AllowDamageFalse in Official Campaigns?

[laverniusregalis 10]

I have no problem with scripted sequences, but not without exception. Pretty much anyone on the battlefield with player needs to play by the same rules as player or we are on a slippery slope. What happens if they decide to make all missions AI led but also need to continue the storyline -a whole game of Hercules with player being the only one effected by bullets? Or an enemy NPC who is deemed 'to important to die' yet you have him in your sights early? I'm pretty flabbergasted that this is deemed as OK or a necessary evil for us to enjoy BI Official Campaigns.

Because Cold War Crisis was totally different....

Hey, it ain't perfect, but it's better than your entire squad dying and magically re-appearing next mission. Also, let me just say that it applies to one person for one mission. Now like I keep saying, 'SIMPLE FIRST AID' MODULE SYNCHRONIZED TO ADAMS.

Alot alike? You're insane. post at least 10 similarities between them and avoid generalizations such as "equal quality of [story][characters][etc]".

In CWC's beginning, player didn't do many varied things, but had more freedom overall. You haven't drove a vehicle properly in A3 camp, or patrol an area. Who knows whats ahead.

GO PLAY COLD WAR CRISIS'S CAMPAIGN AGAIN. START TO FINISH.

HEMTT is not vehicle? Or is it the fact that your driver gives you directions instead of just setting a waypoint for you?

ArmA3 seems to be skipping ahead a bit and mixing between the style (gameplay) of Resistance and 1985 right away. If you don't recall resistance, yes, you already did a ton of varying things from the get-go, in turn the campaign was shorter...

Edited October 27, 2013 by steamtex

[dmarkwick 261]

Then why does he probably like CWC's campaign?

Well, I don't wish to spend time imagining why he possibly likes something I have little knowledge of :) but, if magically reappearing dead characters is preferable, then I guess it's entirely a nonsensical subjective issue with no real "fix", either you suspend disbelief one way, or you suspend it another way, and if one is preferable to another without being any more logical, then I cannot really comment :)

---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:32 ----------

I have no problem with scripted sequences, but not without exception. Pretty much anyone on the battlefield with player needs to play by the same rules as player or we are on a slippery slope. What happens if they decide to make all missions AI led but also need to continue the storyline -a whole game of Hercules with player being the only one effected by bullets? Or an enemy NPC who is deemed 'to important to die' yet you have him in your sights early? I'm pretty flabbergasted that this is deemed as OK or a necessary evil for us to enjoy BI Official Campaigns.

I don't accept slippery slope arguments, and a discussion on which particular way BIS decided to guarantee a character survival for storyline purposes also seems odd to me: if he needs to survive, there's like 3 ways you can do it, all of them require some amount of suspension of disbelief IMO. Also IMO, a story-led campaign requires suspension of disbelief in all kinds of areas. You know what ArmA is like: any unit can be killed at any time, it's the nature of a non-player-centric game. But if you're using that game engine to make a player-centric game, with characters that need to have continuity, then this is going to happen. otherwise you cannot guarantee their continuity, and the campaign fails, or at least that mission will need a replay, and God knows how many times that might happen :)

[antoineflemming 14]

Well, I don't wish to spend time imagining why he possibly likes something I have little knowledge of :) but, if magically reappearing dead characters is preferable, then I guess it's entirely a nonsensical subjective issue with no real "fix", either you suspend disbelief one way, or you suspend it another way, and if one is preferable to another without being any more logical, then I cannot really comment :)

---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:32 ----------

I don't accept slippery slope arguments, and a discussion on which particular way BIS decided to guarantee a character survival for storyline purposes also seems odd to me: if he needs to survive, there's like 3 ways you can do it, all of them require some amount of suspension of disbelief IMO. Also IMO, a story-led campaign requires suspension of disbelief in all kinds of areas. You know what ArmA is like: any unit can be killed at any time, it's the nature of a non-player-centric game. But if you're using that game engine to make a player-centric game, with characters that need to have continuity, then this is going to happen. otherwise you cannot guarantee their continuity, and the campaign fails, or at least that mission will need a replay, and God knows how many times that might happen :)

They could have them do like the COD characters, and get knocked down and then get back up when being shot. At least then they wouldn't be standing there soaking up bullets. Either way, froggyluv is making a big issue out of a little one.

The solution isn't to simply not have NPCs and to only have random AI leading squads (which is what froggyluv refers to when he says we've had AI-led missions before). The solution is to better code the AI so that they actually proactively and aggressively evade fire and seek cover. Criticize COD all you want, but at least there's behavioral code there that tells the AI to move behind a certain object and to peek out from behind that object to fire. Sure, it depends on certain objects on the map that are designated as allowable cover, but BI could do something similar. Again, the problem isn't that NPCs are bullet sponges. The problem is with AI behavior where they really don't try to seek cover all the time (and when they do, they are slow about it instead of sprinting). In cases where they are moving to cover, I think their fatigue should be overwritten so that they move to cover quickly. It's not exactly unrealistic either.

[froggyluv 2130]

Warning!! Campaign related!! Don't read if haven't played!

It's not a little issue to me as it's utterly immersion breaking to have my AI sidekicks be immortal all the while tense music is being played out and the NPC is screaming "We're in big trouble now!". And Antoine I also stated one of the solutions is to actually have the AI play out there prowess on the battlefield as opposed to being bullet sponges. This is an invitation to forgo AI development or branching storylines by just making important battlefield AI omnipotent.

I just played the mission again and can state without reservation that there was absolutely no need to keep Adams alive as he dies minutes later anyway. There was nothing needed to advance the story that couldn't have easily been done via a quick

Player: "Adams is down! Oh my god!"

HQ: "that sucks! ok, heres what you gotta do!"

Easy, and it thereby erases the trespass into common sense and the world of physics. As far as all stories requiring the need for suspension of disbelief -yes, but a clever story keeps it within the bounds of basic reason and any interactive game must prepare for deviance of storyline. As unbelievable as Rambo movies are, no one would accept him getting shot over 100 times, some of those being head shots, without shutting off the movie in disgust. Yes, many movies must deal with "how do we bring character X back", often relying on old faithful's like a twin brother, a look alike son, or dna ending up on a body regenerating planet. Any of these are better than -"Oh, he just doesn't take damage...". Give the audience some credit.

Again, this is pure laziness on the part of mission makers. The amount of NPC's that need to be kept in tact to advance the storyline that are on the battlefield should be kept at a bare minimum and measures should be taken to slightly branch the storyline should they go down. We are basically giving them cart blanche to remove things like first aid modules by approving this new direction. Adams goes down, put him in an injured state with setcaptivetrue and have him scream "you've gotta make it on your own!" -that would have been far more dramatic and keeps the integrity of the series in tact.

By the way, I noticed another 'shortcut' in that Adams didn't return fire unless I was within a certain range -so he literally took unlimited shots without firing back until I decreased distance. An obvious attempt to keep the player engaged in combat so as not to notice his Zeus counterpart. This is straight out of BF3 SP campaign - the tether- this is really moving in the wrong direction. Adams could easily scream out "Godammit! Stay close!!" or a mission fail after a few times. This is bad.

And I've got to ask you guys that are seemingly ok with this -is there NO line that can't be crossed to keep the continuity of the storyline? Is it ok if the majority if not all NPC's from hereon out are omnipotent to protect a few quips? Is switch to text conversations with an alternate really that bad as an alternative? Obviously to me, the line was crossed.

Edited October 27, 2013 by froggyluv

[dmarkwick 261]

And I've got to ask you guys that are seemingly ok with this -is there NO line that can't be crossed to keep the continuity of the storyline? Is it ok if the majority if not all NPC's from hereon out are omnipotent to protect a few quips? Is switch to text conversations with an alternate really that bad as an alternative? Obviously to me, the line was crossed.

Well, to be honest I'll probably never play the campaign. I'm not really big on linear story-led scenarios, which is possibly why I don't really care about how they're achieved.

As such, as far as story-led campaigns go there is no line that cannot be crossed :) you're following a story as someone wishes it to be played out. But, if you don't like the way it's done, you don't like the way it's done. No biggie.

[iceman77 18]

Using allowDamage in a mission where said unit is obviously going to take a shit ton of fire isn't the way to go. They should have took an entirely different approach to the mission in that case. Nothing's wrong with using the command to prevent a "hiccup" in the mission / plot. But to watch a unit take 62 bullets is nothing but watching a quick, not very well thought out solution. Which in itself makes me think the effort put into this campaign is minimal.

[Binkowski 25]

I understand that they wanted to keep him alive for continuity sake... but come on.. making him invincible? He isn't Boris from Goldeneye. Like HKFlash said earlier in this thread... giving him more hitpoints than usual but if he dies then it's game over and the player has to restart.

[mistyronin 1181]

I understand that they wanted to keep him alive for continuity sake... but come on.. making him invincible? He isn't Boris from Goldeneye. Like HKFlash said earlier in this thread... giving him more hitpoints than usual but if he dies then it's game over and the player has to restart.

I'd go more for something like setCaptive. If the enemies don't shoot him, he shouldn't die. But if he's caught in the middle of a firefight or a grenade, he should suffer the consequences.

Giving him more hitpoints, would make weird situations, like the guy just taking 10 rifle bullets and still alive.

[13islucky 10]

They could have them do like the COD characters, and get knocked down and then get back up when being shot. At least then they wouldn't be standing there soaking up bullets. Either way, froggyluv is making a big issue out of a little one.

Funny you should mention that, because as I was playing this was happening. I was very surprised until I realized that I forgot to turn of ALL my mods and TPW was on.

Also, I do believe that some of them die and come back the next episode as well in this campaign, but I can't remember for sure.

[HKFlash 9]

Here's the code.

[paecmaker 23]

On one hand its pretty ugly seeing a guy survive a machine gun volley to the head, however it would be more annoying to fail the mission or being forced to heal him over and over again. All in all its the lesser of several evils.

And about the health module in A2, I have never seen a more buggy feature, half of the time I was wounded the medic just ignored me and just ran around(even with all enemies dead).