celery

VBS2 is Arma 1 with an incredible amount of hacks.

What about mission makers who spend weeks if not months or years making playable content that do the game and potentially those paid addons justice? Wouldn't it be fair that in order to enjoy top-grade paid vehicles and weapons you'd also pay for good missions that actually put them to use? Of course, there's the pesky problem of multiplayer missions copying over to clients when they play it on a server, making it easy to spread a mission without paying for it. Not to mention that the clients wouldn't have to pay to play the mission, or...?

I'm talking about your relationship with Bohemia Interactive (and Bohemia Interactive Simulations).

Isn't BI Simulations close enough conceptually (and physically) to make your denial a tad specific and possibly misleading?

All of that is irrelevant when your point was to ridicule the notion that Arma 3 would be around for more than a year. All of the games in the series have been considered worth playing several years after the original release despite standing issues in certain areas.

Did you miss the memo on how long the previous titles were actively played and how they ran on contemporary hardware at launch day?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMKngxLbPvQ :p

This whole thing is starting to get plane ridiculous. ;) *mic drop*

It's all okay.

All missions that were made in beta stage. :)

No. A mission needs a script for that.

You can only make people "own" the flag with setFlagOwner in which case the flag is attached to their person or the vehicle they're in. You can't make the flag behave like an individual fabric object.

It's an iteration of a trainer plane that went into production in 1971. It's cannon fodder in anything more demanding than counter-insurgency operations and invasions of undeveloped countries.

More clear, impossible. And yet the latter part is forgotten or ignored by so many. It's the very reason why this forum is populated by human klaxons who start wailing every time someone speaks of balance in a non-negative manner.

They're not validated. Balance and realism are not mutually exclusive concepts. What you're asking with this rather binary poll is whether people want a realistic game or an unrealistic game with shitty balancing, and the third option has no implication on how it affects balance. How about making a new poll and asking whether anyone would mind a realistic game with realistic assets that can be used to build both symmetric and asymmetric scenarios.

The vignette is there even with 0 fatigue.

Issue is up, vote away! http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14274

Balance through a balanced selection of realistic assets. I.e. the option that was missing.

Not gonna lie, I lol'd. :D When I asked about it last year, the answer I got was along the lines of "Mass Effect and other games do it these days".

Are you people positive that you're not using mods of any kind when encountering that bug? What version of the game did you play?

And then we have our "true" Arma fans all the way from 2010 posting immature dreck like that.

I'd like to make a script that sets the player's damage to 0 when he's used an FAK, but how can I do that reliably?

Running around with Ctrl + A seems to be the best we'll get. :p

I'm not sure if you're trying to say something smart there or what. There is a "groundwork" for every term we use, otherwise you couldn't make any reasonable assumption that a miniature girl with insect wings is a fairy or that a muscular green guy is an orc. In the Western pop culture, a non-voodoo zombie's basic ingredients are that it's a person who's transformed into a more unpleasant thing that exists to kill and/or infect others. The thing is that pretty much everything else is up to the work of fiction: you have shambling zombies, running zombies, fresh zombies, rotten zombies, stupid zombies, (relatively) smart zombies, disease zombies and necromanced zombies. But they're all zombies and everyone realizes that despite the variance. "Infected" is just an elitist term for a zombie that has some sort of "plausible" disease (or just runs fast), and ironically the word is so medically unspecific that it's one of the worst things to call a zombie (or whatever) in a supposed real-world scenario. People call them zombies and people will continue to call them zombies because they're a type of zombie. You won't fool anyone with the "these infected that look, sound and act like zombies are not zombies" spiel.

When most of your input in this thread consists of making shoddy or even false arguments and defending them by claiming misinterpretation on someone else's part, it's time to consider that you yourself might have something to do with it. That in the case that your complaints on misinterpretation are honest and not, for example, a disrespectful way to shrug off valid counterarguments.