ravenholme
-
Content Count
255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by ravenholme
-
-
Before I knew what the "device" was, I thought it was a truck carrying a Nuclear warhead.Pretty sure it's appearance is such so that mission makers can use it for, well, anything they want. It makes a great prop for a variety of missions/scenarios.
-
So, whole campaign finished, and I gotta say I'm disappointed.Not very long, no epic moment, I was just... bored playing it, just like BF3 campaign.
It's just like "played and forgotten".
And not to say the horrible AI that fucks a lot of things too.
Well, ArmA 3 is my most disappointing game from BIS thus far.
I hope expansion and DLC's will bring really good thing - no more futuristic gear, and a decent campaign.
The only thing that irritated me through it was the AI. I like the future setting (Although I'm still not sure how I feel about the MacGuffin, except that I think it might be a deliberate bird flip at the people who complained about the 'Railgun Tank', which I heartily approve of. In general, I think they were far too conservative about the kind of technology that will be in operation by 2035, with stuff that isn't too different to current equipment, when it seems like we'll have load bearing exoskeletons and hypersonics by 2035. Also, really exhausted with present day settings, so future setting with something other than 'Terrorists' as enemies is really, really refreshing), and I enjoyed the campaign - varied missions types encompassing all the aspects of warfare, and the writing wasn't terrible, which is an improvement (Barring the MacGuffin, which kinda came out of nowhere and should've been foreshadowed more, I think). I also think for having worked to introduce the Scuba mechanic, it was seriously underutilised by them, only showing up in that one mission in Survive. I guess due to the lack of large naval units to operate against. (BIS really needs to add something the size of a small patrol vessel to the various factions)
-
So Miller has been the bad guy since the start? Why was he on Stratis at first? Why didn't the NATO find him while he was there before the flashpoint started?
Not a 'bad guy'. Just Black Ops, he had objectives handed to him by NATO that didn't gel with a swift re-invasion of Altis and Stratis because they need CSAT to deploy the device for testing
Also, for those complaining about the device...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_weapon The idea is a real one. Real enough that there are treaties banning anyone from thinking about or developing them. Imagine the damage you could cause in the pacific if you could cause massive earthquakes, for example
-
You find James dying after an apparent gunfight with CSAT SF near a research dome. He tells you to go and find a truck there and take it to Miller. You go to the dome, there is a truck with some sort of device on the back. There are several other devices on the ground in the dome, and a lab full of dead scientists (which Kerry doesn't really have anything to say about, despite having an opinion on most other things).
You deliver the truck to Miller, who is in total bad guy mode wearing dark glasses and speaking in a sinister way. He basically says kthxbye. Kerry demands an explanation, saying that Miller sabotaged the NATO invasion in order to acquire the device (I don't know what he means by this, what did Miller do to sabotage the invasion? Anyone?). Miller becomes belligerent and threatens Kerry, but then says that he likes Kerry and will come back for him in an hour, while a bunch of CSAT jets fly over and the scene fades out to the sounds of NATO radio messages talking about a CSAT invasion and telling everyone to get off the island.
After the credits, there is another mission which is basically Escape From Altis. Miller never came back for you, Kerry calls him on the radio and Miller says it was too dangerous to return, to which Kerry says "fuck you" in classic Kerry fashion. I didn't finish the mission, but one piece of information I got from an NPC was that CSAT and AAF are now fighting each other.
He didn't inform NATO of the FIA offensive, which caused the first attack at Altis AFB to falter and fail when the friendly fire incident threw it for a loop. This had the side effect, I'd guess, of making the CSAT feel a bit more secure about their position on the island so that they didn't pull the 'Device' out of there right away, so that Miller's team could get at it. Also, regarding the device, well... there is some evidence emerging that Geothermal power stations might actually exacerbate or cause tremors with their activity, so it's possible that the CSAT Device is some attempt to weaponise that principle
-
It was fine , just too shortalso they didnt said anything new about Miller , about his mission , who send him , how they knew about csat weapon etc
same thing about CSAT and their device - whole earthquake thing looks like from The Dark Knight Rises which Bane used in the movie :D
NATO MEDCOM confirms that they know about Miller's activities to Crossroads, who then tells Kerry to not get involved with "The Brits and their Black Ops bullshit". So, you find out a lot of what's going on, and shows it's not just the brits, NATO is in on it, whatever "it" is. (And we all, naturally, have a good idea what it is)
-
Cant tell if trolling. Anyways just to make things clear for you, its not like at some point the devs all sat down and started making Zeus, the DLC is being made by a very small portion of people. Therefore all your FIX THIS, FIX THAT whines will probably be answered somewhere in the future, as the bigger part of the dev team continues to fix stuff, make new stuff, finish the campaign etc. I cant really see your point.Welcome to the community, understanding and rationality are oft in short supply here.
-
But the countdown should still be going for three hours.It sped up, the countdown is over. Release for Zeus is Q2 2014. I imagine Dev branch will start playing with it after the release of Win.
-
Except VBS has had similar features for a long time, it's far more likely to be derived from that.
As the MCC and similar things were originally inspired by those features of VBS.
-
Been trying this with the campaign and so far, barring one instance, it works perfectly.
(That instance being Death Valley in Survive. The Artillery Spotters take cover so well that Charlie can't kill them, so it registers Bravo as dead after a while)
Otherwise, it's like night and day to compare this to the vanilla AI. Such a great overhaul.
-
I think it already is. Judging by the video at least. In the video, looking at inventory it is equipped with a one of the ArmA 3's holographic sightsAh, possible, since it's an ArmA 2 PMC port, I was assuming that it was set up in the same way the weapons are there.
-
Very cool. Any chance of making it compatible with the ArmA 3 attachment system, so we can add the various scopes and flashlights/lasers ourselves?
-
Issue with "Within Reach" missionI had the same issue. I chose to give the fuel truck to Miller to assinate the senior officer, but during the "Within Reach" mission the Fia soldier giving me a ride says he has to drop me off early because he is low on fuel due to me not giving them the fuel truck. Miller then proceds to tell me that I have to sneak past all the enemy troops because I didn't give him the fuel truck to assisinate the enemy commander.
From about the second mission my character is called Corporal Kouris instead of Kerry!
I also had the Within Reach issue
-
Okay, I only have one bug to report and it's pretty minor:
In "Within Reach", the FIA driver gave dialogue saying he didn't have enough fuel (because I had given the fuel to Miller to use on taking out the HVT) but a minute later Miller gave dialogue as if I hadn't given him the fuel to take out the HVT, so there were patrols I had to avoid on my way to the boat. That should probably be resolved.
Otherwise: Fantastic campaign, and that twist at the end was bloody neat, and the final couple of battles may be some of my favourite in the campaign so far. Very, very cool.
Can't wait for Win!
-
Yep, the new vehicles are pretty awesome - they give the AAF a bunch of new tactical options without overpowering them. Just ran a bunch of tests, and in a straight field battle of even Kumas versus Varsuks or Slammers, they get destroyed hard. Usually 3:1 casualty rate.
I think the Hellcat needs a variant that has a small amount of guided AT missiles though. I like the loadout of the default one, mind, but I do feel there needs to be one with some guided AT or maybe some DAGR. (Partially due to the fact that in a Hellcat the commander MGs of the various side armour can kill the pilots pretty easily when setting up for a rocket run)
(Also, an unarmed variant in the Digicam and the Armed variants in the Olive Drab - like the Black/Camo versions of the CSAT helis)
-
It's ugly. I'm comforted that it's an AAF chopper and saddened that it's a real one used by the UK. lol. AH-64Ds, now those are beautiful choppers. :) Completely understandable what you're saying. Does seem like they are taking shortcuts. Don't see why they feel the need to rush to get out some AAF air and armor when they could take their time and make new stuff anyway.I have to say that I hoped if the AAF got an attack chopper, it would be a Mangusta or Rooivalk. Maybe it could still happen, though the other sides would have to get another chopper too.
-
Well, thank you. In response to you, and Alwarren, and Windies, I'd ask this: If you don't like the assets (the mashup content), if you don't like the story (the 2035, future scenario), if you don't like the environment (Chernarus and Takistan being familiar) and, @metalcraze, if you don't like factions (the overpowered, oversupplied AAF), then what do you like about Arma 3? The engine improvements? Because it really sounds like Arma 3, well the most of it, isn't your cup of tea. Because Arma 3 is all about the 2035 scenario.No, I mean I agree with you, I was saying that, albeit more briefly, to Alwarren et al. My one problem with ArmA 3 is that I feel they have been a bit too conservative with the technology available to at least the NATO side for a 2035 setting.
-
Kinda sad that we are having this discussion again, but if in the real world the US bought the Merkava and Namer (like they've looked at in the real world) and renamed them the Slammer and the Panther, or if Greece bought the Lynx, added skids, and renamed it the Hellcat, you'd probably not have a problem with it. If the Iranians today modified the KH2002 with a lowered rail, you'd probably not complain to much. If the US came up with a new rifle called the MX in the real world , you'd probably not have a problem with that either, because it's in the real world. What makes Arma 3 so hard to believe? Is it simply because it doesn't exist as of 1400 27 NOV 2013? Is that really the issue? Or is it that you specifically don't like the assets themselves and their use by specific factions?I understand the argument about what the AAF should or shouldn't have. I understand the arguments about armaments and cargo spaces that shouldn't be on certain vehicles. What I don't understand is the issues with fictional equipment, yet realistically and functionally designed equipment. Before there was an ACR, if a game had come out with a rifle that was functionally and aestetically similar to the ACR, would you have a problem with it? Maybe so. Then again, I guess the real question is this: Is your problem any other the above, or is the real issue the fact that BI is trying to guess the future?
You have a right to criticize any element in the game, just trying to figure out what the root cause of the issue is. Because it's certainly not a issue with the proposed functionality of any asset in the game.
Pretty much what I was going for, I just did so in a far more brief fashion.
-
It's weird, because the devs always tend to give a notice like "no updates today because bla bla...". I think that maybe they were gonna release it, and then they have found a little bug that are trying to solve.That would be my guess too
-
I'm guessing not at this rate. Don't think there has ever been an update this late in the day
-
you know... Arma2 still works perfectly fine :)I think that's really the only advice you can give to someone like Alwarren.
ArmA 3 is not for you - It's even more of a hypothetical than the previous ArmA 2 games with their slightly different parallel Earth. It's an extrapolation of combat and gear 22 years into the future.
If you can't handle that. A2CO is always waiting for you.
Me? I personally love that they're having a pretty good and realistic bash at what things might be like in 22 years time. If anything, I'm disappointed that their view is so conservative, but that's another kettle of fish.
-
It might also be that people are a bit tired of seeing recycled assets. It's not only all the Merkava-based armour and same turret on all vehicles, it's also recycled assets from Arma 2. A lynx with skids looks weird, and IMO breaks immersion. Seeing real-life vehicles under different names is weird. That is why people complain.
Reality says hi! Hellcat is based on the Wildcat due to go into service next year, and there may well be variants of that with skids too in the next 23 years. Also, it often happens that when foreign militaries induct new hardware from other states into their service that they rename it to their own tastes.
-
Anyone suspect the talk about a build up in the Pacific vs (Presumably) China is a hint for an expansion of some kind?
-
I would really like for the 2035 setting to be utilised properly - as it stands, BIS have been too conservative (A lot of that due to pressure from certain elements of the community screaming because the game isn't ArmA 2.5). When you have L-M saying the SR-72 is slated to be operational by 2030 (A Hypersonic, Unmanned or Optionally-Manned Spyplane AND CAV), DARPA intending to have load-bearing powered systems operational on soldiers by 2025 (similar to the exo-skeletons in STALKER), the things we have in ArmA 3 end up coming across very tame for a 2035 setting - based on a flat technological progression rate when really we're advancing in jumps and jerks. A lot of this can be handwaved now that we have the campaign - the NATO peacekeeping deployment is some back of the beyond barely funded and politically untenable deployment, but still...
-
I've noticed that I get some weird camera shake whilst piloting the UCAV in third person mode, which I was doing to admire it. Not sure what's causing it but SFP was the only addon I was running besides CBA, so thought you'd want to be aware of it.
Great work, otherwise!
Campaign Episode 3: WIN - Feedback thread ** SPOILER WARNING! **
in ARMA 3 - GENERAL
Posted
Also, I will agree with people that this episode felt short, but that might be due to the lack of a hub area and the free-roaming missions present in Adapt. I think it actually has roughly the same number of "actual" missions as Adapt, from a rough headcount.