[WadeWannabe]

I would like to see stages in missions e.g you could set up a temporary base camp and then gather intel on a target that you have been ordered to assasinate and the more time you spent doing that the easier it would be or if you didnt want to do that you could just set up an ambush and wait for the target to reach you then ... KABOOOM hes down.  You could be able to decide which approach you are going to take in the briefing room, and maybe it could change according to what happened whilst you are on the mission.
A mountain hike here and there wouldnt hurt either  

[Random]

I don't think all missins have to be long. Alot of the direct action missions have to be in and out. Otherwise a reaction force can come in, and that isn't good.

[doubletap]

Regarding hikes, this would be practical if there are any missions appropriate for sniping, FAC, etc. (not sure GB will have that though). But I hate being dropped 50 meters from an observation point.

Long missions are great as long as there aren't long stretches of uneventfull treks that play out that way every time. If one time it's uneventfull and the next time you spot opfor, that's what makes "the long way" worth the time.

note: I chose not to use the term "sniping missions", since I wouldn't want to HAVE to play any mission one way, if ubi know what I mean.

Edited by doubletap, 02 December 2007 - 07:03 PM.

[relaxative]

Quote

I don't think all missins have to be long. Alot of the direct action missions have to be in and out. Otherwise a reaction force can come in, and that isn't good.

Sure it isn't great in a real life point of view, but gameplay wise? It's a valid reason for a mission to be long. Doesn't have to be the case for every mission in GB, but yeah, I'd like one or two ops to go sideways and make the player think quick on his feet rather than just follow orders from the devs.

[Relinquish]

As a coop player, i like to see missions i can complete with a well co ordinated lightning quick strike. Once contact is made, time is precious, every second that goes by, is a second the enemy are organising themsleves into a more effective fighting force. And if there is one thing i do not want to face, that is a well organised defensive force, that out numbers my force, because that is always going to be a tough nut to crack. I want to complete my objective whilst the enemy are still ducking for cover, panicing, in a state of confusion and chaos, that is when i have the advantage, that is when i am most deadly, that is the time i will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.

SP these kind of short missions dont work so well in my opinion because you have to spend so much time babysitting your teammates who have no intuition. This often leads to a slower more methodical approach, which i personally dislike.

I perosnally think missions should be short and challenging, long ones where you engage the enemy, move around, engage some more enemies, to me get boring, and also in real life i do not think would be very successful as you could be out numbered, run out of ammo,  etc, etc. And if you were after an important objective, they would soon cover it with extra protection.

Also i think long hikes are boring. I dont see any reason to get dropped further than a minute from the action zone. It just isnt fun.

Edited by Relinquish, 03 December 2007 - 12:00 AM.

[Kirq]

Mission shouldnt be long or short, it should depent on which rout you pick and how lucky you will be. It should be possible to complete the mission in 10 min if you know the terrain ( going through SP campaign 6th time ) and get lucky but next time you play the mission it should go other way ( unexpected mechanized patrol encounter FAE) and it could take 30 min to finish it.

[krise madsen]

It depends...

SP missions can be short and long, I suppose. I kinda like to fiddle around with a mission and as long as I have a save function I don't mind if it takes hours to complete it.

Co-op and MP missions might be a problem if the missions are hours long though. Especially for us old farts with family obligations and whatnot.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[spm1138]

From a game perspective I can't see any reason for not having both. Pacing and all that.

[doubletap]

Kirq, on Dec 3 2007, 02:07 AM, said:

Mission shouldnt be long or short, it should depent on which rout you pick and how lucky you will be. It should be possible to complete the mission in 10 min if you know the terrain ( going through SP campaign 6th time ) and get lucky but next time you play the mission it should go other way ( unexpected mechanized patrol encounter FAE) and it could take 30 min to finish it.

I agree, but I would have used "20" and "60" minutes instead of 10 and 30.

[rookie]

krise madsen, on Dec 3 2007, 10:00 AM, said:

It depends...

SP missions can be short and long, I suppose. I kinda like to fiddle around with a mission and as long as I have a save function I don't mind if it takes hours to complete it.

Co-op and MP missions might be a problem if the missions are hours long though. Especially for us old farts with family obligations and whatnot.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Absolutely right - both points.

In Armed Assault there are missions (Evolution) that take at least 2 hours to be finished - with less experienced players even longer than that. It is fun yes, but you only can do that over the weekend and besides that only works because of the respawn-system involved. For me GB has to be a game where I can play a few missions with friends in the evening after work. Up to an hour for one mission is def ok. The min. time 30mins, I really want to put thought in every move I make.

Edited by rookie, 03 December 2007 - 05:30 AM.

[Megalodon]

Well if we get multiple insertion points, this would be up to the player. for those that want quick action and to be helo dropped near the target, fine, but NORG will have it that you get noticed so any stealth tactics are out the window, but if you choose to get inserted on the edge of the map, and then have to hike into the target area, it may take longer, but it allows for a quiet approach, especially for a sniper, stalking a target that saw you dropped off isn't very worthwhile. And it's been discussed before, nothing kills realism than rappelling from a helo, a couple hundred yards from an enemy and he doesn't see you.

Maybe for the modders, someone could create a helo to use, one that is used by Indonesia or Malaysia, that isn't readily identifiable as American, or at least contemporary ones. They still use the Huey, so flying in one of those may not be as attention grabbing as being dropped off by a Sea Hawk, Sea Stallion or Sea Knight.

[krise madsen]

Megalodon, on Dec 3 2007, 01:07 PM, said:

And it's been discussed before, nothing kills realism than rappelling from a helo, a couple hundred yards from an enemy and he doesn't see you.

Well worth repeating, IMO

Respectfully

krise madsen

[WadeWannabe]

I rely dont want this to be another GRAW and to be able to complete the co-op campaign in a day i would prefer more OGR style missions, infact OGR's the perfect example maybe with slightly bigger levels though.

[crtChunk]

Can I throw something else out there?

When watching documentaries on the training of American military forces, there's always talk of the orange peel, and reformation of your team to consolidate firepower, and all this other cool stuff, WHILE TRYING TO BREAK CONTACT.

I don't play a lot of different FPS games, but the ones I do play never allow for this... it's always "Push ahead, push ahead, keep going!"  If real military doctrine allows for breaking contact, why wouldn't this game here allow for breaking contact?

At what point is the opposing force simply too large for you to continue?  At what point would the correct action be to leave the situation to fight another day?

Current games I've played don't do this very well... it's easy enough to trigger the reinforcements arriving, then you wipe out the reinforcements, and then continue the mission picking everyone else apart.  What about being overwhelmed?  What about simply being an impossible mission?

Does that ruin too much gameplay?

Anyways, I like to take my time... as long as I can take an hour if I so choose, others can complete it in 10 minutes if they want to...

[Joey C]

IMHO, I think mission lenghts should vary.  As it has been said, the mission and goals should dictate the time length.  A snatch and grab on a oil platform or POW camp will not last very long due to the nature of the op.  Now, you could have sub-missions of sorts.  Where first you have to infiltrate and recon the target area.  That could last quite a while depending on how detailed you are in your recce.  It would also be a great use of the closed circuit scuba I saw (for recce of an oil platform.)  After the recce, the actual op would go down pretty quick.

Other missions like long range patrols, sneeky peeky missions, ambushes, sniper/observer  and what not could all have different mission lenghts.  

These would be great for the campaign type missions.

For coop, yeah, they may want to be kept to an hour or so, due to reasons that have already been stated.  But still, there should be the option for coop players to run longer misions if they want.  After all, variety is what keeps you interested.

thanks for the forum to add our input to the game!

Joe

Edited by Joey C, 03 December 2007 - 11:21 AM.

[tunabreath]

@crtChunk

Wow, that would be amazing...

That's something that could be applied well to an ArmA Evolution style map (persistent, and HUGE).  The biggest problem with Evolution (IMO, besides the lag ) was that the AI was horrendously stupid so that it was possible to fight so many of them and come out on top.  If they organize, reinforce, fortify, call in support from the air/armour, it would be so much better, and staying alive/breaking contact would be much more important (especially if there were no respawns).

*just another thing on bounding and peelback tactics, they not only rely on enemy superiority to be of use, but also on the enemy responding appropriately.  What use is suppressive fire during a peelback if the AI doesn't even flinch?

Edited by tunabreath, 03 December 2007 - 05:15 PM.

[relaxative]

crtChunk,

I was playing the Alpha Team Mod for OGR just last night, and on the very first mission of Right Hand's excellent 8 Days Reloaded Mod I was forced to imitate real contact drills to an accurate degree. I had to pair up two support gunners, two marksmen (both had accurized, suppressed M4's) and two assaulters. Each would act as a bounding section in peels and advances. Why did I have to? The sheer amount of tangos.

It was suicide to do anything without overwatch!

If GB does NORG the difficulties of how it is in the field for small teams, then the player should naturally fall back on what US SF do to succeed and survive.

If BFS added the support for adding little layers, for example the degree of the enemy's response once the player has been detected, then missions would seem so much more alive and challenging, and again force the player to conduct contact drills. E.g. mortar attack within 5 minutes, or onslaught of local militia in 15-30 minutes, etc.

Quote

At what point is the opposing force simply too large for you to continue? At what point would the correct action be to leave the situation to fight another day?

When you run out of ammo, CAS, or get bored. Radio commands on map for extract ala OFP/AA for the win!

Edited by relaxative, 03 December 2007 - 03:59 PM.

[Lightspeed]

I think GR had the perfect missions - no more then an hour and with multiple and open objectives.

I'd be happy for them to go for up to 2 hours but no more then that -  and some missions dont really need to be more then 30 minutes.

I peronally, dislike the ArmA style - where you can spend 24 hours trying to complete one mission, and I HATE the mindless travelling and hiking forever to get to a destination - not my cup of tea at all.

I like approximate GR size maps - maybe up to double but thats the maximum I want - the mission starts in proximity to the targets - not 3 or 4 or even 10 miles away a la ArmA.

[Colin]

Long but interesting.

[Random]

I wouldn't mind some really long missions. I do think most should be about two hours or less.