Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

POLL: Survey by Mission Maker of Playerbase

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • POLL: Survey by Mission Maker of Playerbase

    I have recently (within the last month) delved into the realm of mission making. I have yet to produce anything entirely workable for the community, but have been having a great time generating ideas, scripts and functional elements which can be worked into future mission. I'm on the verge of releasing an accurate and well structured assault/defend TVT mission and have been participating with other more prolific mission makers in producing content. My question to the playerbase is this:

    What is it that you as players here at Tactical Gamer.com ARMA 2 would like to see coming down the pipes in terms of missions. Do you want more in terms of quality TVT? More roleplaying missions? More tactical coops or some mixture of the two. I'm not looking for ideas or suggestions here, but rather to get a general survey of what the players actually want to play so I can cater my own personal mission generation in that style. I'm posting this thread in General Discussion because I believe the majority of players frequent this forum above the others (Mod and Mission development, discussion or AAR).

    I've posted the options as a poll, since I'd like to see some democratic means of ascertaining the wishes of the players (specifically the supporting members and regulars) in terms of what they feel is the most fulfilling, entertaining format for missions.

    I'm not suggesting that the majority of mission makers will (or in fact will be obligated to) do anything different. Since this community is based on player-driven content there is a need to carry out important conversations about desires vs. capabilities in terms of content.

    When you vote on one of the options, specify one of the following in a thread post (Limited by forum polling options).

    Special Operations
    Infantry
    Armoured
    Airborne
    Combined Arms
    Irregular/Assymetrical
    Operations Other Than War

    EDIT: My thread vote goes down for Armoured.
    53
    Original Cooperative Missions
    32.08%
    17
    Historical/Fiction Based Cooperative Missions
    39.62%
    21
    Original Competitive Missions
    13.21%
    7
    Historical/Fiction Based Competitive Missions
    3.77%
    2
    Original Roleplaying Missions
    3.77%
    2
    Historical/Fiction Based Roleplaying Missions
    7.55%
    4

    The poll is expired.



    If the leader is filled with high ambition and if he pursues his aims with audacity and strength of will, he will reach them in spite of all obstacles.
    -Carl Von Clausewitz



    'The Great Game' -Blog on War in Afghanistan:

  • #2
    Re: POLL: Survey by Mission Maker of Playerbase

    I really liked combined arms. It allows for grand scale battles and challenges leaders to use all of his assets to win the mission.

    [unit][squadl][command2]

    KnyghtMare ~You could always tell the person holding the gun to your head you would like to play on a different server...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: POLL: Survey by Mission Maker of Playerbase

      I don't care if the mission is historical or original but it must have VERISIMILITUDE - a sense of rich believability, nuance and complexity. For that reason I voted historical co-op - but I equally enjoy original stuff, as long as its set within a believable world and scenario.

      Combined arms
      Special operations (sorry I had to break your rules and pick two!)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: POLL: Survey by Mission Maker of Playerbase

        By irregular you mean gurreila (spelling) right like playing as a force only capable of hit and run attacks
        so my vote goes down for irregular warfare
        To talk to me or just hurl Abuse my way get me on Xfire:Hashass1n






        I can't read, can't write, can't be an officer -NCO of the Vistula Uhlans Jan Pawlikowski

        Mute since the universe began

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: POLL: Survey by Mission Maker of Playerbase

          Mike's new mission Saigon has very nice flow to it.

          It relies on several objectives that are hidden at first but with the promise of keeping the players guessing, CO on the run and SLs to be prepared for anything.

          From development point of view this also can have many engagements without overloading the servers since AIs are dynamically created with the relevance to the progress of the mission.

          Domination does this beautifully but if we apply this dynamic mission progress to our missions it will promise for fun times had by all.

          Missions based on historical battles have been known to be successful, and interests me greatly. So I voted for Coop based on history.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: POLL: Survey by Mission Maker of Playerbase

            Wow, I really like all types of missions so it was hard to choose one. I am also going to break the second rule and say any kind of opeation interests me to some degree (Except flying only missions because I can't fly).

            Combined arms missions are great when they work. Not just technically but I mean when the game flows. All too often the infantry either a). Act as a meat-shield for armor or b). arrive at the objective just after the armor/planes/helos have killed everything except one enemy medic hiding under a rock.

            Realistic, probably yes. Fun, no.
            The Don Abides...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: POLL: Survey by Mission Maker of Playerbase

              Combined Arms

              But the main thing is most maps need to be playable in some aspect from 1 squad up to the full 35+ people to be used in rotation heavy.

              Mikee's mission is a good example, a single squad could concievable just complete the first OBJ and call success at that. But the mission scales support and OBJ for the full load if you have it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: POLL: Survey by Mission Maker of Playerbase

                I hope i don't offend any mission makers with what I am about to say so bare with me.

                I personally like historical missions because it gives the creator all the info and tools he needs to make and complete the mission. You have all the units, the back story, the terrain, etc. all chosen for you. I have found that in many missions played that were created on fiction, that many find it hard to determine if they need armor, or air, or how many ground units, the weapons, etc. I'm not sure if many mission makers know what is needed for a mission, what is realistic and what is fiction. Sometimes mission objective locations just don't make any sense and enemy unit placement seems random at most. I don't want to sound rude but historic coop missions are far more interesting because your not stuck with thinking... what do i do next to keep the mission interesting.

                I also like small 10-15 person coop missions. They don't necessarly need to be deep recon or recce stuff, but something like Embassy defense mission or VIP security or even drug raid missions playing as DEA units. Small coop missions aren't necessarily recon or black op missions, because to be honest once you have played one, you have played them all.

                You really gotta be creative and that's why when people post mission ideas for those that build them, that they would actually consider those then running off and building their own.
                FORMER 22ND RRR/FORMER 1ST JTOC/ ALWAYS A TACTICALGAMER


                Spartan 4

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: POLL: Survey by Mission Maker of Playerbase

                  combined arms all the way

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: POLL: Survey by Mission Maker of Playerbase

                    I myself like historical missions. Ia Drang, for example, is an excellently done historical COOP, full of action and interest and it actually happened!
                    |TG|Ghost02
                    TG Pathfinder



                    "I travel alone through the valley of the shadow of death, yet in my heart I carry no fear, for Gods hands will guide me to Truth and Honor."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: POLL: Survey by Mission Maker of Playerbase

                      Combined Arms, definitely.
                      sigpic
                      PR - ArmA2
                      "Enemy machine gunner in a field of pink flowers, over" - azzwort

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: POLL: Survey by Mission Maker of Playerbase

                        It's very hard to vote for only one in the poll and in the posted list (all coop styles are welcome, and all non-RP TvT styles too)...

                        Ok, I voted Original Coop and I'll say combined arms.

                        Narrowing it down was tough.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: POLL: Survey by Mission Maker of Playerbase

                          I voted original coop. Combined arms, specifically. I'm actually surprised to see so many people saying the same, because I had this feeling that the majority of our players preferred infantry-only, 2/3-squad action because it was more tactical. I'm OK with that, but I enjoy the dynamics around things like CAS and armor support.

                          The issue with combined arms is that for a primetime-sized mission (30-50 players), it takes a lot of time, relatively speaking, to set everything up - say, 15 minutes. If you make short missions, that's OK, but you're using those 8/10/15 minutes of setup for 30 or 40 minutes of play, which kind of sucks. If you make the missions longer and more complex, you run the risk of the whole thing bogging down and people leaving out of boredom, or people starting to get annoyed that one mission is taking up the entire night, especially if they don't quite "dig" combined arms.

                          The mission I'm working on now will probably suffer from the latter problem, of never getting finished because it simply takes too long. I agree wholeheartedly that it sucks when organization takes a turn for the twilight zone and nobody knows who's commanding/if anyone is commanding, but the whole logistics side of managing a 50/60-slot mission over 2-3 hours is something I'd like to see explored.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: POLL: Survey by Mission Maker of Playerbase

                            Originally posted by cctoide View Post
                            I voted original coop. Combined arms, specifically. I'm actually surprised to see so many people saying the same, because I had this feeling that the majority of our players preferred infantry-only, 2/3-squad action because it was more tactical. I'm OK with that, but I enjoy the dynamics around things like CAS and armor support.

                            The issue with combined arms is that for a primetime-sized mission (30-50 players), it takes a lot of time, relatively speaking, to set everything up - say, 15 minutes. If you make short missions, that's OK, but you're using those 8/10/15 minutes of setup for 30 or 40 minutes of play, which kind of sucks. If you make the missions longer and more complex, you run the risk of the whole thing bogging down and people leaving out of boredom, or people starting to get annoyed that one mission is taking up the entire night, especially if they don't quite "dig" combined arms.

                            The mission I'm working on now will probably suffer from the latter problem, of never getting finished because it simply takes too long. I agree wholeheartedly that it sucks when organization takes a turn for the twilight zone and nobody knows who's commanding/if anyone is commanding, but the whole logistics side of managing a 50/60-slot mission over 2-3 hours is something I'd like to see explored.

                            I think you hit the nail on the head, these massive combined arms missions are not bad missions in their own regard but after the first hour and half or so they inevitability fall into what can only be described as a grind, where the player base is tasked with completing similar objectives with the same resources and with unlimited respawn it becomes throw enough people and vehicles at the town/factory/objective to kill everything. Tactics get tossed out the window and it quickly becomes a matter of dying, sitting at base, waiting for a chopper, flying to and LZ 250m behind the front running back to your squad which may or may not have any sort of organization left since half of one fireteam is new since the mission started and the other one is spread across half the map, repeat ad nasum. If you want to make a mission that focus on logistics go right ahead but I don't think that large combined arms are the best way to approach it.

                            As to missions that are already on the sever, I think these large scale multiple respawn coops should be viewed more as population builders, put them on when there are 10 people on the server put together a squad and a driver or pilot or two and go work on the first objective, soon you'll have 30+ people on the server and you can wrap up the objective your working on call the mission and switch to 30-90 min coops that have a more 'mission' feel (take and hold, offensives, defensive, ambushes etc.) If you want to invest the time to beat one of these 'marathon missions' as I call them then we should it during an event when people can plan on committing the time and we have a well defined command structure and logistical support etc. Those times are when these missions can be enjoyable and played well not just played for the sake of playing something because there are a lot of deserving missions of the server.

                            Also a note combined arms missions don't have to be 3 hours long! Personally I haven't ventured into the combined arms realm because I don't think that we have the skills as a community to make those kinds of missions work yet. But to those willing to try limit your respawns, don't put vehicle respawns in, give the players incentive to use their resources wisely I am 100% convinced you can make a good 45min combined arms mission. And finally make your objectives relevant to the number of players your mission has, if you have a 60 player mission you do not have a division! So giving the players the tasking of a division to do is only asking for trouble, if we focus on limiting our objectives and making those objectives more realistic/harder I think it will go along way in avoiding these endless 3 hour mission.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: POLL: Survey by Mission Maker of Playerbase

                              Whoa. Coop kicked butt. I think I see what people like...


                              If the leader is filled with high ambition and if he pursues his aims with audacity and strength of will, he will reach them in spite of all obstacles.
                              -Carl Von Clausewitz



                              'The Great Game' -Blog on War in Afghanistan:

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X