Missions seem to work out nicely

The mission system ... Well I have to admit that I'm not paying any attention to it.
As a few people already said, I set objectives (for me and my squad) myself. The mission just seems like an intrusive thing on my map / UI that I'd rather turn off.

I guess if I was new to the game I might have appreciate it but so far I think the game should encourage people to join squads / outfits and be a real part of it. I would have preferred a squad/platoon version before having the random one.

Talking about squad/platoon feature, and since there is an active Dev in the thread, could we please have multiple waypoints to set ?
Like 3 or 4 with numbers (weren't there a system like this in PS1 ?) so you can put a mark on the map for a retreat place (for example).

You know, I remember when you first launch Mission phase 1 on PTS. There was a thread with a large amount of feedback AGAINST having large waypoint and information remove from you because you got to do what the AI wants.

I remember posting and receiving the reply...

Look you like that crystal of yours was pretty damn distorted because release show you aren't even close to what several were asking back then...

It's sad when I'm at the point stupid post/action by SOE doesn't even surprise me. I now expect them. PS2 dev want to help our ingame experience? How cute! I know you won't.

Huh, this automation of the system is puzzling to me ... I thought we were getting this:
Unscheduled - Player Generated Missions

That was the kind of missions I thought that we were working toward.

This is just seems like ... the game is nagging me to follow the already more restrictive Lattice Lanes + closed terrain design than the Hex adjacency thing this game launched with.

It also comes across that encouraging a Squad Leader / Platoon Leader to place fewer way points / smoke / map symbols and just generally let this system automate their team objectives and be lazy in their strategic and tactical play is ... er, why do you have squad and platoon leaders again? You're basicly making running in a public squad redundant, we never really did need a squad to mindlessly zerg *shrugs*

It seems to me this system is lacking in context - would it be possible to toggle a squad as being these four kinds:
1) FOB / Urban Objective Infantry
2) Air Drop / Spec Op High Ground Infantry
3) Land Vehicle
4) Air Vehicle
Each of those kinds of squads have very different sizes and configurations of areas of operations, Air Vehicle squads especially have patrols that cover several regions and have formations that are three dimensional. The restricted air space and high ground terrain of the extra 15% exp and base capture radius often only applies to the first kind of squad.

And you already gave a lot of tactical incentive, bonus exp, and to being cohesive with your squad (and in a squad) when you updated the spawn in squad Sunderer or Galaxy. With far less a "naggy" feel to it.

Huh, I think I'll go play some other games instead that haven't been giving me that vibe of being on rails, been having quite a bit of fun sandboxing ArmA 3 and Project Zomboid with Steam friends I knew before and met in PS2 when we were hoping this game would be more player driven, sorry *shrugs*.

New mission system is totally absurd.

Trying out platoon leading today. I put down platoon WPs on another base. Start to move to it before we've capped the one we are currently attacking (it's called planning and advance movement etc) and it just CONFUSES the ENTIRE squad/platoon.

They get different missions as I move through the map. And even when I was at the next base it was still saying defend the one I'd just left some 500m away.

Just totally silly and adds to the confusion. Leads to LESS cohesion, not more.

well i'm willing to give it a chance is all. Its not the end of the world.

It's good that you have an awesome outfit that wins alerts. I stated that when the system gets refined, good PLs should be able to override it. For every super platoon out there, players like me encounter 5 aimless horrible PLs with bad strategy. I want the system to be good enough that an indecisive PL doesnt have to feel pressured to update waypoints and pretend he/she has a strategy.

With the lattice in place, there really isnt MUCH complex decision making to be made. If they can design A.i that has a general good sense of what should be defended and attacked i dont see the problem.

Ive been in platoons where the lead isnt paying attention to the map close enough and we lose alerts going after a pointless base or fail to respond in time. Ive had PLs who like to randomly hop around the map because they have no idea what to do and afraid to make the call to attack/defend. An effective mission system could help to get rid of this aimlessness.

Im all for it. We just need to suffer through the growing pains for the greater good. Eventually they will give us control over it, right now they need as much data as they can get to improve it.

i really dont get how this, of all games, feel on rails. If this mission system was the "straw to break the camels back" for you, then you must not have been enjoying yourself very much to begin with. So its no loss really, this just isnt your kind of game. ArmA 3 and Zomboid are really good games.

The screen is really cluttered. We really need the ability to turn off HUD elements to maintain the fidelity of our infantry experience.

I actually really like where missions are going. For newbies and bad PLs of open squads, which is 90% of what new players see, having the objectives coordinated and telling them to push a lattice lane is far more than they had before.

However.

I am not really a new player any more, I'm in an outfit that knows what we're doing, and to us the mission stuff is a serious negative at this point in time, because
- the mission isn't what we want to do 90% of the time, and
- we can't see cap point status and timers in our HUD any more if we're not at a mission objective
- also, missions don't play nicely with gal drops and other tactical relocations

Here's the changes I would make in the short term (i.e. before you get onto explicit player selected missions):

- as a critical update, move the timer back to where it was (just above the minimap) and make it always present. Move mission text above the timer. This leaves the mission UI almost exactly the same as it was if you're in the mission hex, but gives us back the ability to see what's going on in the base we're in. You got a lot of negative feedback about this on PTS and I'm disappointed it went live still obscuring the base timer and cap point status.

- make it so that if your PL or SL places waypoints, your mission is affected by the waypoint, not the PL's/SL's location. (Waypoint priority should be: squad, platoon level Alpha/Bravo etc, platoon.) The mission should be in the hex of the waypoint; if it's currently under contention and the waypoint's in the facility region, it should be 'attack' or 'defend' as appropriate, and if not, 'secure the area' or something suitably vague. Again, this allows people currently benefiting from the missions to get the same as now, but good PLs/SLs to work with the system instead of fighting.

- allow us to turn off the main HUD waypoint. For experienced players, the indication above the minimap is sufficient, and the HUD indicator can obscure more important things (like cap points and enemies).

Well, we've been playing a while right? I remember when the Indar map was bigger for instance and there were more bases, more routes. Same was true of Amerish and so forth. I still manage to find a way to drive on the periphery of things sometimes to make a armored or infantry flank maneuver in the places where the terrain hasn't been made entirely impassable if you are not taking the roads or traveling on foot over the slippery rock surfaces in PS2 - but these days with the Lattice Lanes, its a harassing maneuver at best, spec ops aren't really mechanically supported in the possible objectives that currently exist in the game.

Oh well, at least a number of the base designs have gotten more interesting, even if the ridiculous spawn camping still hasn't been fixed by designing proper defensive lines and a SCU as the main objective into every base. This game is won and lost on spawns, we have a grand ol'time designing specific player driven missions centered around defending and blowing up Sunderers / Galaxies / Spawn Beacons, SCU design could be very similar, even a hide the SCU and transport the SCU mechanic could be introduced to bases to mix things up.

And please don't get me wrong, that wasn't a "straw that broke the camels back", I'm just a PC gamer. If I am not having fun with this game currently, I'll just go have fun with something else and I'll pop back later to see if the Devs came up with a better implementation yet. Heck, ArmA 3 and Project Zomboid are in development themselves, plenty of stuff to tweak there too *shrugs*

For me, it boils down to if the game is playing the decisions for me at that strategic level of mission assignment, why should I the player bother? I guess watching the AI play the game can be fun sometimes but its just not what I was hoping for back when I got into the PS2 Beta.

This. The mission system just doesn't work at the moment. The squad/platoon lead moves around and everyone gets silly missions changing the whole time. The mission system just does not reflect the way the game is played at squad/platoon level.

We have to be able to disable it.

Tuning feedback:

I encountered a problem with the mission system yesterday, when it sent me to Defend The Crown. Every hex surrounding The Crown was already secure - null chance of an attack, but that's where the defend mission was.

Defense missions can be triggered by 5 hostiles present and 3 recent kills last I heard. Noticed this morning that the amount of spawns at the base our two 3/3 liberators were picking off infantry drastically increased after the first few loners died.

I can only hope this changes soon, since most mission following players have neither the experience or the equipment to defend against air threats effectively, and it sucks that sometimes the very players designed to be helped by missions get lead to a negative experience like this instead.

The mission system feels more like hand holding for new players. It doesn't actually feel like a "mission" but instead a "if you are lost go this way".

Frankly I wish I could turn it off or silence it, but it really doesn't get in the way much so I just ignore it.

I don't mind the mission system. I just ignore it most of the time but it might be nice for new players or inexperienced squad leads. I guess it makes it easier to find a fight when you play solo as well.

BUT

Punishing players by removing information is very very poor design. There is no reason to do that. Keep it as an option but putting everyone who do not want to play along at a disadvantage is just plain bad game design. When we play in platoons, we do multiple bases in parallel. We send small teams to different bases to capture them. Why are you punishing us for using tactics?

That specific game mechanic is actually highly insulting because you are calling all your players idiots. I can read. I know which base I am at because I moved there myself. If there is some confusion of where you are, then you need to redesign the UI.

This issue will be treated as a bug and I will keep sending in bug reports until the bug is fixed.

Restore the essential information like capture points and capture time in non-mission areas (it's also be nice if you can toggle missions on and off) and I'll be okay with the missions system. Until then, I think I'll only be on the PTS and and getting my passive certs when it comes to things relating to this game. I have my doubts that the information lost will be restored without a MAJOR community backlash though (and even then that might not do anything).

Well yeah, after playing some more today i must say this mission system really is not in a state where it's of any help on the live server. It's irritating at best and pretty annoying at worst.

That thing should have stayed on the test server, or you should have given us the option to turn it off so that the people who want to test it can have the chance to do so, but the ones who don't and want to play on the live server don't get affected by it.

And the option to turn it off should be there, regardless of the current state of the mission system, and on that note a lot of elements should be toggle-able but aren't (single indicator types, experience gain, flexible hud, etc.).

Making these things optional and more customizable is really needed instead of trying to please everyone with a "one size fits all" approach. One simple checkbox and some players are more happy while nobody is less happy, that should be worth a line of code and an icon one would think eh?

To me, a toggle would be quite easy. An extra Boolean is all I think you would need. Have it when it click that checkbox it sets that Boolean. And then have the code that displays the missions system check for said Boolean. I don't it would be terribly hard to do that.

Sorry. Add "think" to the sentence "I don't think it would be terribly hard to do that.". Should be "I don't think it would be terribly hard to do that.".

If it benefits the newer generation of the community and doesn't detract much from that of the older, it benefits all as whole. I find it's a fine addition.

I HATE THE MISSION SYSTEN AND I WANNA SHUT IT OFF

Its useles and Annoying .

I play since early Beta and u think i need that annoysound whits base i need 2 get ??????

Only gives more incentives to zerg the closest base without any tactic or strategy.

Now brainless Zergs leader don't need anymore to put squad/platoon waypoins.