Pulverizer

You misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I was merely trying to convey what I think CM are probably thinking like. Not express my personal opinion about the glorious PC gaming master race, which I admire deeply and am a proud member of. How did CM "rape the genre" by releasing a game which doesn't belong into the genre? DR only had positive effect on Arma2 as far as I can tell (namely sudden introduction of long-requested laser pointers, thermal imaging and flashlights after DR featured them).

-You could keep using the minimap overlay to negate the disadvantage if you don't want to use a second screen for some reason. Old CRTs are dirt cheap, so cost is not an excuse if you can afford a computer that can run Arma2 in the first place. -If it bothers you, play on a different server that enforces hyper-realism up the wazoo and has everything disabled. Much like you might do with 3rd person view or crosshairs. If you want to tell people how to play, start your own server. -If the feature was in the game for 1. some vehicles with MFD map stuffs, then it could easily be made a server-side difficulty option to also enable it for 2. any vehicles or 3. anyone at all. -There's also single player, where no one would care if you used map or not. And I suppose most co-op players would gladly approve too.

If you support the feature for vehicles, then why not allow the people who decide to play Arma as a video game instead of a map reading simulator to use it even for infantry? Think of the people playing PvP modes like CTI, berzerk, AAS, hold, ctf. They already have minimaps on screen, in these decidedly unrealistic game modes, moving it to a second screen would not be a big change at all. Also, you forget peripheral vision you would get when reading a map in real life. You'd still catch any movement, even distant, quite well from the corner of your eye. Looking at a second monitor would simulate this nicely.

How is that too arcade when getting shot in the face and living is apparently* not? *extended armor difficulty setting + first-aid simulation module + shoot a team mate straight in the face with an assault rifle = as you can see, the guy has been shot in the head and is bleeding badly, but it's nothing serious

Well then they can't afford to spend their time playing on the internet either. What's a used CRT cost, 10 dollars? If that's somehow possible, and they think they're in a disadvantage, then they should choose a different server that doesn't allow a map view on second monitor.

Logical fallacy of the straw man kind if I ever saw one, besides it's already possible if you allow mods on the server or script it into your mission :D There are far more ridiculous features already in the game than having the map on a second screen. Auto-aim, third-person, extended super-man armor, cheating-death-simulation aka first aid, Goa'uld healing device medics, enemy highlight, map info, respawn, team switch etc. As long as it's a server-side option, there's no unfair advantage to anyone.

Yeah, kind of. I would never be gaming on console and I play some simulators every now and then. Yes. I've said it numerous times that I don't think it makes much sense for them to use it. However, they own the legal right so there's little point in staying angry about it forever. Much like Max Payne 3, I don't intend going on a crusade against Rockstar if they completely ruin it, even though I loved the Remedy MP games. It really isn't that big of a deal.

Basically, all AI behaviour when hopelessly outgunned could be improved, against tanks, attack helicopters, artillery, sniper... They should run or hide properly (eg, inside a house), anything is better than lie down in the open and wait for certain death.

I'm certain that CM is more interested in making money than winning any imaginary simulator pissing-contests. Also, the two are inversely proportional so you could say they are trying their best to lose.

Why the attitude? Some other games, even from smaller indie devs, have official servers on multiple continents so it's not like he's asking for something impossible. I think it could be useful to BI too, in anti-cheat and netcode development.

Yeah, I agree they should just drop the OFP name. It doesn't have any value in the console & casual gamer market they target anyway. If they even remember the name, they associate it with "ugly, clunky, difficult" and not "fun". However, I think applying certain things from L4D and TF2 would benefit any game, including the Arma series (free DLC, moddability, dedicated servers, map auto-download, dev console, demo recording etc).

What issue? A musician might not listen to pop music but still compose it exceptionally well for a living. Suma, BI lead programmer at the time, was "never that much interested in military, so having to play with tanks and weapons for 10 years is definitely not that interesting" to him, but that didn't prevent him from working on OFP and Arma.

L4D versus and TF2 are both extremely tactical.

It doesn't actually work like that in the real world. How else are Activision, EA, Ubi etc still in business along with CM? They're all "quilty" of the same, more or less, yet make the most money.

"this" in wp condition line refers to the group leader the waypoint belongs to. Much like "this" refers to the unit on its init line. To find the nearest ally to a unit there is no built-in function so you have to make it. Also, there's no array of all units, you have to make that too. I would make a script and use a trigger to get a reference to all units on the map.

Make a group with one waypoint. On the waypoint condition have: if(this distance player>50)then{[this,1] setWPpos getpos player}; false The group will now try to stay within 50 meters of the player. For multiplayer, use leader myGroupName instead of player so it will work on dedicated server, and if the original group leader dies.

No offense taken. I am awkward and extremely perverse :o

Today, 3:20 PM? :D

No. Don't take things out of context.

I refuse to argue with someone who sees there are no issues in BIS games. Just go take a look at the fucking bug tracker :rolleyes:

BIS has a tendency to release things half-cooked so of course they also have to release patches for a longer time. DR works fine, Dirt2 works fine... they don't require patching as far as I'm concerned.

Er... what? I see a fuck ton of things to criticize in Arma2:OA as well and don't feel ripped-off. I don't demand perfection from video games because I've yet to see a perfect video game.

Click if you love to hear about Pulverizer! (answering silly personal attacks etc):

Technically it is possible to reproduce with them, so I don't quite see the analogy. Also, Steel Beasts has infantry you can move around, and Falcon features all sorts of armour and infantry too. So Falcon is not a pure aviation sim and SB is not a pure tank sim. In both, you can have infantry fighting infantry, and infantry fighting armour.