Varanon

Worth a buy's review:

They don't have interiors per se, what you see is the normal outside view, which does show interiors, but at a very low resolution. It's not only about manpower. It's also about whether it make sense or not. And in most cases it doesn't Sent from my SGP511 using Tapatalk

The firefighter and paramedic are already in, as well as a few other "infantry" units (meaning, people). Regarding the cars, the same applies to the cars as to the other ambient civilian assets: They usually do not have interiors, and as such, their use is limited. You might argue that they are still good as props, but as usual, the work is not automatic, someone will have to do it. So, in essence, don't hold your breath, it's unlikely that anything without an interior will be ported any time soon

Also, it's much easier to prototype a scripted system, you don't need to go through the usual cycle of compile code -> start game -> test -> curse -> do some modification -> compile again (singing 99 little bugs in the code) -> start the game -> you get it ;)

I fully agree, but the problem is, these planes have no interior, no pilot view (so you're locked to some wierd outside view that can't even be rotated), and an insane flight model (i.e. none to speak of). The only purpose these things had were ambience, and mostly ambience in the seance of "Oh, look, is it Superman ? No, it's just a plane"

CAN YOU PLEASE put spoilers in spoiler tags ? Is that too much to ask ? Thank you very much.

Geez, why again be apologetic about it ? I played about 20 minutes yesterday and had to go because I was tired and wanted to go to bed. Of course, I couldn't save. Honestly, don't try to rationalize away the need for a save game because it's supposedly so short that it doesn't matter. Reminds me of a discussion about allowing to save in Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, where people that asked for free saving where subdued by others with bogus arguments like "If you need save you lack the skilz".

Because it has this button, "play single player". I don't get why people keep pushing this "it's Coop" in everyone's faces. It's playable as single player, it's been announced as playable in single player, and it is designed to be played in single player (AND coop), so there's no need to go defending it with non-arguments like "it's a coop campaign". Honestly, I defend Arma and BI's decision whenever there is a need to defend it. But you people should get into your heads that criticism doesn't mean that people hate what's being criticized. To the contrary. People love this stuff so much that they want to prevent it from going wrong. Your apologetic approach is doing more harm than good. Feedback is feedback, and there is positive feedback ("You have done well"), but the negative ones ("Here's what I don't like") is absolutely equal in worth and uttering criticism should not be taken as an attack or an insult. Edit: And if that isn't enough, here's what it says on the web page: 1 - 4... one player sounds pretty single player to me

I guess you also noticed that it plays the animation for showcase Marksmen when you start the showcase End Game ?

First of all, zipper5, thanks for venturing into the lion's den. And thanks for having the first mission of the campaign take place on my 67th birthday (August 14, 2035) ;) This is something I fail to see any sense in. Namely, there is no good reason to force single player to play in a local server. I would really be interested to hear this "technical stanpoint", because quite frankly, I can't think of any reason whatsoever. I'm a mission maker myself, and from a scripting standpoint, and design standpoint, there is no reason whatsoever to host it in a local server. The only reason I could think of is to allow people to join the game in progress. However, let's face it, how many times do you think that would happen ? If I start to play alone, I will likely continue to play alone, and when I want to play this in coop, I gather the lads and we start together. This is especially true because the missions can't obviously be hosted on a dedicated server, so the "hop in" probability is extremely low. It's not zero, granted, but to design the whole campaign around this unlikely eventuality is, sorry to say, rather ridiculous. This is rather easy to answer: Go with what is present. Saving worked in Arma 2 with Harvest Red, and while the Harvest Red campaign definitely had it's share of problems, it worked. And respawn: Quite frankly, respawn in a single player mission is ridiculous. In Multiplayer, I can see the reason why people want to go with respawn. Personally, I hate it because it simply takes away from the experience. The worst kind of respawn, though, is the endless respawn, and that is what we have here in this campaign. Endless respawn means you will always make it. You will never fail. You can not fail, because you can always respawn. Run out of ammo ? Let yourself get killed and respawn. No launcher but need to get rid of a vehicle ? Just respawn. Injured, no longer able to run, limping, losing blood ? Just respawn, you'll be as fresh as a flower in spring. In this campaign, respawn kills every experience of achievement, because you simply can not fail. Are we really at a point these days where you just have to win every game and not be able to fail ? Geez, compare that to Harvest Red: You could not only fail a mission, you could quickly go down a path that made you loose the whole campaign. You could End up having to flee Chernarus on a boat, have your own people mutiny against you, or even have a damn nuke dropped on your head. In APEX ? Just rinse and repeat, you'll get there eventually. No achievement, no sense of "having made it". Compare that to getting back to the Khe San by chopper to the cheering crowd in "The War that never was"... Basically, what I gather from this is two-fold: "We have those systems, so we have to use them" (referring to the new respawn menu) "It wasn't transparent enough" Both are pretty weak arguments. The latter one has been used before to sell us the watered down fatigue system that came in with Nexus. The original one was also said to be "not transparent enough", although no one could actually put a finger on the not transparent issues, and quite frankly, it took some time until people figured out the stamina bar, and how it is used, and most people still don't get that the actual fatigue (i.e. how bad your weapon sway is) is not even indicated by the bar. As to #1 above, arguing that since the systems are in place you should use them is pretty weak as well, since while we all applaud the new systems that you put in, using them just because they are there does not make much sense. Final word on respawn: in Harvest Red, and also in Operation Arrowhead, the death of a protagonist was a deal breaker, it made the mission fail. In Harvest Red, any dead team member meant mission over, understandable, because the narrative wouldn't make much sense with team members gone. Here, from a pure story perspective, you have a protagonist, or more protagonists, that simply get resurrected every time they die. How on earth can that improve a campaign ? A campaign, contrary to a single mission, is more of a story based experience, which is simply destroyed by magically resurrected protagonists. Remember Call of Duty 4 ? The fact that the protagonist died at one point was a shocking revelation and set the game apart from other shooters. Here, it's just a minor inconvenience. Very, very disappointing. This is another point I don't understand and quite frankly find pretty much nonsensical: Why design a campaign to be playable in one session ? Honestly, why ? Can anybody explain that to me ? Again, this sort of campaign is, if played in MP, most likely played by a group of friends that meet specifically for playing the mission. You will hardly find things like that played on a public server (incompatibility to dedicated server reasoning in the first paragraph). So why assume that it can/should be played in a single session. This is, sorry to say, utter nonsense. And quite frankly, it's not yours to decide, either, but the player's own decision. If my group takes a careful approach, then we might play longer, and that means we might not be able to even play it in one session. So why the hell do you take that decision for us ? And all that while Arma was always about freedom. Sorry, but I don't get it, I don't see any sensible reason behind that decision, and quite frankly, I find it insulting to basically expect that from the players. To me, this looks like you don't have faith in your own campaign and just want players to get over with it as quickly as possible. I'm not even going into the "one man army" discussion. From a military standpoint, a single guy doing the job of a whole squad or even a fireteam is ridiculous, I guess you are aware of the fact that this is much more a hollywood scenario than anything even remotely rooted in reality ? But regarding AI control: Yes, AI control is sometimes frustrating for the player. However, for one, this has been improved, and secondly, with the new autocombat disable functionality, you can either make it part of the mission to disable autocombat, or use something like my addon (absolutely shameless clickbait ;) ) to control this, making the experience much more pleasant. There are ways to do this, especially with only three AI maximum. Since in a later post you declare the fact that the mission scales with the amount of human players as "technically challenging" (something I can't really understand either), what I mentioned above might have been a better solution. In closing: I can not understand the reasons behind the decisions made. Honestly, you have not given a single reason as to why the current path has been chosen, only that it was chosen. Why the single playsession ? Why the MP server startup even in single player. Why not a normal campaign format. Why not allow saving and disabling of respawn, at the very least in single player ? You said you decided to go that way, but the "why" is not adequately explained. I hope you don't take this as a rant or anything. I love Arma, and I'm pretty sure the APEX expansion would be value for money (of course, being a supporter, I paid for it a long time ago, hehe), but the campaign setup is nonsensical, and it gives the impression that you are not confident with it yourself but rather want the player to get over with it quickly, and preferably without being able to fail to prevent it from being seen as "too difficult". Not saying that is your way of thinking, I just say that this is the impression I get when looking at it. I realize that it is probably too late to change anything about the campaign, seeing that it will be released in 5 days and two of those days are weekend. However, I hope that you will consider addressing these issues, maybe in an update. The (unlimited) respawn takes away from the feeling of achievement that you get when you finally make a mission. The fact that you can't save (in single player) means that if you are more careful playing, you might overstay your time and might have to abort the mission, which, again, in single player, makes absolutely no sense at all.

*facepalm*

You wait 30 seconds for respawn ? Also in SP ?

Can we please get rid of the respawn in the campaign ? Edit: Or even better, make it selectable if you want respawn or not. I don't want it, you mileage may wary

Any chance for more than one loading bay ? I'm thinking of the CUP frigate that could load RIHBs on the cranes and a helicopter on the hangar deck

Fog is generally broken. After changing it in Eden, you can't even set it by script anymore, saying "0 setfog 0.1" will always result in the same fog that you set in Eden. If you didn't touch the fog settings, it will work as advertised Edit: It looks as if the Eden settings set the falloff parameter to 1, which results in the rather strange fog settings

How about those event handlers, will there be any (like, player goes down, player is healed, etc) ? (Note, not a feature request, just a question :D)

Six pages with lots of questions, an absolutely zero answers from the officials. How is it possible to give feedback if not even the basic questions are answered? Sent from my SGP511 using Tapatalk

Added Shopping Mall

FHQ ARMA 3 COOP MISSIONS #4 (Community Upgrade Project) by Varanon and Alwarren We're happy to announce the release of our COOP missions for Arma 3 using the Community Upgrade Project. Most of the missions are primarily meant to be played as Coop, but we take care to make sure that they are single player compatible if possible. The missions have been tested on dedicated servers as well. They are usually no revive/no respawn missions. Also, you can disable First Aid Kits if you prefer to play without them. All missions require the Community Upgrade Project (Weapons, Units, Vehicles and Terrains) Workshop link to the FHQ COOP Collection #4 : click Armaholic mirror (thanks Big and Foxhound): click Missions: "Ground Attack" (Single Player, or Coop 2, Summer Chernarus): A remake of an old Operation Flashpoint mission of the same name. Take to the skies and destroy a convoy (Workshop) "Coming of Shadows" (Single Player, Coop 8, Chernarus): Remake of the Arma 2 mission "Eye for an Eye". Take control of Stary Sobor (Workshop) "A Feast for CROWS" (Single Player or Coop 8, Takistan): Using your two CROWS Humvees, scount Naran Darre Pass. (Workshop) "Sky full of Stars" (Coop 14, Takistan): An enemy armored column is moving from Rasman to Feruz Abad. Your team has a short time window to intercpet them (Workshop) "A Game of Phones" (Coop 14, Chernarus): Steal a USB stick containing vital evidence, and upload it via your cell phone. Make sure to find a good signal (Workshop) "A Game of Phones" (Single player or Coop 8, Chernarus): A single-group, single player capable version of the original (Workshop) "Tank you very much" (Single player, Coop 12, Summer Chernarus): Napa tries to steal some T-34-85 tanks bound for a museum (Workshop) "Shopping Mall" (Coop 12, Chernarus): Napa steals some trucks and needs to move them to the RV point (Workshop)

Which part of "don't know if it it's going to be fixed" sounds as if the problem is being addressed ? And can you please post without insulting others every time ? I grow tired of such things as well, not only repeated discussions.

I guess it's a visibility blocker. There is another building that has problems, the high straw-roofed temple building, if you step in front of it, half of the background disappears

I don't like reading the same issue over and over again either, but yeah, it has been acknowledge, but at the same time it has been said that it might not get fixed. That's definitely something that requires "user action"

And this sentence alone shows that you do not understand the issue. Military gameplay does not necessarily require the combatants to be regulars. Guerilla warfare was predominant in the East Wind campaign, and guerillas usually lack NVGs. Would you cut out all guerilla night missions ? They worked quite well before the change, but with the new lighting, they are next to impossible because you run around in the pitch black. Unrealistic pitch black. A full moon night is brighter than it currently is in Arma. Even regular armies: If all goes as planned, you'd not fight at night without NVG. But what if it isn't ? What if a mission takes longer and you are cut off from your own lines. What if Montignac didn't fall and you are lost somewhere ? Are you honestly proposing to make such missions impossible just because it is difficult to adjust the night lighting to a decent level again ? This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Life player, or survival or whatever. Night, without NVG, is a core part of military gameplay, and the current impossible night lighting impacts this part of the Arma 3 gameplay, so sorry, it MUST BE FIXED.

One is laser guided, one is radar guided. Not at home right now, but I think the AGM 118K is laser guided, and the L is radar guided.Laser guided can be steered towards a laser designator, either your own or that of another vehicle. Radar guided are fire&forget Sent from my SGP511 using Tapatalk

Is there a possibility to hook into this system, i.e. event handlers that are called at specific events, like player incapacitated, player revived etc ?