ANNOUNCE: PVP script pack released

[AceOfSpades 10]

My Afghan mission is up on Armaholic.com if any are interested. Do not forget that you will need the a few mods to run it as listed on the download page.

Mac think I stumbled across more work for you accidently or maybe not , might be related to the time problem you have hot fix for.(I always just wait for new releases) I was messing around with this "football" gamemode after putting it up on our server to get some folks to take a peak and shoot me some ideas... anyhow 2 things..one was the timer did not seem to be running,the time was set in parameters to 5 minutes so I can test outro music. 5 minutes turned into 10 and nothing. The clock on the HUD was not ticking off either. Also noticed that any other time I have messed with this map, the clock was not running, this was first time though I tried to let it go the distance.

The other thing was ... got rid of stock ak for a g-36, then scored some flag points then decided to do a blow myself up test and chk other features. I respawned with loadout but the gun would not fire until I used the weapon select key "F" and cycled back to the g-36, even though it looked as if I could fire. I tested this each time and duplicated the results.

[sbsmac 0]

Yea, I will work on it Mac, least I can do. Must say tho, probably won't get started on anything until monday morning my next whole day off.

There's no obligation mate but if you do feel in the mood to improve it please be my guest (that goes for anyone else reading this !) :)

Your 'start' problem is a deliberate feature - the timer will not start until you have at least one player on each side.

The G36 thing is interesting - this is a bit of a well-known ArmA2 bug although you are the first one to notice that it seems specific to the G36 - that may give me some ideas to look at!

[celery 8]

Already complained about G36A and K in the 1.05 thread, noticed it myself while testing the DM template.

[AceOfSpades 10]

ahhhh so the timer/#players was the culprit! Doh! :o

I had a feeling that it would be something like that and not really a problem but felt compelled to report anyways. Happy then I did not make any work for you that is new. I get the feeling I make too much work for you as it is :D

I think what I am gonna do on the manual is , once I am done making some TvT maps for our servers I will start another co-op and will design the tutorial as a walkthrough for that mission. I will incorporate all features useful to co-op in one mission.

On that note gonna make a short list, a wish list of sorts, of features we have discussed elsewhere in this thread that would be great for co-op mode. I know your busy so no worries just gathering these things so its all on one post.

**ability to turn the score system off and just keep track of deaths and kills.

**helicopter insertion, you can see a working version of this in xeno's MP paradrop mission that comes in his domination pack. It nvr has failed and me and my son have pllayed it often together.(makes the chopper teleport to avoid AI crashes)

**Side specific ammo boxes

**More control over artillary, either some kind of trigger or timer ect to make it start/stop (like drive into this area and arty starts, drive out it stops)

**Ability to hide markers displayed to players in case co-op design calls for unknown mine fields ect.

**Ability to make AI respawn at a location if that location is not taken(for some reason but I am ignorant, this one I think would be hard to figure out)

I think this is all from prior posts that have been discussed.

Also, I cannot find documentation on safezone or hostage other than the 2.03 video. Can you update the manual a bit with the keywords that can be used/combined with that? I am sure this will be used by coop makers often. Also "sign" keyword syntax in manual would be useful so video does not have to be referred to. (easier to read some text than find that spot in video ect.) I would edit the manual regarding this myself but since I have not used it yet I am afraid I will input wrong info.

Edited October 9, 2009 by AceOfSpades

[Tom_Anger 0]

mac, I know we talked a bit on spawn camp prevention for DM missions and know Celery has alleviated this with some scripts. Is there some way we can implement this in v3.0? I don't care about the going prone "Burning my bellie" part, but would like it so that if you are in a position for a bit that you are warned then with not enough movement your weapons are taken. It is much needed for the DM scripts. Thanks bud.

[celery 8]

mac, I know we talked a bit on spawn camp prevention for DM missions and know Celery has alleviated this with some scripts. Is there some way we can implement this in v3.0? I don't care about the going prone "Burning my bellie" part, but would like it so that if you are in a position for a bit that you are warned then with not enough movement your weapons are taken. It is much needed for the DM scripts. Thanks bud.

"Spawn" camping in DM? :p

I already made a new (less annoying) kind of anti-proning and told mac how it works if he wants to implement that one. It's separate from the actual anti-camping script that I'm trying to improve at the moment. The punishment seems a bit too harsh.

[sbsmac 0]

As celery says, anti-proning is quite straight-forward. I'm inclined to implement that just by disabling the 'prone' key! ;-) Anti-camping is also relatively easy to implement, harder to define. Remvoving weapons seems a bit harsh, perhaps start off simply by blinding the player for a some seconds or have an escalating scale of punishments ? I thought that forcing the player to do the 'dance' animation might be quite amusing... :)

Another thing that needs to be fixed for DM is this - http://dev-heaven.net/issues/show/5087

[celery 8]

As celery says, anti-proning is quite straight-forward. I'm inclined to implement that just by disabling the 'prone' key! ;-) Anti-camping is also relatively easy to implement, harder to define. Remvoving weapons seems a bit harsh, perhaps start off simply by blinding the player for a some seconds or have an escalating scale of punishments ? I thought that forcing the player to do the 'dance' animation might be quite amusing... :)

IMHO it's simpler and easier to just check the animations and force the player to go back up. I can imagine that the key disabling thing can have many loopholes like leg damage or using mouse or joystick buttons if they're not checked as well. Or just pick both.

Regarding camper's punishment, I was thinking of something like an on-screen Rsc target box that might be possible with the new worldToScreen command. I've concluded that taking weapons away and giving the player a 99% chance of death is unfair considering that he probably just didn't know how the system works.

Another thing that needs to be fixed for DM is this - http://dev-heaven.net/issues/show/5087

Whenever I need to place someone in a safe place, I setpos him miles high in the sky. :16_6_8:

[sbsmac 0]

Celery, the reason I'm reluctant to use animations is that I also see these as possible areas for loop-holes. Eg, what happens if BIS introduce a new writhing-in-agony anim in the next patch ? I agree though that detecting the fact that a player is prone is required even though they may not have got there by pressing the prone button. Maybe it's possible just to look at their vertical position ? (Haven't tried this so not sure what happens on rocks/buildings.)

>I was thinking of something like an on-screen Rsc target box

You mean providing a target box for the other players to see the camper ? Yes, I agree this would be a nice solution. A poor-man's version of this would just be to use the map markers but they are quite fiddly to use in a DM. There are ways to show the map as an inset on-screen in which case map markers might be useful again.

>Whenever I need to place someone in a safe place, I setpos him miles high in the sky.

Yes, probably the 'cheapest' solution although given the fact I potentially have to move a camera around with them I expect I'll just extend the border-exception code to allow players other than spectators to survive outside of them. I have to do this anyway to allow for the return of flags (in CTF) that have been dropped in minefields...

[Tom_Anger 0]

Whatever you choose just think about being simple for players. If the go prone making the screen black with a message stating "Going prone is against the rules" would be better than just going black for a bit or telling them your belly is burning, especially if they went prone on grass, lol. A nice short informative message helps players understand the rules.

Also on the camping part, I liked Celery's Tequila version (aside of the profanity part, lol). A simple message with no black screen stating "Camping is against the rules. Move or be penalized" would be nice and after the threshold implement the target thing or any other penalization theory you have. It is probably the biggest necessity in DM. Nothing more boring than 3 or 4 players sitting around, lol.

Should I submit this in your development database?

[AceOfSpades 10]

Working on a version of king of the hill using CH gamemode with a single objective. I seem to be having 2 problems. One I think may be a bug, I placed an arty marker and it appears on players on the blue side's map but not on players fighting for opfor. All players are listed as playable with no one listed as player. Would really be helpful either way to have a keyword that would remove a marker from showing on a players map completely as we discussed in an earlier post. For all markers or most anyways.

Other problem which is most likely an error on my part, but for the life of me I cant seem to make a no fly zone. As keywords I have allowEast and allowWest but no matter what I type for the marker name it just shows on the map like a regular map marker with the name "allowEast" or "allowWest" depending on which one you are looking at. I have tried just about every spelling of noflyover I can think of. Now either I am typing it wrong or the helicopters I put in the game are set up wrong. I first tested with empty choppers but then figuring since they were not assigned to a side I changed them to blue and red playable as pilot/gunner and then made sure they were not grouped to any other unit. At the moment that is how they are currently set up. Is it broken, a syntax error on my part or choppers set up wrong?

Thanks for your help.

oh, btw, out of curiosity as well as for planning, is there any rough estimate on when the next version of the pack will be released?

[sbsmac 0]

Working on a version of king of the hill using CH gamemode with a single objective. I seem to be having 2 problems. One I think may be a bug, I placed an arty marker and it appears on players on the blue side's map but not on players fighting for opfor.

That seems very strange - artillery markers shouldn't appear to either side ! I will take a quick look here but may need to get the mission file from you.

Other problem which is most likely an error on my part, but for the life of me I cant seem to make a no fly zone. As keywords I have allowEast and allowWest but no matter what I type for the marker name it just shows on the map like a regular map marker with the name "allowEast" or "allowWest" depending on which one you are looking at. I have tried just about every spelling of noflyover I can think of.

You need to create a marker called 'noflyzone' (not 'noflyover'). The default behaviour if you don't specify either allowEast or allowWest is for both sides to see the zone. The zones work by looking at the height of the player above ground so they currently only work on aircraft/helicopters that are being flown/crewed by human players.

oh, btw, out of curiosity as well as for planning, is there any rough estimate on when the next version of the pack will be released?

I'm currently pretty busy with www.armaleage.com but have just finished a big rewrite of the regions system that will allow me to share information between server and clients more easily. This is needed for things like progressive respawn (sorry Rome, I know you are still waiting!) and script driven artillery. I need to make sure I haven't broken anything in the process. Realistically it may be a couple of weeks until the next release I'm afraid. In the past I have made pre-releases available to people for testing but these are only really suitable if you are prepared to live with bugs. If you are interestd, let me know.

[AceOfSpades 10]

oops sorry in prior post I typed noflyover but that is not what I was typing for marker. I have tried NoFlyZone, noFlyZone, noflyzone and I think that is it, then started thinking it was a problem with how the choppers were set up, so started fiddling with them. Does a noflyzone show up on players maps? If it doesn't that will be a good indication if and when I get one created correctly since currently I can look at the map and see two zones in grey that say allowEast and allowWest. rather than testing with a chopper everytime I can just preview and look at the map, when the markers don't show it probably safe to try a chopper test. I ran out of time last night so will continue to try different spellings of noflyzone.

Mac said: The default behaviour if you don't specify either allowEast or allowWest is for both sides to see the zone. The zones work by looking at the height of the player above ground so they currently only work on aircraft/helicopters that are being flown/crewed by human players.

Just to make sure I understand correctly. A zone will only show on opposing players maps, displaying the area they are NOT allowed to go? Also I take it my idea of the choppers being an issue is incorrect because the marker looks at the actual players in the chopper and wether they are opfor or blufor, rather than the chopper itself?

Edited October 14, 2009 by AceOfSpades

[sbsmac 0]

Capitalisation of the marker name is unimportant. NoFlyZones do show up on players maps although I'm wondering if the problem might be to do with some code that tries to be clever about the marker name. Try putting a dummy name like "Dont Fly here" as the first keyword in the marker text. I haven't tested noflyzones extensively so it's always possible they got broken somewhere along the line. As you say, the presence or not of a chopper is irrelevant - you should be able to tell just by looking at the map.

Your understanding about when the markers show up is correct. You are also right that the chopper side is irrelevant. Sorry, away from gaming PC tonight otherwise I would take a quick look at this myself.

[AceOfSpades 10]

In the next hour I will create a test CH mission to try and isolate this and make sure of the results. Will just start out with making a single marker named noflyzone and single keyword of DONT FLY HERE and see if I can fly into it I will post results but have afeeling from reading what we have discussed so far, I think it is broken. It sounds to me I was doing the right thing and mine should have worked.Even if the keyword is set up like an objective marker(were first keyword inputed is the name) then the two noflyzones should have ommitted everyone. I was able to take off from one noflyzone and fly through the other one.

****edit

Loaded up your CH template utes mission in mp editor. Created a an empty blackhawk since it shouldn't matter what kind of chopper, near the opfor respawn area, created an elipse 500X500 marker off shore to the south, with the name "noflyzone" and keyword of "DONT FLY HERE" and previewed the mission. It created a grey marker with the label "DONT FLY HERE" in which I flew the chopper several times in and out of with no result.

I realize your short on time so if you would like me to test with any other paramters or if I did something wrong just say so and I will do it again as you request. Anyway I can help just lemme know.

For now I will consider it broken and change my anti-spawn raping strategy to AI anti air units in a perimeter. Thanks.

Edited October 14, 2009 by AceOfSpades

[sbsmac 0]

Just found and fixed the problem (embarrassing cut and paste error). Hot fix available at http://dev-heaven.net/attachments/download/2768/noflyzone.sqf

[Durka-Durka 10]

Hello all. Is it possible to define the height of an objective? I'm trying to put my flagpole on top of a castle keep, just trying to find out if it's possible. Thanks.

Also, I'm looking to make some TvT missions that are closer to a real-life scenario, rather than a ctf type. My goal is to have one team defend an area, centered around a single flagpole for instance, and the other team is tasked with seizing that area and raising their flag. Of course, the defenders would start out in control of that single flagpole, and there would possibly be respawns and maybe vehicles down the line. Which of these gametypes, if any, would suit this purpose, and what would I have to tweak to get there? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

-d

Edited October 20, 2009 by Durka-Durka

[celery 8]

Object's init box:

this setPos [getPos this select 0,getPos this select 1,10]

The last value sets the height of an object in meters.

[Durka-Durka 10]

Object's init box:

this setPos [getPos this select 0,getPos this select 1,10]

The last value sets the height of an object in meters.

Thanks for the help, but it doesn't have an init box since it's a marker.

[sbsmac 0]

Hello all. Is it possible to define the height of an objective? I'm trying to put my flagpole on top of a castle keep, just trying to find out if it's possible. Thanks.

At the moment I'm afraid not but I adding a 'height' keyword would be quite easy in the next release. Do you want the objective to be captured at ground level or would players have to climb the castle to capture it ?

Also, I'm looking to make some TvT missions that are closer to a real-life scenario, rather than a ctf type. My goal is to have one team defend an area, centered around a single flagpole for instance, and the other team is tasked with seizing that area and raising their flag. Of course, the defenders would start out in control of that single flagpole, and there would possibly be respawns and maybe vehicles down the line. Which of these gametypes, if any, would suit this purpose, and what would I have to tweak to get there? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

You may want to check out Tom Anger's SIEGE maps which are very similar in concept. In his maps one side has to defend an area for a fixed time and the other has to infiltrate it to win. The basic recipe for this kind of map is...

Start with C&H.

Create an objective_1 "target zone" that is initially owned by west

Create an objective_2 "east HQ" that is owned by east and is somewhere inaccessible to west.

Set CTF_allowDominationWin so that the game ends when either side owns both objectives.

If you want you can use the 'flag' keyword on objective_1.

The east side then need to capture objective_1 in order to win.

That's it - very simple :-)

[Tom_Anger 0]

Durka - I made 4 SEIGE maps (forgive the spelling - in my next update they will be spelled correctly (SIEGE not SEIGE, lol), and have 2 others in the making which will be released when mac has 3.0 available.

The missions are simple, yet functional designs. 2 homebase spawn locations and 1 SIEGE AREA. OPFOR has to defend the SIEGE AREA and not let BLUFOR get in it. If blufor gets in it for 10 seconds (In my next update it will be 5 seconds like in Ghost Recon) BLUFOR wins.

There are no respawns either so each team has to move out get into position and figure out their next move. Making respawns available is very simple - just change a value in the config file. This hasn't taken off with the community yet and I think an event will have to take place soon. I am waiting for mac's next script update then I will rename these missions to something that the community mostly knows and have bonus maps for gamers to enjoy.

i.e.

TKOTH will be renamed to CH16-Team King Of The Hill (mission name)

SIEGE will be renamed to A&D16-Team SIEGE (mission name)

If you download my pack (it is in my sig section) and extract them you can see how easy it is to make your own. If you like I can strip a mission down to nothing other than the spawn points and SIEGE AREA for you. Just give me an email and I will shoot a zip version out to you.

[sbsmac 0]

HELP REQUIRED - V3.0

Whilst I now have some automated testing in place there is no substitute for people trying things that I wouldn't think to. I'm looking for people who...

* Have MSN/skype

* Are prepared for frequent (potentially more than 1 per day) upgrades

* Are prepared to actively look for bugs

* Are able to describe problems clearly

* Are willing to verify that issues have been fixed

* Would be willing to help with documentation/sample missions/tutorial/marketing videos/other collateral

* Can commit a moderate amount of time on this.

* It's fine if you are in a different timezone - this actually works very well for 'offline' testing.

I'm NOT looking for people who just want to get V3 earlier than anyone else or who only care about a single feature.

If you are interested in helping please PM me. :)

[rome 0]

errrf, id love to but i just find some work wich willl take me lots of time. What i can do is help with documentation, like a french translation, if needed. But I guess it is not prioritary.

[Durka-Durka 10]

At the moment I'm afraid not but I adding a 'height' keyword would be quite easy in the next release. Do you want the objective to be captured at ground level or would players have to climb the castle to capture it ?

That would be great. Ideally, it would be an interesting thing to make it into the keep, then fight your way up to the top to capture the flag, so yes, it would be best to have capture at the height of the flagpole.

Tom,

I'll try those maps, and be in contact with you if I need any help. Thanks!

[sbsmac 0]

No problem Rome - i know how real-life can get in the way!