Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by HoubaCzech

  1. The location for Link from today's update is phantastic, even better than theone from the first release.


    Some relly great gameplay on that.


    regarding the Graphics: ofc it's the best graphics in any videogame out there imo. Simply because it uses the Arma Engine. I love the very realistic and overall good looking graphic style. I don't now a game that looks better and more real. 


    The placement of all objects is really good this time for Link. 


    I must admit. The first Link map was very pretty, but current Link map offers really enjoyable gameplay.

  2. Když na tom makáte samí ÄŒeÅ¡i tak se zeptám Äesky:  :)

    Jak je to s respawn Äasem (u Linku)? Jak se to poÄítá? NÄ›kdy je respawn hned, nÄ›kdy po dlouhý dobÄ›. ÄŒasto se mi stane, že kolo zaÄne ale já se jeÅ¡tÄ› nemůžu respawnout. ProÄ?

  3. Also as far as i could tell you are required to own Arma 3 on steam to get Argo so i dont think it is strictly free anyway as it requires you to already have bought rights to use the engine.


    Oh, really? That's interesting... How did you find out?

  4. can we have a rifle with iron sights ?




    will you do a larger and different areas for the game modes ? (with more time accordingly?) or larger distances between objectives.

    will you do a link version with revive rather than respawn ?

    can link be done with alternating links, like move the 1a and 1b and 2 around between rounds so that you have to change your approach and don't get into knowing the enemies link sites.

    can the raid defending zone be optional or widened or narrowed ? again so that the attacking force does not know the boundries and memorize the snipe and kill zones ?

    can you make the defence zone invisible for attacking force ?

    in clash there are pre set sites, can these be be moved around so not every match is at the same spots ?


    New locations gonna be there soon.


    There has been a lot of discussion about damage, so I'd like to share a few details to clarify. A headshot should be a kill under almost any circumstance – that is a way how even the weakest weapons have an opportunity to shine. Hits to arms and legs hurt, but it takes a bunch of bullets to actually kill someone this way. The balancing is centred around the body, with the impact of vests in mind. Long story short, if we're talking any combination of a gun/ammo and a vest, it takes 1–5 bullets to kill a guy. In reality, this may work/feel differently. The bullet simulation in Arma is quite complex; for example, if a bullet passes through an arm into a body and then flies out, the actual damage is quite different (lower) then when the bullet hits the body directly and stays inside. Also, quite often players feel they hit with more bullets then they actually did – we've been trying to improve the hit feedback to change this.
    Please keep in mind we're at the beginning of the open prototype and there is a lot of tweaking to be done. This also applies to grenades, which are even trickier to balance due to the nature of hit points and indirect damage interaction in Arma. In other words, there is a very thin line between OP and useless here, not mentioning the feel is very dependant on one's skill. We carefully watch how weapons and players with them perform, so together with your feedback, we can find the right balance. That balance is in firefights which are fast, exciting, but fair. We want you to have time to react and return fire when you're being shoot at, but that time window should be reasonably small. We definitely understand you might feel the damage is a bit too low in some situations, so we'll look onto various ways of how to improve that.
    Thank you again for your feedback! Now go set up a link or something, will ya? ;)



    Alright, I assume you tried having health as in Arma and it didn't go well. :) But at this time, when you are shooting somebody in the chest, he has so much time he just carefully aim for your head and doesn't bother with your fire. I think this time window is unreasonable large at the moment...  <_<

    • Like 1

  6. After playing for a few more hours I'm really getting annoyed by the players' tougness. It needs to connect about half a mag to kill players. It's much easier to spray and pray for a head. Suppression doesn't work at all. Not to mention grenades are useless at the moment.


    Imho fixing health should be priority number one.

    • Like 3


    • Timer is unforgiving, very short rounds, especially on Link, if this goes live, i do not see many people opting for Link

      I think as you have respawns, lengthening this game mode would be beneficial.


    • Survival objective mode, longer timer, if any, wipe out the enemy team to win.


    • Party system is needed, i don't really know how you would implement this in the current engine, but it needs to be implemented for friends playing and to counteract cheating
    • 10 man servers will fill up quickly, and all it takes is one player to switch sides to push all the other premade teams into another server before it starts, exploitable.


    • Airdrop setting the timer to 60s is difficult, most of the time, the airdrop will land by the defenders while they are dug in, and to make an opposing team to push in on an embedded force with that timer, its pretty one sided.


    • Clearer tagging system, allow possibly a dial for overlayed commands  (*enemy spotted here, flank left/right etc*) as you play with randoms and people who do not speak your language, this would make tactics more viable


    • Rename Side/Global/Direct to Squad/Server/Nearby, people who play Arma know what each do, but many people who come from the shooter side will be talking in the green chat assuming friendly.


    • Flashbangs, flashbangs, flashbangs...



    Good points. However I disagree with the first one. Most of my Link games lasts about 30 minutes. It depends. If you have much better/worse team than opponent, then you win/lose in 5 minutes.

    I think there are many poeple who will and who won't like Link. Many poeple like strong strategy play and/or don't mind time. Many poeple rather enjoy fast deathmatch or shorter rounds.

    • Like 1

  8. After watching Incubator video again, I've noticed that Argo is mainly to "learn more about competitive multiplayer game design". So, if Argo is only to learn that and then create a full, new standalone game, and improve Arma by the way, that's all good. However, the questions that I was asking remain if Argo is supposed to have a long future in front of it, and if it's supposed to be a paid and famous game. And I think that it's how a part of the community understand it, when I read comments under the video.


    When we talk about the future price. If it will be paid or for free... I'm afraid that paid game would be very unsuccesful. There are plenty of (good) FPS games that are free and if Argo wants keep up with them, Argo should be free.

  9. I think they're trying to get players who enjoy the sorta middle ground between games like ARMA and Battlefield (like Insurgency). I only played around with ARMA 2 abit and that was mostly just in the scenario edit but I can say I didn't have much trouble picking up the game that could just be from experience from other games though.


    I do feel like one of the main problems Argo might face is performance. I think that's what really helped games like CSGO set off (Low bar of entry, doesn't cost much, almost anyone can run it) but we all know that ARMA hasn't really ever been known for it's smooth performance.

    I also thought that.

  10. Fast should mean fast and that is not the experience that I got

    1 Firstly all the waiting should disappear

    -looooooading in ten different screens and choosing servers and even pushing a respawn button

    - then waiting for some dumbfuck to choose his team and the exact spot in the team- this should be automated and if someone wants to choose his team to do so in a limited timeframe while the rest should be assigned randomly at the end of the time

    -and then some more waiting because somebody went afk and nobody knows where he is , and on top of it defending team cant exit and shoot him because they are killed by some phantom forcefield


    = all of the loading and team shuffling and starting the game should happen in 10-15 seconds ideally with a maximum of 20-25 otherwise it is so boring that people will leave and I know it from playing arma 2 PVP - on every map change when the admin is a bit too slow people just leave and sometimes they dont wait even 10 seconds


    2 when the player is dead it is good to have some options for viewing

    - the map in freeflight in order to learn it

    - view the battle from the position of the enemy

    and maybe some stats

    1) Hey, it's not perfect but it works and now we should focus on actual gameplay in my opinion. The UI can wait for now.


    2) This is nonsense. If you could freeflight the map you can easily tell your mates enemy positions. Doesn't make sense. However if you would like to learn the map you can just hit the "Host server" button and go explore the map on your own. (Devs said that stats and leaderboards are coming in the future.)


    -First need small map we don't need island make small please.

    -Quickplay with friends not server browsing.It's like queue find game.

    -Capture points open land and we are targeted too easy make them cover position and limitation map because everyone camping mountains.

    -View distance setting game running smootly but when I look Island my FPS drop.(Or small map :D)

    -Make class limitation, I don't wanna see my team all sniper OMG.

    -And last make this game different not like Arma keep it casual arcade style.

    • Whole island because there is going to be more locations to play at.
    • As I said, the UI isn't the priority now in my opinion.
    • All sniper lol. There always be noobs.  :)  (In the other hand there can be a well coordinated team with the tactic full marksmen, so I wouldn't limitate that...)
    • And at the last point I strongly disagree with you. There are plenty of arcade FPS games out there. Finally one that is quite realistic. I really like the idea and I think this game meant to be like competitive (eSports?) conversion of milsim Arma.
    • Like 1

  11. Good points.


    I see Project Argo as something what I've been looking for for ages. Now it's for me something like dream come true.

    My opinion is that Project Argo is competitive (in the future maybe progaming) realistic FPS game. There are plenty of first person shooters but this one can stand above them because of its milsim approach.


    (I know, at the moment player with "heavy vest" dies after taking a half of the magazine, but I believe they will change that soon.)

    • Like 1

  12. I played a few hours, I read all threads on the Project Argo forum and I gathered some feedback.


    First, I would like to thank you. It's like dream come true. For years I was looking for some realistic competitive FPS game. And Project Argo is very good, I would say in the future it can stand next to for example Counter Strike as an eSport game.


    The game is amazing. I could write so lot about things you made right. Keep it up! And stick to milsim rather than adding arcade nonsenses.


    However I'll write some little things that could make game better now:

    • In the lobby (map is visible, countdown goes on) I can't use Tab to see players list.
    • I don't quite understand the respawn time system. It happens to me often that I survived last round, new round is about to begin in 5 secs, but I'm ready to respawn in 10. Wat?
    • I would like to be able to use Alt to look around while collecting airdrop. It's quite annoying I can't see anything and must rely on my hearing.
    • Grenade is very ridiculous thing. Movement: When I throw it, it flies around like bouncing ball. Effect: Actually grenades aren't much lethal. Grenade arrives at my feet and tickles my toes. I am not much afraid of them, often I ignore them. (How about flashbang in the future maybe as well...)

    These are all things I found so far that can be done better.


    I also thought about future development that there could be some medical/wounds system like in Arma.


    And as someone already said: It would be nice if the players will no longer be zigzagging and rapidly strafing from the corners. It feels weird and very unrealistic.

    • Like 3

  13. About vaulting, I had and I saw other player having an animation issue in Link gamemode, grid 083 031, between 1B and 2.

    To leave 1B area and go to 2, there is an asset of wooden boards, to pass above a wall. In some situations, players can be stuck for a short time (but enough to be shot down).

    I don't know if it has been modified, but I didn't manage to reproduce today. However, I saw several people stuck there yesterday.

    Yes, I saw a few issues with going over these planks between 1B and 2, too.

  14. In my opinion and strictly talking about gameplay, customization goes after difficulty modes. Right now UI is essential, allies have the inverted triangle.


    Arma 3 improved a lot from Arma 2, player's movement was one of the most important things, but in some way failed to recreate CQC combat. Your prototype performance is brilliant, smooth as hell, is arma 3 in visuals, but doesn't have the same feeling. I wish you can keep some part of this essence. With minor changes like removing the bullet count from UI you can get back some of Arma sensations.


    No offense, but nowadays, Project Argo is in some way likes counter strike more than Arma (I don't know if that is your objective). I played a lot Counter Strike, battlefield, call of duty, but now i'm a bit tired of those kind of games. You have the capability of trying to do some kind of mix, preserving somethings of Arma essence through host options, difficulty/Hud/gamespeed...

    I don't think it's a bad thing that it's like CS.

    For the years I was looking for some competitive (maybe progaming) realistic FPS game. Something like Counter Strike but with realistic combat...

    Project Argo is now for me something like dream come true.

  15. The exclamation mark is truly shown when the enemy is nearby (100 m or less). It is a part of the respawn system present in Arma 3 which should be removed soon as it doesn't work very well for Argo. The Clash game mode already use a different way to signalize the enemies (defenders) nearby respawn points and for Link and Raid it doesn't really say anything relevant with such a huge radius.

    You're right. Thanks for explaining.

  16. Agree with Rich. This is something like "Counter Strike with realistic combat" where you can die from single bullet. They got an idea about more realistic competitive FPS game. They didn't know what to expect so they let it free to try.

    I really like the idea of Project Argo. I would say it can in the future stand along progaming games like CS, BF and so...

    • Like 4

  17. I think 5v5 is good too, but if you would make a gamemode with about 10 people, with squads that have to work together, im not exactly sure how, but i think that would be great too, like in Squad, the Teams have to work together and the Squad Leaders have to comunicate as well.


    Then why are you playing Argo? Go playing Arma instead. Arma is a game meant for squad communication teamplay...

    You probably didn't get that Argo should be like (progaming) competitive Arma. Something like realistic Counter Strike in which you die with single bullet.

  18. onedigita, on 03 Nov 2016 - 00:35, said:

    First off just wanted to say how pleased i am with this release and I can see how it will open the doors to lots of new arma adventures.

    I have a bunch of ideas:

    1. I would really like the ability to move my gun from high low position ...


    Some of these ideas are good and some bad.

    Like the points 5 and 8. Implementation would be like making another Counter Strike.

    However I really like the idea of healing and FAKs. I would really love to see that in game.