Zeus TvT / A&D Night

[Rory]

DATE: Saturday 4th March 2017
TIME: 18:00 (GMT)
WHERE: #2 Zeus Community Game Server

Hello,

Just quickly writing this up to announce the next A&D night will be on server 2.

This will be continuing on from the other A&D nights with the one difference being that the next event will be on server 2 using its mod set. This should provide some interesting scenarios for mission makers that might not have been possible before and task force radio should add to the immersion.

I hope all of you can make it and lets see if we can break the server 2 record for player numbers.

If you have any questions post them down below.
Rory

[Cobra.]

What number can we reasonably expect to turn up? I've got an idea for a mission but not sure how many to make it for?

[Rory]

I'm being optimistic and expecting at least 50 but hopefully we get more. Server 2 has only become more popular recently but I am not sure if the numbers will turn up, only time will tell.

[Cobra.]

Okay, cool.

[Wombat]

What number can we reasonably expect to turn up? I've got an idea for a mission but not sure how many to make it for?

We've had roughly 40 to 50 players peak on server#2 gamenights the last couple of months. If server#1 TvT nights are an indicator, we should expect slightly more players to turn up to server#2 TvT night compared to regular gamenight.

I suggest you make a good buffer, maybe at least 60.

[Andy5682]

Would it not also be tvt night on server 1 on Sunday....?

[Rory]

Nope. Its the same event that Tipsi started but its switching servers for this month. Its like how the day of the week it takes place on alternates, the server it takes place on might continue to alternate if this does well.

[Olympus]

Guys ,why not have in March and one Public server 1 PvP Game night?
I think many members of General Arma Community are happy with that our PvP Game Nights and we can win many new members from that.

[[Ben]]

Do we think people will be able to cope with a mission containing a few moving parts and actually thinking for themselves, instead of relying on strictly what they are told in the briefing? Something a little more in depth than, one team defend this, and the other team attack this. Or is that asking for too much?

[StRiKeR]

Do we think people will be able to cope with a mission containing a few moving parts and actually thinking for themselves, instead of relying on strictly what they are told in the briefing? Something a little more in depth than, one team defend this, and the other team attack this. Or is that asking for too much?

One thing I have learned from making missions for these is that all rules and parameters such as limits and "Do Nots" have to be rigidly hardcoded into the mission. The more people you have, the harder it is to just tell them in the briefing not to do something. Especially in an A&D people will naturally try to stretch the mission boundaries. Those have to be rock solid. I think we can pull every objective off as long as it fits into a few sentences so every dumbo can understand it.

Detailed briefings, that allow for detailed planning and no questions left to be asked seem a must aswell. Always a major problem for the rest of the mission if something was ambiguous/misunderstood at the start.

[Cobra.]

I've reworked my Unsung AD, with the rules being stricter. If people don't follow them then I guess that counts as immersion breaking?

[StRiKeR]

I've reworked my Unsung AD, with the rules being stricter. If people don't follow them then I guess that counts as immersion breaking?

Point is people should not be able to break the rules. The mission should not allow them to. It doesnt help writing more rules down in the briefing if the mission does nothing to prevent their breach. People will always more or less ignore them unless they are forced to by set boundaries that are uncircumventable. Calling misbehaviour out as immersion breaking or whatnot is then otherwise merely trying to cover up that the mission may have design weaknesses.

[[Ben]]

I've reworked my Unsung AD, with the rules being stricter. If people don't follow them then I guess that counts as immersion breaking?

Point is people should not be able to break the rules. The mission should not allow them to. It doesnt help writing more rules down in the briefing if the mission does nothing to prevent their breach. People will always more or less ignore them unless they are forced to by set boundaries that are uncircumventable.

I think this is a poor mentality to have. Whilst i agree that there are people whom will always try to break things or push the bounds for the sake of doing it. I don't think a mission should potentially compromise on the intent by having to build in a million safeguards for the idiots who want to spoil things. I think they should just be warned and then removed if they do it. Having to write a mission forcibly restricts things like freedom of movement, limits the creativity that the mission can be played, and in my experience ruins the spirit of the mission both to make and to play.

[Cobra.]

I mean, people will always work to escape the rules. I have a tiny bit of confidence (very small amount) in the people that want to play a TVT in not just trying to be a dick and ruin the mission atmosphere. People are not scripted so there will always be that space for dynamics and dicks.

[StRiKeR]

I think this is a poor mentality to have. Whilst i agree that there are people whom will always try to break things or push the bounds for the sake of doing it. I don't think a mission should potentially compromise on the intent by having to build in a million safeguards for the idiots who want to spoil things. I think they should just be warned and then removed if they do it. Having to write a mission forcibly restricts things like freedom of movement, limits the creativity that the mission can be played, and in my experience ruins the spirit of the mission both to make and to play.

Not necessarily. While this is a point of design philosophy I do believe that the more safeguards you have, the more likely you will be to have a consistent experience with that mission. This is obviously a point that can be discussed in depth. The problem I personally have with missions that only define their execution parameters through sentences in the briefing is that it does not just take "idiots" to compromise these. Sometimes you just see a smart opportunity to win and a potential to develop a situation on your terms but the mission, through some arbitrary rule, does not allow you to. It takes a lot of discipline to then look away from that approach. If the mission would just imply that you can't go somewhere because there is a minefield or sth (natural LOAs!) it would be a clear understanding that this place is a no go and no smartass would try to go all the way around an objective. This is of course just an example but you can continue this thought into other areas. If one does this creatively and with some thought I personally do not think it inhibits creativity and freedom of movement that much, it simply channels it. All there is to seek is that nobody can exploit design flaws.