bad benson 1733 Posted July 6, 2016 yea. sorry for repeating this but there really needs to be a limit to the respawn. the more i play this the more it gets obvious that this is ruining any sense of challenge or achievement. everything is just a matter of time. no coordination or tactics needed. it also makes revive pretty unessential since you can just spawn on team mates and checkpoints after a short delay. the super short bleed out time further worsens the revive problem. i'd even remove the checkpoints. seems like overkill with the additional squad respawn and also just causes more problems. - limit revives and lives until they get reset by reaching a checkpoint/completing an objective - allow spectating who's still alive - end/restart mission when everyone is dead at the same time these things alone should make this much more enjoyable. would be a shame, if all this nice production value would be wasted on such core things making stuff pointless for no reason. also i honestly think that unlocking the missions one by one would also help that. and to me there is no obvious technical reasons why it couldn't be done like that. another thing is the gear. mostly due to the respawn, but also in general, as has been pointed out, it takes away another tactical layer when you just get restocked after respawn. there is enough enemies to ge loot from and mentioned checkpoints could also be used to rearm. you are eleminating a lot of potential interesting factors that would basically create themselves without extra work just by using this respawn template. i know it's extra work but i feel like making a custom one for this campaign could save this whole thing, at least for me personally. quoting this because it illustrates the resulting gameplay well. Zipper, the reason why people burned through the campaign is PRIMARILY because of the flawed respawn system that lets you kill x enemies, die, respawn and kill another X enemies until you reach the quota of killed enemies.That's my main gripe with the respawn system, it doesn't set back players one bit, at worst they have to walk (but it's arma, walking is second nature). as for the unresponsive AI. we tried without any mods again and had the same problem. it almost feels like the difficulty scaling has some kind of error that outputs unusuable values that make the AI useless. first we thought it's a problem with the new silencer hearing range stuff but after removing those from the guns it still happened. it might have been less but that's hard to say without actually debugging the exact skill values. something majorly wrong there. also worth mentioning. it seemed that when only one player was present (by an account of a friend we left behind in the game due to RL stuff :lol: ) the problem was not there. which again supports the theory that the scaling is the problem here. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lexx 1363 Posted July 6, 2016 Ok, now that we have someone from BIS posting here, let him explain what happened to this ship. :> I totally want it, but I can't get it. Such a pain. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cosmic10r 2331 Posted July 6, 2016 - We had weird Ai behaviour where we werent recognized and we could walk up to AI and they would do nothing... to the point where i reverted to a vanilla config and so did another and one ran his normal modset but same problem I was hosting... i have a vid I will upload... we played through in coop with 3 and it was hard to evaluate with the AI broken for us... had great fun waiting for that one point in mission 2... but again... hard to evaluate has anyone else been able to walk up to an AI and they didnt recognize you as threat? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mistyronin 1181 Posted July 6, 2016 has anyone else been able to walk up to an AI and they didnt recognize you as threat? Many times, specially in the first and second missions in the jungle areas. Also AI "stuck" in certain locations (most probably disableAI "PATH"). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bad benson 1733 Posted July 6, 2016 Many times, specially in the first and second missions in the jungle areas. Also AI "stuck" in certain locations (most probably disableAI "PATH"). did you play alone or with friends? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cosmic10r 2331 Posted July 6, 2016 This is what we were seeing in multiple instances thanks for confirming that Misty as I likely would have still continued to suspect something on my end even tho 2 of us had reverted to vanilla we also had an interesting happen stance where we all were respawning and when we did... there were 5 guys on our team. two repetitions of my teammates name but they were ai in desert fatigues super weird weird repeated players - no jip ... just respawn... mission 2 ... ai driving still not quite there... improving for sure... but these guys must have been drunk... had to trek quit a ways to find this... we killed them before screenshot was taken also weird other one where I did have 2 coop teammates but it only showed one for me as host but other two players showed all three squad members Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wiki 1558 Posted July 6, 2016 I agree with Indeedpete. I feel disappointed on the campaign and the path BIS is taking (more casual and MP). I loved previous ArmA games for their realistic way and their (more or less) good SP campaign and missions - which isn't with Apex Protocol. Too bad... I hope BIS will work and release some SP missions later, featuring more of the new stuff which is underused in AP. 6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Perkins 5 Posted July 6, 2016 I've been trying out a few missions in "Singleplayer". WIP aside I see geat potential here. Missions feel immersive (until you die) and production value is very high. Nonetheless, right now it's not really worth playing this unless you got friends to play with. Respawn and lack of AI team mates ruin the gameplay and immersion for me. I feel the campaign would play so much better in SP had the 3 empty slots been filled by AI with high skill level, esp if they would be able to use revive/be revived as they will ofc die sooner or later. And having respawning enabled here be it SP or coop is to me just laughable and unnecessary. tldr; PLEASE make a propper SP port for all of us who prefer offline play and allow us to disable respawning for MP (maybe you already can???). 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ataribaby 54 Posted July 6, 2016 If it's not so late to fix it please consider giving another scope instead that NVS one in case mission is during daylight. It's impossible to use it on that missions and i found no way to change it to some more better suited ones. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cosmic10r 2331 Posted July 6, 2016 If it's not so late to fix it please consider giving another scope instead that NVS one in case mission is during daylight. It's impossible to use it on that missions and i found no way to change it to some more better suited ones. I had the new erco scope in my inventory for daytime... it was in my vest... check there... totally vanilla and vanilla kit... so it should be there Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ruff 102 Posted July 6, 2016 Was going to write a whole essay why the push for no squad AI team mates is wrong and it opened a can of worms in my mind to where this game will end up going in 2 years. just had to stop my mad self as the future that 'every game' targets is MP. And where the majority of the community is more MP side of the game these days or at least the most vocal. Thank you activision for showing every game company the way. E.g. Ghost recon wild lands and rainbow six siege. By the way the reason why people play your game and why they call it great and if you read game websites and steam comments is because Arma 3 is known as a tactical milsim gameplay. There are no tactics in the single player side of this expansion. The only expansion are the addons (which are great) but the extra missions are highly disappointing. There was a large chance to showcase ARMA 3 gameplay in Tanoa which is now lost because of the push to mp. Even though AI is always the most complained about thing in every game especially Arma do you ever see us OG players asking without them?? Comments in this thread were always used to a squad as this isn't a James Bond type of game. The comments here from users are instilled with milsim gameplay and we were quite shocked that we were to complete objectives Rambo style??!!!! I've had enough I better stop before I start swearing at the 'great idea' to remove AI players and go towards the activision move of 'let's remove sp and and focus on mp so that we'll have less work to do, every company is doing it and the players will just have to cop it because they'll expect a sp the next year and but we wil give them the same Just take their hard earned money anyway because no one is making sp games anymore'. I'll stop there before I ramble on on how pissed off I am. 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Varanon 892 Posted July 6, 2016 First of all, zipper5, thanks for venturing into the lion's den.And thanks for having the first mission of the campaign take place on my 67th birthday (August 14, 2035) ;) Respawn vs. SavingIn the early stages of development we made the decision that Apex Protocol would only be playable, from a purely technical standpoint, in a "multiplayer environment." What we mean by that is: even when you're playing alone, you're playing on a server of some kind. If you click the "PLAY IN SINGLEPLAYER" button, a LAN server is automatically created, which you're then connected to and the chosen mission is launched. We made this choice first and foremost because it allows friends to join you while the mission is in progress, something we want to strongly encourage in Apex Protocol. To a lesser (but still important) extent, it also allows us to focus on maintaining one version of all systems, mechanics and missions, rather than both singleplayer and multiplayer variants like we did before (which always led to both versions facing unfortunate compromises that negatively impacted the quality of the final product). This is something I fail to see any sense in. Namely, there is no good reason to force single player to play in a local server. I would really be interested to hear this "technical stanpoint", because quite frankly, I can't think of any reason whatsoever. I'm a mission maker myself, and from a scripting standpoint, and design standpoint, there is no reason whatsoever to host it in a local server. The only reason I could think of is to allow people to join the game in progress. However, let's face it, how many times do you think that would happen ? If I start to play alone, I will likely continue to play alone, and when I want to play this in coop, I gather the lads and we start together. This is especially true because the missions can't obviously be hosted on a dedicated server, so the "hop in" probability is extremely low. It's not zero, granted, but to design the whole campaign around this unlikely eventuality is, sorry to say, rather ridiculous. However, you can see how this led us to 2 interesting questions: How do we handle respawn? Do we want a save system? This is rather easy to answer: Go with what is present. Saving worked in Arma 2 with Harvest Red, and while the Harvest Red campaign definitely had it's share of problems, it worked.And respawn: Quite frankly, respawn in a single player mission is ridiculous. In Multiplayer, I can see the reason why people want to go with respawn. Personally, I hate it because it simply takes away from the experience. The worst kind of respawn, though, is the endless respawn, and that is what we have here in this campaign. Endless respawn means you will always make it. You will never fail. You can not fail, because you can always respawn. Run out of ammo ? Let yourself get killed and respawn. No launcher but need to get rid of a vehicle ? Just respawn. Injured, no longer able to run, limping, losing blood ? Just respawn, you'll be as fresh as a flower in spring. In this campaign, respawn kills every experience of achievement, because you simply can not fail. Are we really at a point these days where you just have to win every game and not be able to fail ? Geez, compare that to Harvest Red: You could not only fail a mission, you could quickly go down a path that made you loose the whole campaign. You could End up having to flee Chernarus on a boat, have your own people mutiny against you, or even have a damn nuke dropped on your head. In APEX ? Just rinse and repeat, you'll get there eventually. No achievement, no sense of "having made it". Compare that to getting back to the Khe San by chopper to the cheering crowd in "The War that never was"... We've overhauled various systems on the Road to Apex but, as it is an expansion to Arma 3, we still had to work within certain confines and adhere to some existing standards. Using the multiplayer version of the Firing From Vehicles showcase as an example of our existing co-op missions, we made it so players can respawn on their group leader or at specific respawn locations unlocked as the mission progresses. Both feedback from the community and internal feedback revealed that it wasn't clear to many players how respawning on group leaders worked, often leading to confusion and players becoming chaotically spread out and disorganized. Along with the improvements to the Respawn Menu, we made the decision that Apex Protocol would allow respawning on all players while maintaining the mechanic of respawn positions unlocking as players progressed. So far, we feel that players understand the system significantly better thus keeping them together and co-operating with each other. Nonetheless, some of you have already reported areas where respawn positions are perhaps unlocking too soon. We'll get right on those. :) Basically, what I gather from this is two-fold: "We have those systems, so we have to use them" (referring to the new respawn menu) "It wasn't transparent enough" Both are pretty weak arguments. The latter one has been used before to sell us the watered down fatigue system that came in with Nexus. The original one was also said to be "not transparent enough", although no one could actually put a finger on the not transparent issues, and quite frankly, it took some time until people figured out the stamina bar, and how it is used, and most people still don't get that the actual fatigue (i.e. how bad your weapon sway is) is not even indicated by the bar. As to #1 above, arguing that since the systems are in place you should use them is pretty weak as well, since while we all applaud the new systems that you put in, using them just because they are there does not make much sense. Final word on respawn: in Harvest Red, and also in Operation Arrowhead, the death of a protagonist was a deal breaker, it made the mission fail. In Harvest Red, any dead team member meant mission over, understandable, because the narrative wouldn't make much sense with team members gone. Here, from a pure story perspective, you have a protagonist, or more protagonists, that simply get resurrected every time they die. How on earth can that improve a campaign ? A campaign, contrary to a single mission, is more of a story based experience, which is simply destroyed by magically resurrected protagonists.Remember Call of Duty 4 ? The fact that the protagonist died at one point was a shocking revelation and set the game apart from other shooters. Here, it's just a minor inconvenience. Very, very disappointing. However, we had to approach the question of saving differently. Apex Protocol is designed to be finished in a single playsession and, although it depends on your playstyle :D , each mission tends to be a little shorter This is another point I don't understand and quite frankly find pretty much nonsensical: Why design a campaign to be playable in one session ? Honestly, why ? Can anybody explain that to me ? Again, this sort of campaign is, if played in MP, most likely played by a group of friends that meet specifically for playing the mission. You will hardly find things like that played on a public server (incompatibility to dedicated server reasoning in the first paragraph). So why assume that it can/should be played in a single session. This is, sorry to say, utter nonsense. And quite frankly, it's not yours to decide, either, but the player's own decision. If my group takes a careful approach, then we might play longer, and that means we might not be able to even play it in one session. So why the hell do you take that decision for us ? And all that while Arma was always about freedom. Sorry, but I don't get it, I don't see any sensible reason behind that decision, and quite frankly, I find it insulting to basically expect that from the players. To me, this looks like you don't have faith in your own campaign and just want players to get over with it as quickly as possible. Solo Play and the "Commanding Question" I'm not even going into the "one man army" discussion. From a military standpoint, a single guy doing the job of a whole squad or even a fireteam is ridiculous, I guess you are aware of the fact that this is much more a hollywood scenario than anything even remotely rooted in reality ?But regarding AI control: Yes, AI control is sometimes frustrating for the player. However, for one, this has been improved, and secondly, with the new autocombat disable functionality, you can either make it part of the mission to disable autocombat, or use something like my addon (absolutely shameless clickbait ;) ) to control this, making the experience much more pleasant. There are ways to do this, especially with only three AI maximum.Since in a later post you declare the fact that the mission scales with the amount of human players as "technically challenging" (something I can't really understand either), what I mentioned above might have been a better solution.In closing: I can not understand the reasons behind the decisions made. Honestly, you have not given a single reason as to why the current path has been chosen, only that it was chosen. Why the single playsession ? Why the MP server startup even in single player. Why not a normal campaign format. Why not allow saving and disabling of respawn, at the very least in single player ? You said you decided to go that way, but the "why" is not adequately explained. I hope you don't take this as a rant or anything. I love Arma, and I'm pretty sure the APEX expansion would be value for money (of course, being a supporter, I paid for it a long time ago, hehe), but the campaign setup is nonsensical, and it gives the impression that you are not confident with it yourself but rather want the player to get over with it quickly, and preferably without being able to fail to prevent it from being seen as "too difficult". Not saying that is your way of thinking, I just say that this is the impression I get when looking at it. I realize that it is probably too late to change anything about the campaign, seeing that it will be released in 5 days and two of those days are weekend. However, I hope that you will consider addressing these issues, maybe in an update. The (unlimited) respawn takes away from the feeling of achievement that you get when you finally make a mission. The fact that you can't save (in single player) means that if you are more careful playing, you might overstay your time and might have to abort the mission, which, again, in single player, makes absolutely no sense at all. 24 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ruff 102 Posted July 7, 2016 First of all, zipper5, thanks for venturing into the lion's den. And thanks for having the first mission of the campaign take place on my 67th birthday (August 14, 2035) ;) This is something I fail to see any sense in. Namely, there is no good reason to force single player to play in a local server. I would really be interested to hear this "technical stanpoint", because quite frankly, I can't think of any reason whatsoever. I'm a mission maker myself, and from a scripting standpoint, and design standpoint, there is no reason whatsoever to host it in a local server. The only reason I could think of is to allow people to join the game in progress. However, let's face it, how many times do you think that would happen ? If I start to play alone, I will likely continue to play alone, and when I want to play this in coop, I gather the lads and we start together. This is especially true because the missions can't obviously be hosted on a dedicated server, so the "hop in" probability is extremely low. It's not zero, granted, but to design the whole campaign around this unlikely eventuality is, sorry to say, rather ridiculous. This is rather easy to answer: Go with what is present. Saving worked in Arma 2 with Harvest Red, and while the Harvest Red campaign definitely had it's share of problems, it worked. And respawn: Quite frankly, respawn in a single player mission is ridiculous. In Multiplayer, I can see the reason why people want to go with respawn. Personally, I hate it because it simply takes away from the experience. The worst kind of respawn, though, is the endless respawn, and that is what we have here in this campaign. Endless respawn means you will always make it. You will never fail. You can not fail, because you can always respawn. Run out of ammo ? Let yourself get killed and respawn. No launcher but need to get rid of a vehicle ? Just respawn. Injured, no longer able to run, limping, losing blood ? Just respawn, you'll be as fresh as a flower in spring. In this campaign, respawn kills every experience of achievement, because you simply can not fail. Are we really at a point these days where you just have to win every game and not be able to fail ? Geez, compare that to Harvest Red: You could not only fail a mission, you could quickly go down a path that made you loose the whole campaign. You could End up having to flee Chernarus on a boat, have your own people mutiny against you, or even have a damn nuke dropped on your head. In APEX ? Just rinse and repeat, you'll get there eventually. No achievement, no sense of "having made it". Compare that to getting back to the Khe San by chopper to the cheering crowd in "The War that never was"... Basically, what I gather from this is two-fold: "We have those systems, so we have to use them" (referring to the new respawn menu) "It wasn't transparent enough" Both are pretty weak arguments. The latter one has been used before to sell us the watered down fatigue system that came in with Nexus. The original one was also said to be "not transparent enough", although no one could actually put a finger on the not transparent issues, and quite frankly, it took some time until people figured out the stamina bar, and how it is used, and most people still don't get that the actual fatigue (i.e. how bad your weapon sway is) is not even indicated by the bar. As to #1 above, arguing that since the systems are in place you should use them is pretty weak as well, since while we all applaud the new systems that you put in, using them just because they are there does not make much sense. Final word on respawn: in Harvest Red, and also in Operation Arrowhead, the death of a protagonist was a deal breaker, it made the mission fail. In Harvest Red, any dead team member meant mission over, understandable, because the narrative wouldn't make much sense with team members gone. Here, from a pure story perspective, you have a protagonist, or more protagonists, that simply get resurrected every time they die. How on earth can that improve a campaign ? A campaign, contrary to a single mission, is more of a story based experience, which is simply destroyed by magically resurrected protagonists. Remember Call of Duty 4 ? The fact that the protagonist died at one point was a shocking revelation and set the game apart from other shooters. Here, it's just a minor inconvenience. Very, very disappointing. This is another point I don't understand and quite frankly find pretty much nonsensical: Why design a campaign to be playable in one session ? Honestly, why ? Can anybody explain that to me ? Again, this sort of campaign is, if played in MP, most likely played by a group of friends that meet specifically for playing the mission. You will hardly find things like that played on a public server (incompatibility to dedicated server reasoning in the first paragraph). So why assume that it can/should be played in a single session. This is, sorry to say, utter nonsense. And quite frankly, it's not yours to decide, either, but the player's own decision. If my group takes a careful approach, then we might play longer, and that means we might not be able to even play it in one session. So why the hell do you take that decision for us ? And all that while Arma was always about freedom. Sorry, but I don't get it, I don't see any sensible reason behind that decision, and quite frankly, I find it insulting to basically expect that from the players. To me, this looks like you don't have faith in your own campaign and just want players to get over with it as quickly as possible. I'm not even going into the "one man army" discussion. From a military standpoint, a single guy doing the job of a whole squad or even a fireteam is ridiculous, I guess you are aware of the fact that this is much more a hollywood scenario than anything even remotely rooted in reality ? But regarding AI control: Yes, AI control is sometimes frustrating for the player. However, for one, this has been improved, and secondly, with the new autocombat disable functionality, you can either make it part of the mission to disable autocombat, or use something like my addon (absolutely shameless clickbait ;) ) to control this, making the experience much more pleasant. There are ways to do this, especially with only three AI maximum. Since in a later post you declare the fact that the mission scales with the amount of human players as "technically challenging" (something I can't really understand either), what I mentioned above might have been a better solution. In closing: I can not understand the reasons behind the decisions made. Honestly, you have not given a single reason as to why the current path has been chosen, only that it was chosen. Why the single playsession ? Why the MP server startup even in single player. Why not a normal campaign format. Why not allow saving and disabling of respawn, at the very least in single player ? You said you decided to go that way, but the "why" is not adequately explained. I hope you don't take this as a rant or anything. I love Arma, and I'm pretty sure the APEX expansion would be value for money (of course, being a supporter, I paid for it a long time ago, hehe), but the campaign setup is nonsensical, and it gives the impression that you are not confident with it yourself but rather want the player to get over with it quickly, and preferably without being able to fail to prevent it from being seen as "too difficult". Not saying that is your way of thinking, I just say that this is the impression I get when looking at it. I realize that it is probably too late to change anything about the campaign, seeing that it will be released in 5 days and two of those days are weekend. However, I hope that you will consider addressing these issues, maybe in an update. The (unlimited) respawn takes away from the feeling of achievement that you get when you finally make a mission. The fact that you can't save (in single player) means that if you are more careful playing, you might overstay your time and might have to abort the mission, which, again, in single player, makes absolutely no sense at all. Thank you for this post!! You are a true Arma soldier! 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cosmic10r 2331 Posted July 7, 2016 I fully agree with the lack of value on life with the respawn system.. one of my favorite gameplay experiences was the Original army ops where you only had one life in PVP and spent the rest of the game watching to see if your teammates won or lost the respawn system.. as stated by others... totally ruins the value of tactical gameplay and of trying to stay alive... by respawn 3... who gives a crap lol... In any case... i think why many of us are here... again as stated is for that milsim aspect and I think what makes arma great is it still mostly represents that... so would love to see some options to toughen that campaign up 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ruff 102 Posted July 7, 2016 One more thing. Imagine if you were a new player to Arma 3 and just played the Sp campaigns and then got to Apex and played the Sp campaign....... Where is the gameplay continuity there? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bars91 956 Posted July 7, 2016 People above me have already said my impressions of the campaign pretty much spot on. I liked the voice acting and cinematics. But that's about as far as the somewhat positives go... unfortunately. So, in short: - game mechanics used more like gimmicks (jus cuz they are available) and not a tool (use when appropriate); - pure MP design. You either "Rambo" through or "Ghost Recon" it with friends. No "ArmA SP" in either of those things; - no tactics or caution required. Pretty much "Edge of Tomorrow" with endless unpunished respawn until the end; - not a sign of realism of any sorts (and that's counting the futuristic "Scud Eastwind-hunt" as SAS CTRG that I was willing to roll with); - no fail-states/penalties for not paying attention; - no savegame/checkpoint save system. All in all: a step up in presentation with decent voice acting and good cinematics getting absolutely tanked by dubious mission design philosophy and execution. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ataribaby 54 Posted July 7, 2016 Yeah, you are right. Just checked. I overlooked this. Thanks. I had the new erco scope in my inventory for daytime... it was in my vest... check there... totally vanilla and vanilla kit... so it should be there Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
korax 4 Posted July 7, 2016 I tried the first mission in Singleplayer just as a test before any sort of actual coop play on the upcoming weekends. I agree with the sentiments that the biggest problem is the ticket respawn eliminating any real challenge. I feel like the best and quickest solution would be a campaign difficulty menu open during the initial game setup. Having the option to enable/disable ticket respawn (Disabling ticket respawn would set the revive respawn bleed-out time to infinity, always giving soldiers a chance to revive their fallen comrades, and if they all fall the mission fails) or possibly enable saving (not sure if that would break everything, but with the missions so short I feel that saving is just not as important). This allows for the best of both worlds and I don't see it being too hard to implement before the full game release. I also believe AI teammates should be able to be enabled/disabled in this screen as well, having them enabled (and able to be revived) would allow for JIP to function for players that want to jump into a unit on the fly - and if AI is disabled and they want to JIP (while ticket respawn is turned off) well.. too bad :) That's the mission host's choice. Of course being able to adjust other things like AI difficulty etc (on a greater level than the normal game difficulty settings) might also be fun for those that want an extra challenge. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
froggyluv 2136 Posted July 7, 2016 Was going to write a whole essay why the push for no squad AI team mates is wrong and it opened a can of worms in my mind to where this game will end up going in 2 years. just had to stop my mad self as the future that 'every game' targets is MP. And where the majority of the community is more MP side of the game these days or at least the most vocal. Thank you activision for showing every game company the way. E.g. Ghost recon wild lands and rainbow six siege. By the way the reason why people play your game and why they call it great and if you read game websites and steam comments is because Arma 3 is known as a tactical milsim gameplay. There are no tactics in the single player side of this expansion. The only expansion are the addons (which are great) but the extra missions are highly disappointing. There was a large chance to showcase ARMA 3 gameplay in Tanoa which is now lost because of the push to mp. Even though AI is always the most complained about thing in every game especially Arma do you ever see us OG players asking without them?? Comments in this thread were always used to a squad as this isn't a James Bond type of game. The comments here from users are instilled with milsim gameplay and we were quite shocked that we were to complete objectives Rambo style??!!!! I've had enough I better stop before I start swearing at the 'great idea' to remove AI players and go towards the activision move of 'let's remove sp and and focus on mp so that we'll have less work to do, every company is doing it and the players will just have to cop it because they'll expect a sp the next year and but we wil give them the same Just take their hard earned money anyway because no one is making sp games anymore'. I'll stop there before I ramble on on how pissed off I am. Amen brother. They keep saying "people are complaining", "people want...", "people dont like" -well WHAT people exactly? Where are you drawing your fan data from that is sufficient enough to get the last company making really world class campaigns to shift the trajectory of your flagship in such a major way? Everyone plays with AI in Arma -sure we all get frustrated but you cant take that as a "Ahh fuck it -ditch AI" after all these years. That sentiment sure doesnt reign here so what about us -your loyal day 1 customers? Doesnt our sentiment matter as well? Im in here and the amount of people that say "dump AI -Go pure MP" are few and far between. Most of em drifters who wouldnt give a shit 2 weeks later if you did anyway. Yet here in these forum lie the bread and butter of your fanbase, your best modders,your biggest fans and I dont think anyone of us is happy. 8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BL4DE 91 Posted July 7, 2016 RIP Arma singleplayer 2001-2016 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
keeks 12 Posted July 7, 2016 Also wanting to add my voice to those disappointed with the new campaign in regards to playing it solo. I completely understand the rebuttal that it's a co-op campaign primarily, however I think many of us were hoping for the ability to play it in solo similar to Harvest Red (as in without having to fight alone when playing it in single player). I love the missions, but it just feels silly to be in a fire team on your own in these kind of missions. Like others have mentioned, I want an AI squad and the ability to save. I've become used to Arma's AI commanding system to the point where I'm actually quite fond of it (sure it has problems, but for the most part I have few problems working it). I saw the video posted much earlier in this thread where frogglyluv had added a few AI teammates to the first mission. That looked fantastic and is exactly what I want to play. It's probably too late and judging by the developer posts here it seems unlikely it's going to change, but I wanted to voice my opinion too in the hopes to help influence future Arma co-op campaigns. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbbw123 115 Posted July 7, 2016 This is because the videos aren't in yet. those where in though, other members i was playing with where seeing the video's apperently Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wiki 1558 Posted July 7, 2016 2 things: - I think that, before going that way with Apex, BIS should have asked the community here (with a poll for example) whether people liked this new system - I'm glad to see so many people who still like playing SP. In another thread, a few weeks ago, some guy stated that no ones cares about solo nowadays. He was soooo wrong! 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roberthammer 582 Posted July 7, 2016 Well i haven't started the Apex campaign yet (will do on weekend) , but what i see here - it really sounds bad something like A2 PMC campaign but only MP based with unlimited respawns - ehhh also in A2 OA - the campaign was fully playable from SP and MP and that's what most players wanted and not a MP based only with "cheap" 1 man SP 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bars91 956 Posted July 7, 2016 2 things: - I think that, before going that way with Apex, BIS should have asked the community here (with a poll for example) whether people liked this new system - I'm glad to see so many people who still like playing SP. In another thread, a few weeks ago, some guy stated that no ones cares about solo nowadays. He was soooo wrong! And this is still something like small percentage of SP crowd since most are not as pro-vocal I suspect. A lot of more "oldschool" gamers don't post as much as the DayZ/Life/CoD crowd. So that's that... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites