How to fix Arma 2 in 11 easy steps...

[Redfist 0]

Hi all,

Let me preface my rant by saying that, I am a hardcore Arma fan. However, I like many people with whom I have spoken find Arma 2 to be frustrating and disappointing due to the number of bugs and omissions. I think the game could be radically improved by fixing or introducing the following things:

1) A default revive module which is easy to configure and allows for players to be injured for a longer period of time before dying - they should just pay norrin for his excellent script and incorporate it into the game. I feel as though a lot of coop missions are ruined by the lack of this gameplay element. I would even like to suggest a default respawn module to be added to the editor also. Why do players, who pay for the game, have to rely on the skills and work of a community? A lot of people who want to make maps, but lack time or skill, find the idea of using 3rd-party scripts daunting. Surely the game makers know that respawn and revive are essential parts of the game. Why can't they include them in the editor as an easy to use module? Grrrr - so annoying! The idea of sequential respawn is a really nice one, a module which allowed for dead players to be respawned when an objective is achieved or a certain level of progress is made.

(Also, this module should cater for PvP user-made missions).

2) Fix the AI and the grass/vegetation problem. It is insanely frustrating to be shot by AI who can see you when you cannot see them. It seems as though hiding in the grass does nothing to hide you from them. Same goes for the smoke.

3) Aircraft countermeasures and lock-on warnings. The use of aircraft and helicopters without some form of countermeasure is totally nuts.

4) Why can't squad leaders see the targets that they set for their team? I have failed to understand this since Arma 1. If they are setting the targets, surely they should know where they are; hence, they should be able to see their own targets.

5) The voice acting - it's awful. Anyone with half an ear can tell that many of the voice actors are not native speakers of English - 'ahh my leg' comes to mind (why is it always his leg? Is that the only part of a soldiers body susceptible to damage or inury?). Also, the ones who are native speakers sound terrible, you can almost hear them changing the sheets of paper in the background as they read from the hastily written notes in a recording studio.

6) Custom Aircraft Loadouts - surely the game would be better is a mission-maker could choose the loadout of an aircraft's weapons without giving himself a stroke by using scripting language.

7) The UAVs - they look amazing, but they are totally wasted. Nobody uses them in their maps and the AI pilots fly in a frustrating grid pattern. Why can't they be remotely piloted by using the UAV module? Who doesn't think that would be an improvement? Who wouldn't like to fly a UAV around blowing stuff up?

8) Fighting inside buildings and kicking-in doors. Blurghh - ohh how the game trailers deceived me there. That would also be an amazing improvement in the game. At the moment, fighting in a building feels as clunky as a Soviet tractor.

9) In-built game templates in the editor (coop and PvP) which allow laymen a chance to make their own missions without having to read 6 billion posts on the BI forums.

10) An artillery module which is not tied to the Secops thing. Why can't you put some cannons on the ground, away from the action area, and then have the players be able to call in an artillery strike? Why can't the editor and the game have a more simple module which is easily configurable for a noob? Furthermore, can they do something about the Artillery targetting module when a player is using a cannon or arty piece? That small map with the eye-straining target lines in pretty amateur, why do we have to wait for a community member to make something better? (but then nobody will use it on a server as it will be an add-on!) Grrrrh!

11) Performance.

Don't think I am down on this game, it's pretty much the only game I play. However, I know that many of my friends and clan-mates are waiting for OFP2 to be released as they believe it will offer a much better gaming experience than Arma 2. This saddens me, as I believe that with a few small but significant changes, Arma 2 should be the best military sim out there.

However, I have a suspicion that BI is not going to do anything significant to Arma 2 (maybe they will change rainbow visibility like in the last patch) and that we will be left with a broken game of squandered potential. BI - please don't let us down. I convinced all of my friends to buy this game!

[NeMeSiS 11]

2) Fix the AI and the grass/vegetation problem. It is insanely frustrating to be shot by AI who can see you when you cannot see them. It seems as though hiding in the grass does nothing to hide you from them. Same goes for the smoke.

You know i succesfully ignored these comments for a while, but now i just cry again everytime i read this.

[Redfist 0]

You know i succesfully ignored these comments for a while, but now i just cry again everytime i read this.

What does that mean exactly, Nemesis?

[randir14 10]

I don't think voice acting will ever be changed (maybe in a mod) but yeah it's annoying when your guy says "fuck that hurts" with a eastern European accent and gay lisp.

[Fenrir 10]

Hi all,

4) Why can't squad leaders see the targets that they set for their team? I have failed to understand this since Arma 1. If they are setting the targets, surely they should know where they are; hence, they should be able to see their own targets.

Well.....its normally best to call out targets if you can actually see them with your eyes, so do you really need a marker ? :p

[nyran125 10]

to be honest . The Ai will only start shooting at you when they KNOW where you are. IN real life, if an enemy knows where you are and has spotted you, regardless of grass being there or not, sorry to say it , but yeah, they WILL shoot to kill you or WONT let you leave. Or they'll just spray bullets at your general direction. And youll most likley to get hit. The real rule of thumb is dont be left out in the open. If your out in an open field you are going to be shot. There is NO grass in this world that is going to help you. PERIOD.

Do you think grass provides good cover in real life? Only a large wall, fence a large friggin tank or something can provide substantial cover for you. Grass has never throughout history ever been considered as good cover, Unless you are prone and scouting the area to plan an engagement tactic to know what your up against, but if the enemy spots you scouting then you either need to get the hell out of there or hope for the best.

DIPS in terrain have been known to provide good cover. Alexander the great, would have a map of the area the attack was in, and he would not just pin point, natural rock formations as cover he would also make sure he knew where the land dips were. Without them its just an open field and you die , and if you have a gun instead of a sword your even MORE likely to die.

So rule of thumb is you shouldnt be using plain grass for cover when you have started an engagement. Direct your troops into stealth mode before engagement and hold fire, when you have spotted the enemy wait for a sec, then open up rpovided you have SOMETHING to cover yourelf, the Ai most, or some of the time, find some kind of reasonable cover.

But if your in an open field then where the hell do you expect them to hide under fire? a tree? lol. A fern? a blade of grass?

You can get quite close to the enemy sometimes in this game without the enemy even knowing your there.

I agree that the Ai is a little more knowing than they should be, but its a fine linebetween making them completely stupid, and not shooting you at all, or making them shoot at you when they think they know where you are. I would definately prefer them shoooting at me if they know where i am, than not doing anything.

Another thing the Developers gave you 3rd person perspective for a reason, to give you a realistic approach to peripheal vision, thats what 3rd person mode is there for. So if your finding a situation where you cant see over the grass, swap to 3rd person mode.

Edited August 29, 2009 by nyran125

[Flash Thunder 10]

Preformance, Lag and Engine Optimization should be first on your list.

If BIS can do this they can make the game more accessible ala more sales.

Here's mine (some of these additions will be added via OA.

1. Preformance, Lag and Engine Optimization improvements.

2. AI improvements and tuning.

3. Mod Section in Main Menu to Enable and Disable Mods from the game.

4. Realtime, Special Effects multi frame effects.

5. Redone Voice Overs, fixes to ingame commands and radio chat.

6. More Video options, Able to change detailed LOD distances, (Sphere of Detail??) Water quality, Shader quality, Motion Blur, Depth of Field, (not all under post processing)

7. Fixed Graphical glitches and gameplay mechanics such as fast reloads, smoke not lasting long enough.

8. Lighting system redone, like light posts and stuff they give off a really fake light, Night vision googles sometimes glicthes where the screen is completely black when disabled.

9. Pictures in the Editor of Units, vehicles, weapon loadouts etc etc, make the editor improved, and a help button inside which shows you the basics and shortcuts would help alot too. :)

10. Add more diversity into the character models, more faces, more customization, more Uniform textures etc on top of the more voices.

11. Flashlights, FLIR Scopes, More silenced weapons, Fire effects, Improved first person actor model maybe being able to see yourself take out a magazine when your reload, able to change the third person camera (zoom in or out closer to your shoulder)

ARMA 2 would be perfect in my eyes if these were add sometime down the line.

[randir14 10]

11. Flashlights, FLIR Scopes

Those are coming in Operation Arrowhead according to the Q&A topic.

[{USI}_Zombie 0]

1) A default revive module which is easy to configure and allows for players to be injured for a longer period of time before dying - they should just pay norrin for his excellent script and incorporate it into the game.

I hope not, the 1st aid modules do a better job, and we aren't forced to use them

I feel as though a lot of coop missions are ruined by the lack of this gameplay element. I would even like to suggest a default respawn module to be added to the editor also.

Respawn is accomplished with 2 lines of code

Why do players, who pay for the game, have to rely on the skills and work of a community? A lot of people who want to make maps, but lack time or skill, find the idea of using 3rd-party scripts daunting.

Surely the game makers know that respawn and revive are essential parts of the game.

Actually, they are not, especially in a coop. You want infinate respawn so you will ALWAYS win? Maybe be more careful and you won't die in the 1st place.

2) Fix the AI and the grass/vegetation problem. It is insanely frustrating to be shot by AI who can see you when you cannot see them. It seems as though hiding in the grass does nothing to hide you from them. Same goes for the smoke.

Try different tactics then

3

) Aircraft countermeasures and lock-on warnings. The use of aircraft and helicopters without some form of countermeasure is totally nuts.

Can you tell me how a passive guidance system on a missle would generate a lock on warning? Heat guidance is passive. Adjust your tactics

4) Why can't squad leaders see the targets that they set for their team? I have failed to understand this since Arma 1. If they are setting the targets, surely they should know where they are; hence, they should be able to see their own targets.

OK, I actually agree with this one.

5) The voice acting - it's awful. Anyone with half an ear can tell that many of the voice actors are not native speakers of English - 'ahh my leg' comes to mind (why is it always his leg? Is that the only part of a soldiers body susceptible to damage or inury?). Also, the ones who are native speakers sound terrible, you can almost hear them changing the sheets of paper in the background as they read from the hastily written notes in a recording studio.

this one too.

6) Custom Aircraft Loadouts - surely the game would be better is a mission-maker could choose the loadout of an aircraft's weapons without giving himself a stroke by using scripting language.

again, this takes very minimal scripting, and about 60 seconds, no stroke for me to do.

7) The UAVs - they look amazing, but they are totally wasted. Nobody uses them in their maps and the AI pilots fly in a frustrating grid pattern. Why can't they be remotely piloted by using the UAV module? Who doesn't think that would be an improvement? Who wouldn't like to fly a UAV around blowing stuff up?

me and me again, I have no issue with the UAV and use it in my missions.

8) Fighting inside buildings and kicking-in doors. Blurghh - ohh how the game trailers deceived me there. That would also be an amazing improvement in the game. At the moment, fighting in a building feels as clunky as a Soviet tractor.

Can't agree completely but I do wish MORE buildings were enterable

9) In-built game templates in the editor (coop and PvP) which allow laymen a chance to make their own missions without having to read 6 billion posts on the BI forums.

There already are, called wizards. Anyone can throw a map together in about 11 seconds with NO scripting

10) An artillery module which is not tied to the Secops thing. Why can't you put some cannons on the ground, away from the action area, and then have the players be able to call in an artillery strike?

You already can, arty will work just fine w/o the "secops thing"

Why can't the editor and the game have a more simple module which is easily configurable for a noob?

It's already extremely simple. 1 module and 1 synchronization line? Is that too hard?

Furthermore, can they do something about the Artillery targetting module when a player is using a cannon or arty piece? That small map with the eye-straining target lines in pretty amateur, why do we have to wait for a community member to make something better? (but then nobody will use it on a server as it will be an add-on!) Grrrrh!

Doesn't seem amateur to me, it's pretty straightforward.

11) Performance.

It works, turn your settings down, don't expect 100 fps all the time.

I hope they don't try to turn this wonderful versatile game in to some bf2/cod clone because people want it nerfed because they can't take the time to learn the game, adjust their tactics, and contribute to the community

[Redfist 0]

Hi,

I knew my post would attract a rebuttle. So, here is mine.

I hope not, the 1st aid modules do a better job, and we aren't forced to use them

Errr. OK - about the inbuilt revive modules - in what way would it be negative to have easily adjustable settings for those players who would like to use them? Judging by the fact that the most popular maps on Arma are usually Evo or Domination - I believe if we put this to a poll, I would win. Furthermore, if respawn is affected with only 10-lines of code - then why the hell not incorporate into the editor? How would that disadvantage the game?

Actually, they are not, especially in a coop. You want infinate respawn so you will ALWAYS win? Maybe be more careful and you won't die in the 1st place.

Right - do only I want infinite respawns? Please check the MP server lists and tell me how many people are playing missions which don't have multiple respawns or revive? I agree there is a time and a place for 1-life missions - and there are some awesome missions which use this, however it appears that most of the playing community would support my idea.

Try different tactics then

That wasn't my point. If you got the idea that my only tactical strategy relies on lying in grass during a firefight, then you're wrong. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that I am disappointed with the lack of ability to hide or take cover using the aid of vegetation. And no, I don't think grass should shield you, but it should at least reduce the accuracy of enemy AI fire.

Can you tell me how a passive guidance system on a missle would generate a lock on warning? Heat guidance is passive. Adjust your tactics

That's a fine question, but it is kind of irrelevant. I know that Arma strives to be a military simulator, and it does a good job. However, it is not (and nor should it be) a perfect simulation. Enemy AA missiles have a ridiculous advantage of aircraft of all forms in this game. So, for the sake of playability, I would prefer an optionable countermeasure system to be added. If you don't like it, it could be turned off. How many players do you think would be using it?

again, this takes very minimal scripting, and about 60 seconds, no stroke for me to do.

I read into this that scripting is something you are comfortable or familiar with. What about players who like playing and want to make missions, but lack any skill to script. Is this a game which should exclude people who are not comfortable with scripting? Is this a wise business strategy on behalf of BI? In what way would my suggestion help to degrade the value of the game?

me and me again, I have no issue with the UAV and use it in my missions

Awesome. I would love to play on on your server, seriously. Because the only time I have seen the UAV in a MP mission was in a modified version of Domination (which coincidentally had revive and respawn as options...weird they must all be BF2 lovers).

Can't agree completely but I do wish MORE buildings were enterable

Glad somebody likes it. Personally, I find it really frustrating to fight in a building, it's difficult to turn, my soldier often has graphic glitches with the walls, getting on and off the ladders feels awful...etc...

There already are, called wizards. Anyone can throw a map together in about 11 seconds with NO scripting

Oooppps..blush (sorry guv'nor, didn't realise).

It works, turn your settings down, don't expect 100 fps all the time.

Hey, good idea. No performance issues in Arma 2, case closed. Why do we need a new patch?

I hope they don't try to turn this wonderful versatile game in to some bf2/cod clone because people want it nerfed because they can't take the time to learn the game, adjust their tactics, and contribute to the community

Is it possible to criticise this game without being given the label of a BF2 player? As I said, I have been a hardcore Arma fan for years and will continue to be in the future. Most people who play the game appreciate it for what it is. However, it seems as though most people would like a more accessible balance of gameplay elements with which the bugs/downfalls/flaws of any military simulator can be balanced. Things such as respawn and revive are universally popular in the game as they were in Arma 1. Did Arma 1 become a BF-clone? Didn't BI themselves award map of the year to Domination??? How would it be a bad thing to include them as options?

Personally, I find it slightly insulting and disheartening that changes which would be clearly popular with the community, and could improve the gaming experience of a large number of PAYING customers, can be so easily dismissed as the childish demands of a person who wants to degrade the game into BF.

This game is an excellent military simulator, but like any other game it needs to improve, why not make improvements which have already been proven to be popular for years by the fact that they have been added into most missions by the community?

...but, maybe you're right about changing my tactics. Maybe most of the players should change their tactics and buy OFP2.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I read into this that scripting is something you are comfortable or familiar with. What about players who like playing and want to make missions, but lack any skill to script. Is this a game which should exclude people who are not comfortable with scripting? Is this a wise business strategy on behalf of BI? In what way would my suggestion help to degrade the value of the game?

There is an infinite amount of possibilities within this game('s editor), you cant make everything an option.

[Redfist 0]

There is an infinite amount of possibilities within this game('s editor), you cant make everything an option.

This would be a contructive point if you were talking about any of the other infinite possibilities which has not become a mainstay of the mission making and playing community. You can add animals and civilians, but not respawn or or an adjustable revive from the editor? How can an integrated repawn module not be considered important? I am not suggesting that all things be included, just the thing that everyone wants in their missions.

[NeMeSiS 11]

This would be a contructive point if you were talking about any of the other infinite possibilities which has not become a mainstay of the mission making and playing community. You can add animals and civilians, but not respawn or or an adjustable revive from the editor? How can an integrated repawn module not be considered important? I am not suggesting that all things be included, just the thing that everyone wants in their missions.

Respawn couldnt possibly be made any easier. You make 1 file, write 1 line and optionally to markers for the respawn position. :j:

And adjustable feature x? Everything that it adjustable needs (Barely any) scripting, including the civilians, animals and random combat.

[Redfist 0]

Respawn couldnt possibly be made any easier. You make 1 file, write 1 line and optionally to markers for the respawn position.

Sure it could, put it in as a module which is easy to use, possible with options that can be configured. Surely that would simplify the procedure? Why or how is it a bad idea?

The same goes for the concept of revive. Do you really believe that it wouldn't be popular? Do you really believe it wouldn't make the game more accessible to scripting noobs or people with little skill?

It seems as though you criticism is based more on an urge to disagree. Why not make the game better and easier to use for a larger number of people, wouldn't it be an improvement?

[ceeeb 147]

4) Why can't squad leaders see the targets that they set for their team? I have failed to understand this since Arma 1. If they are setting the targets, surely they should know where they are; hence, they should be able to see their own targets.

This problem is due to the way each group shares a single target knowledge base (including any human players). If any member of your group can see/hear something, your character knows about it, even if you as the player don't. This does seem to be a more obvious problem in ArmA2, since the environment is very effective in hiding targets from human eyes (AI detection seems to be superior to the players, except over long range). The game also seems to detect what the player can see by using the same detection routines on the players character as those used for actual AI, which can detect things better than the player in some cases.

Edited August 29, 2009 by ceeeb

[Novotny 10]

Redfist, you have to understand that the vast majority only post to massage their egos. Especially those with large post counts.

I think your points are fair and well represented. Don't allow silly boys to detract from that.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Sure it could, put it in as a module which is easy to use, possible with options that can be configured. Surely that would simplify the procedure? Why or how is it a bad idea?

The same goes for the concept of revive. Do you really believe that it wouldn't be popular? Do you really believe it wouldn't make the game more accessible to scripting noobs or people with little skill?

Because were do you draw the line of what should be easier and what shouldnt? Obviously BI cant make options for everything, they have to drawn the line somewhere. Its already 10 times easier compared to OFP/ArmA. If you refure to learn to make simple edits to scripts (We are talking about changing numbers here) you refuse to make decent missions.

[Redfist 0]

Because were do you draw the line of what should be easier and what shouldnt? Obviously BI cant make options for everything, they have to drawn the line somewhere. Its already 10 times easier compared to OFP/ArmA. If you refure to learn to make simple edits to scripts (We are talking about changing numbers here) you refuse to make decent missions.

This is a place to write suggestions, correct? My suggestion is that BI re-adjust the line they have drawn for the benefit of their paying customers.

It's not like I am asking for a ridiculously complicated or overly specific addition. It's RESPAWN and REVIVE. They're in ALMOST EVERY mission from Arma 1 and Arma 2.

This has nothing to do with refusal to learn, almost anybody who wants to make an ambitious mission usually tries to learn at least some scripting, BI could help noobs a lot by incorporating a feature which is universally popular. It seems as though to suggest any changes to the game is tantamount to condemning it. Yet again, please state a clear and logical idea that would support the idea of why an easy to use revive/respawn module would be a disadvantage in the game. Try to explain to me how it wouldn't be popular as everyone would clearly prefer the obvious scripting technique (provided of course you have the base computer skills in order to be able to learn scripting). Dimissing suggestions and associating them with a refusal to learn is a weak argument which leads to nothing constructive.

I am willing to bet that most people would find it a welcome addition and it would inspire lots of new map makers.

Why can't Arma have more options which are clearly popular? Am I asking for the impossible? Or should we all bow our heads and dare not speak anything which suggests any form change?

[{USI}_Zombie 0]

Redfist, you have to understand that the vast majority only post to massage their egos. Especially those with large post counts.

I think your points are fair and well represented. Don't allow silly boys to detract from that.

I won't dignify this with any more of a response.

Errr. OK - about the inbuilt revive modules - in what way would it be negative to have easily adjustable settings for those players who would like to use them? Judging by the fact that the most popular maps on Arma are usually Evo or Domination - I believe if we put this to a poll, I would win. Furthermore, if respawn is affected with only 10-lines of code - then why the hell not incorporate into the editor? How would that disadvantage the game?

There is so much more to ArmA than Evo or domination. The built in modules need NO adjusting, select/click/configured, no lines of code.

Right - do only I want infinite respawns? Please check the MP server lists and tell me how many people are playing missions which don't have multiple respawns or revive? I agree there is a time and a place for 1-life missions - and there are some awesome missions which use this, however it appears that most of the playing community would support my idea.

I never said only you, I am not against respawn at all, even for coops, but it makes more sense, to me anyway, in a coop, for group respawn. If you die you respawn in to one of the surviving squad members, and when all squad members are dead, mission failed. I make all my coops this way. There are MANY purists out there that play with NO respawns, which works for them but I think is a little over the top.

Invoking BF2 on my part was over the top, shouldn't have gone there. :o

(and I do play BF2, I just expect Arma to be different). I have been with the series since OFP, took the time to learn the editor, made missions my squad wanted to play when we couldn't find one already.

Look, Arma is whatever we want it to be. I don't get the whole Chernarus life thing myself, but if it makes them happy....same with domination...and evolution...different strokes and all that. I am not against ANY of the changes you suggested IF they are options. Then YOU could play the game you want to play and I could play the game I want to play. My fear is that if enough people want something, they will FORCE it on the rest of us. I bought BF2 on release day, and enough people complained loudly enough about game mechanics they couldn't cope with that they forced a nerf game on all of us. Options are one thing, but sweeping forced changes to satisfy the vocal minority I can't abide quietly.

I appreciate your passion and believe it or not respect your position, I just don't agree with it entirely. I shouldn't post under-caffienated, my tone is harsher than intended. Again, options are wonderful, if they are options. I also would like to encourage you to TAKE the time to learn the editor and scripting, it is a whole new element, and to many of us, just as rewarding as actually playing.

[xclusiv8 10]

Hi,

Can you tell me how a passive guidance system on a missle would generate a lock on warning? Heat guidance is passive. Adjust your tactics

That's a fine question, but it is kind of irrelevant. I know that Arma strives to be a military simulator, and it does a good job. However, it is not (and nor should it be) a perfect simulation. Enemy AA missiles have a ridiculous advantage of aircraft of all forms in this game. So, for the sake of playability, I would prefer an optionable countermeasure system to be added. If you don't like it, it could be turned off. How many players do you think would be using it?

AA missiles are made to take down stupid pilots and they do the job really really good. You dont want playability nor does anyone else. They are just pissed that they cant fly an airplane without getting shot down cause they reffuse to change theire tactics to something that works.

I would love to see countermeasure technology on the airplanes in ArmA. Flares are just a mod away!

[Gen. Lee Outrageous 10]

some good points in there, personally i really miss how driving a vehicle by mouse worked in operation flashpoint. the way it works now is just horribly clumsy and hard to use.

[Alex72 1]

And no one listing faults with the game ever adds the sound... Dont you people have ears or dont you care that more then half of the sounds arent tied to their sources? Like in if you turn your head - sound will follow.

Cant understand countermeasures are more important than a bug that cannot be fixed by the community. And it confuses the hell out of you. That is - IF you have ears.

Oh well. Hope BIS seen the only entry from me on this - and care about it when it comes from 1 single person.

Rest of your list many things do work. I can sneak in grass without being seen (YOU HAVE TO SNEAK SLOOOOOW). Take more time to learn the game is my tips.

Alex

[{USI}_Zombie 0]

I haven't tried it, but doesn't mandomissles include some kind of countermeasures?

[jw custom 56]

You know i succesfully ignored these comments for a while, but now i just cry again everytime i read this.

Well redfist got a point there, though AI has gotten better now there's still issues with AI being able to pinpoint you down to milimeters from behind trees, bushes and grass!

[Redfist 0]

Hmmm,

First of all to USI-Zombie:

There is so much more to ArmA than Evo or domination. The built in modules need NO adjusting, select/click/configured, no lines of code.

Agreed. Evo or Domination are certainly not the best that Arma has to offer, but if you want to play Coop games with large numbers of people where communicating with microphone is not essential, these seem to be popular choices. Personally, I prefer smaller-scale missions with more definite objectives, however it's hard to find a decent server which promotes such missions. Although, I have to disagree with the idea that the inbuilt modules need no configuration. How can you make the default revive function last longer before the player dies out? How do you get the secops module to provide missions which are further away from the players location?

Does anyone think it would be a bad thing to have a default respawn or configurable revive module? Anyone? Anyone? (Ferris Buller style)

I also would like to encourage you to TAKE the time to learn the editor and scripting, it is a whole new element, and to many of us, just as rewarding as actually playing.

Agreed. However, I can't see why BI cannot include a small number of changes to make the editor more mission-maker friendly to those players who lack the time (because of work, study, family etc.) to really get into the scripting aspect of mission making. Larger-scale missions, which involve the player fighting against incredible odds, are all but impossible to complete without some form of life-loss compensation.

Although, Zombie, I gotta say I noticed a remarkable level of difference in the tone of you writing between the first and later posts. Coffee seems to have turn you into a nice guy ;)

To Exclusiv:

AA missiles are made to take down stupid pilots and they do the job really really good. You dont want playability nor does anyone else. They are just pissed that they cant fly an airplane without getting shot down cause they reffuse to change theire tactics to something that works.

Not sure what this statement actually means? Pilots who are shot down are stupid? Right, you'd think that most airforces of the world would have realised this a long time ago. Unless of course, you only mean in the game. There have been numerous instances where very skillful Arma pilots were shot down. It has very little to do with tactics, and more to do with the fact that if you turn the enemy AI skill up a little too high, AA units or enemy planes can blow you out of the sky before you even know they are there. Play Domination or Evolution to see my point.

To Alex:

Rest of your list many things do work. I can sneak in grass without being seen (YOU HAVE TO SNEAK SLOOOOOW). Take more time to learn the game is my tips.

Did you read my post? I am a fan of the game. I have been playing Arma and OFP since day one. I have played the game for years and so have nearly all of my clan-mates. The grass and vegetation doesn't work in the way it should or could. It is practically a redundant feature, enemy AI (unless of the lowest level of skill), simply don't seem to acknowledge its existence. OK - hypothetical situation. You are lying in long grass with a rifle. You shoot the rifle at a target and he:

A) Instantly turns around and shoots you dead.

B) Panicks and tries to locate the source of the fire, which is difficult due to the fact that the shooter is lying in LONG GRASS!!!

Please tell me, which is more representative of reality?

But, please the next time you write a reply, please do it real SLOOOOWLY, so the rest of us cattle can understand it.

And, stop phrasing any criticism of the game within the context of a player's skill level. A lot of seasoned players have advantages over noobs in the sense that they are able to take advantage of the games quirks and bugs and are familiar with the way that AI responds in certain situations, not because they have formed some form of tactical genius by playing a computer game. The game has flaws, why can't we discuss them without this turning into a 'you're a noob' argument. Blurghhhh!

Alas, it seems pointless, I had SO much hope that this game would be the ultimate military simulator. It's crippled by its bugs and weaknessed. I imagine, sadly, that a good portion of Arma players will sadly switch over to OFP2, forsaking an element of realism for a more well-polished product and better gaming experience.

I wouldn't be so arrogant as to suggest that my suggestions alone would fix Arma, I just really believe based on years of playing experience these few small changes would make the game a hell of a lot more playable and accessible especially to newer players. Dimissing obvious flaws in the game as whimsical complaints of players who don't know any better, or are not able to 'adjust their tactics', is not going to do anything to strengthen the community of players who actually pay the price for the game's development by buying it and potentially buying any expansion packs or future sequels. If BI cannot fix issues basic issues with the game, what do you think the future of the franchise is going to be? I, personally love the game, but I want to see it better as I don't want to be searching for games on empty servers when OFP2 comes out in one month.