fa3_c81_hilltop

Help make Party-approved missions harder
Post Reply
feanix
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:25 pm

fa3_c81_hilltop

Post by feanix »

ATM I'm a bit worried about the gameplay quality for the NATO troops stuck on the hill. Don't want them too be too overpressured or too bored. Feedback very welcome!

User avatar
wolfenswan
Posts: 1209
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:59 pm

Re: fa3_c81_hilltop

Post by wolfenswan »

The mission reminds me of Fritz Frenzy, which I like. I think there are a few things that can be improved/tweaked for a better experience:
  • Briefing needs to be trimmed down a bit (see our guidelines). The mission tab had too much fluff when it should be a very brief list of the objectives. You can create an additional 'background'-tab if you need to convey more information, but situation and mission should be as brief as possible to allow players to get an idea of what's going on within less than 5 minutes.
  • I don't think FIA and NATO need to be split sides afterall. There's not much harm in them placing markers in the same side channels and it makes sense for them to be in contact. I wouldn't even mind if they'd see each other's group markers to prevent FF.
  • I'd reduce the # of player slots to make it easier for hosts. We'll never hit 70 in this mission and I think the defending team should be balanced around being 14ppl tops. Our current session ceiling seems to be 40 (with 30-35 being the recent turnouts) so that should be a good number to aim for.
  • The position NATO is defending could use some more cover. You can't really cram more than 2 in those smaller bunkers. Maybe add some bag-walls or some-such. Also indicating their position on the map using markers would be very useful.
  • Giving NATO some fire support would give them more agency than just "hide and shoot those who come around the corner". A player controlled CAS (MH or Wipeout) would probably be too powerful but using the support modules for CAS or mortars might do the trick.
  • The FIA vehicles are a bit fragile. HEMTT trucks and Hunters are much more sturdy. FIA could be changed to be NATO and the current NATO to be some sort of SFs if that would suit the narrative better. It might even be interesting to give the rescuing group an IFV or two to convey this whole "cavalry has arrived" feeling.
  • ZEUS might work nicely with the mission. ZEUS could adjust depending on how well the defenders are doing and you don't need to pre-draw attack routes as mission-maker. I'm not sure if it's necessary but if you'd want to balance it you could give ZEUS only access to a limited contigent of pre-placed units or limit his "ressources" for spawning stuff.
Hope that helps :hist101:

Aqarius
Host
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:28 am
Location: Hobbiton, The Shire

Re: fa3_c81_hilltop

Post by Aqarius »

FIA CO here.

-What was with that questionmark on the solar plant?
-What's the function of CSAT in the mission?
-Why is FIA so far away?

Dunno about NATO side of things, but if there were only 3 guys alive by te time FIA reached the foot of the hill, I'd say the SF/NATO idea is a good one. I mean, we took more or less the fastest possible route to the peak, and we were still late to the party. If we actually stormed Edessa, who knows if we would've even dealt with the HMGs by the time NATO was gone. Another thing you could do is instead of Edessa, give FIA some heavy hardware and make CSAT into an actual cordon on the west of Edessa bay, between the coast and that little southern shoulder that the road bends around. That way, CSAT would be close enough to threaten the valley between them and the hill, and force FIA to take them out.
[/allegedly]

User avatar
fer
Posts: 1586
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 8:16 am
Location: Emotional wreck

Re: fa3_c81_hilltop

Post by fer »

Hey - really enjoyed the mission. Comrades who recall Tigershark's Fritz Frenzy will also remember that that mission was also crazy hard. However, I do have two small requests:
  • The briefing was good in parts, and less so in others; please could you have a look at these guidelines? If you want a hand editing a second draft, I'll be really happy to assist. I think we could get this down by 50% without losing the meaning or tone.
  • It wasn't completely clear how we should use comms - at one point the NATO CO asked me if it was okay for him and the FIA CO to be on the same CC. A note about this in the Administration tab would be awesome for future generations.
  • I don't think there were 81 slots in the mission, so perhaps this needs to be edited?
Looking forward to playing this again!

Post Reply