Jump to content

Taxman

Members
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Taxman

  1. I've got to say, while I can appreciate a lot of work went into this campaign, I feel there are a lot of issues in it that really take my enjoyment out. Please take the following in the spirit it's intended, as I really want to like this campaign and feel there's a number of issues that detract from it. I do mean this all in a constructive manner. To start, please hire an editor. Even just a basic spellcheck of the dialogue would go a long way to making this feel more polished. Additionally, while I'm no expert, the overall military jargon and terminology seems far below the level of other paid-for campaigns. Having someone go over the communications and briefings who has a better grasp of the subject matter would be a great improvement. Outside of the military jargon, it's very apparent that your native English speaking characters are being written by someone with a less-than-fluent grasp of the language. I certainly can't fault you for not understanding the way native English speakers talk to each other, that's definitely not my complaint here. Rather, it would be helpful for you to get a native English speaker to go over dialogue and ask "does this make sense? Does this sound natural?". The loadouts for many missions seem nonsensical. Why do I launch into so many missions loaded to the brim with Sidewinders? The AIM-9 is a valuable weapon for sure, but it's meant as a backup weapon. For air to air engagements, AMRAAMs are what should be on those pylons. Again, while I'm no expert, I don't think I've ever seen a Hornet loaded out with six Sidewinders and zero AMRAAMs before. Additionally, several of the air-to-ground missions ask you to visually mark or identify targets, but then load you out with long-ranged standoff weapons such as JSOWs and Harpoons, when Mavericks or LGBs would be much better at the job. One of the best examples of this is the mission where you are instructed to escort the incoming Admiral's plane in. While there are no enemy fighters to engage here, why would the US Navy send up an escort for an invaluable asset armed with nothing but short-ranged weapons? If there had been enemy fighters sortied up to assassinate the new commander, there would have been nothing the escort could do to stop it. The lack of AWACS or GCI can really be felt here. In most missions I feel as if I'm running blind the entire time, with no clear picture of what's in the airspace. This is compounded by a couple factors, including "Strike" giving directions to targets in very uncertain terms ("Bogies to the West", "Bandits flying from Abu Musa") rather than proper BRAA calls. It's an ineffective way of communicating in what should be a precise military operation. Another factor here is the close-range spawning of enemies. I understand you're attempting to keep the performance overhead low for VR users, but I doubt a modern-day US carrier operation would be unable to detect Iranian fighters until they're within missile range of friendlies. Even if you don't spawn the aircraft in-game, it would be helpful if there were some radio calls informing the player that there are incoming hostiles at a much more reasonable range. Jets don't appear out of nowhere. Adding to this overall sense of unpreparedness by the US Navy, it seems nonsensical to not have GPS coordinates for GPS weapon strikes on static targets, such as in the dam mission. Why do I have a waypoint that is in the vicinity of the target, yet crystal clear images of it? A targeting pod should not be needed, the coordinates should be loaded into the weapons before takeoff. There are a number of bugs that have made certain missions unplayable. While I understand much of this is on ED's shoulders, out of 15 missions (I've flown 14 so far) I've had to skip 3 of them for various reasons. I'm looking forward to playing again once the new patch hits that hopefully will fix some of these issues, such as my wingman crashing into the ocean (not on takeoff, just while attacking helicopters in the oil rig mission), my wingman not actually employing weapons on his targets (the JSOW mission) or the chopper not following its proper flight path (the Batillus mission). While I really want to like this campaign, there are just so many issues which keep pulling me back out of my immersion, reminding me this is a game, and as it is now, it doesn't stand up to the quality of some other paid campaigns. It's a labour of love, for sure, and I appreciate the hard work that went into it, but at its current state it feels like a fan-made free campaign in terms of quality, not something that is a paid for DLC. Could it get there? Absolutely, and I really hope it does! I'm not going around asking for refunds (not that I could get one anyways) because I do think a lot of time and effort went into this, but it's just shy of being worth a price tag at the moment I feel. Again, I do mean this constructively, and am not here to slag on Badger or the hard work he did. I hope he takes my feedback in the spirit it was given, and is able to fix up the issues and make his next campaign even more spectacular. I'm looking forward to it! Thank you.
  2. I experienced the same thing. Haven't tried hitting all 8 myself yet though. My wingman launches 1 JSOW, which falls quite a bit short, and then mission failed comes up.
  3. I'm really surprised this hasn't been hotfixed yet. It's been nearly 2 weeks and single player carrier missions are completely broken and unplayable.
×
×
  • Create New...