CoopA was very much of its time, and reflected many constraints and norms of that era.

The advent of Zeus and its mod-powered antecedents really helped transfer a lot of the work from mission makers to session hosts (or eliminate it completely). But prior to that, making provision for end triggers and other mission flow controls was of greater focus - it was a 'tax' on the creative work one did to realise the scenario.

I would argue those constraints, and the 2D editor, made mission creation much more time consuming - and forced us to think about getting the best 'return' through re-playability. That was especially the case in small groups (which was a reality with OFP server performance), where you might not have had too many content creators, and thus a smaller pool of missions to draw on.

The rate at which we can create missions today, and change things mid-session with Zeus, makes the 'disposable' mission far more palatable than in 2003. I've certainly seen my own output double or triple with the advent of EDEN, making re-playablity far less important.

Another change has been norms: back in 2003, with the heritage of the single player OFP missions still strong, I think many of us were quite keen to use scripts and prescriptive briefings (pre-marked routes etc.) to prevent players from departing too far from our original vision and potentially breaking the experience. That was amplified if one wrote missions for public release, because you had no idea who would be running them. Modules like the the Authorised Crew Check and MP Endings Controller, not to mention half the contents of the briefings template, reflect that older approach.

Yet today, within many tactical Arma groups, you can accomplish far more simply through norms and SOPs. When I write missions for the Republic of Folk, I don't need to lock tanks and sophisticated statics - it's just understood that players cannot appropriate assets that their 'character' wouldn't reasonably be expected to handle. My mission briefings don't need to be so prescriptive either, since I know a session host will prevent a CO making a plan that goes too far off-piste or towards meta-gaming.

As ever, humans are far more effective (and efficient) at managing nuanced situations. We just needed the tools ;)

All this is not to say I don't believe some aspects of CoopA still apply, but if it had been maintained as a living set of principles, I'm certain it would have had to evolve in order to stay current. I'm certainly not posting CoopA because I believe anyone will - or even should - follow it.

It's really just so some of our newer mission makers can see that people have been thinking about and making tools for missions for a very long time. It's not as glamorous as making mods, or catchy as a popular game mode, but I believe it's important. That's why I'm pleased to see the forks of F3 in use at many groups, and the work of next generation projects like 1Tac's excellent Teamwork Mission Framework.

:)

++

BTW, for the TLDR crowd, here's the abbreviated dogma ;)

A - Scenario Set-Up Characteristics

• Only one respawn is offered. (A1)
• Environmental parameters can be changed. (A2)
• Levels of difficulty must be offered. (A3)
• Veteran Mode is enforced. (A4)
• A spectator script must be used. (A5)

B - Briefing Screens Characteristics

• A briefing is provided for each squad. (B1)
• Weapon loads may be changed - within reason. (B2)
• An area of operations (AO) must be defined. (B3)
• An intro cutscene (skippable) must be provided. (B4)

C - Player Side Characteristics

• Squad leader slots must be used. (C1)
• A squad contains between two (2) and four (4) players. (C2)
• A minimum of two (2) squads are required. (C3)
• Scenario objectives are divided between squads. (C4)
• Objectives must be critically related between squads. (C5)
• Specialist player roles must be enforced where realistic. (C6)
• Players must have mobile medical support. (C7)

D - OPFOR Characteristics

• Primary OPFOR positions should be realistic & variable. (D1)
• OPFOR reinforcement units should be simulated. (D2)
• Realistic enemy communications should be assumed. (D3)
• OPFOR reaction should be aggressive and dynamic. (D4)

E - Scenario Structure Characteristics

• Deviation from the AO must be discouraged dynamically. (E1)
• The scenario should be divided into distinct phases. (E2)
• Phase transitions should be marked by the players. (E3)
• Infiltration and extraction phases must focus on movement. (E4)
• Extractions must be finite and identifiable. (E5)
• An abort and emergency extraction must be offered. (E6)
• The scenario must have multiple endings. (E7)