Project Reality - WIP Discussion

[clawhammer 10]

aswell as coming from a BF2 background gets people backs up around here and turns an otherwise helpful and friendly community into something else entirely.

I dont believe its because of BF2 background, the BWMod Team worked together with the Operation Peacekeeper Mod and no one was angry because of that.

[jaynus 10]

I don't think there's a single other thread in this forum that entices such a nauseatingly self-entitled, dickish and condescending elitism from the Arma2 community quite as regularly as this one does (perhaps with the exception of the DR/RR thread). Like I said before, I'm sick of it, and to be honest also a little embarrassed.

I believe this is largely due to the attitude of "FUCK THE A2 COMMUNITY, WE ARE DOING OUR OWN THING".

Its rather a slap in the face to the 2-10 years people have put into understanding the engine - to be told that guys brand new to it must obviously be able to do things better; and then disregard any and all community efforts or contributions.

I, for one, will be upset if I find a PFH in PR:A2 without any mention of me, nou or CBA. That was our inception - and the community has always been very very open about at least acknowledging the fact that we all help each other. Not re-invent the wheel and call it something better.

[celery 8]

I believe this attitude of exclusivity, more than anything, is what rubs people the wrong way when it comes to PR in ArmA.

That, and the general mindset that a comparatively small (in terms of changes and uniqueness) mod that's made up of retextured units, some missions (with gameplay almost identical to what we can play without mods) and a couple of features copied from other mods constitutes a grand hype that makes it look like a standalone game with its own EULA declarations that go against the community's philosophy without which the makers would've had a much harder time to produce anything at all.

[SnR 1]

UK_Force;2010777']On a decent server spec with low Pings' date=' its fine.

Again a lot depends on pings and the actual server specs, which we have trialled various specs to test them (Details of which will follow)

For the release we will have 4 official PR servers running, all are high spec and will cover most parts of the world, apart from Asia, as one dropped out last min.

.[/quote']Server ops need Battleye to auto kick those with high pings from Overseas etc. With the needed focus on only selected amount of servers, has this situation been catered for ? The server ping is only as low as those local too it.:)

[abs 2]

That, and the general mindset that a comparatively small (in terms of changes and uniqueness) mod that's made up of retextured units, some missions (with gameplay almost identical to what we can play without mods) and a couple of features copied from other mods constitutes a grand hype that makes it look like a standalone game with its own EULA declarations that go against the community's philosophy without which the makers would've had a much harder time to produce anything at all.

This.

Well, many parts of it anyway. I'm all for protecting author's rights for intellectual property, but what if BI had said "We only want you playing the game modes that come with the game, as outlined in our EULA. Anything else is illegal, and we will come after you with legal force."

I respect all the man-hours that have gone into making PR, and I believe they have really pretty toys...but the whole approach is kinda sucky.

Abs

[hund 0]

I don't think people are all hyped up about the content, but rather they are excited about the actual game modes that come with PR. That is actually one of the arma community's largest failings: We make lots of content but when it comes to creating gameplay we are worthless.

That being said I think you guys should really tone it down. Nobody is being forced to play the mod, so I don't see why you feel the need to get all angry about it. I am of a similar persuation as Mr. Dux above, but I don't feel personally offended by the mere presence of the mod.

And for your information, Mr. Bradley Simard, I have released content, you just don't fucking know it, now do you?

Edited August 25, 2011 by Hund

[DAP 619]

WTH is all this rambling about using other mods with PR??

All those different mods on various servers are a major contributing factor as to why ArmA2 online is a shambles.

PR brings a simple solution. If you have it you can play. If you don't , you can't.

No need to go searching for and/or waiting for various mods to download and install before you can even JOIN a server.

I agree with "tons-of-addons" problem, but we already have simple solution - signatures. Allow PR addons and disallow all other addons. Is there any problems? Answer - no. So why those restrictions? Strange.

And else one:

UK_Force;2010563']

The only way to "release" missions for PR' date=' is via speaking with our team.

[/quote']

This is too much. I can't create my own mission with this mod and give it to my friends or run it on my free server without their (PR devs) permission? Double strange. I don't understand why. I can understand if they want to protect their work. This is normal. MLOD's, scripts, textures or another resourses. But what is this? They want protect popularity of their missions? This is too much.

[Bee8190 10]

Ain't so such thing as a friendly match, noob. ;D

Oh really? Well thats sad, you should do your homework and join such match, its sure fun.

Idiot ;D

[gossamersolid 155]

I don't think people are all hyped up about the content, but rather they are excited about the actual game modes that come with PR. That is actually one of the arma community's largest failings: We make lots of content but when it comes to creating gameplay we are worthless.

Excuse me?

Speak for yourself Mr. I've never released a mission

[maddogx 13]

(...) attempts to restrict that exchange through draconian license agreements and mandatory exclusivity. (...) I believe this attitude of exclusivity, more than anything, is what rubs people the wrong way when it comes to PR in ArmA.

And this is exactly what I mean by "no new toys". They're releasing a mod with a specific use in mind, not as a collection of new units to play with. The reasoning for this is clear: it's essentially content from the BAF DLC, in high quality and for free. There's a good reason why they've signed such a restrictive agreement with BI, which I don't think I need to spell out for you.

I believe this is largely due to the attitude of "FUCK THE A2 COMMUNITY, WE ARE DOING OUR OWN THING".

Tell me: how is this different from the Iron Front - Liberation 1944 guys, who have gone a step further and are actually taking their content and creating a whole new game that will cost money? I don't see them taking much flak for it, even though it's very unlikely that people will be allowed to port their content to Arma2.

I'm detecting a double standard here.

Its rather a slap in the face to the 2-10 years people have put into understanding the engine - to be told that guys brand new to it must obviously be able to do things better; and then disregard any and all community efforts or contributions.

Who ever said they can do anything better, except perhaps the hardcore PR fans? Besides, from what I understand their team is at least partially made up of pretty capable people from this community (Deadfast for example), so the "guys brand new to it" part isn't entirely correct. In my eyes it's just another mod team.

I, for one, will be upset if I find a PFH in PR:A2 without any mention of me, nou or CBA. That was our inception - and the community has always been very very open about at least acknowledging the fact that we all help each other. Not re-invent the wheel and call it something better.

I don't know what you mean by "PFH".

[jaynus 10]

I don't know what you mean by "PFH".

PFH is what makes half of arma2 and ACE work with > 30 players.

[gossamersolid 155]

Tell me: how is this different from the Iron Front - Liberation 1944 guys, who have gone a step further and are actually taking their content and creating a whole new game that will cost money? I don't see them taking much flak for it, even though it's very unlikely that people will be allowed to port their content to Arma2.

I'm detecting a double standard here.

No it's not a double standard. The iron front guys PAID for an engine license, they are making a standalone game with actual new engine features. They have the right to do what they want to do because it's comparable to any retail game.

PR is merely a mod, mods don't and shouldn't have restrictions like this.

[hund 0]

Excuse me?

Speak for yourself Mr. I've never released a mission

Traditionally modmaking is part content (your tank or your dude or your M4 carbine) and part gameplay (you campaign, your mission). Our community has always been much more focused on the content side than on the gameplay side of things. We would have an astounding amount of content but little if any gameplay to go with it, because it was expected that the user would provide gameplay himself.

Or am I wrong?

And as for my credentials, don't knock just because you don't understand it.

PS: Tell Bn that he is a pederast :D

[gossamersolid 155]

Bn? Who is that?

[NoRailgunner 0]

Maybe I'm wrong but isn't the exclusive BAF content ("sold" by BIS to PR devs) one of the reasons why there are such strict terms and conditions?

In the end PR Mod will be played by many or by few or by no one. Lets wait till PR is released and see how its playin...

[draakon 11]

Instead of this mindless pickering and num num talk, why don't we instead provide feedback and ask some mod (not legal related) questions, as in:

What can you tell us more about the Fireteams you can set up in your squad. Will each fireteam leader be able to order his fireteam members around, put some markers down but still be able to speak withing the group channel and what not? I am very interested in the concept, like setting Alpha to be a CQB fireteam (rifleman and such), bravo for long range (sniper, marksman, maybe even automatic rifleman) and charlie for support (Anti-tank guys, medic and such).

Another question: What can you tell us about performance, especially for people (like me) with low end computers?

[hellfire257 3]

UK_Force;2010563']

The only way to "release" missions for PR' date=' is via speaking with our team.[/quote']

FPDR.

That's just wrong. We can't even share missions we've made?

Why is release in speech marks?

Edited August 25, 2011 by Hellfire257

[hund 0]

Bn? Who is that?

I was assuming Bn8190 was Bn880. My bad :D How many Bn's can there possibly be??

Anyhow, am I wrong in my previous assumptions?

Edited August 25, 2011 by Hund

[draakon 11]

That's just wrong.

Nop, its not. It prevents other people messing with the mod, combine with other mods and what not. Making missions solely for PR however is like making them for ACE. Please, reread the post fully to understand what UK_Force meant with that.

[mondkalb 1087]

It really is down to reasons to use addons. Most importantly Missions.

Say there were a mod with a gazillion new tanks full of excellent new features that make you want to actually pay for that addon because of its outstanding quality and innovations. But if there aren't any missions for it, well... what's the point then?

If now some mod comes and prohibits the creation of missions using their content, that would be properly daft, as they would block their own doors, sort of speak. Well, that is my opinion. And there are many other things about PR that made my stay in their mod team a very very small duration...

And,

most of the missions made, probably close to 99%, aren't released at all. They remain in small communites.

Oh, and BTW:

I for one have played many excellent missions made by Hund, of which none were really released on these forums. :p

Edited August 25, 2011 by Mondkalb

[hellfire257 3]

Nop, its not. It prevents other people messing with the mod, combine with other mods and what not. Making missions solely for PR however is like making them for ACE. Please, reread the post fully to understand what UK_Force meant with that.

If I wanted that sort of crap I'd be playing a console game. And, I paid for my game, I can make whatever the hell I want with the editor and share my creations with others. No amount of legal bullshit will prevent that.

This restrictive stuff goes against everything this community has taught me.

[hund 0]

I was actually a mod maker at one point - boy, did that suck ass.

[Bee8190 10]

If I wanted that sort of crap I'd be playing a console game. And, I paid for my game, I can make whatever the hell I want with the editor and share my creations with others. No amount of legal bullshit will prevent that.

This restrictive stuff goes against everything this community has taught me.

Well go ahead, edit your fucking game however you like

I too paid for my game when PR team announced they will create mod that would bring the gameplay style as we know it.

That was and is the main reason i bought arma game

[draakon 11]

If I wanted that sort of crap I'd be playing a console game. And, I paid for my game, I can make whatever the hell I want with the editor and share my creations with others. No amount of legal bullshit will prevent that.

This restrictive stuff goes against everything this community has taught me.

Go ahead then. Unless you only use PR content and make it for PR only then your fine. If you choose to ignore the warning, be prepared for a law suit.

[maddogx 13]

No it's not a double standard. The iron front guys PAID for an engine license, they are making a standalone game with actual new engine features. They have the right to do what they want to do because it's comparable to any retail game.

PR is merely a mod, mods don't and shouldn't have restrictions like this.

Semantics is all I can say to that.

Let me ask you this: if PR had purchased a commercial license for the RV3 engine like Iron Front did, but then provided their "product" for free, as they are doing now, what would - objectively - be the difference? Where is the line between a new game and a "mere" mod, and why are license restrictions apparently acceptable for one but not the other? It makes no sense to me.

You see, the way I look at it, PR have essentially taken the RV3 engine and created a new game with it. By strict definition it is a mod, yes, but in essence it is presented as a new game, which is what counts. The only functional difference to IF is that PR haven't purchased a commercial license, meaning they can't sell it. That's all, and that's why I percieve a double standard.

On that note, I also don't believe for a millisecond that PR would be exempt from this pathetic behaviour if they had purchased an engine license and gone the Iron Front route.

Edited August 25, 2011 by MadDogX