OA Standalone vs Combined Ops crowed - considerations? (debate)

[mrcash2009 0]

So,

I noticed a few people getting pissed of with missions not being OA standalone friendly and a few woes about this area. I have my view on this but it raised a few questions. I didn't bother with a poll because its open ended so here's a few questions ...

Who thinks that a community might be split as regards this issue?

Do you think all mission makers should cater for standalone OA users?

What about servers too, should they have a standalone area also?

Do you think its tuff for the standalone crowed and they should fork out for Arma2?

What do standalone users think and want?

Is it a myth that people will only stick to standalone and will never get A2 and so we should cater for it in those aspects?

Do you think BIS making in standalone is a great tool for people to then go and get A2, or is it a double edged sword/can of worms?

Realy its all about the two camps (if their really is any) and also people who only have standalone, what do you think? Will you now get A2 to join the gang? Or do you feel missions/mods etc should have a OA standalone feature? This isn't to stir up anything, mainly interested about those who have standalone really.

Edited July 21, 2010 by mrcash2009

[Antigoon 10]

If mr.g-c's poll is any indication, I don't think it"ll be much of an issue.

[arcadebert 10]

Don't think the standalone boys/girls will be around for long, IE the Mp is a minefield for new players, and ArmA/2/OA is A big commitment to really get into (god I've got loads to learn) both system wise/ update and what the game involves.

[cossack8559 10]

If they come to love OA they will buy ARMA2... why miss out on Chernarus and all the Russian content etc? i personally enjoy missions that mix things up with Russian-Takistani units(even though they are basically the same) :)

[r71 0]

Like Cossack said, If they like OA They will buy Arma2.

[Kristian 47]

Buy combined ops = profit

[zoog 18]

I think there's no problem if everything is based on combined operations, in my opinion it's simply an expansion of the ArmA II library. And if you like OA you can just as easily get A2. It's not that you're buying a 4 year old game, A2 is on the same level as OA, hence the Combined Operations = ArmA II library so you can expect that most users have the complete package or will get it.

[MengJiao 10]

I think there's no problem if everything is based on combined operations, in my opinion it's simply an expansion of the ArmA II library. And if you like OA you can just as easily get A2. It's not that you're buying a 4 year old game, A2 is on the same level as OA, hence the Combined Operations = ArmA II library so you can expect that most users have the complete package or will get it.

The combined package allows for some good things in multiplayer. You can use the Sector wizard on Takistan. It would be nice if there were a sector wizard that was OA specific since it is a quick and satisfying way of making small, simple multiplayer games.

[therev709 10]

Isn't combined ops only $10 more than OA anyway? If I didn't already own A2 thats the route I'd go . . .

[L3TUC3 32]

Isn't combined ops only $10 more than OA anyway? If I didn't already own A2 thats the route I'd go . . .

That's the reason I finally bothered to buy A2. CO was just an offer I couldn't refuse.

[Grizzle 0]

As one who has both, but plays them in stand alone mode I would prefer mission makers do everything they can to ensure that missions that don't require A2 content not contain any at all.

I have already downloaded a few OA missions that wouldn't play properly because some content was A2. At the very least they should indicate if a mission depends upon A2 content so users can avoid them.

[Hedo 10]

Why would you use OA without the A2 stuff if you own them both? Doesn't make sense to me.

[Grizzle 0]

Why would you use OA without the A2 stuff if you own them both? Doesn't make sense to me.

I suppose it seems strange, but I'll bet I'm not the only one. To be completely clear I'm waiting for BIS to sort out the Steam combined issues before I end up launching CO regularly (yes I know there are fixes to get it working and I actually have it working, but it's been flaky for me so I'll wait until they sort it all out.)

The easiest solution is for mission makers to clearly define the requirements:

A2 Only

AO Only

CO

That way if people see a mission that takes place on AO islands but is labeled as CO they'll know it requires content from both. Let's not make the same mistake with SP content that afflicts MP with so many mods and requirements it becomes a chore to get things working.

[galzohar 31]

As a mission maker, I can say I will probably be catering for OA standalone users, but not so much because I care about them more than I care about CO users. It's more because probably more than 99% of the Arma 2 content is simply not up to par with Operation Arrowhead's standards, so I see no point in making missions that require Arma 2.

[-OGN-DarkPhantom 0]

Well unless there is a major Fix in the Server side ...especially a Combined Server...... Missions are going to be very confusing for the new buyers

[kklownboy 43]

CO = girls and booze

OA! = girls and booze

A2! = girls and booze

Do the maths.

[AnimalMother92 10]

There's really no excuse for not having both. Standalone ftl

[CarlGustaffa 4]

What galzohar says. Without Arma2 content being updated to new standards, I basically can't use it. The new British DLC will add new engineer capabilities, but these new capabilities will not be added to previous units. Why would I want to use USMC without these new functions available? And (correct me if I'm wrong) afaik, the poor russian faction doesn't even have an engineer class.

So what have we (from a coop POV)?

* USMC without OA features.

* Russians without OA features. Even missing important personnel. But they're heavy on equipment.

* USArmy which are very decent and highly advanced.

* Takistan Army which have the OA features, but is lacking in technology (which I guess it should), but you can't server wise make up for that with numbers. It's asymmetric warfare gone wrong. Maybe it works better for PvP, I don't know.

So these are the four strong contenders that really have some sort of Army to build combined warfare missions from. Since I have this language barrier with the Russians and Takistan forces, my army in a mission will always be US based. With USMC lacking the OA features, I'm down to US Army. But I'm kinda struggling, because I have no good opfor. The russians were pretty good (in some cases better) in Arma2 wrt hardware against my USMC.

About the rest (German, CZ, UN etc), every single one of them (including the upcoming British DLC) doesn't try to represent an Army (like US Army or USMC) and just have a few units thrown in. Forget about them for "combined operations" unless you're ok with doing some really weird mixing of units. They're cool and everything, but completely unusable for my stuff for lack of "being complete". I know I can easily create my own units based on existing classes, but that's not an option when you want to stay "addon free".

Arma2 units? No, not without being updated to OA standards and missing classes added.

Arma2 Chernarus/Utes? I might. I'm already missing the opportunity to get up close and personal before detection, and woodland fights providing better cover. Still have lots of unfought battles left in it :)

[Devil Dogs SF 13]

I personally don't see the point of just having standalone, Combined Ops is ten bucks more and if you have both why not choose to combine them anyway?

[ziiip 1]

I dont think the lack of detailed FLIR is a crucial setback for A2 content.

[galzohar 31]

I personally don't see the point of just having standalone, Combined Ops is ten bucks more and if you have both why not choose to combine them anyway?

No real reason, other than the fact that in its current state the old Arma 2 content is not very use-able.

[Devil Dogs SF 13]

I find the units more than usable, sure there are things which don't work such as Thermal sights and some units don't seem to want to have backpacks but for the most part they function correctly and don't break anything.

[galzohar 31]

It's not that they straight down don't work, but they are inferior in a lot of aspects and superior in none. Using OA units in a mission results in an overall better gaming experience.

[LJF 0]

Probably another reason for BI releasing standalone actually, wanting to make OA "cleaner", as if they released it as a normal expansion they would be expected to update the old content? I find myself wanting to avoid it for sure, but I miss the Russians so much :(

[njmatrix 2]

Now maybe someone can answer me this. With OA I get a great running game that I absolutely love. When I had ArmA 2 it was a dogpile of broken crap. 1. Did all the patches make it run as good as OA? and 2. if it didn't WHY would I buy it again (got rid of it) if it wont?