Blunt

Hooray for Muecke! :) I look forward to trying this. Existing warfare's can be fun, but I miss the crcti style of play. I miss repairable buildings! With Warfare, there's no incentive to build/defend a base. Instead you end up with individual buildings spread around map = lame

Not fixed :omg:

Same missing msvcrt-ruby18.dll error for me. My Six-Updater launcher installed updates, then this happened. Now in tool\ruby\bin folder is msvcrt-ruby191.dll. Dunno about before, but appears maybe six-updater looking for old file?

I've tried several different setups but still have issues in big multiplayer games like Warfare after about an hour of play or so. Current setup: AMD 9600 quad 2.3 ghz GTX 260 4 gb ram Windows 7 x64 Works fine in single player and mission editor even with quite a bit of units on map. But in multiplayer, as soon as I witness a large number of units in small area (like base in Warfare), my frame rate is screwed for the rest of the game, even after I get out of the clutter into a fairly empty area. I'm trying to figure out if that symptom is CPU related or what. Seems to happen even with all settings on low and VD about 1200.

I tried limiting my system RAM with msconfig to just under 8gb, but got minimal difference in performance. Physically removing 4gb, leaving 4gb, seemed to help noticeably. Once surrounding textures load (quicker than before) I have nice and smooth video. But unfortunately my smooth online play is limited to about 40-60 min's before the lag bus comes to pick me up, skipping along to my destination. XP 64-bit AMD 9600 quad 2.3 ghz GTX260 4GB RAM All settings low or disabled.

I also picked up my copy from a local Best Buy today (in Florida). It wasn't even on the shelf yet, and the clerk had to retrieve it from the warehouse. :cool:

I'm also curious about which version will you be using, and will you accept input from participating squads on the version to be used? I think there are some serious faults with the original release. Is the 6v6 going to be played on the full island? That doesn't sound like enough players for the whole thing, maybe just South side.

Actually, it's Conquer the Island

In my personal opinion, while realism is obviously a big part of the game, it shouldn't hinder gameplay. Driving a fuel truck back and forth across an island isn't really what I'm looking for in the game, but I can understand that is what some want, and the beauty of OFP is that we aren't limited to 1 type of gameplay, and everyone can make their own missions. I've been playing CTI for ages, pretty much since it first came out, and while it has changed, the basic foundation has been pretty much the same. I'm sure there will be new and different CTI's coming out, but you'll probably see me playing the "current style" CTI's, as I've gotten comfortable with the gameplay, and I love it . But, with the ability to handle (we'll see) lots of players on a MP Server, I think it would be cool to add multiple commander rolls. Since the islands sound so big, it could be broken down into Theatre Command. With multiple bases in different sectors, you could choose which sector you want to fight in, and push forward to others. Multiple Commanders + Multiple Bases + Sector Warfare + 60 players = tons of action

lol, it is funny when authors reject suggestions as complaints. If it weren't for testers, everything would be bugged to hell, and we wouldn't have any good addons or missions.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">motd[]= { "<1st MOTD line>", "<2nd MOTD line>", …. "<Last MOTD line>" }; Message of the day (MOTD). This message may consist of several lines. Each player is shown this text when connected to the server. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">motdInterval=<interval_in_sec>; Interval in which subsequent lines of MOTD appear. Default: 5 seconds. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">voteMissionPlayers=<number>; How many players must connect to the server for mission selection voting to start automatically. I believe "mission selection voting" is when you get the visual list of maps and islands available on the server, and vote by selecting mission rather than typing #vote mission xxx.

Not sure I understand you. If you have 1.96, there is no need to revert back to 1.46.

FFS = For F***'s Sake

Each of these has certain advantages over each other, but I still prefer MF, solely on the fun factor.  CR is definitely more set up for squad matches, but when played in public games, is pretty boring IMO.  MF rewards individuals for taking towns, destroying enemy vehicles, etc., while CR has no individual rewards.  In 1 CR game, I took 4 or 5 towns by myself at game start, and when I got back to base I could still not afford a Tank, and was forced to buy a lame jeep to continue taking towns.  Point is, if 1 person isn't holding his own in CR, the whole team will notice, in MF, he'll be poor but you're income is determined by you.  In public games, MF is the way to go, you don't have to worry about every one on the team having a full ai squad holding towns. I prefer the Town Income structure of MF also, rather than every town being equally valuable in CR.  Certain towns (strategic, or large) should be worth more, as this will help the focus the game towards these locations, and create more action in the battlefield. CR does have a lot of awesome features.  Place & build, AI group leader command, AI observation, transfer Commander, purchase units away from base, etc.  But in the end, I'll pass up every one of these little conveniences if it means I'm going to have a fun game, which is more often than not on MF, vice versa with CR.  I love tanks and tank battles, so the abscence of this in CR really affects my opinion.  Driving in a jeep until you see another jeep, get out, shoot the driver, keep driving, not my idea of fun.  Plowing across the island with 2 or 3 tanks on your wing, blowing sh*t up, that's my idea of fun. PS:  Just opinions, not meant to bash either version's editor(s), I respect anyone that puts time and effort into something that few others would, especially if I benefit  .  All in all, I think everyone could learn a lot from each other, if they just listened and worked with each other, rather than yelling about who or what is better, lol. P.S.S. InqWiper Posted: June 13 2005,02:55 LOL, that's a false statement if I've ever heard one.  Just not the kind of comparison you can make.  There are plenty of CTI vets playing MF. I'd like to think I'm one of them.

That shouldn't affect anything either, the Mission Editor is pretty good at letting you know if a script isn't going to work. And the WP will just apply to whoever the team leader is at the time the condition is met (there will always be a team leader). Since the error brought up some gfx card info, maybe u just need to fiddle with your video settings, mine was crashing because my refresh rate in ofp was set higher than my desktop rate. BTW, for future reference, it's better to consolidate your individuals into groups. For one, there are less groups listed in mission.sqm and i have heard that this reduces lag. Also, soldiers communicate accurate information to others within its group, and thus makes a group of soldiers a more effective force. You can even have soldiers all over the island in the same group (max 12 per group of course). If you would like them to be stationary u can add "this disableaimove" in its init line. Or for more complex movements and such, you can use "ai1 commandmove x" (domove works also). Basically I try to put every ai in a group, mainly to reduce lag and to make them more effective.