Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About dmakatra

  • Rank
    Master Sergeant
  1. dmakatra

    Feedback Thread

    Hello, I used to play a lot of OFP back in the day. I have occasionally played the Arma series, but haven't been able to invest the time it requires to be able to play it - since you need to be "in the loop" and also find a good group to play multiplayer with. Therefore, I'm very thrilled about Argo and have been playing it extensively for the past few months. It offers a lot of those fantastic Arma moments but without all the required effort. There are some things I'd like to bring up: 1) I understand this is a prototype and I'm fine with there being a lot of bugs, but you really need to fix that sodded respawn bug where players spawn into each other or into objects and die. It is especially annoying in Clash as it can throw off an entire game because 2 people in your team died for no reason. 2) The grenades seem a bit underpowered. You rarely see a casualty because of grenades. Making them a bit more powerful would make the rifleman class more interesting AND make it easier to flush out camped positions. 3) The balance of weapons are in some cases a bit off... I understand that you're experimenting but some of the setups you can see that a vast majority of the players on the server use the same weapon. Especially the AK-weapons seem to be a bit overpowered, but I saw in the latest changelog that you've nerfed them somewhat. 4) Speaking of the weapons - the current set of weapons are appalling. Two high calibre machine guns and two high calibre snipers? First, the machine guns: I really liked when you had machine guns with a smaller calibre but with a high ROF and a good scope. Then they became specialist weapons - capable of suppressive area fire over distances but only if you deployed them. The low calibre made them less lethal, which meant you really had to take advantage of the high ROF and - in medium to long distances - that meant deploying to be able to score enough hits for a kill. With high calibre, low ROF and short range scopes you just make the into super powerful battle rifles with huge magazines and a relatively (to a battle rifle) high ROF. That just kills the purpose of the weapon. Regarding the sniper rifles: The game is already prone to attract snipers. This is due to some weird preference for sniper rifles in general among the gaming population, and I don't know how many times I've seen people bring sniper rifles into maps that are pure CQB. So if you want a good flow of the game you have to make sure the sniper rifles fill a role, but make sure that role is limited. A good balance in a team should be a majority riflemen/grenadiers/etc, with maybe one machine gunner and one sniper if the map permits it. Then you can get those tense firefights where it's just not one shot one kill. Right now a normal round of Clash usually consists of 3-4 guys waving a high calibre sniper rifle and 1-2 waving a high calibre machine gun and it's not fun nor tense, just random. 5) I would just like to make a shout out for the maps that were set in the valley, don't remember the name. The Link map with the rock formations were my favourite of the Link maps - so fast and intensive. Also a good balance between medium range engagements, with possibilities of ambushes and flanking manoeuvrers, and all-out close quarters panic (by Main). The Clash map was also by far my favourite. The long distances, the wide views and the open terrain really opened for a lot of cool stuff: Flanking, feigning attacks and drawn out firefights. I don't know if it was because the earlier maps had less powerful and less accurate weapons or if it is because people are getting better at the game, but the first few weeks I saw a lot more drawn-out engagements. You were in a firefight, you fired, missed, disengaged, flanked, got flanked, ducked under a rock formation, saw movement and shot at undergrowth, so on and so forth. That was really awesome and in that valley map you saw those kinds of engagements a lot. So great map, please make more with that kind of longer engagement ranges in non-urban areas with less powerful and less accurate weapons. 6) The game really need a vote-kick feature and an autokick feature. A lot of the games are ruined by griefers team killing or high-pingers with 200, 300 or even 400 ping which makes it damn near impossible to kill them in a one-on-one CQB. 7) Please let us have some kind of health-bar or the like. I find it infuriating that people spectating me can view my health but I cannot. If you don't want to clutter the HUD, make it visible by the press of a button like the compass. 8) Raid as a game mode seem broken. Right now it's a bit of a mess because there is no organised play. But once people organise squads, groups and clans and actually coordinate a bit the defending team will be in such advantage. In Clash at least you have a very powerful airdrop to offset the disadvantage of attacking. In Raid it is not so - the airdrop is completely irrelevant. For the attackers, the risk of getting the airdrop out in the open is usually much higher than the risk of actually exploring the locations one by one - especially since it takes a while before it drops. For the defending team the time is usually not a problem and the negative consequences of the attackers getting the drop (which is a big reason for the defenders to pick it up in Clash) is basically non-existent. This, and the fact that the defenders are in a natural advantage make the game mode broken in my opinion. With that said, all in all, I'm having a lot of fun with Argo (except right now, because the current weapon set up is ruining the fun). Good work and I hope you will continue making the prototype into a proper game.
  2. dmakatra

    Can play MP with Alpha Lite?

    Messiah provided this thread with the one decent reply. Thank you.
  3. Now, this is a rather interesting point to bring up. Because the option already exists. At least that's how it used to be in older versions of Arma (not sure about A3), server settings dictates stuff like view distance and foliage. It's there for a reason, because it doesn't limit people. If you're setting up a game and a couple of your friends have a crappy computer, then you're still able to play the game because of this. Don't like it? Hey man, it's a free world, just pick servers that don't enable the option of foliage removal. ;) I don't care if 3rd person isn't realistic or not. People that like 3rd person raise several good points (situational awareness, etc.) and people that are against it raise a few fair good points as well. But it doesn't matter. The question is why do you want to limit something that is an OPTION? Hey, I hate respawn. I think it's in the way of tactical gameplay as people take death less seriously. Does that mean I advocate for BIS to remove the possibility of adding respawn to the game, and thus more or less actively kill off 90 % of the PvP-community? No, I don't. Because I realise that there are people that enjoy the game in a different way than I do. You badly, badly need to realise this as well.
  4. You really think that people go through all the crap of setting up a server properly and forget to adjust the difficulty settings the way they want them to? This has nothing to do with what's default and not. It has to do that some people prefer to have 3rd person available on the servers that they host, on their spare time, with their spare money. If you deny them that right, then maybe you should start paying their server fees as well? I really, really don't see the issue anyway. Most hardcore servers have 3rd person disabled. Hell, most co-op groups I've been in during the past 12 years have had it disabled. I like 3rd person, but you're not seeing me whine about being restricted to 1st person on some servers - because it's not my server. What's the bloody problem?
  5. Why the hell are people spending so much time arguing against something that is an OPTIONAL FEATURE? Why do you want to constrain something that, OBVIOUSLY has an appeal for a lot of people when you can just choose to TURN IT OFF? Get a grip, people.
  6. dmakatra

    Arma 3 Constructive Critiques

    First, I want to say that you raise a few fair good points. Some of us have played this game for 12 years and can be a bit blind of how unaccessible it is. Hell, I've played it for 12 years on-and-off and everytime I come back I'm faced with a new update and community addons that changes everything and makes it confusing even for an old fart like me. Also, quite a few of this community's members can be, how do I put it, rather douchey, when a new community member comes along and proposes changes that will make the game more accessible (which in some peoples eyes can be intepreted as "dumbing it down"). However, this particular issue about highlighting targets I find a bit odd. Because, as you said, the feature is there. At least it was there in arma2. And it is a feature that I think most people would agree only really belongs in a situation to help beginners learn the ropes. Most seasoned players don't want this. I certainly don't want it. But having the option for beginners is always welcome. And you can't really blame the vast, vast majority of players who don't want to play with it (and who run the servers in their spare time) when they choose to turn it off. If you want to play with this feature, either find/start a server with it, or play enough SP until you're scarred enough to play without it. :)
  7. dmakatra

    Better useage of 2 or more monitors

    I think that a map on the second screen would be fine, but what really needs to be made and supported is a Arma3 map iPad app.
  8. dmakatra

    Please don't make this M

    Reading this thread and many others on this forum makes me sad. I was 10 years old when I started playing Flashpoint in 2001. I reached my Flashpoint/Arma-peak around 2004-2005 - that is, in my early teens. Playing, scripting and editing, and contributing what I could to the community by helping out and beta testing. Administrating gaming groups and other loose constellations. Helping newcomers play 'tactical'. I grew up with this game, with everything to which that entails. Today, when I'm 21, I hardly ever touch the game more than a couple of times each year when the craving hits me. I've forgot more or less all of the knowledge that I used to have about sqs, which I guess is obsolete now anyway. I find it sad that certain, major, parts of this community cannot realise that what Arma has to offer has nothing to do with what age you have, what your other interests are or if you actually enjoy CoD-games occasionally. There is such an elitist atmosphere in this community which makes me worried for the future of BI and the development of future Arma-games, as newcomers are not always welcomed with opened arms. I find it sad because this sends the people that are 'looked down upon' running away from this game, instead of being guided and helped see what an amazing experience it is. That being said, I think BI should use whatever means necessary to create the game that they want to create - whether it be rated 3+ or 20+. But aiming for a high age rating to actively scare off teens from the game would be very destructive.
  9. dmakatra

    Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy

    I bought the full game last night. Is anyone up for a MP session? RealTime or PBEM is fine with me.
  10. dmakatra

    ArmA 2 site hacked

    Year of release: 2012 Year of people actually being able to play the game: 2015 I'm surprised to see how my up-until-now reasonably good machine turned into shit in like two split seconds.
  11. dmakatra

    Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy

    But flight sims seems and the like get a lot of attention on this forum, why not strategy games? Seems a bit narrow-minded I'd say, especially with all the derogatory remarks about "close minded CoD-teenagers" and whatnot that floats around here. The game's been released by the way. Either via direct download or mail delivery + direct download.
  12. dmakatra

    Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy

    Never did play Afghanistan. Might be worth taking a look at anyway. JonPL: I'm not sure how it works, but sometimes the time limit is disregarded and the clock simply keeps ticking on but is marked in red instead. So time is usually not an issue. But I do agree that co-op would be welcome. In fact, all MP improvements would be awesome. Even though I usually play RealTime, I appreciate a good WeGo-session now and then and not being able to play WeGo in anything but PBEM is a bummer. Also, units share ammo between themselves if you position them close to each other. Not sure about rearnaments, might be because the scenarios are too small or it might not exist. Maybe in Busting the Bocage-scenario. I heard somewhere there'd be resupply in that one for the American side. Not sure though, haven't had the chance to play it yet. On another note, I'm a bit surprised by the lack of interest for this game on this forum. I've always seen this community as interested in realistic simulators/simulatorishs, and CM is wargaming at it's finest. I reckon people should give it a try. Both in RealTime and WeGo because it almost plays out as two completely different games.
  13. dmakatra

    Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy

    I just had my first go at one of the demo maps and I must say that the game is incredibly horrible. After being used to Shock Force, where suffering even a single casualty I considered a personal failure, actually being thrown back to Normandy and WW2 really tears at you. People die like flies when they meet proper resistance. I felt obliged to offer cease-fire after half a squad got wiped out by a German PaK and my Weapons Platoon being decimated by artillery fire. Awesome. :p
  14. The demo is out and the game is soon to be expected to go gold. Check out battlefront.com Combat Mission is a series of tactical simulation games in the scope of platoon- to battalion-sized engagements. They're very realistically modelled but still relatively user friendly. You play using a rather unique WeGo-turned based system, where you and your foe pause the game every 60 seconds to give orders which are then played out without you being able to interfere. Since the last game in the series, Shock Force, which saw the introduction of a heavily revamped engine, you can play in Real Time too. I see it as a spiritual and more realistic successor to the good ol' Close Combat-games. Haven't really followed the development process but I've been looking forward to this for quite a while now. Really like the mechanics of the new game engine since Shock Force (except the UI, gah!), but modern warfare didn't really feel all that interesting. So it's good to be back in WW2 where engagement ranges aren't across the entire map and the foe can actually put up some real resistance.
  15. dmakatra

    Has OFP/ARMA put you off the Army ?

    Ehh... What? So because you either don't want to join, or haven't been able to/wouldn't want to unless, you're a pathetic kid? I enjoy shooting digital people in their digital faces in a somewhat organised matter just as everyone else. That doesn't make me want to do it in real life. What's the deal with this "if you haven't served, you're not a worthy person"-attitude? I don't understand it. I work my arse off day in and day out with my field of work which happen to be drug prevention. You know, the kind of business where you actually do something useful to society instead of running around in the woods pointing death-sticks at people. But apparently, that's not a respectable career path.