Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

laverniusregalis

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    294

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by laverniusregalis

  9. Posted · Edited by steamtex

    I have no problem with scripted sequences, but not without exception. Pretty much anyone on the battlefield with player needs to play by the same rules as player or we are on a slippery slope. What happens if they decide to make all missions AI led but also need to continue the storyline -a whole game of Hercules with player being the only one effected by bullets? Or an enemy NPC who is deemed 'to important to die' yet you have him in your sights early? I'm pretty flabbergasted that this is deemed as OK or a necessary evil for us to enjoy BI Official Campaigns.

    Because Cold War Crisis was totally different....

    Hey, it ain't perfect, but it's better than your entire squad dying and magically re-appearing next mission. Also, let me just say that it applies to one person for one mission. Now like I keep saying, 'SIMPLE FIRST AID' MODULE SYNCHRONIZED TO ADAMS.

    Alot alike? You're insane. post at least 10 similarities between them and avoid generalizations such as "equal quality of [story][characters][etc]".

    In CWC's beginning, player didn't do many varied things, but had more freedom overall. You haven't drove a vehicle properly in A3 camp, or patrol an area. Who knows whats ahead.

    GO PLAY COLD WAR CRISIS'S CAMPAIGN AGAIN. START TO FINISH.

    HEMTT is not vehicle? Or is it the fact that your driver gives you directions instead of just setting a waypoint for you?

    ArmA3 seems to be skipping ahead a bit and mixing between the style (gameplay) of Resistance and 1985 right away. If you don't recall resistance, yes, you already did a ton of varying things from the get-go, in turn the campaign was shorter...

  10. Posted

    Yeah, that was really nice. I do wish they'd add in other nations, and I think they should have stuck a little more closely to the original story (having Miller (British SBS) be the main character and not Kerry (US 7ID)).

    Won't he be? It looks like at some point in Adapt or Win you'll play as Miller, it makes sense since Kerry is just an average dude with a tendency of not dying, while Miller does all the planning and intel-gathering so far. Seems like it would make sense for him to take a more active role in Adapt/Win.

  11. Posted

    Probably because the CWC campaign, as great as it is, has reached levels of nostaligia that it can't hope to actually fill in reality. That campaign had plenty of moments where scripting forced your hand.

    Precisely my point - ArmA3 and CWC's campaign are a lot alike. People just like CWC too much to realize.

  12. Posted

    Well, I might make one observation: the campaign is, almost by definition, not sandbox. It's a story you're being shepherded though, that's the nature of it. Scripting is being used to get certain things to happen in the way the campaign needs it, nothing wrong with that IMO, it's what scripting is there to do. If the story requires that a certain character needs to survive to a certain point, then that's how it's going to be done. It sounds to me like you don't like scripted story-led campaigns :)

    Then why does he probably like CWC's campaign?

  13. Posted

    My friend the "drugs" comment is a joke that most people on the Internet would understand...

    Anyways, I saw some missions already using post processing, but I love how Altis looks without it. SERIOUSLY, A2 looked bland as heck, even if it isn't 100% realistic it's nice to see a game with ACTUAL COLORS! But I also kind of dig the pre alpha screenshot style post processing of the Ground Attack II mission. Kind of what you're talking about?

  14. Posted

    I noticed this issue, proposal:

    Raise Adams hitpoints but have the mission fail if he dies.

    Alternative: set Adams as captive.

    Bingo!

    But what about the simple first aid from ArmA 2!? It was one of the first vanilla scenarios that used it, you could be incapacitated instead of dead and teammates could carry you on their backs and patch you up.

  15. Posted

    Wouldn't there be a chance the bullet goes through and misses the rotors? Or is the bullet traveling to slow? I will test this tomorrow.

    It's difficult, I'd hop into the editor as a NATO sniper and set yourself as captive and take some shots from sitting stance at an Orca.

    There are a few things I don't like about Arma 3.

    The crosshair is not very good or useful. Not as good as Arma 2.

    It is difficult to the aim grenade launcher. Not as good as Arma 2.

    I think the post process effects in Arma 2 look better.

    There is less blood and wounds than Arma 2.

    On the plus side Arma 3 runs very well with a good fluid frame rate on my system. Arma 2 also runs very well.

    Sound effects in Arma 3 are very good. Just got new speakers with subwoofer and Arma 2 sounds incredible.

    Some of the vehicles in Arma 3 are not real and made up.

    Just stahp.

    Also, @OP the Ifrit is called the ZIL Punisher. Source:

    http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3748122/all/Hunter_in_real_world

  16. Posted

    Stance system.

    AI improving every day.

    Non-penetrating hits don't damage AFVs.

    No magic rangefinding with spacebar making sniper gameplay actually work.

    Basic FCS for tanks (admittedly shitty, atm).

    Penetration config miles ahead of A2 in terms of functionality.

    More consistent ability to kill crew inside vehicles (with a limitation for drivers)

    Body armor (still pretty basic, but extant and easily improved upon)

    Component damage for tanks (see above)

    Shooting out engine with anti-materiel rifles

    Comprehensive range of artillery warheads

    Rocket ballistics that make follow gravity!

    Realistic HEAT explosions

    Better level of 'eye zoom'

    Camo works better (on the player's end)

    Weapons can be modified

    Scopes now halfway realistic

    That's just the random stuff that came to me in the moment. I forget most of the main things that we learned about back in Alpha.

    I also found that we can damage the goddamn rotors on choppers using the sniper rifles. AWESOME, in addition to all the rest.

  17. Posted

    Whats the HK from OFP? And yes it is that bad. Running around with a guy with a cloak of invincibility is as bad as him conjuring fireball spells on the battlefield -it's utterly immersion killing and has no place in a mil-sim/combined arms whatever you wanna call it. You wanna trump up Adams and give him extended armor and increased hitpoints -that's fine but to allow him to just run thru without a care in the world all the while taking bullets to the face....If your ok with that, then we're are just very much different gamers.

    I sort of agree, but not in as angry of a way. Like I said, maybe give both Kerry and Adams a simple first aid system like the module from ArmA 2 in that mission. Anyways, the HK was the default weapon of Gastovski, the black operator from OFP:CWC. It was notorious for being one of the two best infantry weapons in the game, the other being the M21. It had the accuracy of one of the sniper rifles in A3, damage between an MX/M4 and DMR, same recoil while standing as an MX does while prone, and it was also suppressed.

  19. Posted · Edited by steamtex

    Hi fellow Arma fans. I'm a big fan of the whole series and really enjoyed Operation Flashpoint. I still play Arma 1 sometimes, Arma 2 is one of my favourite games and I just got Arma 3.

    Comparing Arma 2 and 3 I find Arma 3 is quite a lot different from 1 and 2. This thread is for people to comment on differences between Arma 1, 2 and 3 and how they like or dislike them.

    My first impressions of Arma 1 and Arma 2 were wow this is absolutely incredible. First impressions of Arma 3 were not as favourable. Good frame rate and very smooth on my system but the combat not so impressed.

    1 The crosshair is not as good or useful as A1 and 2.

    2 Using a scope on a rifle it wobbles around far too much. I can hold a rifle scope much more steady than that in real life.

    3 The grenade launcher is hard to aim and use.

    4 The blood and wound effects are not as extensive or realistic as A1 and A2. I think A1 has the best blood and wound effects.

    5 The graphics look a bit plain and not as interesting as A2 which has great post process effects which seem to be lacking in A3.

    6 Some of the vehicles and aircraft are made up.

    7 No campaign on release.

    8 Combat feels more arcade console style.

    The good.

    1 Runs well on my system with good fluid frame rate.

    2 Good sound effects.

    3 Huge environments.

    I just got Arma 3 recently and those are just my first impressions. Will comment more when I get to know the game better. I know Arma 1 and 2 very well and I think those are absolutely incredible. I know a lot of people like Arma 3 better than 2 but I'm not so sure. Different yes. Better? I suppose that is a matter of opinion.

    Allow me to respond to your cons:

    1. Good. Crosshairs are crutches.

    2. That seems to mostly apply to long range optics (because of a lack of weapon resting) or when you're tired as hell.

    3. Zeroing.

    4. A1's blood was like pasta sauce.

    5. Uhhh.... Whatever you're on, where can I get some?

    6. They're allowed to do that. Besides, it's all based off of current tech, save maybe the Kajman.

    7. 1st part of the campaign is about to come out in 5 days. It's already on the dev build and 99% playable.

    8. It's called not being clunky as hell.

    It's ironic that you want a fantastic crosshair so you don't need to use the sights but hate the "console" like gameplay.

  20. Posted

    I think it would be a better idea to give both you and Adams a simple first aid system like from the ArmA 2 mission where you cleared a town on Utes and continued to eliminate enemies near the airfield, instead.

    But calm down, it isn't that bad. Besides, I'm sure the HK from OFP was TOTALLY balanced too amright? But if you really hate it that much just leave.

  21. Posted

    A3 is only following one character, and honestly, that one character wouldn't be doing all that stuff, if it's true to military life as you say.

    When you think about it it's kind of like OFP, Kerry takes the role of Armstrong: Drive trucks, shoot things, take orders. Miller, on the other hand, is a bit of a mix between Gastovski, the badarse operative, and Troska, the guy who dislikes the war but knows it has to be won and is also in charge. So I see it being possible that a lot of the gaps in terms of assets used by the player in the campaigns will be filled if/when we take control of Miller.

  23. Posted

    how about you keep yourself and your mom in silence?

    There are very reasonable reasons for no women in this game:

    1. Female soldiers would double the animation work needed + all clothing items and the amount of work needed would require at least a dlc worth 25€ (i am not joking here, if you want quality extra content pay for it)

    2. Girls dont play this game, no they dont. And one girl per 5000 dudes playing this still means no girls at all statistically.

    So stop being assholes by making this some secret issue bi wants to keep under the rug. The only reason people want female players in arma3 is so they can run around with bikini underwear while wearing tactical gear on top of it.

    is it that hard for you to understand that we want female civilians so it isnt some freak sausage fest?

  24. Posted

    @Chortles (& BIS)

    This whole 'Rearm task' and equipment 'adjustment' is totally unnecessary and the rearming/equipment should be done in a completely different way. Since the Camp Maxwell has a limited number of ammo and equipment in those crates, it should be like that throughout the whole stay in that camp and we should have a total freedom to manage our equipment by either taking from what is available in the crates or using the looted gear we bring back after each mission that is being stored in a crate.

    Apparently, this seems to be impossible to achieve, because from what i understand, the game and/or the campaign can't 'remember' the gear you bring to the camp and at every new mission start your gear is being reset at the mission creator's will.

    That is very unfortunate for such a game, it has a lacking/missing feature of storing items and gear in a manner of a general 'pool'.

    Why don't you give us a complete freedom to store and mange our gear throughout the campaign? (just like it is in Skyrim, where you can store all your weapons or anything you find inside chests and find it again anytime you need etc)

    btw,

    i have just completed this ... first episode of the 'campaign'.. quite disappointing.

    there is no real plot, nearly not existent story writing, it is a simple assembly of quickly created missions here and there driven by a generic armed conflict, it is very far from the quality of the deep storyline immersion, interest and creativity OPFP1985 and ARMA&ARMA2 campaigns had ...

    I hope you're kidding, because compared to the first campaign of OFP I'd say A3 is, while still WIP and therefor shorter, about equal. I don't know what you people have with that game, it's a lot like A3: various missions with a plot revolving around the overall situation rather than just the player. Jesus, you guys need to look at the two games for a minute instead of just playing A3, deciding you don't like it, and then expressing your hard-on for OFPCWC's campaign. And someone should knock you upside the head if you think A1 or 2's campaigns were better than this is so far.

×