12-05-2014, 02:31 PM
(12-05-2014, 12:54 PM)alias link Wrote: What seems to bother you is incertitude and lack of control which is something i'm looking for, for me is a feature as long the mission is not bugged
In how far is that a feature? Internally, you do the same as anyone else, just externally, you refuse to present this (important) information to the player.
Quote:Is not about logic is about a feeling, you are right in your argument, but the feeling is different, if it would be many tasks that feeling can turn for me into frustration maybe, but as you may know i only have one objective in my missions. This doesn't mean you'll not have surprises while playing
I beg to differ. What different "feeling" do you get from a list of "Objectives" as opposed to a list of "Tasks"? Perception-wise, there is none.
Let me give you an example. I don't remember the name of the mission, but there was one that we played where all our tasks were completed just to receive another one ("Look for a suitcase in the next town over"), which was clearly one task too many. Too many tasks, as you put it, is always a bad thing, and that doesn't matter whether you put them in prose or have a real task list. I rather have tasks and KNOW where I am in the mission than having no tasks and having to GUESS where I am in the mission. A mission that just piles objective after objective is broken, period.
Quote:We could've tried that, i don't impose a specific order for actions in my missions, however tornado is lethal for players too that could've ended in our death
Again, in how far do tasks impose an order? Again, let's look at an example:
- Infiltrate the base undetected
- Take out the commander
- Destroy Ammo Cache
There is a natural order here, the first objective is quite obviously to be done first (assuming both the HVT and cache is in said base). Whether you spell it out of players or do tasks, the first one is always going to be the first. The second two are freely available in any order. There is no order imposed on this. Quite the contrary, if your briefing says "After infiltrating the base, take out the commander hiding in this barrack, then blow up the ammo cache", THIS will implore a specific order of execution.
So, in the end, the way that tasks are presented is in no way any different than your list of objectives, just with the loss of feedback.
Quote:That's why i disable AI chatter in my missions and i rely more on radio messages (txt+sound) than hints.
Disabling AI chatter isn't necessarily always a good idea. Yesterday on Stinger, Variable reported an AT solider, which was for us at that time a crucial information.
Quote:A stats report or basic info you have to give anyway for JIP players with tasks or not defined.
Yes, but you will want to keep this short. And what if there are two teams? Does one team necessarily know what the other team is doing? If they get wiped out? Sure, you can play the realism card here, but I prefer to know what is going on for gameplay's sake instead of having to guess.
Quote:I suppose is a matter of taste, i personally don'tlikeprefer that, is more immersive for me to have the feedback via radio. Tho, as i said before, when you have many tasks is a good compromise to have tasks defined.
I cannot follow your arguments about immersiveness. As you might have noticed, I have frequent radio messages in my missions when tasks are completed. If you argue that the tasks break immersion, then I will have to ask you why. Because with the same rights, I could argue that hints or radio messages that I have to read break immersion.
What is it, then that breaks immersion for you? The task hints? The presence of tasks? Seriously, I cannot follow the argument, and so far, I can only see downsides to not having tasks.
Quote:Otherwise, for one objective, i will always try to introduce a feeling of incertitude and lack of control in my missions so I will not use tasks ... like i said is a matter of taste... and surprises
This feeling of incertitude does not add anything to gameplay, quite the contrary, it takes away from it by leaving the player in the dark about the progress of the mission.
As I said above, we recently played a mission that was pretty long already and when we thought we were finished, it came up with yet another objective to search for a suitcase in the next town over. It seems like the author had a problem with letting his mission end. This self-absorption - you get the feeling like the author doesn't want you to stop playing HIS mission - really annoyed me.
There is nothing wrong with a surprising turn of events, quite the contrary, I wish more missions would do that. I tried this with "Stop That Train". But the first objective is very easy and quickly done, precisely because it this way the mission will not overstay its welcome when you do not get extracted at the supposed end of it. But just imagine that after you have fought yourself through the hordes of CSAT attackers, reached the friendly lines, and then get yet another surprise task to do something else?
Tasks - a checklist of things to do in a mission - are a good way of tracking progress. We are not there to play only one mission - the big flaw (IMO) of most of the Wolfpack missions. I might have been guilty of making long missions myself, but that was never intentional. I do not like, at all, the feeling that I have to ask myself "how long will this still go on?". Which is why I prefer a good set of tasks where I can verify the progress of the mission. And that is in addition to the (very valid) arguments I have already listed in my first post.
I don't need luck, I have ammo.