Tactical Battlefield - A PvP Gameplay Modification

[galzohar 31]

In order to require a mod that otherwise only has client-side effects you will either have to somehow manually edit the mission.sqm to require the mod, script the mission to check for the mod and not let you play if you don't have it, or simply make the core mod have a dependency to said mod. Signature checks force you to not connect with a mod that is not allowed, but it doesn't check that you aren't missing mods. That's why people could connect to ACE servers without running ACE if the server was running vanilla missions, which would obviously cause loads of issues due to how much ACE changes, and often even cause server crash due to a bug in ArmA 2. For mods like JSRS or other client-side mods, people could just delete them and play without them if they choose. Sometimes they'll be at a disadvantage which isn't such a big deal, but it's also possible to delete mods that create a disadvantage (such as suppression effects).

Another way is to embed the mods into the PBOs, but that again will cause a nightmare for updating. So again the most simple solution is a dependency in the core mod so that Play withSIX will automatically download said mods, or at least a dependency in the mission (which can then be more easily edited by non-official servers).

[hiddengearz 1]

Luckily the mod is being developed by some very talented and experienced developers, hopefully they're aware of this. We are currently testing various mods and from my knowledge all of the mods being tested are required to join the server. So if they are implemented in open beta this problem won't be present.

[atkins.a 10]

This might be worth looking into as well when it is released:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?161146-KEYS-No-action-menu

A mod to remove the clumsy action menu.

[RGG.DaFreak 10]

Might be! who knows :P

Edited October 8, 2013 by RGG.DaFreak

[giorgygr 61]

(which can then be more easily edited by non-official servers).

(imho) it would have been wiser only to allow the mod in "Official" servers.

If just "anybody" can run the mod-in a non-appropriate server (hardware wise/proper administration) and non-"fixed"/uncontrollable difficulty settings

this will ruin the quality assurance the mod is trying to achieve..

[Hurtz72 10]

In order to require a mod that otherwise only has client-side effects you will either have to somehow manually edit the mission.sqm to require the mod, script the mission to check for the mod and not let you play if you don't have it, or simply make the core mod have a dependency to said mod. Signature checks force you to not connect with a mod that is not allowed, but it doesn't check that you aren't missing mods. That's why people could connect to ACE servers without running ACE if the server was running vanilla missions, which would obviously cause loads of issues due to how much ACE changes, and often even cause server crash due to a bug in ArmA 2. For mods like JSRS or other client-side mods, people could just delete them and play without them if they choose. Sometimes they'll be at a disadvantage which isn't such a big deal, but it's also possible to delete mods that create a disadvantage (such as suppression effects).

Another way is to embed the mods into the PBOs, but that again will cause a nightmare for updating. So again the most simple solution is a dependency in the core mod so that Play withSIX will automatically download said mods, or at least a dependency in the mission (which can then be more easily edited by non-official servers).

Doesn't the equal mod required = 1 in the server.cfg file do this?

[t3mp 11]

were download this mod? :confused:

[RGG.DaFreak 10]

its not open beta yet.It will become soon,but then you can download trough armaholic and trough playwithsix as much as i can tell!

[SavageCDN 231]

Doesn't the equal mod required = 1 in the server.cfg file do this?

Not exactly - it's an outdated setting and clients require the exact same modfolder naming, order and amount as the server.

Was supposed to be replaced by verifySignatures

[Hurtz72 10]

Thats good to know ... thanks for replying Savage.

[SavageCDN 231]

np... I actually just read through the thread and this looks really great. Tried PR for A2 when it came out but didn't hold my interest. I've been playing COOP too much and need to get back into the PvP stuff.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Cant WAIT! This will be great! Teamwork is key.

[clawhammer 10]

sry for the ask, will this require mods or is it just join the server and play?

[galzohar 31]

Yeah, as SavageCDN said, you can only verify mod integrity properly via verifySignatures, and can only properly require mods by making the all mods either required by the mission (either by script or by straight up requirement in mission.sqm) or required by mods that are required by the mission.

Unofficial servers with poor settings/performance is always a problem if you don't want to completely block anyone other than yourself from hosting a server using your mod. We'll just have to hope the smart players will be playing on the good servers.

[Predator.v2 10]

Haven't you just recently edited DTAS, so it would warn players about wrong server settings and poor server performance/lags?

[dale 11]

We now have a facebook page so please like and get talking :)

https://www.facebook.com/tacticalbattlefield

[galzohar 31]

Yes, but if someone edits it to do something else and puts it on his server there's not much I can do. The warning is more of a fool-proof, as in "oops the server admin forgot to tweak the settings, be aware", not a "the server admin completely edited the mission", as in the latter case he can just edit the message too.

[hiddengearz 1]

sry for the ask, will this require mods or is it just join the server and play?

Its a mod. "Tactical battlefield - A PVP Gameplay Modification"

[dale 11]

Yes, but if someone edits it to do something else and puts it on his server there's not much I can do. The warning is more of a fool-proof, as in "oops the server admin forgot to tweak the settings, be aware", not a "the server admin completely edited the mission", as in the latter case he can just edit the message too.

We will check servers often who are under the official branch name and also rely on players to report it too, so if someone does change either missions or mods without permission then they are listed as unofficial, if that group gains a reputation as being deceiving then we just wipe them off the list altogether.

They will still be able to host servers but they won't get any support on our forums.

[giorgygr 61]

They will still be able to host servers but they won't get any support on our forums.

The decision is always yours but this doesn't seem "too effective measure"

I will present a different POV.

Playing Planetside2 (MP Joy ftw) ..i know whatever server i 'll choose to play Everything will be same (*except players probably)

regarding gameplay.

Same rule applies to (countless) other games also ..and has been among "success recipe" of PR_A2.

As i said..the decision is yours..but this decision will be among the serious ones..

[Hurtz72 10]

The decision is always yours but this doesn't seem "too effective measure"

I will present a different POV.

Playing Planetside2 (MP Joy ftw) ..i know whatever server i 'll choose to play Everything will be same (*except players probably)

regarding gameplay.

Same rule applies to (countless) other games also ..and has been among "success recipe" of PR_A2.

As i said..the decision is yours..but this decision will be among the serious ones..

If you want a consistent experience then you play on [Official] servers only.

[giorgygr 61]

If you want a consistent experience then you play on [Official] servers only.

Well..you talking about "freedom of choice" like ArmA PvP player-numbers can withstand more dividing

Sorry..The accounting is not coming out correctly :)

Better have 5 qualified servers full 24/7 and people ranting for a slot..

than having 20 servers from 0,2,5.. to 30 ppl max

's a fact..

Edited October 12, 2013 by GiorgyGR

[dale 11]

Your right controlling stuff does make it so there's less of it to go around, I personally feel that we will apply the right amount of control over what we consider the TacBF experience, but I don't see why others who are interested in other styles of gameplay can't create their own system.

We aren't a game company we are a small group of modders who have an idea about what we enjoy, you will see that in the official servers, but for every other person who enjoys different styles (milsim, casual, hardcore etc) we will provide a platform and they can do the rest of the work.

To give you an example, say if you wanted to use an island for a tournament, but that island hadn't been beta tested by us so it wasn't official.

Well with our system you just implement the island and create the mission, and away you go, any issues that arise are your own to deal with.

With a closed system you would have to ask to use that island, and I could refuse you to use that island just because we hadn't tested it and it would fall on us if there were issues, I also have to modify other items in my spare time just to allow that mod from TacBF.

No thanks, I think we will follow the usual system that all mods take, and just have our version that we call our own, and allow others to do the same.

Also the unofficial servers will break new ground quicker, they will try out more mods and find fixes for those mods if they aren't compatible, so it works both ways because an unofficial mod can become official due to unofficial servers.

Overall the "TacBF experience" is an opinion, and everyone has a different opinion, so it's important to us to allow all those opinions combine into their own communities and not step on each others toes.

I feel because of that ideal, we will allow more people to enjoy TacBF than just those with the same opinion as us, and I feel we will unite more people together than just a few 100 even if they have different seals they will still be waving the same flag.

[RGG.DaFreak 10]

Well..you talking about "freedom of choice" like ArmA PvP player-numbers can withstand more dividing

Sorry..The accounting is not coming out correctly :)

Better have 5 qualified servers full 24/7 and people ranting for a slot..

than having 20 servers from 0,2,5.. to 30 ppl max

's a fact..

Same rule applies to (countless) other games also ..and has been among "success recipe" of PR_A2.

There will ever be main servers which people enjoy most and fill up to its full capacity.

Also it will unite as Dale said a bit more people on this mod than on those at the moment running ones just because its so complex and never the same.

In my opinion PR:A2 was by far not succesful compared to ACE or PR:BF2 and you said better have 5 qualified servers full 24/7 and people ranting for a slot..

than having 20 servers from 0,2,5.. to 30 ppl max.

Thats exactly what happened to PR:A2 because out of the non existing variety and non existing assets and the list goes on.

Dont get me wrong i and much of us enjoyed the game but i cant play over and over the same missions without implementing some new cool features which Arma gives us for free from the modding community and to check for its quality is an easy part.

Edited October 13, 2013 by RGG.DaFreak

[Dr_Cox1911 10]

Can´t wait to try this mod but I´m a bit indecisive if I should register for beta-testing it. What exactly are the requirements?

And please integrate and force ACRE! Makes PvP so much more interesting, also JSRS is a must have!