Why are some missions "Good"?...

[revi]

I am thinking of making up a mission, I thought your answers might give me some guide lines to build it from. 2 easy questions please...
What makes a mission "good"? (What makes it really successful for you?)
What makes a really "bad" mission? (One that you quit and never fly again?)

If you could answer these you would be of great help. Thanks.

[Skarphol]

To me a good mission is a mission that has:
- a good written description
- a goal that is not too easy to achieve
- involves cooperation between different types of planes
- has some elements of surprise
- has a few elements that has nothing to do with the mission like trains, boats, transports planes and coulumns
- has well designed landscape around areas where you are supposed to be flying low, at least at your own base
- a duration not longer than 30min
- no planes spawning after the mission has started, unless it is nescesary

And I tend to like missions were the route is not given, just information of where the target is located, wich area you are supposed to achieve airsuperiority, where you are supposed to rendezvous with allies etc..

Skarphol

[SG1_Gunkan]

To me good missions must be historical in the first place. Skarphol post is very complete.

[-Sulan-]

A good mission to me is historical or is based on historical events, a "what if" scenario is nice if it has some believable historical roots.
A good mission also might have some dynamic elements, some things that can turn out differently each time.
Thats hard to achieve with Il2's FMB, but one can have a flight of an enemy flight fighting some friendly AI before you get to fight them - that way their number can vary a little.
I also like missions without waypoints and descriptions of the goal instead...

Also it's very important to give good information (if it's not supposed to be unknown to the player for some reason) about other friendly flights, their times on targets and takeoffs and landings etc, especially if you play without any icons...

Also some trains and columns etc for immersion is vital I thinks, maybe a friendly flight coming in for landing after you've taken off and stuff...
It's also very cool to have some machineguns firing on armor (so that it does'nt get destroyed) to have the looks of some firing at the frontline...

My 2 cents.. Good luck!! :)

[Friendly_flyer]

A good mission for me need not to have any historical elements. I like the unusual missions, spotting things in the fog, taking out small, fast boats, navigating with landmarks etc. I like a good brief.

Than again, I like the straight forward scramble missions too.

[mondo]

All whats been said before but what really does it for me is being able to look out the window and see activity on the ground or sea. The immersive aspect.

[bigbossmalone]

a good mission for me is one I actually survive intact... :D

[Flyby]

to me a COOP good mission has enough immersion to keep a pilot busy and a successful outcome is not a sure thing. It need not be historical, but should provide a high "pucker" factor.
A bad mission is just the opposite: too easily accomplished goals, and the outcome is never in doubt.

I've produced some so-called Die-by missions where survival is always in doubt. Maybe the plane-sets are unequal in the opposition's favor. Or air starts with the enemy coming in out of the sun. Or very well defended ground targets. As I said, I prefer a high pucker factor.
Flyby (Die-by missions specialist)

[Corpse Grinder]

To me "good" is in the eye of the beholder. :wink:

[Bearcat]

For me it is
a well written briefing
a challenging but achievable goal
a well balanced plane set
good timing as far as spawn times , etc...
a well organized and populated map - Thats where some of the great templates @ M4T come in...

Not necessarily in that order.

[Viking]

To me a feeling of that I actually have experienced something close to the historical event

[Flyby]

the tighter the realism settings the better. It's usually the one you don't see that gets you. :wink:
Flyby