Co-op Campaign: APEX PROTOCOL

[cosmic10r 2331]

you have to take it all with a grain of salt...

 

There is a large SP campaign as part of the main arma release... BI choose to try something new with Apex... I don't fault them for that. You can't stay in your shell forever and not try something...

 

I would be a lot more concerned if this was the strategy moving forward...

 

Getting caught up in the Apex campaign release as the main sticking point is pointless really (as a new player)

 

as all the other content dwarfs it on a scale of single cell organism to universe...

Im not saying people shouldnt be giving the feedback on this piece..

Just that it is a small part of a much bigger picture but happens to be the most current.

[IndeedPete 1038]

Godwin's law, anyone?

[johnstewjohnny 10]

Godwin's law, anyone?

@djotacon who posted a Hitler video

 

Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. - from Wikipedia :D

[IndeedPete 1038]

@djotacon who posted a Hitler video

 

Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. - from Wikipedia :D

 

I'm not entirely sure whether that can actually be considered a proper Hitler video. :D

[johnstewjohnny 10]

so how do you know this is an isolated incident (concerning respawns in apex SP). Are there to be more expansions in future? I read the dev's posts and according to him this is the direction Arma is taking because reasons. 

 

I used to play WoW up until WotLK and beginning of Cata, then it changed too much in the direction I extremely disliked (dumbed down content) so I had to quit. I actually feel as if I was forced out rather than quit myself, for I would have loved to continue playing (if anyone a pro english speaker, fix my grammar here please :D ) the game as it was from Vanilla to Wrath of the Lich King. 

 

Also, is Arma3 a more PvP or more co-op game? (I like co-op in Arma3, but for PvP I usually go with CSGO). 

[Big-Rooney 5]

I did think when the campaign dropped on Dev-Branch first that it would be playable in an standard SP capacity as it was titled "Play in Singleplayer" which has now been changed to "Play Solo".

 

I found the campaign itself short but the quality was excellent, that APEX title fade at the end of MISSION 01 was brilliant.

 

Having Played Apex Protocol first then played the Eng Game Showcase, the Showcase as a Single Player experience of the Eng Game mode was quite impressive, and I'm left wondering could a Single Player adaption of the Campaign not have been done in a similar matter?

[Alwarren 2767]

so please, no need to mention the many gamemods Arma3 community has provided. Official content is what matters to me above all else.

 

In that case, Arma 3 would be lost. The East Wind campaign is rather long, but other than that, there is preciously little in terms of official playable content. I have 3500 hours in Arma, and I would say that at most 20 hours of those were spent with official content, the rest was community stuff, mission making, modding, or (unofficial content) multiplayer.

 

Arma is a platform, and marketed as such. Official content is an entry level drug, just enough to get you addicted but then leaves you craving for more once you are done. As I said, East Wind is rather long and much better than APEX, so I really wouldn't take APEX as a benchmark. And even if you are done with East Wind and all the other official content, you barely scratched the surface.

[Stalkermaster2015 60]

Yeah, while the official content ie Campaigns, showcases, editor etc can all be played for a few hundred hours. Your doing a disservice not playing some of the community content.

BI actually did a workshop contest 2 years ago and if you look at some of those results you can play some nice sp campaigns and such, some might be buggy and short as is the nature but it's always worth a try.

Back to topic, apex campaign is not how to do a campaign and BI should know this. Also the excuse of trying to cater to casuals is nonsense as they would have to buy two products to get to the campaign to play it, rather then just playing the hundreds of co op missions created.

[johnstewjohnny 10]

so just out of curiosity, do you think there are more people who dislike Apex campaign respawning or more people that are either okay with it or like it?

[Varanon 892]

Like APEX DLC campaign maybe?

 

I get the point, I think... ;)

 

You don't.

 

You missed it entirely. The campaign was promised to be a coop campaign, not some game mode like the stuff you mentioned.

 

So no, you did not get the point, and you still have not brought a single argument. You are just defending something because YOU like it. That's fine, but YOU think that you are entitled to have it only YOUR way, you actually claim bullsh*t like that the campaign gets "destroyed" by allowing people to switch off respawn.

 

So in the end, the only one doing drama is you, based on things you just conjure out of thin air without a single solid argument to tell me why it would destroy YOUR game if I get the possibility to switch off respawn.

And of course, you can not come up with any argument that supports this claim, because there is no argument and the claim is simply false.

 

So no, you didn't get the point.

[Alwarren 2767]

so just out of curiosity, do you think there are more people who dislike Apex campaign respawning or more people that are either okay with it or like it?

 

Good question. The forum backlash was probably more dislike than like, with a couple of "meh". It's hard to say what the silent majority thinks.

The question is also, how many people have played it? If I check the "Welcome to Tanoa" achievement statistic, I see that only 3.1 % have it. You get that automatically when you play any mission or even edit one. So only 3.1 percent of all Arma players have played a Tanoa mission, and probably less have played the campaign.

 

This goes with the assumption that most people do not spent a lot of time in official content.

10% have finished the boot camp campaign, and 8 % the first episode of the official campaign (although I don't know if that achievement can still be gotten after the campaign has been unified).

 

Seeing how successful Dark Souls is, a game that (according to a review) "****s you until you love it", I would say that hardcore gaming has some value for a lot of players. Most people I know don't play respawn, but that is probably because I connect with such people.

 

In general, I don't think a lot of people really find the respawn a "good idea", especially in single player. It's the first time BIS has done something like this, and quite frankly, I did not comprehend the reasoning behind it.

[Stalkermaster2015 60]

so just out of curiosity, do you think there are more people who dislike Apex campaign respawning or more people that are either okay with it or like it?

Well the respawning destroys the immersion the campaign usually emulates well. From reading forum posts to steam reviews it's hard to tell. There are quite a few people who think the apex campaign is the weakest link in the dlc which brings the price down from $35 to around $20-$25. I should note that the steam reviews include both positive and negatives with even the positive reviews making the campaign a con.

[ceeeb 147]

I've just tried the first mission, playing in single player mode. The presentation is nice, and the lack of back story is intriguing (assuming further plot details will be provided throughout the rest of the missions), but I really don't like the "one man with respawns vs 4 enemy bases full of static AI" type of mission design when playing alone. If the missions are balanced for the number of players, and I had to kill 35 enemies, does that mean 4 players have to face 140? It's absurd. The only way to play assault missions with those odds is by setting the AI to be stupid and inaccurate, or by grinding down more balanced AI via infinite respawn attrition. Either option isn't a lot of fun. I hope the latter missions are a bit less rambo style...

[Stalkermaster2015 60]

I hope the latter missions are a bit less rambo style...

:)

Maybe one mission

[R3vo 2654]

So I finally managed to get the campaign running...after 3 fresh installs of Arma 3.

 

I played the first 4 mission and here are my impressions:

 

 

Good:

- The dialogues are all high quality, you got some good voice actors there

- The cutscence are awesome, didn't know that would even be possible in Arma 3

- The scenery of the mission is well designed, one really can see that Eden was used

 

Bad:

- The respawn in single player. It destroys immersion, but even worse, the dialogues and action goes on while one is waiting for the freaking respawn counter to tick down....I cannot understand who came up with that idea..really...

- no reaction from other characters when player get's killed (That related to the respawn system)

- The FPS in some mission can really drop down. 3rd mission for example after the quick reaction force joins the battle...that's a no-go.

- Many objects are misplaced e.g, floating in the air etc. How could you miss that while doing you tests?

- The AI difficulty seems a bit high in single player. They spot me instantly through the thick vegetation...could just be me being blind...

 

Bugs/Things to improve

- Some dialogues are too quiet, especially when one is  in a vehicle

- The subtitles during cutscenes are badly positioned

- misplaced objects (mentioned above)

- The transition between cutscene and respawn screen/beginning of the mission is sometimes a bit rough

 

The abovementioned points are just my personaly highlights...

 

Also keep in mind that I only played it alone yet.

 

Last but not least, I cannot say whether the story is good or not, because I didn't complete it yet.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

So I had to finally rage quit near the end of the last mission. CSAT guys kept onehitting me, 15-22 fps didn't help much either, and watching that respawn timer tick down for the 15th time was too much.

 

I'll definitely not play it again alone(Except it gets a major update), but I'll see how it plays in COOP.

 

Last but not least, here's the conclusion of the Single Player experience (My personal one, your experience may vary)

 

[Skanda 2]

I have no radio voice sound output in the missions. Or at least sometimes i do have some. Is it a bug? How to fix that. I can just see the text messages but there is no voice at all.

Thank you for your answer.

Cheers Skanda

[R3vo 2654]

I have no radio voice sound output in the missions. Or at least sometimes i do have some. Is it a bug? How to fix that. I can just see the text messages but there is no voice at all.

Thank you for your answer.

Cheers Skanda

It bugged on devbranch since friday, use stable.

[dragon01 902]

I have a proposition that should fix most of the SP problems with Apex (and improve COOP experience), while actually being in line with the "modern" approach BI seems to be taking. It seems that the main problem is that the campaign is too easy because of respawns, with no way of increasing the difficulty. Thus, we should have:
 

1. "Flashpoint mode", in which in each mission your team is selected at the start and respawns are disabled. To make it a bit more fair, AI teammates are added to empty slots. If you die, you spectate for the rest of the mission, unless there are less than 4 of you, in which case you get to switch to an AI (assuming there's still one of them alive, of course). A "hardcore" mode more suitable for experienced ArmA players and people who are simply good at FPSes. Also a "proper" introduction to what ArmA COOP is about.
 

2. "Ironman mode". Same as above, except you pick your loadouts at the start of the campaign and they have to last through all missions (which probably means you'll be shooting an AK at the end). No drop-in/drop-out, so the team you picked also has to stay through the campaign (that means when someone's killed in mission 1, he's still dead by mission 7). No switching characters, either, though you do get to command AIs if you're short a player (not that it'd be much consolation, given everything). Saving only possible between missions, but if you all die, the save is deleted. Difficulty forced to the highest level. For masochists with too much time on their hands, real badasses (and clans of such), ArmA oldtimers and those who absolutely have to get every single achievement. :) COOP in this mode would be harder to set up, but if you're gonna play an "Ironman" mode, then you and your buddies better be serious about it. On the other hand, you'd get an achievement both for trying and actually making it to the end.

 

Such "hardcore" difficulty settings are included quite often even in more casual games, especially those with a rich history (and famous for difficulty). For example, the new X-Com, while quite accessible, has enough settings to crank the difficulty up to (any beyond) the level of the old games. Note that revive working with AI isn't necessary for those modes. Indeed, that feature could be made optional in both of them, with additional achievements for beating each mode "old style". :) It could simply be the only style available while Revive is still WIP. I believe that would actually succeed at attracting a more diverse selection of players, as well as placate the older ones somewhat. Also, they'd require little to no changes to the campaign itself.

[johnstewjohnny 10]

There should be no compromise. The campaign should not have respawns and that's that. 

 

It's just as if Dark Souls games had "easy, medium, hard" difficulties.

 

I linger on this forum because I am expecting some kind of response like "no, we think the majority of Arma3 players think respawning is perfectly fine", in which case I'd simply abandon the idea of getting into Arma3. And I have hopes, however foolish they might be, that something will change because Apex is only a week old now.

 

actually scratch that, I have just visited Steam page to see when Apex was released, and I saw steam reviews - vast majority is thumbs down "not recommended", and many of those are mentioning the campaign...

 

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

 

I realize Arma veterans might feel differently about it, but the way I see it, I'd rather invest my time elsewhere. It's not about money, but I play many different games and will prioritize how I spend my time. I don't want to get involved in something that will just disappoint me further down the road.

 

I have to post one of the reviews on Steam that I absolutely agree with, and well written too: 

I have no idea how to write a bad review for DLC on a game that I thoroughly enjoy. I can only hope that the loyal Workshop community will make some missions that are far FAR more enjoyable and tactical than the senseless respawn-fest called the Apex campaign. It's aggravating that the primary method of introducing the expansion's new environment, vehicles, weapons and backstory is so painfully devoid of any "will to survive" military strategy.

 

one last thing, just for the lolz. Some guy on Steam made a review and he had one nice thing to say about Apex expansion. "Tanoa is a nice map" :D

Edited July 24, 2016 by johnstewjohnny

[NoPOW 59]

I don't want to get involved in something that will just disappoint me further down the road.

Sigh...

 

[R3vo 2654]

Some guy on Steam made a review and he had one nice thing to say about Apex expansion. "Tanoa is a nice map" :D

 

 

The Steam reviews are mostly bullshit.

 

How can somebody expect this expansion to be included in the DLC Bundle for 19.99? Those people have no clue how much work alone went into Tanoa...but on the otherhand, I bet those guys buy those stupid DLCs from COD or BF for 20 bucks for 4 small maps...

[lexx 1363]

And everyone forgets the free updates related to the DLC. Really, people don't see this stuff unless they have to pay for it.

[IndeedPete 1038]

And everyone forgets the free updates related to the DLC. Really, people don't see this stuff unless they have to pay for it.

 

But that is something BI explicitely went for, knowing the risks. Of course, we are indirectly financing these platform updates with our DLC buys. But from a single consumer's point of view, all that stuff is free and what is behind a paywall is probably not of much value for some. I can understand both sides of the argument. At the end of the day it was BI who came up with this DLC strategy. And while I personally like the approach, I can see that a map, a lot of re-textured assets, and a really shallow campaign do not really justify the asking price.

[teabagginpeople 398]

I prioritize how I spend my time. I don't want to get involved in something that will just disappoint me further down the road.

 

I find it hard to believe you have any time to prioritise to play games. What with all the time you spend researching on YouTube , signing up to a forum. all for a game you are only thinking about playing?. Ugh. Depressing.

It's a game. Not a mortgage. See now I'm being harsh again.

I've been a harsh critic of Apex Protocol. But to decide the purchase of arma 3 (which has another big hard core campaign) as a whole because the Apex weak ass campaign is ridiculous. But each to their own.

Frankly from your very first post I suspected you were a disgruntled arma user who set up another forum user just to bash apex as a perspective buyer. I mean you seem to have alot of time on your hands so would not be far fetched. Anyway it's all pointless now. you are gone. I bid you adue.

Back to Apex Protocol and hoping devs have taken on board the sometimes harsh but I believe coming from a good place criticisms of Apex campaign.

[Stalkermaster2015 60]

Yeah I agree, the criticisms discussed here are not to bash the devs for their hard work. But rather to help push them to not go down a dangerous direction that has cost other franchises becuase they went from hardcore to accessible in the sake of sales and came out on the bottom.

The apex campaign is a direction many people don't want BI to go in. Not because it is a co op campaign but rather the fundamental gameplay decisions behind it. Ie not being able to play proper solo, no way to fail mission, basic mission structure etc. At the end of the day many people here have played the flawed by still good OPF campaign which put other games like Battlefield to shame with how battles and such went. The east wind got there a few times and while I still liked it, it was cut short at the point where the big battles were happening or never seen.