Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Community Reputation

10 Good

About chambersenator

  • Rank


  • Occupation
    IT Director

Contact Methods

  • Twitch.Tv
  1. chambersenator

    3den Enhanced

    This looks amazing I can't wait to try it out. I could spend countless hours just doing behavior and performance experiments between opposing AI forces with all sorts of different combinations. I apologize if these next rather noob-ish questions go slightly outside the specific focus of this thread, but I have always found ArmA's AI system fascinating over the years, even when it's at its most frustrating and bafflingly buggy moments. I'm getting back in to ArmA after an extended break, and I'm eager to get back into things. - Would I be able to customize the skills and behavior of individual units within a linked group, or would there only be one set of settings for a linked group as a whole? If the settings are able to be applied to each individual AI character: Suppose you had a 6-man AI squad "Alpha" linked as a group with an AI officer in the lead, and the 'courage' levels of the soldiers varied wildly (one with no courage, others with mid-to high settings, and the officer maxed out). They then engage "bravo" - an opposing force of equal strength, but all the courage settings of this force are at 100%. - As the battle progresses, Alpha starts taking casualties. Will this modify the courage values for the entire linked squad? - What are the factors that go into governing the behavior of the one with no courage? - Is there anything in this mod at present that might be used to expand the conditions where 'setCaptive' is triggered? - Will he run, and if so, how far from the rest of his group would he stray? - Will the presence of his fearless leader modify his 'base courage' level? Or can he only hide and seek nearby cover? Also, this also has me wondering one other thing. Are there any differences or modifiers between OPFOR, IND, and BLUFOR in regards to AI behavior (including vanilla ArmA, mods, and BI's future plans)? For example, if you use the SP campaign's situation and backstory as a baseline reference, I could see a certain logic behind IND forces being more likely to either retreat or fight to the last man, but much less likely to surrender, due to their limited manpower and resources directed at high-risk/high-reward missions, and the knowledge that even the lowest ranking members could reveal valuable intel under interrogation that could jeopardize the entire IND force. Of course, I don't really expect that level of detail and control available at present, but it seems like something akin to this would be part of the ongoing evolution of the AI system. While it's certainly not of use to all player-made missions, such a situational/factional 'big-picture' behavior setting system could be of use for more complex missions (or an ongoing series of missions) that have a rich backstory to them.
  2. For those who are carrying a lot at once (or anything over the 50% mark of the encumbrance bar at the bottom of your gear menu), such as a combination of LMG, a launcher, and ammo, after a bit of running it could take several minutes to get your breath back and recover, even if you are lying down or sitting. There is a logical solution to this, that will have you recovered and back to normal in no time: Take off the backpack, launcher, and drop the huge gun on the ground. Lie down and wait about 30 seconds. Get up, put everything back on, and you're good to go - at least for the next 50 feet of sprinting or so. Such is the price for trying to carry all that crap by yourself. I don't mind the new fatigue system. Sure, I was irritated at first, but after checking it out more it feels reasonable - not perfect, but reasonable.
  3. chambersenator

    any news on weapon resting?

    I'm curious to know if there is something in the A3 engine that complicates this compared to the (relatively) working bipods in DayZ. Granted, the user needs to be prone to gain a benefit, but its a reasonable start. I understand at least a bit about the problems that could arise when using a bipod in a non-prone situation due to having to figure out collisions and whether or not the bipod is actually resting on something like a low wall or a rock. If its an AI issue, that seems strange because you could simply have them automatically activate the bipod by default if their weapon has one attached when they go prone while during combat. Some may say that weapon resting only when prone is half-assed solution, but it's a start.
  4. chambersenator

    SMD_Assets Standalone PBO Release

    Wow! Thanks! I can't wait to try it out. I never imagined this would be available so quickly. It may take me a while to make the intro, it's only 36 separate shots or so, but as soon as I have it together I'll let you know.
  5. chambersenator

    SMD_Assets Standalone PBO Release

    This is some fine work here. If it's possible when you have time to get the "Magnum, PI" helicopter skin ported over to A3, that would be fantastic. It's silly, I know, but I really want to make a shot-for-shot remake of the Magnum PI intro in ArmA 3 for a bit of fun, and having that skin available would be amazing.
  6. chambersenator

    Rate the third episode!

    I gave it a 3. That's harsh, but here's some explanation: Let me lay some groundwork here first, since I'm new to these forums, but not to ArmA. I thought that the Adapt installment was by far some of the best work I've seen from BI in regards to a SP campaign. Granted, there were some issues with it concerning saving equipment, loadouts, and such, but when it came to storyline, voice acting, and most importantly, mission design, Adapt set the bar high. I was expecting more of the same with Win, but what was delivered was disappointing. 1. There were only a fraction of the numbers of missions, not to mention ANY side missions. Kerry's unique position as liaison to the FIA could have provided many opportunities for missions. NATO would naturally hold Kerry's unexpected return to be suspicious, so there is a series of "prove yourself" missions right there, with more to come once NATO sees the usefulness of using "highly expendable local assets" to perform tasks that they do not want to risk their own special teams on. Conflict and tensions could arise again once the FIA starts realizing and resenting their status as 'disposable,' offering all sorts of story opportunities from there. Instead, Win is a frantic rush to the finish line, skipping story development for text-based briefings and straightforward direct assaults with little room for the creative strategic and tactical problem-solving skills that were learned from the previous chapter. 2. Character development - it's more than window dressing. The role of Miller suddenly becomes a flat two dimensional character and the static NATO Commander both have roles pulled straight from an 80s cop film - Miller gets the 'betraying villain who was once seen as a friend' and the Commander gets the "yelling, angry police chief" roles, while Kerry just stays confused and gets the 'turn off the radio while the boss is yelling' scene. Character development is part of what makes me care about the mission at hand. It makes playing feel like more than just eliminating the AI soldiers in front of me. So much work and care was put into the first and second installments of this campaign. Why does it feel like that was abandoned just to get it out the door to meet a deadline? 3. Multiple endings? Great, but the choice to help James or not felt like the only real decision I could make in Win. What if upon finding the Tempest megaweapon, I decide to deliver the device to NATO? Going AWOL for a half an hour to help James is one thing, but upon discovering all this new stuff, not having the choice to hand this truck over to your superiors seems odd. This whole third installment seems hastily assembled, and makes me feel like an enormous amount of content was set aside or cancelled in order to get this out in time. It doesn't even feel like this came from the same people who did such great work on the first two installments. I'm disappointed because BI has shown that it can produce high quality content, but this time they dropped the ball. I would have preferred to wait another six months or more to get something that had the depth and challenge of Survive and Adapt. Simply put, BI can do better than this. I would love to hear the reasoning of the person responsible for final approval of Win, who after looking at Survive and Adapt, looked at this installment and said "Yes, this is good enough. Release it."
  7. Posted to the wrong thread, apologies. Please see the "Rate the Third Episode" thread for my opinion on this