nyles

Hey Suma, I think it is really unfortunate that there are so many remaining issues in CIT still that could be fixed by a dedicated designer in 2-3 days of work without any code or art support. Many of those really shouldn't be hard to deal with, but could greatly enhance the gameplay and actually make certain game components usable again, which are broken or buggy for ages. It would be really awesome, if you could go through the items below and perhaps talk to some of the designers about the impact of investigating them. I can assure you that there are gems on that list, a large part of mp community has been hoping would get fixed for a long time. make weapons lose less power over distance (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11479) increase range for all manually guided missiles beyond 1500m (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/18656) AT weapons in T90 and BTR90 not working (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/14436) Reduce off-road speed for vehicles on Takistan to match experience on Chernarus (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13834) Reduce bouncyness of handgrenades (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/3513) Tweak down countermeasures (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/12692) Add important soldier classes to factions missing them, like engineer (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/16577) Balance pass on AA-12 to tone down range (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/16538) Set up backup ironsights for those weapons clearly featuring them on them models already (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13857) Fix Mi24 Falanga missiles almost always missing locked targets (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11850) Increase Little Bird airspeed (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11767) Don't allow carrying AS50 and AT weapons at same time (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15969) BAF medic cannot equip handguns (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15666) Fix double the amount of flares in 120rnd flare mag (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13914) Change standalone grenade launchers to be sidearms (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13216) Balance all TI-equiped weapons by treating them as machineguns in the inventory (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15970) AS50 damage not matching damage from M107 sniper (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/14888) Add range-adjustments to grenade launchers (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15184) I am sure others could expand that list with a large number of other minor issues that should be easy to fix, but could have a very positive impact on playability, like for example stronger ballistic curve and reduced range on infantry AT weapons, allow using the FAL's nightsight during daylight, etc. Also, it would be really sweet, if you guys would consider making some units available to other factions as well. For example, the PMC-introduced Ka-60 would be perfect as an EAST unit as well without the need to do any texture adjustments. Thanks!

Thanks Mando, I'll give that a try. Biggest concern to me really is the missing readability of the whole thing, like spawning a red circle marker with the player's launch vehicle in the center and the radius approximately matching the min-range you set via maximum turn rate adjustments. Of course later on it would be great to get a proper implementation that doesn't let you set targets within a defined min-radius and will cancel previously set targets once you move the vehicle within that min-range.

I tried my luck with adding some minimum range (+readability) to the SCUD menu, but I failed so far. Any chance of adding a minimum range in by default and making that visible in the menu?

Hey Mando, I wanted to post much earlier, but didn't really find the time. I was able to solve the previously discussed problem with the twin-spawned missiles (normal + mando), by modifying a parameter benny added to Warfare BE, which deletes guided missiles at a specified range. I simply set this param to 1m by default and that way the there is a secondary check that deletes standard missiles, in case MMA misses one, like what seems to happen on our server at least all the time. Anyway with this extra check, everything works as it should now. Another thing: Is there an easy way to add a minimum range to the SCUD launch console? I would like to bring it into a warfare variant of mine using conventional warheads only (which works great), but for game balance reasons I would like to impose a large min radius of 5-10km. Cheers!

A new linux server version would be very much appreciated indeed. Those problems are really annoying and have result in a huge noticable drop of players on our server.

Maybe it's already been addressed and I simply missed it, but this is really affecting play on our server. If there's already a fix for it, would be great, if you could share the details and in which MMA version it's goint to be featured in. :)

Hey Mando, is there any progress on the possibly lag-spawned second non-mando missile issue from a few pages ago? :)

I have seen this happen with most of the manual guided systems, like (handheld) Metis, TOW on HMMWV/Bradley/Stryker, Javelin and Dragon. I am also sure this happened with helicopter-launched Hellfires, but not sure about EAST heli systems. There could be more. I am suspecting that with Warfare being an already script-heavy mission, a non-highend server rig might simply not be able to process the mando scripts in a timely manner, creating the effect of double missiles simply due to lag. It really looks like one missile is the standard BIS version, while the second is the mando missile.

Hey Mando, thx for the answer. I have not played any other mission using MandoMissile on our server, so for now I can only confirm this problem with Warfare BE 2.068. Could you point me to such a simple example mission using MMA? I can upload it to the server for testing, but I am afraid I can't easily create one myself. Gossamer you mentioned a similar problems, can you perhaps confirm this issue for your Warfare variant or other missions and help repro? As for the anti-air capabilities of the Mi-24, I think I read something about the Mi-24 being able to equip R-73 missiles, but have never seen any image about it. I also did not look at this issue from a realism standpoint. The EASA warfare aircraft loadout script just allows you to equip that option, but the cockpit systems don't seem to support it. It should be easy to simply disable this particular loadout option when MandoMissile is in use, if you do not intend to support this or other AA weapons on the Hind.

Hey Mando, any news on the two missiles fired per shot issue? Another thing I noticed in Warfare BE 2.068 when changing aircraft weaponry with the EASA system: When I swap the FAB250 bombs on the MI-24P for R-73 AA missiles, the helicopter does not offer any means to actually launch them. Shouldn't there be a R-73 HUD mode in this case? I noticed HUD systems and weapon cameras to adjust to new armament just fine otherwise.

Yes, please extend the missile guidance range for the SACLOS weapons in-game.

I am bothered by this a lot, actually. It has been discussed on this forum several times already and there are multiple entries in the bug tracker. Unfortunately, nothing has changed so far, even though it looks like an easy, cheap and low-risk fix. Mentioning this again doesn't hurt however, so bumping it up. :)

FuseDistance not working for missiles SACLOS missile range too short Certain missiles lack manual guidance Some cars can drive faster off-road than on roads Bullets lose too much damage over distance Aircraft countermeasures too effective Freelook inside vehicles with AI crew sometimes stops working Add additional "preparation" time when selecting launchers Player cannot lower handgun or launchers Cannot raise lowered weapon from crouch stance Weapons with TI scopes to be treated like machineguns in inventory AI warping at distance Implement single-use weapons (AT) Vehicles should not need to turn engine on to rotate main turret MG Nest model uses low LOD over distance (warfare town defense issue) Add new (useful) content to increase variety. To this day I simply can't understand why there has not been a small DLC or patch, which provides cheap and easy reskins of already available models for different factions. M113 for US, Ka60 for Russians, BTR60 for Guerrilla, BMP2/Shilka/BRDM2/AN2 for Russians, T55 for CDF, and so forth... Improve High Command module to allow for more reliable control and increase command options. Given that CTI is still a very prominent MP mode, it would be really useful for commanders to get a better command and control interface on the strategic level. I suppose there are plenty more...

I've also seen this happening quite a lot with AI-fired missiles in Warfare BE 2.068 recently. Affects both infantry systems and vehicles. Player launched missiles seem to be fine. Any quick solution for this that can be patched in?

Agreed, but I don't think anyone was expecting it to get fixed on the weekend anyways, to be honest. :) The patch has been released prior to the weekend, so of course people will find issues when trying it out across saturday and sunday and voice them. It was voiced, it got heard. Rest is with you, guys.

ByteSlam has a point here. It's really hard enough already trying to get enough people in - even for a standard BE Warfare. Would be really cool, if we could get this sorted out quickly with another server version. It would be really unfortunate, if this issue is going to persist for a longer period.

Yeah, please put that on the 1.60 list. :)

Agreed! Especially about reload times being far too fast. MGs and AT need to take much longer to reload/prepare.

Seriously guys, stop that PvP vs PvE crap. This has nothing to do with the whole issue. I am pretty sure I am not talking bullshit when I claim that all players want reliable player control and well-weighted animations that feel *right*. Having a long-standing history in both PvP and PvE since OFP days (incl. power gaming in competitive leagues and also night-long coop sessions), I don't see how speeds will have an impact here. I really don't see animation speeds being an issue here, except for maybe a handful actions. The real issue is lack of control. On one hand this means missing transitions (i.e. lower weapon with AT launcher forces switch to rifle), missing movement states (i.e. cannot crawl with AT launcher; resricted movement with binocs; etc), and also simply bugs like getting forced into a sidestep animation or collision issues with nearby obstacles and the inability to interrupt certain animations when the actor dies, causing delays in hit feedback. On the other hand I would also extend this to aesthetics: The no-weapon/pistol animation set looks even more sub-standard than most of the other animations. Reload animations are very generic, not even allowing to differentiate in reload duration between weapon categories (i.e. rifle vs. mg). Also, aiming down the sights looks and feels very outdated. It's not too bad when you are not moving, but any sort of aiming down the sights while there is the tiniest bit of player movement, is just plain bad looking and hard to control for the player. And lastly of course, some animations speeds simply feel off. However, this can be limited to a fair few examples and does not warrant an animation speed up across the board in my opinion. Put your game designer hats on, and I am sure you can easily identify those few troublemaker animations and separate them from animations that work okay'ish when you look at them within the broader context of an outdated and flawed animation system. Of course it's simply not feasible to rework the entire animation system or update all animation assets at this point. This is something that should happen for new products or new iterations of the engine. Suma, you are absolutely right that this whole animation speed topic is not taking away programmer time from doing further optimizations (and there has been some awesome progress already!), but just having designers scale animation times globally sounds very risky to me and might in the end create more unforseen issues that still need to be addressed from the code or asset sides, and which could have been avoided with a collaborative effort to address this topic in the first place. I would actually prefer, if there would be a stronger involvement by code for looking into bugs in the animation system alongside. Have an animator create a number of quick transitions and perhaps even movement states that could help increase player control of his avatar, hook them up in code and have a system designer overlook this process from a gameplay point of view and do some final corrections via animation scales to fine-tune. Maybe this is exactly how the workflow for this is handled at BIS, but the way this has been presented to the community as a casual approach by Dwarden, because he couldn't sleep, didn't really do this topic justice IMHO. As you can see, it has stirred up quite an emotional debate, and brought up a lot of swalled-up frustration by both the PvE and PvP parts of the community. Sorry, if this turned out to be a bit lengthy, and I hope you understand that this is not meant to piss anybody off. From my experience, I think it always works best to resolve issues like that when you look at them from the user experience as a whole. Don't separate gameplay and aesthetics, they are both very important for shaping the experience and making the game feel right.

I agree! That said, I think like mentioned several times, it is fine to speed up a few selected animations, but in general don't mess with the speeds within the current system. It will create more annoyance than help. Instead of spending all this energy on animations, why not look into some of the more gameplay related bugs and game balance issues that persist to this day? There are some real gems out there that would also make PvP players really happy, if they would get fixed! Some starters: Prevent locking obscured targets at extreme distances All SACLOS missile range too short Certain missiles lack manual guidance Takistan: Some cars can drive faster off-road than on roads Bullets lose too much damage over distance Aircraft countermeasures too effective AI warping over distance Implement single use AT weapons Hard/impossible to suppress AI fire and movement Unable to traverse turret with engine off Improve AI rules of engagement to include more sanity All weapons with thermal scopes should be treated as heavy weapons, preventing to equip AT launchers alongside Always require to reload AT weapons first after selecting them (very important in case those animations remain sped up!!!) Some animation specific ones: Player movement/collision issues Player cannot "lower" handgun/launchers Also: Add more unit variety for all factions with texture variants of existing assets (perhaps as DLC?) To be honest, we have been dragggin some of that stuff around with us for far too long and there are plenty more examples in the bug tracker that deserve attention as well!

Agreed! I would prefer to see missing transitions added to the game. The problem to me is not that certain actions take too long, but simply that some actions are not possible at all, forcing you into substitute transitions like switching back to your main weapon, just becasue you cannot crawl with a launcher. There are plenty of tickets about these issues. I am sure you know how to find them.

It is on the changelog:

It's a fix for a bug. Arrowhead shipped with infantry being lock-able via cycling targets with TAB. It is only intended to cycle through vehicle or air-units that way, depending on your current weapon, but not infantry. Now, Arrowhead works exactly like ArmA2 works (which is much better!) :)

That would be perfect of course. Anyways, I am going to move some of those individually on CIT in the next days. Let's see, if that helps.

Simply add reskins of existing units to increase variety with very little effort. Here is a list of meaningful options I am sure many players and level designers would be super happy about: BMP2 reskin for Russians and TakiLocals BMP2 Ambulance reskin for Russians, Guerillas and TakiLocals BRDM2 reskins for Russians and UNO BRDM2 (ATGM) reskins for Russians, Guerillas and TakiLocals MI-8MT reskin for Russians Shilka reskin for Russians KA-60 reskin for Russians KA-60 woodland camo for Russians (already hidden in the game) Ural reskins for Russians, Guerillas, Takistan, UNO and TakiLocals (missing variants) MI-8MTV-3 reskins for Takistan and CDF MI-24P reskins for Takistan and CDF MI-24D reskin for Insurgents MI-8MT Medevac reskin for Takistan Military Offroad (unarmed) reskin for Takistan T55 reskins for CDF and Russians T72 reskin for UNO BTR-60 reskins for CDF, Guerillas, Insurgents and TakiLocals UAZ reskins for Guerillas, Russians, UNO and TakiLocals (missing variants) BTR-40 reskins for Guerillas and Insurgents AN-2 reskins for CDF, Russians and Insurgents F-35 reskin for BAF Harrier reskin for BAF C-130 reskin for BAF SCUD-B reskins for CDF, Russians, Guerillas and Insurgents UAZ (Militia) for TakiMilitia S1203 Ambulance for Guerilla, TakiMilitia and TakiLocals RHIB for Takistan (in case they are used on Chernarus or some other water map) PBX for CDF, Takistan, Guerilla, Insurgents and Civilians Desert reskins of USMC vehicles Woodland/olive drab reskins of US Army vehicles M113 with woodland camo for US Army (already hidden in the game) Desert reskins of Russian vehicles Russian infantry reskins with desert uniforms Static Metis AT-13 for CDF Static M2 MG for Takistan Motorcycle reskin for PMC MH-6 reskin for PMC Vodnik (2x PK) reskin for PMC ATV for KSK I am sure there are plenty more, but I guess you got the idea. Please add more variety to the existing range of units and improve Combined Operations balance. I am 110% sure that people would pay for a decent vehicle pack - even without any fancy new campaign, new faction or completely new units. In addition, here is another list that would allow creating new units very quickly from existing models to fill gaps in the current equipment range or simply to provide more variation: SU-25 variants with mixed loadouts for Russians, Takistan, CDF and Insurgents MI-8MTV-3 variants with mixed weapon pods for Russians, Takistan and CDF CH-47 (unarmed with old non-digital cockpit) for Takistan T72 (NSV) for CDF, Russians and Takistan BMP1 for CDF, Russians, Takistan, Guerillas, Insurgents and TakLocals BRDM (AA) for CDF, Russians, Takistan, Guerillas, Insurgents and TakLocals SU-39 for Russians Military Offroad with AGS-17 for Takistan FN-FAL with sniper scope (i.e. from Mk.17 sniper) More Russian weapon variants with NSPU night scope More Russian weapons with Goshawk thermal scope (i.e. KSVK) More Russian weapons with scope from Pecheneg Bizon SMG with aimdot Pecheneg MMG without scope SVD with high-power PSO sniper scope FN-FAL light machinegun FN-FAL shorty with HWS/Acog RPG-7 with optics RPK-74 with 45rnd magazine VSS without scope SA 61 with silencer M-14 with ACOG M4A1 with ACOG M4A1 with HWS MP5 with aimdot M4 SPR with 30rnd magazine Mk.16 with TWS/ACOG (without GL) Mk.17 with ACOG Mk.17 with Spect (without GL) MG-36 with TWS G-36C with TWS G-22 sniper rifle (based on BAF AWM) G-82 sniper rifle (based on M107) More West weapon variants with AN/PVS4 night scope More West weapon variants with IR pointer / flashlights I can see at least 5 DLC packages here, BIS, and there are probably plenty more useful and cheap to produce variants. Go make some money! :)