CTI 2

[franze 196]

If you want a script to be server only, just add a simple local check:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">?!(local server): exit

Or replace "exit" with a goto command to skip a portion of the script that's supposed to be server only.

The unit count seems OK, but does that mean active at any one time or active only in a specified area?

Getting the unit count balanced with framerate has always been a pain in the butt for my missions.

EDIT: Not 100% certain on the local check (someone here correct me if I am), but as a failsafe you can use a game logic and call it something like "netcheck" and then use the local command on it - then it will know which client is the server.

[Kev 0]

Its all reading very interesting, cant wait until i see ur ideas in a finished mp-mission.

[neswrossi 0]

Hmm I've scanned over the posts, its all too much to take in at once really. Some nice ideas.

However, I dislike the idea of having a player controlling a squad of AI. Why cant we just have a squad of human players? Use AI for maybe some forms of attack and transportation. Perhaps AI chopper ingress to carry human players to the front line?

[grayace 2]

Actually AI is much better than Players when the case is "obeying the commands" and completing basic tasks like, move, watch, target.. etc, and also they have much better perception.

So putting them into grunt position, and placing humans to command would give preferable results,

But still having players as Squadmates offers different options, like Coop, actually if Im flying a group of helicopters I would prefer another human player to be the other pilot

[Hustler_Baby 0]

This could definantly be used for something like tournament play where you wouldnt need to do something like you Tour Of Duty reward thing. If a player doesnt follow orders in the tournament I take part in (21st Century Warfare for BF2) then they get kicked out, simple as that.

Also tourny play means that you will definantly be able to fill a server every game. You could have each side designate a hex to attack and then they fight over it for a designated time with certain forces. If the size of the tournament gets too big then you can add different army groups so you can have multiple servers holding lots of battles between different army groups.

The Lt.Commander sounds alot like the commander role from BF2 without the arty/UAV/Scan options and definantly serves its purpose in game. I really like this idea!!!

[ricoadf 0]

Sounds like some good ideas, however punishment in a game is stupid, we are here to enjoy the game. The only punishment i would agree with is kicking/banning if a player continually stuffs around, however thats admins job, not the mission maker.

Also restricting stuff is abit silly, i say let the commander ingame make the decision on who gets what.

As for organisation:

1) If people dont want to co-operate with others on a PUBLIC server, they dont have to. I dont see what right anyone has to tell them otherwise.

2) If you want to have real co-ops with squads working together (which I personally prefer myself anyway), then join a clan or grab a group of friends/players and work together. Dont just jump onto some random server and expect full coheason.

just my 2cents.

[grayace 2]

Sounds like some good ideas, however punishment in a game is stupid, we are here to enjoy the game. The only punishment i would agree with is kicking/banning if a player continually stuffs around, however thats admins job, not the mission maker.

Also restricting stuff is abit silly, i say let the commander ingame make the decision on who gets what.

As for organisation:

1) If people dont want to co-operate with others on a PUBLIC server, they dont have to. I dont see what right anyone has to tell them otherwise.

2) If you want to have real co-ops with squads working together (which I personally prefer myself anyway), then join a clan or grab a group of friends/players and work together. Dont just jump onto some random server and expect full coheason.

just my 2cents.

Well "punishing" is necessary for;

-x- To prevent people running suicide missions,

-x- Keeping focus on survival than killing, will make killing harder and rewarding

-x- Will let Commander to have limited supplies, and each single part of equipment will be worthy

-x- Those who wants to roam free can still go on SpecOps where they have their best options at their disposal,

And also, if you want to run a game worths playing with so many people; Existance of "Chain of Command" and way of its ENDORSEMENT is IMPORTANT not STUPID...

Otherwise, neither Commander nor Lt.Commanders would be respected, so people wouldnt be interested in these, and also Players will start to run all over the place, supposedly "trying to do their best" however they will be screwing the Order of Battle beyond belive...

I have been playing JointOps, where 130-150 players play, and its soo occasional when a group of players team up and plays throughly (and when they do, they do good, no matter how good shooters they are, because a well organized attack based on numbers not personal skills)

BY THE WAY, I DID NOT say that players have to CO-OP, I said they have to CARRY OUT their mission, and I explained what those missions could be, a certain group of unit supposed to deal with certain area of operation, and should be able to see WHAT OTHERS are there to INTER-OP or CO-OP with them. Try to think large, its not like I hold here you hold there.

[HellToupee 0]

-x- To prevent people running suicide missions,

-x- Keeping focus on survival than killing, will make killing harder and rewarding

Focus should be on winning, not hiding in the bushes. You have to accomplish something no matter what in the game u can be easily killed punishment would do nothing other than cause frustration.

Trying to force people to play in some narrow role through punishment dosnt work in a game if a person whats to do something, they do it.

[grayace 2]

-x- To prevent people running suicide missions,

-x- Keeping focus on survival than killing, will make killing harder and rewarding

Focus should be on winning, not hiding in the bushes. You have to accomplish something no matter what in the game u can be easily killed punishment would do nothing other than cause frustration.

Trying to force people to play in some narrow role through punishment dosnt work in a game if a person whats to do something, they do it.

well I think we agree to disagree

because in my game I want people TO DO as they're told, if they are taking a damned $20M worth AH-64 just to "fly around and so called helping others" THEN it is definitely NOT MY TASTE

They have to fly as per mission orders, and bring back the damned vehicle back to base AT ALL COSTS, if they cant, they should NOT fly it, but if they loose it for a good cause (suicide is not option in anyways) it could be acceptable, or can be credited through Tour Of Duty limits..

A GOOD PILOT ALWAYS FIGHTS ANOTHER DAY

Besides there is hoot load of cheesy games out there just to play, where the unrealistic elements are abundant in them, like flags, health packs, stuff like that, even in OFP and in CTI people plays like that, when it comes to WARFARE, it should be done in a ORDER, and of course, running all over the map is not something heard of in history of warfare

and also you said "winning" did I read true? And which war has ever been won by running all over the place without any TRACE of ORGANIZATION? Not even barbarians did that, belive me

And also, you are having problem understanding my concept, (or I couldnt make myself clear enough) why would people should stay in bushes? INFANTRY supposed to move with their squad, they dont need to hide...

You're mixing it with current CTI where people run all over the map for Km's with 2-3 persons, and when they got shot they end up in home base, this is not I want....I want people to go out there with their PLATOON or UNIT of ARMORED/WINGED vehicles, DO their mission, and either PULL BACK or DIG IN...when they die, they should GROUP SPAWN right back into group and continue from where they left...

you're pretty much confused with QUAKE style gaming, Im talking about WARFARE, Order of Battle, Chain of Command...

[franze 196]

Why not just have resources limited per squad? That way they could do whatever they wanted with those resources, but when they run out from kamikaze attacks - they have to fend for themselves. I would suggest the overall commander (if any?) could dole out resources from the campaign pool to the squad commander, but then that's a fallible position.

[HellToupee 0]

you're pretty much confused with QUAKE style gaming, Im talking about WARFARE, Order of Battle, Chain of Command...

Im talking reality. People are not real soldiers following they are geeks behind a computer screen u must take that into account.

[grayace 2]

Why not just have resources limited per squad? That way they could do whatever they wanted with those resources, but when they run out from kamikaze attacks - they have to fend for themselves. I would suggest the overall commander (if any?) could dole out resources from the campaign pool to the squad commander, but then that's a fallible position.

They have Tour of Duty limit.. so they can join on more skill requiring missions

that is open to discussion anyway

[RedStorm 0]

you're pretty much confused with QUAKE style gaming, Im talking about WARFARE, Order of Battle, Chain of Command...

Im talking reality. People are not real soldiers following they are geeks behind a computer screen u must take that into account.

A lot of people will love the setup Grayace mentioned. You don't have to play it if you don't like it. There's always CTF etc. to play...

[Hustler_Baby 0]

I have to agree that punishment is wrong.

Sometimes in game things can just go wrong and cause you to mess up and end up dying. For instance what happens if im flying the harrier on a mission to take out some tanks attacking a friendly position and just as im about to drop the bombs smoeone knocks on the door or distracts me?

Its unfair to punish becuase people will be punished for accidents. Why not take up the quakewars style and reward instead. So you can only fly that AH when you have completed a certain mission in your unit?

[Stickler 0]

I had an idea that was a sort of RPG versio of this type of gameplay. I'm sure most of you have seen or even played Company of Heroes and you've seen how the squads are set up. Why not when joining a game select which type of squad you wish to be a part of. For example if you like to drive vehicles be it tanks or choppers decide to be in a class or "race" that will allow you and and only your class to drive vehicles. At the same time if you enjoy being a medic or support gunner join an assault squad whose sole purpose is to attack and defend points. While engineers in an engineers type squad are supposed to defend and construst defensive measures for a siege or to repair certain things when there is a lull in attacks. I understand the need to create structure in a game like this, especially due to the sheer size of maps and armies, but instead of punishment why not reward them for performing operation sor completing mission sthat are designed for their unit class. I also think that a ranking system should be in place. This may allow you to increase certain stats (Sprinting, aiming ability) as well as allow those who have never been in charge learn slowly through small squad mission sthat forces the sergeant to command a squad of grunts to take a point or to hold somewhere. Inlike battlefield however there should never be "unlocks" or you should never have to research units unless it was a progressive game because chances are the military you are fighting for already possses the necessary materials to produce most of what you need. This type of unit and ranking can be used when created squads like mechanized or armor squads.

[Blazen 0]

I think your idea sounds pretty good but I also think there are many flaws that seem to be overlooked in your planning process. Most squads that play CTI do have thier commanders and thier pilots, tankers, inf, ect. The difference is they get to pick and choose what they need to do to help the team in any given situation they are currently exposed to. Not limited to one thing that could (depending on the situation) hinder them from helping thier team altogether.

Quote[/b] ]Class based operatives (crew,pilot,infantry,officer,commando)

Mission templates for operative classes

For example what happens when your pilot can't get his plane or heli's off the ground because the base is being constantly bombarded and he is not in a playing role to operate a Tank?

Quote[/b] ]So, in this case, there should be a building in HQs where players can change their current class to others, Infantry, Pilot, Crew etc.. Im not sure how the Lt.Commanders should be handled, but preferably they should be selected among Infantry Squad leaders

This seems to defeat the purpose and would practically be the same as if you could just pick and choose what you want to do freely like you already can do in current working versions of CTI!

Quote[/b] ]There should be domination areas on the map, like towns or other strategic points but I would recommend map should be "Hex"ed, rather than unbalanced town locations. This should help to maintain a certain Battle Front

This is a decent idea, however the maps already in the game are realistic, and the game is already set up so that icons can be placed both globally and team specific. You can already assign positions for players to move to and take as the commander in existing CTI. This is done by placing a waypoint on the map and assigning it to the unit or player you wish to move there.

I am assuming the style would be like the current working CTI that comes with ArmA when your talking about how fortifications are to be equiped on the defensive end. This is where a supply truck drives up and starts building at flag areas after a team has taken over that area.

Quote[/b] ]A Garrison base without enough supplies (this should also reduce the ammo/fuel carried by that garrison's defenders) would be more vulnerable to further attacks and it will collapse, so this garrison will pack and fall back to a hex behind

I'm not to sure what you mean by the withdrawal process when a base is low on supplies and has to fall back, but it sounds interesting.

Quote[/b] ]Realistic tactical mission conduction

Group respawn is NOT realistic and will only promote more camping on infantry player roles. When an officer dies he should have to either control AI from respawn or withdraw his troops so that he may return to the battle and command them as a team. The game is already setup so that troops can react the way you would expect them to even if you were there with them. Knowing how to read map elevations and determine where and how to move troops without actually being there is one of my favorite parts of this game!

I'm not trying to be to critical; don't get me wrong I think there's alot of good ideas here. However I strongly disagree with the whole hex thing, and also the team respawn thing. I'm very interested in seeing how the mission options would work and also how it would effect different roles. There's also another thing I've noticed that they have implemented into ArmA. When you have a squad thats animations are larger than the bar at the bottom of the screen, you can hit F12 to switch it to an alternate bar and select the remaining troops as F1, F2 ect. Does this mean we will be able to script more troops per officer than 12? If so then players could be given roles such as the one suggested in this idea, sufficently so that players could be given higher ranks and more troops to command over larger areas.

Just my two cents.

[ongold 0]

I search mission for about links (cords) that indifferently CTI arma

I own MFCTI BUT it unis possible to buy in BARRACKS WEAPON

[Kruniac 0]

you're pretty much confused with QUAKE style gaming, Im talking about WARFARE, Order of Battle, Chain of Command...

Im talking reality. People are not real soldiers following they are geeks behind a computer screen u must take that into account.

If they want to play a combat simulation, they can play this (Hopefully developed) map. If they dont, they can play normal CTI.

This will be for hardcore players only, not "Lawlz u g0t awnt by t3h mizzle!!111oneone11111eleven" people.

[Yarrow 0]

is anyone making this or is this just a bunch of talk?

[HellToupee 0]

you're pretty much confused with QUAKE style gaming, Im talking about WARFARE, Order of Battle, Chain of Command...

Im talking reality. People are not real soldiers following they are geeks behind a computer screen u must take that into account.

If they want to play a combat simulation, they can play this (Hopefully developed) map. If they dont, they can play normal CTI.

Yes go make a cti based entirely of simulation and make no attempt what so ever to make it fun or enjoyable.

Why not make it so u only have 1 life, thats pretty realistic, but does that work? no it dosnt. Trying to create a island wide war for probly only a handful of human players

Quote[/b] ]

This will be for hardcore players only, not "Lawlz u g0t awnt by t3h mizzle!!111oneone11111eleven" people.

self proclaimed hardcore players are often the most immature bunch for any game. To be honest i see far more maturity in games with no connection to any hardcore realism.

Quote[/b] ]

is anyone making this or is this just a bunch of talk?

its all talk

[Wisebone 0]

Maybe you can give some of your ideas to Cleanrock, he made the old crCTI in OFP that was so famous. Then BIS saw it and tried to do something similar in ArmA but heh..

You can visit his site here, http://cr-ofp.dyndns.org/

(Is down at the moment, check it in the future.. he is working on the CTI for ArmA)