Comrades in Arms Discussion Board

Alright, I feel I have to get a few things out of the way before I start this.

1. I really enjoyed McGregor's mission, in fact I enjoyed all of his missions, and I hope he makes more.
   
2. It is entirely up to the mission maker what he does and does not put into the mission. I am merely suggesting/arguing, not demanding.
   
3. I'm a sucker for realism.
   

Having said that, here's my take on the question of GPS and/or NVG.

I have no issue with a mission-specific reasoning to not have certain equipment. I've done that in the past. For example, one of my first Arma 3 mission ("Screw Driving") had your team on the road to extraction without actually expecting anything, so nobody had any night vision equipment. Most Guerilla missions don't have NVG's.

Lost Squad with no rifleman radio is borderline; I can understand not having equipment in Jolly Green because you just got shot down and need to GTFO.

In general, though, I feel like there is no compelling reason to not give soliders the equipment that they should have. That means that a spec ops team will have NVG's, and at least the leader will have a GPS. In the German Army, GPS is standard for every KSK solider, and the team leader has a vest-integrated tablet computer with Blufor tracking. 

Guerillas can go without any fancy stuff. They will, as a rule, not have optics, not even colimators, no NVG's, and may or may not have a GPS.

In any case, however, the decision is with the mission maker, but what I am asking is, does it make a mission better? Does a mission, or the experience of the mission, improve by adding or taking away something? Let me give three examples.

1. McGregor's "Into the Void"

I really do not see what harm the mission would have suffered from giving the team leaders GPS. As McG said himself, his idea wast to insert directly into the compounds, but in either case, I do not see the lack of a GPS improving the mission experience. About the AT, I can live with only having one if the BMP-2 is a surprise that wasn't expected to be there, so that people have to improvise ("Find more AT, quickly"). Does it improve the mission experience? Well at the very least it increases adrenaline.

2. SPhoenix' night mission (forgot the name)

As a recon special forces team, I found it very "unconventional" to say the least to skip the NVG's in favor of artillery fired battlefield illumination. Granted, it was right at the point were the new lighting configs completely fucked up night. However, even without that, the result was that for most of the time in this mission I didn't see anything, got stuck on trees or rocks etc. Did that improve the mission experience? IMO, no it didn't. On the contrary.

3. Stag's "Port of Call"

I could have accepted no NVG's here because it was an underwater insertion and you tend to travel lightly when you have to swim. In the harbour it was bright enough anyway, I only ever switched them on once we moved away into the wilderness. 

The lack of AT in this case is explainable and within the spirit of the mission - it's supposed to be stealthy, and the attack at the end was entirely unexpected.

Bottom Line

I think this is a question of expectation vs. improving the mission. I expect, as a special operations solider, to be adequately equipped. And the expense of realism, removing something from this is fine (IMO, as I said) if and only if it improves the mission or the mission experience. In case of the GPS in "Into the Void" I do not see any reason in how far this improved the mission - on the contrary, with no one (not even the pilots) having a GPS the only effect it had on the mission was making the initial approach more confusing. Once we got into the compounds, the fun part started and we had a couple of awesome firefights. When I took the lead, I decided to go into the villa guns blazing and it was (at least for me) real fun. So, again, I wonder, in how far a GPS for the team leader would have made this experience worse, or how no GPS improved it. The answer (for me) is it wouldn't have made it any worse, quite the contrary, it would have made the initial approach easier and therefore make the mission itself better.

Anyway, that's my take on the question. Feel free to disagree if you dare

I dare to  
And obviously I can only speak for my self and my own mission. My reasonings for not including GPS are because I consider it over used to a degree of absurdity where people suddenly turn blind with out it. In this mission for example we all knew exactly where we were going and we landed no more than 50 m off the mark and there is nothing else there but the two compounds and the nearby village. It's there in plain sight so unless you were suffering from the "bug with the fog" I really don't understand how you could be lost. Even the villa is visible from the first two compounds.

I really don't see the need for GPS in this one as I think it's very easy to orient yourself if you just pay attention.  For other missions I may consider adding GPS to vehicles and simple DAGR for squad leaders. Some times being lost is part of the experience and adds to it. Too many times we end up "walking on the line" instead of using our eyes. For example, just draw a straight line trough the jungle instead of actually using the many nice trails to lead you the right way.

For similar reasons you will never see any magnified optics other than for snipers in my missions. NVGs will also be scarce (I know they were in this one I was just too lazy to find uniforms that didn't add them automatically, which by the way I think is a dumb feature). And as for realism, I like to keep it role specific where pilots fly choppers, engineers fix things etc etc. I have no idea about proper loadouts and I try to tailor them to what I think makes for good gameplay. More precisely the type of gameplay I enjoy.

TL;DR. You won't get a GPS but I will always provide a compass

(12-16-2016, 03:20 PM)McGregor Wrote: [ -> ]I really don't see the need for GPS in this one

That is my point. I don't see how a GPS for the team leader would make it any worse. The only reason you did not include them is "out of spite", so to speak. You don't have any other reason. The mission is not about orientation. The only thing you create with not giving a GPS is confusion, as was demonstrated by two team leaders being shifted too far north - there was a third compound north of the first two, and that is what we were heading to since we had landed too far to the north.

Not including GPS in this case is artificial.

Whether we "walk on a line" too much or not, when I lead I hardly ever look at the GPS and I hardly ever care about the lines drawn on the map. It's a shame BIS made the GPS toggle instead of making it a popup-key just like the compass and watch. 

For me, artificial restrictions like this take away from the enjoyment of the game.

Ok, I dare to disagree with you, McGregor.

And don't get me wrong, McGregor, I liked the mission, it was one GPS short of perfection.

First of all, "we landed no more than 50 m away"... how would I know without knowing the position we inserted at ? 

Secondly, "bug with foggin"... even without the fog (I've checked), the plain is featureless. Yeah, there is a mountain in some distance, but that will not help you find the correct compound in this case, it will allow you to find an approximate position, which I already knew. So, looking at the compass, I found a compound that looked pretty much like the one on the map.

Just that it wasn't. It had the exact same layout, it had the exact same shape with an encircling wall. It was just the wrong one. 

Again, this was on a featureless plain where I roughly knew were I was, but had no idea about the exact position and thus went by the shape of objects around me, and that lead me to the completely wrong compound. 

Of course, YOU have no problem identifying the right one, so you don't get lost. I invite you, though, to find your way without knowledge on your position and decide which one the right one should be without actually knowing which one it is.

It's not as if I "turn blind" without a GPS. In Without Banners, I found our spot in the dark in a fucking forest without NVG and GPS (by finding rock formations on the map, and an occaisonal glimpse on the road that was sometimes visible through the trees). I know how to navigate. However, in this particular case, there were several candidates for the target compound, and that means you basically have to guess. I chose the one that had the same shape but low walls, while the correct one was the one with the same shape and high walls.

So, in essence, the question I asked myself yesterday after we played this, was "why didn't I get a GPS", and the only reasonable answer I cam up with was "to make it more difficult". It didn't make it more enjoyable, just more frustrating. Leading is frustrating enough, especially when the other team leader is also falling for the same problem as I did (Phantom ended up on the completely wrong side as well, he probably did not have any clue where he was).


Looking at the issue from outside of this mission, I will give NVGs/GPS/RCO's whenever I think that you should have it. For example, a spec ops team will simply have NVGs when on a night mission, will always have GPS. RCOs will be available if the mission demands it. If I know before hand that the mission is CQB, you will have short range optics. If I know that the typical range of engagement is 300 to 500 m, you will have RCO's. Why ? Because if you have engagements at 500 m, you will need them, or you are useless, and nothing is more frustrating during a game than feeling useless. Of course, this is also influenced by scenario, faction, general circumstances. OFP had next to no NVGs and RCO's because it wasn't part of the time.

"Some times being lost is part of the experience and adds to it." is absolutely correct, but it is strongly depending on the situation.  Also, claiming that too many times we just draw a line and walk on that line is just not true. In most missions on Tanoa, we followed those footpaths through the forest. However, if you are on Chernarus in a large forest without any paths and without any landmarks to navigate by, of course you will follow a straight course. Yeah, you can go by compass, and what if you need to change course somewhere "near that tree" ? What tree ? They all look the same. 

I can understand no GPS on normal soldiers. I can understand no NVG on guerrillas (in fact, you will NEVER see guerrillas in my mission have NVG's, if you do, it's a bug). However, this all situational. Just not giving any "because we rely too much on them", I can not understand that, sorry.

I stand by my decision and it was definitely not "to spite" or to put anyone down. That's just the way I prefer it. I have spent countless hours on this map even before making this mission and I guess you'll just have to trust me when I say we were extremely close to our intended LZ. You knew we would be landing to the west of the compounds so how you confused the compound further to the north as your target I have no idea.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one as we clearly have different philosophies. As I said I may consider adding GPS to vehicles in the future and simple ones to squad leaders if I deem it necessary for the mission. And regardless, I really hope you believe me when I say I had no malicious intent when removing them.

One thing I WILL do in the future is to explicitly mention in the briefing if there is no GPS so planning can be made accordingly.

(12-16-2016, 03:48 PM)Alwarren Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2016, 03:20 PM)McGregor Wrote: [ -> ]I really don't see the need for GPS in this one

That is my point. I don't see how a GPS for the team leader would make it any worse. The only reason you did not include them is "out of spite", so to speak. You don't have any other reason.

I think McGregor clearly and articulately explained why he chose not to include GPS in this mission, so saying that he had no other reason other from "out of spite", is completely uncalled for, I don't see any reason why would you write something like that, using quotes or not.

(12-16-2016, 03:48 PM)Alwarren Wrote: [ -> ]The mission is not about orientation.

Clearly, the author disagrees. And I too - Most of the missions involve identifying your position in order to identify the enemy position and orient towards to kill it. This mission was about navigation as any.

(12-16-2016, 03:48 PM)Alwarren Wrote: [ -> ]The only thing you create with not giving a GPS is confusion

Confusion which was welcomed. I've found confusion as a big advantage to that mission. The fact we had trouble locating the target compounds ADDED to my experience, and definitely not detracted from it. Since that's what McGregor aimed to achieve, it means that he succeeded.

(12-16-2016, 03:59 PM)Varanon Wrote: [ -> ]Secondly, "bug with foggin"... even without the fog (I've checked), the plain is featureless.

An area with three(!) mapped compounds cannot be called featureless. In addition, the hillock to our front left was marked on the map and was identifiable as well.

(12-16-2016, 03:59 PM)Varanon Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, there is a mountain in some distance, but that will not help you find the correct compound in this case, it will allow you to find an approximate position, which I already knew. So, looking at the compass, I found a compound that looked pretty much like the one on the map.

And that resulted in a chaotic knife-fight that was poisoned by our indecision whether we are attacking the correct compound. That was great!

(12-16-2016, 03:59 PM)Varanon Wrote: [ -> ]Just that it wasn't. It had the exact same layout, it had the exact same shape with an encircling wall. It was just the wrong one.

I feel like you are trying to illustrate this as there was no chance in hell to find the correct compound under the terrain features in that mission. That's simply not true. And in any case, adding a GPS just so we will never make a navigational mistake is clearly the wrong conclusion from last night's game, even if navigation was hard.

(12-16-2016, 03:59 PM)Varanon Wrote: [ -> ]So, in essence, the question I asked myself yesterday after we played this, was "why didn't I get a GPS", and the only reasonable answer I cam up with was "to make it more difficult". It didn't make it more enjoyable, just more frustrating. Leading is frustrating enough, especially when the other team leader is also falling for the same problem as I did (Phantom ended up on the completely wrong side as well, he probably did not have any clue where he was).

I wish to remind us all that we are talking about a mission that we completed despite the difficulties in navigation and the fierce enemy resistance. In my book, a difficult mission that is beatable, in a good one. And the more it's hard to beat it, yet possible, the better.
So we had difficulties that added to the challenge, that's great. We play many missions that we try to beat time and time again. Are they better just because we play units that have equipment that they "suppose" to have? I believe the answer is no.

(12-16-2016, 03:59 PM)Varanon Wrote: [ -> ]If I know that the typical range of engagement is 300 to 500 m, you will have RCO's. Why ? Because if you have engagements at 500 m, you will need them, or you are useless, and nothing is more frustrating during a game than feeling useless.

The ability to convey the feeling of uselessness or hopelessness is one of the great abilities of the Arma series. Making good use of that feeling often leads to wonderful experiences. I don't want to have all the equipment "I need". Actually, the more thrilling scenarios are scenarios that let the player feel the lack of sufficient resources. Does that mean that every such mission has to be played as guerrillas to convey that feeling? No. Does that meant that every single mission that has you play an under-equipped specops soldier has to be justified by adding a line to the briefing that says "you ran out of batteries to your NVGs that's why you don't have them" in order for the lack of equipment to make sense? Definitely not.

Yeah, I was in the wrong position. I thought the compound was the southern town that was swarm with enemy that we were trying to avoid while getting into the compound. I mistaken the little house that Misha and I hunkered down in the hide from the BMP as a landmark towards the compound and thought the compound would be a bit more east although its probably south. I'm using the wrong landmark. Harder to navigate in the midst of a firefight and moving around so not sure which compound was the right compound when they look similar on the terrain. Yeah, I'm popping up my compass to guess, but I guess if you're in the wrong part of the map and thought you're on another location, you might end up overshooting it.

(12-16-2016, 06:15 PM)Variable Wrote: [ -> ]I think McGregor clearly and articulately explained why he chose not to include GPS in this mission, so saying that he had no other reason other from "out of spite", is completely uncalled for, I don't see any reason why would you write something like that, using quotes or not.

I used quotes because it is not to be taken literally. Obviously that didn't quite come through. I don't think that McGregor was offended by this, it was not meant to offend, and plainly, I fail to see how that can be taken as offensive. The quotes clearly mark it as an exaggeration, like when I say 'Episode One was "great"', everybody knows I don't mean it like that.

In this case, "out of spite" means "for the reason that I don't want to do it", or whatever you want to call it. I can't believe that I have to explain it, and I can't believe that you seriously think I was trying to be offensive.

Anyway...

Unfortunately, it seems like everybody misunderstood the point of this thread. I thought I had made it clear. This was not about a specific mission. It was not about any specific situation. Clearly, our discussion yesterday was more generic than this.

I don't care what people put in their mission, it is their decision. What I was trying to argue against is the point that "less is better".  I merely tried to express my opinion (which is why I quoted a number of other missions) that I do not like limitations on a mission that I deem artificial. When Sputnik Monroe makes a mission that takes place in 1989's Afghanistan, I don't expect GPS. If a mission takes place in 2016's Afghanistan and I am a member of a special forces team, I DO expect it. If I am supposed to blow up some radio tower I also expect I have explosives. The point I was trying to make, and that everybody obviously interpreted as a personal attack against McGregor's choice, is WHY *I*, personally, would expect to have access to the right gear for a mission. Whether or not someone else subscribes to this opinion or not is really not my concern, nor do I wish to impose anything on someone.

I tried to argue that in my opinion  the mission would not have suffered at all from giving the team leader a GPS, and from what McGregor said yesterday ("you won't see GPS in my missions") I concluded that the reason for this was that he doesn't want to include them, not that there is a reason for the gameplay of his mission. I tend to disagree with this sentiment, and that is why I posted what I posted. Unfortunately you all seem to think that this was a) a personal attack against McGregors mission (it wasn't) and b) I was trying to tell people how to do their missions (I wasn't).

As I said, I am all for removing stuff like GPS and NVG's if there is a good reason for it. If a mission maker thinks there is a compelling reason and I can't see that reason, like in this case, that's fine. However, that doesn't mean that my opinion is invalid. For me, it did impact my enjoyment of the mission. Not much, mind you, as I said I really liked the mission once it was going, but for me this felt like an unnecessary obstacle and for me it felt artificial. That is, as I tried to point out, a completely individual and personal feeling. I would play this mission again in a heartbeat. But there were two opposing opinions on the matter, and I merely tried to reason mine. I can only stress again that I do not wish to impose anything on anyone. However, I reserve the right to feel like this without having to defend myself for it.

Let me give another example. I don't remember which mission it was (I only remember that Stag was leading it) where I played the medic. It was the vanilla loadout, so I did have iron sights and nothing else. No binocs. The mission took place mostly on long range engagements. The mission was boring as fuck for me. I couldn't do shit. The only thing I ever did in that mission was hand out a few band aids. If I had had a long range optic, I could have partaken in that mission. If I had binoculars, I could have at least spotted for people. I had neither. I was completely useless. I felt completely useless. The mission was boring for me. In fact, after that mission I didn't take the medic slot anymore for a long while.

I'll bottom line it again.
What I wanted to achieve and obviously failed is that mission makers consider if a decision they take improves a mission or not. I gave some examples to underline my point of view. Whether you agree to it or not isn't really the point, in the end, mission makers do what they want to do. I know that you, Variable, prefer not to have long range optics. I prefer to have them. Yet, I will not give them to guerrillas because I feel they shouldn't have them. 

This was never about a specific mission. I was a continuation, or an attempt at it, from the discussion we had yesterday. I posted it because I feel I should state my opinion on the subject, because I don't want to see this become a trend to remove things. Yes, it's a selfish reason: It's about my enjoyment of the game.

Variable Wrote:I wish to remind us all that we are talking about a mission that we completed despite the difficulties in navigation and the fierce enemy resistance. In my book, a difficult mission that is beatable, in a good one.

I beg to differ. An enjoyable mission is one that you enjoy, and has nothing to do with whether you are able to beat it or not. Phantom's home defense mission is nearly unbeatable but is enjoyable. There is not necessarily a correlation.

I would have loved the mission if I wouldn't have lead it. But I did. And I failed.  And it might seem to be extreme to you, but in the end, it stressed me out.

Alwarren, McGregor wrote:

(12-16-2016, 03:20 PM)McGregor Wrote: [ -> ]My reasonings for not including GPS are because I consider it over used to a degree of absurdity where people suddenly turn blind with out it. In this mission for example we all knew exactly where we were going and we landed no more than 50 m off the mark and there is nothing else there but the two compounds and the nearby village.

And you replied:

(12-16-2016, 03:20 PM)Alwarren Wrote: [ -> ]That is my point. I don't see how a GPS for the team leader would make it any worse. The only reason you did not include them is "out of spite", so to speak. You don't have any other reason.

So that's why I pointed out that it's uncalled for. Maybe it's lost in translation, but I never meant to say it's offensive, just not true and ignoring the reasoning that was clearly given.

The whole discussion is legitimate of course, and everybody are entitles to voice their preferences, I never meant to say otherwise. My opinion is that in a lot of cases, more liberal equipment assignment, that might even be less realistic, can make missions better, and that's what I was trying to convey in the rest of my post.

(12-16-2016, 07:58 PM)Varanon Wrote: [ -> ]I would have loved the mission if I wouldn't have lead it. But I did. And I failed.  And it might seem to be extreme to you, but in the end, it stressed me out.

It was your leadership that won us the mission. I don't get why you see that as failure.

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.

(12-17-2016, 03:50 PM)Stagwine Wrote: [ -> ]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. 

What I would like to see in Arma would be the ability to disable all electronics via a simulated EMP. Sadly, you can not turn off holo sights (make the holo disappear) or similar. There was a mission in one of the Call of Duty games that had an EMP, and I liked how you still had your holo or red dot on, but couldn't see the dot anymore.


In any case, it should not only be a consideration about "will it make the mission worse if I don't give a GPS/NVG/RCO", but also, "will it make the mission better without GPS/NVG/RCO". 

In Lost Squad, you could basically ruin the mission by giving out GPSes, and since the squad is lost, they could well have no NVGs either. I once made a mission for Arma 2 where you crashed with a plane. You started out as a civilian with just a few weapons, one guy had a pistol, another one had an SMG, that was it, no NVG, no other weapons, not even a map (you were sitting in a plane as passenger, why would you have all that, except for, say, your sidearm... mission stated you were CIA, i.e. the one with the capital I).
In any case, in this mission, the lack of equipment was the whole point (job was to reach the coast).

I still think that equipment should be handed out according to setup. There are some "game" related issues, but again, ask yourself what you gain from taking away some equipment, and what you lose from taking away equipment.

(12-17-2016, 03:50 PM)Stagwine Wrote: [ -> ]I echo sentiment that hopefully no one is discouraged from making missions.

Same here. Never played a bad one. For the most part, we're all on the same page, it's the details that we differ in.

(12-17-2016, 11:32 PM)Varanon Wrote: [ -> ]In any case, it should not only be a consideration about "will it make the mission worse if I don't give a GPS/NVG/RCO", but also, "will it make the mission better without GPS/NVG/RCO".

But you also have to remember that what makes a mission better or worse is highly subjective.

When it comes to optics they definitely have their place and I don't automatically dislike every mission with RCOs, absolutely not. But it is a balance and because this is a game after all you have to take into account what makes for fun gameplay. Many otherwise cool missions can be made boring by everyone having scopes and lying on a hill picking off targets at a distance instead of having to get up close and personal. Now don't get me wrong sometimes that's fun too but for the most part because this is a game I personally think its more fun to go closer.

Any way, I'm not discouraged from making mission so no need to worry there. I have definitely heard all your opinions and I will consider your feedback. How ever I don't think I will change my wicked ways in any major way.