Comrades in Arms Discussion Board
Why Tasks are a good thing - 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: Why Tasks are a good thing (/showthread.php?tid=2839)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Why Tasks are a good thing - Fuiba - 12-18-2014

I don't think anyone's being a dick in this discussion.

Here's my two cents: tasks = good, no hand-holding in tasks per se. Too many tasks = bad. To use Alwarren's three-tier architecture metaphor here: tasks that are not presented very mission critical (View) but actually are mission critical (Model) = bad.

I could consider tasks hand-holding if they were mandatory with no obvious reason, like:
-move through HERE (why can't I approach from the direction I want?)
-go get better equipment HERE (I have good enough weapons)
-observe the village for X minutes (I have already spotted all the enemies, why do I have to wait more?)
-steal the enemy chopper and use it to destroy something (I captured a tank, why can't I use it?)



Re: Why Tasks are a good thing - Variable - 12-18-2014

(12-18-2014, 01:25 PM)Alwarren link Wrote: Take my recent convoy mission. It has two objectives for the convoy: Prevent the armour from reaching the outpost, and (optional) destroy the complete convoy.
I could of course go ahead and just let you continue trying to mob up the convoy while the crew of the first tank is already getting drunk in Chernogorsk. Would be fun for the tank crew, but once we are at the end of the mission and hear from our CO that there was a tank that escaped and we failed the mission. So, the task failing is the best way to tell the players to not bother anymore.
What would be best in such case is having a defense force in the convoy's destination, and try to balance it so that the players must destroy most of the convoy so that the defenders would be able to hold their ground. The condition to fail or success of the mission is whether the town has fallen or not, and not if any unit from the convoy reach its destination, because that, in itself, is not significant strategically.

I assume it's very hard to determine the correct balance and set it in a way, say, that one tank would be destroyed by the defenders but two tanks will be two much for them.

This is a good discussion Smile

Re: Why Tasks are a good thing - Alwarren - 12-18-2014

(12-18-2014, 01:51 PM)Fuiba link Wrote: Here's my two cents: tasks = good, no hand-holding in tasks per se. Too many tasks = bad. To use Alwarren's three-tier architecture metaphor here: tasks that are not presented very mission critical (View) but actually are mission critical (Model) = bad.

Agreed. As I tried to say earlier, I do think the model and view should be kept separately. It's a good practice in programming, and in Arma. For a lot of cases, there is a direct mapping between model and view, but that is highly contextual.

I generally think that tasks should be kept at a minimum, yeah. To go by my convoy example, the point of the mission was to stop the armour reinforcements, not necessarily the accompanying infantry. So that is why I made it two tasks (Destroy Armour, Destroy Everything) with the latter being optional - I didn't want to require people to chase after the last guy in that hid somewhere in the bushes.

You could make a task out of everything (Kill Tank #1, Kill Tank #2, Kill Shilka) which would be just too much and map model to view 1:1.

If there is sufficient effort required for each kill, they can be separated as well. For example, in "Airport Security" I had three AA positions that were pretty far apart, so knowing which one is still up was crucial information.

But then, I am also a strong proponent of not stuffing too many objectives into the same mission. "Kill the convoy, capture an AA site, shoot down a chopper, then use a UAV to kill a HVT", that is just three missions in one.  Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to work that way.

Quote:I could consider tasks hand-holding if they were mandatory with no obvious reason, like:
-move through HERE (why can't I approach from the direction I want?)
-go get better equipment HERE (I have good enough weapons)
-observe the village for X minutes (I have already spotted all the enemies, why do I have to wait more?)
-steal the enemy chopper and use it to destroy something (I captured a tank, why can't I use it?)

Exactly my view on it. Tasks should give you objectives, whatever you need to do to finish the mission, and leave everything else out. How I transport to a specific point on the map, what kind of explosives I use, it should all be up to me. The mission can give hints ("There is an ammunition storage in the abandoned UN Base") but it shouldn't be mandatory (why would you do this if you could capture enough AT to take out those Shilkas with that).

Re: Why Tasks are a good thing - alias - 12-18-2014

Well... Obviously i need glasses  Big Grin


I've read the post on a smaller screen i have and for me Varanon was calling me a dick... which might be true but i didn't want everyone to know it  ;D ... Sorry Varanon!


Guys, i see your point, and i'd hate using a software without proper MVC Smile , but for me MVC works differently when it comes to a subjective experience as a whole tho, is how my mind/emotion works is not about good or bad, is a feeling which will be great if i can explain or model but i can't so I just presented my point of view.


Will be hard for me to continue this conversation without getting into philosophy and formal systems which might seem odd for you but this is how it is for me Smile

Re: Why Tasks are a good thing - Alwarren - 12-18-2014

(12-18-2014, 01:55 PM)Variable link Wrote: What would be best in such case is having a defense force in the convoy's destination, and try to balance it so that the players must destroy most of the convoy so that the defenders would be able to hold their ground. The condition to fail or success of the mission is whether the town has fallen or not, and not if any unit from the convoy reach its destination, because that, in itself, is not significant strategically.

I assume it's very hard to determine the correct balance and set it in a way, say, that one tank would be destroyed by the defenders but two tanks will be two much for them.

Well in the case of this mission, I had the players be an advanced force, but I could also make it "parallel" to the attack itself, i.e. "Attack has started, they are moving the convoy now". Good point, I'll think about that.

Quote:This is a good discussion Smile

Agreed. We can all only get better from it Smile

Re: Why Tasks are a good thing - Imperator - 12-19-2014

Some good advice in here that I will take on board regarding tasks.

Generally I only use them to show the players what their overall objective is and how it is progressing. I then leave the how-to up to the players themselves and where applicable provide hints or strategic/tactical guidance via my written briefings that in turn hopefully provide some semblance of why the mission is taking place.

Bundle all that together and I hope I achieve a reasonably immersive mission.