Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

69 Excellent

About pansyfaust

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm not a flight expert but I'm fairly certain aircraft can't perform such a maneuver: https://a.safe.moe/zqk99.webm
  2. pansyfaust

    Combat Patrol

    Jezuro, are there any news about an update to this game mode? it's kind of hard to provide feedback if we don't get to test the progress you're making.
  3. Your second post in this thread seems to indicate beyond any doubt that this GENERAL observation was indeed targeting an individual who dared to post constructive criticism of this change. Moreover, this overly defensive behavior where any person who dares to criticize and/or offer suggestions gets either personally attacked or gets backhand comments on how he shouldn't criticize because so and so; Why even hold any discussion at all if it's all directed towards nothing but praise? It's even more concerning since a moderator is advocating it. Also, I would like to agree with the previous posters, the upgraded version does look too dark.
  4. Tweaked: Continued Ambient Occlusion improvements on structures (more Intel in an upcoming SITREP) Is it possible to look into the visual bug with HBAO+ with multishader materials as a part of this ambient occlusion improvement? https://a.pomf.cat/vxrwtt.jpg
  5. In fact I have contributed FREE content to both CUP and AIATP projects myself ( http://cup-arma3.org/about ), but I don't think that's relevant to the discussion. Also while I might have come off as blunt and harsh, I merely wanted to present my arguments as to why I think the addition of JBAD buildings at their current state degraded from the overall quality of CUP for me personally.
  6. I'd have to agree with lakp on the subject of JBAD buildings being a bad addition; The current limit for dynamic lights in arma3 is 16 (for ultra), having a single building that uses up half that limit makes every urban scene a flickering mess. Secondly, since the lights don't collide and don't cast shadows the lights are bleeding through walls and other objects resulting in a graphically unpleasing scene. Moreover, the heavy use of light sources resulted in a very noticeable framerate drop for me. The choice of completely white lights also makes little to no sense to me as most of the desert maps are decorated with street lamps that shed a light that varies from yellow to orange, and this colour difference stands out immensely when looking at any urban scene.
  7. pansyfaust

    Co-op Campaign: APEX PROTOCOL

    Yes, I've given BIS too much credit, sadly. I have made a terrible mistake.
  8. pansyfaust

    Co-op Campaign: APEX PROTOCOL

    I was talking about the entire period leading up to release on dev branch, there has been absolutely no information and no talk with the playerbase other than the one sitrep that read: "we cut building interiors, deal with it". The responses now are pretty pointless as both the players and bohemia realize there's no time to turn this campaign into anything more than a linear walking simulator with no replayability, at best if we're lucky we'd see the respawn system gone.
  9. pansyfaust

    Co-op Campaign: APEX PROTOCOL

    You're forgetting we paid money for this, and bohemia choosing to remain completely silent about apex only made people more angry, understandably. If I had known that's the campaign we're getting I'd probably not spend 27$ on apex, the entire way this release got handled put me off and I doubt I'd be willing to buy another BIS DLC or game for that matter.
  10. pansyfaust

    Scripting Discussion (dev branch)

    Could we see some changes to BIS_fnc_EXP_camp_IFF? Mainly allowing for different colors and support for dynamic addition of units? This piece of code also bugs me: private _name = switch (typeOf _unit) do { default {name _unit}; case "B_CTRG_soldier_M_medic_F" : {localize "STR_A3_B_CTRG_soldier_M_medic_F0"}; case "B_Soldier_TL_F" : {localize "STR_A3_ApexProtocol_identity_Riker"}; case "B_soldier_M_F" : {localize "STR_A3_ApexProtocol_identity_Grimm"}; case "B_soldier_AR_F" : {localize "STR_A3_ApexProtocol_identity_Salvo"}; case "B_soldier_LAT_F" : {localize "STR_A3_ApexProtocol_identity_Truck"}; case "B_Story_SF_Captain_F" : {localize "STR_A3_ApexProtocol_identity_Miller"}; }; Wouldn't it be easier to use setName/setIdentity in the apex campaign and keep it generic as possible for other content creators? I've modified the script to get what I want it to do myself but it'd be nice to see it available to everyone: http://pastebin.com/ts0Zcb2h
  11. pansyfaust

    Co-op Campaign: APEX PROTOCOL

    Except it doesn't require fixing, it's an added benefit over the existing system when it does work. Not to mention the other benefits of not relying on infinite respawns metagaming to kill one enemy and die just to respawn and repeat. Zipper, the reason why people burned through the campaign is PRIMARILY because of the flawed respawn system that lets you kill x enemies, die, respawn and kill another X enemies until you reach the quota of killed enemies. That's my main gripe with the respawn system, it doesn't set back players one bit, at worst they have to walk (but it's arma, walking is second nature).
  12. pansyfaust

    Co-op Campaign: APEX PROTOCOL

    You've already mentioned previously the campaign is intended to be played in a "single playsession", which still makes perfect sense in a save game environment. with save games the process would be: mission failed -> reload last save -> keep playing while with a respawn system its: die -> respawn -> continue mission However, if you decide to quit for the day and continue tomorrow you'd have to start the mission a new with the respawn system (unless there's an in-mission progress tracking, not that I've noticed it). with the save game system you could pick off from where you left, and in some extreme cases like the ones you've mentioned you'd be forced to restart the mission (which is again, no worse than what the respawn system offers).
  13. pansyfaust

    Co-op Campaign: APEX PROTOCOL

    Zipper5, I'm quite interested why is dedicated server support is so important for a coop campaign? I find it hard to imagine dedicated servers are going to run 4 player missions, not to mention the entire campaign design is to host a client-server even when you play in singleplayer so friends can join you. As for the other point about saves being shared between MP and SP, didn't you already solve that by forcing the coop campaign into MP mode only? Enabling saves would also allow for players to fail a mission by dying without forcing them to replay the entire mission. I seriously hope you'd reconsider this design choice as currently it feels like a movie; on the rails, no consequences, no deviation from the script. Not to mention you can only win and never lose. Edit: I'd also have to completely disagree with this statement: "So far, we feel that players understand the system significantly better thus keeping them together and co-operating with each other." When there are no consequences to wandering off on your own and dying, why would anyone cooperate? The boldest example would be mission 6, with it's multiple objectives; What's there to keep the players fighting together instead of splitting off and going for the various different objectives? dying? they can just try again in 30 seconds. As for the game saving notification not showing up for clients, forgive me but that's a lousy excuse; you have remoteExec, even mission makers and modders can implement such a feature.
  14. pansyfaust

    Co-op Campaign: APEX PROTOCOL

    Moreover, a save file can be shared. With this system in place just having arma crash means you have to restart the entire mission, both in singleplayer and coop.
  15. pansyfaust

    Co-op Campaign: APEX PROTOCOL

    Use the lobby that's already used for any other multiplayer session, which enables loading a save or restarting the mission altogether, which is you know a native functionality built into the engine. on the mission side of things: either scrap the respawn system completely and bring back prefixed slots, or just enable it for the first time a player occupies a slot/mission start so you could pick your starting loadout. as for the saves themselves could have it save after completing an objective for all I care, anything would make more sense than an infinite respawn system. The revive system should stay in place as it actually promotes cooperative play and still punishes the players for making mistakes.