Variable

Forced respawn and no Save mechanism aside I have some more feedback. 1. There are no insertions or extractions, and I mean proper ones that have you actually dismount or board a vehicle. Why? It's not fitting a 2016 game. A nice extraction adds a lot to the experience and it's a form of a prize for a successful mission. A lot of community mission makers can pull it off, is it not within BIS capabilities to support that? 2. There's a long lasting bug that has the custom radio transmissions too low. This campaign has great voice acting, but it suffers from this bug. If it's totally quiet around you when the radio recording is playing it's ok, but if you are in a vehicle or there's a firefight, that's it, the radio can't be heard. I think I missed all of the ending radio correspondence due to this bug (and yes, I have "radio" turned all the way up).

And that's the best level of support BIS receives for this campaign. Quite telling.

Had the campaign was designed without respawn in mind it would have been better for people like me, sure. However that doesn't mean that having an option to remove respawn wouldn't have made it BETTER that what it is now for hardcore players.

I read through all your posts in this thread and still didn't find a single argument why would adding an option to cancel respawn and possibly add saving will be a "bad idea". Jeez, adding another difficulty option will affect your life in zero ways. Show some solidarity to your fellow players who can't enjoy this campaign as much as you.

Is there a bug report on that?

Yeah. I keep changing my brightness contrast and saturation settings in each mission according to the time of day and lighting. It shouldn't be this way.

I really hope we don't have a case here of stubbornness... Please BIS, the feedback was very clear, please add an option to play without respawn, or be able to set the amount of respawn tickets. It will also encourage players to replay the campaign in a more challenging (and more Armalike) way.

Select an AI unit, hold ALT and click on a position. This issues a "Watch that position" command.

Does Vcom AI uses setUintPos to change AI stance when it is suppressed?

We are on a stable, too. I'll see to sending you the errors. No, we don't have ACE.

Hi Zenophon, thanks for sharing this pack. We tried Sweep (Chernarus) and encountered several problems. 1. The Pawnee insertion bird move forward a bit and at one point stopped midair before reaching the insertion point. Disembark command made it land but it was far from the intended insertion point. 2. Choosing "Select Loadout" just made my point of view stuck with a cursor but nothing else showed up. Hitting escape fixed that for me. 3. The resistance in the town was overwhelming. We had only two PCML rockets and faced three Ifrits. We where 6 guys against what seemed like a battalion. I think there's a balance issue :) We also tried Shootout. 1. There were multiple error messages presented at the beginning of the mission. 2. The mission didn't end even-though we killed all the enemies. Both missions had an insane enemy accuracy. I think whatever you tried to do there with the accuracy gave the opposite results. Played on a dedicated server.

Pettka, thanks for coming here and taking the time to respond to the rather harsh feedback. Since others has so well explained what's totally broken in the campaign design I didn't reply yet myself, but now I do want to say some words. Behind the first statement rests the assumption that you made some people happy. I'm afraid that's not the case. This campaign is not an "easy entry into Arma", it's an entry to a game that does not exist, let alone Arma. Your (and by "your" I mean BIS, since we got that claim multiple times from multiple devs) idea of "in the forums we have the hardcore players, and outside of the forums we have all the casual games" is just false. There is a myriad of player bases on the forums, and I believe all of these are represented in this thread. All of which have provided rather destructive feedback. I understand the convenience in designing for people who supposedly not represented in this forum, but that's just false, because even the most casual gamer of them all doesn't like to have NO CHALLENGE whatsoever, and an infinite resapwn system that cannot be disabled is just that. When a game stops being challenging, it stops being a game at all. To make something accessible you don't just make it easy, you make it gradual, you provide guidance and tutorials, and for god's sake you don't make it meaningless. You don't make it shallow. I'm sure many new players will just find this campaign insulting if they realize it was meant to be their entry gate to the wonderful Arma world. It's inconceivable that BIS is producing questionable quality SP content with "wtf" design decisions since we know making thrilling content is possible even for armature community mission creators. It feels for me that the community has even stopped expecting BIS to provide quality missions, and that's sad. It shouldn't be this way, I refuse to accept that too BIS cannot elevate to the levels of numerous community mission makers. Official SP missions and campaigns should inspire the community, not drive it away. Sadly, this campaign is alienating the core community while gaining nothing in return. Please rethink your equation of "un-challenging, short and shallow content = new players", you are just pushing potential new players away by not showing them the true powers of Arma. Players that like run and gun kind of gameplay won't hook in to Arma anyway. Your selling points are different, you know what they are, use them.

Same problem here too. Started with the last patch.

The horrible rag-doll death of Arma 3 avatars is probably one of the most serious immersion breaking issues in the game. As a matter of fact I don't see ragdoll as an advancement over Arma 2, quite the contrary. Handing over to ragdoll AFTER a proper death animation would be great.

Wiki I think that happens when you only damage the lead Strider. I suggest either giving the player a satchel charge or rewrite the instruction to place the explosive charge "on the side of the road". It's too weak to substantially destroy the strider if too far away from it.

I'd recommend skillAI 0.7 and precisionAI 0.25.

I just LOVE Kit Kat Boom. Keep them coming Phantom!

That's a good idea, and can open another path for stealth missions.

The most pressing issue with boats is that they get stuck with the first contact the boat's hull makes with the bottom. That will make both the AI and player boat drivers lives a whole lot easier.

You are still going? I made no demand, enough with the false exaggerations. All I did was express my opinion, that it is not reasonable to keep the night lighting problem unfixed. That's no demand, that's a voice of opinion, it's not against any rule. Do you think it would be reasonable to remove your precious high-tech NVGs and state that "we are aware of the NVG being broken, but make no promises to fix it"? No? Then I don't think breaking this game's night is reasonable. I am entitled for an opinion, and I don't need your permission to voice it. So how about removing your homemade moderator hat you made for yourself?

Did you try it at night? Should be easier.

But they didn't, they said "no promise". Does that fit the definition of "they will fix it" for you? Maybe you play the game only as a member of "modern armed force unit", but a lot of Arma players play also as, for example, guerrillas or insurgents, that do not have access to night-vision equipment. I play a lot as both regular military and non-regular. Try it sometime, it's a lot of fun, I assure you :) Also some weapon sights are not NVG compatible, and lot of very popular mods recreate WW2 or Vietnam scenarios. Sure, those are not the vanilla game, but you can see there's a strong demand for other, non-NVG, scenarios. The next Tanoa campaign is going to use local insurgents. Want to bet whether or not they'll have NVGs? Or do you suggest that we shouldn't play these units, just play against them? If so, that's a very narrow view of Arma. Of course, you are free to play the game as you see fit, but don't dismiss other, and very common, play styles. I'm not against using NVGs, I am against being FORCED to play with NVGs due to overly and unrealistically dark nights, even in full moon. I am, and I speak in the favor of all players who'd like to see the night lighting fixed on Altis and Stratis. You seem to speak only for those who play only as an organised military unit. Who do you think represent more players? It seems to me that after removing the false justifications from your post we are left only with: "I play only with NVGs so I don't care how dark the night is, and I don't like melodramatic posts"

I'm sorry, but this is not reasonable. It's not reasonable to not promise this will be fixed since the impact on gameplay is so dramatic. If night gameplay (without turning your screen green) is not possible, then this whole new lighting should be reverted back. It's really not worth it without being able to play at night.

Sounds great. More welcomed features to support somewhat realistic gameplay: 1. The wounded guy to be able to receive additional damage that may or may not lead to his death. 2. An ability to set the wounded guy as captive so enemy may or may not continue to target him after incapacitation state starts. 3. Different bleedout times depending on the nature of the injury. 4. Be able to drop (not throw, drop) a throwable item during incapacitated state to pop smoke to mark your position for other friendlies, or commit suicide with a frag grenade to take out the enemy around with you.

Oukej, the change you guys implemented to apply suppression effect to AI ejecting from damaged vehicles, I think it should be applied also for AI simply exiting vehicles. They too easily and too fast snipe their target right after disembarking.