![i'm a cowboy baby :clint:](./images/smilies/emot-clint.gif)
EDIT: Of course not just me, but anyone else new to it who happens to be reading this post...
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
Couldn't agree more - finding a nice balance between enough AI to challenge and not result in TDK is a priority - but one that is hard to judge while sitting in the editor on your own. I'm often pushed to rage quit on missions where most of the team and I are dead before we can pinpoint the attack... Not fun.Dogface wrote:I personally think that missions that are winnable are better than meatgrinder ones
Some personal tips for new mission makers:Is there a particular style of Folk ARPS mission?
In the traditional Folk missions for ArmA 2, the Folk platoon was meant to represent a guerrilla or insurgent force type, operating without high-tech equipment or significant combined arms support. Later, in the (ArmA 2) days of Folk ARPS this evolved, and many mission makers added their own flavor to our missions, from 'Soviets in Afghanistan' to 'rogue UN platoon' and 'USMC thrown into the meatgrinder'. For ArmA 3, we welcome a similarly broad range of mission types, but retain our emphasis on infantry.
Does this mean I can submit a mission where everyone has an APACHE and a M109?
While all kinds of missions are welcome, we ask that you don't focus on long-range engagements by optics-equipped infantry with plenty of tanks and attack helicopters in support. The mission should be a challenge, not a 'brown people shooting simulator'. For example, if you give the players a few IVFs (e.g. Warriors), please give the enemy some SPG-9s.