Poll/Petition: Removing the group limit

[Kimmeh 0]

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

Short version:

Can the mission editor's group limit be removed in ArmA 2, and will/has BIS consider(ed) this?

And if this can/will not be done, why?

This question has been burning on my tongue forever now, I've been searching around, and finally I got it answered.

I was listening to the second interview on Sahrani Radio with Ivan Buchta, lead designer. He was so friendly to answer many of the community questions, and I had a very entertaining afternoon listening to it. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to link to it so I won't.

The answer was, that he saw no reason to remove the group limit as 144(I think it was 144 yes?) groups is so much that you won't hit it anyway.

On this point, I personally have to disagree. I like to make big missions, with many small flanking attacks, big AI forces attacking each other, or cover half/entire sahrani with enemies so you've a lot to do. With a strong dedicated server it's playable and a lot of fun. In those cases, the group limit was a huge hindrance. I had to make one group in which I had to put _all_ the snipers, observers, AT ambushers etc., and had to use stuff such as 'this disableAI "move"' to keep them from moving about. Long story short, it really limited in how many 'fluff' I could add such as little roadside patrols, single soldiers walking about.

Now, I realise the group limit _may_ have been implemented to save performance, however ArmA 2 has many times been stated to be much more efficient on CPU resources. I am not very knowledgeable on game-developing, not by a long shot, but it doesn't sound overly hard to remove the group limit and replace it by something such as:

"You have added 144 groups, adding more may impact performance."

This, instead of a hard limit that is kind of like a brick wall.

After all, the thing that makes BIS' games so great is their freedom!  

Please feel free to add your opinions. Some of you may be much more knowledgable than me on these things, so forgive me my ignorance. To an uneducated(Read:my) mind it seems like a rather simple change to make to the editor. But removing the group limit would really make my day, as well as a few other mission makers I know.

Thanks for reading this behemoth of a post(I allways intend to make them short ) and be so kind to share your views!

Kimmeh

[Balschoiw 0]

I think the 144 group-limit is already at the upper limit and imo there is hardly a map or mission that would need more than 144 groups. If it does, spawn some. There are scripts for that  

Exceeding the group limit may cause some trouble therefore I think it´s reasonable to implement a limit that is already placing 2304 grouped units on a map. I guess computers will have a really hard time chewing this number of AI´s.

Oh...and I guess the second option in the vote makes little sense as it will kill performance. That´s why the limit is there in the first place

[Maddmatt 1]

If you want more units then use scripts. Personally I don't care for half-arsed missions with thousands of units placed in the editor causing a slide show full of loading glitches.

And it is not necessarily a simple change to make. It may result in more memory usage even in missions with the same size groups if variable types in the engine need to be changed to bigger ones (not talking script variables here).

And to add to that, it is 144 groups per side. More than enough to cause a slide show on even very powerful PCs.

Ever heard of  Mapfacts DAC? than can be used to populate the map and make huge missions without the group limit or lag being a major problem.

I think the limit should only be increased if it is accompanied with enhancements in the engine that allow larger numbers of AI without severe performance loss, such as a kind of AI 'LOD' system more advanced than what we have right now.

If that could be done then it would be awesome, otherwise I don't think there is much point.

Voted unsure. I don't think there is much point to the poll as the points raised in posts would be more important than simple vote results here

"Assume it doesn't kill performance" in the poll isn't clear as to what it means. 144 groups per side is already enough to do that.

[Kimmeh 0]

Hey there Maddmat and Balschoiw, thanks for sharing your opinions, they give a little food for thought.

Well, as to defend/clarify my initial post, with 'assume it won't kill performance', I meant exactly that. Of course more units will take a heavier toll, but I meant as long as it doesn't turn it into a slideshow. There's a big area between a slideshow and a slight performance hit.

Now ArmA 2's cpu resource management is said to be much more efficient than ArmA 1's, so this could all be within the realm of possibilities. The 144 groups have given me no problems whatsoever on the dedicated server I used to host the maps on. Mind you that not all of the groups are full 30-unit combat zerg groups, most of them are single patrols walking around a courtyard/street, and snipers lying in wait etc., they immediately count as a group by themself.

And as to half-arsed missions with 1000's of units, I can assure you the ones I made have gotten many positive comments from public players, as they are overall subtle, deep and exciting.

About the in-mission group spawning scripts, I've tried that. I've spent a good time on setting everything up in my mission and when I launched I found out it only spawned all the groups _until_ the group limit was hit, then it wouldn't spawn any more. Maybe an addon is more powerful in this but I dislike using addons as they require the players to have it too.

I'd still like to plead for lifting the group limit.

[bravo 6 0]

Well I'am personally against direct spawns on mission.

They completely ruins a mission.

I'm not completely sure but i believe in OFP the limit was 63 groups.

I never confirmed in ArmA, but is the limit is 144 per side i think its quite enough.

Though the question is still valid, why is there an limit after all? Does it make sense to have such limit?  

edit: i still intend to create "Linoleum 2" btw

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]About the in-mission group spawning scripts, I've tried that. I've spent a good time on setting everything up in my mission and when I launched I found out it only spawned all the groups _until_ the group limit was hit, then it wouldn't spawn any more.

There are scripts that detect the maximum of groups and only spawn new ones if other groups are deleted/killed.

Quote[/b] ]Well I'am personally against direct spawns on mission.

They completely ruins a mission.

It´s a matter of mission-editing to have them spawned reasonable. If they pop up in players sight it´s bad editing.

I made some MP missions for OFP where I spawned objects and units on the fly to lessen server load when working with too many units at a time. It´s useless to have units running around on the other side of the map if the player will see them after 1 hour into the mission. That´s why the dynamic creation and removal does increase overall performance. In a FDF MP mission that´s pretty bigscale I even deleted a complete custom village to raise performance while the players do not notice that at all as they are already far away.

Basically it´s about mission-editor skill and feeling to implement reasonable spawning/deleting.

The limit makes sense, very much sense. If there wasn´t a limit people would complain that they are not able to place 10.000 units on the map without crashing the game and the editing forum and bugreports would skyrocket once again.

Sometimes there have to be limits to keep people from doing stupid stuff

[celery 8]

Lift the limit or make it much higher. It's only a matter of changing a value for the devs which can prevent a whole deal of work for the community.

[bravo 6 0]

Quote[/b] ]It´s a matter of mission-editing to have them spawned reasonable.

Nope. Its a matter of preference.

I know what you mean, i also used spawns scripts some years ago for OFP, its was hardly noticeable, but it isn't exactly the same.

As mission maker from OFP, I prefer to have all needed units previously placed in the map in order to know how the mission will runs/behave and if its playable without lag issues. These lag issues are easily noticeable on slow systems, like mine, and every detail count.

If the mission becomes laggy with the units placed on the map i know and i can detect/determine the limit for that specific mission.

In my opinion it is really bad and unrealistic to spawn units mostly when these units are deleted after a while just to optimize the mission performance. Its terrible when you need weapon and the units just disappear after a while.

(of course this is a mission-editing responsibility)

Totally unrealistic and very bad to game play.

Its a formed opinion i have, from a couple years ago and it won't change easily.

So, its not a matter of mission-editing to have them spawned reasonable. Its a matter or choice, preference and opinion.

[Balschoiw 0]

I guess I´ve made my point quite clear. There´s no reason for me to debate if there is no sense in it.

Again:

Quote[/b] ]The limit makes sense, very much sense. If there wasn´t a limit people would complain that they are not able to place 10.000 units on the map without crashing the game and the editing forum and bugreports would skyrocket once again.

Sometimes there have to be limits to keep people from doing stupid stuff

[Kimmeh 0]

Lift the limit or make it much higher. It's only a matter of changing a value for the devs which can prevent a whole deal of work for the community.

Exactly what Celery said, it's a simple matter of changing a value in the mission editor's code. The optimisation of CPU resources has allready been done from what they've told us so far, especially with multi-core support.

For me personally, I do not wish to put billions of units on the maps, but I want more groups. I just want to be able to add little patrols and lone snipers to fluff up to avoid a 'ghost town' environment. Personally if we were allowed the freedom, I'd make a lot of groups, but not necessarily a lot of units.

(Edit: misspelled 'Celery'.)

[Deadfast 43]

I don't want to sound like an ass, but have you guys reverse-engineered ArmA?

I mean what leads you to believe that it's just a question of changing 1 value?

From my personal experience I know that things that look quite easy to do can also take a lot of effort in the end

[Kimmeh 0]

I don't want to sound like an ass, but have you guys reverse-engineered ArmA?

I mean what leads you to believe that it's just a question of changing 1 value?

From my personal experience I know that things that look quite easy to do can also take a lot of effort in the end

Nah you don't sound like an ass Deadfast, you make a very valid point. As I said in my original post, I am hardly an expert on software engineering, which is why I made the secondary thread title in a question sense "BIS, is this possible?", I hope this thread can catch enough attention from BIS that maybe Maruk or someone else can drop something in, even if just a single line.

[7 0]

Imo, ArmA2 doesn't need more than 144(?) groups, it just needs an efficient way of removing inactive/dead groups.

[NoRailgunner 0]

If there are no perfomance issues why not increasing old OFP/Arma "rules of groups"? Every mission designer is free to make missions how he likes. If there is an huge performance impact guess how fast there will be the feedback/moaning  

bravo 6 its imho ok if player doesnt see spawning/disappearing units and if its done in right/believable way. Lets hope in Arma2 missions arent influenced by too many CoD/BF mission makers.

[Alex72 1]

Never controlled 144 units myself in one group. I have controlled many, but it gets messy thanks to AI dont always do as you want. Also there is a limit to how many units can be at the same time as we know. And you would face a couple of AI enemies that would have to be cleared in front of your eyes to respawn. Doesnt seem to be that good to me. But thats my opinion ofcourse.

Alex

[Kimmeh 0]

72 @ Mar. 18 2009,20:52)]Never controlled 144 units myself in one group. I have controlled many, but it gets messy thanks to AI dont always do as you want. Also there is a limit to how many units can be at the same time as we know. And you would face a couple of AI enemies that would have to be cleared in front of your eyes to respawn. Doesnt seem to be that good to me. But thats my opinion ofcourse.

Alex

Just to clarify Alex, we are talking about the group limit not a unit limit as there is no such thing as far as I'm aware of.

There is no limit to the amount of units in a single group(perhaps there is but you'd fill Sahrani lol).

There is a limit of 144 to the amount of groups you can put on the map. And that's what I made this thread for, to remove or drastically heighten the group limit to give us more freedom, that's the power of this game after all, freedom.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Kimmy

[Wolfrug 0]

You are aware each group gets a name assigned to it by default, right? In the olden days (OFP) these names were e.g. Alpha Black, Alpha Red, Bravo Blue, Charlie Green etc. I think that's what limited the amount of groups - the amount of colour/alphabet combinations. Same thing in ArmA, AFAIK : although the group naming is something like 1-A-A or somesuch - you can check it yourself in the editor. I would wager this is what limits the groups to 144 - that's when the possible letter/number combinations end - although this is just a theory.

Anyway, point is, as long as BIS wants each group to be named, there HAS to be an upper limit --> I suppose the solution then is to make the possible upper limit ridiculously huge (in the tens of thousands): should solve it.

Just rambling...

Regards,

Wolfrug

[Alex72 1]

Ah right. Once again i have been reading too fast.

Well it would work if the menu had several pages (click NEXT - NEXT - NEXT) to display the group names. Think the colour code has to be thrown in the bin as it will need a lot of shades that might be hard to tell apart.

Well, once again, to me its fine as it is.

Alex

[Kimmeh 0]

Very interesting point Wolfrug, never thought of that. If that is really the cause for the limitation(hey, life is weird sometimes, so are games), it would be a matter of adding more options for group names, like adding a third number or something.

Ah well, can only hope BIS notices this little outcry of a thread.

Kimmy

[jakerod 254]

I doubt that is the cause of it seeing as how you can name groups whatever you like using the setcallsign command or something like that. Possible though I guess.

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

Are you talkin about the maximum nr of "UNITS" on on side

or "GROUPS"...

Couse IF you actually are talking about groups

then i think 144 is enough...

But IF you are talking about UNITS then i think it

should be lifted...

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

Well ive tried.

And its UNITS...NOT groups...

A group is a collection of UNITS..

I tried to place a Batallion size number of UNITS

in the editor..A Swedish Bat.

Thats 4 Comp. Each with 4 Plat. Each with 4 Squads.

Each with 8 Members.. Do the math

My vote is: LIFT

SORRY: I was wrong..IT IS GROUPS...

I managed to place 192 M1A1 TUSK (from ACE mod)

in the editor...A bit laggy but it worked...

This time i placed em all in my command..

But i STILL think 144 GROUPS is a bit low..

Hm that made me think...What is the MAXIMUM of units

in the map at any time...

[Kimmeh 0]

Yeah it's groups indeed Andersson. And I fully agree it's a tad low, which is why I made this thread, to hopefully grab BIS's attention and make them reconsider changing it.

As far as I know there is no maximum amount of units, just groups.

Kimmy

[sgt_hawkins 9]

As a mission maker I can honestly say Ive only ran into this problem twice. I used Independent and made them ally with Opfor to fix this problem. Because the 144 limit applies to each faction that means that since there are 4 Factions in Arma Each with a 144 limit that's a total of 576 groups allowed in a mission. Now Granted 1 Faction is Civilians so you wont have 576 Combat Groups but you still will have 432 in Arma. Now Arma 2 has 6 Factions. That means you can have 864 total groups and 720 combat groups.

I dont know about you but that seems like more than enough.

[dematti 10]

What happens if you put in groups with probability of presence lets say 10%.

Resulting in only 1/10th being created in the game, does the limit exist here also?

Edited June 11, 2010 by dematti