Jump to content

Pritzl

Members
  • Posts

    260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pritzl

  1. Thanks, but it's a day too late. I've just finally managed to get through the coop mission offline. Took the 12th try and 6 casualties to get through it but I finally did it. Killed 22 riflemen, 3 machine gunners, 2 AT guys, a squad leader and a BRDM personally to get through it though. It's funny that in spite of all the efforts to promote teamwork, ultimately a Rambo-style performance was necessary. I can see this game being a very addictive online title but the offline will only appeal to masochists who have the time to devote to learning all the ins and outs and beating the odds. (like myself, a few years ago. I just don't have it in me anymore though)
  2. GRAW only really needs an M4 + mods and perhaps an alternative, lower calibre (7.62mm) sniper rifle. That would just about cover all my needs. The former because it is quite simply the definitive Sp. Ops. assault rifle and the latter because the M99 is just overkill for most scenarios.
  3. That is the first reasonable argument I've heard thus far. With a command system as complex as the one in ArmA, some sort of detailed, step-by-step tutorial is sorely needed. You can say that again! Yes, but this is a demo. It's supposed to showcase the game, not just the game's MP. Besides, how different will SP be exactly? There is a good chance the demo mission is just a coop version of an SP mission. Things like friendly AI (mis)behaviour are not going to radically change between the two modes right? BINGO! Like I said, I understand and even respect the "hardcore" bend taken with ArmA but am just surprised at how inflexible the settings are that they disallow pretty much all options that even remotely temper the realism factor. Granted, I've admitted I'm no expert at ArmA (or OFP for that matter) but I do know you can still do that. It's the "Assign" entry on the main command menu. You have no idea! While quite possible, it is also possible that this is just a regular SP mission cleared for coop use. I would except I just don't have the time to dedicate to yet another online game. It's a commitment I just can't make at the moment.
  4. Thanks, that will surely change my mind. I only stay on the hill until I've killed the first patrol. Then I relocate to another hill on the other side of the road where I can pick off the guys that come to assault the first position. Then I relocate again to a better vantage point on the town and cover my guys as I send them in. Still, the farthest they've made it is a few meters beyond the roadblock on the South East end of town. I've only put in 10hours or so. The first few tries lasted about 5 minutes each tops. I learnt from my mistakes and moved on but the friendly AI just can't do a decent job. I often know exactly what I need them to do but can't figure out how to accomplish it in a timely manner. I doubt it because I never said the MP sucked. For one thing I can easily see how a coordinated group of players on comms can accomplish quite a bit in this game. But I play offline mostly so the artificial difficulty level meant to challenge a group of human players is just too much for my brain-dead AI team. I understand, but why not provide difficulty settings that allow us to tone down the challenge so it's assailable offline too? This is why I didn't want this posted here in this forum. Some of you, understandably, take my criticisms almost as a personal assault on your own contrasting opinions. I know some people like it so. My question was why limit the scope so much? In the meantime, unless something drastic happens, I won't be posting here anymore since it borders on being rude to just hang around and bash a game you don't even play. So, adios...
  5. And what makes you think I didn't take my time? I did a whole boatload of waiting and then waited some more. I got really good at sniping that first patrol and relocating before the BRDM showed up or other troops flanked. Indeed, I usually take them out while they're still flanking the original position completely oblivious to our new location. I've spent 10+ hours as it is and probably will spend a little bit more just because I'm kinda ###### about not finishing the mission. I wouldn't mind the difficulty level if there was a way to tone it down to start, but this is at bloody cadet level! Why would you think that? Try almost a dozen tries and I still haven't made it into the town proper. I'm no twitch-gamer looking for a run-n-gun title but ArmA is a bit too much imo. I have no intention of playing the same mission several dozen times just to be able to complete it. Besides, if I could use human players it wouldn't be as hard probably. That's why I specified that it was the offline SP game that was extremely weak. And you are basing this on what precisely? First-hand experience? Even if it were true, it should at least be configurable in the difficulty settings. In reality, I'd be dead, several times over, before I even got anywhere near 20 kills. I said that was part of what ###### me off about the game. The friendly AI is very, very frustrating. No thanks, I have better things to do with my time than playing a game over and over to learn how to beat it. That isn't my definition of fun and this coming from someone who plays IL-2 on full realism (for 5 years) and went so far as to purchase a number of air tactics books to get the hang of it. Like I said, that's my problem. What's wrong with a difficulty setting that allows those of us who don't want to spend months/years learning how to play the game still enjoy it? Even on lowest settings the game is ridiculously hard.
  6. Completely agreed re: innovation. The only recent innovation in the tactical shooter genre that comes to mind is the introduction of more physics. Unfortunately, it is rarely a complete implementation and seldom an integral gameplay element. That's why my hat's off to Nintendo. Their Wii idea was simply brilliant, esp. in a field so rife with clones and formulaic games. Right now there is just too much focus on the production quality of the game (graphics rendering tricks, audio, artwork, cutscenes, etc.) and little or no effort dedicated to actually coming up with anything truly new.
  7. Like I said, I loved many things about ArmA and usually enjoy a good cerebral game. I'm just stupefied as to some of the design decisions. e.g. why can't I turn off/reduce the sway which is present even when prone and holding your breath? There is no one single thing that turned me off but put all together it is disappointingly frustrating.
  8. I spent a LOT of time trying to configure the game to my taste but between the hordes of options and the difficulty figuring out what did what I can't for the life of me tell what I set it to. I do remember the AI settings though because I remember feeling rather humiliated when the crippled enemy AI still managed to make mince meat of me and my team time and time again.
  9. Never thought it would be but I'm always open to new game ideas. Yeah, that's the part I don't get. Nothing wrong with an unfairly hard sim, but how much would it have cost them to add some configuration settings that would allow us average joes to get by? e.g. IL-2 is deadly hard on the most realistic settings but you can turn on/off a lot of the realism features. In ArmA it seems even the lowest level is designed with the hardcore OFP gamer in mind. Very strange business decision.
  10. Ah wth, here's my list: Graphics: Quite good on my rig and though I usually don't even comment on graphics there's a rather big problem with ArmA's visibility distance. Even at 200m enemies are barely visible. At 600m+ even looking through the sniper scope yields mediocre results. I don't know if it's just the limited colour palette or the artificial blurring in the game but it really makes spotting the enemy a chore. Audio & atmosphere: Exceptional team feedback (albeit a bit repetitive) and great environmental touches like dragonflies and sea-gulls. The weapon sounds themselves sound a little tinny in some cases, passable in others. Nothing exceptional. Interactivity: Brilliant but a bit buggy on occasion it seems. I understand that given the number of options but it would frustrate the bejeezus out of me. Controls: must have been thought up by Dr. Frankenstein. Far too many buttons and combinations to memorize distract you from the gameplay. I can never picture it reaching the level of intuitiveness required for me to enjoy the game. Worse, I've experienced a lot of glitches like clicks not registering or doubling up into two successive clicks. (which often results in a very different outcome) AI: Friendly AI is just incompetent in my experience and I don't know why. I've tried it under the control of an AI leader so that it is comparable to the enemy AI (even better supposedly since I set friendlies to expert and enemy to novice) but they just fail to do anything impressive. Enemy AI is quite plausible for the most part, except for accuracy. Accuracy: Sometimes I wonder what grognard in which layer came up with the ballistics model for ArmA. It is simply ridiculous to have that much guesswork in what is afterall a game. Yes, it's not easy irl, but irl most of us would whiz our pants and crap our shorts at the first sound of gunfire. Should we model that too? After missing a 500m gimme shot on a clearly visible enemy sentry with 5+ sniper rounds even though you're prone, elevated, holding your breath and zoomed in it starts to get old. It gets really bad when that same guy finally wises up to where you are and proceeds to nail you from that distance with his AK-47! Command system: just as convoluted as the controls but with an added layer of obfuscation. Why would the directions to go prone/crouch be in the "combat mode" submenu? I still haven't figured out how to get a selected to unit to go to a specific spot on the map. I point at the desired spot, select move and have tried pretty much every option on the subsequent menu and never succeeded in getting the order accomplished. GUI: Was there a contest to see how many different screens/steps the programmers could add to each action? It takes forever to get anything accomplished. Try counting the number of screens you have to cancel through just when backing out of a MP session next time if you don't believe me.
  11. Actually, I'm disappointed this got posted here, in the ArmA section. I know it's related but now I sound like a whiny little git - which I probably am! Besides, I'm sure the folks in here have either already made up their own minds about the game or are in the process of doing so and don't need me ranting about it. Now that it's here though, I'll try to give some perspective to this one-off rant. I guess I was disappointed with ArmA given what I felt it could have been. But the real point was actually related to GRAW, GRAW2 and the future of tactical shooters in general. Realism is always welcome, but when it gets to the point that it feels like work, someone's gotten carried away.
  12. [rant on] let's be frank here. I am fully aware that the real thing is very, very hard. I'm also happy to see numerous fun factors in ArmA, from bullet drop to heavy breathing and dispersion. BUT... How in the world is this supposed to be a "game" if even on the easiest difficulty levels you can't get past anyone? It's impossible to spot enemies at any distance beyond 200m without zooming in. Even then, it's a stretch in spite of max LOD settings. I've resorted to toting the sniper rifle just to be able to see the enemy with its scope. When you do spot the bandits, weapon accuracy is so poor, combat outside of 100m is mostly about luck. You can be prone, holding your breath and zoomed in though the scope, walk the pipper all over the bad guy and still miss. Even the sniper rifle is only accurate up to about 400m or so, beyond which you might as well wish them dead for all the good it'll do ya. Meanwhile, the AI seem more than happy to reach out and touch you at over 300m with bloody AK-47's! Oh don't worry, they first give you the illusion that they're missing with the first few rounds and then zero in for the kill. It always amazes me when I miss a guy, out in the open, with the sniper rifle and he turns around and shoots me, up in my perch, prone with only my gun sticking out, several times until I'm dead. The friendly AI tend to do some ridiculous things, like firing their precious RPGs at individual troopers, (two guys, 3 grenades apiece, all wasted on one rifleman, I kid you not! Oh and they still missed!) standing up and trying to retreat in the middle of a pitched firefight, never going where you send them and almost never coordinating their actions. If you thought GRAW's friendly AI was poor, wait till you get a load of these guys! What further boggles the mind is that I specifically set them to expert versus novice for the enemy. The enemy numbers are horrendous in the demo mission. I killed 20 personally and the rest of my team took out another dozen but we still got ambushed by hordes of them when we finally entered the town. Configuring the game and learning the control scheme requires a degree in computer engineering, only rocket scientists need apply. The command system is so tortuous, you need a desktop reference to use it. In the middle of a firefight? Forget it. Like I said, I get it. Some people want it very real and very hard. No problem. But to intentionally put the game beyond the reach of the majority of players seems a little daft imo. The relevance to GRAW of course is that I keep seeing people clamouring for more realism... which is fine... up to a point. I'm a fan of realism myself, or thought so until I saw how far it can go. The line between realistic and fun gameplay and flat out work is a very thin one indeed. Take a look at the ArmA demo to see what the other side of that line looks like. The real shame of course is that there are so many, many good things about ArmA that it doubles the frustration with how it turned out. e.g. enemies generally behave logically, not immediately realizing where incoming fire is coming from, raising alarms where appropriate and very aggressively pursuing a solution to the problem. They zig-zag, bound from cover to cover, take long, roundabout routes to come up your 6 and even lay in ambush waiting for you to come out. I've even witnessed one guy play dead after I shot him (saw the blood and he fell forward) only to have him shoot me in the back when I turned my attention elsewhere. The environment is beautiful with lush vegetation, down to bloody daffodils, with dragon-flies buzzing through the reeds and seagulls wheeling above. Oh, and the interactivity. Wonderful! And yet, all of this is wasted on what ends up being some nutter's wet-dream demonstration of just how "1337" he is unlike the rest of us. Congrats, you can guesstimate the correct number of pixels to offset your pipper for a head-shot from 500m. Whoop-de-doo! [/rant off] It'll probably be a blast in MP (provided you don't run into Mr. Deadeye Nutter above) but the SP game will simply be an exercise in frustration that will make GRAW's checkpoint system look like a cake-walk.
  13. I concur. It's refreshing when a dev team maintains an open dialog with the fans. That kind of support is deserving of my loyalty. It's why atm I will pretty much buy anything with Oleg Maddox' name on it, sight unseen. If you don't know who that is... shame on you!
  14. I loathe that feature and unless it's optional would fight it to the death! Completely destroys any sense of immersion because it's simply not plausible. Even tying it to difficulty levels is too much imo since I might want to avoid regenerating health without facing omniscient, omnipotent enemies. Quicksaves or better spaced checkpoints would be far more acceptable for this gamer.
  15. Yes. Pretty much all games are one copy per PC as per the EULA.
  16. Been there, done that. (still doing it actually! ) Operative words here are shoot and scoot apparently. i.e. don't stick around after you kill someone, immediately change your position. Yeah, some people have some deadly aim out there. What really gets to me though are the map gurus who know each map inside out and kill you repeatedly without being spotted. It makes me feel exceptionally stupid to die over and over and over without ever seeing my assailant.
  17. No worries... I wish I could say definitively it was always just those two files but I can't. It's only true for the specific mods I have merged. (SnowFella's M4 and some personal M99 tweaks) As for comparing them, it's not that hard because of the xml structure of the files to discern what was changed with each mod, especially when the changes involve adding a new weapon as opposed to tweaking an existing one. For a few mods it's easily doable by hand. You would only get into trouble with multiple, mega-type mods where each mod includes more than one clearly defined change because the likelihood of overlapping files would go up.
  18. Hear! Hear! Right with you. Brilliant suggestion. I'm pretty sure this is a very tall order. I'd rather they fix the glitch rather than eliminate the trash. Besides, user-made versions sans trash shouldn't be hard to make. That should be fun. I love watching deathcam. Another point of agreement. Specially since we are talking special forces, it shouldn't be too hard to design some really interesting missions other than "kill everyone". Here are just a few off the top of my head: Assassination: One team tries to assassinate a specific target while the other team tries to protect him. The target can either be AI or just a selected member of the defending team. Dead target before mission end = win for the aggressors, loss otherwise. Retrieval: One team must reach a specific objective and retrieve an item of sorts. Think "capture the flag" but with a briefcase or something instead of a flag and an extraction point. Scored in absolute terms as success or failure rather than by points. Infiltrate: One side must get one or more of their men to a specific location on the map while the other team tries to stop them. 3 points for each guy that makes it; 1 point for each opponent killed by either side. Egress: Team A has just completed a mission and must get out of dodge. Unfortunately, team B is in the way. Again a 3:1 point spread might work to encourage the main objective. Unfortunately, even if GRiN is listening, I suspect it's too late to incorporate any of these ideas into GRAW2.
  19. It's pretty straightforward but can be tedious for complex merges. You already have the first step down; unpack each mod into a separate folder. It's easier to do it gradually, one pair of mods at a time. Compare the file structure of each mod to find out which files are common to both. Most often these are lib/managers/xml/weapon_data.xml and sb_templates/sb_inventory_data.xml. Now comes the tricky part. Open both versions of each file in a text (or preferrably xml) editor and compare the content. Choose one as your base file and add the missing content from the second file. Save the new file with the same name in a new directory called "combined_mod" or something. Repeat for each pair of overlapping files. Finally, add all the other, non-overlapping files from both mods to the new folder and voila, they are merged. (told you it was tedious!)
  20. Interesting. What do you mean by "home" zone? The spawn area or any zone that you currently control?
  21. Oh no. I was hoping it wasn't a settings advantage. Thanks for the tips though, the GL is history for the most part now.
  22. The xml nature of the game files suggests that modding was considered from the get go. It's not easy to separate data out like that because then you have to write a whole lot of parsing and error-checking code before you read it back into the game. I think time limitations are what prevented GRiN from delivering a fully functional editor at release.
  23. I assume you mean online? Congrats! I was so stoked with my first kill, I emptied the entire clip into him. Naturally, that meant I hung around too long and made too much of a racket resulting in my own demise about 5 seconds later.
  24. It's just I keep getting spotted by enemies from impossible angles and I'm wondering if there are some clues on the map that I'm missing. e.g. A guy would come running across my view in the distance and even though I'm off to his 8 o'clock or so, deep in the shadows with protection on 3 sides, I will often die shortly thereafter even though I haven't moved a muscle. I would chalk it up to experience but on a number of incidents it was just plain eerie and I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing any important clues on the minimap.
×
×
  • Create New...