." - BadStache




                            TeamSpeak 3 Server


                            Twitter Feed