ArmA Progress Updates

[deanosbeano 0]

Quote[/b] ]I really dont see why all of you fail to see these are options! look it up in a fucking dictionary!

there is no need for that, where as we simply say, we dont like the sound of it, because of reasons given, i suggest you put i do like the sound of it and give your reasons why.

[Friedchiken 0]

Did I imagine something here  in single player games for OFP or did I not respawn from AI that were still alive in a mission?  Maybe it was MP only.  I'm confused.

Under a rock I see.  

A lot of us have been bitching about this difference in gameplay for the past month.  

Sounds great!  

I really dont see why all of you fail to see these are options! look it up in a fucking dictionary!

1. If you die and the deathcam swaps in, you can just load the previous game, like you used to.

2. You are not forced to use other kinds of units, it's an OPTION so that you can play thesame mission with different units!

From what I see, respawn is possible in Singleplayer now! this means allot of new possibilities for mission makers.

Imagine, a beach assault (anno Dday) mission, where you can choose to either fight as a german Mgunner, german sniper, german infantryman, allied soldier, allied sniper, allied MG'er, anti-tank person, medic....  need me to continue?   .

If I am interpreting your D-Day idea correctly, that sounds really cool.  You mean we can switch sides and see both perspectives?  It sounds like a great sandbox scenario!  I would love to be able to dynamically interact with both sides of the battle!

My main concern about the respawn idea is that I hope it doesn't make BIS make missions where the US Army sacrifices soldiers in a human wave attack.

I hope BIS will consider that some of us want to be able to command the AI in such a way that there is no need for tragic casualties.  The battlefield is a dangerous place, but there is no need for commanders to purposely slaughter their own country men in contrast to proper tactics.  I hope that the missions allow for retreats so that individuals can later regroup to fight another day.  Battles have varying flows and you can't expect to finish it all in the space of minutes.

I find it annoying that a fairly well-trained 8-man soviet team can be wiped out in less that 5 minutes. You'd think that they would fight harder than that, despite being ambushed.

[SHWiiNG 0]

does anyone know anymore about the iron sight structuring and whether the weapons have detailed reloading sequences?

[Zendjir 0]

Commenting on the WWIIEC article:

Quote[/b] ] Each of the main missions include several secondary missions. The secondary missions are optional. However, completing them will benefit your attempt at completing the main mission. For instance, if your secondary mission is to capture a communist base, then the enemies in the main mission wont have their reinforcements. A reinforcement system is also a new feature for ArmA. The proximity to a friendly base will affect the time it takes for your (or your enemy's) position to

become reinforced. This may prove important as the engine will allow somewhere around 50-60 characters in each battle.

I really like the mission structure, I am a bit worried by the last line though. Does this mean we have a total of 50-60 men on the map at all times? Or does it mean that we can have 50-60 men in close proximity to eachother battling it out.

Quote[/b] ] As we near the bottom of the hill my squad drops to their stomachs and intermittent firing commences.

Quote[/b] ]The enemy AI itself doesn't seem much different from the OFP AI, except they appear more aggressive.

There appear to be no AI improvements yet, lets hope they are still working on it. But there is no real evidence that suggests that they are. I would be unhappily surprised if the AI has not been fixed as demanded by the community. C'mon BIS, give us some hard AI evidence!

Quote[/b] ] I am killed. This is where another new feature comes into play. In the original OFP death would mean the end of the mission. ArmA, on the other hand, takes the death cam around to the next in command and you enter his boots to continue the battle. This is something any Rainbow Six player should be familiar with.

I hope this feature can be turned off in the options menu. The ability to respawn as an other squad member will take away much of the excitement for me.

I was not very happy after reading the article. I know the game is in Alpha stage but as it stands now ArmA is a polished up OFP. There are some minor improvements but nothing that will significantly improve the gameplay experience IMO. Maybe I'm overly pessimistic but thats how I feel about it.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Me too. I'm finding it hard to play OFP too. If that character switching option can't be turned off, I may just sexplode.

[Friedchiken 0]

Because, BIS, the problem is not that your players are dieing, but rather it is that their AI teammates get themselves killed due to not running for cover.

If I am on a ridge, why it it take half of my line exposes itself, while the other half does nothing to assist the others?

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Hopefully, the AA engine will have better responses from the AI, especially when they're on their own. It always pissed me off that single units on guard simply lie down when an enemy was detected. They should take off towards cover, but, sadly, the only way to do this way via waypoints / scripts.

[Commando84 0]

i like the idea with the character switiching, makes for some intresting switches in the game play

But i think it will be able to be setup by mission editors

cause mp missions respawn was set by mission editors in the description.ext file... maybe there is something similar to the sp misisons stuff?

[Dwarden 1124]

i'm sure there will be some sort of "realism" slider ....

and more  You move it to realism less "character switching" or "swap to another squad mate after death" appears ...

and/or maybe it become option after You finish that mission

as in theory that can give ME 2nd and 3rd reason to REPLAY that mission !

wow when You think about maybe this was "secret" way how tripple time You can spend with default missions!

if that is combined with improved AI ... then "aaaaach"  

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

Don't be such a bunch of drama queens.

If you're really biting your fingernails that much, then spend a couple hundred and try out OFP:E on XBox Live.

Depending on how you design the mission (intelligently or stupidly) the enemy A.I. does a fine job. Your approach is what determines how well your friendly A.I. does.

[funnyguy1 0]

Something official about the ArmA progress? Did you find a publisher? Placee...?

[Ukraineboy 0]

The Game is set in 2011, when that comes around we don't know whether that version of the cobra will be in the army or not. Certainly Bell has been trying to sell the thing overseas.

Uh what? No. ArmA is NOT set in 2011. That's possibly Game 2. ArmA is set now, 2005-2006. I even heard it's set in 2003. But definitely not 2011

[Friedchiken 0]

Don't be such a bunch of drama queens.

If you're really biting your fingernails that much, then spend a couple hundred and try out OFP:E on XBox Live.

Depending on how you design the mission (intelligently or stupidly) the enemy A.I. does a fine job.  Your approach is what determines how well your friendly A.I. does.

Oh OK.

So, I heard that in the XBOX version they took out the broken "take cover" command. In Elite, are you able to tell your men to take cover reasonable quickly in urgent moments? How does the lack of "stealth" "danger" "safe" and "aware" command modes affect the alertness of the AI?

[Nixer6 0]

I admit I am more than a little confused on the time frame/units,vehicles and weapons mix.

On a positive note....

As a wannabe mission maker, I sure do like the mission briefing screenshot.  

Briefing screenshot

I just hope I don't need to understand C+ to use this feature , and others, to its fullest potential.

Right now, Armd Assault looks like it's gonna be OFP:R  enhanced

I'll buy it  

[NeMeSiS 11]

Briefing screenshot

I wonder how they did those arrows? Are they always in that shape or can we change them? Are they even markers?  

I dont really like the briefing screen, the old one had more...

atmosphere...  

[bravo 6 0]

"alpha" as someone said.

arrows might stretch and mission makers might give them shape to sides, who knows.. i think it will be very interesting to work with those.

the layouts sucks so far. i dont care, it will be an art for sure!

[LizardX 0]

Commenting on the WWIIEC article:

Quote[/b] ] Each of the main missions include several secondary missions. The secondary missions are optional. However, completing them will benefit your attempt at completing the main mission. For instance, if your secondary mission is to capture a communist base, then the enemies in the main mission wont have their reinforcements. A reinforcement system is also a new feature for ArmA. The proximity to a friendly base will affect the time it takes for your (or your enemy's) position to

become reinforced. This may prove important as the engine will allow somewhere around 50-60 characters in each battle.

I really like the mission structure, I am a bit worried by the last line though. Does this mean we have a total of 50-60 men on the map at all times? Or does it mean that we can have 50-60 men in close proximity to eachother battling it out.

Yeah, this 50-60 limit is the WORST info I've ever read about ArmA! I hope it's only a misunderstanding.

[HotShot 0]

It all looks and sounds great. The only thing that i'm worried about is the 12 missions - doesn't seem much to propell a great storyline like they did for Resistance and Cold War Crisis, and that's the main reason that i play the Campaign, for the story.

I realise each mission has sub missions, but i can't see how some extra objectives will help the story along much.

The map markers also look a bit arcady.

[Ukraineboy 0]

It all looks and sounds great. The only thing that i'm worried about is the 12 missions - doesn't seem much to propell a great storyline like they did for Resistance and Cold War Crisis, and that's the main reason that i play the Campaign, for the story.

I realise each mission has sub missions, but i can't see how some extra objectives will help the story along much.

The map markers also look a bit arcady.

Lots of people didnt read everything. There's 12 missions, but thats MAIN missions. There are another couple dozen I heard side missions that affect those main missions.

Anyway Im not too concerned about the campaign. OFP's campaign sucked and I played through it once, and never touched it again. Im getting this for multiplayer and mods.

[metalchris 0]

CWC and Resistance had great storylines and charactars i cared about... These were two of the best singleplayer storylines i have seen in PC gaming and i really hope BIS continues this tradition. 12 missions might not sound to much , but i is not said , that the support missions don't reveal clues about the story or the characters involved.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Commenting on the WWIIEC article:

Quote[/b] ] Each of the main missions include several secondary missions. The secondary missions are optional. However, completing them will benefit your attempt at completing the main mission. For instance, if your secondary mission is to capture a communist base, then the enemies in the main mission wont have their reinforcements. A reinforcement system is also a new feature for ArmA. The proximity to a friendly base will affect the time it takes for your (or your enemy's) position to

become reinforced. This may prove important as the engine will allow somewhere around 50-60 characters in each battle.

I really like the mission structure, I am a bit worried by the last line though. Does this mean we have a total of 50-60 men on the map at all times? Or does it mean that we can have 50-60 men in close proximity to eachother battling it out.

Yeah, this 50-60 limit is the WORST info I've ever read about ArmA! I hope it's only a misunderstanding.

Its probably the same as in OFP, battles with 50+ characters are very tough for your PC to handle, altough you can have more, its not good for your FPS and BIS will probably try to avoid it in their campaign, in user missions you can do whatever you want ofcourse  

(In short: BIS missions will probably not have battles with much more then 60 men in the same fight, altough there will be others on the map who may reinforce etc.., it was like a bit like this in OFP, but i thinm that BIS never used more then 40 units in a battle back then)

[sniper pilot 36]

Hopefully, the AA engine will have better responses from the AI, especially when they're on their own. It always pissed me off that single units on guard simply lie down when an enemy was detected. They should take off towards cover, but, sadly, the only way to do this way via waypoints / scripts.

LEts remember guys...the game is in Alpha stage...and this game is really supposed to be OFP 1.5 or 1.7. The real thing we should be looking and trying to make a difference in is Game 2...idk lets see what you think...

[Ukraineboy 0]

CWC and Resistance had great storylines and charactars i cared about... These were two of the best singleplayer storylines i have seen in PC gaming and i really hope BIS continues this tradition. 12 missions might not sound to much , but i is not said , that the support missions don't reveal clues about the story or the characters involved.

Horrible Horrible campaign. Just bad. The campaigns didnt utilize whats fun about OFP, freedom and large scale squad combat.

The campaign was full of Rambo crap

[ralphwiggum 6]

don't go offtopic Ukraineboy.

[Ukraineboy 0]

don't go offtopic Ukraineboy.

Wait what? I was only replying to the original person who went offtopic first. I mean sure its no excuse for going offtopic, but only warning me is also wrong.