The_Captain

To add to what beta said... most coop or TvT missions themselves don't instill a sense of urgency on the player. Generally, in a coop mission the AI cannot "win" by itself, all it can do is kill you while you're trying to complete your objective, and they usually hang out in one place (DAC etc excepted). So, really, you have as much time as you want to sit on your thumbs, come up with a ridiculous plan, and take your time slowly exterminating the AI... it might be a good strategy, but it doesn't exactly give players the "combat" feeling... As for TvT missions, respawn missions usually make this mission feel very "samey": players you kill come back quickly, while no respawn missions are too harsh: after the first or second engagement, most players are dead. And if the combat area in a TvT area is *too* large, most players don't encounter more than one or two enemies at a time, and one or the other usually has a very quick death, leading to almost nonexistent firefights. 32 players do not an entire island invasion force make... These factors makes TvT missions generally more frustrating than exciting. It's hard to get good at playing against other people when 95% of your time playing the game is waiting to respawn, traveling to where there might be combat, capturing some undefended objective, or rearming, while only 5% is movement and shooting in combat.

This is just the sort of frustrating scheme that, if I bought the game, I would immediately use some sort of modified EXE to not need the cd in the drive/not limit the installs/etc. EA's behavior is pretty much the opposite of what Stardock/Ironclad proposed in their "Gamer's Bill of Rights": Stardock/Ironclad were notable for releasing Sins of a Solar Empire without DRM and still managing to sell boatload of copies, thumbing their noses at pirates. http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/?aid=322522 Sadly, from reading a few reviews, spore looks pretty weak in terms of gameplay, so I won't really bother buying it and trying to navigate the ugly world of its DRM just to play it. I'll just ignore it...

I remember getting that error before when the patch wasn't right for the version I had. Try installing the other patches and see if that works. I'm not sure from the box cover which version that is, I haven't seen it before. To check the version number of the game, start it and look in the corner of the menu screen.

NWD's tank FCS thread has a lot of information on how the vehicle damage system works. In short, even weapons without an indirectHit do damage to multiple selections on a target. This has to do with the proximity of the memorypoints on the model and how BIS coded the hit system. (So, your sabot will pretty much always hurt engine, hull, and tracks. Bleh.). NWD 'fixed' this by putting the critical ones under the tank so they wouldn't be hit by stray shots, but this had the unfortunate effect of making tanks quite vulnerable to mines. I think damage is calculated by the weapon's damage value and speed at time of impact. As an aside, with how powerful most rounds are in arma, I think armor will probably get one shot killed by most dedicated anti tank weapons regardless of a 'proper' armor/damage system. A full angle simulation would probably not be much use as sabots and heats will probably punch nicely through vehicle armor at most (but not all) angles anyway. (Most annoying to me about Arma armored combat is not the HP simulation (I can live with that), but how crew bail out of vehicles when only mobility killed. There have been a few fixes floating around for that, including one I wrote myself for personal use. That one fix alone greatly improves arma's armored warfare, as vehicles need to be actually killed to be disabled.) the CAVS (common armor value system) project was a nice way of standardizing vehicle armor/at Weapons in OFP and it has carried over to some Arma projects. It had config values and a way of computing HP from a number of different factors for people to use when creating new vehicles/modding old ones. You can search for CAVS in google and get information about it. As to your original suggestion, you could probably detect which selection was hit by which took the "most" damage and then apply some random effects: set tank on fire, kill crew, disable engine, disable gun, cook off ammo, etc. However you can't manually damage arma selections.

I think enable/disable radio only controls the AI/squad radio and text chat, and doesn't affect VON.

Is your game 'Gold edition'? 505Games gold edition has v105 and v108 already. You do not need that patch. I think you only need version 1.14: http://www.armedassault.com/dwnl_update.html#int114

Are any improvements by BI that aren't in someone's 'favorite area' automatically 'minor, insignificiant' improvements? It seems many of Arma2's features are new, hard coded into the engine, and took a fair amount of work. I remember reading somewhere (or seeing in a video?) that most of VBS' features are scripted in to the Arma/VBS2 engine, while similar features are hard coded completeley differently into the Arma 2 engine. I really don't think BIS is being lazy and just copy/pasting code from the older engine...

I agree, in that respawning defenders at camps make the camps almost impossible to take without really lame spawnraping (on both sides). Just preventing the defenders from spawning if the attackers had started to cap would fix the problem. I also agree with the other ideas as well. I haven't looked into the warfare code much, but I agree that this would improve the 'town fight gameplay' a lot. (And why aren't we able to respawn into our AI? Kinda defeats the whole point of having a team...)

This feature (as said) wouldn't be too difficult to integrate into a mission, writing it via scripts. The harder part would be writing a game mode which could use this type of spawning. IE, writing a COD style territory control or TDM mode which used this sort of spawning. I don't think the usual Arma modes could benefit much, though maybe someone would want to hack this into Evo for the evolution crowd... Certainly this is already possible in ofp or arma 1 though.

Arma II, though far along in development, could likely benefit from integration of valve's new 'steamworks' game enhancements. For free, developers can integrate steam features into their games such as: -Steam identity -matchmaking/server browsing -steam community -anti cheat -access from any PC -voice chat They can also add publishing services and development tools, like auto updating, key authentication, anti-piracy, etc. These tools are available to a developer for free, and allow the developer full control over where and how their product is sold and marketed (including retail and alternate digital download services). Many in the community have called for Arma's availability on Steam. While I would like BIS to retain full distribution control over Arma II, I would strongly recommend BIS' use of the Steamworks features in Arma II. Anti cheat, anti piracy, and any-computer activation will help BIS ensure strong sales, and community features will allow more community integration with the game. Many arma players and groups no doubt use Steam for coordination, and integration into the game would allow more players to connect easier and enjoy a more streamlined play experience. Valve's benefits are obvious: More games installed on steam mean more eyeballs in their prominent storefront. As well, many users are against steam use, citing outages and program incompatibility (as well as requirement of an internet connection for product activation). However, I feel the benefits in using such a package would improve my and other gamers' Arma II experience. I would recommend that BIS explore the ways in which Steamworks could streamline the development, distribution, feature set, and post release support of Arma II. Valve's Steamworks website: http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/index.php What does everyone else think about Steam features in Arma II?

I guess 'go big or go home' is vilas' motto then... Nice work guys!

I haven't used CEX in a while, but it seems like once you embark the vehicle, the team/player is assigned to vehicle (as if you had used the command 'assignasdriver' or something). However, when you teamswitch out of a unit, you need to give the old unit a quick move or follow command otherwise it gets stuck (arma bug). So probably what happens is you switch out of the unit, it gets stuck and can't complete its command given by the engine to get back in the vehicle. You could use orderGetIn command when switching to see if that stops the behavior, or also give the command a domove or dofollow after you switch to stop it getting stuck and let it get back in the vehicle. (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/orderGetIn)

'evasive forward' is another one of the keys that is probably also bound to 2x forward, which triggers a sprint like shift-forward does. Also confirmed in videos is that reloading while walking or jogging is slower than reloading when stationary.

Destroyed models are their own LOD, unlike OFP1, so there's really no limit to what BIS can do with destroyed meshes (blown out parts, etc) as long as the vehicle stays in one piece. It seems BIS tends to keep the geometry of the destroyed model mostly the same as the intact model, but they could be more elaborate if they wished. I would think most vehicles being 'destroyed' IRL would simply catch fire or cook off ammo/fuel inside and burn, esp if the kill was a heat warhead or sabot (or even missile), and not blow into a dozen pieces. True, with one piece models turrets won't fly off, but as has been said, once the vehicle is destroyed and smoking that's mostly what I'm interested in. From a scripting standpoint, destroyed units don't scatter persistent debris or break into multiple parts, so a simple setdamage 0 can get them back in working condition. Plus, the only real network traffic needed from the engine is the damage state: once it hits 0, switch to the destroyed LOD on the client. Fairly efficient and it does not remove the vehicle from gameplay as engines which break up a unit and replace it with client-side only physicalized parts might. My cents.

Yay, gameplay videos. I'm torn: I like the atmosphere and the game options that are new or carried over from fallout (perks, stats, interface style). However, the game's look and feel, and gameplay style remind me way too much of Bioshock, but with less polish: 'arcadey' rather than grounded in a bit more reality like fallout 1+2. "Radiation +1!" messages on the screen as well as water increasing health both seemed odd to me. The animations are wooden, the weapons are poorly animated with poor sounds, recoil is nonexistent even in a scope view, and the player view feels like a bad panning-style cinematic, much more floaty than actual movement. The cinematic view when killing people with vats is hopefully something to turn off; it got a bit annoying even only a half dozen times in the videos, and just felt gratuitous. The environments seem populated with enemies just for the sake of it, while in fallout you felt that enemies were part of 'encounters': you would encounter raiders in the desert, townspeople in the cities, etc. In the videos it seemed enemies were scattered about just to provide things to shoot at. All the immersion breaking aspects aside, fallout is a game about the story, quests, characters, dialogue and rpg aspects as well, so I'm looking forward to exploring the post-apocalyptic environment in first person, being able to take in all the scenery and devastation. Still, the first person and arcade seeming aspects are looking like they'll be a turn off to me, and might get in the way of my enjoying the real "meat" of the game... If F3 is bungled, hopefully StarCraft 2 will still be good.

For helicopter guided missiles, for example: I think even something like a "time to lock on" and a requirement to have the locked target in your forward arc for the weapon to be guided would move the current system towards something that behaves in a more realistic manner. Though it's not simulating exact targetting, it would require a bit more skill and prevent "tab-fire" spam which I find annoying.

In this screenshot from the official site, you can see an M240 open and reloading. http://www.arma2.com/images/stories/gallery/ArmA2_Ingame-25.jpg I don't know how far they're taking weapon reload animations (I'm not sure bolt action rifles will have, say, individual bullets loaded into the chamber), but this is certainly a marked improvement over arma.

I just installed it and I think I switched from firefox 2. I didn't like firefox 3 because of its maddening, not revertable autocomplete: I want it to complete my URLS, not search my history! Chrome is fairly fast and streamlined, and I doubt I'll have a reason to go back to firefox or way back to IE.

From the new website, game info box at the bottom, 'combat', RE the AI: "The unique AI think and act independently, changing tactics on the fly. No scripts. No pre defined pathways. ArmA 2's AI share information, communicating with each other to hunt players down. They'll use cover and artillery, adapting to your actions and the changing environment."

Maybe the 'static unmoving gun' is WIP, as they are still working on the game and will add better animations later. However, I have a feeling there will be no "full body awareness" like arma/ofp: That means they need to use detailed textures for a body that can't be used to make the gun pretty, and it seems they're not going to do that. Shame, one of my favorite parts of OFP was being able to look around wherever I wanted while still moving in the same direction. Quite immersive, that. If they're not adding playable planes, it'd be because they're hard to use/difficult to balance/hard to make 'realistic'. However, they are *fun* in their own right, and it's a bit silly to just leave them out.

I think the obsessive AI formation following is to help prevent 'formation lag': the leader would move ahead, and the rest of the squad would notice that and move to follow after they took the time to recognize that. With Arma instant following leader's position changes they start moving the second you do which is unnatural, but it does keep them in formation. I think part of the problem is that a military unit doesn't move with simple "blind following": the SL would tell the men where to move (giving them a heads up to move 100m forward) and they would all move in a group, instead of waiting every second for the SL to move a few meters, and follow him forward a few meters as well. In addition, as soon as you change your standing/crouch/prone position the AI units do instantly as well, equally unnatural. This scenario happens frequently to me: I run from one side of the road to the other and go prone. The AI following me hit the dirt not when they reach their formation position (now on the other side of the road), but right where they are, causing them to hit the deck in the middle of the road and crawl to cover (and probably get shot). There's a difference in the pathing algorithms when units are in 'follow mode': it seems they aren't getting normal move commands, instead their destination is being changed by the game to be exactly the correct formation position. If they rely on their own pathing they take much longer to make a plan, and have to replan every second/split second, and their formation position ends up being only within arma/ofp precision (2-3m). The exact pathing also causes ai to seek the EXACT position they are supposed to, instead of say, cover near their position. In cities this means they might try to find a path to the middle of a building (if their line or wedge position puts them off the road and inside one), and they get fairly confused. So it seems BIS uses some sort of 'exact' flock pathing/AI movement when units are in formation (changing the units destination constantly) to prevent constant replanning/inexact movement/whatever, but it is exactly this which is really unnatural. If AI are automatically given game-engine move commands instead of the formation-following, they end up acting slightly smarter and more natural overall (since they are relying on normal move commands), even if their movement speed and reaction to SL changes is slower. Maybe I will dig up my old tests and try to streamline them.

From what I could tell briefly viewing the video earlier this week, it looked like the HUD/reticle was attached to the helmet and swung up and down, not the helicopter (as it was VERY close to the camera). I could be wrong though.

Even though real virtuality-something or poseidon-something refer to the engine name, I would prefer BIScript because (to me) it seems a bit more descriptive, linking the scripting language to the company. (Probably because most people don't refer to the engines by their designation anyway).

One weakpoint I've noted in arma/ofp AI is that AI are seemingly obsessed with following a fixed point in formation, finding it even more important than staying alive sometimes. A bit higher tolerance would help them stay alive longer, imho. I ran a few tests a while back where AI would get low level moveto/domove commands to their formation point whenever they were commanded to stay in formation. It was buggy (they would freeze when given rapid move orders for too far of a distance, etc), but in close formations Arma AI's individual pathing did a better job of keeping them in combat ready positions than the "formation flock" AI. Also looks WAY more realistic and convincing. I'd like to see changes like this to formation AI in arma 2.

Yeah, I spotted that in the vehicle list in that video as well! Also nice to see M1A1, ZSU-23, BMP-2, BRDM-2, etc return so we get a good balance of new and old equipment... Also glad they have the weapon specific animations as well... Hopefully the morale/suppression model is more robust as has been indicated in previews/interviews...