ARMA needs squad system

[Heatseeker 0]

everything we need is already there? are you friggin kiddin me?

arma online is chaos in its purest form. there is not notion of team; hell, you can't even recognise your own squad/clan members even if they are right in front of you!!!! unlike real life i don't know the faces/movements/voices of my team members, so how should i be able to recognise my squad?

the servers offer the worst multiplayer experience i have ever witnessed, mainly because of the OBVIOUS LACK OF TEAMPLAY. you just can't type up all orders and expect everyone to work like that. i want to get into the game, get into a squad and be able to actually move as a squad. all of that is not really possible right now, unless you take 50 min of a 1 h game to type up all commands and keep moving in slowmo speed. and even within our clan we have problems to coordinate everything with teamspeak, since you are never able to identify your teamleader or squad members. this is destroying the whole teamplay experience.

and just let me add something: COOPS will kill the arma community one day. THIS COMMUNITY NEEDS TO WAKE THE FECK UP! coops can be fun from time to time, but real fun is actually fighting with and against humans. play bf2:project reality or joint ops and you will actually understand what i mean. i have the feeling that a part of the arma community never tried out playing a real multiplayer game, otherwise i can't explain that blatant ignorance when it comes to arma's missing multiplayer features.

suggestions:

- add a point system which includes ASSIST points --> bf2 and jointops are evidence enough that this will encourage teamplay.

- add a squad system: works flawlessly in bf2 and is very effective.

Im speaking the truth...

Lets say you have a squad of 12 players and everyone knows their squad number and wants to play Arma seriously.

Split them in half with the team assign comand (8):

1 to 6 on team white, 7 to 12 on team red.

Order team red to flank left or right and keep visual contact.

There you go, you now have a squad split into 2 teams, its even easier using voice coms..

Each player will only need to know his # and to what fireteam he was assigned to. Doesnt take a genious.

Try spliting your squad into 3, four man fireteams and spread them out, is it really that hard? Should it be?

The problem with public MP games is that you have 90% of the players being newbies who dont know anything about playing the game other than shooting rifles. Even the a.i. knows how to use team tactics better than them.

keep in mind that many players choose coop to enjoy a more team based experience with realistic objectives and such. I think both adversarial and coop modes are good, it just depends on the missions and the players.

Adversarial Joint Ops or BF2 or a point system that encourages teamplay are not what i expect from ArmA in no way,shape or form (yuck)... teamplay shouldnt be encouraged with points, it should be adopted and used by the players that are willing to play the game seriously .

[big 0]

Thats what i thought ofpforum, if u could do it in coop i didn't see why u couldn't on tvt.

Or maybe if the mission maker creates the teams so u select them when picking a soldier its even easier. so as Heatseeker says u wouldnt need to know in what team u are

And the VOIP doesn't work on arma? does it creates a diff channel for diff teams(inside the same team i mean )?.

SO the "tools" are there, but the problem is to find the people who is willing to use them. As Heatseeker said on public servers most of the time is impossible: people not used enough to the game, different languages, rambo-style players, ....

[lwlooz 0]

So far there hasn't been a single suggestion in this thread that is apparently "missing" in ArmA that could not be implemented by scripts and mission design.

-UI Hints

-Punishments for not acting cooperatively(however you define that)

-Even Dynamic squads that perhaps have a colored sphere above their head so everyone even if he doesn't put any effort into gaming at all other than moving his mouse and pressing four keys can see what squad they belong to.

That can all be done.

I said this already and will say it again. Everyone who thinks he can enjoy ArmA his way out of the box is utterly mistaken and bought the wrong game. Sorry. Either edit it yourself to your liking or find someone.

Coincidently anyone who thinks he can just hop onto some server and enjoy 100% teamwork is utterly mistaken.

If you want organized gameplay,find some server that plays stuff you like, go there , get to know the people and done. It is that easy.

[Heatseeker 0]

And the VOIP doesn't work on arma? does it creates a diff channel for diff teams(inside the same team i mean )?.

Yes it does, you have diferent channels just like the text chat, vehicle, global, side, etc and the best thing about it is you also have positional audio coming from the player and animated with lip sync.

Everything for making team tactics work is there, its just not highlighted with cheap icons and arcadish crap.

Arma is a little more demanding, especially in Veteran mode but that makes it more realistic .

[fasad 1]

thanks Shifty.

I don't see anything in that list that is not easily implemented in ArmA.

I've also been a bit frustrated with the infinite respawn, infinite gear, rambo charge MP gameplay I see online here in australia (in both coop and berzerk style misisons). Creating teamwork is a tough proposal, but a worthwhile goal. A simple idea I was thinking of would be a respawn method that waited until say 3 or 4 ppl were dead, then grouped them together and returned them to HQ as "reinforcements".

Value of materials/lives is another issue I think is hard to implement, but important. People like to have infinite tanks and rpgs for all, even if it actually reduces the gameplay experience. Maybe having a respawn timer linked to team/individual resources would be the way to go. You want the huge sniper rifle, pistol and rpg, you have to earn/wait for them.

A working chain of command is by far the hardest thing to implement. I've seen so many "serious" co-op mission fail because people race to the helis/vehicles and die in ~3 mins of startup, even when warned that there is no respawn. It's a shame because the coops that get played end up being (imho) the crap ones with a instant parachute insertion where ever you want upon respawn. At the same time I seem to always end up with 1 or 2 beginners following me in many missions, presumably because I am familiar with the game and capable of navigating! I can't really think of any method of solving this, other than avoiding people who are not interested. But that's a crap solution.

I guess a more realistic MP mission design wouldn't hurt. So far every mission I've seen is based on the "here are some vehicles and objectives, you do the rest" school of design, which is pretty dull and lifeless. Having the players group as part of an Army (and by no means in complete control) would be an excellent goal.

I'm just spouting random thoughts at 2am. Goodnight

[{USI}_Zombie 0]

ArmA doesn't need a squad based system, .......it already has one. If the mission designer sets it up, units are placed in squads, with a squad leader, and when you connect to the server you can pick a slot on the side and in the squad you want. This squad leader can issue orders to his squad members. If you want to see the arcade version with the ghost text floating over everyone's head, that can be done too, set the server to regular mode and there you go...video game like bf2. Better still, if you are in a squad, follow the orders of your squad leader and shoot at the guys wearing a different uniform than you are.

Poor map design is one of the problems right now. A coop shouldn't have unlimited respawns, I never make mine that way. Group respawn is far more realistic and makes people be careful because there are only so many respawns or the mission fails. For CTF/C&H that would not be appropriate obviously. Infinite respawn of vehicles is another element of poor mission design. The game is still relatively new, after some time some more quality maps will come out. OFP had MANY high quality maps of all types..CTF/C&H/COOP/CTI....and I am sure they will come for ArmA too.

The biggest thing I am looking forward too in ArmA is when it is no longer the flavor of the month, and most of the complainers will uninstall it and go on to whatever that game is. As much as I enjoy bf2, ArmA IS NOT BF2/JOPs/GRAW etc...and I am glad for it. It is designed to be what it is, not another battlefield game etc. If it doesn't suit you, either make a map that is what you want, because ANYTHING is possible with ArmA...or go play something else.

The people that say ArmA needs this or that, when it already has this and that, sadly have not been exposed to that feature. The people that say Arma needs this or that because "that other game" has it, should just go play "that other game". Some of us are perfectly happy with ArmA, other than in my case my computer can barely run it which isn't a problem with the game.

[sirex 0]

sadly, this doesn't detract from the fact that arma's squad implementation does suck. things such as the comms rose from bf2 do not turn a game into an arcade shooter. Their just a generation of innovation above arma's "hit numbers to give commands".

ofp broke the mold when it came out in several areas. sadly, some of these areas were copied to arma and the mold has improved since then. squad interaction was one of these things.

it's not to say arma isnt great, it is. but "leave it up to the mission designer" is really a bit lacking in some things, because otherwise you end up with 2-3 missions that actually have all the features you'd like, and the game gets boring fast. new guns yes, new uniforms, new missle systems even, but dont leave teamwork and communications implementation up to the mission maker, it leads to flaky design.

[frederf 0]

The only way squads work is if people actually embrace the concept of working together. It happens sometimes but rarely.

In real life you don't have a comorose or a minimap. You want to communicate? You POINT your finger and you TALK. ArmA doesn't really have the hand gestures but it does have the talking. Spoken word is all you need as long as you know what to say and can understand the words properly.

One of the bigger problems in a MP coop is there's often no clearly defined commander. Since ArmA rather stupidly only has 2 levels in the chain of command built in, you have to decide it on your own.

ArmA really isn't designed for respawning. The game works 100x better with only 1 life. Unfortunately most people suck too much live beyond 5 minutes.

Mission designers need to stop putting in UH-60s for missions that don't need them. Helicopters make people very very stupid very very quickly. I have no idea why, but people love to fly these things into the ground or directly over enemy Shilkas.

The only thing wrong with ArmA is the players. If you had 100 US Marines in an air conditioned LAN room with 100 PCs, I guarantee you none of them would TK, get lost, or steal a AH-1. People that know the chain of command, know their role, and are willing and able to assume that role are all you need.

You know it really makes me want to make a coop, put in an AH-1, tell people in the briefing don't get in the AH-1, it will kill you, and just sit back and enjoy the slaughter.

[Shifty-16AAB- 0]

sadly, this doesn't detract from the fact that arma's squad implementation does suck. things such as the comms rose from bf2 do not turn a game into an arcade shooter. Their just a generation of innovation above arma's "hit numbers to give commands".

ofp broke the mold when it came out in several areas. sadly, some of these areas were copied to arma and the mold has improved since then. squad interaction was one of these things.

it's not to say arma isnt great, it is. but "leave it up to the mission designer" is really a bit lacking in some things, because otherwise you end up with 2-3 missions that actually have all the features you'd like, and the game gets boring fast. new guns yes, new uniforms, new missle systems even, but dont leave teamwork and communications implementation up to the mission maker, it leads to flaky design.

well said, m8.

what strikes me in this thread is the fact that most people who answered, actually play coops/prefer coops. that speaks volumes in regard to my criticism of arma's multipayer "experience".

another thing that seems unreal to me is the attitude of some members here. to tell me to create my own arma is a bit naive. i bought a game that obviously has some bigger flaws when it comes to mp. so why am i not allowed to ask for certain changes? why can't we at least talk about it?

AND who here can really script or create good working maps? i don't have the time nor the knowledge to do that. that's why i rely on the arma community, since bis seems to focus on eye candy instead of playability. ´

if you are happy with arma and coops all over the place, fine. enjoy it, guys. however, i know that i'm not the only one who is not satisfied with what arma has to offer in mp right now. i'm just trying to give feedback from a squad that has been around for years, and we certainly notice when a game is not working how it is supposed to be.

[froggyluv 2136]

I'm really tempted to go down the cellar, dig up my Satanic Bible, and pull out my old copy of BF2 to try out this much ballyhooed Reality Mod. Frankly i never hated BF2, just didn't like it much either. It wasn't the jumping or tiny playing fields, it was the 'spawn system'. Me Hates magically appearing soldiers especially while taking a flag and one drops on your head straight out of Time Bandits.I spent many fruitless months trying to convince big-name modders like 'Allied Intent' to do away with it and replace it with spawn by Paratroop or stork or anything but magically appearing people. They thought me nuts.

If this is removed and the squad system is as tight as stated, I'm game and ready to download+monster patch

[Heatseeker 0]

what strikes me in this thread is the fact that most people who answered, actually play coops/prefer coops. that speaks volumes in regard to my criticism of arma's multipayer "experience".

That coming from a joint Operations player .

Arma is not joint ops nor bf2 and the teamplay problems described here are the fault of many "new" players, not the game.

Im sure that if you play with people who know how to comunicate, navigate and teamplay the experience will be much better, this goes for both coop and adversarial.

[Shifty-16AAB- 0]

what strikes me in this thread is the fact that most people who answered, actually play coops/prefer coops. that speaks volumes in regard to my criticism of arma's multipayer "experience".  

That coming from a joint Operations player .

Arma is not joint ops nor bf2 and the teamplay problems described here are the fault of many "new" players, not the game.

Im sure that if you play with people who know how to comunicate, navigate and teamplay the experience will be much better, this goes for both coop and adversarial.

i have been playing ofp for 3 years, and our squad has been around in bhd/jo and now arma since 2001. have a look at our website, m8. we're not a bunch of bunny hopping teenagers, in fact most of us are former or active soldiers and we even train according to the british military tactics.

we enjoy the realism in arma, we played the joint ops reality mod for almost over 2 years. and some of us play bf2:project reality besides arma. we left the jointops: reality mod behind, hoping that arma would offer us more possiblities, but it lacks certain basic things.

there is a consens in our squad that arma has certainly great potential, but it suffers from leftovers from ofp. i'm just trying to make suggestions to improve the multiplayer PLAYABILITY of arma. comms rose or the squad system are such things. the removal of vehicle respawn would be another one. tanks are not used tactically right now in arma. die-spawn-die. i could go and on, but this thread is about the squad system.

[Gecko-KOSB- 0]

sadly, this doesn't detract from the fact that arma's squad implementation does suck. things such as the comms rose from bf2 do not turn a game into an arcade shooter. Their just a generation of innovation above arma's "hit numbers to give commands".

ofp broke the mold when it came out in several areas. sadly, some of these areas were copied to arma and the mold has improved since then. squad interaction was one of these things.

it's not to say arma isnt great, it is. but "leave it up to the mission designer" is really a bit lacking in some things, because otherwise you end up with 2-3 missions that actually have all the features you'd like, and the game gets boring fast. new guns yes, new uniforms, new missle systems even, but dont leave teamwork and communications implementation up to the mission maker, it leads to flaky design.

well said, m8.

what strikes me in this thread is the fact that most people who answered, actually play coops/prefer coops. that speaks volumes in regard to my criticism of arma's multipayer "experience".  

another thing that seems unreal to me is the attitude of some members here. to tell me to create my own arma is a bit naive. i bought a game that obviously has some bigger flaws when it comes to mp. so why am i not allowed to ask for certain changes? why can't we at least talk about it?

AND who here can really script or create good working maps? i don't have the time nor the knowledge to do that. that's why i rely on the arma community, since bis seems to focus on eye candy instead of playability. ´

if you are happy with arma and coops all over the place, fine. enjoy it, guys. however, i know that i'm not the only one who is not satisfied with what arma has to offer in mp right now. i'm just trying to give feedback from a squad that has been around for years, and we certainly notice when a game is not working how it is supposed to be.

Arma does not have a good implementation of squad control, it is the same as OFP, and OFP was very good back then for squad tactical control, although it was lacking more in Multiplayer.

Online, OFP and Arma set the benchmark for Coop play online, squad control was good, not great, but very functional for a squad that knows its players. Other aspects, like DM, TDM, CTF, CTI, C&H etc...were not good in OFP at all, and likewise even with the advancements in game engine for Arma, are still not great with Arma, although i do enjoy the Berzerk Hold maps. Currently the closest thing to A&S from JO, but with a decent sim engine running it (albeit bugged to buggery).

I have been following most of your threads Shifty, and what you mainly seem to want is A&S from JO, well it is there already, in SC maps in Arma, but Arma's netcode is laggy and basically shit currently, its playable, but it suffers badly from warping, especially on Coop maps with lots of AI. Due to the sim engine running beneath Arma, servers are running with way too many players, this aint JO, this is a sim, JO was arcade game, and squad comms were crap in that game as well, and it has many bugs, and plays more like UT than a combat sim. Only good thing about JO was larger battles with nice GFX and vehicles! (If you didnt mind the lag on the 150 player servers). IF you want squad based and simmy competitive play, then play AA, its actually quite good for that.

Or a more realistic simulator engine like WW2Online, it isnt squad based, but squads operate with the appropriate forces and within Highcommands, and there is thousands of players online there, on the same server (and also in the biggest contingious gamemap in the world!, the whole of Western Europe in fact!

If you and your squad really want specific types of game modes and gameplay, then i would recommend that yourself or any of your squad members learn how to script that within the Arma Engine, it can be done, it is very moddable, and that is why ppl buy it today, becuase they can take the engine and create what they hav always wanted to create.

Arma does have many bugs and many gun profiles are incorrect (possible bugs, or just misinformed ballistic data), but like any game, they will come out with patches that fix the data, or modders will do it for them (ive always thought that BIS has got lazy due to modders actually). But we shall see.....

And on another note, i noticed your reference to the ladders situation, relating to JO and Arma, well Arma is not perfect, using an action is not the best method, but it does work, since using actions becomes second nature once u play long enough, likewise, JOs hit the ladder and u run up it, when u never wanted too, is annoying and not easily avoidable, especially in bunkers. So really that comes down to different tastes, i prefer my combat to be slow paced, not run about like a ninja knifing a full bunker of ppl, before the ppl in the bunker can return fire!!!...Like i said different styles of gameplay, if u want fast paced action, stick to JO or even better AA, if u want more realistic paced combat, what we call tactical, then Arma will fill that gap (once patched up properly) or even better www.wwiionline.com for a real paced combat game, where u die repeadtly and dont even know where the shot came from...hehe thats life in a true large scale war!

[Shifty-16AAB- 0]

I'm really tempted to go down the cellar, dig up my Satanic Bible, and pull out my old copy of BF2 to try out this much ballyhooed Reality Mod. Frankly i never hated BF2, just didn't like it much either. It wasn't the jumping or tiny playing fields, it was the 'spawn system'. Me Hates magically appearing soldiers especially while taking a flag and one drops on your head straight out of Time Bandits.I spent many fruitless months trying to convince big-name modders like 'Allied Intent' to do away with it and replace it with spawn by Paratroop or stork or anything but magically appearing people. They thought me nuts.

If this is removed and the squad system is as tight as stated, I'm game and ready to download+monster patch

the project reality mod is quite good. bf2 itself is utter crap. it is the worst fps i haver seen, mainly because of its arcadish gameplay. but the pr changes ALOT and makes it enjoybale, yet still realistic and team orientated. it still is restricted to the bf2 engine, which is limiting lots of things. that's why arma COULD be the much better game imo. but you might know my opinion by now.

[Rambo-16AAB 0]

He was a Joint ops Reality mod player, not Vanila kiddy stuff Joint Ops so dont try and hold it against him.. We helped develop the reality mod for JO and it was taken as far as the engine would allow as unlike most other games, Novalogic didnt allow you to mod any of the core, just the variables & Skins.

A lot of the game play issues with Arma are related to settings that are map controlled and not server controlled which for me is bloody frustraiting when were used to setting a server to run missions the way we like it and now having maps, each with a different specific take on a particular gametype. Its inconsistant and players are never going to settle into a particular gametype when every time you play that gametype its changed because its a different map makers version of it.

Having to get maps custom made to contain things that should be server variables is just lacking.

[Shifty-16AAB- 0]

you're not that gecko that once was a cadet in our squad, are you? if so, hi m8!

you are right: i would like to see an advance and secure mode. sector control is too chaotic because there is no order in which they have to be taken. reminds me of bf2 vanilla version.

and i agree that jo too arcadish. that's why our squad played the reality mod which changed alot in the gameplay/physics.

i was just hoping that some genius modders/scripters could take the best things from jo: reality mod and bf2: project reality and implement those features into arma. oh well, i must be dreaming.

[Rambo-16AAB 0]

Shifty, its the Same Gecko. Dodnt you recognise his sales pitch for WWII online

[Gecko-KOSB- 0]

He was a Joint ops Reality mod player, not Vanila kiddy stuff  Joint Ops so dont try and hold it against him..  We helped develop the reality mod for JO and it was taken as far as the engine would allow as unlike   most other games, Novalogic didnt allow you to mod any of the core, just the variables & Skins.

A lot of the game play issues with Arma are related to   settings that are map controlled and not server controlled which for me is bloody frustraiting when were used to setting a server to run missions the way we like it and now having  maps, each with a different specific take on a particular gametype. Its inconsistant and players are never going to settle into a particular gametype when  every time you play that gametype its changed because its a different map makers version of it.

Having to get  maps custom made to contain things that should be server variables is just lacking.

Correct Rambo, Arma just like OFP is more mission design orientated than to server controlled, its a great thing, but a god damn curse if you cant script the game you want.

Im still relearning my old OFP ways, might be able to help you one day soon!...

[Dallas 9]

There are no shortcuts to building teamwork. The foundation is leadership. I've experimented alot with teamwork and leadership both in advesary and cooperative mode. In my oppinion there isn't much difference.

Building teamwork on public America's Army servers takes around about an hour. 70% soldiering skills and 30% socializing and joking. Before you can lead by example, you got to set the standart. That takes time on a public server, where everyone plays together for the first time. And it's the same with coop. As soon as you got two people working together, you've started a potential chain reaction.

[Gecko-KOSB- 0]

you're not that gecko that once was a cadet in our squad, are you? if so, hi m8!

you are right: i would like to see an advance and secure mode. sector control is too chaotic because there is no order in which they have to be taken. reminds me of bf2 vanilla version.  

and i agree that jo too arcadish. that's why our squad played the reality mod which changed alot in the gameplay/physics.

i was just hoping that some genius modders/scripters could take the best things from jo: reality mod and bf2: project reality and implement those features into arma. oh well, i must be dreaming.  

It is I indeed Shifty!...hehe...hows tricks? I would like to see the more advanced scripters making better maps also, it will come in time, of that im quite sure, still relearning my old ways from OFP....

And yeah www.wwiionline.com, i still sub to that game, two years now, it gets better and better with each patch, only game i find that is actually worth the money to be honest!...but not been active since i been messing about with Arma and relearning the scripting stuff again!

I thought SH missions were based on capture a point then capoture the other, sequentially, if im wrong, then blow me that does suck!...That should be fixed easily though by a scripter, even a general SH map can be modified easily to change that gameplay to A&S and add many terrain editions etc...although we do need the official tools damn soon, to make new islands, models etc...

JO: Reality was far superior to JO, far superior, but it was still way too arcadey, more like UT to me, but it was promising, but the reality team dropped JO for BF2 i believe? Would be nice to see them mod Arma!!!!

Do i advertise WW2Online too much???...Damn right i do!...still the best game i have ever played, albeit its kinda stuck in ww2 era just now!...doh!!!!

Loved the training at 16AAB, was great fun and i learned a lot, and hey that training could actually be usefull in Arma, it was never really relevant in JO guys!...But i prefered the training than the general chaos fights we ended up in!

[Shifty-16AAB- 0]

Shifty, its the Same Gecko. Dodnt you recognise his sales pitch for WWII online  

lol. yeah, i remember that gecko was a good advertiser for wwii online. no problem with that.

[Gecko-KOSB- 0]

There are no shortcuts to building teamwork. The foundation is leadership. I've experimented alot with teamwork and leadership both in advesary and cooperative mode. In my oppinion there isn't much difference.

Building teamwork on public America's Army servers takes around about an hour. 70% soldiering skills and 30% socializing and joking. Before you can lead by example, you got to set the standart. That takes time on a public server, where everyone plays together for the first time. And it's the same with coop. As soon as you got two people working together, you've started a potential chain reaction.

I agree Dallas, 16aab have learned to play together as a team for along time now, they nhave their ups and downs but they can work together rather well, and in Arma they could be a force to be reckoned with!

They do have their own servers, and i can understand their frsutration of getting the gamemode configured for them, Berzerk hold maps are good, and i would love to try it on a closed server with a decent group of squad orienteated players, unlike public servers! Just to see how well it pans out, i think the difference would be unbeliable!

Spelling dodgy now...im tired!....

KOSB is lucky, we are a tiny squad, so where ever we go, we can work as a team independantly of other players on public servers, so it works well for us, but a larger squad, i can def see the issues that rambo is talking aobut and shiftys points also...

Basically, hang in there 16aab, somone will come along and pretty much design what u are looking for, the modding community is still just starting for Arma.

[Rambo-16AAB 0]

The JO Reality project came to an end because they just couldnt squeze any more in the way of reality out of the JO engine. It was another team that did the BF2 reality project.

Bezerk maps, well, they have potential, but the vehicle spawn in the ones we have makes for a sort of Chinese wave assault with vehicles. Untill thats sorted ( in jo, server switch Vehiclespawn=0 ) they have little practical use to us except frustration.

[frederf 0]

If the in-game VOIP worked half as good as TeamSpeak or Ventrillo and had half as many features you'd get a lot more cooperation on servers.

It's 100x more likely to have "road rage" in a MP game without voice chat. The power of a human voice is pretty amazing for calming people down, making them feel not alone on the battlefield, and not so impatient.

[sirex 0]

if i've judged this right, what we basically want here is the abstraction of some of the ability of mission designers to customise the server on a per-map basis, and take this functionality into the domain of the server itsself. This would allow you to customise features such as squad arrangments, and communication accessability (ala comms rose) on a server-wide basis.

or am i way off ?

if this is what people are saying (and granted it would be nicer if BIS implemented it themselfs so all servers had relyable mechanisms for these features) then prehaps we could approach (read: demand) the dev's to maybe introduce this in an expansion pack, and / or game2 (and / or 1.07 (being hopeful never hurt anyone ! ('cept maybe jesus)))

....fear my bracket usage :-)