Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Defunkt

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2558

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by Defunkt

  8. Posted

    A huge opportunity went begging because, while BIS succeeded in attracting new gamers with ArmA II's fantastic visuals, many of those won't have urged their friends to get the game. ArmA II does not deliver at all well on a typical gamer's expectation of accessible, well-tested, adversarial multi-player. These games will improve with time but it'll be that much harder to grow the playerbase without the flush of interest that attends a new release.

  10. Posted

    A player kit system will be a very welcome addition.

    What you call a problem is very Fundamental - in my eyes - for the AAS-Game-Mechanics.

    The current system does work after a fashion, experienced players will understand that a spawn that is being camped is essentially lost and will then choose to spawn one back but you would not believe the number of players that don't seem to take that on board and continue to spawn at furthest forward and repeatedly get shot up for their troubles. Their own fault you might say but it also costs the experienced players who must counter-attack in diminished numbers where if everybody was forced to spawn behind the current objective they can then attack together in force. Actually on that subject, why run a respawn queue? Spawning in waves would be far better if only because it provides a greater opportunity for teamwork if people arrive together. Even for experienced players, getting shot up as you spawn is a not-much-fun way of finding out you've actually lost that objective and it's so easy to fix if teams spawn between, and not on, objectives.

  16. Posted

    Dude, it doesn't matter how many times you edit your posts, you ain't gonna look any smarter, the suggestion was made that OA use OFP2's ring menu and I'm explaining why it couldn't replace ArmA's action menu, all thoroughly on-topic (except your sniping that is). Next time engage brain before posting and you won't have to spend so much time back-peddling (sorry, 'rewriting') after the fact.

  17. Posted

    Thats pretty weak of you, for all we know the rose menu can be very moddable.

    Just like the BF2 rose menu, you can see a PR developer in process of designing a modded rose menu here:

    http://www.realitymod.com/forum/blogs/12510/b91-too-many-numbers.html

    In your quest to score cheap points you've made a complete knob of yourself by forgetting that PR is a total conversion. That modder is replacing the entire rose and his modded rose still won't allow a user to enable any number or mix of AddOns in the fashion that ArmA's (infinitely variable) action menu does. Think before you post next time.

  20. Posted

    I may yet take you up on that mac.

    I've took a few screenshots of what I've been sketching out for Utes. A few choice props are used to fabricate a central objective on the runway (C130 loading in progress).

    Small (Up to maybe 12 players). Probably fairly long capture times as there's effectively no travelling between zones.

    stage1.jpg

    Medium (Up to maybe 18 players). The outer two objectives (which can't have been captured or the round will already have ended) are moved further out.

    stage2.jpg

    Large (18+ players). The remaining Charlie sub-objectives are distilled into one and two more are added to the extreme North and South. It's now a fight for the whole island.

    stage3a.jpg

    stage3b.jpg

    Something like that anyway.

  21. Posted

    Well I thought about maybe forking the SBS AAS missions some of which at least have a front that is three objectives wide. For smaller numbers you could limit this to the central path and only open the 2nd and 3rd paths as the player count increases. The problem though IMO is that there's still quite a lot of other vital stuff missing from those missions, there are no player classes (everybody's a Sniper/AT Specialist and can use weaponry from any faction), I don't get the respawn queue (the antithesis of spawning in waves) unless it's intended to minimize the damage from the outrageous spawn camping (but really, why are players spawning at the currently contested objective anyway?) and the quantity/availablity of vehicles isn't well managed. All things considered I thought it might be easier to start again.

    I'd envisage (say) five sequential objectives in close proximity with the starting teams fighting over the center one (maybe a single building), the team that pushes the other back and grabs all five wins the round/map. If at any stage before that happens enough players join all five of those objectives are distilled into a new, larger central zone (maybe a small town) which is still contested as the current objective and two more objectives are added either side of it in opposite directions. So you still have five objectives and you still have to hold them all to win and it's basically a russian doll, you could repeat that distil-&-add indefinitely though I don't know that you'd want to much more.

  22. Posted

    Thanks. Am dabbling with some simpler missions right now as a means of working up a few scripts required for the above. I think it will require sequential objectives, class-based loadouts, wave-based respawns (with a decent spectating system while waiting) and yes, comprehensive griefer management. So yeah, a big job, definitely in the 6-12 month plan and there are no Linux binaries for my server just now anyway. But ArmA 2 is a keeper for me and I certainly see myself playing it for a few years so I think it's worth investing in.

  23. Posted

    TS voice quality is poor, the only advantage it has over Ventrilo is that it is free for any number of users. I would use Mumble in preference to TS if hosting my own server but Ventrilo's sound quality is better yet.

    Obviously if the built-in VON is fairly clear, has its own volume slider (so it isn't drowned out by the A.I. voices) and no longer crashes servers then that would be the best option for ArmA.

  25. Posted

    There are many mechanisms by which balance can be achieved, terrain is far from the only factor, one can use respawn time, vehicles, class/equipment mixes and numerous variations on each. What's more, one very obvious piece of terrain that is already perfectly symmetrical springs to mind and if/when I get to starting on this in earnest, Utes would be my first setting with the action starting at the airfield and expanding in two directions to encompass the whole island as more players join. The biggest hurdle is the crapload of scripting required in this fussy client/server environment.

    The whole voting an admin, debating/choosing a mission then waiting for everybody to vote on parameters is a huge yawn, half the players don't even know how so it's always preceded by endless chat spam telling people how and who to vote for. And if the server were to grow from 4 players to 32 in one hour how many times would everybody need to endure this carry-on to keep the mission right-sized?

    But I have learnt there's little point in trying to convince you of anything galzohar, you know best and you will of course go on doing your own thing. How's that working out?

×