gossamersolid

Agreed. When you begin to charge money, you're in a whole different league. If you can't handle the criticism of your product that you charged money for, then you should have considered not charging money for it.

Where'd you get that info from?

I can't quite remember of all of the places that need to be changed in order for this to work well. The GM version would probably be somewhat easy (copy and paste job), but the WW2 would require some more considerations in terms of structures/technologies/etc. I planned to come back to this mode at some point in time and implement AI to pad player numbers (which have always been low), but got quite burnt out over time (I'm sure you of all people understand :D)

Yeah the G3 does have a similar problem (let's be honest, a lot of guns in ArmA and mods in general have this issue). I know the devs of Rising Storm 2 had brought it up before and actually made the peep holes unrealistically larger as to make them more useful from a gameplay perspective. At least the G3 can be zeroed to 100m which has a much more open sight.

Just noticed your download link isn't working for me.

Great job on the release guys! I've been enjoying the campaign so far (only on mission 2 because I'm terrible at the game). My only critcisms are that the peep hole sights on the Uzi (or MP2, I forget what it's called ingame) and basically unusable. I'm well aware that this is what they look like in real-life, but in real-life our eye sight allows the peep hole design to work. In video games, on the other hand, it just makes them very frustrating to use. Keep up the good work!

Hey Haz, thanks for the updates. I've been out of the ArmA community for quite a while now. I'll post your version on the opening post so people can use it instead of my broken one.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your original post, but you said you merely want to check if it's a true PvP scenario. Using the exact command I provided, if more than one side returns > 1, it's PvP, is it not?

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/allPlayers _bluNums = west countSide allPlayers; That'd give you what you want, from what I can see.

I didn't claim I knew how it worked. I was merely saying it should work this way. Being optional is pretty silly and goes against your original DLC release plans to ensure compatability between all players. How many unofficial DLC do you think we're going to be getting?

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make because you type like you're thinking to yourself in the shower. This new third party DLC should work identical to how ArmA 3's official DLC works. Everybody gets it, everybody can use it (with some restrictions), but if you don't buy it - you'll face advertisements. I don't see why there should be another any other way of deploying this new content. Stick to what idea already works fine.

I tried the peacetime effect when I was early into the development of GWAR3. It was overwhelmingly negatively received by literally everybody play testing besides me. People described it saying it was annoying to make your way over to a zone for somebody to capture it and then you have to either respawn or drive somewhere else. I still like the idea myself, so I'm glad to hear that it's working out for your community. Ah, that's a great idea for capturing. I never really liked taking the depot myself, but couldn't think of a decent way to handle this. Forcing all camps to be captured instead is a solid idea. The camps being a spawn point is something I've done from the start as that's the way I had it in ArmA 2 as well. Basically camps provided equipment purchasing and spawning capabilities, while the depot was for purchasing "zone" vehicles. We tried the purchasing infantry from the town center way back in the early ArmA 2 days, but found that 90% of players didn't want to use it, but the 10% that did had unstoppable zerg armies of infantry harassing zones adjacent. While I think they were doing very well strategy wise, it seemingly annoyed a majority of my playerbase. I think we disabled purchasing if the zone was active (enemy within 400m or so of the depot). See now that's a good idea about HALO deploy. It allows players to easily get right into the action - something that CTI usually really suffers from. I think a lot of match length issues can be related to how big Altis and Tanoa are compared to Chernarus/Takistan and especially compared to the original 4 maps from OFP. Either there's too many towns to capture, or there's too much time in between towns to keep the action heavy. Malden's release kinda rectifies this as the design of the map allows for fairly quick matches. For sure - matches take too long. I think this is partially related to the map sizes as the games have progressed (OFP had tiny maps compared to ArmA 1+). Another thing to point out is that people's gaming habits have changed. A lot of us have gotten older and have less time to play. Also the most popular games these days allow you to easily jump into matches, play for a half hour and be finished. CTI matches seemingly take 3hrs+.

Games as a whole don't embrace communities anymore. Look at the most popular games out there. You queue up with a small group of friends and face new people that you have almost zero communication with that you'll probably never see again.

I think it's a combination of burn out (there's only so much everybody can spend developing on the same game or playing the same game) as well as forums as a whole becoming less and less popular (this was a long time coming, though).

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/didJIP