Jump to content
zozo

Co-op Campaign: APEX PROTOCOL

Recommended Posts

Yet here in these forum lie the bread and butter of your fanbase, your best modders,your biggest fans and I dont think anyone of us is happy.

 

One good thing is that it makes me go back to Skyrim and finish a good SP campaign. Sigh.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One good thing is that it makes me go back to Skyrim and finish a good SP campaign. Sigh.

 

One has literally no excuse, when micro-budget "Iron Front 1944" had 2 good SP campaigns for both RKKA and WH  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One good thing is that it makes me go back to Skyrim and finish a good SP campaign. Sigh.

How can you finish a good sp campaign if you go back to Skyrim. lel.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also hoped myself that the Apex Campaign would be more like East Wind which I personally enjoyed very much. East Wind was so detailed and I loved it, then I played AP...

 

Those missions feel more like Call of Duty ones (yes, I said it). 7 Instant Action missions with a straightforward story. I thought this one would shed more light about Miller and the EW device and have in general another in-depth story, but yeah...

 

Even if the future goes more into Multiplayer - please leave the campaign to SP only. AP just don't feel right even if it's great that you can play it with your friends.

 

Edit:

And an AI team is a must if you play alone, this is not Rambo The Game.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much talk about singleplayer. It's co-op campaing no? Still every page complaints about how it does not work well on sp. <_<

 

My thoughts after 3 missions (3 guys playing):

 

+ Runs great at server.

+ Voiceacting and music (feels like 2016 game)

+ Respawn (just need fix it, so you can't respawn forward in the misson from where you die)

+ Revive system is good like that.

+ Nice mission locations

 

- Who am i, riker, rider wtf kinda confusing?

- Ambush convoy. (3 cars convoy. Come on. Could make it little bigger? Cars go all over the jungle. Too farway from eacother)

- Sound problem? repeating some dialogues in 2nd mission or was it part of the joke? :) mary had a lamb, mary had lamb, mary had a lamb...

- End of 3rd mission. Extraction. Misson end is weird. Cant get in the vtol. Then some radio chatter... mission done.

 

Overall positive feelings about the campaing so far. And the idea that in the future we will see player made coop campaings sounds interesting.

Predator and Vietnam -mods already coming? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much talk about singleplayer. It's co-op campaing no? Still every page complaints about how it does not work well on sp. <_<

Because people thought "coop campaign" means something like Harvest Red 2, which in case of Apex Protocol it completely is not and we got no intel about that before.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because people thought "coop campaign" means something like Harvest Red 2, which in case of Apex Protocol it completely is not and we got no intel about that before.

 

Because it is also meant to be played solo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH i am happy with new coop campaing. I will not bash it for obvious bugs now as it was not even released in it's final form. From what i quickly played as COOP idea worked well and it was fun without boring running into hot zone.

 

Just add AI squad mates to you as lead ONLY if you select play as singleplayer and remove then that JIP join for LAN players as it will be very unlikely when i selected play as singleplayer already and it will solve question what to do with AIs when other LAN player JIP in.

 

so for me:

 

MP is fine as is if bugs/hangs on transiting to new mission will be fixed for release

SP just add 3 AI  mates and disable LAN JIP if it's problem to replace AI with player and vice versa on the fly and I will be happy with SP as well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel I've addressed everything about Apex Protocol already. But I just tried the End Game showcase (I know, this is not the right topic) which left me even more confused. Because that one was actually really great SP fun. It was very immersive and even a bit challenging. Sure, my AI team died because they walked through a wall right into the enemy, but I actually didn't care. I had to use tactics, watch my ammo and fatigue levels, use different approach vectors, compensate for the darkness - overall a very well-executed Arma 3 experience. Even the music was used to create some actual tension. And my character had a voice, like a real human. Missions like this one were the exact same thing I expected from Apex Protocol. This type of gameplay is very good, it's very satisfying. Absolutely boggles my mind how developers could dismiss all that good gameplay for a vague (and badly executed) Co-op experience. Please, give the man who created the End Game SP showcase a cookie. It's not much but it shows there's still hope for decent SP content in the vanilla game.

 

And while I'm at it, some last words on Co-op drop-in/out: the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. Apex Protocol is so ridiculously easy because of the unlimited respawns and as it doesn't allow the player to fail. So why would anyone need help from a friend in the first place? Then the missions are so short that people who want to do it Co-op can just restart them as they please, it's not like they'd lose hours of progress. Both points are completely contradicting the always-LAN-because-drop-in-out design decision which sems to be the root of many problems with this campaign. I don't get it.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zipper5

 

I also really appreciate your responses and what you say is all reasonable, especially from a business point of view. However, it's not what I hoped to hear, in fact it really worries me. Why? Well, I guess I just don't belong to the player group you try to address with that approach (quick play, easy access). All the points you raised, why you have chosen this approach, don't apply to me, because I play ArmA coop with my friends and the old ArmA2 coop approach suited that way better than the Appex protocol approach. I liked the long missions of the ArmA2 coop campaigns, where you could save like in SP. Having the host to slot and handle save games was not an issue at all, as well as the game beeing "paused" on saving without the clients getting any kind of notification, because the host just communicated to the other player that he was saving.

 

So there are different type of players out there and the way you approached the Apex Protocol campaign specifically adresses the "more casual and younger" player base that like quick and easy playing. For me, that's bad news and I really hope there will be another coop campaign (or other content) in the future, that addresses people like me. For that, the old saving system of ArmA2 needs to come back to ArmA3, because the lack of it also makes it really difficult to create own coop content, because bigger SP-style coop missions are not possible without it. Respawning is something I really can not get along with.

 

I just had to put that out and registered for that very purpose (and because of the new unit features), because it's really bothering me. I play and love the ArmA series since 2002 (OFP back then) and up to this day I'm hoping for a campaign that comes close to the old Cold War Crisis or Resistance campaigns. They managed to really mesmerize me and draw me into it thanks to their great enactment, even with their limited technical possibilities. A campaign like that with coop functionality and modern story telling (cutscenes) is all I can wish for.

 

Sincerely,

an old OFP/ArmA veteran

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Already been said by most above - very disappointed with this "campaign" This really isn't a direction I feel BIS should be going in. Old OFP/Arma vet here too and I can honestly say I've never been so disappointed with a BIS release. Yes Tanoa looks and sounds great but that's about it as far as I'm concerned. Have always supported BIS (they're the only games I've ever owned multiple copies of) but this just makes me feel sad that I have nothing positive to say re this campaign.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much talk about singleplayer. It's co-op campaing no? Still every page complaints about how it does not work well on sp. <_<

 

Because it has this button, "play single player".

 

I don't get why people keep pushing this "it's Coop" in everyone's faces. It's playable as single player, it's been announced as playable in single player, and it is designed to be played in single player (AND coop), so there's no need to go defending it with non-arguments like "it's a coop campaign".

 

Honestly, I defend Arma and BI's decision whenever there is a need to defend it. But you people should get into your heads that criticism doesn't mean that people hate what's being criticized.  To the contrary. People love this stuff so much that they want to prevent it from going wrong. Your apologetic approach is doing more harm than good. Feedback is feedback, and there is positive feedback ("You have done well"), but the negative ones ("Here's what I don't like") is absolutely equal in worth and uttering criticism should not be taken as an attack or an insult.

 

Edit: And if that isn't enough, here's what it says on the web page:

1-4 player co-op campaign supporting online

drop-in/drop-out

1 - 4... one player sounds pretty single player to me

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the game has a LOD problem for the AI.  E.g, AI seem to be able to spot you from 100m away and shoot pretty straight through the trees.... but if you next to one, they cannot see you... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 - isn't possible to change the respawn system with the revive instead? So friendly medic AI could save us if we didn't take a critical hit, its better than "edge of tomorrow damage system"

 

- save function

 

- 3 AI slots for SP ( 30 or more kills with one commando guy isn't good), we choose the roles

 

- player squad role selection only in the beginning

 

- pause function and time speed enable (finish the 1st mission in the noon day time; watching euro 16, then the cutscene was in the early morning...)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What am I missing here?

There supposedly has been some major disaster (read: tsunami) that triggered the destabilization (literal and figurative) of the entire Horizon(?) region; though there is no evidence of this event on Tanoa whatsoever...

Villages should've been flattened, boats hanging from treetops, etc.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so I am probably going to repeat a good number of points made by Varanon in his excellent post, but I still want to add to this.

Thank you, Zipper, for actually coming here and trying to explain. It's highly appreciated. And also, thank you to everyone posting here for not posting any open spoilers. It enables me to participate in this discussion.

To go ahead, I have to say I have not played the campaign yet. I started the first mission to see what it was all about, and so my rant below is purely based on the factual parts, namely the respawn and some other tidbits I glimpsed from the short time I played it.

I am a mission maker and a modder myself, with around 3500 hours of playtime on my account, so I daresay I do know one thing or the other about the game. I've been with the series since Operation Flashpoint, too.

I also realize that at this point, there is little chance that anything I say will have any influence since the release is next week, but I'll say it anyway.

 

In the early stages of development we made the decision that Apex Protocol would only be playable, from a purely technical standpoint, in a "multiplayer environment." What we mean by that is: even when you're playing alone, you're playing on a server of some kind. If you click the "PLAY IN SINGLEPLAYER" button, a LAN server is automatically created, which you're then connected to and the chosen mission is launched. We made this choice first and foremost because it allows friends to join you while the mission is in progress, something we want to strongly encourage in Apex Protocol.

This is an argument that I cannot understand. I would venture to say that this hop-on-hop-off type of gameplay is one of the rarest I'Ve seen so far. Most of the time, if you want to play cooperative, you neither do this on a public server with strangers, nor do you start playing in the hopes that some of your friends will hop on. You will organize a play-through with friends for a specific day ("Hey let's play the new APEX campaign on Saturday").

Obviously, for each choice you do there is a price to pay. In this case, it means for example that you cannot pause the game. You get a phone call, you need to take a number three, sorry, you can't because this is a LAN server and you cannot pause it.

No saves also means that you cannot just say "Okay, I need to go to the supermarket now" and quit the game. You cannot pause it, you cannot quit at any time, and all this to satisfy a tiny number of people that MIGHT want to have this hop-on functionality?

I am getting the impression this was just a "Ghost Recon Wildlands" moment. Ubisoft announced that the game will be hop-on-hop-off at any time for coop play. Likewise, a similar possibility is present in Dark Souls.

 

To a lesser (but still important) extent, it also allows us to focus on maintaining one version of all systems, mechanics and missions, rather than both singleplayer and multiplayer variants like we did before (which always led to both versions facing unfortunate compromises that negatively impacted the quality of the final product).

I am sorry, but that is a weak argument. If you program with multiplayer locality in mind, there are hardly any differences between single and multiplayer (again, coming from someone that has made multiple missions already for Arma 2 and 3). All the mechanics of multiplayer work in singleplayer as well, so I really don't see why this means maintaining two versions.

 

Do we want a save system?

To be honest, I am actually shocked that this has come up as a question at all. A save system is a absolutely fundamental functionality found in Arma and about ANY OTHER GAME in existance. Whether it is fixed checkpoints or free saves doesn't matter - Saving your progress is a fundamental functionality, and the fact that you even question it is.. disturbing to say the least.

 

Both feedback from the community and internal feedback revealed that it wasn't clear to many players how respawning on group leaders worked, often leading to confusion and players becoming chaotically spread out and disorganized.

This points only at a flaw in your respawn system, and nothing else. "Respawn on Team Leader" is a functionality in a great number of games that have a team leader, like Battlefield, or Squad, or Project Reality for example. If users are confused by this, then this is a severe issue with the UX of the game, but the solution to that is not to drop the functionality itself.

Also, the function of a Team Leader is to lead his team. That is part of the appeal of being a team leader.

 

Along with the improvements to the Respawn Menu, we made the decision that Apex Protocol would allow respawning on all players while maintaining the mechanic of respawn positions unlocking as players progressed. So far, we feel that players understand the system significantly better thus keeping them together and co-operating with each other. Nonetheless, some of you have already reported areas where respawn positions are perhaps unlocking too soon. We'll get right on those. :)

I beg to differ. You don't allow respawn, you enforce it. You make it part of the mechanic. The apparent high number of enemies also hints that the whole experience is tailored to a respawn system.

But most importantly, by robbing players of the option to save and forcing in Respawn, you make it IMPOSSIBLE to fail. You give an entirely new meaning to "failure is not an option". There will be no "Game Over" screen in a mission that has (unlimited) respawn. Even Call of Duty did not aim so low. Respawn is NOT equal to save points. If you Respawn, all the enemies that your former self killed are still dead. All the ammo that you have fired is back. It robs the game of any form of challenged.

Now, of course you can argue that I do not HAVE to respawn, and yes, that is true, BUT I cannot save either, so to get past a mission I have to start from scratch every time.

 

Going back to the Firing From Vehicles example, the mission simply failed when all players were dead at the same time.

To quote Corporal Kerry: "You say this as if it were a bad thing" :)

Seriously, though, a campaign, as opposed to single missions, should have a coherent narrative, and I don't see a problem in demanding that all players survive. It worked that way in Harvest Red and it wasn't any worth for it. It worked like that in The East Wind (for a single player, obviously), and this is FINE. Death is failure, period. This isn't South Park where Kenny can be shot repeatedly and always gets back.

 

Though Apex Protocol is a co-op campaign, we did not want to lock out players who choose to play alone;

That's good, because the marketing blurb says "1-4 players", so I can rightfully expect that I can play it with anything between 1 to 4 players. I would be fine with a coop-only campaign, since that is what I mostly play, but if you tell us the campaign will be for 1-4 players, then it better be.

 

that's where the decision was made to introduce scaling based on player count, something we've not really tried to do before. But it also introduced an interesting conflict with failing the missions when all players are dead, as that would mean a solo player would fail the mission each time they were killed. They wouldn't have a chance to call a friend for help, and they'd have to play through the whole mission again. This was indeed the case in Firing From Vehicles, and we felt this was definitely not how we wanted to facilitate solo play in Apex Protocol.

This sounds overengineered. With three AI in your team you don't need to do that, or you can just remove single units from team (say, in single player, remove one automatic rifleman from the teams). There is no need to scale like this.

 

all of Arma 2's MP campaigns could only be hosted on a player's machine with the host forced to occupy a specific player slot, typically the main character (e.g. Cooper in Harvest Red).

I might be mistaken, but from what I remember the forcing of the host into a specific slot was something that was introduced in Arrowhead. Arma 2 could have someone host and play another character but Cooper, and even if not, there is no technical reason to force the host into a specific role other than making the scripting part easier. From a technical point of view, there is no need for this, even in the confines of the Arma engine.

 

In the end, we hope that the support for players joining in progress, combined with respawn, the overhauled Respawn Menu, the Revive mechanic, the dynamic difficulty scaling based on player count, and the somewhat shorter length of the missions help to mitigate the impact that a lack of saving has on each player's experience. :) However, we do understand that it isn't perfect, especially for solo play.

It isn't perfect? From what I have read here so far, "a disaster" would be more appropriate. You have taken away saves, friendly AI, and any challenge for the sole benefit of being able to join at any time. What if I don't need that? I would say that most players fall firmly into one of two categories: Single players, and multiplayers.

The single players do not plan to play the game with friends, and want a single player only experience.

The multiplayer crowd plans to play the campaign in coop right from the start.

What you actually implemented is like saying "1.5 children ar the average" - while it IS the average between two extremes, there is nothing that will ever *actually* have 1.5 children. Likewise, I think your decisions cater to a group of players that hardly, if at all, exist.

 

However, we are no stranger to both the impressive strengths and unfortunate weaknesses of our Commanding system and AI. These are perhaps the most commonly criticized aspects of the Arma franchise, aside from performance and controls. While they are no doubt capable of feats perhaps considered impossible in other games, it's sometimes difficult for many players to look past their weaknesses. Early on in Apex's development we decided to focus all our energy on players co-operating with each other, and have Commanding sit this one out this time.

While it can be very tedious to micro-manage a large team of AI, a four player team is really not that difficult to handle. The biggest issue with the AI commanding is their inability to follow orders, something that can be mitigated by not letting them go into combat automatically.

Again, I am getting the impression that you have catered for the wrong group of players that hardly exists at all.

 

Along the way, we definitely discovered areas where this approach wasn't entirely perfect (how do we keep Raider 1 from doing all the work for the players, for example?) but, although there are indeed lessons to be learned, we feel this was a good decision overall.

I have to disagree. As I said I haven't played the campaign yet, but in Harvest Red, a good deal of the immersiveness of the story itself came from the banter between group members. The infamous example of Robo telling a joke how a marine simply doesn't p*ss on his hands is a good example of this. By going full Rambo, you take this away making it a bland experience were there is no personality involved in anything.

I hate to bring this example up, but Operation Flashpoint: Red River is a good example of inter-team banter that actually was meaningful. Yeah, it might be annoying for the crowd of players that just want to mow down the next horde of Chinese, but for most players that play a single player experience, this is a key part.

In closing: I am very much disappointed by the way APEX has turned out. Tanoa is definitely the crown jewel of it, but I am starting to feel like there isn't any crown to speak of where this jewel is attached to. The only satisfying point in APEX are the number of new weapons, which is decent. The number of new vehicles is disappointingly low, much of the new equipment is retextures, and the campaign apparently is not only short as heck, it also is impossible to fail in it.

I seriously cannot understand the reasoning behind the decisions made. I am completely in the dark why you would think this was a good idea. Did you not consider the fact that a game were I cannot fail is an issue? I mean, I don't require a game to be Dark Souls level of difficulty, and I actually think that a difficulty level were you cannot fail is a good thing for people that just want the experience without the challenge, but this should be a CHOICE, not enforced by the very design.

So, what do I think needs to happen? At least two, better three things:

1) Respawn MUST be optional. Either in a number of respawn tickets (which can be set to zero), or by disabling the whole system and not having to see it ever.

2) Possibility to save the game is mandatory. If I start the game as single player, I don't want to play on a local multiplayer server were I cannot pause the game when I need to take a leak, nor do I want to have to play the mission to the end because the basic feature of end-game-save is not implemented.

3) Bring back AI. Having a single guy on a specops mission sounds like a power fantasy rather than an actual authentic game experience. At the least, give us the four man team.

Sorry for the length of it, and if I stepped on someone's toes, I apologize. I am very, VERY passionate about this game. I sacrifice almost my entire spare time to it by making missions and extensive addon/MOD work (Community Upgrade Project, for example). I feel strongly about the game.

  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like the typical situation where devs are trying to appeal to casuals to attract that crowd but in the end they just piss off vet players. Also it could be that devs don't have time. To me it feels like they are on some sort of deadline for Apex to kick this out the door and maintain less code and work on some other project or it could be lazyness.

 

 

And whats the reason for respawn in missions like this? This isn't warfare or domination or deathmatch right?

Did SWAT 4 require respawn system for COOP? NO And when they introduced respawn in Stetchkov Syndicate expansion COOP nobody played it but only the original cause the expansion COOP became worthless waste of time.

 

 

I wouldn't mind lone wolf gameplay if it was saboteur type missions from OFP like James Gastovski black ops missions where you had crawl under Shilkas and plant satchels or steal documents etc or Spetsnaz missions from Red Hammer campaign of simiral nature. But since you have to kill some many enemies atleast a fireteam of AI would be nice and removing the respawn would save this campaign

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel I've addressed everything about Apex Protocol already. But I just tried the End Game showcase (I know, this is not the right topic) which left me even more confused. Because that one was actually really great SP fun. It was very immersive and even a bit challenging. Sure, my AI team died because they walked through a wall right into the enemy, but I actually didn't care. I had to use tactics, watch my ammo and fatigue levels, use different approach vectors, compensate for the darkness - overall a very well-executed Arma 3 experience.

 

Which is what makes Apex Protocol even worse by comparison.

 

Some people say "Apex Protocol playing bad in SP? But it's designed for COOP!".

But if you add COOP ability to Showcase Endgame AS IT IS - it will become a superb coop mission because it already is well balanced and well designed. Just make those friendly teams slotable in MP screen and it will stay just as good, or even better.

 

Apex Protocol is badly designed even for cooperative play. Because you are unkillable. You can't fail. You go against ridiculous enemy numbers. And there's also a magical invulnerable team of friendly AI that sometimes ruin the experience further by not letting you fail (like murdering the whole convoy on mission 2 ANYWAY if you don't blow it up).

 

It is lazy. It is uninspired. It is anti-ArmA as hell. I swear some of the worst "CoD-wannabe" missions from community I've played are not as badly designed as this campaign, supposedly done by professionals. Not even PMC DLC was this bad. Oh right it even had consequences for some of your actions here and there too.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And where the majority of the community is more MP side of the game these days or at least the most vocal.

Does Majority even matter? The majority voted for Brexit, and you see the outrage it has created. A majority is irrelevant as long as it isn't an overwhelming majority. If you have 2.5 million players, and 70% play multiplayer, then that still leaves 750k players that play single player. Only once the majority goes to the 90 % does it become relevant. And from my missions, I can clearly see that the single player community is still there, as missions that are playable in SP always get more subscribers.

 

And this is coming from someone that almost exclusively plays in MP.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so I am probably going to repeat a good number of points made by Varanon in his excellent post, but I still want to add to this.

I think they are all valid points (both yours and Varanon's).

Although I understand that the release it's set for next week (that's why it's IMHO preferable to release stuff in dev branch with time), I hope BI takes some notes and implement some improvements in the next weeks, after all that's one of the best features of the Arma series, the continuous support and improvements.

You can see how Arma 2 and 3 vanilla campaigns were on day one and how they evolved.

Funnily enough at this moment, I mainly play Arma MP Coop 90% and 10% SP, but I haven't been able to convince any of my friends, coop mates and sim-group mates, to play the APEX protocol with the nowadays game-play design (even if most of them, as Arma enthusiasts own APEX and have the dev installed).

It's a real shame as I tend to be an avid player of coop games, for instance I played and replayed the different Gears of Wars campaigns in coop dozens of times (and had the hop in feature), same with Arma 2 and many other games (yeah both on PC and consoles).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sneaking in my opinion here;
I did not play the campaign yet (I'm waiting for the official release) so I won't judge the gameplay or presentation.

Based from what I read:

• I'm not much of a singleplayer guy, but singleplayer without AI, slendering around alone, seems extremely unimmersive and.. well, not really fun.

• Not being able to save/pause: Well, I don't care but it's understandable that many players are frustrated when a standartized game mechanic suddenly is not available anymore.

• Respawn system: This could be a true joybreaker. ArmA has always been about carefully and thoughtfully approaching pretty much everything you do. In reality, war is so shitty because you're afraid to lose your life. You can't really recreate that, but experiencing actual

setbacks when dying goes into the right direction and makes you value your virtual life. A respawn system completely eliminates that. "Well, you can still approach carefully". Yes, but it's completely different when you know that there won't be any consequence. "I'm out of ammo... I guess I'll just get shot and respawn"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I've played the first few mission with 2 friends and after we completed the first one we continued to the second.
In this mission my 2 friends had been duplicated and we had 2 Ai's following us all the time.

We restarted the server and that seems to fix the problem but as soon as we continued to the 3rd mission the Ai's came back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

• Not being able to save/pause: Well, I don't care but it's understandable that many players are frustrated when a standartized game mechanic suddenly is not available anymore.

 

 

 

None of the missions felt like you needed to save during them.  In previous campaigns there would be a ton of travel or a big fight and still a lot to do coming up and saving made sense.  With AP it's all small scale and linear enough that things move quickly.  There's maybe two parts where I can see wanting to save as a smaller group, but in 4 man co-op you can spread out the objectives well enough to not need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tried the End Game showcase (I know, this is not the right topic) which left me even more confused. Because that one was actually really great SP fun. It was very immersive and even a bit challenging. Sure, my AI team died because they walked through a wall right into the enemy, but I actually didn't care. I had to use tactics, watch my ammo and fatigue levels, use different approach vectors, compensate for the darkness - overall a very well-executed Arma 3 experience. Even the music was used to create some actual tension. And my character had a voice, like a real human. Missions like this one were the exact same thing I expected from Apex Protocol. This type of gameplay is very good, it's very satisfying. .

 

 

 

Absolutely this !!

 

Playing the Endgame showcase was exactly how I expected the Apex Protocol to be in single player  ..attacking  the FOB with help of AI , clearing the warehouses and getting the intel leading your AI team,...calling the second team for support when attacking the last location and finally taking command of both AI teams and fighting your way back to the FOB...(btw I lost the most of my men by mortar fire but managed to get the half of them back to the FOB) 

This was great fun featuring the amazing Tanoa setting, good voice acting and nice music...combined with some cool cinematic cutscenes this is all we want :) for SP

.

 

Beside this, I am fine with the new respawn and revive mechanics for MP as long as they will be tweaked for the final release (more revive and less respawn) and as long as we get something like a hardcore mode for the campaign that comes without respawn and without save points..if there is nobody left to revive his comrades....mission failed :)

 

 

We also all know, commanding an AI team in Arma can sometimes be a real pain in the behind but also be absolutely rewarding and satisfying. Watching a full AI squad/team in combat or stealth mode entering a village or maneuvering through a forest  is still amazing.

Leading an AI team is also of course hard work ( not casual gaming that is) since you have to constantly giving orders and know all the different commands for things like stances, formations and combat behaviour ( part of the fun ).

and I fear this is the point...leaving AI out is not because of AI being that bad but because of it not being casual....

 

For MP/SP...if I want to play with others I host or join a MP game, if I want to play lone wolf I host my own locked MP game ...but if I want to play SP I want a real SP which includes AI comrades and save points !!!!

 

Please take your time and leave SP out until you have made it the Arma SP that we all love so much. I personally would not mind waiting a few weeks longer for it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the missions felt like you needed to save during them.

 

Geez, why again be apologetic about it ? I played about 20 minutes yesterday and had to go because I was tired and wanted to go to bed. Of course, I couldn't save.

 

Honestly, don't try to rationalize away the need for a save game because it's supposedly so short that it doesn't matter.

Reminds me of a discussion about allowing to save in Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, where people that asked for free saving where subdued by others with bogus arguments like "If you need save you lack the skilz".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×