Co-op Campaign: APEX PROTOCOL

[HeroesandvillainsOS 1504]

Maybe they'll give us AI and revive when they get the two components finished, rather than keeping it no AI with just respawn?

[foffy 58]

Maybe they'll give us AI and revive when they get the two components finished, rather than keeping it no AI with just respawn?

Finished? Have they made a claim that neither component is 'finished' for Apex?

[HeroesandvillainsOS 1504]

No I meant that revive isn't supported for AI currently. I was saying maybe once they get revive working with AI maybe that would be a decent compromise for the campaign?

That would allow people to play alone with AI. That would allow them to not add a save/load system. And it would also work with co-op players so I'm thinking it's a win-win.

[Variable 322]

Pettka, thanks for coming here and taking the time to respond to the rather harsh feedback. Since others has so well explained what's totally broken in the campaign design I didn't reply yet myself, but now I do want to say some words.

 

...we cannot make everyone happy...

 

it needs even some of Your help to make it according to Your wishes. That's partially where the Apex Protocol comes in - it may serve as a bridge between You, core of our community that has played the game for literally thousands of hours, and newcomers

Apex Protocol was first and foremost meant to be accessible.

Behind the first statement rests the assumption that you made some people happy. I'm afraid that's not the case. This campaign is not an "easy entry into Arma", it's an entry to a game that does not exist, let alone Arma. Your (and by "your" I mean BIS, since we got that claim multiple times from multiple devs) idea of "in the forums we have the hardcore players, and outside of the forums we have all the casual games" is just false. There is a myriad of player bases on the forums, and I believe all of these are represented in this thread. All of which have provided rather destructive feedback. I understand the convenience in designing for people who supposedly not represented in this forum, but that's just false, because even the most casual gamer of them all doesn't like to have NO CHALLENGE whatsoever, and an infinite resapwn system that cannot be disabled is just that. When a game stops being challenging, it stops being a game at all.

To make something accessible you don't just make it easy, you make it gradual, you provide guidance and tutorials, and for god's sake you don't make it meaningless. You don't make it shallow. I'm sure many new players will just find this campaign insulting if they realize it was meant to be their entry gate to the wonderful Arma world.

 

It's inconceivable that BIS is producing questionable quality SP content with "wtf" design decisions since we know making thrilling content is possible even for armature community mission creators. It feels for me that the community has even stopped expecting BIS to provide quality missions, and that's sad. It shouldn't be this way, I refuse to accept that too BIS cannot elevate to the levels of numerous community mission makers. Official SP missions and campaigns should inspire the community, not drive it away. Sadly, this campaign is alienating the core community while gaining nothing in return.

 

Please rethink your equation of "un-challenging, short and shallow content = new players", you are just pushing potential new players away by not showing them the true powers of Arma. Players that like run and gun kind of gameplay won't hook in to Arma anyway. Your selling points are different, you know what they are, use them.

[ruff 102]

Pettka, thanks for coming here and taking the time to respond to the rather harsh feedback. Since others has so well explained what's totally broken in the campaign design I didn't reply yet myself, but now I do want to say some words.

Behind the first statement rests the assumption that you made some people happy. I'm afraid that's not the case. This campaign is not an "easy entry into Arma", it's an entry to a game that does not exist, let alone Arma. Your (and by "your" I mean BIS, since we got that claim multiple times from multiple devs) idea of "in the forums we have the hardcore players, and outside of the forums we have all the casual games" is just false. There is a myriad of player bases on the forums, and I believe all of these are represented in this thread. All of which have provided rather destructive feedback. I understand the convenience in designing for people who supposedly not represented in this forum, but that's just false, because even the most casual gamer of them all doesn't like to have NO CHALLENGE whatsoever, and an infinite resapwn system that cannot be disabled is just that. When a game stops being challenging, it stops being a game at all.

To make something accessible you don't just make it easy, you make it gradual, you provide guidance and tutorials, and for god's sake you don't make it meaningless. You don't make it shallow. I'm sure many new players will just find this campaign insulting if they realize it was meant to be their entry gate to the wonderful Arma world.

It's inconceivable that BIS is producing questionable quality SP content with "wtf" design decisions since we know making thrilling content is possible even for armature community mission creators. It feels for me that the community has even stopped expecting BIS to provide quality missions, and that's sad. It shouldn't be this way, I refuse to accept that too BIS cannot elevate to the levels of numerous community mission makers. Official SP missions and campaigns should inspire the community, not drive it away. Sadly, this campaign is alienating the core community while gaining nothing in return.

Please rethink your equation of "un-challenging, short and shallow content = new players", you are just pushing potential new players away by not showing them the true powers of Arma. Players that like run and gun kind of gameplay won't hook in to Arma anyway. Your selling points are different, you know what they are, use them.

This is so true. I'm a gamer of OFP-resistance-ARMA-ARMA 3, GHOST RECON -all series, CS, R6-siege, COD, BF, GTA most of the series and other multiple games.

I love ARMA 3 the most and this COOP campaign pisses me of the most. It's not Arma 3.

Everyone is right that it's too easy and tries to be COD because you can never fail. Even COD is harder and at least you have AI teamates. If I wanted to introduce people into ARMA 3 I'll pick a user made mission which is a lot harder with a few AI team mates.

It feels like the game is trying to cater for 12 year olds. I'll stop... Reading posts just reaffirms how I feel about the direction of the campaign.

End game was good and I wish there was more of that. Overall the additions of addons was good but it feels like we are now just paying for new addons and not new missions.

It's reminding of all the other games that just focus on multiplayer.

By the way out of all the games I've played since 2013 this game has clocked the most and no other game comes near. Please listen to the community and not be like the rest of the industry. That's how you got here with a super strong community that no other game can beat or outlast.

[Alwarren 2765]

it is a platform for diverse playstyles and we cannot make everyone happy.

I don't quite get that to be honest. "Arma is a platform for diverse playstyles, so we enforce the ultra-casual rambo-lone-wolf-respawn playstyle on you in our campaign, because Arma supports so many playstyles".

If that were the case, why are respawns mandatory? Why not allow the game to be played in the traditional sense?

 

As diverse as Arma is, it needs even some of Your help to make it according to Your wishes. That's partially where the Apex Protocol comes in - it may serve as a bridge between You, core of our community that has played the game for literally thousands of hours, and newcomers. Apex Protocol was first and foremost meant to be accessible. That may sound harsh, but as much as the scenarios may seem easy and fast paced for You, that much they were harsh on people joining the Arma crowd.

I am sorry but online gaming communities and units have done that for the past 15 years, we've all been n00bs at one point and eventually ended up with a unit/clan/squad that we liked and played with. This process has been ongoing over the years, and there is no requirement to have us all pay for a campaign that in the end you say is essentially an introduction for new players - such a goal slaps the face of every veteran in the forum and in this community.

Accessibility is not achieved by making things easy and infallible. Accessibility is achieved by a gradually increasing difficulty curve, by introducing the player gradually to new concepts, have them practice these concepts in a safe environment, and then have them apply the learned abilities in a hostile/competitive/non-failsafe environment. The Half-Life games are a good example for that. How is a player going to learn anything from a respawn-only mission? It's like the racing games that let you slide along the curbs because they don't allow you to damage your car. You will never ever get better at racing games because you always play auto pinball. If accessibility and the introduction of new players to Arma was your goal with that campaign, you already failed that, because all it will produce is players that do not know how to conserve ammo, how to proceed cautiously, and how to value their on-screen life.

 

We have accepted a compromising condition of the campaign, that it won't be the best thing ever for our core users.

I have a hard time swalloing what you say there. In other words, us, your loyal playerbase since fifteen years, us that spent countless hours of providing the community with free content in the form of addons and missions, were second grade in your goals for APEX?

Now, don't get me wrong, this all is not a make-or-break issue for me. I critizised the original campaign a lot, especially the "Survive" part, but I have replayed it several times now and enjoyed every playthrough. I was (and as a matter of fact, still am) looking foward to playing APEX Protocol in coop. It doesn't mean I will not enjoy it, I am merely pointing out what I think makes it a worse experience than it could have been.

 

Even I like for example the Showcase: End Game better as it provides more military meaningful challenge, but even the approach to the mission matters.

It's ironic and quite sad, I really like the Showcase End Game. Much as the Armed Assault scenario in the original content, and a few missions in the campaign (like Bingo Fuel and Moral Fiber, to name a few), it's a shining example of how good Arma can be, even in single player, and it shows that Bohemia Interactive is very well capable of fulfilling this promise. The more I have trouble understanding why you went for this approach.

 

For one, I have really liked the fifth scenario of campaign mainly because of the achievement hidden in it - You need to do it without being detected by any enemy. And challenges like that change the experience from playing the campaign a lot. We have played several sessions with our military consultants and the game was really different. We set the rules for ourselves, and we didn't even need any respawn to finish the whole campaign. Working as a fire team of four, checking our approaches, covering each other, all the things I love the most about Arma teamplay were there.

To be honest, I doubt that a lot of players are after Achievements. The achievement of staying alive over a difficult mission, or having beaten a challenging situation, is what counts. Otherwise, we could play this spoof game "Duty Calls" were you get an achievement "Master Sargeant Shooter Person" for every enemy you killed.

I know am I am not speaking for everyone, but I am sure I am speaking for a lot of players when I say that the reason we play Arma is similar to the reasons that people play games like Dark Souls - most other games compromise. Arma doesn't. Get better at it, or you won't stand a chance. It's an achievement in Arma to hit your first enemy. It's an achievement to kill some guy at a range of 300 meters with an assault rifle. To take out an enemy APC with an unguided missile.

 

It may sound harsh, but we felt that the more hard core of our community is able to do better scenarios to fill their specific needs than we would ever be able to do, and this is why we decided for more linear story-driven approach that may show the possibilities that Arma 3 provides to the creators even on the production value scale.

I beg to differ.

First of all, the sheer amount of custom missions means that a significant amount of missions are not good. That's not arrogance, it's a plain and simple fact (I once heard someone say that if you give people an empty canvas, it will only be a matter of seconds before someone paints a cartoon penis on it). This makes it very difficult (and frustrating) to find any enjoyment from workshop missions, unless you already have stablished an author you like. Number of votes or number of stars a mission has is not really significant of its quality, I have played five star missions with hundreds of upvotes that were sloppily done and/or didn't work, or catered to a specific demographics of Zombie-Loving, ghillie-suited rocket assault medic snipers. Pointing to a big heap of missions and saying "go there for your enjoyment" isn't really going to work that well.

Secondly, I do think that you guys are VERY WELL able to deliver great scenarios, and better polished once than most of the community can. We usually don't have access to motion capture, cut scenes, voice actors, and things like that. Most workshop missions don't tell a story as a campaign can, and most campaigns, even the good ones, lack either the voice acting or other factors.

So I do think that Bohemia can do very well, and as I pointed out, a few missions in The East Wind were instant classics and very memorable.

 

And obviously, one of the points was to showcase Tanoa as many of the scenarios lead You to the hidden beauties of the archipelago.

Isn't that what usually "Showcase" missions are supposed to do?

 

We would like to return to the roots too, and there are still many plans for after-Apex development that may be closer to what You would expect, while obviously, given the diversity of the community, some of our steps are going to be even in other directions. There is no need to be afraid too much if You see a thing or two leading in a different direction in the future, that's inevitable, we still want to stay true to our heritage and prepare the best platform mainly for military gameplay.

That is good to hear. And frankly, I don't think it is so difficult to please everyone. But you make a lot of decisions that are tailored towards the more casual crowd, like (something I have a hard time forgiving you for) the removal of the fatigue system. Oftentimes, as with APEX, you enforce the casual. You don't make it an option, you don't give your hardcode player base the choice, you force everyone to live with the middle way, when I really don't see a reason to make things optional. Same with the new Revive system. For a lot of hardcode players, it won't be an option since the custom scripted solutions out there already offer more, albeit with their own inherent shortcomings (for example, a scripted version needs to be updated every time a bug is found, and the lack of engine support for some features makes them prone to error, especially in multiplayer).

Well, be it as it may, if you make Arma 4 I will buy it again if there is guns in it, even if you implement gun shops and skin stores in it. I just hope that you will consider making some concessions to the hardcore player base and make certain things optional. That's all it takes, really.

[foffy 58]

No I meant that revive isn't supported for AI currently. I was saying maybe once they get revive working with AI maybe that would maybe that would be a decent compromise for the campaign?

That would allow people to play alone with AI. That would allow them to not add a save/load system. And it would also work with co-op players so I'm thinking it's a win-win.

That would make sense why this time, of all times, they felt the need to detach the AI commanding system from the experience. They designed a system - the revive jazz - which presently doesn't work with AI.

[eriktrak 76]

I consider myself as a casual player with close to 2000 hours spent on Arma both in multiplayer and singleplayer.

 

So far I found Apex's campaign excellent even I just played the first two chapter. It has its bugs and flaws but I always thinks on Arma as it would be my kid. Sometimes stupid but still my kid. :)

 

Could it be more difficult? Yes, possibly but that would be annoying and not fun to play. If I would be decision maker in BI I would release a new campaign as a DLC for hardcore players using the same storyline as in Apex Protocol.

 

I had completed the first mission the about 4th time and every replay gave something different. For example now I had experienced if the enemy using the fire from vehicle feature.

 

8/10! Great job BI!

[kylania 567]

I don't get all the "casual campaign" hate from so many people when all of us, especially some of the most vocal people, have the ability to make as hardcore and involved campaign as we would want.  Nothing is stopping you and Apex Protocol being casual isn't preventing you from playing it how you want nor making whatever mission/campaign/total conversion you want.  The point has been made, BIS has responded to it with the Why, so lets move on to new complaints, make new campaigns or just play the game how we want to now.

[pansyfaust 69]

I don't get all the "casual campaign" hate from so many people when all of us, especially some of the most vocal people, have the ability to make as hardcore and involved campaign as we would want.  Nothing is stopping you and Apex Protocol being casual isn't preventing you from playing it how you want nor making whatever mission/campaign/total conversion you want.  The point has been made, BIS has responded to it with the Why, so lets move on to new complaints, make new campaigns or just play the game how we want to now.

 

You're forgetting we paid money for this, and bohemia choosing to remain completely silent about apex only made people more angry, understandably.

If I had known that's the campaign we're getting I'd probably not spend 27$ on apex, the entire way this release got handled put me off and I doubt I'd be willing to buy another BIS DLC or game for that matter.

[hellfire257 3]

bohemia choosing to remain completely silent

 

That's far from true. There's been some detailed responses from staff.

[pansyfaust 69]

That's far from true. There's been some detailed responses from staff.

 

I was talking about the entire period leading up to release on dev branch, there has been absolutely no information and no talk with the playerbase other than the one sitrep that read: "we cut building interiors, deal with it".

The responses now are pretty pointless as both the players and bohemia realize there's no time to turn this campaign into anything more than a linear walking simulator with no replayability, at best if we're lucky we'd see the respawn system gone.

[cosmic10r 2320]

It's confusing though since no one forced anyone to spend the money... one could easily have waited till now to see this and make the decision to purchase it post release...

[johnnyboy 3741]

I would have bought Apex anyway just for Tonoa, the vehicles, and weapons.  And I really appreciate the visual upgrades as well.  The mini-campaign is weak, but I think most of the official campaigns bog down at some point and I rarely finish  them.  The last campaign I finished was Arma I Queens Gambit. 

 

So I personally am very satisfied with the new Apex content that will allow me to make new cool missions ("Last Tango in Tanoa" is under development now!).  And I thank the Bohemian Devs for their hard work.

 

I know I'll be be spending hundreds of hours on Tanoa (playing, editing, and testing), so its 30$ well spent for me.

 

As Kylania said, its time to move on.

[pansyfaust 69]

It's confusing though since no one forced anyone to spend the money... one could easily have waited till now to see this and make the decision to purchase it post release...

Yes, I've given BIS too much credit, sadly.

I have made a terrible mistake.

[teabagginpeople 398]

It's confusing though since no one forced anyone to spend the money... one could easily have waited till now to see this and make the decision to purchase it post release...

I don't think many will decide the purchase of apex solely based on their opinion of the devs basterdizing the campaign mode.

Tanoa as an island. is nice work. Some good weapons and vehicle additions, sound guys are on point . it's a worthy purchase.

I think alot of people myself included were really looking forward to it. And now just feel disappointed. never felt that way about an arma campaign before.so it's just a bitter pill to swallow.

[Horus 83]

I don't get all the "casual campaign" hate from so many people when all of us, especially some of the most vocal people, have the ability to make as hardcore and involved campaign as we would want.  Nothing is stopping you and Apex Protocol being casual isn't preventing you from playing it how you want nor making whatever mission/campaign/total conversion you want.  The point has been made, BIS has responded to it with the Why, so lets move on to new complaints, make new campaigns or just play the game how we want to now.

With this way of thinking, we get steam only game and campaign like this.

[Alwarren 2765]

I don't get all the "casual campaign" hate from so many people when all of us, especially some of the most vocal people, have the ability to make as hardcore and involved campaign as we would want.  Nothing is stopping you and Apex Protocol being casual isn't preventing you from playing it how you want nor making whatever mission/campaign/total conversion you want.  The point has been made, BIS has responded to it with the Why, so lets move on to new complaints, make new campaigns or just play the game how we want to now.

 

To say the least, it is inconvenient to have to restart the campaign every time you really wanted to not use respawn, and it still doesn't give you any sort of save.

 

I understand your opinion, and I respect it, but I respectfully disagree. If you don't want to participate in this particular discussion, fine, stay out of it, but don't try to prohibit other people to voice their opinion.

[metalcraze 290]

People who are apologetic about Apex Protocol should remember that before we got this one - people were apologetic about East Wind (and PMC DLC before that).

 

Seriously do you want next BIS campaign to be even worse? Every time you excuse BIS mistreatment of the official content - it gives them the greenlight to make things worse. They start believing everything is fine, they are on the right track. And the next thing you know - the only difference between sides is purely visual (and sometimes not even that). It's already happening, ArmA3 is the first game in the series where official sides are dull crap with some low quality assets and we need mods to make it actually fun. I mean... a bug-like army that is iranian... armed with israeli weapons - and they call that authentic.

 

And "play it how you like" argument is silly, because Apex Protocol outright forces you to play it in a single way possible, the only other alternative being pretending that there's more to it than there is and wasting time doing it. Even disregarding the issues with respawn-spam - mission objectives in it are boring, mission design is simplistic as hell and you are basically just murdering groups of enemies here and there without much alternative, all while an immortal AI squad holds your hand.

 

Even sillier is the argument that it's an accessible campaign to get new players into ArmA. Seriously - you need to own a base game for starters. You have to be an ArmA player to begin with to even touch this one.

[InProgress 2]

I was hoping for nice single player :[ well, maybe next time

[Normal Norm 19]

Dunno what all the whinging and whining is about. Love it. Well done Bi.

[lex__1 422]

Very hot statements))). Points of revival it is bad. Killed - return to a briefing, begin game new. Or when there are preservations, it didn't excite you so strongly?
It is surprised to such hot discussion. You bought Apex only because of the company?
If BIS offers only one company, you buy it?
Even if she will answer all your expectations, will buy its not many.

For me the island, an arsenal and garage was the basic. It everything that I estimated. The company wasn't the decision on purchase. I think it was at most of buyers.

You shouldn't regret for something. I think there are capable people who will be able to construct interesting missions to Tanoa.

[froggyluv 2130]

 MetalCraze is correct - they openly admitted they made a policy decision to forgo their base and head in a new bizarre direction trusting us to find our own way. If you cant voice opposition to this, I dont know what warrants it. If no one said jack they'd go "Great! No fuss no muss -continue course towards the Horde of Mediocrity system Scottie!!"

 

 I think they get the point and Im satisfied on the matter but to say "we were sufficiently warned" or echo their ridiculous "Go do it yourself" is booshit

[Wiki 1558]

One thing I have to say:

What are som of the best campaigns or missions made the community? And why are they loved so much?

You can look:

Resist, Hunter Six, Deliverance, In Our Time / Bell Tolls, The Last, On the other side, Operation Cold Rising 1 and 2, Greek Fire 1 and 2... etc...

These are well-designed, well-scripted missions, linear too with some liberty however, etc...

It was the same on A2 (Operation Cobalt and Blood on the sand - both made by zipper5 - 100 days, etc...)

These WORK! And people like them! And they show the true ArmA potential!

Why not keeping that way with official ones?

You say "the community can and will make what they like and want, it's not up to us to do that". But you're wrong.

As the game dev, you can do what you like, but it's also your duty to make what people like and want.

The rest of Apex seems nice (even though some people would have liked more enterable buildings).

But on the SP showcase and the campaign, you really screwed it up.

Zipper5, what happened? Between your great work on A2 and xhat comes with A3? How did you do to go from good stroylined SP campaigns to AP?

Seems like you lost your ArmA spirit...

Last thing:

You provided showcase for every new asset or feature since the release of A3.

Why didn't you do it with Apex this time?

I was expecting a few SP missions to showcase some new assets, like the drone helicopter, the NATO gunship, etc...

And here: nothing at all...

Concerning the missions/campaigns side, it is really really disappointing...

I hope you guys will pull yourselves together and bring us something better in the future... especially as we DO know you can.

I think it is the major problem here: it wouldn't have been a big deal if we knew you make average or bad SP content.

The thing is we DO know you can do great and you don't.

People are disappointed or pissed off because it looks like if you've become a bit lazy or average (instead of what you were in the past).

It almost feels like a betrayal: we have faith in you about SP experience and you ruin it all...

[roberthammer 582]

I played the Apex campaign - 4 missions and solo only

 

So far i liked the 2nd mission with the "Convoy" which got stuck and AI just derped vehicles and went away lol

 

AI headshoting is still a issue , you barely see them and then bam headshot - this happend to me in the 1st mission without a warning like 8 times xD

 

but so far where is the variety of these missions ? - you just go there , kill enemies and go away , i would like to use more of those new toys at least make a "showcases" about them

 

Respawn is ehhh but still campaign could been a lot better , also voices and those cutscenes are probably best from it heh

 

I will see how the rest of the missions will play out but i do not looking forward to them