nyles

Still waiting for my Arrowhead to patch, so couldn't verify this: So PMC stuff added to EAST, mhh. Does this include vehicles? If so. aren't those originally WEST or RESISTANCE side units? If so, won't they show up on the radar as hostile vehicles for you?

Oh, right....that could be it. And here am I dreaming of retextured vehicles like a BMP2 for Russians, BTR60 and T55 for CDF, woodland versions for US Army units and desert versions of USMC vehicles. Silly me. :j:

Add: more camo (replaceable textures) selection for OA vehicles. Anyone knows what this item is all about?

Never had FADE triggering as far as I am aware, but the general idea of it is something I disagree with, if it's not communicated properly to be active. And with that said, the message "original games will not degrade" you see popping up for some players when connecting to servers is definitely not enough here. At the end of the day it might be harmful for the game. Just imagine you are someone who downloaded the game to test it out (illegal I know, but still common practice). Now they will suffer from FADE without perhaps even knowing and will just move on and play something else after having a crappy game experience instead of maybe considering to buy it. If there would be a properly strong FADE warning with detailed explanation, it might be more effective to discourage piracy and make people buy the original. I am sure that 99% of all BIS game pirates don't even know that something like FADE exists. Sorry, but I absolutely disagree with the positive conclusions you draw from FADE being insideous and stealthy, walker.

Would actually be nice seeing some Chinese involvement, but not as new opposing forces, but instead having some UN peacekeepers and a story around a Chinese regional reconstruction team trying to get favorable contracts to exploit natural resources and potential tension with Western troops or PMCs from other contractors.

Unfortunately, High Command is one of those half-finished features. It has potential for being totally awesome, but fails in practice, because of missing functionality and polish. There is a suggestion thread somewhere, where a lot of people proposed some really great additions to make it worthwhile.

Yep, good move. The more polish the game gets, the better. Let's just hope that will mean even more feature and balance standardizations between arma2 and arrowhead. Having a unified Armory that will show content from both games, if you run Combined Ops, would really benefit a lot, if new Arrowhead features like thermal vision, ammo slot sizes (i.e. SMAW vs. MAAWS) and vehicle speeds (the bug that certain vehicles driver faster offroad than on roads on takistan) will be brought more in line across the entire arsenal and vehicle pool. Technical improvements and bugfixing is one thing, but don't forget there is a game underneath - and games need balance. :)

At the risk of repeating myself: Let's not get stuck too much on the XM-8. They have already been included in ArmA2, so let's get over it. Instead, lets focus on other DLC content that could help make regular games more interesting. It would be super sweet, if we could get some more details about other content in the DLC (if there is any). I would be really looking forward to several variants of the KA-60 (will be there be an armed version?), and if there are further weapons that use the new shotgun logic (someone from the dev team mentioned that mechanic being useful to simulate claymores for example!). Are there any other shotguns implemented besides the AA-12, like for example under barrel shotguns for exsisting weapon systems, like M4 or SCAR? Also, will the Saiga and Remington shotguns from ArmA2 get an update with the new shotgun logic, too? Those questions are far more interesting to me than debating that XM-8 forever. :j:

Nice, I see what you did there. :)

Cool, will there be a similar offer for Steam users?

As far as I know, this doesn't work for spawned units, only for those present on startup.

That depends on the mission. In Warfare for example, this won't work, since both WEST and EAST are fighting RESISTANCE. So just having a RESI KA-60 would deny it to the EAST team, since it would show up as hostile on their own radar when using it.

Guys, there IS already a XM-8 in the game. ArmA2 shipped with a bunch of those. It was controverse back then, and it still will be with the new ones in the PMC DLC, but they are here and meant to stay. Let's not argue about that forever, please. There is no way in hell they are going to change that. :) I would prefer, if we could shift this discussion more in a direction to provide feedback what DLC content would be useful to enrich variety for existing factions. For me, it's really really important that the KA-60 will also be included as an EAST version, so I can give it to the Russians without it showing up as a WEST/RES unit on radar. I don't mind, if it has the exact same texture like the one for the contractors, but there should be an EAST version included!

Yeah this is probably true. I try to see it from this perspective: Does it help improve the game and game balance somewhat, while fitting in the existing armaverse? Yes? Good. No? Maybe it's the wrong addition? The KA-60 for example is a great addition and would probably fit very well to the EAST side with a proper russian skin on it. For contractors it will work as well, no problems with that (I just hope it will not JUST be for the contractors). The XM-8 however is a strange choice I agree. The game has enough assault rifles (even XM-8 variations!!!). Yeah sure, having it will be nice, but I don't think people will be particularily looking forward to it, since it's just another 5.56mm assault rifle. Furthermore it creates controversity since it's bascially a cancelled project as you can see. The AA-12 however will be a nice addition, since it is something fresh (esp. with the shotgun code improvements). I just hope that the existing ArmA2 shotguns will be retrofitted with that as well and not be left behind, like so many other ArmA2 equipment. We still have no thermal vision (not even night vision) on the T90 tank for example. To create some synergetic effects, it could have been much more interesting to add a couple of "masterkey" type under barrel shotgun sets for existing weapons for example. Anyways, looking forward to the new DLC, but please please please invest some time and money to bring ArmA2 and arrowhead balance and unit features more in line. Especially now since you can officially buy a "combined operations" bundle. I am sure this would pay off greatly, and you could even make some extra money from selling extra units for the existing factions (or add some reskins to upcoming patches for free).

What about opening the hatch (if available) or switching crew positions? Even in Steel Beasts with properly simulated view ports, thermal vision and persicopes, situational awareness is less than ideal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq81sWJFBos&feature=related But alright, let's not discuss about this particular point forever. There is more to this mission and from what I can see, some of the map changes are very interesting!

I like that you can disable tactical/commander view in Warfare BE 0.65. Don't get me wrong, I would prefer to have 3rd person disabled for both infantry and vehicles, but putting that restriction on just infantry but not vehicles feels totally out of place. Back when I was still playing OFP competitively with my clan, there were huge controversial discussions about exploiting external view in matches. Unfortunately, the community never matured enough to disable external view - partially because of vehicles being affected by this, too. Even with view ports (however good or bad they are simulated), you are still very much limited inside a tank or otherwise armored vehicle. I agree that ArmA2's simulation could be improved a lot (they already did for VBS2), but from a conceptional point of view, it still feels wrong that tanks should have better situational awareness than infantry. Tanks should rely on infantry to find their way around complex terrain like cities. Also, many of the vehicles portrayed in ArmA2 are very old soviet designs, which do not have cameras to the back. In reality, it's the tank commander giving directions to the driver in this case - either from an open hatch or a closed hatch, depending on terrain an situation. From all the games I've played, those with external view (and tactical view) disabled globally, were usually the most intense and interesting ones. There is a clear disadvantage in situational awareness when driving armored vehicles, but each of them is also very powerful in their own right. Combined arms operations are essential and great fun here, and it's also a great experience having multiple humans crew a single vehicle under these limitations. One of the best matches I ever had was my clan against the guys from Kyllikki in a 10 vs 10 C&H match in FDFmod, with external view disabled. But I do understand that this is a controversial topic, where many views clash. My personal opinion is that a default setting of disabling external view for infantry but not vehicles is not ideal, and that will be the reason I will tend to stick to the normal Warfare BE version, unless I am hosting myself perhaps. :) I guess that my point is that armor has its price - and that price usually is a restricted view.

Some interesting changes, except for this one maybe: - Limited 3rd person view to vehicles. There is NO 3rd person view for infantry anymore. Shouldn't it be the other way around? I mean that way at least people would need to open the hatch once in a while and in general it would help keep vehicles in check.

Well I thought the same about the Ural trucks, BRDM2s, BMP2, etc back in ArmA2, but there were never any Russian versions of those either. With the focus being PMC in the DLC, the KA-60 will probably be only available for them (it appears to be belonging to them from what I can see in the trailer) in the interest of time. I sure wish there will be one for EAST however. :)

I just hope there will be a proper EAST (Russian) version of the KA60 as well, and not just the expected WEST or RESISTANCE versions, depending on where the contractors end up. Without a proper EAST version, it's not really possible to hook this up to maps with spawning units like for example Warfare, or am I mistaken?

Are there any further game balance and minor fixes to be expected in the final 1.55 patch, which have not yet been seen in the beta files?

The same happened to me tonight after switching loadouts in a spawn bunker in the latest v065 Warfare BE. In what mission did this happen to you?

Yes, I guess you are right about that. In any case, my point has been made several pages ago and I am sure certain important people have been reminded that there are still several serious outstanding gameplay issues, which might not have happened, if it would have been posted in a seperate thread. Afterall this one has a lot of "dev attention". Back to business. :)

You call it "own personal peeve", I call it valuable feedback on gameplay issues, all of which have been put into the issue tracker and some of which are already marked as in progress (which is great, thx BIS!). Remember, ArmA2 is not just a techdemo. There is actually a game underneath, which is supposed to give people a lot of fun and enjoyment! Now, if there are issues, which were introduced with Arrowhead, and which actually degrade the experience for a certain group of players (i.e. those playing PvP), I don't know why there would be anything bad about pointing these issues out in a constructive way? Seeing the sheer mass of issues in the tracker gathered by this very dedicated community, I am sure it is easy for single issues to be missed or not interpreted correctly (some issues are in there for more than a year already without being assigned or at least closed if rejected). Also many reported gameplay issues are mere config problems and could be corrected very quickly. Assuming that the developers are not playing the game in a certain way due to preferences or simply lack of time, they might not understand certain issues being critical to other players. Afterall, there are myriad of ways to "play" ArmA2, many of which are wholly unaffacted by specific bugs. In any case to cut a long story short, I don't think there is anyone in here providing feedback, who does not value the support given by BIS. The fact alone that they reply and point out things that bother them is proof that they care a great deal. Therefore, I also can't believe that BIS would be offended and scale down on their support. The community needs them as much as they need the community for the whole thing to continue to work and prosper. :)

A very good point! I missed looking for that ticket when compiling my list. I checked through the issue tracker briefly, but couldn't find anything directly related to this. The only thing roughly related to this would be: FuseDistance not working for missiles

True, and for that to be really meaningful, it would actually make sense to establish an entire additional layer in the ammunition category, which would allow customizing each individual bullet per magazine, like its type, so you could define tracer sequences for example, or also the amount, like intentionally keeping a mag below max capacity to reduce misfires. Individual surplus rounds could be kept in a container magazine slot. or you could even create packaged ammopacks, which could hold more rounds per slot, but could not be directly loaded into magazines. This would be a small personal dream of mine, but still, I would so much prefer if the following EXISTING ISSUES would be fixed, before adding any NEW gameplay system on top of what we have, right now. I can't stress out enough how important it is for adversarial PvP multiplayer to get as many of the problems above corrected. People that are not into PvP, or which simply prefer offline or coop might not care about these issues so much, but for people who enjoy a good, fair and balanced PvP match, the above is ESSENTIEL. Sorry to repeat myself, but I have been waiting long enough for this and my clan is currently debating whether to drop playing ArmA2 once more (last time we stopped playing OFP because of similar issues), since there is so little progress from the gameplay side with the patches. Another big part here is the in my opinion naiivity of BIS to not support Combined Ops, gameplay-wise, and bringing both old an new OA units in line (stats, TI, etc), even though the majority of the populated multiplayer servers are already hosting CO. To say the least, it's getting really frustrating. Of course it's great to see all the technical improvements, esp. in regard to rendering and AI, but please don't forget game balance!