Wanted to write this down since a while, might as well go ahead with it now since it came up in the debrief thread.
I firmly believe that the best missions are those that aim to deliver a good user experience. I always try to aim at a specific experience and run with it. I usually start with a picture of the mission, mostly a specific moment in the mission, in my head. Something that mainly aims at the mission's general mood.
Let me give an example. One of my earliest missions was called "Airport Security" ([url=
Which brings me to another subject in mission design... that of interconnected objectives.
I cordially hate missions that try to cramp several unrelated objectives into one, unless there is a common "narrative" to it.
For example, a mission could look like kill a general and raid an outpost, then proceed to destroy an artillery site.
These goals have nothing in common. It's just three unconnected objectives.. three separate missions.
This works sometimes. For example, in Harvest Red's Manhattan mission, the free-roaming nature allowed for that. You had full base support for this purpose, so it worked. But why send in a team to do so many things at once, knowing that they will eventually run out of ammo ?
Another example: Capture an outputs, then destroy the supply convoy that is heading past it, and finally destroy AAA to enable extraction by helicopter. Three objectives that are closely connected. It just makes sense.
Remember that mission yesterday with killing those two guys and then leaving in a chopper. The mission was nice, but why destroy the whole airport before exfiltrating ? Doesn't make sense.
Destroying planes ? Yeah, makes sense, but as a bonus objective, not primary.
I think a mission should normally concentrate on one primary objective, maybe add auxiliary objectives to it that support that objectives.Â
A lot of missions repeat the same objective over and over. For example, that one mission we played were you had to find and return three trucks. The first took us almost an hour to retrieve. The second and third another hour and a half. The point being, there is no variation in the objectives, it's just the same objective over and over. This is something to avoid, since it makes missions boring. It's better to vary objectives.
Sometimes surprises happen away from the original image and it turns out to be great. Sometimes a few sins were put too much into a mission it feels cubersome, tedious, and boring.
I guess I'll make a list of sins
*The Support Duty
- Its ok having a support squad, but if their task is sit there and look pretty. That's a boring user experience. Example like yesterday's mission, the only task Bravo had was board the Marshall. I'm pretty sure the task at large was simply take 2 towns or was it clear the mines too for our convoy? Nevertheless, a clearer briefing would be nice. Actually, the very least is use a damn tasktracker. This one is probably bigger pet peeve for me than the 2 below.
*No Tasktracker
- When briefings become a cubersome mess to read, thats annoying. When tasks that should've been done are not available, that's also annoying. Making MP missions, you got to use a tasktracker, no excuses (Shuko, FHQ, or write your own if not satisfy <IF IT WORKS>)
*Over Cumbersome Briefing
- Some briefings speak too much, sometimes its ok for storyline, but having a side summary on the side for a quick and simple what to do is nice as well.
*Pointless Needle in Haystacks
- Killing the last guy (I use to be a sin of that, but then so are most people putting radius not present marker but didn't put the if < # to end if there's too few) or simply, your task is to go inside this say 500 m radius. You got to find a very tiny suitcase in that entire place. Good luck.... The following scenario can be mitigated by (questioning civilians <I did this in a very old Arma 2 missions of mine>). Random possible markers of location by scout.
- Some of these "needles in haystack" might be more tolerable for bigger targets or a moving target on a road (tank you got to blow up for example). A tiny suitcase that can be in 1 of 100 buildings or even the back of alleyway would be absurd.
- I have no idea if this is tolerable or not (just an experiment I thought about, but some AIs and you are securing a position in town. Your task is to find tiny suitcase in large town, random spawn, can be anywhere <hard to find> while enemies are constantly attempting to attack the town none stop). Once suitcase is found, get to chopper or something, gtfo, and mission complete. So constant under attack. At least some action to keep it lively. I think this may be okay depends on how it is executed.
*The Long Walk
- Walk for 1 hour to objective then get tear to pieces. Walk 2 hours to extraction then it breaks.
- Can be mitigated with vehicle or ffs, just spawn closer if there's no enemies.
- Long walks are more tolerable when your constantly being engage but if its walk X miles/kilometers without action. Boring.
*The Overkill
- Use to be one of my classic sin. You versus so much army.
- Its tolerable to me if its a stealth mission and you made shit hit the fan for being detected when it can be avoided. Lots of enemies, with support is fine because someone would help you.
Because Arma is also open world unlike linear games. Surprises do happen and sometimes they can come out well but not what you expected while making missions. Having AI addons enhances this effect due to realistic reactions as well.
Sometimes you intend to approach an objective one way but cannot since there are too much resistant there and have to manuever around, sometimes it makes the mission longer. Some missions are planned to go one way but you end up moving to the other. There are many other surprises that end up greater than it actually go.
Sometimes, the simpliest missions turns out to be the best missions.
I'll try to concentrate on aspects that can contribute to a good mission experience:
Custom loadouts and uniforms. Always gives a fresh feeling and really enhance the expectation at the beginning of the mission, especially if there's a good explanation. One of Fin's wraith recon missions (CSAT SPECOPS) had us starting with NATO weapons and the briefing said that this was intentional to make it easier to recover enemy ammo. That was cool!
Playing as the underdog. Arma really shines when you manage to overcome a superior force. That's why I love guerrilla missions so much. What I didn't see yet are civilian missions and those can be cool because if I'm not mistaken only civies can steal and wear enemy uniforms now.
Limited weapons and ammunition and equipment.Taking out enemies with weaker weapons is more gratifying. Having to put effort into acquiring better weapons is always cool and rewarding. Even if it's just for a few minutes - grabbing those compass and map from the two enemy soldiers on patrol at the beginning of the mission will be much sweeter when you use them later on during the mission.
Starting locations and general use of special landmarks. Always try to set the mission starting points, objectives and end points around special landmarks like chapels, vantage points, nice buildings, under street lamps and anything that stands out, it makes the mission memorable. The best end point we had was that hike we had to make to that isolated chapel on that mountain in Hack'n Blast.
Time pressure. I like missions that force the players to move and act fast, it adds stress, and stress in Arma 3 is good! good examples are hack transmission before the enemy manages to call for reinforcements. Coordinate a strike on two comms towers (great Nagual OFP mission - Two distant teams each targets a different tower, both have to be destroyed simultaneously or else reinforcements will be notified.
Punish players that take their time, but never in an artificial way. Meaning that don't fail the mission once a timer ends, but taking too much time meddling with the enemy ammo and weapons will mean you have to face an armored platoon that come racing!
(08-02-2014, 10:57 AM)Variable link Wrote: [ -> ]Starting locations and general use of special landmarks. Always try to set the mission starting points, objectives and end points around special landmarks like chapels, vantage points, nice buildings, under street lamps and anything that stands out, it makes the mission memorable. The best end point we had was that hike we had to make to that isolated chapel on that mountain in Hack'n Blast.
Yeah I tried that with "Mountain King", I just made that mission because of the spectacular view. I just loved the area, and the mission was simple enough to be put everywhere.
I totally agree whit all that has been said here and i'm glad to be among mature experienced players
I started to work on MP missions and i have to agree with ALwaren about user experience. I personally think in terms of key moments and key scenes and what i place in between needs to make the mission coherent and consistent.
Trick is to make the mission enjoyable by all players involved and if you don't have time to polish and beta test a mission do not overcomplicate it... just keep it straight and simple is my motto.
The mission makers we have here in CiA are a good example on how things should be done, i wish more editors will copy paste you
There is something i liked and was helpful for me as a beginner and i don't think it fits anymore in a MP environment with experienced players... tasks system :o ... don't kill me yet... let me finish.
I hate hand holding mission especially with linear approach. Anyways, linear or not, in a open world as ARMA, having something like "GOD" checking the task for you as done doesn't fit for me. And if you force players to take certain steps using tasks at least make that count.
For me will be enough just to:
* put markers on map for objective/-s
* create a decent objective make sure is not bugged, as Phantom said do not make players waste valuable gaming time trying to find a needle in hay, or a HVT who cannot be recognized or he flees, at least display a message like "Elvis left the building and you lost" that will make sense. Maybe in real life you'll never know if the target escaped or got killed/destroyed but we talking about a game here. I remember a mission where i had to find and destroy an ammo box which, 30 minutes later, proved to be under a ruined building.
* sort out the trigger, so you get feedback, make it as radio transmission, hint, audio, video doesn't really matter as long makes everyone aware about the situation
Most of the time i pray for task not to be broken, bugged or whatever, i remember in A2 SP campaign in order to trigger a task i had to step into a specific spot which was a crazy and useless waste of time. That fear of not having the task checked makes me get out of the immersion... at least.
With some luck i hope i'll be able to test my theory about mission making in a week or so, i'm working on few missions of my own and maybe with you help and advice i will come up with something enjoyable.
(08-02-2014, 03:27 PM)alias link Wrote: [ -> ]I hate hand holding mission especially with linear approach. Anyways, linear or not, in a open world as ARMA, having something like "GOD" checking the task for you as done doesn't fit for me. And if you force players to take certain steps using tasks at least make that count.
Tasks don't need to guide you in any way. If you think back to Harvest Red, especially the Manhatten mission, you had a shitload of tasks but there was no order in which to do them. They're just a checklist of things you HAVE to achieve in the mission.
I am not quite sure why you think this is hand-holding. Most missions have a specific set of goals expressed as tasks. For example, to take my latest one (Stop That Train):
- Get into OP
- Provide BDA
- Extract.
The second one is immediately cancelled and replaced with "Attack Camp". That you have to clear the camp and extract afterwards are natural goals, and yeah, their order is somewhat naturally predetermined. How yu achieve it is up to you.
That doesn't in any way cut down on your freedom to approach a mission. They're just the checklist of things you have to do in order to achieve the mission.
I usually avoid tasks like "go here" unless there is a good reason for it. With the above mentioned mission, reaching the OP triggers the new tasks.
(08-02-2014, 10:57 AM)Variable link Wrote: [ -> ]Punish players that take their time, but never in an artificial way. Meaning that don't fail the mission once a timer ends, but taking too much time meddling with the enemy ammo and weapons will mean you have to face an armored platoon that come racing!
Something I tried in my A3 mission called Rocket Science was making the players "go home" regardless if they won or failed.
The mission was to provide fire support and protect the artillery providing said support, if you won, you could drive home, if you failed you walked (and mission ended as 'Mission failed' to pour salt in your wounds). Of course I messed up in mission design and we "failed" because there was an unpreventable enemy artillery barrage that took everything out, but we still walked back to base.
I wasn't sure how that was received after we played it; is it ok for example if you can fail the tasks/mission but still have to extract or whatever like you completed it ("we failed to save the hostage, but lets head to LZ and extract anyway") or is it better to save time and just end it on spot ("we failed to save the hostage -> mission lobby")?
Also, missions with errors that are displayed by showScriptErrors. Turn that on and fix your damn trigger conditions or whatever the editor let you wrote without checking if it actually works.
(08-02-2014, 05:46 PM)Outlawz7 link Wrote: [ -> ]is it ok for example if you can fail the tasks/mission but still have to extract or whatever like you completed it ("we failed to save the hostage, but lets head to LZ and extract anyway") or is it better to save time and just end it on spot ("we failed to save the hostage -> mission lobby")?
Personally, I prefer if the mission ends once the primary objective fails. It feels pointless returning to base if the mission had failed because we would like to play it again anyway and complete the objective.
One more thing before I forget. Removing scopes from all weapons (enemy and friendly) will encourage a more dynamic gameplay - much more fire and much more manuevering. All these scopes turn it into a cursor pointing click game. I almost never saw missions with iron sights only, which I love, and if it's hard for the mission maker to go all iron sight, just remove all the hammer and ACOG sights and keep to the holographic ones.
Of course the mission setting should justify that.
(08-04-2014, 08:20 AM)Variable link Wrote: [ -> ]One more thing before I forget. Removing scopes from all weapons (enemy and friendly) will encourage a more dynamic gameplay - much more fire and much more manuevering. All these scopes turn it into a cursor pointing click game. I almost never saw missions with iron sights only, which I love, and if it's hard for the mission maker to go all iron sight, just remove all the hammer and ACOG sights and keep to the holographic ones.
Of course the mission setting should justify that.
Amen brother! It's really something that can make an otherwise good mission feel stale. We end up sitting in one position picking enemies off from far away. Scope for the marksman and team leader, holographic and iron sights for the rest I would say. Much more tactical gameplay that way
(08-04-2014, 08:20 AM)Variable link Wrote: [ -> ]One more thing before I forget. Removing scopes from all weapons (enemy and friendly) will encourage a more dynamic gameplay - much more fire and much more manuevering. All these scopes turn it into a cursor pointing click game. I almost never saw missions with iron sights only, which I love, and if it's hard for the mission maker to go all iron sight, just remove all the hammer and ACOG sights and keep to the holographic ones.
Of course the mission setting should justify that.
There is an inherent problem with takings scopes away, one that the vanilla game also has - it isn't realistic at all. Even today, the USMC almost uses ACOG exclusively, on 90% of their weapons. Everyone Else uses Aimpoints. Ironsights are not used at all anymore, because of their myriad of shortcomings. So for any conventional military force, using iron sights is a step back into the 80's. Even Holo's aren't all that realistic anymore as a main sight, but far more so than iron sights.
There are two possibilities to resolve this. Number One, FIA/Guerrilla missions. For those, using iron sights would be normal, since Guerrillas would hardly be able to afford the 1000 USD per rifle that a good scope/optic costs. The second one is in the hand of the team leader, just order to disengage and move closer. We already established that fun goes before "sensible" decisions, so why not apply that principle here. If people don't want to move, order them to disengage.Â
