What makes a "Good" Mission?

[vicx]

I will be making a mission where you fight aliens in Nevada. I will be making it as realistic as I possibly can. I am loving all the advice here in this thread.

Edited February 14, 2015 by vicx

[Home Fries]

One more vote here for a good brief and clear objectives; I forgot to mention these previously, but they are quite important. There are some great missions I had flown, but I had to go into the ME beforehand and analyze triggers to figure out what we were supposed to do so that my flying group wouldn't be tumbleweeds. It's worth it for a good mission, but I also don't want to ruin my own surprises.

 

I will be making a mission where you fight aliens in Nevada. I will be making it as realistic as I possibly can. I am loving all the advice here in this thread.

 

Well, you have dialog already available for that one. :D

Edited February 14, 2015 by Home Fries

[DarkFire]

I can't comment on MP aspects of DCS as my anti-virus apparently despises the master server. However, as an enthusiastic (but not necessarily talented) user and creator of SP missions, I can add the following observations:

 

1. The two biggest factors that I've come across that create immersion are the impression of a 'living' world, i.e. one where you are not the only aircraft in existence etc, and voice-overs. Both really add to the immersion factor of playing through a mission.

 

2. These goals, especially creating the illusion of a 'living' world, have to be very carefully balanced against sim performance. In the missions I create, there are usually other aircraft parked at the airfield (often static objects), some semi-realistic SAM protection (whether necessary or not) and usually some vehicles driving around doing their thing. Much more than this and for me the sim performance tends to bog down at a point when you really need it to be good, i.e. takeoff.

 

3. Seeing custom briefing material is a big plus, even if it's screenshots from the mission editor showing your general flight plan, important waypoints, the target area etc. These all help with mission planning and again add to immersion. I especially love reconnaissance photographs in briefings, though having spent many hours messing with the in-game free camera and Paint shop pro, I fully recognise that creating them can be a huge pain in the arse.

 

4. Pointlessly difficult missions end up being merely pointless. Being tasked to take out a power station or a dam that's guarded by 5 x SA-10 complexes, an entire regiment of TORs and enough Shilkas for an entire bloody army group is not fun. That mission will be deleted. As others have commented, objectives need to be realistic. Challenging is fine, but a flight sim is not a JRPG or platform game and doesn't need to be meaninglessly hard for the sake of it.

 

5. Random failures outside of a training mission are pointless and very annoying.

 

6. Bird strikes are pointless and annoying under any circumstances. Why ED chose to include the option of having birds at all is beyond my understanding.

Edited February 14, 2015 by DarkFire

[piXel496]

Interesting topic..

 

"good" mission making would be better with some dedicated DCS support.

- DCS could set a new created mission in the spotlight every "month or 3 months".

- Take mission making slightly more serious by better communication about bugs. Currently missions can die after a patch without knowing if there will ever be a fix.

- Keep the creative spirit high somehow? I can imagine crowdsourcing could make DCS even better.

 

On a personal level. I like

- A self explanatory mission setup

- Replayability by randomness of the same occurrences

- Multiplayer missions

- Details often make the difference

- In scripts; interesting constructions and creative solutions.

- Foremost enjoyable

 

 

.

[baltic_dragon]

A great topic, Sabre, really very interesting! :thumbup:

 

Obviously it is difficult (if not just impossible) to please everyone, but judging from the posts here fortunately DCS is a place where many like-minded people come together. In the post I will be referring quite a lot to the campaign I hope to be releasing within a week or so, so sorry for auto promotion in advance, I just spent better part of last 6 months on it and it is difficult to detach oneself :music_whistling:

 

So, my few cents:

 

1. Realism. Of course to the greatest extent possible, but I just can't stand missions where somehow you start as a NATO plane from a base deep in Russian territory without any explanation. This point is closely linked with the second one, namely:

 

2. Background. The campaign should have a specific setting, the more believable the better. I like to have not only some rational and potentially possible scenario unfolding, I also love to see the unit names etc. based on accurate real - world data. Building "Enemy Within" I spent hours researching different units, names, capabilities etc. which might seem like a total waste of time, but I really like the fact that the US recon unit helping the player - 91st Cavalry Regiment not only does exist, but really is based in Germany in RL and could potentially be transferred to Georgia - that kind of thing.

 

3. Briefing. The more detailed, the better. I like to have the general context and detailed information about the enemy / conditions / allies etc. I like to have special ROE given for each mission - what I can engage, what I shouldn't, what is the hard deck for a mission etc.

 

4. Radio chatter - it is necessary, and I am not talking about the generic one when AI informs you about passing waypoints and such. I've just counted yesterday that in "Enemy Within" I have a total of around 440 custom radio - chatter lines, all with voiceovers, over 18 missions - covering many possibilities: orders from the command, talk-on from ground forces and just random chatter between the pilot and wingman or between the wingmen. I feel this adds a lot to immersion. Plus, I only use the 'radio transmission' option, which means that you have to have a correct frequency dialled to be able to hear anyone.

 

5. Difficulty. As someone rightly pointed out, this has to be well balanced. Going against dozens of SAMs and getting shot down too often is hardly satisfying. And there are so many factors you can use to make missions interesting and challenging without having to place a few Buk launchers in the AO - the weather and weapons loadout being two most obvious ones.

 

6. Variety of missions. The missions should differ between themselves to be entertaining. Again, options are almost limitless - coming back to "Enemy Within" you will find quite a few different kinds - from simple formation flying with a tanker and landing in Georgia in the first one (hey, you had to get to Georgia somehow), through CSAR, overwatching special forces operations, tank and bunker busting, assisting friendly forces in danger close range, to attacking ships and in one case even interception. All well based in the story line.

 

7. Replayability (if this word exists): this is a tricky one, though, because the more story-based the campaign is, the more scripted and less random each mission will be. Itis good to strike some sort of balance here, but both kinds are nice and entertaining.

 

That's it from the top of my head. Thanks again for this thread, Sabre.

[Sabre-TLA]

Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far.

 

There are some obvious themes so I'll post a summary soon.

 

Please keep adding your thoughts and experiences.

 

Hopefully I can wrap this feedback up into a mission designer's handbook or something similar. (I still want the 10 commandments of mission design summary too). :thumbup:

[SDsc0rch]

^^that would be good

[Andrew Chunis]

Wow very informative thread thanks for sharing :)

[Exorcet]

5. Random failures outside of a training mission are pointless and very annoying.

 

6. Bird strikes are pointless and annoying under any circumstances. Why ED chose to include the option of having birds at all is beyond my understanding.

I just want to weigh in on what I think these are good for. They don't really do much for standalone missions, but I think they make sense in campaigns. You don't want them to happen all the time, maybe the chance is low enough that you see one failure only every 3rd playthrough of a campaign.

 

The point is, it adds a bit of extra immersion, realism, and challenge without completely ruining your session. It might cause you to fail or abort a mission, but it's just one mission out of many. Despite that, you need to be on the lookout for it. A sim can be a little too perfect sometimes and I know I end up ignoring half the gauges in the cockpit when I should be periodically checking them at least.

[redterror]

One more quick pet peeve:

 

If the user has failed the mission - *tell* them. There is nothing more frustrating than thinking you did the job but mysteriously fail the mission anyway.

 

Context: I played a bit of the old converted Devil's Cross campaign for the A-10 last night and there is one mission (#4) where you have to escort some ground guys. In that mission it was basically impossible to tell if they were still alive or if I was just wasting my time. Hint: it was the latter.

[DarkFire]

I just want to weigh in on what I think these are good for. They don't really do much for standalone missions, but I think they make sense in campaigns. You don't want them to happen all the time, maybe the chance is low enough that you see one failure only every 3rd playthrough of a campaign.

 

The point is, it adds a bit of extra immersion, realism, and challenge without completely ruining your session. It might cause you to fail or abort a mission, but it's just one mission out of many. Despite that, you need to be on the lookout for it. A sim can be a little too perfect sometimes and I know I end up ignoring half the gauges in the cockpit when I should be periodically checking them at least.

 

Ah, I hadn't thought of that. Fair enough, you make a good point. I can see where a very, very small chance of certain failures could add something to a mission. I suppose as an example gradually increasing levels of random failures could be used to simulate repeatedly damaged & repaired aircraft in a long-term, large-scale conflict. A sort of WW3 type scenario possibly, where operational tempo and attrition might preclude anything other than the most necessary repairs.

[Wrecking Crew]

My opinions come from 5 years of running the open multiplayer Hollo Pointe server.

 

In my experience, multiplayer Clients do not like random failures or bird strikes (especially after a Cold Start in an A-10C). Folks also tend to not fly nighttime missions, and missions that have greatly reduced visibility due to rain and snow. I do like these challenging scenarios, and they are certainly best when flying together with people you know and who are on TS together. I use Dynamic Weather to break up the deluge; I think Dynamic Weather works fine and have used it for years. Frame rate hits due to Dynamic Weather, explosions, smoke and proximity to large a/c such as C-130s are no longer a problem, IMO.

 

For multiplayer missions, I think everything needs to be in the mission itself -- ie, no external support documents; not that those aren't nice, but for an open server people will join and exit randomly and they will not have the resources to the supporting files. For the briefing, there is the summary section for the overall mission scenario, the Red Task section, and the Blue Task section. You have three images for each side Red and Blue that you can add to the briefing, and these are what should be relied upon to give any visuals to support the mission objectives.

 

The Summary section in my missions always lead with the mission name, type of Client a/c and Combined Arms slots, the allowed views, COOP vs H2H, Labels if Optional, and the mission start time and date (so folks can determine how long a mission has been running before they join. This ^^^ summary info should be at the beginning so that it shows in the Multiplayer lobby when the server is selected.

 

Examples of Summary top:

Thunder Of Kojori

A-10A/C, Ka-50, UH-1H, F-15C, Combined Arms

F10 Fog Of War, COOP Air, Summer Morning 0600 07JUN

 

Back Of The Hand

All Blue COOP A-10C, Su-25/T

F10 Fog Of War, Labels Optional, 0600 9SEP

 

The Task sections should clearly state what the Win requires for each side. You don't need a Red Task if there are no Red Clients. Keep this Task info short and to the point -- you don't want folks skimming a long Task section and getting glazed-over eyeballs.

 

At the end of the Blue Task description, I add a Designer's Notes section for any text that you may want to add. In this section I will put credits, and a sentence that asks that folks do not modify or host the mission if that's what I want, or to state that the mission is free for modification and hosting on other servers -- up to the designer about this, not trying to make controversy here, just saying what I do.

 

"Please do not modify or publicly host this mission without written permission from Wrecking Crew."

 

I will also put in a line about the TS server that I'm associated with.

 

---

 

Every 23 minutes a message is broadcast to all to state the mission name and Red & Blue objectives. I have started to use Do Script File and flags in this text to show the current state of the mission, such as what objectives are damaged or destroyed. See the attachment for an example; it's a lot of text and a bit distracting so I'm thinking of how to improve this new feature.

 

 

The mission needs to keep the players informed as to what objectives are met and what is left. This can be done in the repeating message I described above, or in separate messages at shorter intervals than 23 minutes. I get that some folks don't want text splashed onto the screen, but the Clients need to know what is left to do in the mission.

 

When an objective is hit or killed I will broadcast an immediate message about that. Messages are set to display for 20 seconds. If there is a follow-on message then that comes 25 seconds later and is displayed for 20 seconds. Let's say there are two objectives and the first one is met. The folks know this because a repeating message is broadcast at some interval -- every 5-12 minutes or whatever you think is right (23 minute intervals is a bit long for this information) -- telling them that objective 1 is met and that objective 2 needs attention. Then objective 2 is killed and a 20 second message to all is broadcast to state that, followed 25 seconds later with a 20 second message that all objectives are met.

 

Also needed are messages to inform if the other side has made significant progress toward winning for their side, and if they did win. Whether you broadcast to all or coalition, etc., is totally up to you.

 

 

Then there is a countdown to the mission end, usually 5 minutes sometimes 15, with a message every minute or so until the mission reloads. This is a good time to taunt the losers!

 

I started putting in a Radio Menu choice to delay the reload by ~20 minutes if any player wants to keep flying the mission for a bit to attack more targets, or to RTB.

 

I have included Radio Menu items to let a player select a different mission at the end, but that is a lot of maintenance whenever a mission is modified or there is a DCSW version update.

 

 

It has been a good practice to save every mission with each DCSW update to take advantage of code improvements (and new bugs :) ). In my mission filenames, I include a mission version that shows the DCSW version that the mission was last saved under:

"WC's Thunder Of Kojori 1214v3g.miz"

The 1214 is the DCSW version 1.2.14 and the 3g is my revision number of the mission (3h, 3i, ... 4a, ...).

 

 

As with my opinion of not having external documents, I also won't require mods for my missions. Since my server is Open and folks will join and leave at any time in the mission, I won't require anyone to load a mod to support the story.

 

The one mod I use is Slmod on the server and that is for admin reloads and banning.

 

My server is geared for players of all levels. Sometimes Labels will be allowed, sometimes F10 All, sometimes FOW. But always turned off are easy flight, crash recovery, random fails, Unlimited & Easy this and that, whatever -- you have to tailor your mission to what you want.

 

 

The FC3 pilots say to start their a/c on the ramp -- engines off Cold Start. They want this so they can effect a different loadout w/o having to shut down the jet from a Warm Start. Usually for A-10Cs I'll include Air Starts and ground starts -- both Warm and Cold. I often fly the Air Starts because by the time I've posted a mission on the server for others to enjoy, I have already spent many tens to hundreds of hours testing testing testing and I just want to go go go. The aircraft slot names should include the start type: Air, Warm or Cold (or if they are all the same you can state that in the Briefing). Slot names may also include the airfield name if there are multiple fields available to the coalition.

 

Typically, for any one combo of a/c, airfield, starting type there will be four Client slots to accommodate a flight of four.

 

 

The Briefing should list the air defense that Clients will encounter. I will get complaints if these are not mentioned -- esp. when someone goes a long way to just get nailed by a BUK or a nasty Igla. If Iglas are about I will broadcast messages about this particular threat -- while it is alive.

 

I have gotten feedback that color-blind folks cannot distinguish between red and green, so I avoid green smoke and flares and use blue instead. Those folks may also have trouble with orange...

 

 

FYI, I am suspicious of ships and have been for some time. I have some fun ship-based missions but when you fly down close to them they will often not appear! There are bug reports about this, some more than a year old.

 

Keep arty and armor away from power transmission lines. I read a while back that these units won't fire if too close to power lines.

 

Using regular events and triggers you can detect blue and red groups in zones. With a simple Mist script you can detect specific types of platforms, specific groups and specific units in zones and set a flag; there is a 'toggle' flag option, a required number of units option and a spherical zone option. From a Mist flag trigger you can 'latch' the condition with a second flag; the reason to latch a condition is because the Mist detection will set to True its flag every second, so you cannot use that Mist flag directly in a subsequent Time Since Flag event. Look at Page ~14 in the Mist Guide.

 

Client aircraft waypoints that correspond to a ground location or target should be set to the altitude of the ground elevation. If the waypoint is at an intersection, a bridge, etc., give it the same altitude as the point's F10 map elevation. People will complain about waypoints up in the air. Give names to Client a/c waypoints.

 

WC

Edited February 16, 2015 by Wrecking Crew
after thoughts...

[FlightControl]

Hi Wrecking_Crew,

 

Related to the messaging system to provide status updates etc to the active players, the way you described it is exactly the way that the Gori Valley and MOOSE messaging system works. Missions and Tasks are shown on regular intervals to inform players of the mission statusses.

 

One additional comment from Fubarbundy was to make a function to "disable" these flashing messages, but to have a menu to obtain the latest task for the player within the mission. I think this is a great idea and will start implementing this within MOOSE.

 

Great feedback, and yes, i know, different players means different opinions and different wishes. It is hard to do good for everybody.

 

May i ask you however, actuall ALL, how do you track mission SUCCESS??

What i mean is, how to express in a decent manner that a mission has ended and to COMMUNICATE that to all players AFTER the mission is reloaded? What I do is to collect statistics, and publish the results, but this is a workaround...

 

thanks,

Sven

[Wrecking Crew]

I was thinking of adding a Radio command to show the status, too. It wouldn't be hard to do, I'll put one in this Back Of The Hand mission for showing the status, but prolly not for disabling the repeating messages. Right now the repeating status message comes on every 23 minutes, until one of the two objectives is destroyed, then the interval is every 17 minutes. I have added more flag logic to reduce the length; it was quite a block of text at first, still is... Another idea is to break that stuff up. Hmmm, it would be neat to use a text-to-voice converter and have the JSTARS send an audio message.

 

I use broadcast messages to inform players of on-going mission success. If there are more than two objectives, I'll use Boolean logic to message that this or that objective is still left, so someone doesn't go flying off to a destroyed target. I've never thought of carrying results over to the restart.

 

 

When Blue or Red wins a mission, I'll start a countdown from 15-5 minutes before the mission reloads. Messages countdown every few minutes, until 5 minutes when a message will appear each minute. These messages let everyone know the restart is coming, and to say who won (Red or Blue) and who needs to go back home to their mommies.

 

WC

[WildBillKelsoe]

Realism based, preferably re-enacts books. Also be based on real life counterpart planes, not substitutes.

[Dutchy93]

In SP missions and campaigns it is important to have a good story and immersion. Like others said some activity in your area or static objects to make you feel like you are in a living environment.

 

I don't mind having to fly a little while to get to my target as long as the mission is survivable. I don't want to fly the same mission over and over again for 10 times because I get my ass handed to me every time.

 

Furthermore pay attention to the flight path!

Some time ago I flew the Su27 Fortress Mozdok campaign and in one of the missions we were flying a little while to the CAP area close to the border.

But just on the other side of the line was a SA-10 or SA-11 lighting me up for 15 minutes straight and the RWR kept screaming at me.

Needless to say this gets annoying REALY fast.

 

Another gripe is the AI.

This has been said many times but I'll point it out again.

In the Over the Hump campaign for the MiG29 there is a mission in which you have to escort a flight of SEAD SU25T's to the target (SA-11).

I've struggled with this mission to get all the fighters out of the way.

So I had to do this mission a few times to get the hang of it.

But when I finally manage to fend of the fighters and my SEAD friends get to their target, I still fail the missions because they can't hit the broad side of a barn

(or they dump all their stores if an enemy is spotted at all).

If this happens once, ok things happen.

But to have this happen over and over again gets old pretty fast.

 

My point is, don't make people fly the same mission over and over again because the AI fails to get the target.

So either make a Backup Plan, or make a mission to cover that possibility.

Repeating a mission 10 times is a good way to get people to abandon your campaign.

A few things that benefit a mission or campaign in general are:

 

Good briefing with clear objectives. And for gods sake, if you make a mission for example a MiG21 or F86, mark the waypoints on a map or picture!

Don't say the target is on WPX without marking it. Not every plane has a TAD or digital map. Give directions or let GCI guide you but don't send people in the woods without a route.

 

Documentation is a good bonus, but should be a support/add-on.

A mission should be playable without reading 50 pages of documentation.

Furthermore randomisation of units can help keep the mission fresh.

 

But for the most part: Keep it fun!

[baltic_dragon]

Another gripe is the AI.

This has been said many times but I'll point it out again.

In the Over the Hump campaign for the MiG29 there is a mission in which you have to escort a flight of SEAD SU25T's to the target (SA-11).

I've struggled with this mission to get all the fighters out of the way.

So I had to do this mission a few times to get the hang of it.

But when I finally manage to fend of the fighters and my SEAD friends get to their target, I still fail the missions because they can't hit the broad side of a barn

(or they dump all their stores if an enemy is spotted at all).

If this happens once, ok things happen.

But to have this happen over and over again gets old pretty fast.

 

That is why a good mission designer will never make an outcome of the mission depend on the AI actions, unless you beta-test it 100 times and it works every time. SEAD is a good example of that, I spent 3 evenings to make it work for the MP mission I am working on right now (even though it is not crucial for missions success), but with totally unreliable AI I finally had to simulate the attack and script it (assign 85% chance of a success, which means that enemy SAM would just blow up after SEAD flight declares 'Magnum'). I would really love to leave more uncertainity leaving things for the AI, but as things are at the moment, it is rather difficult. Still, there are always ways around obstacles in ME, which is a good thing.

 

On a more general note, I think one cannot forget how important it is to beta-test the missions before they are released, it saves the author making too many updates and the players frustration with not working triggers etc.

[Sabre-TLA]

I've summarized the feedback and created "The 10 Commandments of Mission Design".

 

You can review the document here.