[Sun] 09 Mar 2014 (OOOOOOOOOOO yeaaaaaah!)

[thekev506]

OK I want to go to bed, let's see if I can throw this together quickly.

A Friend in Need - INDFOR B2 AAR
Under Ferrard's leadership our fireteam spread out and set up as adequate a sentry as we could. I saw the NATO helo come in to land as I wandered around the wrecked house I was to station myself in, and then heard the bleep-bleep of explosives being placed on our precious caches. NATO treachery! As one of the caches went boom the CO gave the all clear to shoot everyone else a moment or two before CSAT turned up to join in, and we found ourselves getting slaughtered pretty quickly.

We need more 3-way missions with shaky alliances! Seriously, all that tension and confusion as to what the NATO guys were up to and the inevitable breakdown added so much to the experience, really enjoyed it.

Thrusting Crusader - B3 FTL
Somehow, through divine miracle, B3 seemed to be the only fireteam to make it from our base into the village without taking any losses, nor did we get seriously engaged in any way. Not too sure how this happened, but we got away with it. Then the village clearing started and people began dropping like flies, with all of Bravo consolidating into my FT and me being promoted to SL. We'd done a half-decent job of clearing the northern end of the village before the word came through for all units to withdraw back to the radio tower, so we bounded our way back and took defensive positions, the entirety of Bravo whittled down to 5 men. Then Danny threw a grenade by mistake and we all died.

[WrathzRevenge]

Betrayal.

[Dogface]

Ahaha, I love that ending, and panicked ARGHLBARGHLGRENARGHLE screams in general. Yeah, I was negotiating furiously with BLU but they just started giving me the cold shoulder. Right after the explosion you can hear Stoner opening up with one of the M2s, then me shooting his killer and in turn getting shot. :3

[Wilson]

Damn that game is pretty!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Thirith]

I'm curious as to how many people found the shaky-alliance-and-betrayal part frustrating and how many enjoyed the mission all the more for it. It sounds absolutely intriguing, but I see how people more interested in playing to win a mission would get really annoyed by it.

[wolfenswan]

I'm curious as to how many people found the shaky-alliance-and-betrayal part frustrating and how many enjoyed the mission all the more for it. It sounds absolutely intriguing, but I see how people more interested in playing to win a mission would get really annoyed by it.

Thing is, it wasn't meant to be that. The briefing said it's a suggestion not the rule and it was clarified in global chat. NATO & FIA were on the same side. I'm currently reworking the mission to avoid future confusion and making it similar to A2's version. > Feedback Thread.

[Thirith]

It sounds like some people enjoyed it exactly for that, though, even if it wasn't meant to be that. Are the mission designers here considering creating missions that build on the shaky alliance mechanism?

[wolfenswan]

It sounds like some people enjoyed it exactly for that, though, even if it wasn't meant to be that. Are the mission designers here considering creating missions that build on the shaky alliance mechanism?

Personally no. It's too gamey, requires a lot of player commitment/discipline and suffers from the lack of consequences/little incencitive to uphold your deal as you can just go "lol I lied. boom."

[fer]

It sounds like some people enjoyed it exactly for that, though, even if it wasn't meant to be that. Are the mission designers here considering creating missions that build on the shaky alliance mechanism?

We're not getting into the Dark Business business.

[Ferrard Carson]

It sounds like some people enjoyed it exactly for that, though, even if it wasn't meant to be that. Are the mission designers here considering creating missions that build on the shaky alliance mechanism?

The reason the "A Friend in Need" situation was modestly enjoyable was precisely because it was unexpected. Do not confuse the novelty of a betrayal situation with enjoying betrayal. Aside from that novelty, it pissed me off quite a bit. When BluFor ignored the host's clarification and acted on a non-existent objective, IndFor essentially got screwed over by BluFor's choices rather than their own decisions. OpFor players likely didn't particularly find the mission all that interesting either, since when they arrived, everyone was dead and it was a mop-up operation rather than a battle.

So, enjoyable mischief for five or six BluFor players, OpFor's experience made pretty dull, and IndFor along for the ride with no power to really decide anything? No thank you.

~ Ferrard