12-17-2016, 03:50 PM
For some reason forum software ate my draft
Recap and my 2 brass. Not much new below, but here's how I see the issue.
First I think this is good discussion. I didn't read anyones comments as offensive nor I got impression someone was offended. People express opinions, argue and reason them, and the views may vary. It is called discussion about a good topic. I certainly ponder it a lot when I make a mission. I roughly follow Alwarrenian philosophy but I have made few notable exceptions.
Loadout should:
- Roughly match unit's time period, organization to give at least rudimentary sense of authenticity
- Have certain logic and reason
- Enable fun but challenging mission.
Whether it is adding something or taking away, depends entirely on context. Lost squad, CSI, SF mission, all have different criterias. Sometimes it is fun to have all the toys to play with, sometimes it is equally fun when you have to make your ammo and shots count.
As certain gadgets are mentioned specially, here's my stance.
GPS
I too hate it when action stops and there is primitive horror in the rank and file when you find out you have no GPS. However it isn't about the tool itself. It is about learning to navigate and good player practices. I understand we have players of various skillsets, I don't consider myself to be a particularly good player, but rudimentary bearings to landmarks is something that everyone can do with a bit of practice.
GPS is now way more common that it was..say..10 years ago. Military and civilian both. If player's unit is member of NATO unit in a contemporary setting, I usually give it to TLs or drivers. Usually. If it is contemporary Russian unit, I might give it as well (GLONASS). Modern SF units have wide selection of toys and that's part of charm when playing those kind of missions. If we start from fully geared base, and SF team goes to field vastly under-equipped, I would like to have good credible explanation. If it is long range recon patrol behind enemy lines for n:th week, well, then it is another story.
Even NAPA unit could have one or two units, civilian GPS is common these days after all. If your OPFOR is US, they could jam the signal and make it less accurate and less useful. In my missions OPFOR is Takistan or Chedaki, they likely won't have big bucks electronics. Having civilian GPS receiver in guerrilla cell in Chernarus in 2016 wouldn't be unrealistic. I don't add it to my NAPA missions as I feel it doesn't suit to mission style, and gladly that sentiment seems to be shared by my comrades. However I could see logic and reason behind other choice as well.
Again, GPS is equipment and like any equipment, it may be broken, be out of batteries, and if you go against OPFOR that has big bucks, it can be jammed. Etc. But then the mission should be reasonably possible to complete with standard land navigation. In the end it really comes down to good mission making. And good mission, gives you at least roughly credible set up/location/back story.
I sensed that issue wasn't as much whether you have GPS but rather how Arma 3 implements it. Personally I like ACE GPS a lot. Perhaps ACE GPS and using it rather than layer on the UI?
Night vision
Like GPS, night vision availability and quality has increased a lot in say, 15 years. However those still are quite expensive pieces and again, they can be broken, need batteries, etc. For example NATO organization can reasonably expect to have them for most first line combat units in a modern setting, but if you make mission for guerrillas, reservists, etc, it's something else. Again it depends on organization, time period, etc. If it is vanilla Arma mission in future, I am again more lenient.
As Sphoenix's mission, 'Punitive expedition' was given as example. I remember it well. I was leading it. It was in top 3 of most stressful experiences, but I have to admit in the end it had certain perverse sense of satisfaction when we pulled it off, mostly because everyone put their very best to that mission. It was certainly a mission to remember for, but a 'special' treat, to be enjoyed only rarely.
Another exception was 'Day on a farm' by some unknown author. Originally it was meant to be battle under artillery/personal illumination. Result was not as intended and later versions had at least limited night vision. There is fine line between good and bad frustration.
My personal perversion is illumination flares. The mission mood is just great. Now that we have viable alternative with CUP flares, I have made several missions where you have to illuminate the battlefield. You MAY have NV but I usually play without. I think it is moody as hell, and I continue to make missions like that regardless of the possible bitching in rank and file. : )
Optics:
Again, depends on unit, organization, etc.
One of best aspects of coop nights is that we play vastly diverse missions for multiple factions. You get ironsight AKs you get ACOGs. I like this diversity a lot.
Example: As it was mentioned, most US forces today have some kind of optics in the rifle. Removing it all would feel artificial for me. Yeah most of US rifles in most mods have back up irons, but those are intended only as back ups. If mission start is from a fully supplied base, and everyone has optics removed, it -would- affect -my- mission immersion. However not everyone aims for similar realism/authenticity goals in mission, and if it is author's choice..ok.
Solution: Put date to 1991, put US vs some generic banana republic like Sahrani, and dress your units with M16A2's and older CUP uniforms. Everyone's happy!
What I am quite liberal with is binocs. Most missions requires at least some kind of recce or target observation and proliferation of binocs ensures more people can contribute. It is my personal choice, regardless if it is realistic or not.
As a closing statement I feel in the end it is more question of mission making rather than specific a gadget. If I feel there is some kind of logic, well written briefing, sane composition of friendlies/opfor, good milieu and other things that makes good mission, surprisingly even a more exotic loadout is easier to buy.
I echo sentiment that hopefully no one is discouraged from making missions. I love every in-house author's stuff and if you think loadout X is YOUR way to make missions, go right ahead. It is your work of art, and everyone respects it regardless of personal opinions about details.
Recap and my 2 brass. Not much new below, but here's how I see the issue.
First I think this is good discussion. I didn't read anyones comments as offensive nor I got impression someone was offended. People express opinions, argue and reason them, and the views may vary. It is called discussion about a good topic. I certainly ponder it a lot when I make a mission. I roughly follow Alwarrenian philosophy but I have made few notable exceptions.
Loadout should:
- Roughly match unit's time period, organization to give at least rudimentary sense of authenticity
- Have certain logic and reason
- Enable fun but challenging mission.
Whether it is adding something or taking away, depends entirely on context. Lost squad, CSI, SF mission, all have different criterias. Sometimes it is fun to have all the toys to play with, sometimes it is equally fun when you have to make your ammo and shots count.
As certain gadgets are mentioned specially, here's my stance.
GPS
I too hate it when action stops and there is primitive horror in the rank and file when you find out you have no GPS. However it isn't about the tool itself. It is about learning to navigate and good player practices. I understand we have players of various skillsets, I don't consider myself to be a particularly good player, but rudimentary bearings to landmarks is something that everyone can do with a bit of practice.
GPS is now way more common that it was..say..10 years ago. Military and civilian both. If player's unit is member of NATO unit in a contemporary setting, I usually give it to TLs or drivers. Usually. If it is contemporary Russian unit, I might give it as well (GLONASS). Modern SF units have wide selection of toys and that's part of charm when playing those kind of missions. If we start from fully geared base, and SF team goes to field vastly under-equipped, I would like to have good credible explanation. If it is long range recon patrol behind enemy lines for n:th week, well, then it is another story.
Even NAPA unit could have one or two units, civilian GPS is common these days after all. If your OPFOR is US, they could jam the signal and make it less accurate and less useful. In my missions OPFOR is Takistan or Chedaki, they likely won't have big bucks electronics. Having civilian GPS receiver in guerrilla cell in Chernarus in 2016 wouldn't be unrealistic. I don't add it to my NAPA missions as I feel it doesn't suit to mission style, and gladly that sentiment seems to be shared by my comrades. However I could see logic and reason behind other choice as well.
Again, GPS is equipment and like any equipment, it may be broken, be out of batteries, and if you go against OPFOR that has big bucks, it can be jammed. Etc. But then the mission should be reasonably possible to complete with standard land navigation. In the end it really comes down to good mission making. And good mission, gives you at least roughly credible set up/location/back story.
I sensed that issue wasn't as much whether you have GPS but rather how Arma 3 implements it. Personally I like ACE GPS a lot. Perhaps ACE GPS and using it rather than layer on the UI?
Night vision
Like GPS, night vision availability and quality has increased a lot in say, 15 years. However those still are quite expensive pieces and again, they can be broken, need batteries, etc. For example NATO organization can reasonably expect to have them for most first line combat units in a modern setting, but if you make mission for guerrillas, reservists, etc, it's something else. Again it depends on organization, time period, etc. If it is vanilla Arma mission in future, I am again more lenient.
As Sphoenix's mission, 'Punitive expedition' was given as example. I remember it well. I was leading it. It was in top 3 of most stressful experiences, but I have to admit in the end it had certain perverse sense of satisfaction when we pulled it off, mostly because everyone put their very best to that mission. It was certainly a mission to remember for, but a 'special' treat, to be enjoyed only rarely.
Another exception was 'Day on a farm' by some unknown author. Originally it was meant to be battle under artillery/personal illumination. Result was not as intended and later versions had at least limited night vision. There is fine line between good and bad frustration.
My personal perversion is illumination flares. The mission mood is just great. Now that we have viable alternative with CUP flares, I have made several missions where you have to illuminate the battlefield. You MAY have NV but I usually play without. I think it is moody as hell, and I continue to make missions like that regardless of the possible bitching in rank and file. : )
Optics:
Again, depends on unit, organization, etc.
One of best aspects of coop nights is that we play vastly diverse missions for multiple factions. You get ironsight AKs you get ACOGs. I like this diversity a lot.
Example: As it was mentioned, most US forces today have some kind of optics in the rifle. Removing it all would feel artificial for me. Yeah most of US rifles in most mods have back up irons, but those are intended only as back ups. If mission start is from a fully supplied base, and everyone has optics removed, it -would- affect -my- mission immersion. However not everyone aims for similar realism/authenticity goals in mission, and if it is author's choice..ok.
Solution: Put date to 1991, put US vs some generic banana republic like Sahrani, and dress your units with M16A2's and older CUP uniforms. Everyone's happy!
What I am quite liberal with is binocs. Most missions requires at least some kind of recce or target observation and proliferation of binocs ensures more people can contribute. It is my personal choice, regardless if it is realistic or not.
As a closing statement I feel in the end it is more question of mission making rather than specific a gadget. If I feel there is some kind of logic, well written briefing, sane composition of friendlies/opfor, good milieu and other things that makes good mission, surprisingly even a more exotic loadout is easier to buy.
I echo sentiment that hopefully no one is discouraged from making missions. I love every in-house author's stuff and if you think loadout X is YOUR way to make missions, go right ahead. It is your work of art, and everyone respects it regardless of personal opinions about details.