[Sun] 09 Mar 2014 (OOOOOOOOOOO yeaaaaaah!)

How we died (in the future)
User avatar
Thirith
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:29 am

Re: [Sun] 09 March 2014 (OOOOOOOOOOO yeaaaaaah!)

Post by Thirith »

Good points, definitely. I like the concept of a Prisoner's Dilemma-style threeway mission, but based on what you say it's probably quite likely to end up less than enjoyable for a fair number of people.
"Until now we scraped along the ground like rats, but from now on, we soar. Like eagles. Yeah. LIKE EAGLES... ON... POGO STICKS." - Grim Fandango

User avatar
SuperU
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:02 pm
Location: Perpetual state of motion

Re: [Sun] 09 March 2014 (OOOOOOOOOOO yeaaaaaah!)

Post by SuperU »

Ferrard Carson wrote:
Thirith wrote: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
we did not ignore the clarifications, we destroyed the cache as stated (at least interpreted) in the briefing. Its also important to note that FIA was the side who instigated the blue on blue

mingmong
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 4:08 pm

Re: [Sun] 09 March 2014 (OOOOOOOOOOO yeaaaaaah!)

Post by mingmong »

As was said after the mission ended, there was no FIA blue on blue at the start. You took fire from CSAT as you landed.

zitron
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: [Sun] 09 March 2014 (OOOOOOOOOOO yeaaaaaah!)

Post by zitron »

mingmong wrote:As was said after the mission ended, there was no FIA blue on blue at the start. You took fire from CSAT as you landed.
As the CSAT FTL who ordered the landing helo to be engaged from 600m away to cause panic, I fully endorse this message.

User avatar
SuperU
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:02 pm
Location: Perpetual state of motion

Re: [Sun] 09 March 2014 (OOOOOOOOOOO yeaaaaaah!)

Post by SuperU »

mingmong wrote:As was said after the mission ended, there was no FIA blue on blue at the start. You took fire from CSAT as you landed.
Yeah and we didn't return fire...

Our mission always was to destroy the caches, this is something that was also a constant in the A2 version of a friend in need. We fired at FIA and with drew AFTER being engaged by FIA forces.
"To prevent any CSAT forces from seizing the NATO crates[...] deploying heliborn forces to support the FIA and - if necessary - destroy the crates"
Friendly Forces: A FIA platoon at the convoy
NOTE
This can be played as a three-way adv. where FIA have to defend the caches[...] while NATO wants nothing but to destroy them

Execution: Locate the convoy and destroy the caches.

Post Reply