Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Fiya

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    85

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Fiya

  2. Posted

    No, please...Shift to another paradigm, I simply choose to not discuss the matter anymore with you, because you can't accept the reality of this thread. And that is that it has a certain scope. You want to broaden the scope, which is simply not the purpose of this poll. Besides that, your teenage like arguments, which have an accussing and immature tone are simply offputting.

    So, sorry, but I decide I won't waste any time on you as you have a hard time accepting things as they are.

    Hey my friend, you accuse me of many things, such as not being able to read or understand things... Yet I am not the one who put this SUGGESTION, in the general thread.

    I have said the exact words which should notify you that I understand. Then I added some very simplified explanations, you still don't even accept their existence.

    You, really are ignorant.

  3. Posted

    the guide is very good, but what really is the point when the campaign sucks and you can never put all that stuff into action in the game..

    Your post is extremely irrelevant since most of this (If not the whole thing) is meant for online play. With or without AI, it makes no difference... This was obviously not targeted at the campaign.

    And actually, you can "put all that stuff into action in the game.."

  4. Posted

    You are simply hopeless, and not willing to read and listen, I won't even go into all of the above, your remarks are out of place, as stated earlier it is a question with a certain scope and you simply don't seem to get that.

    I always found that defense amusing, as what they accuse me of, is exactly what they are doing.

    You have absolutely no argument left, so you pull that out. (I have seen it before. You sound like 'Panguins' from another forum.) In actuality, I read, and listen very well. Aswell, I try to always keep an open mind to everything. (You do not it seems.) I do confront people taking unfair advantage of situations, or ignorantly passing 'facts', among other things.

    Please read what I have written again. (Specifically Thirdup's quote.) Your 'scope' completely ignores VERY important facts.

  6. Posted

    This is not what the discussion is about Fiya, as already stated earlier, can't you read? We know you voted No. Adding it over and over won't add anything. Your point was made clear the first time, but the poll's question is within a certain scope, as explained earlier.

    Why are you so closed minded? Perhaps your the one who should learn to read, and realize whats going on.

    First, you actually ASKED WHY WE SAID NO. I do, in a pretty detailed way, exactly WHY I voted this way. Adding to what I told you, explaining it better. (Apparently anyone against the idea is not supposed to post much here.) Some VERY good points in Thirdup's post, yet you don't understand that.

    Second of all, I was agreeing with someone else and their very good post.

    Finally you cannot say that 'Its not about that'. IT IS. The way you are trying to do this is BIASED. It can be a dirty politicians way of doing things.

    The timing is a huge part of ANYTHING like this. I don't know how you can shrug it off. You remind me of a few people I used to know who did this type of thing, then after it was 'very successful' basically demanded it of the developers, because it had 'tons of support'. Disregarding many things that they 'shrugged off' so to speak.

    I realize your not saying you want it right now, (Yet) but there is always the issue of other things coming before unnecessary things. OR, this replacing things which could have been in place of it. (That would have been a way better OFFICIAL addition to the game. *Reference to my quote of Thirdup's post, one of the most important points to me.*)

  7. Posted

    I hate the floating zone. It's not at all realistic if it's being used for aiming, unless there actually existed some 3d holographic technology that would project a cross-hair in thin air in front of you. We're not there yet so this feature is pointless from a realism stand point. But of course, this is a game so compromises need to be and has been made to make it fun.

    I just wish I could turn it off in OFP. But I guess not.

    Your just on crack. Sounds like your making stuff up for no apparent reason. There is no difference between Floating Zone and fixed screen in your argument. They both have crosshairs. You can aim with both. Crosshairs don't add to realism maybe that is what you should be arguing, not some unlogical poo. :P

    Also, your being very closed minded about this. I use floating zone for aiming with my sights UP. How is that not realistic? I can lower the optic to my neck/chest (While still having it 'up') so I have a clearer vision, then bring it up quickly for fast target acquisition.

    Your complaining about floating zone, but not the crosshair. Uhh, bad day?

  8. Posted

    Dude, if I learned anything surprising from the book its that the Al Qaida and remnants of the Taliban are VERY formidable opponents. CIA and NSA failed to get any substantial intelligences about the Shahikot force because they used code.

    UAVs, satelite, spy plane, whatever found no enemy positions, it was only by the amazing skills of the Delta and ST6 Recces teams that they figured out this is a much larger and more competent force than predicted. As of where i'm in the book (i left it at a friends house, then he went to Chicago so I still at 70%), the enemy forces put two Apaches out of commission, caused serious casualties in the 101st Rakkassans by pinning them in a tactically unsound spot with mortars. (And they showed up with so many mortars, none spotted by UAV recon that you gotta give them credit for their stealthy logistics system).

    As a cliffhanger, (God I gotta get that book back), it seems a Seal team, too consumed by their need to be a part of the action than make sound tactical decisions, inserted into a ridiculously hot LZ, and the enemy forces downed a Chinnock. Ya, not Black Hawk Down, fucking 40+ capacity Chinnock down.

    Thats where I left off. But my message is clear, dont underestimate these guys, and the scenario would make for very challenging missions and a great SP campaign that would test the player to the limit of his command ability, its not the cakewalk so many people seem to think it is.

    ---------- Post added at 03:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:24 AM ----------

    "US vs crappy insurgents'"... please dont disrespect our fallen by suggesting Al Qaida and other violent Islamic organizations are simple and easy.

    And if it so suits you, you can play as the Australian SAS, they were in Operation Anaconda too.

    Don't talk to me about disrespect, your taking it completely out of context yourself. I'm talking about the scenario, I don't want another terribly biased game. (Obviously biased toward the Americans.) The insurgents WILL BE crappy in comparison to the US equipment, support, etc. Don't try and play it up. I would rather play AA if I just wanted to 'kill some insurgents.' Which I don't, I want some substance. Something more than that.

    If i was to choose anything like this i'd rather see an afghanistan in 5 years time, whereby the afghan national army is more equipped, fighting a resurgent Taliban invading from the Pakistani tribal areas. Perhaps you could have Brit and Aussie SF helping out with perhaps no US because of hostile political opinion back in the US. In this way Russia could be asked to help out, and as no afghans would want them back thats where the situation might go critical. How about that for an interestingly complicated situation?

    UK, Aussies and Russia as Blufor

    ANA as Independant

    Taliban as Opfor

    Nationalist anti-Russian militia/group as insurgents

    I like this alot more than the stereotypical scenario. Perhaps a game where US isn't the "MAIN CHARACTER". *shockedface* If the need to play is Afghanistan is that dire.

  9. Posted

    I vote, YES I'd love to see it.

    (but I'd vote NO to the "BIS Please add" part if I could)

    IMO, this is something we'll see in mods. BIS can't possibly be expected to create and maintain the core game AND be responsible for creating all the mods as well.

    Would it be a nice addition to the core game? Sure (I'd personally rather see countermeasures added to the core game/default aircraft).

    Is there much chance that BIS will add every suggestion made by the community? No (because they can be added thru mods).

    I think a more realistic request would have been to post this in the mod discussion forum. If we see anything like cockpit FLIR or camera display added to A2, it will come thru mods as part of the aircraft/vehicles that should have such capabilities.

    If I had a dollar for every time somebody suggested BIS implement something that is already in completed or in the works in the form of a mod, my dedicated server would be paid up for a year in advance.

    Technically the "picture in picture" ability for gauges/huds is already in place (ie: the artificial horizon). A mod maker could fill a hole on a dash with anything they see fit. A moving map, a flir, terrain radar, etc. Whatever bells and whistles a particular aircraft might have. Going strictly by the title of the thread, BIS already added this to the game.

    BIS gives us the core game and the tools to add to it whatever we see fit. And IMO, BIS needs to focus on core game issues.....

    ymmv

    I agree, I highlighted my favorite parts...

    Also, I voted no. Obvious reasons.

  10. Posted

    for real. In the Dogs Of War episode, after you have taken the Chedaki base near Msta and setting up satchel charges there. It just generates men near the commandcenter.

    LOl, oh maybe. I haven't played through the Campaign yet. Too many other great things. I'll get there eventually. :D

  11. Posted

    Must add something from myself.

    We do need to add at least faster turns. In real life it wont take your head to turn from left to right about 4 seconds... thats nonsence. Also to turn around 180 aswell takes you loads of time. Again, in real life it will take 1 second thats if you are a rifle man not an MG.

    I think you have trouble with your hands sir.

  12. Posted

    that homicidal psyhcobitch of an AI. It just generates soldiers to an area already cleared. Right behind you. And not only one side but both. That is so down.

    I think your crazy. Unless your using the ambient combat module or messing in the editor...

  13. Posted

    Again, this is not COD, Killzone, BF2, or Halo. Those things aren't really needed. Those things help turn games into the steaming piles of dung that most mainstream shooters are.

    I don't know if some people are retarded, or they just don't realize what to do in a combat situation. You can move and reload. That is really all you need. If your reloading in the open on in a hazard area, that's your own stupid fault. I would rather not have all that stupidity of COD. That would help ruin this game.

    More fluidity would be nice, but speed doesn't need to be increased. Try use something other than your 'twitch' skills while playing Arma and you may find yourself not dead as much. :P

  17. Posted

    Floating zone maxed out.... I love it. Actually being able to raise my sights, but lower them to the bottom of the screen, and move it quickly for fast target acquisition. (CQC) Helps immersion too, being able to see your weapon as it would be, not as if the guy next to you is holding near your hip.

    I thought people used more, I sure enjoy it. Its a bit of a change compared to most shooters though.

  19. Posted · Edited by Fiya

    Are you kidding me? I love this scenario. I think it is alot more than that Afghan scenario. This is also a bit of a 'future war/possible' war aswell. While the Afghan conflict has been around for far too long already. Who says that the Afghan war needs to be done over more Chenarus content or anything else for that matter.

    I'm totally and completely against making Arma 2 (Or 3) the Afghan scenario. (Although a winter Afghanistan would be interesting.) I enjoy the almost equalness of the 'East' and 'West' troops that we have now. Afghan would set us back again. Americans aren't the only ones in the world after all, I would enjoy playing as someone else sometimes. Also its nice when the game isn't completely biased towards Americans. It would be crazy to not have them as the "MAIN CHARACTER" in a Arma game.

    Arma 1 had a Middle Eastern theme, while not the terrain of Afghanistan, it had mountains, desert, forest and fields. It didn't have the vertical terrain of Afghanistan, but it had alot of the other stuff. That's as much Middle East as I want now. Way to much Middle East (Afghanistan isn't different enough for me) conflict stuff out now... Just because the American soldiers are fighting there doesn't mean we all want to be.

    If we are going to have a real change of scene/scenario. Why not have something more original. (Some random suggestions to follow)

    If you want that deserty feel. How about Iran, I would rather have that than the old 'US vs crappy insurgents' thing. I don't find it all that interesting though.

    Also, MANY MANY more were killed in Africa, does that mean we need to have an African war expansion, or mod for Arma 2. Don't be a fool, but I would rather have that than another Middle East or Afghan game.

    One I think might be interesting... Involving the Sino-Indian War. A 'fantasy' situation in which India goes to war with China over Tibet. (Or some such) Could be a religious or cultural/historical dispute, (I think that would be interesting. Also Tibet has extremely harsh winters, which could be another option) Tibet would be similar to Afghanistan in ways. (Could have territory from China and/or India aswell.) I like the territory/scenario of Tibet alot more than Afghanistan. Could be another uprising story aswell. (True Tibetans uprising against China again, eventually getting the support of India) It could play out similiar to OFP :Resistance if you so wanted. Lots of opportunity their with a big change in scenery/scenario.

    Something else with China could also be good, as they are becoming very powerful. If a 'fantasy' future war were to break out I could see them being a part in it.

    South America? Fantasy/future conflict involving oil. (Or whatever you want really... Resources, land, politics, kittens, etc.) Us and China perhaps, could be others or anyone. A global vie for *insert here*. More of a stretch though. That kind of terrain would be cool. Crazy vertical and Jungle?

    Isreal-Egypt opening up large scale again, something like that. Use your imagination.

    Something in Indonesia, again "Use your imagination".

    ...Some opinions and random suggestions. I would rather have something new, instead of a reconfiguration of what we have had alot of.

    Oh and is it just me? Or is p75 very arrogant with a scent of ignorance aswell? :P (I only mean in the way he expresses his opinions of course.)

    Cynically yours,

    Fiya

  20. Posted

    I think OP just want Arma2 to feel just like another COD shooter were it feels like you are controlling a fucking window in world. So better simulation my ass.

    It's now as it is best i have ever seen in any game. Head bopping (camera shake), gear sounds, breathing, blur & etc.

    Indeed. I think the OP is the one who does not understand. This is not an action shooter. If your reloading, why are you in a position to be shot, and if you are... You can still RUN, you make it sound like you cannot. Its like your own fault if you don't. You don't need a 'turbo' mode. There is sprint. Do it.

    COD4, is terrible. Even the weapon specs are crap. (Idealized, and altered to make the game more exciting and diverse.) That is a twitch, arcade shooter also. Thats what we don't want in Arma2.. Lest it become like the rest of mainstream shooter gaming.

    What you describe is more suited to COD or BF2. Not real combat. Doing it such a way would more likely cause confusion, friendly fire incidents, etc.

    The engine and game can be improved, but perhaps what you should realize is what you have said about Arma 2 players also applies to others.

    "Sometimes i feel that there is Arma community , kind of "fanatic" who does not want to listen of any default the game has .

    like this game is perfect and that's all .

    Why are discussing ?

    i am not saying the game is bad .

    the game is very good , it is very immersive like Operation Flashpoint , but it can be improved ."

    Many mainstream gamers don't realize that their playstyle is not perfect and can be improved. A slower pace of action would allow more tactics, teamwork, and 'generally' a more sound realistic play. I enjoy Arma 2 alot more than BF2. Bunnyhoppers and the like aren't exactly realistic. Those games play more like movies than real life.

  24. Posted

    They could have possibly targeted you before they started gunning it. Who knows, maybe they had other AI around that spotted you before. A

    lso, I think your still designated as a target even while the engine is off. Your just marked in 'white' instead of red. Also enemy vehicles, even while 'white' (Or empty) sometimes cause the enemy to fire on them... Not sure why, but I've had AI blow up an empty humvee I was about to commandeer...

×