FP : DR - News & Discussion

[Kayjay 10]

This game has some kind of strategy game atmosphere...

"All right, I took the snipers and the MG guy, that makes 6 points, when I take 4 tanks I still have 41 points left...mhmm"

I predict epic new "mission battles". Each side gets half of the units and fights for survival :cool:

You didnt read it properly

[mr_centipede 31]

thanks paulus. not quite get it though, how does it affect gameplay? but it's okey. offtopic anyway.

ontopic. CM mission editor is really great (the help that is) hope BIS can produce something like that someday. quick browse, they have RTE built in.. called LiveLink. The feels seems a bit like OFP:CWC. check the waypoint creation. it's not necessary a bad thing though. my impression is the editor is quite easy to use (got briefing editor as well), and seems quite powerfull... but unfortunately, the game itself is very limiting... 63 soldiers? man... so much can be done with this editor, yet so little.

sad really

[ricbar89 0]

I already corrected that, why are you going on about it?

I didnt realise i was, i simply pointed out that people take things that arent confirmed as confirmed, you were the one arguing with it.

[Deadfast 43]

You didnt read it properly

No, the last 2 points were edited it ;)

[whisper 0]

You didnt read it properly

He did

every entity, crew included, counts as 1. Empty vehicles count as 1 also.

that's probably why the german review couldn't get more than 40 units on map, they probably already placed 23 static entities like empty vehicles, and such.

to quote the OFP-DR Editor Manual :

You can have a maximum of 63 entities enabled at one time within a mission, this includes the player character, AI soldiers and vehicle entities. Empty or virtual vehicles count as one entity. You can spawn and despawn entities at various points in your mission, but that total should never exceed 63.

[bangtail 0]

I didnt realise i was, i simply pointed out that people take things that arent confirmed as confirmed, you were the one arguing with it.

No, 40 was wrong, 63 was confirmed. I'm not arguing with anyone. You don't seem to have a point to make save repeating the same thing over and over.

Move on :rolleyes:

Eth

[bogdanm 0]

Guys, did you read entire Helios's post?

The spawn/despawn ability fixes some issues while creating others. For example if you create a mission with simultaneous battles in different locations, if you are flying a helicopter and want to fly from one location to the other, whats going to happen with the troops that are fighting after you left the first location? Will they just disappear? Shouldn't they continue fighting even though you are not next to them.

But the "virtual crew" is a well thought solution to the problem.

[PuFu 4591]

it is 63 entities in total then yeah?

from what i could gather, 1 entity = 1 soldier or 1 manned vehicle, or 1 empty vehicle...strange indeed.

[TimRiceSE 10]

The spawn/despawn ability fixes some issues while creating others. For example if you create a mission with simultaneous battles in different locations, if you are flying a helicopter and want to fly from one location to the other, whats going to happen with the troops that are fighting after you left the first location? Will they just disappear? Shouldn't they continue fighting even though you are not next to them.

But the "virtual crew" is a well thought solution to the problem.

Isnt it kind of a moot point since you wont really be flying anywhere very far....

[Kayjay 10]

Isnt it kind of a moot point since you wont really be flying anywhere very far....

if you are referring to multiplayer mapsize then probably. but this is the mission editor?

[bogdanm 0]

Isnt it kind of a moot point since you wont really be flying anywhere very far....

I'm talking about missions made in the editor, where the entire map is available.

[TimRiceSE 10]

Is there not some kind of constraint for non-MP mission areas too?

[von_paulus 0]

every entity, crew included, counts as 1. Empty vehicles count as 1 also.

that's probably why the german review couldn't get more than 40 units on map, they probably already placed 23 static entities like empty vehicles, and such.

Yes that must be what happened.

With a 64 limit, even with spawning and despawning, I'm sure this will also limit the kind of missions you can create.

[pchaxor 0]

I have pre-ordered the OFP2 game. (Since it is actually being released in the USA *cough*) I will be fair in evaluataing it, however the lack of TrackIR support for Infantry and not being able to freelook as infantry is very limiting and a poor decision by CM. This scores big points for ArmA 2. Also many other limitations just makes the game sound like a BF2 wanna be instead of a combat simulation game.

I do know that there will be freelook and TrackIR support for vehicles and aircraft, as limited as it may be. I also know that OFP2 "should" need less system resources to run and is "supposed" to run smoother than ArmA 2. I don't have any issues with ArmA 2, so this game should run super smooth.

[echo1 0]

I'm not sure if it has been raised here, but I'm pretty sure that 63 limit applies to both allied and enemy units, meaning that the largest battles you can have are about 20-40 units per side, which is a bit limiting alright.

And I don't think that spawning thing really excuses it, as has been pointed out before, it prevent there being open ended and large scaled battles if you have to move from point to point to make sure the mission works properly. I wouldn't be surprised if the spawning thing wasn't used all that much because of potential playability bugs if people manage to not trigger spawning.

[Bush 0]

Maybe someone could translate this review or at least give us some highlights:

http://www.eurogamer.cz/articles/operation-flashpoint-2-recenze

It would be quite interesting to read as it got only 4/10.

[Mr.Wolf 10]

Bush: Try google translate:).

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=cs&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eurogamer.cz%2Farticles%2Foperation-flashpoint-2-recenze&sl=cs&tl=en&history_state0=

According to reviewer, it's very very very hard, even harder than Arma. He also talks about some badly placed checkpoints and suiside acting of AI partners.

But also it's without serious bugs, it's very well optimised and goodlooking. I think he criticises only difficulty ballancing.

[Zipper5 74]

Well, if he's only criticizing that, it must be utterly terrible to justify giving it 4/10.

[Richey79 10]

He said he would have given it 8/10 if it weren't for the difficulty level, even on 'normal' ( i.e. easy ).

Mind you, his point of reference is to say that even players who can finish COD on the tougher difficulty levels will find the difficulty level impossible.

Overall, ironically, it's probably the most attractive sounding review so far for me; sounds like he really spent some time playing it.

Worst aspects are that he says the missions are heavily reliant on scripting (they would be with the 60 'entity' limit), the friendly AI are pretty poor, and the mission designers have relied on cheap tricks, like spawning enemies behind the player.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Richey79

[Zipper5 74]

Well, it's a bit odd that he'd lower the score for an advertised "military simulator" (we all DR is far from that) for being "too difficult" unless it's hilariously impossible.

[froggyluv 2130]

and the mission designers have relied on cheap tricks, like spawning enemies behind the player.

Spawning enemies is a huge no-no. The sole reason why after a few hours of COD 4 I quit the game for good. How can you possibly play tactical -scouting out your objective area, placing your squad in their appropriate positions- when enemies can appear out of thin air. Arrgh, I hope this is not true or else, absolute dealbreaker!

[Deadfast 43]

Well, it's a bit odd that he'd lower the score for an advertised "military simulator" (we all DR is far from that) for being "too difficult" unless it's hilariously impossible.

He said a 46 minute mission took him the whole day to finish and that it wasn't entertaining.

To be honest I have the feeling it wasn't his type of game :D

[maturin 12]

So the island is long and thin? That's sort of a bad choice, imho. It looks better on a sheet of paper, but in a video game you want a big map to feel big, and Chernarus-like blobs of terrain are the way to go. If you have too many defining landmarks and barriers, the map can get compartmentalized for gameplay, even if it can look more interesting at times.

[derk yall 0]

I Think also.

The way he wrote the review it seams more like an spoiler, then objective review. He also complain that it is difficult, because the fight are on long distance. I found this as an review from an CoD player, nothing very objective.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

I have pre-ordered the OFP2 game. (Since it is actually being released in the USA *cough*) I will be fair in evaluataing it, however the lack of TrackIR support for Infantry and not being able to freelook as infantry is very limiting and a poor decision by CM. This scores big points for ArmA 2. Also many other limitations just makes the game sound like a BF2 wanna be instead of a combat simulation game.

I do know that there will be freelook and TrackIR support for vehicles and aircraft, as limited as it may be. I also know that OFP2 "should" need less system resources to run and is "supposed" to run smoother than ArmA 2. I don't have any issues with ArmA 2, so this game should run super smooth.

Have you had problems finding Arma 2 in the US? I just purchased mine yesterday from Best Buy.