codarl 1 Posted March 31, 2006 No it's not obvious at all because some objective in a mission might require you to switch character in order to complete it. Like... for a simple example, some objective is on an island or inside some unbreakable fortress that you absolutely can't get on/into with your 'main' character so you must switch unit in order to reach it. That's an extreme example, just for the arguments sake, some other mission might be possible without switching but only if you destroy a tank with hand grenades or something stupid like that. Bis didn't include the "close" button for no reason. If many people think like you there will be allot of custom missions without this feature. My idea as a mission designer is that, you can only switch within your class, IE "vehicle crew", "infantry" , "pilot" . However, In some cases, for example, if you immobilised X tanks with AT weapons, you'd be offered to be a tank gunner, or if 90% of your shots hit an enemy you'd be offered to become a sniper. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thrush213 0 Posted March 31, 2006 did the first game have character switching? no. and there was no difficulty in destroying tanks was there? it's all in the briefing and if you pick your weapons wisely there's no trouble intaking out multiple armored vehicles. oh and a huge fortress where you can't get in, but need another character? what? and what type of character will that be? rambo? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crave22 0 Posted March 31, 2006 I'm worried about how character switching may kill a storyline. If you play as the main character, it would be kinda weird to switch out of his body, and it would be especially weird if he were shot while controlled by the AI, but you started as him in the next mission. I'm also worried about how people may use it to get from one objective to another, instead of going the old fashioned way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Metal Heart 0 Posted March 31, 2006 Quote[/b] ]it's all in the briefing and if you pick your weapons wisely there's no trouble intaking out multiple armored vehicles. Like if there was a mission with a weapon selection consisting of 1 piece of BB rifle and 1 piece of pea gun, how exactly with your great wisdom would you pick the weapons that can easily take multiple tanks from that selection? Which one would be the right choice if you must destroy, say 4 Abrams tanks? Quote[/b] ]oh and a huge fortress where you can't get in, but need another character? what? and what type of character will that be? rambo? Or... A character already inside? A character that would paradrop in? A character that has a grappling hook? A character with a personal teleporter? Shall I continue? Sigh... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stendac 0 Posted March 31, 2006 One of the reasons why I don't like the switching idea is that it seems to indicate that there won't be any character development in this game. Sure, there was hardly any in CWC, but since I spent a lot of time playing as Armstrong it really felt like he had been through hell. The ability to switch from one nameless face to another nameless face means that we really don't care about who we play as. The player's character and his buddies should have detailed personalities. When one of our guys is shot it should really mean something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Espectro (DayZ) 0 Posted March 31, 2006 did the first game have character switching? no.and there was no difficulty in destroying tanks was there? it's all in the briefing and if you pick your weapons wisely there's no trouble intaking out multiple armored vehicles. oh and a huge fortress where you can't get in, but need another character? what? and what type of character will that be? rambo? The first game did not have character switchin, no. But does that mean it is a bad idea? no! I can honestly say that I love the idea. It doesnt only give me the oppertunity to see single missions from various perspectives, it even gives me the option to do so or not!!!! What it the problem? If you do not like to see a mission from one perspective (even after completed the mission several times), you can disable the oppertunity to play the mission as some1 else. We can agree on, that ofp is great, but why keep it at that? I cannot see why you guys bitch like young CS-players about something that you can obvously turn on/off Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeMeSiS 11 Posted March 31, 2006 We can agree on, that ofp is great, but why keep it at that? I cannot see why you guys bitch like young CS-players about something that you can obvously turn on/off How obvious is it? How do you know that we arent forced to use it? Thats right, you dont, noone knows except BIS, and im not even sure if they know it themselfs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
barcode6 0 Posted March 31, 2006 The char. switching doesn't bother me at all, and BIS likely will have a way to turn it off. The game will probably be much like OFP in that it will be highly exstensible so even if it is 'on' all the time someone will make a script to turn it off if it serves them. The way I see it, the more functionality in the game when it ships, the better. The function calls that char. switching uses may be incorporated into a script by someone in a novel way that breaks one of the new games future 'engine limitations'. I think you could do cool things with it (depending on how it works, that is). For instance, play the campaign through once, and then have the option to replay compatible single missions from west, east, or resistance perspective from the menu. It would also be very useful for mission making and testing purposes to be able to switch perspectives. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zerg 0 Posted March 31, 2006 This switching thing was possibly considered for OFP already me thinks. Think about how in editor you had a choice of designating the control window of a unit as "player", "computer" or "playable". so playable = switchable into (perhaps or maybe it was just needed for MP) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daniel 0 Posted March 31, 2006 I agree with Metal Heart and the others. Obviously, if it's an option you can add to individual missions or mp missions thats fine. But I don't like the idea of possibly having to lose the immersion of combat, espcially in a campaign. You start at an airbase, get in the chopper, spend 5 mins riding there, get out under fire, see your mates get shot, find cover, and then float over the battlefield into the body of a tank gunner. Loses the immersion a little, no? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
barcode6 0 Posted March 31, 2006 Daniel @ April 01 2006,00:57)]...Loses the immersion a little, no? Absolutely, it will have to be used appropriately. I'm also worried about abuse in MP, like having a critical slot taken by someone that is there just to screw around. Again this depends on how it's implemented, that may not even be an issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ebns72 0 Posted March 31, 2006 I am personally not worried about character switching at all, as long as you aren't forced to switch to complete a mission. If you want immersion, simply don't use the feature. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zerg 0 Posted March 31, 2006 Briefing screenshot Take a long hard look at this screenshot. Read the briefing text. Note that it says: "At a later stage you can switch to other supporting units." Get it? CAN switch. Not MUST switch. Not WILL switch. It`s just an option that will increase replay value of the missions. So much fuss for nothing. And really hard to belive that people that are supposed to be fans of OFP have a negative knee-jerk reaction to ArmA and always assume the worst, even when there is next to no evidence to support their assumptions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeMeSiS 11 Posted April 1, 2006 Get it? CAN switch. Not MUST switch. Not WILL switch. And really hard to belive that people that are supposed to be fans of OFP have a negative knee-jerk reaction to ArmA and always assume the worst, even when there is next to no evidence to support their assumptions. Good spotting! And ofcourse i expect the worst, BIS doesnt show anything, and when they do they always say its old! Almost makes you think that there is a reason for the lack of news heh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Espectro (DayZ) 0 Posted April 1, 2006 We can agree on, that ofp is great, but why keep it at that? I cannot see why you guys bitch like young CS-players about something that you can obvously turn on/off How obvious is it? How do you know that we arent forced to use it? Thats right, you dont, noone knows except BIS, and im not even sure if they know it themselfs Its VERY obvious! Look at this screenie, it clearly have a button that says "close". If you dont like it, dont use it! http://www.arma.dk/photogallery.php?photo=103 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EndersLoop 0 Posted April 1, 2006 YEAH! this game is goin to rock dudes. the graphix are so amazing and the team behind it is so cool mang. For real man, this game is going to be revolutionary. Hail BI! The Masters of military gaming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snoops_213 74 Posted April 1, 2006 Yay. our first demo released! Downloading now, to bad we cant play yet only look, oh well better than nothing Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
guyguy1 0 Posted April 1, 2006 omg the graphics are SO good Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CameronMcDonald 146 Posted April 1, 2006 Looking forward to transfer my addons over to AA! Noice! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Metal Heart 0 Posted April 1, 2006 Quote[/b] ]And really hard to belive that people that are supposed to be fans of OFP have a negative knee-jerk reaction to ArmA and always assume the worst, even when there is next to no evidence to support their assumptions. Nobody has assumed anything. There was just some guessing going on wether there would be some missions that require switch or not, which would seem like a possibility, there is no definitive proof against or for it. No, one screenshot of one (quite likely a work in progress) mission's briefing is not proof. No, close button is not proof, it would seem that you can summon the cursed dialog right back with the default key K (the 'switch character' key). Does being OFP fan mean that you can't say your opinion about some new feature or express your fear about how it might affect the gameplay negatively? Wow, I guess I'm not a fan then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lwlooz 0 Posted April 1, 2006 Look,What if that switch-feature works via a script-command like "object switchUnit[if object is vehicle,highest position is used.ie commander".And What if BIS made a dialog with the 3 buttons Sniper,Soldiers and Tank Gunner just for that mission? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmakatra 1 Posted April 1, 2006 We can agree on, that ofp is great, but why keep it at that? I cannot see why you guys bitch like young CS-players about something that you can obvously turn on/off How obvious is it? How do you know that we arent forced to use it? Thats right, you dont, noone knows except BIS, and im not even sure if they know it themselfs Its VERY obvious! Look at this screenie, it clearly have a button that says "close". If you dont like it, dont use it! http://www.arma.dk/photogallery.php?photo=103 Oh, that's just a stupid argument. The missions are of course designed so you need to use all of the characters. That's just like saying "You don't like flying choppers? Don't worry, you can complete the mission on foot". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ArchangelSKT 0 Posted April 1, 2006 Briefing screenshotTake a long hard look at this screenshot. Read the briefing text. Note that it says: "At a later stage you can switch to other supporting units." Get it? CAN switch. Not MUST switch. Not WILL switch. It`s just an option that will increase replay value of the missions. So much fuss for nothing. And really hard to belive that people that are supposed to be fans of OFP have a negative knee-jerk reaction to ArmA and always assume the worst, even when there is next to no evidence to support their assumptions. Yeah I know tried to tell that to people like two days ago but I guess they get sucked up in a negative cycle as soon as something doesn`t seem to appeal to them My Webpage Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Espectro (DayZ) 0 Posted April 1, 2006 We can agree on, that ofp is great, but why keep it at that? I cannot see why you guys bitch like young CS-players about something that you can obvously turn on/off How obvious is it? How do you know that we arent forced to use it? Thats right, you dont, noone knows except BIS, and im not even sure if they know it themselfs Its VERY obvious! Look at this screenie, it clearly have a button that says "close". If you dont like it, dont use it! http://www.arma.dk/photogallery.php?photo=103 Oh, that's just a stupid argument. The missions are of course designed so you need to use all of the characters. That's just like saying "You don't like flying choppers? Don't worry, you can complete the mission on foot". Not really. BIS allready said that this feature will only be available AFTER you completed the mission. So a completion unlocks the coop-feature. I cannot see the problem? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeMeSiS 11 Posted April 1, 2006 EDIT: Forget what i said... Oh well, lets just hope that you are right and im wrong  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
