Co-op Campaign: APEX PROTOCOL

[General Kong 148]

So far the Best way to go and fix the problem with the respawn is

 

1.Make it limited to about 3 at mission start, as you complete objectives, it adds another point

 

2.Have it that when you respawn, your respawn with the gear you had at death

 

3.have the respawn checkpoints a bit further away from objectives, and not have it on team members

[supercereal4 29]

I think the revive bleedout time needs to increased dramatically. Right now I don't even think its above 10 seconds.

[teabagginpeople 398]

Just to reassure you all that we're still listening, a lot of you have made some very good arguments.

 

While I can't say for sure what will or won't change at this stage, I can say that work does not stop at Apex's launch. When there are changes and improvements made in future, you'll be the first to hear about them. You guys taking the time to test the campaign in its work-in-progress state on devbranch means a lot to us, so please keep the feedback coming. :)

It's a little late so perhaps I'm being too harsh and don't take any personal offences coz some of the feedback gonna sting.

I doubt that many will give a toss about it getting updated after they play it on release. First impressions it don't have that kind of draw. That is its fundamental drawback.

Perhaps because it just feels like showcases strung together in an end game type style situation.

I only got three missions deep tonight due to time constraints.

There is the obvious infinite respawn kinda casual approach that straight away left it feeling more just a grind than an intense arma campaign. The irony. That kinda stuff is aimed at people who never bothered with arma campaigns anyway.

The weapons loadouts. No intense survival feeling. That missions like bingo fuel captured. a challenge . scavenging ammo because you need to overcome an obstacle. or your after using all your spec ops weapon ammo up. Adapting. Naw awh- Respawn select dumb dumb loadout. Rinse repeat.

SPOILER SPOILER

Lacking some if not any real depth on the missions I did so far. As it's Dev branch and I was partly thinking of testing. I blasted that captured cop in his face. Just to see did it matter one bit. Was I going to lose local support? Get a bollocking of command. set of some chain reaction for a side mission if my rambo esc style failed to keep him alive.... Please tell me I even have to take out the guy holding gun on hostages head first or he kills him.... No Nothing... Maybe a firing squad I had to intervene on to save him?? Waaaa back to game.. Shot his face n teabagged him to revenge my disappointment.

Came across this missed opportunity feeling again and again.

Been alot of decent feedback about the respawns and how to approach it giving more of a trill/depth/skill to the game. So have at it.

Loadouts. Think more dayz than end game.

I'm not shy of admitting when I get stuff wrong. Hoping on rest of campaign I'll eat at least some of my words.

So far Replayability. I'm just not seeing it.

[das attorney 857]

So far Replayability. I'm just not seeing it.

 

Have you tried it with friends, or by yourself?

 

I played it alone and it was so-so, but then I'm one of those people that prefer MP, so maybe I'll like it more when I get to play it with friends.

[bad benson 1733]

i really hope the mission department will put all pride aside and just add those changes to the respawn system. this whole save game thing, understandable but probably out of scope realistically, aside, i see this as a simple fix to turn something borderline awful into something i can actually see myself playing from time to time.

 

without the mentioned fixes i must say, it's a total waste of everything that went into it.

 

i was really trying to give this a chance since i was really looking forward to something tailored around the specific possibilities the COOP set up offers, but it's just so obviously flawed (still talking about just the respawn/revive) that it's on the one hand understandably frustrating but on the other hand also very easy to fix.

 

and even, if you want to keep your "original vision" intact. at least add those repeated, and i guess kind of consensus, suggestions as options. it would be a real shame, if this was some kind of train wreck for both SP players and COOP players instead of at least being something enjoyable for the COOP people who play this with 2-4 people or whatever the max count is.

 

overall i must say that it would have been way better to make this public for testing way earlier. not saying this to say "i told you so" but maybe more as something that might be good in the future since this game is, even more than all the armas and ofps before, a constant work in progress anyways.

i know this community is special in the way it's super vocal and passionate sometimes but that is a good thing, if you filter out the good suggestion out of each shit storm.

 

because that should be what you want after all. put something out there that people actually (want to) play, no?

 

this is a great chance to add something to the list of established concepts that you can search for in the server browser anytime like "Escape", "Insurgency" etc. to find a game where you know what you will get and you won't end up in the typical arma public server limbo of bad mission design and server administration.

[metalcraze 290]

What about a system where everyone would have a set number of respawns (shared) and each task finished would add one respawn to the pool? If you run out of respawns and everyone is dead, the mission fails.

 

How about a system where everyone has no respawn, just a well designed and balanced mission?

 

You know that silly stuff that launched whole BIS business and made their games stand out.

 

Or do we need another generic 4 player coop junk that Steam is filled with?

 

 

Seriously, these attempts at appeasing casual shooter crowd are not good. After 3 disasters that are PMC campaign, Survive episode and Apex Protocol BIS needs to seriously think about switching whoever is in charge of campaign design. There has not been a single good ArmA campaign since BAF DLC and Adapt episode was only barely reaching there.

 

Best thing about ArmA campaigns up until late ArmA2 DLCs (even Harvest Red with its lategame going downhill due to CTI) was that they always felt extremely rewarding for all the effort you put into tactics, getting out of trouble using whatever tools you had around you (in OFP it could've went as far as breaking into a chopper and wrecking havoc simply because you were keen enough to spot it, or finding an AT launcher to get rid of tanks instead of risking a lot more by crawling under them to plant explosives) and just plain survival.

 

Now all we get is "hey it's designed to be completed in one MP session and thrown into a trash bin!"

[foffy 58]

Well, not migrating items you picked up during the mission (e.g. UAV console, Viper helmet...) is just as immersion killing for me...

 

Remember how much fun it was back in the days of Resistance to actually scavenge the battlefield? No need for that here, there's actually no need for an inventory screen at all: no micromanagement, just make sure you keep a grenade at hand to blow yourself up - and replenish as by magic.

 

 

EDIT: Not sure CSAT has a powerful weapon, though... ;) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-07/sfeb-cci070116.php

 

This only stands out more, because two-thirds of ArmA III's main campaign literally allowed this. They literally have an example of doing this in the base game, so to see it not in the expansion's campaign is bizarre.

[Private Evans 498]

how I think it could go...

 

there should be a 60 s bleedout/revive time, if a wounded player can not be revived in time he dies and respawn at the start location  ( 30 s waiting time seems ok)

 

revive should be only possible with First Aid kits so that you have always to scavenge for more ( except for the team medic of course)

 

every player starts with one respawn point, every completed objective unlocks one more ( has been sugested many times  now I know  :))​.

 

if there are no respawn points left, you have to wait for your comrades to complete the next objective....if there is no functioning soldier left on the battlefield  mission fails

 

plus...there should always be a chance of enemy patrols around completed objectives to prevent respawned players from simply running back to their team and into action

 

 

cheers

[IndeedPete 1038]

This only stands out more, because two-thirds of ArmA III's main campaign literally allowed this. They literally have an example of doing this in the base game, so to see it not in the expansion's campaign is bizarre.

 

I was already baffled when they dismissed this functionality and the really great hub-based system in the Win episode back then. As a result, Win is by far the most linear, lackluster, and overall worst one. It felt rushed and cheaply done.

 

Anyway, I originally expected from Apex Protocol that they build upon and expand these perfectly functioning systems introduced in Survive and Adapt. I don't need an open world, a concept that is so terribly overused in AAA games lately anyway. But a bit of non-linearity, freedom, and optional side-ops would have added a lot of value to the package. All this "we want players to be able to finish it in one sitting" sounds like a really cheap excuse for "we didn't have the budget or time to do it properly". Honestly, advertising a short play time as some sort of selling point is really not a good way to market Apex. :huh:

[lexx 1331]

In defense, Win doesn't really allow a "do whatever you want"-type of gameplay. You start out being a lowly soldier again, and even if you get your own team, you'll have to stick to what command is telling you. A more free approach along the lines of the Adapt campaign wouldn't have worked with that story progression, imo.

 

 

 

All this "we want players to be able to finish it in one sitting" sounds like a really cheap excuse for "we didn't have the budget or time to do it properly". Honestly, advertising a short play time as some sort of selling point is really not a good way to market Apex. :huh:

 

But this is exactly how all these multiplayer coop games are working. Just look at Left4Dead or Payday, as example. Its target are short and intense play sessions, which BIS is trying to deliver with Apex Protocol. I think it works kind of, but the respawn system is killing it currently (makes everything too easy and death meaningless-- should have worked more like in... uh oh.. Left4Dead or Payday, maybe).

 

Anyway. Now that I cooled off a bit, I don't really mind the style of the campaign anymore. I see it as what it is and that's ok. Yes, I did expected more, better singleplayer content, but hey... I am hoping for that since the game was released with a bunch of showcases and we had to wait months for bits of campaign to be delivered. A part of me is still hoping for more such content, but the truth probably is that it will take months again until we get maybe one mission or something. Whatever.

 

Biggest disappointment to me is the story with Miller being Miller and CSAT being the obvious evil they apparently have to be. Really, this could have turned out different, with Miller being between NATO and CSAT / West and East, but nope. Probably would make the kids cry or whatever. Who knows.

[five_seven5-7 56]

I was already baffled when they dismissed this functionality and the really great hub-based system in the Win episode back then. As a result, Win is by far the most linear, lackluster, and overall worst one. It felt rushed and cheaply done.

 

Anyway, I originally expected from Apex Protocol that they build upon and expand these perfectly functioning systems introduced in Survive and Adapt. 

 

That functionality only works in less professional, low budget guerrillas. You don't see actual military forces (US;Russia;etc..) doing that. I didn't expect that in the Apex version because we only play spec-ops, COD wannabe games, killing guerrillas with AKs (why bad guys always use AK???).

 

Thats why Win didn't delivery the full expectations, the chain of command doesn't permit free roam through the islands. We only can get full immersion in the lesser development troops.

[froggyluv 2130]

 Had to put the game down to for a few days just to cool down - reading all the awesome feature changelogs since Arm III arrived and maybe taking a flight over Tanoa should do the trick nicely. Besides the recent Showca..., I mean campaign release, its been an awesome year Arma wise.

 

 You know that silly stuff that launched whole BIS business and made their games stand out.

 

 Yep, very much this. Its sometimes easy to take a core fanbase that yes, is mostly silently enjoying a particulor familiar gamestyle, for granted thinking the screaming children on Steam or whatever are now YOUR majority. Dont get me wrong, they are a bigger majority than here but not necessarily your majority. Kinda cool to see all the hardcore, ol head fans come down from their muddy bombshelters from the hills to make their voices heard that 'OFP storytelling is the bedrock of this game'. That free roaming choice within fun parameters and matters of consequence is what makes you wanna load this game up first thing after a hard days work or nights out getting obliterated.

 

 Its almost like watching a repeat of codemasters 4 man co-op debacle and thats more than a little disturbing that one could laugh at a disaster from a far only to take the same step off that cliff. Something or someone is missing from those board meetings making these decisions and we can only hope they re-emerge or are hired from within the community. Not gonna name any names *cough SaOk*  excuse  me, but there is definitely a need for an infusion of fresh blood into the direction of Arma in terms of both functionality and storytelling from someone so passionate about it they'd waste a year+ doing it for free..

[haleks 8206]

But this is exactly how all these multiplayer coop games are working. Just look at Left4Dead or Payday, as example.

Yet, some very excellent COOP games aren't going this way (short missions to be done in a hour or so); I'm thinking about Dying Light : its campaign can be played solo or with a friend, but no compromise (or very few) has been made to achieve that. Story telling is present, the scenario is long and takes hours to finish. I also have fond memories of the Halo games, been playing them again and again with the brothers; they all had this COOP aspect too (Splitted screen or online) and it was well integrated IMO. In fact I was hoping for something along the lines of Halo 2/3 when BIS announced the COOP campaign.

 

Haven't played it yet, but it sounds like we are miles away from what was done in those (old) games. Bummer. :/

[IndeedPete 1038]

In defense, Win doesn't really allow a "do whatever you want"-type of gameplay. You start out being a lowly soldier again, and even if you get your own team, you'll have to stick to what command is telling you. A more free approach along the lines of the Adapt campaign wouldn't have worked with that story progression, imo.

 

 

 

 

But this is exactly how all these multiplayer coop games are working. Just look at Left4Dead or Payday, as example. Its target are short and intense play sessions, which BIS is trying to deliver with Apex Protocol. I think it works kind of, but the respawn system is killing it currently (makes everything too easy and death meaningless-- should have worked more like in... uh oh.. Left4Dead or Payday, maybe).

 

Anyway. Now that I cooled off a bit, I don't really mind the style of the campaign anymore. I see it as what it is and that's ok. Yes, I did expected more, better singleplayer content, but hey... I am hoping for that since the game was released with a bunch of showcases and we had to wait months for bits of campaign to be delivered. A part of me is still hoping for more such content, but the truth probably is that it will take months again until we get maybe one mission or something. Whatever.

 

Biggest disappointment to me is the story with Miller being Miller and CSAT being the obvious evil they apparently have to be. Really, this could have turned out different, with Miller being between NATO and CSAT / West and East, but nope. Probably would make the kids cry or whatever. Who knows.

 

That functionality only works in less professional, low budget guerrillas. You don't see actual military forces (US;Russia;etc..) doing that. I didn't expect that in the Apex version because we only play spec-ops, COD wannabe games, killing guerrillas with AKs (why bad guys always use AK???).

 

Thats why Win didn't delivery the full expectations, the chain of command doesn't permit free roam through the islands. We only can get full immersion in the lesser development troops.

 

But then it was again bad design; no one forced them to go back all the way to linearity in Win. And even if you take out the aspect of choosing missions, which would be fine and better for the narrative, it certainly would not make the selection of gear and patrol ops obsolete. My guess is it was plain old cost saving. The East Wind was months late anyway, they had limited resources and probably went for "ah, that'll do it". And while it was the weakest part of the campaign, it was still fun to play. Anyway, wrong topic, I probably expressed all this already when Win came out.^^

 

So, okay, smaller missions - not necessarily bad. A design decision which can be supported with good arguments, sure. But if they add smaller missions, I expect more missions in return. I also expect a bit more variety or replayability. Of course, all games are limited in scope and just build facades to trick the player into believing he had real choices to make, and to get him immersed. But Apex Protocold doesn't even try to mask its repetetive nature. Mission six or five, can't remember, where you had to capture the whole island for whatever reason, shows this quite well. Miller be like: "you there, lad, take the whole fucking island while I stay here with my binoculars doing jack shit". I laughed tears at that point. Partly because it was so hillarious, so ridiculous, but also a bit out of sadness. It was the absolute low on this campaign. Even bloody Razor team building armies and capturing Chernarus was more beliveable - or at least provided some form of challenge.

 

It is just very cheap and uninspired content. Apex Protocol is the same shit over and over and over and over and over and over and over [...] again. It does not innovate, it does not feel new at any point. It doesn't even execute it well. At least the East Wind had a few more McGuffins and different mission layouts to create a more solid illusion. It was more down-to-earth and overall a bit more believable. (For a computer game that is.) It makes me sad that they didn't utilise the great potential that lies in the platform and instead went full AAA, throwing away their key selling points.

[ataribaby 54]

Had nice random COOP playtime with todays update and all worked well, far far better than previous version. In Coop it's great fun. Have no prob with respawn, actualy I died a lot and was back in action fast. Fun Fun Fun. I have milsim stuff for SP :)

 

Just got few AI dialogues without voice at missions 2 jungle temple.

[HeroesandvillainsOS 1504]

Yet, some very excellent COOP games aren't going this way (short missions to be done in a hour or so); I'm thinking about Dying Light : its campaign can be played solo or with a friend, but no compromise (or very few) has been made to achieve that. Story telling is present, the scenario is long and takes hours to finish. I also have fond memories of the Halo games, been playing them again and again with the brothers; they all had this COOP aspect too (Splitted screen or online) and it was well integrated IMO. In fact I was hoping for something along the lines of Halo 2/3 when BIS announced the COOP campaign.

Haven't played it yet, but it sounds like we are miles away from what was done in those (old) games. Bummer. :/

Good post Haleks. That's what I always wanted from an Arma campaign.

Dying Light was incredible. It gave you a huge playground, and had excellent story missions and story-related side missions littered around a gorgeous map.

BIS gives us these huge and lavish environments but their original campaign content is so short sighted and linear.

[jinzor 31]

Dying Light was incredible. It gave you a huge playground, and had excellent story missions and story-related side missions littered around a gorgeous map.

BIS gives us these huge and lavish environments but their original campaign content is so short sighted and linear.

 

Agreed. While BIS have managed to pull off massive, beautiful landscapes in ArmA 3, they haven't properly utilized them to reveal their real potential in the official content. All of their missions just feel small, linear and generic.

 

I didn't mind what happened with East Wind - that needed to get pumped out after the rough patch in development (plus, it's an alright starting place for beginners to understand the core gameplay mechanics - including the separate showcase content) - but future official scenario / campaign content needs to get interesting again, otherwise I'm just going to totally ignore their stuff and wait for decent community missions to come out instead.

[Wiki 1558]

Can't we get a campaign like the CWC one?

 

- Long campaign

- Different roles

- Clear objectives, but many ways to achieve them

- Different types of gameplay (guerilla, SpecOps, regular army...)

- etc...

 

That was the best one IMO

[lexx 1331]

I don't need the campaign to be super long, but a few interactive elements that change the course of the story and allow a bit of replayability would be nice.

 

The original Operation Flashpoint was way too long, imo. Had lots of filler content that might as well not be there. Also switching between different characters wasn't the most fun (having to be forced through tank battles if you don't like commanding them, for example). A few more separate / compact campaigns would have been better.

[IndeedPete 1038]

I don't need the campaign to be super long, but a few interactive elements that change the course of the story and allow a bit of replayability would be nice.

 

The original Operation Flashpoint was way too long, imo. Had lots of filler content that might as well not be there. Also switching between different characters wasn't the most fun (having to be forced through tank battles if you don't like commanding them, for example). A few more separate / compact campaigns would have been better.

 

Yes, that would be a good modern take on Arma campaigns. Like these multiple separate campaigns in RTS games, each for one race / faction. All telling the same story but from a different view. The East Wind only shows a fraction of what Arma can do. While infantry combat is somewhat the centre of the game, I wouldn't mind looking into dfferent aspects from time to time. But even in East Wind, you could snatch an AAF tank in Bingo Fuel. It was entirely optional and required a bit of exploration and patience. Only vehicular "action" I encountered in Apex Protocol was driving the LSV in that one mission to the extraction point. (Which was again quite contradictory. Stealth mission, everyone is super silent, but NATO parks a God damn VTOL just 500 metres from the AO on the freaking top of the volcano where it can be heard and seen from miles away. Really makes no sense to me.) Granted, there might be more occasions to utilise vehicular assets in Apex Protocol I just missed.

[Wiki 1558]

In Apex Protocol, from what I've seen, there is no use of the new assets.

 

They could make a few SP showcases with the new gear.

[ProfTournesol 956]

The original Operation Flashpoint was way too long, imo. Had lots of filler content that might as well not be there. Also switching between different characters wasn't the most fun (having to be forced through tank battles if you don't like commanding them, for example). A few more separate / compact campaigns would have been better.

 

I mostly disagree with all that, i love long campaigns with short missions, mixing simple ones with a few tough ones (not as hard as bingo fuel though), i don't dislike taking several roles and i don't like very long mission such as Manhattan.

 

But all in all, i wasn't expecting a long campaign, but i wasn't expecting to play a corridor shooter though.

[lexx 1331]

Well, that's why I wrote "in my opinion" - there is always someone who likes something and vice versa. From a statistic point of view though, the longer a campaign goes, the less likely players will finish it. Thinking back, it's kinda funny- I've finished the original OPF campaign only a single time, while I played the game itself for years. Meanwhile, I've played the A3 campaign already three times and the Arma2 campaign I never even finished, because of that one warfare mission, which annoyed the hell out of me.

 

 

Back to Apex: Like I wrote already- pretty sure the huge shock right now only comes from the no-info policy. We simply didn't know how exactly the campaign would be, so when it hit the dev-branch, everyone (who expected a Harvest Red-like campaign) went wtf.

[Wiki 1558]

I've watched the WT campaign, and I'm really disappointed...

I expected so much from Apex and Apex Protocol...

I don't like the casual path BIS is taking now...

This, the medic/damage system, the new crosshair for the plane... it's too much, far away from what we had back in the days... :( :( :(

[haleks 8206]

I've watched the WT campaign, and I'm really disappointed...

I expected so much from Apex and Apex Protocol...

I don't like the casual path BIS is taking now...

This, the medic/damage system, the new crosshair for the plane... it's too much, far away from what we had back in the days... :( :( :(

 

Have to agree with ya; BIS is clearly making a lot of efforts to streamline their game (the "units" thingy, instant play etc), but they might be going a tad too far - at least for the SP/COOP content.

I really wish they would make another attempt at truly dynamic campaigns (worthy of the 'campaign' designation); but it looks like they are going quite the opposite way.