Harvest Red Co-op Enhancement?

[parias 0]

Recently I tried playing through Harvest Red's campaign in co-op mode with a friend of mine. We had tried once shortly after the game's release a long time ago and found it was a bug-ridden mess, so decided to hold off until more updates could be put out.

Now that the game's been patched we tried again, but still had quite a few problems. This included:

*Client players dying during certain vehicle transportation segments due to improperly-handled ejection events - in the mission where you start on the APC and then switch to bicycles for example, my friend always got launched from the vehicle before it stopped at lethal velocity, while the rest of us auto-mounted the bicycles. He always died again and again in this mission because of that, and the only way to fix this was to start the mission without him in it, and have him join in-progress after everyone had gotten off the APC. We had a couple other missions where this was the case too - the client's unit would simply die during transportation segments for various reasons unless the player wasn't actually in the game when those segments happened.

*Broken gameplay mechanics; client players couldn't really trigger events or properly interact with certain objective items, only the host / team lead player could. This made it a bit more frustrating on missions like Razor Two where we wanted to coordinate our efforts across a large area of land. In a few respects this made some sense (Cooper being the key multi-lingual officer on the team makes him a requisite for interacting with civilians for example), but it was kinda frustrating for some other scripted events which simply wouldn't play unless the host was present. I always had to drop what I was doing and fly to the other end of a map just so some unforeseen, scripted 'attack' event would occur and we could progress in the mission properly - and if we didn't know this attack was supposed to occur, would end up overlooking parts of the mission when my friend passed through an area and saw nothing happened.

*What was most frustrating of all for my friend though was the part towards the tail end of the campaign where the base-building comes into play. This is a cool concept from a co-operative standpoint, except that client players never get the chance to command their own squads - they all remain part of the lead player's squad. This means they're cut out of the ability to buy their own units and place them under their command. The bigger problem with this was that my friend kept losing the ability to properly order the AI around during the campaign; I'd give him a tank with a gunner and driver for example while he acted as commander, but the AI mysteriously stopped responding to commands like 'forward, reverse', targeting commands, and firing - he basically couldn't order the crew around at all in any of the tanks he manned unless he did all the work himself, which defeated the point. Meanwhile if I got in the tank, the vehicle's crew responded to all my orders fine of course, so something was just preventing him from properly being able to 'command' the vehicle. I was of the impression players should still be able to do this even if they aren't the squad leader.

This was in contrast to the vastly enjoyable experience that Operation: Arrowhead's campaign offered.. it was immensely cool playing that one level where my friend got to work chopper support while I led a ground convoy of tanks, for example, or other missions where we could get a third player in leading their own infantry team - we could work in tandem and use our unique teams tactically to help each other out. In the Harvest Red campaign, client players are just 'slaved' to the host's orders and whatever their single unit can do, which works just fine for the initial smaller-scale missions but fails horribly once the mission complexity opens up a bit more.

A lot of these problems feel more inherent to the mission's design than actual gameplay code, so I'm curious if anyone has been able to crack the campaign files open to fix this yet. If not, is there a way to get into this data so that I could try my hand at making the campaign a little more co-op friendly for us? We had a fun time with the campaign but feel it'd be a lot better if it actually took advantage of the complexity Arma2 is capable of and made it available to all players, not just the host - even if this means breaking the sub-characters (Sykes, Rodriguez, O'Hara) into their own individual squads for the "co-op" variant of these levels.

[Hanzu 10]

Recently I tried playing through Harvest Red's campaign in co-op mode with a friend of mine. We had tried once shortly after the game's release a long time ago and found it was a bug-ridden mess, so decided to hold off until more updates could be put out.

Now that the game's been patched we tried again, but still had quite a few problems. This included:

*Client players dying during certain vehicle transportation segments due to improperly-handled ejection events - in the mission where you start on the APC and then switch to bicycles for example, my friend always got launched from the vehicle before it stopped at lethal velocity, while the rest of us auto-mounted the bicycles. He always died again and again in this mission because of that, and the only way to fix this was to start the mission without him in it, and have him join in-progress after everyone had gotten off the APC. We had a couple other missions where this was the case too - the client's unit would simply die during transportation segments for various reasons unless the player wasn't actually in the game when those segments happened.

Were you playing with 1.09 or 1.59 this time? Mission "One Week Later" had a bug with Osprey aircraft tail killing Sabre team members and thus failing, but that was fixed in 1.09/1.58. I have played that mission cooperatively and have not experienced clients player characters thrown off the APC. Sorry to hear you have had that kind of trouble.

*Broken gameplay mechanics; client players couldn't really trigger events or properly interact with certain objective items, only the host / team lead player could. This made it a bit more frustrating on missions like Razor Two where we wanted to coordinate our efforts across a large area of land. In a few respects this made some sense (Cooper being the key multi-lingual officer on the team makes him a requisite for interacting with civilians for example), but it was kinda frustrating for some other scripted events which simply wouldn't play unless the host was present. I always had to drop what I was doing and fly to the other end of a map just so some unforeseen, scripted 'attack' event would occur and we could progress in the mission properly - and if we didn't know this attack was supposed to occur, would end up overlooking parts of the mission when my friend passed through an area and saw nothing happened.

I was disappointed about the same thing. "Razor Two" mission would have been perfect place to split up and complete tasks and collect evidence simultaneously. We tried this once and it ended up in disaster. If client player picked up map evidence it didn't trigger "Evidence gathered 1/4" and it became normal map even if host re-picked it up. Photos evidence could not picked up by client players at all.

However I undestand why they have done it this way. Imagine if 2 players would complete task exactly simultaneously. If there would be cutscenes for both tasks what would happen when both cutscenes start to roll same time. The game should decide which one to show first and if they are rolling one after another why would other players see the other animation if they are not located even close where it happens. Rolling cutscenes simultaneously would result some players never seeing the other cutscene. Or what about dialog. If dialog is played simultaneously what a mess it would be. Or what if two autosaves happen same time. How can game handle that and which save game will be loaded next time someone dies. So many issues. So I'm quite happy only the host can trigger things.

*What was most frustrating of all for my friend though was the part towards the tail end of the campaign where the base-building comes into play. This is a cool concept from a co-operative standpoint, except that client players never get the chance to command their own squads - they all remain part of the lead player's squad. This means they're cut out of the ability to buy their own units and place them under their command. The bigger problem with this was that my friend kept losing the ability to properly order the AI around during the campaign; I'd give him a tank with a gunner and driver for example while he acted as commander, but the AI mysteriously stopped responding to commands like 'forward, reverse', targeting commands, and firing - he basically couldn't order the crew around at all in any of the tanks he manned unless he did all the work himself, which defeated the point. Meanwhile if I got in the tank, the vehicle's crew responded to all my orders fine of course, so something was just preventing him from properly being able to 'command' the vehicle. I was of the impression players should still be able to do this even if they aren't the squad leader.

All I can comment on this is that Badlands and Dogs Of War still contain many bugs and they are so complicated missions that sometimes it is hard to identify if something is a bug or just limited feature.

This was in contrast to the vastly enjoyable experience that Operation: Arrowhead's campaign offered.. it was immensely cool playing that one level where my friend got to work chopper support while I led a ground convoy of tanks, for example, or other missions where we could get a third player in leading their own infantry team - we could work in tandem and use our unique teams tactically to help each other out. In the Harvest Red campaign, client players are just 'slaved' to the host's orders and whatever their single unit can do, which works just fine for the initial smaller-scale missions but fails horribly once the mission complexity opens up a bit more.

I liked Operation Arrowhead campaign because there were no bugs that would get my attention, but I disliked forced respawn and the fact we started to far away and without written information what task someone else is doing while you do your own.

A lot of these problems feel more inherent to the mission's design than actual gameplay code, so I'm curious if anyone has been able to crack the campaign files open to fix this yet. If not, is there a way to get into this data so that I could try my hand at making the campaign a little more co-op friendly for us? We had a fun time with the campaign but feel it'd be a lot better if it actually took advantage of the complexity Arma2 is capable of and made it available to all players, not just the host - even if this means breaking the sub-characters (Sykes, Rodriguez, O'Hara) into their own individual squads for the "co-op" variant of these levels.

Missions can be opened with right tools, but you will probably be surprised when you see how complex they are and how little 2D editor actually shows. Posting USER MISSIONS subforum might provide better help on altering missions. Here I would just suggest to report all bugs to CIT and hope to get as many fixed as possible.

Anyway it is always nice to read posts from someone who likes coop. Maybe there is something useful for you in here.

[OMAC 254]

IMHO, after two years+ and 9 patches A2 is not AT ALL ready for prime time. Why are you guys wasting your time with it? It's a new form of torture dealing with that buggy mess, especially in coop mode, for which it obviously was not designed.

As I've said before, it is just a beta simulator, certainly not a game. Great potential, poor execution, incomplete development. Move on for your own peace of mind.

[Hanzu 10]

Why are you guys wasting your time with it?

And why are you still wasting time with it if you clearly have had enough of it ? ;)

I will move on, but when, that I will decide alone. Right now the next game (non BIS game btw.) I'm moving on was just released few weeks ago and is even more unfinished than Arma2. Its a trend one can't avoid when favoring games that are way more complex than some console games for which more finished design often means simplified design.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Hanzu

[OMAC 254]

I have moved on a long time ago. To OA, PMC, BAF, and COD Black Ops. The latter seems so cheesy and simple after BIS games. Especially when you are piloting the Hind chopper. You can bump into the surrounding mountains like they are padded bumpers in a pinball game, with no harm to chopper. In about 8-10 hours, BLOPS is done, whereas with A2 and add-ons, the interest holds for many months, and that's not even counting user-designed missions.

I HIGHLY recommend Mountain Warriors by Coffeecat. Absolutely top notch.

OA, PMC, and BAF are worlds apart from A2 in every way. A2 was needed to work out most kinks. It's a shame they abandoned A2 itself for these add-ons, which are just AWESOME! After all the chopper fun I've had in OA, etc., it looks like I will buy Take-On Helicopters, not to mention A3. But old A2 in Chernarus? Oh god, let me out of there, please. I would rather drill a hole through my kneecap than deal with Razor 2, Dogs Of War, and Badlands again, at least for a few years. In coop, the problems you guys have encountered are simply devastating and I can't believe that you guys put up with that frustration. If I hadn't wasted days and days hassling with Freedom Fighters, I would have a better overall opionion of A2. But hey, it was more than worth it, and very satisfying, to play through the A2 campaign and all scenarios on Veteran, with all objectives successfully completed. Once.

However, without A2 I wouldn't have had the chance to play Eagle Wing, which was just INCREDIBLE in every way. Memories of that campaign will last for many years. I still think that the Chernarus environment is so fantastic that BIS should design many more missions and campaigns to play in it - I would buy them all for sure, as long as all the OA fixes and engine tweaks are incorporated.

And I'd like to add that much of my frustration with A2 was self-induced by my insisting to play on default Veteran difficulty with only one user save per mission. With unlimited saves, much of the mind-bending pain and horror related to bugs, flawed triggers, etc. is mitigated.

Edited May 30, 2011 by OMAC

[Zipper5 74]

Ah, so this is why you posted a completely irrelevant picture in the Arma 2 photography thread.

In my personal opinion, you have bad taste if you think Arma 2, even if it was in the state you describe it to have been in, was worse than Black Ops.

[OMAC 254]

Here is the key excerpt from the Gamespot review, with which I agree entirely:

"Despite an infuriatingly buggy single-player campaign and some artificial intelligence driving issues, Arma II is a triumph."

You think that is irrelevant?

Have you actually ever played A2? The fact that you wrote "even if it was in the state you describe it to have been in" makes me think that you haven't. Or that you are a BIS fanboy whose opinion can't be trusted.

I never said that A2 was worse than BLOPS. Apples and oranges. BLOPS is an overpriced game with over $2 billion in sales, but a dumbed-down console port for teenagers. A2 is not a game, it is a beta sim. BLOPS is pretty damn fun to play, with no bugs. Got that? No bugs. And it was play tested. Imagine that.

I suggest wasting less time trolling these this forums looking for spam, and get to work fixing A2 bugs.

Check this hilarious unfixed A2 bug. This vid really cracked me up.

http://dev-heaven.net/attachments/3009/1.avi

Edited June 26, 2011 by OMAC

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Here is the key excerpt from the Gamespot review, with which I agree entirely:

"Despite an infuriatingly buggy single-player campaign and some artificial intelligence driving issues, Arma II is a triumph."

You think that is irrelevant?

...

...

...

I suggest wasting less time trolling these this forums looking for spam, and get to work fixing A2 bugs.

I think reviews like Gamespot's show that the view on pc games is shifting away from 'plattform for console ports' to 'plattform for high quality / performance games if done right'.

I also think that reviewers have become more reasonable when comparing pc games. It should be pretty clear that developing action shooters like CoD and 'semi-simulations' like ArmA are totally different things, esp when done by companies of totally different dimensions.

A2 bugs will be fixed in A3. New $$$ is mostly gained by selling new games, nobody pays for patches. Yet thats what we get from BIS for years and years now, and at the end of the year somebody needs to pay for all this work.

[OMAC 254]

I'd rather not, but how many of us wouldn't pay a few dollars for a patch, especially as A2/BAF/PMC were very cheap to buy and download (all US$10 each) in the first place? Although sometimes very frustrating, BIS games inspire stong loyalty to the company, so if BIS promised to speed up patch development a little, I'll bet quite a few people would pay for patches. The problem is that once someone has played through an entire game, one is much less likely to pay for a patch. What about requiring payment for new patch releases, which become free after a few months?

Simply put, the A2 series offers incredible value in terms of fun versus amount paid, even with the bugs. There's just nothing else like A2 out there.

That said, it's always better if a released game is bug-free (duh...)

Will BIS take advantage of the army of loyalists available for pre-release play testing for Arma 3?

Edited June 8, 2011 by OMAC

[OMAC 254]

I'd also like to add that the Arma 2 campaign is WAY too good to not keep patching it - forget patching the engine, animation, etc. and focus on patching AI behavior (especially driving and following), Warfare 2 functionality (squad reinforcement, adding new soldiers to squads other than your own, fix vanishing US weapons when buying other weapons at captured bunkers, etc.), autosave timing, mission triggers and objectives, and other little details that improve gameplay. The engine/graphics/weapons/environment are more than good enough already - I would say GREAT!

I'd also like to see more available thermal scopes to make forest combat more user friendly, although that would make things MUCH easier.

I would definitely pay for a revamped Arma 2 SP campaign. Anything to keep Dwarden and Suma (and others) hard at work.

However, I'm all done with everything Arma 2. I need more Arma 2 levels and DLC NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can't wait for Take On Helicopters, let alone A3.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

See, that's the thing: the OpF/ArmA series can't be played 'through', the MP & Addons experience goes on and on and on ...

[OMAC 254]

)rStrangelove;1957856']See' date=' that's the thing: the OpF/ArmA series can't be played 'through', the MP & Addons experience goes on and on and on ...[/quote']

True, but I've never been into MP for any game. Strictly solo for me. I'm also not into mods, either. I like to see what the game designers had in mind. Usually, after I've completed SP campaigns, I move to user-made missions, but have only played Mountain Warriors so far. Whole other A2 worlds yet to explore...