MartinFromZeusCommunity

had a fun little idea, what if you make the third person view, exactly like the first person view, but just slab the guy right on top of it? tried putting together a couple gimped images of what that would look like. http://i.imgur.com/EAyirLV.jpg http://i.imgur.com/v2W7g7A.jpg guy may look a little small, but not bad at all. having the guy on your view is also not disadvantage at all, since first person would have gun. This view might however get a bit weird once motion comes in. guessing it would seem like you were dragging the guy around (like a hud element) when looking, as opposed to orbiting him. Not sure exactly where on the screen it would be best to have him positioned. There's also a problem with the exposure of the guy not matching the actual exposure, so maybe he should be positioned so he is always as exposed as the player is. so you dont let your guard down. Myself, I always play first person, even when third is enabled. I am very tempted towards third for the ability to see your guy and face, but the loss in immersion and gameplay are just too much. A system like above might just be worth the weirdness for me though, if it would allow me to constantly see my own guy without cheating. I don't think lack of situational awareness justifies third person, since there are many things that limit it in real life that are not done in arma, and many things in and about arma that boosts it or gives you advantages over rl, so even narrow first person has more situational awareness than in real life. As for drivers with narrow views, I think it as simple as relying on the instructions from the commander, or gunner if he is not available. Operating a vehicle is a team effort after all, do it alone and expect disadvantage. more dslyecxi videos ftw: The only real benefit I see with third person, is the ability to see your own character, which both adds and takes away from immersion at the same time.

Zeus Community (gamemode not name related) does public milsim. Experienced members will when in leading roles teach new players the ropes, and admins keep the trouble makers out. Havent found another server that offers the same level of play publicly, so I dare say I was darn lucky to hit upon this server back at a free weekend.

I think that you need to either further optimize or lower the graphical ambitions of your game, if parts of it are so demanding they become unuseable for official content. As for AI I believe they have worked fine enough in previous missions that took place in towns, but if that is not good enough the obvious answer would be to improve the pathfinding of the ai or optimize the towns to work with the existing pathfinding. Spending months adding all those cool towns only to be like "this is not good enough for gameplay" that's just sad.

thought it be relevant to post a couple videos here, from back at e3 2011, which indicate arma 3 initially might have had a direction which fulfilled some of the wishes expressed in this thread, but was abandonded for some reason (design flaws, budget?) at 4:21 in the above video there is a short gameplay section. 2:03 dev says a few words about the older campaign

Not really. We did not even get to visit one of the towns, everything happened in the outskirts.

Since I'm not that knowledgeable about IRL guns, my Immersion does not break just because I play with an MX rifle instead of M4/16 whatever they use. I actually I often tend to forget the game takes place in the future at all. arma 3's future settings just kinda seems very held back to me, apart from some drones and more widespread thermals, the future stuff mainly seems like a skin that barely affects gameplay. I'm kinda curious if arma 3 could have added more things/mechanics that are typical of future/modern warfare, as opposed to the older combat from the other games. Any thoughts / ideas?

I think all that's required to call something a campaign is it being a series of missions. Even if it is short compared to other campaigns, if this was tied together as just one mission it would be considered a pretty damn long mission.

I think if you need to make it easier adding a bunch of respawns is not the way to go. Even for a casual which I was not too many years ago, respawning over and over again as you get raped by AI is not fun. Imagine quake or left 4 dead with that kind of design, it would be annoying every time you died, and the sense of achievement would be completely gone. I felt the same way playing the campaign myself, first 2 mission were awesome since I barely died, but the rest turned into a grind and got progressively duller. If you have to artificially lower the difficulty, I would look into making it easier not to die in the first place, example by making the player able to take 10 shots or something, and maybe not spamming so many enemies at the player it requires milsim level tactics to even out the odds. tho if you did something like that you better damn make they difficulty changeable or veterans shall riot. would also really have helped if that respawn time was not bugged on release, I mean come on notice a bug when its rubbed in your face.

Immersion. You have to create a sense that there is that much more depth and things in your game and its world, than what there really is from a technical standpoint alone. You also have to maintain that believe by making the player experience things that confirm it.

How will performance be for patrol ops 4 compared to patrol ops 3?

while you are at it you should add this Especially the colored indicators, it's weird having them white now, while they are colored in the squad radar.

Even in that case I would like to get some feedback on the fact that the door is locked, and it's not just the action menu acting up. Check 6:00 in this video https://youtu.be/0XojVUZJPmc?t=6

There are definitely advantages to have less enterable buildings. Towns on altis could take forever to clear and this makes for some less dragged out gameplay, models are easier to make, and the performance benefits greatly. But the way less enterable buildings have been done is disappointing. 1. Some of the buildings that (should) have (had) the biggest effect on gameplay(like the skyscrapers in Georgetown), were made completely non-enterable, and multiple cases impossible to reach the top of without a helicopter. 2. Many times you think you can enter a building, but when you get inside you cant access a lot of the rooms. Buildings should either have a complete interior, or none at all. 3. In cases where it is deemed necessary to have parts of the interior inaccessible, it should be clearly communicated where you can and cannot go, but BI never goes beyond removing a door knob that is easy to miss, and even then in many cases they still leave in so you have to memorize what doors can be opened. I know that it is too late to redo the buildings, but here are some things that CAN BE DONE before apex release: 1. Barricade doors that cannot be opened(fx using planks, or placing something in front of the door). you only need to give the door a glance and you know you cant enter. 2. Add ladders/exterior staircases to tall buildings that are missing them. I have highlighted some bad cases in this album, as well as some where it was done right: http://imgur.com/a/QEaZw

I think that if they are implementing the shacktac hud they should also add the in world colored indicators for friendlies, it's weird having people be colored on the radar but not when you look at them. I also think they could smoothen the falloff for how the group indicators fade, since that makes it easier to tell how distant people are from you, which is especially useful in CQB. http://imgur.com/a/HOB6b In the shacktac version you can clearly see that friendlies are some distance from you, while with vanilla the indicator is the same as if he were next to you. Also the scaling of the radar does not fit the size in the layout editor.