whisper

Not working. This is the error I got : Cannot open file '/home/arma/serverfiles/@Warlords\addons\jez_warlords' Probably an error on my side, but I can't find what I did wrong. Too long out of ArmA server administration world :( EDIT : nvm, found it, no more error. I renamed pbos with lowercases as error is complaining about "jez_warlords" and Linux is case sensitive.

I can't have it working on a Linux dedicated. The missions never appear and @Warlords is not listed in the mod list in the server selection screen (even though the console logs tells me it tries to load @Warlords) I expect you packed the Addons subdirectory into the .pbo, did you pack "Addons" or "addons"? Not sure, but I think Linux dedi have issues with uppercase "Addons" subdirectories...

Can't agree with that because the wording is wrong. We can't consider it as a war, that's what has been done for 10+ years now and it only leads to killing innocents and turning their relatives to more terrorists. War has an identified ennemy. Terrorism hides the identities. You can't target that and always end up misfiring. Always. I'm not against acting against these assholes, far from it, but calling that a "war" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Much huge mistakes have been made in the name of this "war" in the past.

Try moving the unit to a AI controlled group which is local to server (ie a group present @mission start, placed with the editor), making sure the spawned AI doesn't take command. If I remember well that worked in A2 to change locality.

Don't load yourself so much, then. I play SP only atm, LMG, ammos, a backpack half full. That is all. I NEVER have more than 10 sec cool down on fatigue by simply managing my movement.

Imho this is not enough. If the technicities consist of reading the wind from some sensor, entering it in some way into your sight calibration, and then be back exactly in the situation seen before (ie, easy shot @extreme ranges), I don't consider that particularly fine. Aiming correctly comes from training. Rath jost showed it up a few replies back when commenting about people having the wrong stance and weapon positioning. I like the fact that the sway change introduces something for the player to try training for. The game doesn't consider anymore that you are a trained soldier and does all the "rifle holding" job for you. It may be implemented in a very perfectible way, making it "feel" wrong, but having something to work for is good. It has several impact on gameplay that I like.

Just a question, I personnally don't care much which version of sway we'll end up having as I don't find the current one annoying, and I don't have first hand rifle experience so this is not making me furious :) But : how long does it take you to line up your shots @300m and hit on the mark, compared to how long it takes in game with 1) old sway version, and 2) new sway version. Imho, the current sway should be more inline to irl "time to aim", but that's just a wild guess. Also, would simply using vertical sway force a better "time to aim" in-game? I quite like the fact it takes more time now to align a shot, maybe I'm mistaken but it raise my immersion when I know I'm taking a risk taking time to aim vs using suppression and movement (with its own drawback on fatigue).

PC dev costs have also exploded since then, tbh. Look at a team building smtg like BF4, the budget they have, and the content they produce, then compare to BI. BI don't pale at all in comparison, if you ask me. Like I said above, they cannot cover every aspect of the game that are asked by the community. We are too many, with far too diverse wishes. If you keep the comparison with BF4, looks at BF4 engine and its capabilities, and what is asked from it. Modding? Mission making? Scripting? AI? View distance? There is NONE of that, which is only a little part of what we ask BI to do. Frostbite is better at destructing environment, and ... that's it? (I'm exagerating to make my point, obviously :) ). Then, again, compare budgets and team size. I've taken kind of a fatalist PoV on ArmA. Tbh, I'm often pissed off at BI, but more often pissed off by the community around them. It's at the same time a great community and one a dev studio cannot wish to have :)

There will ALWAYS be 10+ complaints about ArmA. The scope and possiblities are so big that there is a HUGE variety of expectations that BI simply cannot cover. You want content to be left for modders. I continuously read here complaints about how A3 is lacking any content and BI should have focused on that (+ use real content instead of fiction, etc, etc.....) Honestly you cannot blame BI for not doing it all. I also could go on and on about my wishes. 3D editor, mod download for servers, more integrated editing tools and less text editing, blablabla.... I check these forums, and I see tons of OTHER complaints. How is BI supposed to react to THAT, exactly?

What was the gear of the player when you did this? To me the whole point of this change, and why I find it awesome, is how it forces people to deal with logistics, and make travel-planning matter.There are several problems currently, few days after patch, that will be soon corrected : * Less realism-oriented missions have not been modified to include things like disabled fatigue * Most mission do NOT take at all into account this new limitation on transportation limits, and acts as if running for kilometers with more-than-full gear is NORMAL. Mission maker will have to adapt to : share gear amongst player and emphasize the role of Ammo Bearer, add more transport vehicle, probably lower the amount of vehicles to get in line with the lack of rockets in backpacks. * sway is a bit too heavy atm, even when full rested. Dev branch seems to have it nailed quite nicely. This will get pushed to main, hopefully soon. On my side, atm, I corrected the issues by using AGM mod, with Fatigue module disabled. It works wonders, tbh.

And people bitched ENDLESSLY on how the ArmA AI was dumb and fixes were super urgently needed, this game was a joke because of AI, blablablaaaa, you name it... So BI implemented "AI with more complex pathing". But.... but.....

Check few pages back in this thread, there are heavy restrictions put in latest sections on what Valve can do to modify, create derivatives, etc.... from the work.

SWS EULA does NOT grants to Valve the same IP rights as the creator

From what I read there : http://steamcommunity.com/id/eltyranos/myworkshopfiles/?section=collections&appid=107410 it's an upload from the NoFrag community to have the addons they use on their server in one package for their players. Apparently it got removed from SWS and should probably be hosted somewhere by themselves. Good luck having it removed from their server. They wanted to use the benefits of SWS, but that's apparently infringing some IP (I don't know, I don't see the hosted files anymore). Now the IP infringement is hosted on a third party. Ie : "problem" (if there is any in the first hand) NOT resolved.

1st, this thing is actually optionnal, and up to the mission maker. See : https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/enableFatigue 2nd : define "full gear". Riffle + Launcher + backpack with 4 missiles == WAYYYY over the top! This loadout (that one keep seeing all too often in public gameplay) should be shared amongst 2 players to have a minimum of realism. If you don't want this "minimum of realism", see point 1) ;)