Evolution V3.0

[russin 0]

can this be made for Multi-player ?

this would be sweet if ya had it 2 teams with a rough militant holding the towns... and owning the skys....

the mission concept is SWEET

NOW we need a Multi-player ver to stomp around on

[-Puma- 2]

can this be made for Multi-player ?

this would be sweet if ya had it 2 teams with a rough militant holding the towns... and owning the skys....

the mission concept is SWEET

NOW we need a Multi-player ver to stomp around on

wrong thread??

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

Puma, I believe he is referring to human west AND east units...

The 'last city' is what you chose to make it...it could be Ortego if you really wanted it to be.

Personally, I like the distant objectives, as you get a bit of "supply train" effect of trying to keep your forces armed and repaired.  It keeps the engineers busy!  

[Comradesniper 0]

Why not add mobile spawns as well? After a while, you get to the point where there is only 1 helo at the airport every 5-10 minutes or so. Also, starting from the base each time encourages more ppl to do what they want to do.

Adding MSP's would not only shorten the trips to towns, but also would group the players together, encouraging more of a tactical environment.

However, MSPs would have to be placed a minimum of 500m from a town. And a maximum of 1.5km from a town.

This would also greatly help in repairing and recovering destroyed vehicles. Especially if they are out in the middle of nowhere.

After all, OFP's CTI had MSPs, and even WWIIOL has MSPs. (minimum range of 400m, max of 1km)

Aye, this would help a lot for low player servers.

[stobbsy 0]

Why not add mobile spawns as well? After a while, you get to the point where there is only 1 helo at the airport every 5-10 minutes or so. Also, starting from the base each time encourages more ppl to do what they want to do.

Adding MSP's would not only shorten the trips to towns, but also would group the players together, encouraging more of a tactical environment.

However, MSPs would have to be placed a minimum of 500m from a town. And a maximum of 1.5km from a town.

This would also greatly help in repairing and recovering destroyed vehicles. Especially if they are out in the middle of nowhere.

After all, OFP's CTI had MSPs, and even WWIIOL has MSPs. (minimum range of 400m, max of 1km)

Aye, this would help a lot for low player servers.

As Kiljoy has stated, its a 30 player mission. I don't see why people want it "dumbing down" not just with the respawns but also in other areas so 5 or so players can complete it. Why not just make it that you cant die or respawn where you die 1 second after you were killed?

Surely the answer is to play on Servers with more than 5 people or unpassword them to attract people to play on your server?

Noone ever heard of ground vehicles if no air vehicles available for transportation?

This post is not aimed at SniperRedFox or Comradesniper, its aimed at everyone. It just seems to me that the majority of players playing Armed Assault just want to Rambo around and die with no consequences. They want it easy with no challenge, they dont want to spend 5 min travelling. They want Warp points where you can instantly warp to the objective and can walk around in the open without being shot or killed instead of having to take cover and think about what they are doing.

Maybe Kiljoy should add something that means when you are killed you cant play for 10min, maybe this would stop the kiddies and Rambo attitude and start making people working together if there is actual consequences of getting killed.

[SniperRedFox 0]

stobbsy, even WWIIOL has Mobile Spawn Points, and towns in it can be 5-10km from each other. The MSP's can be a minimum of 400m from an enemy facility, and max of 1000m away.

The point is, without a concentration of players, you will have MORE people doing rambo all over the map.

With Mobile Spawns, people will be more concentrated, working as a team, etc...

Also with MSP's in Evo, it'd make repairing and returning vehicles much easier.

[SniperRedFox 0]

Also, do the A-10s in Evo respawn?

If they don't, there is a problem with that. As you cannot go and repair them and get them to take off again.

Last night, I was being extra careful w/ an A-10 to make sure nothing happened to it. However, for some reason, it bugged, and wouldn't let me target the Shilkas at Eponia w/ Tab (yes I had the Mavericks loaded) and those Shilkas then proceeded to (note, I wasn't directly over them, but about 1500-2000m away) shoot my pilot w/o even hitting the aircraft.

[SniperRedFox 0]

However another good alternative for vehicle recovery and repair would be to have Blackhawks be able to hitch to vehicles like in RTS (so it can "carry" them). This way you can take your vehicles back to the base for repairs, and you can carry them to Bagango/Eponia, etc... when the map reaches that point.

[Comradesniper 0]

Quote[/b] ]As Kiljoy has stated, its a 30 player mission. I don't see why people want it "dumbing down" not just with the respawns but also in other areas so 5 or so players can complete it. Why not just make it that you cant die or respawn where you die 1 second after you were killed?

Uh, because that's too easy and removes any kind of teamwork, even between low numbers of players?

Quote[/b] ]Surely the answer is to play on Servers with more than 5 people or unpassword them to attract people to play on your server?

We don't want to. We have a small group who play ArmA on our own server on our own ventrilo. This is a great way to keep in contact as friends. Our server probably can't cope with many players anyway, and we have no intention of opening it up. It's our server, we use it as we want.

Quote[/b] ]Noone ever heard of ground vehicles if no air vehicles available for transportation?

So what, we need to put aside one player out of 4 or 5 to fly us around? This isn't practical with a low number of players, where you want as many people actually in combat as much of the time as possible, without it being too stupid and easy. Allowing respawn at a certain vehicle (as in CTI) AS AN OPTION would fix this problem for smaller servers.

Quote[/b] ]This post is not aimed at SniperRedFox or Comradesniper, its aimed at everyone. It just seems to me that the majority of players playing Armed Assault just want to Rambo around and die with no consequences. They want it easy with no challenge, they dont want to spend 5 min travelling. They want Warp points where you can instantly warp to the objective and can walk around in the open without being shot or killed instead of having to take cover and think about what they are doing.

The "majority" of people who play this game as a game (IE, not on a server with 60+ players with codes of conduct as imposed by a clan or whatever) do not wish to spend 50-80% of their time travelling or waiting. If I wanted to do that, I would play Eve Online. When was the last time a public server even remotely represented a realistic battlefield environment anyway?

Like it or not, most people play this as a game for fun. If your idea of fun is to accurately recreate battlefield tactics, then join a server that does so. People on the more casual servers do not invade clan servers insisting that you all go off and rambo, so why are you trying to tell us how to play this game on our servers?

The idea here is to allow the respawn-at-base thing to carry on as normal, because this does work on servers with a lot of players. It does not work on servers with 4 players. This has nothing to do with individual skill, but because if you have 4 people against 100-120 AI players in an urban environment with tanks and aircraft, you will die a lot regardless (especially considering that the AI can pinpoint you with sound alone).

This is why I think there should be an alternative system for respawning, that ensures you stay in the action as much as possible. Staying in the action does not mean respawning-in-place cheese or infinite health.

This is a suggestion, not me telling the mission maker "YOU MUST DO THIS OR ELSE blah blah blah". It is up to the developer to take this idea on board, or not. It is not your place to try and tell me what I can and can not say or how I play on my own server, thank you very much.

[stobbsy 0]

My point is and everyone has missed it is that Evolution is a 30 player mission.

My point is as a guy who has previously made non-respawn coops for Ofp, that when I make a mission for 30 people then it is intended to be played and be at a difficulty level for 20-30 people playing it and that it should be a challenge for 20-30 people to complete it. It would not be of a level of difficulty where 1-10 people playing it should be able to complete it. I would expect people not to even play it with 1-10 people connected.Thats just my opinion as an old mission maker.

Ok Evolution has Respawn, this should make it easier to complete, however Kiljoy has intended this mission to be completed to a maximum of 30 people. Evolution has probably been made with 15-30 playing on it in mind and so the problems have been stated such as transportation and the ability to take towns arnt as big an issue. With 30 people its probably too easy to complete at the moment. I know Kiljoy has been toying with the idea of setting the ai skill and accuarcy determined to how many people are playing but he has problems of these being overridden server side.

In Eve-Online terms if CCP had in mind that Level 10 complexes should be done with 10 people would they not make it of a difficulty level where 10 people are needed but be possible with 8. You would expect to have no chance of doing it with 2 people however.

@ SniperRedFox - I believe talking to Kiljoy that the A10 respawning after an hour is broken.

[satexas69 0]

I think it's funny that people that have never used Norrin's Revive-Respawn script talk about how bad it would be for evolution - without ever TRYING a map with it.

I honestly belive (my opinion) that you guys have no clue about how much the revive system makes people play much more "co-op" in "co-op" maps, in ARMA.

Yes, I know that everyone is scared of making ArmA into Battlefield 1942, but until you've PLAYED Norrin's revive script, and seen how it WORKS and in live play, you just don't have a clue, sorry.

Open your mind, try it.

[gassybutt 0]

I think Evo 3.0 is great as is.. revive script would be like icing on the cake.

But one script I would love to see is Kronzky's urban patrol script integrated into Evo - just to give the AI a little more lifelike behavior and better tactics. I don't like the fact that when you first get to a city, the AI just stands around until the first shot is fired. They should be on patrol, looking for you.

[caas1 0]

Ay! what gassybutt said!

[kobold 0]

Hi,

is there any chance to get score for getting down chopper or for your AI's hits ?

[deady 0]

Server load is already high, urban patrol script would add too much strain.

[SniperRedFox 0]

Actually after thinking about it, it'd be great if maybe 1-2 other Blackhawks were added. And if a feature was added like in RTS, were vehicles can be hitched to the blackhawk so they can be moved quickly from one location to the other.

This would vastly improve vehicle repairing, etc... Not to mention you could fly vehicles from the airfield to far away towns like Eponia, Pita, and Masbete.

Another feature that would be nice is the addition of Eastern ammo sites in towns. I find that I run out of ammo a lot, and pick up weapons from the enemy. However, towards the end of a fight in a town, you get to the point where the bodies have despawned, and you are left with little weapons to work with. Adding 1-2 ammo crates to each town would look a little more realistic, and could give players an opportunity to pick up weapons they need when they are out of ammunition.

[SniperRedFox 0]

Another big problem is the AI shooting generals even when they join the player's group.

[Odie3 0]

Another big problem is the AI shooting generals even when they join the player's group.

That I learned real quick not to get a POW in my car when I had AI manning a tank or 50 cal car!

[Shalashaska 0]

I'm not sure it's been mentioned, but is there any way to gain more of a 'class' feeling with the possible slots you can join in under? Hear me out before we ready to firing squad..

I recently began to play Engineers when I had typically stuck to Medics, and really was thrilled with the role. I had no problem hopping around going to set up FARPs and repair vehicles located near and far, and enjoyed that supporting role. The problem was Engineering is often a quickly grabbed role, but not necessarily for what it was meant to be. Too often it seems like people take to the role because they have as many slots as a rifleman (Unlike the Medics) yet can set up FARPs to sustain their own affairs. What should be a team slot ends up as often being more of a self-sufficient lone wolf one.

And when playing on a French server running Evolution 3.1, I was stuck with the Pilot spot, which was odd seeing as it has as large an inventory as the rifleman, but looks like a pilot, and basically is meaningless.

I'm wondering if theres any way that the specific roles that a player can choose to enter the game under could not be made into more meaningful slots, rather than simply being three different categories: Those with full inventories, those with full inventories who are engineers, and those with limited inventories who are medics.

Perhaps having it so that a player playing as a rifleman or Spec Op gains an edge in terms of acquiring better firearms than an Engineer or Medic. For instance, perhaps at private an engineer and medic are stuck with the basic kit, yet a Rifleman can get a m203 m16, and the Spec op an ACOG m16. Then at Corporal, when the engineer and Medic can acquire either of those, the rifleman can then acquire an ACOG with a M203, whereas a Spec op can get perhaps a Aimpoint m4.

Basically, the combat classes attain one firearm from the next rank up a rank earlier than the engineer (Who get FARPs) or the medic (Who can heal). This could be expanded depending on if there's any other role presented. For instance, if Evolution 3.1 does feature a pilot, perhaps the pilot class can fly the Mh-6 from Private onward, but has a more limited access to firearms (Mp5s and M4s). I don't think you should be forced into your role with extremely rigid limitations, but I don't see why Engineers should be a class that gets all the perks of a designated soldier like a rifleman or spec op on top of FARPs when Medics are hindered in their combat role by a limited inventory.

I understand that many may not like the RPG like aspect of it, but personally I feel like the way Engineers are now are kind of bugged. Instead of being a role best suited to support with some amount of offense, it's able to be a class which can fight on the offense just as well as a rifleman or Spec Op, yet gets the added bonus of FARPs. Essentially, if an engineer spot is open, there's no reason to go for it rather than for a rifleman or Spec Op slot.

And of course, I don't even know what is and is not able to be done, so it is quite possible all of this is unable to be implemented if it were appreciated. But I do hope that something can be done to make the Engineer more of a support class.

[Odie3 0]

question: What is the version that FFPIU is running? What is new in 3.1+?

[Kenbow 0]

Suggestion:

Where the main officer spawns in the city, is it possible to have some tents, sandbag walls, and MG nests spawn around him. Basically, have like a small OPFOR command center spawn with the officer, in addition to the security soldiers that spawn with him. This way, the general of the city just isn't hanging around in an empty field. Afterall, shouldn't the a general in charge of the city be in some type of Mobile Command Center?

[KilJoy -SFG- 0]

@Shalashaska problem is then you get stuck sometime as engineer and you don't want to be one and you don't have the weapon option then. There is no offical 3.1 version either, just another idiot naming it higher to get more players after i have requested people don't do this for the last 5 months. I removed the pilot because he often gets TK'ed and he cant fly at the start anyway.

Sounds like the 3.1 is a modified pre 3.0.

@Kenbow Makes sense Ill try it out.

[Shalashaska 0]

@ July 11 2007,08:31)]@Shalashaska problem is then you get stuck sometime as engineer and you don't want to be one and you don't have the weapon option then. There is no offical 3.1 version either, just another idiot naming it higher to get more players after i have requested people don't do this for the last 5 months. I removed the pilot because he often gets TK'ed and he cant fly at the start anyway.

Sounds like the 3.1 is a modified pre 3.0.

@Kenbow Makes sense Ill try it out.

Ah, that explains it. And that's true, but what if it was made so that instead of totally lacking the weapon option, you simply lag behind the Spec Op Assault/Rifleman? The pace for Medics and Engineers would be the same pace the game currently is (m16/mp5 at tier 1, then ACOG or M203 or M4 or m240 at tier 2, and so forth), whereas for a Spec Op Assault or Rifleman you would get a weapon one rank/tier above you one tier earlier.

That way, if you do get stuck as an engineer or medic, you aren't totally prevented from serving in a combat-primary mode, but it requires the same amount of work it currently does in the game. Yet if you are a Spec Op or Rifleman, you get a slight edge over an Engineer or Medic. This should make those interested solely in assault to go with either, but allow those who get stuck with Engineer or Medic to continue playing an Offensive style at the same pace as Evolution currently is.

[stobbsy 0]

@ July 11 2007,08:31)]@Shalashaska problem is then you get stuck sometime as engineer and you don't want to be one and you don't have the weapon option then. There is no offical 3.1 version either, just another idiot naming it higher to get more players after i have requested people don't do this for the last 5 months. I removed the pilot because he often gets TK'ed and he cant fly at the start anyway.

Sounds like the 3.1 is a modified pre 3.0.

@Kenbow Makes sense Ill try it out.

Is there an unofficial 3.1 version then modified by yourself I mean and not by 3rd parties?

Any chance of getting A-10 respawn bug fixed if not already done so.

[ZIKAN 0]

Im of the same opinion as Shalashaska, it would be great if Engineers and Medics, had more of a support role to play in the game to score points, besides trying to kill as much as the other classes. The MASH and the FARP's are ok, but it would be nice to do a little more.

Perhaps Engineers, could be tasked with clearing mine fields, that the AI put in place when the city they are defending is under attack. Or maybe at a certain point, during the game when the AI are being overwhelmed in a city they would blow up a bridge or certain buildings. Therefore giving the Engineer dudes some more jobs to perform such as fixing bridges etc. Or even clearing IED'd in abandoned cars along the roads, or booby traps discovered in the the cities.

Maybe this has been suggested before, but would it be ok to have civillians loitering around the place? If they are killed accidently or intentionaly, it would have a big negative effect on your score, possibly demoting your rank. medics could heal injured civilians, or even evacuate them to a safe area.

The same could be done with certain  civillian buildings, like churches, water towers, stores, oil pumps etc. It would be cool to try and promote the idea of not having any collateral damage during the game.

Well its a great map, I enjoy it alot. More so than the more linear co-ops I usually play. Well done, keep updating the map, its awesome!