Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

gossamersolid

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    4642

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by gossamersolid

  1. Posted

    5 hours ago, froggyluv said:

     

    Paid product and volunteered mod deserves two different avenues of criticism. Once you charge under the BI banner -you are fully accountable to criticism -white knighting doesnt help anyone. You want to buy and support go ahead --those who find problems with their purchase are fully free to do so. Win/Win


    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.

    • Like 3

  3. Posted

    49 minutes ago, .kju said:

    GM / WW2 version? 🙏


    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)

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  4. Posted

    27 minutes ago, Electricleash said:

    Hmmm... In the same way the G3 family of weapons are are also somewhat frustrating when it comes to target acquisition.

    Likely too late now but some sort of subtle opacity dithering around the outer edges of the rear iron site might have been a way to mitigate it.

     


    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.

  6. Posted

    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!

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  10. Posted

    On 2/19/2018 at 3:29 AM, armored_sheep said:

    That is not true. The community creation DLCs will be optional. Only those who buy the content will download the data. Same as regular DLCs for other games on Steam.

     

    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.

     

    On 2/14/2018 at 11:42 AM, lexx said:

    "Everybody gets it" is a bad approach here, because I - for example - do not want to download gigabytes of WW2 themed stuff that I will never use, and which would clutter up my 3den editor.

     

    How many unofficial DLC do you think we're going to be getting?

    • Like 1

  11. Posted

    On 12/18/2017 at 12:05 PM, kklownboy said:

    DLC is DLC.... If the server is using it you need it.   AND,  if its DLC you have a better chance on a pure vanilla DLC server to have players, BECAUSE  its official and not a lot of mods to find and load...

     

    Then the; "We/ I paid 50$" why can't I play on that server.... well you need to pay X$ more to have the official DLCs that the server requires...DUH.. what a completely lame argument.  Buying the base game doesn't mean all new content is free for life... that is a looter mentality.

     

    Arma 3 is over soon for development... yeah some more stuff from BI is coming, but then... So more content through 3rd party DLC is much appreciated.

     

    Pay the bold/risk-taking, talented Modder to have "official" content to play with.  yeah we play they work... Pub servers be damned, aren't they all Koth anyways.

     

    Ill say it again  TAKE MY MONEY... where be my 3rdParty DLC, Hurry!

     

     

    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.

    • Like 2

  12. Posted

    On 1/3/2018 at 10:49 AM, spanishsurfer said:

    -When a town is captured there is a 10 min "Peace Time" which prevents the opposing team from taking the town

    -Towns can only be capped by taking all the surrounding "camps"

    -Camps act as spawn points by which ever team has taken it.

    -You can purchase low tech gear, vehicles, infantry from the town center if you occupy the town and own all the camps (if the enemy takes just 1 camp you can't purchase anything from the town center)

    -Teams can HALO jump into a town being taken by an opposing team to defend it (if you have the upgrade and an air fact at base and if you're thinking about spam spawning, the HALO jump has a timer)

     

    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.

     

    On 1/6/2018 at 5:10 AM, major_barnes1987 said:

     

    I agree in most of them.But my biggest problem was always the length of matches.I do many other things besides gaming and i want keep a ballance between them.So i end up playing CTI alone with AI cause i can save and continue some other day.But playing alone brings other issues to the game.

     

    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+.

    • Like 1

  13. Posted

    Just now, LordJarhead said:

    Or it's because we have generation Xbox going and people don't invest as much time into this as back then... 

     

    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.

  14. Posted

    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).

  20. Posted

    A little bit of background - I'm fairly knowledgeable in SQF, but this is my first foray into working heavily with AI. My usual AI usage was either infantry remaining as infantry or vehicles with crew that stayed inside - never got in/out.

    I'm working on a mission where groups of AI are meant to be autonomous. They should be able to issue orders themselves and when necessary - drive to their object when they're too far.

     

    So here's where the problem comes in. I had a hell of a time getting the AI squads to disembark their vehicle and have them not get back in. I found the winning combination so far is something along these lines: 

    {
    _x action["engineOff", _groupVehicle];
    _x leaveVehicle _groupVehicle;
    _x action ["eject", _groupVehicle];
} forEach (units _group);

    It appears to work great until after they've fulfilled their objective, chose another and must drive to it. After getting out at their next objective, it seems one, some or all of the group will seemingly walk backwards on an angle while repeating "negative" as the squad leader repeats their orders (every few seconds). I literally can't get them to stop until they die (when they respawn they don't have the issue until their second time mounting/dismounting).

     

    I spent all day trying to figure out what the cause was and I've got it pinpointed down to something relating to them getting in/out of the vehicle. I've temporarily removed the logic to create a vehicle, move them into it (using moveInAny) and then dismount them from it using the snippet above. With this code removed, there is no longer an issue.

     

    So I must be clearly missing something here. Either they are somehow not understanding that they are unassigned to their vehicle (the vehicle also gets deleted via deleteVehicle after they're all out of it) or it has something to do with the fact that their waypoint is holding some information related to the vehicle.

     

    Again, I'm not very experienced with AI manipulation, waypoints and all that jazz.

     

    Any help would be much appreciated. I can also provide the full source if somebody really wants to see it happen (it takes about 10 - 15 minutes in for it to happen, usually).

  22. Posted

    1 hour ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

     

    it would be good if it had some scripted event handlers to make use of the already-implemented scripted event handler system.

     

    what things were you thinking of?

     

    status changes (begin healing, cancel/fail healing, done healing).

     

    Basically anything to allow you to extend the functionality via our gamemodes. Maybe I need to update some variables based on whether you were revived or not?

×