Defunkt

Hmmm... well perhaps because they want to set it in Afghanistan and include the British Army (rather than the USMC in Chernarus) or maybe they want to change ballistics or armour or a host of other things that can only be delivered by addon. I really don't see what there is to wonder about.

You're a modeller and I appreciate that colours your perspective but I fear you're missing the point. The excitement isn't about the assets (though they're certainly very nice and plenty good enough), it's about the promise of great public multi-player something ArmA has failed dismally at and PR has a reputation for excellence in. First class models do not make a great game.

Sorry, a no-respawn mission hasn't come up within our group yet but I still mean to for the next one. Had a look at your mp_shipment mission and it looks like fun, that's the layout I want to try it with first.

Script the spawning of enemies using Random, CreateVehicle and arrays of predefined possible coordinates and run that script on the server at a path outside of the mission pbo.

The only way to address the surplus of servers is for mission makers to take the initiative and limit the distribution of missions while possibly also setting terms over the way they are hosted (standardised server & client, guidelines for administration) ala Project Reality. As Pulveriser has pointed out above there are ways to make missions non-downloadable though I completely disagree as to the douche-baggery inherent, model-makers aren't pilloried for releasing their models binarised why should a mission maker not have the same choice? Good missions are a great deal more scarce than good models. People will of course be outraged, it being their assumption that it is their God-given right to mix'n'match everything. However an infinitely varied combination of mods on an unlimited number of servers offering as many takes on mission design hasn't exactly worked out so far for multiplayer ArmA which is what we're talking about here. The situation is the inevitable product of too much choice and the only way it's going to improve is to limit some of those choices. Look at www.rp-mods.com, I've seen people here bitch and moan because they don't distribute the server-side component of their game but nobody at all would get to play if they did because the same audience would be split amongst 20 servers.

I didn't read this right through but I don't think I've experienced the problem you're having. There might be a number of reasons for that but one possibility is that my player initialisation includes: <-- Other Code --> while {IsNull player} do {Sleep 0.1;}; <-- Other Code --> while {!Alive player} do {Sleep 0.1;}; <-- Other Code --> <-- Do Loadout --> For that matter why use isJIP at all? Why do you need to initialise JIP players differently?

Excellent, definitely the right mission-maker for this job. I'd certainly be up for trying it out.

Not sure the option to spectate would be such a good idea unless it was limited to the first 2-3 ghosts, always the problem with any sort of P-v-P (even this) is having enough people. So maybe the second game starts as soon as the 4th (configurable) person has died, spectate until then. Yes forming enemy/friendly teams out of the ghosts would be a complete nuisance, probably better to go straight DM or, at the risk of harping on, Gun Game. For anyone who hasn't played it Gun Game (IIRC) is a CS mod where everybody starts with the same shitty weapon and must score a kill to (instantly) upgrade to the next, first person to score a kill with every weapon wins. In CS the knife was last, in ArmA it would probably be a frag grenade, either way it's quite hard to get through the last few. ---------- Post added at 10:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 AM ---------- Celery has just released a re-make of mp_shipment from COD4 which I'd suppose is probably an excellent starting point; a small walled in environment designed for DM which can be re-positioned on-top of respawn_west.

Well I would but I'm kind of knee-deep in another thing at the moment. Could be a job for galzohar. I think he already has a mission with an editor-manufactured urban environment and he's often bemoaning the fact that his P-v-P work doesn't get tested/used as much as he'd like. Done right something like this would get a lot of use if mission makers could just include a script and merge a walled-in environment to be repositioned on respawn_east/west. ---------- Post added at 12:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 PM ---------- Actually developing it into something like the Gun Game from CSS might be a lot of fun and a nice counter-point to the ultra-real hardcore mission also going on.

I like it, would be good to see a template with scripts so it could easily be incorporated/merged into any mission.

It looks great but isn't melee pretty much vital and one of those things ArmA is never going to do all that well?

You ought to consider coming up with a short catchy name or acronym for this compilation, something that would fit into the limited space available in server names so servers can advertise to players they allow this collection.

Don't let it get to you Sickboy, our community is sticking with the Ongoing Development simply because you've made it so easy, we're always uniformly in-step with the latest feature set. Some people just want to blame others for their own inabilities.

Great analogy.

Surely 3 months would be a more typical marketing lead-in? June 17th.

Jesus this is fucking outrageous. Who the fuck do you think you are that you can dictate how their mod should be made and declare them 'anti-community' because you don't understand their choices and their plans don't fit your own agenda? Moderators, please, this idiotic spam is undermining this thread and an otherwise very exciting project. ---------- Post added at 01:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 PM ---------- Suggest that anybody interested in this project should continue their participation in the PR:ARMA2 Forums instead.

I think their position would be more like "...stacking other mods on top of PR can only persist the current nightmare players face when attempting to find a public server they can actually join. We prefer to prioritise accessibility over extensibility by promoting a uniform server & client." But then neither of us is really in a position to put words in their mouth.

PR team, it would appear 3rd MD (I hear God has granted them certain special rights because they all wear uniforms when they play) haven't granted you the necessary approval to make your mod according to your own design. Please halt all development immediately.

It's The Internet so you must have seen links before. :butbut:

Very generous, thank you.

Brilliant! Of course it looks great, we'd seen enough screenshots to know what to expect there but the real surprise is how well it performs. I was expecting something a trifle laggy and it's not at all. Expertly done Raunhofer!

CBA is a standard but it doesn't create standardised servers & clients, quite the opposite in fact because it makes possible a near-infinite variety of differing server configurations. PR:BF2 server files are subject to a set of terms and while this might not work exactly the same way with an ArmA mod they're clearly comfortable about placing an expectation on server-ops who want to host their mod. Not everybody is going to buy-in to that but I think plenty will (my community included). Now, would it not be a better look if there weren't quite so many ACE developers in here trying to tell them how they should make their mod? I think they know what they're doing, in fact I'm certain of it.

A near-infinite possible combination of mods is the very thing that divides the existing playerbase and makes single-player & co-op multiplayer gaming so prevalent with (the more usual) adversarial multi-player near non-existent. There being no standard server & client it becomes near impossible to build a critical mass of players on any public server (especially given the ideal scale of this game) and people just give up (often making-do with co-op instead). I like mods and they most certainly add a lot to cooperative and single-player ArmA but if PR's goal is to build a PvP scene the best thing they could do is champion their own standardised server & client.

Why not post a screenshot of your video settings? For instance I have an HD4870 and I can tell you ATI cards do not perform well with any AA running, instead I run with AA off and 125% 3D resolution which provides fullscreen AA.

Whatever the cause (I think there are several factors) PR is re-known for great teamwork on public servers where ArmA is not. I think we should trust to whatever course they set for their mod (we have no choice anyway) rather than suggesting they need to do things the way they've always been done in ArmA because that hasn't worked for public servers at all.