Comrades in Arms Discussion Board
User Experience in mission making - Printable Version

+- Comrades in Arms Discussion Board (http://forum.ciahome.net)
+-- Forum: Comrades in Arms Life (http://forum.ciahome.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Mission Making (http://forum.ciahome.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: User Experience in mission making (/showthread.php?tid=2702)

Pages: 1 2

Re: User Experience in mission making - Variable - 08-04-2014

(08-04-2014, 11:05 AM)Alwarren link Wrote: 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. 
Of course we can do that by choice, but it will be a lot more fun to do it by necessity.

And yeah, that's why I like guerrilla missions. However, I guess we can come up with ideas to justify inferior weapons in the hands of the more regular forces. Some examples that come to mind: Non combat soldiers (that are issued with some shitty weapons because no one thought they'll ever see combat) being ambushed. Some pilots have to make their way to their aircraft while their base is being attacked and they only have pistols/SMGs. POWs making a getaway.

Re: User Experience in mission making - Alwarren - 08-04-2014



(08-04-2014, 02:10 PM)Variable link Wrote: only have pistols/SMGs.

Hehe getting really hardcore there :-)


Re: User Experience in mission making - Watchmen - 08-04-2014

(08-01-2014, 02:57 PM)Varanon link Wrote: 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.

This is probably the most interesting post i have seen in a while because it justifies very through discussion over the theoretical principals and fine points of designing objectives and tasks. The common arma mission maker puts little effort into designing his mission and most of it into making it while in the editor, like in most steam WS mission. It is a very rare thing when you look at all of the arma community to find a mission maker who pays enough attention and effort into scrutinizing the continuous process of cause and effect events throughout an entire level. To such a person it will almost be like you design the flow of events in time to be a good and engaging reality for the numbers of players that you design the mission for.

This is in my opinion what makes a mission a genuinely better than the rest mission deserving of a remarkable status.

In practice, the actual implementation of this approach when making missions is rather difficult but then restricted only by the extent of your imagination. You need to design objectives that is only possible for players who cooperate together to achieve and the resulting outcome for the successive completion/failure of tasks each team is assigned.


A simple model for study would be:

Team A completes objective X, only then can Team B complete objective Y

We can include failure as one of the factors:

If Team A fails objective X, Objective X2 must be completed only then can Team B complete objective Y

This involves that the designer design and plan a dependent relationship between tasks to complete an ultimate objective and an alternative should one team fail.

I believe such design models and creating more new models are fundamental to any design process that makes a good mission. Otherwise we would just have the entire summary of a 20 man coop mission being:

1. Spawn, refill guns

2. Drive to location A

3. Kill enemies at location A

Boring huh? pointless objectives very much like a checklist of meaningless things to do. Unless the single objective is created at such meticulous elite level, involving dozens of unique alterations to the other aspects of a mission which off the back of my head can possibly include; terrain, enemy forces, weather, distance, starter gear and travel means which if we individually discuss in detail would definitely be related to forming the user experience of a mission.

Re: User Experience in mission making - Alwarren - 08-04-2014

(08-04-2014, 03:25 PM)Watchmen link Wrote: Team A completes objective X, only then can Team B complete objective Y

This bears the inherent danger of having team B wait. It's going to be difficult to keep Team B busy enough so that they don't perceive the time that Team A needs as boring. For example, while Team A is going about their business, Team B needs to move into position first or something of that nature.

Otherwise, we'll have a re-run of a recent mission were one team basically sat around being bored while the other was clearing a town Smile

Re: User Experience in mission making - Varanon - 08-13-2014

(08-02-2014, 05:59 PM)Variable link Wrote: 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.

That also leads to another gripe I have with some missions: Overly long travel times.

We tried one of those Wolfpack missions once and the insertion was about two kilometers away from the actual objectives. This isn't a problem per se, but if you spent half an hour traveling to the destination, then make sure that something is happening along the way.

This can be in the form of patrols (the easiest way, add some combat along the way), but might also be suspense alone.

One mission I made, Zargabad Dawn, was basically a mission where the only thing you did was travel. You started out in the bombed villa in Zargabad (the one on the hill) and basically had to walk through the town, pick up a suitcase, and get to the extraction chopper. I had comments on that mission from people that played it, claiming it was one of the best missions they every played, and some of them even did so without firing a single shot. Just because of the partols that were constantly searching for you, helicopters and other vehicles constantly flying overhead etc...

Another possibility to get around this problem is to give the players the optional objective to procure transport. Sneak into a nearby town, steal a truck, and drive to the objective. If you really need a large distance between insertion and primary objective, this is the easiest way to shorten the travel time.

If all else fails, give the players at least something to look at. Make sure the travel path leads along nice vistas or place ambiance along the travel path. This can be simple thinks like a guy changing the blown tire on his car, people passing you by and talking, or even two humping cows on a field.

Re: User Experience in mission making - Varanon - 08-13-2014

(08-04-2014, 03:25 PM)Watchmen link Wrote: A simple model for study would be:

Team A completes objective X, only then can Team B complete objective Y

As Alwarren pointed out, this bears the danger of getting Team B stuck doing nothing until Team A completes the objective. However, it also presents an opportunity: What if Team B has some other task to do in the meantime. For example,  providing BDA for some strike mission. Team B's original assignment might just be the BDA, and after Team A completes their objectives, Team B gets re-routed to some target of opportunity.

(08-04-2014, 03:25 PM)Watchmen link Wrote: I believe such design models and creating more new models are fundamental to any design process that makes a good mission. Otherwise we would just have the entire summary of a 20 man coop mission being:

1. Spawn, refill guns

2. Drive to location A

3. Kill enemies at location A

Boring huh? pointless objectives very much like a checklist of meaningless things to do.

Yes, but that's as you said the reality for a majority of missions on the WS. The simplicity of sharing missions in Arma 3 as opposed to the "by hand" method of previous Armas spawned a ton of those, since newcomers that are eager to prove themselves literally swamp the WS with this stuff.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing, but people that do that are still learning, and the first steps are always shaky.

Unfortunately, a lot of WS content like that is rated highly since most people playing these missions are of the run&gun school and don't particularly care for more thought-through missions... they may get the occasional wow effect if they stumble upon a good mission, though...

Bottom line, too little thought went into most of the WS  I wonder, actually, how missions on the workshop sometimes get so high ratings and subscription numbers. For example, the current high rated mission on the workshop is an example of the disconnected objectives (destroy some AAA sites, and kill a key officer of the opposing forces)

Re: User Experience in mission making - Alwarren - 08-13-2014

(08-13-2014, 11:14 AM)Varanon link Wrote: Bottom line, too little thought went into most of the WS  I wonder, actually, how missions on the workshop sometimes get so high ratings and subscription numbers. For example, the current high rated mission on the workshop is an example of the disconnected objectives (destroy some AAA sites, and kill a key officer of the opposing forces)

I believe that there are some fundamental "basic instincts" that make missions get high ratings. I hear people they they like missions that make them feel superior, the type of missions that make the player feel as a badass killing machine.

People like to be the badass. I read an interview with Ubisoft about Splinter Cell. They said that they chose to make Convictions as it was because "Sam Fisher didn't feel badass enough". So, enter "tag and execute", because we all know that being badass means killing people with style. If you compare that to the first Splinter Cell games (and, luckily, Blacklist too), Sam Fisher is much more vulnerable there. In the original, taking on two or more guys was generally suicide.

And so the typical Sniper shooting gallery will get you more positive reviews than the most intricate worked out mission you can come up with.

Re: User Experience in mission making - Outlawz7 - 08-14-2014

Seeing alwarren's post above, I couldn't wait to share this gem that appeared in my Workshop.

I've got a comment on my Dropdown: Frini mission saying "trop compliqué" which Google Translate tells me means "too complicated" in French.

It's a mission where you parachute down, kill all enemies at a base and it ends.

???




Re: User Experience in mission making - Varanon - 08-14-2014

(08-14-2014, 09:20 AM)Outlawz7 link Wrote: I've got a comment on my Dropdown: Frini mission saying "trop compliqué" which Google Translate tells me means "too complicated" in French.

It's a mission where you parachute down, kill all enemies at a base and it ends.

Now, that's just insane...

Re: User Experience in mission making - alias - 08-15-2014

(08-14-2014, 09:20 AM)Outlawz7 link Wrote: "trop compliqué" ...
It's a mission where you parachute down, kill all enemies at a base and it ends.

LOL

Re: User Experience in mission making - Watchmen - 08-16-2014

(08-04-2014, 04:28 PM)Alwarren link Wrote: This bears the inherent danger of having team B wait. It's going to be difficult to keep Team B busy enough so that they don't perceive the time that Team A needs as boring. For example, while Team A is going about their business, Team B needs to move into position first or something of that nature.

Otherwise, we'll have a re-run of a recent mission were one team basically sat around being bored while the other was clearing a town Smile
I was just suggesting the concept of using models for designing mission objectives, this was my example for how such a process would work not a practical working theory to be implemented in a mission. Varanon seems to also misunderstand but is going in the right direction. It is this discussion process of brainstorming task objective models that i am refering to.