Co-op Campaign: APEX PROTOCOL

[2nd ranger 282]

Hence IMHO there's no information in the campaigns that say that the CTRG teams were going rogue (even if the local regular commanders didn't know about their presence). 

 

Not necessarily going rogue, but

 

it seems implied that Miller had something to do with the AAF attack on NATO, or at least had foreknowledge of it. The reason being that a conflict on Altis and Stratis would cause enough chaos and confusion for him to steal Eastwind from CSAT. It made absolutely no sense for the AAF to attack NATO, since they were leaving Stratis anyway and had no presence on Altis. The only logical explanation is that their hand was forced (the other explanation is simply that BIS didn't have a good reason for it, but they wanted to re-create the OFP opening vibe and didn't really care if it made sense).

 

Later, it's suggested that he somehow sabotaged cohesion between the FIA and NATO during the NATO invasion, stalling the attack so that, presumably, NATO wouldn't gain too much ground and drive CSAT off Altis before CTRG had managed to acquire the device. If any of this is true, Miller is directly responsible for a large number of NATO deaths. So while he may be following orders, his actions and methods are not exactly morally pure.

 

To be honest though, the East Wind story was probably cannibalized from pieces of the original plot after the various development problems, and alot of it was probably retconned to make some sort of sense in Apex. So in a way it's probably a waste of time discussing it.

 

Also, maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like there's a bit of a timeline problem in Apex :

 

the last mission of the East Wind takes place on August 10th 2035, and the Keystone extraction in Apex happens on August 14th 2035. Toward the end of the AP campaign, Miller says something about having been in the Horizon islands for four weeks. One of the AAN videos says the tsunami (caused by Eastwind) happened 3 months ago, which puts it sometime in May 2035. The impression I got from the East Wind was that the device had been developed on Altis and only recently completed.

[Wiki 1558]

As far as all the information it has been disclosed as today, the POTUS order was perfectly legal, in fact the POTUS has the legal prerogative to send troops abroad for a limited time without the US Congress authorisation. 

Maybe you are confusing legalities? You meant that those actions were illegal in the "recipient" country? You got me a bit lost now.  :wacko:

In any case, just to avoid confusions, my point is that all soldiers in democratic countries obey only to legal orders (in their country legislation of course). For example the US invasion of Iraq was not legal according to the Saddam Hussein's legislation, but it was legal in the US legislation. 

Hence IMHO there's no information in the campaigns that say that the CTRG teams were going rogue (even if the local regular commanders didn't know about their presence). 

 

 

No, I mean international law. But even country law:

 

Killing a citizen of your country without trial (assassination somehow) is prohibited.

However, the administration authorize that.

 

They do whatever is necessary to achieve the objective, even illegal.

And it's not because someone authorized it that it becomes legal:

POTUS can authorize illegal ops.

[manzilla 1]

There won't be, it's been designed as a co-op campaign with the option to play it solo.  Might be some minor changes, but nothing drastic in the next few hours.

 

Damn that really sucks. WTF BI why change it after all these years? Guess I'll only be able to play the campaign when I have a bunch of time to spare which is very rare these days

 

And Thx kylania. Glad to see you're still around

[ProfTournesol 956]

Damn that really sucks. WTF BI why change it after all these years? Guess I'll only be able to play the campaign when I have a bunch of time to spare which is very rare these days

Yes it does. I won't touch it again until there's a decent SP version.

[haleks 8212]

Yes it does. I won't touch it again until there's a decent SP version.

 

Same feeling here...

I was eager to discover Tanoa (and enjoy the updated game mechanics) through the campaign, but after trying the first mission, I think I'll go the other way.

No pause, limited time to choose your loadout, one man army syndrom and infinite respawns. That's just too much for me... What a shame, otherwise the voice acting, the locations and the music seem to be spot on, but I just can't enjoy them in these conditions.

[Wiki 1558]

The cinematics are nice though.

Good work on these BIS!

[Alwarren 2767]

Alright, after playing the first two missions with four players co-op today, here's my first impression.

 

1. Voice acting is EXCELLENT. Very convincing, I also like the banter ("Hey, that guy looks like you").
2. Respawn is a big turn-off, just as I expected. I really hope we'll get to set the number of respawns in the future, I really really hate that feature.
3. Mission design seems solid. We're at mission two, and so far, I liked both of them the second one more than the first.
4. I generally feel a bit too much tossed into cold water with the mission. For example

The first mission doesn't say who or what Keystone is. I was constantly on the lookout for someone, but since I had no idea who or what the target is, I had no idea what to actually look for. As it turns out, I never get to see him in the mission, but most of it feels confusing. I also had no idea who Riker and company is, a bit of an introduction would have been welcome. Also, no context or anything is given (that is only revealed at the second mission). In general, I really don't like these "X hours earlier" starts because they usually throw you in without context or frame of reference; it works if the stuff happening before that "X hours earlier" is shot, like a few minutes, but the whole of the first mission is played without actually knowing anything about what is going on, and quite frankly, this pulled me out of it every time

 

We had one bug so far, when at the end of the first mission, three of four players saw the cutscene video, and one didn't, and when the video was finished, the screen remained black, probably waiting for the video on the fourth's guys machine to play (which never happened).

[mannulus 38]

Just finished the campaign after about...3-4 hours. Here is my thoughts.

 

1.) Viper units are OP as hell. 5+ shots to drop them, even in the skull. Yet they get to use 6.5 and can drop you in one shot, very accurately. Really irritated me when they began showing up in the campaign.

 

2.) "Those other guys". Essentially, everyone around you is firing weapons with 6.5 or higher caliber. These drop you normally in one hit to the chest which they do often. Add to the fact that its super frustrating walking for a long ass distance only to be shot very quickly with no time to react by a dude in a bush and having to wait 30 WHOLE SECONDS and then walk back is annoying.

 

3.) What is up with our equipment? Maybe it is just me but throwing a dude in the middle of the jungle who I assume is SOF should always have those thermal goggles. It's a damn jungle.

 

4.) The clearing island mission. **** that mission. Just **** it. Died 4+ times just trying to go up a hill because somehow the AI can see me but I can't see them. Again, refer to opinion 3.

 

5.) Useless damn AI. The final mission you are by yourself essentially, trying to defend the final objective and everyone but ONE AI is just sitting in the rear with their thumb up their butt.

 

6.) Stutters. Not sure if its because it is technically on multiplayer or the fact there is a lot going on, but throughout the cutscenes and missions, the game would freeze for a second or two and then continue with everything acting as if it did not freeze and thus were teleported to where they would have been (this has resulted in me trying to shoot someone only for the game to freeze and then unfreeze with me dead). With the cutscenes, the video and audio would go out of sync whenever it freezes which ruined it for me.

 

7.) Terrible intro. You had no idea who you were, who your allies were, who watchtower is, what you are doing, etc. The only person recognizable was Miller.

 

----

 

Overall, the tiny campaign was interesting but I was expecting more for 2+ years of development. However, I assume this was intentional and more of the campaign will be released over time. As for what I have seen so far, I give the campaign a 2/5 due to all the issues listed above. If it were not for those, this campaign would of been a solid 5/5 

[grieferbastard@hotmail.com 15]

@Zipper5;

 

I really appreciate you taking the time to respond to people here. I get that business decisions are business decisions and I don't think there's any point or logic to players trying to argue with you about 'but your save system isn't logical'. I'm pretty confident you were there for the development and we weren't but you're taking the time to help explain.

 

I just want to add my voice to some others though and say the decision to toss support for single player (and be honest here, that's exactly what you're doing but not wanting to say) was a real surprise kick in the teeth. The SP campaign for ARMA2, OA, ARMA3 were all exceptional. A bright ray of light in a CoD clone and arena shooter universe. You've made a real milisim that is everything that everyone else isn't. Which is why the whole respawn, pick a character class bit is just terrible. Not just 'less fun' but flat out terrible. I play a lot of MP. Overwatch is amazing, I even like MW:O and a few other fringe shooters. That's a pretty crowded market though and having ARMA, the last great holdout of shooters that want to be more than 20 disposable minutes now and again change to be... designed around 20 disposable minutes in a coop shooter was rough.

 

No AI, respawns? I... really? Respawns? Pick Rifleman/Scout/Anti-Tank loadouts? Are we going to have weapon rank unlocks next? I'm not asking to be sarcastic I'm asking because I'm genuinely concerned. APEX is a *huge* divergence from what ARMA has been prior.

 

Which in its way is okay. The market you want to chase changes, business needs change, game designs change. It can be unfortunate to be part of the 'yeah, we don't want your business anymore' slice of things but that's the nature of gaming.

Just would have been great if you'd said ahead of time 'yeah, not really any support for SP in APEX and possibly going forward. We're a MP/coop game now'. I'd have shrugged, cursed the fickle fates and moved on. I would have refunded it (my first ever refund on Steam) but I decided that maybe modders will still support SP content and find a way to fix it or at least use the content for actual SP mods, plus 1 bad expansion after years of giving me things I loved to play isn't grounds for going all crazy ex about it.

 

Just... wish you'd have been honest up front. Made it clear that it wasn't designed for SP and that the new update doesn't really support SP and that BI may not really be supporting SP going forward. Please don't say 'well you can play coop content solo' is the same. That's like me saying just playing my friends copy of ARMA3 is the same as buying my own. No, no it really isn't. One is me actually buying a copy of the game, the other is me playing it but you not getting paid for it.

 

MEH. Moving forward it would be great if you're planning on wildly deviating from all prior game design and principles to chase a new market you let people know before you sell them the content.

[dsmd 5]

Ok, so one of those friends of mine who refused to play dev had joined me, and I've managed to play coop with guys I know.
 
And as a honest man, I must to apologize. Actually, it is way more fun in co-op. The only concern is a _really_ low revive time, please tweak it a bit.
I still think that it is no campaign, but some weird game mode, but it is really not that bad in coop, I actually had fun yesterday. (But the word "Call of Duty" was heard more than once through our gameplay)
 
I'd like to comment on some points, though.

• Intel is not only scarce, but also not accurate. In mission 3, we made it to Tanouka after destroying those explosives, and there was only one roadblock with 2 people, that we had easily destroyed. Only 2 men instead of a whole city full of rebels. Wut? We were disappointed xD
• No thermals in daylight missions. This means more fun, maybe, but it's really weird. Besides, Viper has their helmets, so looting Viper operatives for them is another great thing.
• Revive system is sooooooo casual... And revive times are soooooo low. I'd prefer a mechanics  when you need to stabilize a guy (fast), then drag him out of the line of fire and then treat (slow). Way more in means of funny situations, I think.

 

Anyway, now I get dev's point, I think they played it co-op all times, and thus were unable to see disadvantages of the solo play. 

 

I still hope that you guys will deliver some good SP content on this terrain, but some of the worst grades of disappointment are gone.

[bad benson 1733]

can we get a statement on wether we'll at least get some options for revive and respawn? i'm checking this thread only for that now, since i don't expect a huge announcement about that, and i'd like a definitive answer now that it's officially released so i can stop doing that.

 

it is indeed fun playing it coop as i expected but the respawn thing really ruins it. it's not so much about being causal, being able to kill too many people or not being realistic. it simply makes it feel pointless without a fail state. you can throw a whole army at me and i'll try to finish it but what's the point trying if i already won?

 

while i feel the shit storm was overkill and there are probably people out there that don't mind it at all in the current state, i must say that this kind of goes against all game design common sense. and not in a "wow, this is innovative"-way.

 

i consider myself pretty liberal in terms of these things, eventhough i always prefer more hardcore experiences, but i feel this is so damn unnecessary. i fail to see who is really profiting from this design. every so called casual coop game (like l4d) out there uses the simple principle of actually reasonable revive bleed out time combined with a fail state that is triggered when everyone is dead. why reinvent the wheel as a square?

 

i really fail to see what is tried to achieve here. but i basically just want to know, if it will change (was expecting it to since it seems easy to do) because otherwise i don't feel like playing it. it's just not my thing at all this way and i kind of thought for good and commonly agreed on reasons.

[inlesco 233]

From what I've read so far, many of you guys are taking matters all too seriously (for ex., predictions on BIS' future focus on SP, etc.). Let's not be overly dramatic, shall we?

 

Yes, some of us may fail to see APEX coop campaign as an experiment to draw in a new balanced player group with finally offering an "accessible" (whatever the fuck this term means :)) campaign. A2 camp., Harvest Red, was far from a solid coop campaign. It had its bright moments (the first third of the camp., everything afterwards went gradually downhill), but it wasn't a solid experience from A to Z. APEX camp. was aimed exactly at this - a believable and easily understandable mission format with a balanced amount of primary / side tasks. There's nothing too complicated, nothing too demanding, except for a focus of communication and proper teamplay. Also, there's some eye candy briefing inbetween the missions. It's totally playable and enjoyable (to an extent and to some :)).

 

Now, onto some questionable mechanics... I too dislike the absence of advanced configuration for respawn / revive systems, even choosing time of OP before starting a mission would've been great. It's the little things that make the product shine as a whole to both media and the public.

 

Both revive and respawn could've been forced by DEFAULT. However, it must be possible to toggle on/off all the helper features by player's desire. After all, this is what Arma is - the king of flexibility and versatility.

 

I read Zipper's elaborate post and I understand where he's coming from - in short, APEX is an experiment to reach an audience that may have been never reached in case of a SP camp. It's natural that experiments come at a price, no surprise there.

 

BIS ain't stupid,  guys. They'll learn, make intelligent conclusions, adjust and deliver a proper product. Just give them time and trust.

 

I get the impression that the majority of complainers here is exactly the vocal MINORITY. I don't have any stats to back this up, but it certainly might be possible. The happy players are silent because... they're playing :)

[Variable 322]

i really fail to see what is tried to achieve here. but i basically just want to know, if it will change (was expecting it to since it seems easy to do) because otherwise i don't feel like playing it. it's just not my thing at all this way and i kind of thought for good and commonly agreed on reasons.

I really hope we don't have a case here of stubbornness... Please BIS, the feedback was very clear, please add an option to play without respawn, or be able to set the amount of respawn tickets. It will also encourage players to replay the campaign in a more challenging (and more Armalike) way.

[bad benson 1733]

@Inlesco: yea overall agreed.

 

--------------------------------------------

 

i just don't want this thing go to waste since it could be a great way to actually quickly jump in and play this game for once instead of the constant hassle of finding a nice mission the needed mods and stuff or simply joining a few shit servers in a row and then go alt+f4 and play something else. i also can't see anyone, who doesn't mind it as is, being pissed, if options are added or even, if it gets changed overall.

 

even just making the revive bleed out time much longer could help a lot since then you wouldn't respawn as much. but the current setup just makes no sense. the short time and the infinite respawn totally negates the need for revive at all. should be a no brainer. not trying to sound condescending. i just want this to happen quickly so i can finally go play it before no one is hosting it anymore.

 

just a yes or no would be great.

[petek 62]

Can anyone comment on difficulty in converting the co-op missions into single player (ie saving, choose loadouts, command the 4 man squad etc....) I know the missions are encrypted currently but curious if this could be a "quick win" to at least get something resembling a single player experience as expected (incorrectly) by a fair few players....

 

I'm also disappointed/baffled etc... that there are no showcases for the new assets. Especially odd with the introduction of new features like ViV transport...

 

Cheers

[das attorney 858]

i just don't want this thing go to waste since it could be a great way to actually quickly jump in and play this game for once instead of the constant hassle of finding a nice mission the needed mods and stuff or simply joining a few shit servers in a row and then go alt+f4 and play something else. 

 

Yes, that's my experience of online Arma a lot.  I even have that "non-monetised" option ticked and often will be booted out during a game to make room for someone that donates money to the server I'm on (iirc "Hostile Takeover" do that).

[paecmaker 23]

So here is my solo experience with Apex protocol.

 

It starts a bit fast, you have no idea what you're doing, who you are or why you are there. You're searching for a guy but why. Also in that first mission intel was a bit bad, I didn't know if I would follow the other guys or go alone(which was the right way). Which leads me to the third thing. I realise the campaign is definitly made for coop, but atleast give us loners some AI soldiers to command. This was a big thing for many missions as you are mostly alone against way to many enemies that storm you from all directions. The respawn, believe me, I am so happy respawn existed due to the fact I got my ass handed to me so many times due to massive amount of enemies. However it also ruined a few things as you couldn't really revert to an earlier save and try to assault the place from another place. And the enemies advanced towards the closest respawn post. I can respawn from one further away but that would mean to walk way to long instead of just loading a save and the enemy would still be on alert.

 

Now it wasn't all bad, there are some epic moments and despite wanting to see more of the main forces I still liked the setting. The voices and cinematics were spot on. And the viper introduction was awesome, it was pretty tense(until the respawn took it away). I also would have wanted to see more of the civilian factions and the gendarmerie.

[grieferbastard@hotmail.com 15]

There's about 8K, little over, SP focused mods in the Steam workshop. About 11k MP focused mods. It's a pretty close split.

 

The top *several* pages of highest voted and most downloaded mods on the Steam Workshop are almost all SP content. That's not a coincidence and it's not unique to ARMA 3, was much the same with ARMA 2.

 

One common mistake in the gaming industry is the idea that you can 'nudge' players into playing a certain way. Like getting people who want to play SP to play MP instead. That rarely goes well, there really isn't a historical example of success at it. People play games how they want and tend to push back very hard when they feel pushed, compelled or even misled. I'm not privy to the reasoning, logic and intent of anything that BI does and I don't want to come across as implying I do - I consider myself a big Bohemia Interactive fan, I love a lot of the games they've made and being dissatisfied with APEX doesn't change that. I just want to share how it's been perceived and what my concerns are.

 

SP content is more expensive to create than MP content. In MP the players *are* the majority of the content. Less VA required, less complex missions, less AI to setup and resolve for. I get there's a lot of business decisions behind things but I don't think it's unreasonable to look at what content players are creating and recognize reasonable trends there - a big chunk of people still play SP at least in part and had an expectation that APEX would meet that as well as other ARMA titles have. OA being a great example of an expansion with campaigns, etc.

 

ARMA 3 though has been moving pretty consistently away from SP and into MP and APEX carries that further still by functionally eliminating any real SP support from BI for the new content. If you're main interest is SP then APEX is a $35 map pack you're getting in the hopes that a modder will, at some point, make a mod that would be fun to play that uses the content. After some exchanges on the Steam forum got me thinking on it I confess - I refunded APEX (my first Steam refund) and will wait for it to be on sale in 6-18 months, pick it up for $15 or so and by then I'm sure there will be mods for fun SP content. Until then there's some great player made islands and mods already around to play for free, weapon packs and other content to use. $35 for a map, content and campaign isn't a bad deal. $35 for a map and the hope someone will mod it into something to play, not so much.

 

Mainly I just wish the complex and helpful responses we've seen in this thread from the devs identifying the move away from SP would have been presented before APEX was released. That the whole 'yeah, it's MP only now and doesn't play much like it used to and is way, way more casual of a campaign [respawns etc] than anything we've made before' didn't come out until after release gave it a bad taste.

 

Ah well. Honestly, it's my own fault for preordering. I swear 9 times out of 10 that tends to be a poor choice. Better to wait, see reviews.

[ijozic 9]

ARMA 3 though has been moving pretty consistently away from SP and into MP and APEX carries that further still by functionally eliminating any real SP support from BI for the new content. If you're main interest is SP then APEX is a $35 map pack you're getting in the hopes that a modder will, at some point, make a mod that would be fun to play that uses the content. After some exchanges on the Steam forum got me thinking on it I confess - I refunded APEX (my first Steam refund) and will wait for it to be on sale in 6-18 months, pick it up for $15 or so and by then I'm sure there will be mods for fun SP content. Until then there's some great player made islands and mods already around to play for free, weapon packs and other content to use. $35 for a map, content and campaign isn't a bad deal. $35 for a map and the hope someone will mod it into something to play, not so much.

 

I'm sorry to say that I actually did the same thing. Bought it on the release day without reading any reviews and was thus shocked by the campaign (being an SP player first and foremost). After toying with it for an hour and seeing that no friends have it, I decided to ask for a refund which was a first for me as well. I pre-ordered ArmA 3 for around 30 EUR and wasn't too happy with its campaign in the end, but at least it had a proper and long SP campaign and the engine was a noticeable improvement over the previous games so I felt the price was a bargain. Hence why I also bought the DLC's which made sense to me (e.g. not the carts one obviously (?) and not the helicopter one because I don't really want to fly these invented helicopters).

 

But, a new island with only this short MP campaign to play is something else. It's not that I think the map and the recent upgrades are not worth the asking price (24 EUR), but the direction the series is taking is diverging more and more from what I expect from it so a refund at this point is the only way to show my dissatisfaction with it (e.g. I'd gladly pay 30 EUR again if the map pack also included a comprehensive campaign like the original release did).

 

Also have to note how I really dislike this futuristic setting and invented sides, weapons, vehicles, etc. as I really enjoyed the Cold War setting of the original OFP campaign and its expansions, so I don't really want to throw money anymore at supporting this "sandbox" which doesn't at the very least provide quality base content for the modding community that I'd be happy with (i.e. proper weapons, uniforms, vehicles, etc.) so everything has to be ported from the older games.

 

If there's some enticing community stuff developed for the new island, I might reconsider getting it again in the future at a reduced price, but I feel enough is enough at this point.

[ruff 102]

There's about 8K, little over, SP focused mods in the Steam workshop. About 11k MP focused mods. It's a pretty close split.

 

The top *several* pages of highest voted and most downloaded mods on the Steam Workshop are almost all SP content. That's not a coincidence and it's not unique to ARMA 3, was much the same with ARMA 2.

 

One common mistake in the gaming industry is the idea that you can 'nudge' players into playing a certain way. Like getting people who want to play SP to play MP instead. That rarely goes well, there really isn't a historical example of success at it. People play games how they want and tend to push back very hard when they feel pushed, compelled or even misled. I'm not privy to the reasoning, logic and intent of anything that BI does and I don't want to come across as implying I do - I consider myself a big Bohemia Interactive fan, I love a lot of the games they've made and being dissatisfied with APEX doesn't change that. I just want to share how it's been perceived and what my concerns are.

 

SP content is more expensive to create than MP content. In MP the players *are* the majority of the content. Less VA required, less complex missions, less AI to setup and resolve for. I get there's a lot of business decisions behind things but I don't think it's unreasonable to look at what content players are creating and recognize reasonable trends there - a big chunk of people still play SP at least in part and had an expectation that APEX would meet that as well as other ARMA titles have. OA being a great example of an expansion with campaigns, etc.

 

ARMA 3 though has been moving pretty consistently away from SP and into MP and APEX carries that further still by functionally eliminating any real SP support from BI for the new content. If you're main interest is SP then APEX is a $35 map pack you're getting in the hopes that a modder will, at some point, make a mod that would be fun to play that uses the content. After some exchanges on the Steam forum got me thinking on it I confess - I refunded APEX (my first Steam refund) and will wait for it to be on sale in 6-18 months, pick it up for $15 or so and by then I'm sure there will be mods for fun SP content. Until then there's some great player made islands and mods already around to play for free, weapon packs and other content to use. $35 for a map, content and campaign isn't a bad deal. $35 for a map and the hope someone will mod it into something to play, not so much.

 

Mainly I just wish the complex and helpful responses we've seen in this thread from the devs identifying the move away from SP would have been presented before APEX was released. That the whole 'yeah, it's MP only now and doesn't play much like it used to and is way, way more casual of a campaign [respawns etc] than anything we've made before' didn't come out until after release gave it a bad taste.

 

Ah well. Honestly, it's my own fault for preordering. I swear 9 times out of 10 that tends to be a poor choice. Better to wait, see reviews.

Yup spot on there. I also play MP games and I specifically play Arma 3 for sp missions. I feel like I just payed for a map pack with not so great weapons and breaks half the moded weapons I have dl. I think it's seriously a push for MP = less work. I support these guys but if I see another "dlc" specially for Mp not buying it and wait for a major sale instead and read the threads and better yet boycott this altogether as it will 4 years old next year. Graphics wise it can't compete with the LARGE MP Games out there.

[Zipper5 74]

even just making the revive bleed out time much longer could help a lot since then you wouldn't respawn as much. but the current setup just makes no sense. the short time and the infinite respawn totally negates the need for revive at all. should be a no brainer. not trying to sound condescending. i just want this to happen quickly so i can finally go play it before no one is hosting it anymore.

In fact, thanks to your guys' reports, we discovered that Revive was incorrectly configured. The default bleed out time was set to 20 seconds instead of 2 minutes. This should be fixed in the next patch. As always, thanks for your guys' diligence. :)

[teabagginpeople 398]

I loved the mission were the maniac was sacrificing locals up at the temple because he said it gave him power but really it was just to rule his men out of fear and scare the shit out of the islanders. Also he was a crazy sob so got a kick out of it.

Glad the revive will be fixed next month. Benson if there is nobody hosting next month holla I'll set one up

[bad benson 1733]

thx mate. you might wanna use the spoiler function though. i know people, who know the original "heart of darkness" material and the mention of the name in the changelog, saw this coming, but still.

[kylania 568]

In fact, thanks to your guys' reports, we discovered that Revive was incorrectly configured. The default bleed out time was set to 20 seconds instead of 2 minutes. This should be fixed in the next patch. As always, thanks for your guys' diligence. :)

 

Any chance for updated documentation of the new Revive system?  How to change the settings via scripts and all that jazz pretty please?  The current wiki page is still for the 1.42 version.

[R3vo 2654]

Some of the objects in the first mission are not properly placed on tables, they are floating. Additionally, why is respawn enabled in singleplayer and furthermore, why do I have a respawn timer? That's annoying.

 

Can't give feedback on the story etc. Haven't played that much yet.