Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

pansyfaust

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    85

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by pansyfaust

  3. Posted

    44 minutes ago, road runner said:

    Do you see me quote his post? No, I'm well aware of how to use the quote function. Did I mention his post specifically? No. I didn't mention him, or his post by name either,  did I respond after his post with a GENERAL opinion and observation with regards to the visual upgrades, yes I did. Are you jumping to conclusions that the post was directed at him specifically? Yes unfortunately you are.

    I will say this again, when it comes to the visual updates, the devs are damned if they do, damned if they don't. that is the whole point I'm making, it's not about anyone's post in specific, it's in relation to all the negative feedback  towards the devs since the "splendid" visual update was introduced, some love it, some detest it. catch 22.

    The biggest complaint I see mostly is the night time, and the night illumination, or lack of.

    Are you yourself offering any constructive feedback with regards to the improvements? :f:
     

     

    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.

    • Like 3

  5. Posted

    15 minutes ago, R0adki11 said:

    I can appreciate that you find this is an issue, but please appreciate how many hours that have gone into making an update for FREE content. If you would like to improve the content, perhaps consider helping out CUP.

     

    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.

     

    • Like 2

  6. Posted

    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.

    • Like 1

  8. Posted

    That's far from true. There's been some detailed responses from staff.

     

    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. Posted

    I don't get all the "casual campaign" hate from so many people when all of us, especially some of the most vocal people, have the ability to make as hardcore and involved campaign as we would want.  Nothing is stopping you and Apex Protocol being casual isn't preventing you from playing it how you want nor making whatever mission/campaign/total conversion you want.  The point has been made, BIS has responded to it with the Why, so lets move on to new complaints, make new campaigns or just play the game how we want to now.

     

    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. Posted

    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. Posted

    That's exactly why it's meant to be played in a single playsession. The missions are no longer than 30 minutes - 1 hour each so there's really no point of having to save to come back. If you "Decide to quit for the day" there's really no point of starting part way in to the mission because they take such a short time anyway. No point spending precious man-hours fixing the save system just for that.  

    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).

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    • Saves are only stored on the server, meaning they'd be quite a hassle to access unless you have your own private Dedicated Server. Not much of a hassle for a server hosted on a player's machine, but it would still always require you that player to host each time you wanted to resume from where you left off, which is not great.

     

    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).

    • Like 1

  13. Posted

    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.

    • Like 2

  14. Posted

    Huh? If you hosted a campaign in Arma 2 (say, Harvest Red), the hosting player saved the game. If you wanted to continue, the hosting player loaded the game back and everybody slotted into their places like when you start a mission.

     

    Did you ever play a coop session under Arma 2? Apparently not. Nothing "warps", nor does your buddy need to save. The host saves. Worked fine.

     

    I haven't played the campaign yet since I didn't want to spoil it, I just started the first mission, and the first thing that struck me was that horrendous respawn system. Who thought that was a good idea? Because it absolutely isn't. At the VERY LEAST, it should be optional, for those players that actually want a bit of a challenge instead of just endless respawn where you cannot even LOSE the game.

     

    At the danger of sounding like a Trump tweet now... not good. So disappointed. Respawn is weak. Need to make Arma great again.

     

    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. Posted

     

    all i was saying, just for you again, is that it's unrealistic to ask for save game implementation into something that is obviously designed for coop/mp. you act like it's so simple to just put it ontop of something that is intended to work totally different.

    thinking save games working well in a coop/mp campaign is pretty outlandish tbh. yes an SP version would be nice. i said that before. but i don't see it happening just because it would need to work pretty differently. happy to be proven wrong though.

     

    now to you since you seem to have it all figured out. how exactly WOULD it work? how do you make the two things (respawn and SP savng) play well without a large amount of extra work that goes into making two versions? let's get productive here. or are you just asking for a second version of the campaign? or even worse are you just saying "i want this, now go figure it out BI"...?

    starting to feel like you haven't put much thought into it. based on some scripting and mission making experience i just don't see it working well or at all without a second different version of the campaign.

     

     

    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.

  16. Posted

     

    You have a save but your buddy doesnt... so does he warp forward to where you are at or do you restart the mission... either is undesirable...

     

     

    How is it any different with the respawn system?

    The respawn system is in mission, not in the main menu.

     

     

    what with all the "dirty boxing" today? i have no trouble reading. i just can't address every single post in amazing detail just because my opinion happens to differ from the circle jerk. there is no need to refute anything because i agree save games are better in certain cases.

    but, you can still make something without them that isn't shitty. not everything is black and white you know? grey areas and shit.

     

    maybe it's easy to "convert" the campaign to save games. but if it was it might have been already like that. yes i'm assuming the current design is opposed to (on some technical level) using the inbuilt save game system hence it being deactivated (instead of being there and barely working). assuming, i could totally be wrong and i wouldn't be against save games for SP, why would i?

     

    i think it would be way more productive to suggest things that make the current system, which is designed for coop as has been announced, better.

     

    i'm with metalcraze after playing one quick round of the first mission. it seems really grindy in some way. i would prefer some type of seperation of respawn points into checkpoints so basically the mission would restart, if the last man standing doesn't reach the next checkpoint or something. like in insurgency where the rest of the team watches you hoping you survive. but i guess not much will change.

     

    did anyone notice how exactly stuff scales with player count? do enemies just get stupid or bad at aiming or do they also get less?

    Perhaps you could address the actual points presented instead of writing tl;dr posts that you couldn't even call a suggestion but just being contrarian for the sake of it.

    I have no idea where you get the black and white crap as my suggestion is exactly what you're hinting at: a solution that is based on an existing working system, and it's a system that can already solve any problem that arose from implementing the flawed respawn in the first place.

  17. Posted

    He doesnt need to ... they were designed for different purposes...

     

    everyone will notice that the first word in the title of the thread is coop..

     

    i think at this point it would be wiser to ask that the pbos be made available so that someone could convert it to a fully SP experience rather than bitching at BIS for following thru with a coop campaign..

     

    game saves work in multiplayer environment, so that argument is invalid.

  18. Posted

    oh yea. listen. just to be clear. my expectations were very low, no offense to anyone. but you'll have to agree that it's possible to use respawn in a good way. i guess not for BI by the sound of it.

     

    as i said. save games have their own value but we're talking about something designed for MP. eventhough poorly at that it seems. you can make a shit/good campaign with or without savegames/respawn. so i fail to see how savegames are the solution to overall design and balancing issues. i'd honestly rather have them fix THAT instead of turning it into an SP campaign since those problems you describe will most likely occur with more than one player too.

    Arma supports saving multiplayer games since arma2 the very least, no reason to turn anything to SP over game saves (unless it's another feature that bohemia broke by updating the engine).

  19. Posted

    Stringtable for playable assets (basically nothing but spoilers):

    http://pastebin.com/92NEGjKU

     

    It just confirms there's hardly any reason to explore in the campaign, nothing to discover on your own.

    All plot information is force fed to you during the briefings.

     

    Also did anyone else notice the zombies and demons video on the TV screen in mission 6?

    I wonder if BIS asked the author...

     

     

     

     


     

    savegames:

     

    if you load a save game over and over you do literally the same thing except you can tell yourself "no no i went back in time, i didn't respawn, i'm still going here". pretty nitpicky to ask them to balance the a coop campaign to recreate that vague difference, if you ask me.

     

     

    There's a big difference, as a loaded save game starts where you actually saved and the enemies that you haven't killed up to that point are also still alive.

    You can't cheat your way by killing one enemy and then re spawning back into a safezone.

    Not to mention a save also keeps your ammo status so running out of ammo and supplies is actually a concern.

  20. Posted

     

     i haven't played any of it yet but it seems the complaints about SP with saves missing are more like a mismatch of expectations rather than BI delivering something else than what they announced. the above quote pretty clearly describes what you guys described from your playthroughs. drop in drop out MP design.

     

    I guess expecting a game that you can lose in is too much in 2016.

    • Like 1

  22. Posted

     So it stays this way thruout? Nameless soldier fighting unbelievable numbers solo? Its almost like I resfuse to believe this. WTF BI -you could have told us this beforehand. Arma 2 was co-op campaign but we had the squad as Ai if playing SP. And this Respawn bullshit.....i give up :wacko:

    It does, apart from few occasions where you have a very passive friendly invincible AI group moving around slowly.

  25. Posted

    I also read something about bridges not being destructible - I think it was in reference to AI pathfinding etc.  Shame as that was the first thing I attempted to do when I loaded in the map :(

    You can hide them which disables the collision, but you can still see them visually, which is a shame.

×