nyles

Yeah, I agree but be before moving on to new gameplay-related features, it would be really really really really nice to look into some of the current gameplay related bugs for the next patches as well. There are some really nasty bugs in the system right now, which have an immensely negative impact on PvP online games, like Warfare sessions. TAB Lock on Infantry in OA Lock obscured targets at extreme distances SACLOS missile range too short Certain missiles lack manual guidance Some cars can drive faster off-road than on roads M2A2 and M2A3 armor values inverted Bullets lose too much damage over distance Aircraft countermeasures too effective Please look into (some of) those gameplay issues as well soon!

This is one of the biggest offender for competitive multiplayer. The rule for vehicles to allow locking on like this is also applied very inconsistently. Some vehicles and aircraft can do it, others don't. I would personally prefer this to be disabled, like it is for example on the Takistan T55. Alternatively, having a server parameter for admins to set would be nice as well.

I very much agree! Cycling through targets using TAB or assigning them to yourself via the target command menu has always been an annoyance in OFP/ArmA and had a very negative impact on competitive multiplayer. With ArmA2 and arrowhead things seem to have worsened a lot. Some units like aircraft or some of the tanks can TAB cycle through enemies. This takes away all the fun with a single button press. Even worse, this mechanic appears to be inconsistently applied. Tank like the T55 cannot cycle through targets that way, while others like the M1A1 or T72 can. It is very critical for competitive gaming that a balancing pass is done on the entire lock-on logic. Ideally, TAB cycling through infantry, empty vehicles and structures is limited to cadet mode (if at all) and disabled for all units in higher difficulty settings. Ideally, it is possible to disable lock-on and target mark-ups entirely via difficulty settings and also make sure there are stricter rules enforced, which units show up in the target command menu to avoid exploits and abuse.

For comparison here are some interesting facts about the weapon damage in ArmA2 which should be taken into account for balancing discussions: B_545x39_Ball hit = 8; initSpeed = 900; B_545x39_SD hit = 8; typicalSpeed = 320; B_556x45_Ball hit = 8; initSpeed = 930; B_556x45_SD Hit = 7; typicalSpeed = 320; B_762x39_Ball hit = 9; typicalSpeed = 710; B_762x51_Ball hit = 12; initSpeed = 900; B_762x54_Ball hit = 12; initSpeed = 870;

I like the new recoils, but I think one of the problems with them is that compared to how AI is performing, you feel much more handicaped. If the player would perceive AI having similar problems of hitting with rapid fire, unless prone, I don't think it would be a big problem. Another big drawback is that this game does not allow you rest your weapon on or against objects to increase stabilization. Especially in urban combat, the current recoil feels very limiting, since you can't reduce it unless prone, which doesn't feel very natural. Take the example of Red Orchestra: Weapon recoil is very hard to control, but it's somewhat compensated by allowing to stabilize your aim if you rest your weapon against building corners, windows frames and other objects.

Can you guys please make sure that the hotfix will be on Steam right away when it's available there, given that one is available in time?

I never liked missions with a countdown. :j:

Yeah absolutely. I got a good connection, so I don't mind redownloading the whole package for patches. There is one big advantage of the Steam version in my opinion: The built-in steamworks access that allows talking to friends and even more importantly, accessing webpages in-game. Such a great help for having console command references, the forums and editing pages accessible without alt-tabbing out of the game all the time. :)

Given the fact that the countdown worked just fine for a very long time now, this really is the ultimate tease. Very annoying.

Yeah, I'd really like to give away some money. If only steam would let me buy it... :now:

I did a little comparison of the different AT weapons, because the strong difference between the different ammo sizes struck me as wrong - especially with the m136 and rpg18, taking that much space. Type | Lock | Damage | Radius | Slots | Air / IR | Direct / Indirect | | ---------------------------------------------------------- M136 | 0 / 0 | 335 / 11 | 1.1m | 6 RPG18 | 0 / 0 | 300 / 7.5 | 1m | 6 RPG7 | | | | > PG7V | 0 / 0 | 200 / 20 | 2m | 2 > PG7VL | 0 / 0 | 320 / 10 | 1m | 2 > PG7VR | 0 / 0 | 510 / 20 | 2m | 3 > OG7 | 0 / 0 | 75 / 20 | 12m | 2 SMAW | | | | > HEAA | 0 / 0 | 480 / 12 | 1.2m | 2 > HEDP | 0 / 0 | 150 / 40 | 12m | 2 Metis | 0 / 1 | 670 / 16 | 1.5m | 6 Javelin | 0 / 1 | 800 / 20 | 2m | 6 Stinger | 1 / 1 | 70 / 50 | 8m | 6 Strela | 1 / 1 | 66 / 50 | 8m | 6 Igla | 1 / 1 | 70 / 50 | 8m | 6 To allow for some rough comparison here are a couple of armor values. Of course you should keep in mind that depending on where you hit a target (hull, turret, gun, tracks, engine, ...) damages might be scaled (down) accordingly, so don't take these values too strictly. As a rule of thumb most AT weapons can disable any vehicle with a single hit, if you hit the right spot, and effectively destroy it with the second. Type | Armor ---------------------- M1A2 | 900 M1A1 | 850 T90 | 800 T72 | 690 BMP3 | 300 BMP2 | 250 AAV | 210 LAV25 | 150 BTR90 | 150 HMMWV (M240) | 150 HMMWV (Avenger)| 150 BRDM2 | 120 Vodnik | 85 A10 | 75 SU25 | 75 HMMWV | 40 MH60S | 35 MI17 | 25 UAZ | 20 Golf | 20 My suggestion would be to implement an one-shot solution for the launchers (m136/rpg18) similar to how Operation Frenchpoint did it back in OFP days already by auto-dropping the launcher and replacing it with a defunct "used" version to prevent reusing it. This should be supported by an ammoless implementation that just requires the launcher.Alternatively, decrease m136 and rpg18 ammo to 3 slots. In addition, smaw ammo should be increased to 4 slots each, while rpg7 rounds should be increased to 3 slots each, exept for rpg7r with 4 slots. Metis, Javelin and the AA launchers are fine with 6 slots per round. This still isn't perfect, but at least there would be a meaningful difference between the 3 at launcher categories for each side; Heavy launchers take 6 slots, medium launchers 3-4 slots with additional tactical value (AP ammo), and light launchers with 3 slots. I am convinced that this would help overall game balance and prevent dominated choices, especially in multiplayer games. Some examples: * Javelin with 1 guided round and 6 slots of additional equipment (total damage: ~800) * SMAW with 2 rounds (any type) and 4 slots of additional equipment (total damage: ~300-960) * SMAW with 1 round (any type) and 8 slots of additional equipment (total damage: ~150-480) * M136 with 3 rounds and 3 slots of additional equipment (total damage: ~1005) * M136 with 2 rounds and 6 slots of additional equipment (total damage: ~670) * M136 with 1 round and 9 slots of additional equipment (total damage: ~335) * ... My 2 cents.

I am suffering from the same problem and can confirm that not alt-tabbing out of the game greatly improves your chances to avoid crashes/lockups. Running on a dualcore 2.66 with 8800 gts 512 on winxp. Very annoying bug. Same happens to me in VBS2, but in no other game I have installed.

I have a design concept for exactly that lying around on my home pc desktop, heatseeker. Evolution Career, a class driven approach. I'll forward the docs to kiljoy and see, if he likes the idea and is willing to try something out. The basic idea is that players can trade score for new skills or new classes, depending on their character. There are four main careers to choose from: infantry, crew, pilot and medic. Infantry includes up to ten different specializations (grenadier, leadership, rifleman, sniper, ...) with up to 4 levels each. To get to a lvl4 grenadier for example, the player would need to upgrade level by level with an increasing amount of score. With every level, better equipment is issued and new skills unlocked (i.e. being able to use the javelin as level 3 AT soldier. The crew and pilot careers consist mainly of vehicle driver, gunner and commander unlocks for the respective vehicles. Medic is a separate career due to the healing feature of the model. I don't want to go into too much details, but if there are no problems production wise (scripting problems, engine limitations, etc.) this could be pretty neat.

Awesome work, Dslyecxi! There are many things in your article that I have experienced first hand when playing with my clan and some familiars like Kevb0 (who you should know) and also when playing with the guys from Kyllikki. I can really suggest that every serious coop player should take a close look at this arcticle. The more people read it, the more likely it is to get a decent coop session running even on public servers, if people grasp the idea of playing in the interest of the team with the initiative being with the individual players, who actively seek out to play in a team and for the team. I noticed certain units in some of your screenshots (that were not marked for VBS2), which are not part of Armed Assault. Most noticeably the AAV, new US special forces helmets and USMC infantry. Were these fan-made addons or can we expect these units to be part of ArmA: Combat Operations, like the A10? Especially the AAV confused me as it was the only unknown vehicle when you listed the different types of vehicles on the last page of that article. Keep up the good work!

Congrats, Paul. As for FN100 being worth it: Well I think that is has been hyped so much in the last days that no matter what will be in there, it won't be able to stand up to the expectations that have been build up by some people. Probably not even a demo of game2. Looking forward to FlashNews100, because whatever it will be, it will be a good thing.

I opened a thread a while ago about the US and southern sahari forces and the problems with authenticity of the units seen on the screenshots so far. Maybe it would be good to continue talking there, rather than in this thread? Just a suggestion. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....l=nyles

I would prefer if the northern forces would not use the AK74, but AK47 instead. The '74 is almost exclusively in use with former Soviet Bloc nations and even in the Warsaw Pact satellites, the '74 never really came around much. Having an AKM or some other (maybe chinese?) '47 variant would make the scenario a lot more believable. Combine this with further AK versions (grenadelauncher, weaponsights, etc.) RPD, RPK and PKM squad machineguns, RPG-18/22, RPO-A and RPG-7 launcher-based systems and support weapons like SVD and AGS-17 and I will be pretty happy about the opposing forces. Add some BTR60/70/80 on top and I am absolutely satisfied about the North.

Exactly.. Thats by biggest problem with people complaining about stuff being unrealsitic in games.. Developers HAVE to make bits of games "unrealistic" in a bid to make gameplay either more fun, or possible.. A good example of this, Lock On : Modern Air Combat.. The control sheet for that is around 7 pages, the game is extremely hard to use (Unless you want to sink a lot of time into the game to learn, but not many people are willing to do that) Anyway, it was a good article, hopefully a few devlopers see it - Ben The key here is scalability. There is no reason why a game can't scale down its complexity, so the common player can get into it easily, automating complicated things (autopilots, automatic gear shifting, etc). As long as these advanced features can still be used manually by a player, if he choses to, and allow him to be at a slight advantage over those players using the easier to handle automated processes, when used, there is absolutely no problem with games being scalable for me personally. Scalability is only dangerous, if the simplified process can be used to perform better than someone using the manual process to full effect. Take gear shifting in cars in the game Mafia as an example: You could decide whether you want to do the shifting yourself or let the computer do the shifiting for you, which worked most of the time, but very often - especially in criticical situations- made the car act a bit weird due to the gear shifted to early or too late or just differently than you would have shifted manually. With you being in control of the gear shifting, you had more work to do, but on the other hand you had more direct control about your car, making thigns possible that probably would not have worked as smoothly with automatic gear shifting. Many of the things mentioned in dsylecxi's article could work the same way as long as the Game Design considers to have the simplified variant be at a slight disadvantage and be it just by being slower. You have to include shadow costs to balance scalability, but it's absolutely do-able. It just might require some thinking.

First I just wanted to post this as a short reply to the "Latest Screenshots available" thread. However as the word count exploded, I decided to put this into a seperate thread. I hope this is okay with the moderators. All that follows is purely speculation and throwing around thoughts! I just want to present a dilemma, which I personally find a bit irritating and offer solutions, but in the end, it might just be me seeing it all like that. So please bear with me. Personally, I think the US equipment that was presented to us so far, maybe isn't really the best choice for ArmA. So far, we have been shown equipment solely in use with the Marines (AH-1 Cobra), equipment currently in sole use with the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (Stryker APC, ACU uniforms), US Army / National Guard specific wargear (M113, UH-60 Blackhawk), US military equipment that can be cross-used with either Army, National Guard or Marines (M1A1, Hummers, most of the small arms), US Army Special Forces aircraft (AH-6, MH-6), and lastly, outdated equipment like the M163 Vulcan, which is no longer in active service with the US military as far as I know. Now, there are several possibilities how all these branch-unique units could actually be included in Armed Assault's storyline, so I won't say it's impossible to include these units, however it feels a bit weird to me right now. Limiting the available US military branches to 1-2 might have been a better way. At least it should be tried to seperate them somehow in campaign, creating missions around just some of the units and never get units of all of them into one single mission. I assume (and this is indeed just wild guessing) that southern Sahari forces will be equiped with outdated western equipment like the M163, maybe a M113 variant and so on. Thus, the part about the outdated equipment is absolutely fine, as long as the US military does not use units like the M163 for air-defense, but instead get either M6 Linebackers, Avenger systems on hummers or the systems used in the USMC accordingly. As an alternative, leaving out dedicated US military AA systems and just providing man-portable Stinger systems could work as well, depending on how big the northern air threat will be. What would be interesting to know is what forces BIS plans to throw into combat on Sahari. To justify the current unit list shown to us through several media, USMC, regular US Army units, US Army special forces, US Army 160th SOAR and units of the US Army Stryker Brigade Combat Teams would be required. Quite a lot of different army units for 400 square kilometers, if you ask me. The question is, if the US forces stationed on the island to train the southern forces are special forces like Green Berets, just regular peacekeeping troops from either Army or National Guard, or maybe a mix of these? The use of the M113 as personal carrier for US troops hints at some second choice unit - maybe US National Guard? I am not sure, but the M113 really isn't included a lot in recent TO&Es of US forces anymore, although it seems that many are again brought out of storage to be used in Iraq for patrols in urban terrain, where there is a constant threat of roadside bombs and insurgent attacks (albeit not a good explanation for it's appearance on Sahari as the situation between North and South apparently looks stable enough to pull out troops. The M113 also still is in use with engineer units, so there could be some explanations why the M113 is on Sahari and why the M2 Bradley isn't. Still, it feels a bit weird - especially seeing it alongside the M1A1 Abrams in tank combat - a place where the US probably would never put that tin can in anymore. That's more the place for the M2 Bradley IFV. Another explanation could be that the M113 and maybe even the M1A1 are actually southern Sahari units and don't belong to the US military afterall - although the camouflage kinda hints at US heritage, so I think it's rather unlikely to be the case. My guess about the story - mixed with the few facts we have received so far: At first the US forces are pretty few soldiers with some outdated equipment. Most of their gear is already shipped home and they plan to leave with the rest soon as the situation between North and South seems to have stabilized. I'll just stick with that setting about a National Guard unit sent for peacekeeping, who are accompanied with some Green Berets acting as military trainers for the southern Sahari soldiers. William would be one of those special forces then, too, offering some interesting possibilities for missions during the campaign as you then also have a special forces character to change to for those commando missions behind the lines, like it was the case with James Gastowski in OFP:CWC. The presence of special forces would also justify the availability of the Littlebird helicopters we already saw and which are really only in use with 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment - the special forces flyboys. As the peacekeepers are about to leave, the North strikes. (Personally, if I were the North, I'd wait till everyone is gone and invade afterwards. Makes things easier, but well) So those few remaining US peacekeepers (incl. the special forces around William) and the poorly trained southern militia have to face this onslaught and stand their ground. Sounds like a mix between the first half of the CWC campaign with a breeze OFP:Resistance to me somehow - which must not be a bad thing. I assume the first half of the campaign will be from the position of the underdog, trying to keep the Northerners away from the southern capital. Missions would probably be a mix of standard combat missions between US forces alongside southern Sahari troops fighting the northern troops and commando missions that strike some important targets and delay the northern approach. Again the classic layout like seen with the campaign structure in previous BIS projects. After these missions, I assume we can expect US reinforcements to arrive in the south and that's again where things get interesting for the unit line-up. From the units we saw so far, we still need to bring in three components for the whole thing to work. And that's exactly were the trouble starts: We need to consider the Stryker and ACU wearing soldiers. We need to consider the AH-1 Cobra gunships. And we need to consider the presence of heavy M1A1 Abrams tanks. Personally, I have a hard time to see both USMC and a Stryker Brigade Combat Team rush to Sahari, but it could work as long as they don't mix too much. However, I'd prefer to just get some USMC units on the island as reinforcements to assist the south. That would mean no Stryker APC and no soldiers wearing advanced combat uniforms. So this is a dilemma as I can see BIS wanting to get these units in at all cost, because they look shiny and new. Especially the ACU greatly defines the look of Armed Assault in the press already and sets it appart from other present-day wargames, which is important. So maybe it might be a good idea to kill the entire National Guard / poorly equiped US Army unit idea and replace them with the Stryker Brigade right away? I think it's the best thing to do, so let's start over with this idea. Are you still awake? Â Soooo, in the beginning there are elements of a Stryker Brigade Combat Team stationed on Sahari, who act as peacekeepers. Alongside them, a team of Green Berets (max 12 soldiers as per TO&E) is training the local militia so they eventually will be able too look after themselves. The situation seems to have stabilized recently and most of the assigned units from the Stryker Brigade already shipped home again. Now the north attacks out of a sudden and the remaining units have to stand their ground until reinforcements arrive. The southern army received some surplus equipment from US stocks to build up their own army, including some old tanks (M60, Leopard1 or T55 maybe), M113 APCs and M163 Vulcans. The US forces just have the Stryker APCs and variants like mortar and TOW carriers, some unarmed hummers and FMTV trucks on the island. So nothing that could really defeat a massive tank-supported invasion from the evil north, either. Their trump however are a couple of helicopters from 160th SOAR (UH60, AH-6 and MH-6) that give them a big advantage: Airmobility, allowing them to insert special forces and their southern Sahari auxillary into the enemy's rear and conducting raids and delaying operations. So much for the initial setting and units involved. Now we come to the reinforcements again: As we already dealt with the SBCT, special forces and 160th SOAR, it would now be possible to introduce the Marines, allowing us to field heavy M1A1 tanks and cobra gunships. The problem here is that the Marines have their own unique equipment, so this would mean no M2 Bradleys, no AH-64 Apache gunships and no other fancy US Army equipment in ArmA. Personally I don't care, but I assume many others do. Just throwing in more Strykers as reinforcements wouldn't be a good choice as these units really are not meant for fighting tanks, so we need something more brutal - like the Marines. The advantage of using the Marine Corps as reinforcement would be a fresh change in looks for the US side, compared to early in the campaign and also compared to Operation Flashpoint. It would require some effort for the storytelling department to make this clear to the player, but it's absolutely do-able. The Marines would be a good choice as we are talking about reinforcing a combat zone situated on an island. Naval infantry isn't a bad choice for that, I'd say. We still get our M1A1 tanks to blast the northern armour pool, just like we could with the US Army and could furthermore concentrate on the LAV series of vehicles fighting alongside the Abrams and continue with the airmobile aspect with UH-1 and CH-46 helicopters. There is just one slight problem with the Marines, which should be considered: Your basic infantry squad in the Corps consists of 13 soldiers, if I'm not mistaken, requiring some adjustment for the limitation of only 12 soldiers allowed per squad in OFP. But as the real Marines seem to not have a problem with that when training with VBS1, I suppose it's acceptable. It might also be important to note that the Marines, albeit also US military, are using a slightly differing rank structure - mainly for NCOs - compared to US Army units. A staff sergeant in the Marines has a different role than a staff sergeant in the US Army. Nothing big, but it should be considered anyway. So, to summarize: - Old equipment like the M113 and M163 should be Southern Sahari exclusive and not be used with US forces. - US troops stationed on Sahari should be SBCT, Green Berets and 160th SOAR army aviation. A pretty light force, suited for peacekeeping but not war. - US reinforcements, arriving later in the campaign, should be USMC only and offer heavy equipment better suited for fighting a war and turning the tide. I think this pretty much sums it up. I don't know if all of this makes sense. Afterall I am not in US service and can only judge this from the outside. Overall it seems to make sense like that, though. I'd like to get some thoughts and ideas on this matter. Would be interesting to see who agrees or who comes up with a better solution on how to fit the units we already saw in several screenshots and videos together, so it all makes sense in both a perspective focused on the overall authenticity of the setting and one focusing on telling a story. Shoot ahead. Â

Yes, please end the off-topic debates. Thank you. Marco, are really all units of the ANG equiped with the latest or are there still some units that use outdated equipment like the basic M1 tank, M113 APCs, M163 Vulcans for air defense and the like? Personally, like stated above, I think that some ill-equiped US force wouldn't really work that well on Sahari, anyway. The problem just is that on those images shown to us till now, it could be interpreted from the unit-list that the US forces are indeed using some older vehicles, too, which shouldn't really be in service with units abroad. That's why I think getting the unit list straightened somewhat might be a good idea as to prevent weird unit combinations that might not be a problem for the common player, but definitetly will cause some irritation amongst those of us, who either have a military background or are at least slightly into the topic. I think that the latter group shouldn't be underestimated and makes up a large portion of the entire flashpoint community. Some few years ago I might have agreed that gamers with some decent military background knowledge are a minority but that kind of knowledge is spreading very fast and even though there are still only few people who know details, the mouth-to-mouth talk about stuff like that is very very large. Everybody knows some half-truth about something in the military and usually even those fragments of knowledge are enough for many players to judge, if something is represented accurately and in an authentic way or not. So my advice is not to underestimate the common player in this area. About what Seal84 said earlier in this thread about the G36. It could be that the southern Sahari forces are being issued with the G36 as their new service rifle right away, so this could maybe explain, why it is included. I just hope I don't have to see any US soldiers equiped with Steyr Aug or G36 like in Codemaster's Red Hammer expansion.

Digital delivery is the future, however it will take another 5-10 years until it's really suited for the mainstream distribution.

Ukraineboy, you obviously misunderstood the purpose I had in mind when writing this thread. I would be very happy, if you could take your discussion away from this thread and maybe create your own thread, as this thread has a different purpose. Thank you for your understanding.

Like I said, the problem is not that some stuff is outdated but more the mix between the latest in technology mixed with equipment that has been dumped on reserves decades ago. It's the consistency that seems off in some areas. As long as there is either just old equipment or either just new equipment, it's alright, but mixing the stuff too much like I am afraid might happen in Arma - especially mixing vehicles from different branches like Army, Marines and special forces, makes for a weird combination. The only thing I intended with this thread was to point this dilemma out and offer some possible solutions how to get things to work out nicely for both authenticity and story. That's all. So please concentrate on these points in your replies.

Very good point there, you just need to change the squadleader's designation to "0" or "leader" or whatever else is appropriate.

True. All of the above only takes information into account that have been presented to us. It's very likely that we will still see some other wargear, but the problems displayed about some equipment being used by some army branches exclusively and how to fit all this into a authentic storyline, are still there. No matter, if there will be a M2 or not.