galzohar

The slot will be lost only if AI is disabled for that slot. If AI is enabled for the player's slot, an AI will take over when the server realizes he disconnected, and a new player joining in can use the slot. Assuming the AI haven't died in the meantime. At least that's how it was last time I tried it, but nowadays most missions run with AI force-disabled to avoid forcing admins to manually disable them in missions that have many more slots than expected number of players, which makes group respawn (or anything other than base/instant) completely disable JIP capability (other than JIP to spectate).

BI cannot abandon the field because they were never really in it.

Bug preventing helicopters from being able to start flying above water: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=21806 Please vote! I'm working on integrating RHS support and slightly changing the way the server chooses which mods to use by default. You'll be able to choose attackers being either US or RU and have both uniform types as options. Defenders will have an option to use RHS AKs instead of vanilla weapons. By default, the server will use (and require) the first mod it finds available for each faction, so if your server is running a mod, DTAS will automatically use it, unless otherwise specified by admin in mission parameters. If you wish the mission to require no mods on your server, either run the server with no mods or choose the vanilla factions in mission parameters, and anyone will be able to join the mission. If the mission requires mods, players without the mods will get a message about exactly which mods they are missing and not be able to play until they re-join with the correct mods.

Hey why are you guys not posting your events on the Arma 3 PvP Community Steam group? Could use more PvPers working together to make PvP happen, be it campaign-style or single-match style. http://steamcommunity.com/groups/arma3pvpcommunity/events

Updated first post with new UAV videos.

An expansion (like OA, though the standalone part wasn't the best idea) works much better. While it splits the community, at least it brings in enough to make it worth it. When it isn't happening every few months but rather every ~2 years, it becomes acceptable considering the improvements are sufficient. The standalone part was a bad idea because newcomers who bought only OA were also split from old players who had both games. Without a standalone expansion you force everyone to buy both games, but to compensate those who didn't really get a chance to play the pre-expansion game you offer the bundle at a reduced price (which was possible, but since it wasn't required, people didn't know that they actually need to buy it until it was too late). The DLC included some nice features, but to get them I didn't have to buy the DLC. While I appreciate BIS implementing those stuff for everyone, I don't believe this is the best business model. If they made an expansion that included the helicopters, marksmen stuff, a less-futuristic-looking faction and an awesome new island that provides new gameplay opportunities along with a bunch of highly desired features such as FFV, attaching explosives to objects and some major tweaks to the stamina and movement system, I'm sure people would pay 40-60$ for it and ditch playing vanilla without much crying about the "split" (because nobody would cry that he's being split from players who don't really want to play with all the new cool more functional stuff). Being split from players who don't want to play a mission that depends on a feature available only with a helicopter I paid for is much more difficult to accept, and if I think that might happen I'll just avoid buying such a DLC and never bother making missions that use it (the part that requires payment, of course, not the free features). When they do want to release a new island, if that will be the main "extra" you get for the expansion, then the community split will be much less happily accepted, as some might not care enough for a new island and some might (since just an island or mostly just an island is a much smaller improvement than the above list), and you'll have this same problem all over again. When you bundle a lot of highly desired features in 1 big "community-splitting" expansion, it is much easier to sell it. DLC is better suited for single player content, pay-to-win or pay-for-better-looks games. Though in games like COD you could just sell 2 tiny maps because those who buy it can always find others who bought it to play with them due to the large number of total players (you can split the community 5 times and still have one going, the game doesn't depend nearly as much as Arma does on playing with the same friends on a regular basis).

That's exactly the problem with the DLC model. They will choose to play a mission that doesn't require this action, leaving DLC owners to play only with other DLC owners (splitting the community) or play with the rest of the community in missions that don't rely on those mods and thus probably don't really make much use of them if those helicopters are even included in the mission in any way. In the end, the people who buy the DLC with such a system get screwed, which would make many refrain from buying the DLC. Not a very good model for BIS, and not a very good model for me when BIS waste time on this kind of DLC where they could have been making something I could actually use. Though I suppose just 2 helicopter models is not that big of a waste, but then again that's exactly why people are crying 13 euros is too much for it. I'm saying not only is it too much for 2 helicopters, even if it wasn't too much it's still pointless to buy it (practically a donation to BIS) since with the way it's implement you can't really do much with it even if you do buy it. I've never seen the point in playing missions with OA DLCs and don't really such much of a point playing a mission with the new A3 helicopters DLC. Even if I had the DLC for free I'm not sure how much I would have been actually be using it, if at all. I would have bought the supporter's edition to get all the DLCs if it wasn't for what I've seen with A2/OA DLCs which were pretty much a waste of money. When a proper expansion comes up, though, I'll buy it for sure. Well, at least assuming it is good enough that everyone else will buy it too, because otherwise I won't be able to play it just like I wouldn't be able to play with the DLCs even if I did buy them (unless I wanted to play by myself or ditch the guys I usually play with that are a lot less willing to buy useless stuff than I am). OA had relatively good value for money. I hope future expansions can do even more, and not the other way around.

Thanks, though shouldn't the disabling be automatic if the server is not running the mod? No need to have a constant error message on the screen if the server isn't even running the mod and it's not the player's fault TFAR is not working. The hint message when joining the server should be enough to notify the player that TFAR is disabled on that server. I'd rather not have to force players to disable the mod to avoid the constant pipe error message nor add a script to every mission to check mod existence on the server and enable/disable accordingly.

Updated first post with new gameplay video.

Search the server browser for the Arma-IL IDF PvP server (you can just write "IDF" in the filter). To keep track of when events are taking place (as the server is rather empty otherwise), join the Steam group and look under the "events" tab.

There is really no point of advanced flight system if it can be disabled by the user (or if aspects of it can be disabled). At least not in a PvP environment.

If mission has too many wrecks it should be the mission maker's responsibility to remove them or disable simulation on them. Doesn't disabling simulation mean that if I ram the vehicle I won't get proper physics effects?

Hi, We sometimes use TFAR on the server but also sometimes wish to disable it. However we don't want to drive the players crazy by telling them to constantly enable or disable the mod. Is it possible that when the mod is running it will just give a message when joining the server that the server is nor running TFAR (which is already done), but not continue to give errors throughout the game? Currently the "pipe error 6" won't go away even if the server isn't running TFAR. Basically, other than the warning message you get when joining, I don't think there should be any errors displayed whatsoever if the server is not running the mod. Also, is there any API for doing simple things with scripting like changing channel / setting frequencies / changing encryption etc? That is, dynamically during a mission (for example, when a player picks a new loadout or joins a new squad or a new round starts) without requiring the player to do a lot of manual settings of the radio every time his gear/group changes or new round starts.

Looks good! Is there a feedback tracker issue we can vote on for BIS to integrate those fixes? Also, any chance you can figure out what is causing this bug? http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=21499

For example vehicle can be used and "works" but no engine sound or bad physics. Or weapons that don't work with Arma 3 attachment system. So while it may look cool and seem to "add" to the game at first, in the end you don't really want to use such things. It's nice that you're trying to get the things working, but if lack of BIS support makes it impossible to support properly then maybe it's better to focus the efforts elsewhere on things that can actually work using all Arma 3 features. Again, that's just my opinion.

Seems like I found the vest issue: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=21499 Please vote!

Personally, I find using A2 assets not upgraded to use A3 features properly rather useless. Backward compatibility is cool, but only if stuff can actually be fully backward compatible, and not just have 1/2 the features working correctly.

I tried taking a look at the example from ALIVE for group configs, but unfortunately I don't have the time to configure it properly right now. If you want to provide group configs that I can tweak and integrate into the mod that would make the group thing happen sooner rather than later :) Another issue I have is that the IDF vests don't appear in BIS arsenal regardless of what I try to do. If anyone has any idea why (if it's a bug with the mod, or the arsenal, or anything I can fix or work around in some way) please let me know.

In the end, the #1 factor in how many buy the DLC is probably how Altis Life and King of the Hill will integrate them... If people end up needing the DLC to gain an edge on those servers then they will buy it, I guess. And that's where most players seem to be nowadays.

Is there a tracker issue for the arsenal bug on which we can vote? As for weight, I think the values are not consistent even for BIS stuff because it doesn't outright represent weight. It probably represents how cumbersome an item is to carry, as in some kind of factoring of both weight and size (so something twice as heavy but not twice as big would have a lower value than something that is both twice as big and twice as heavy). Unfortunately the game doesn't have specific pouch simulation and a larger vest variety to accommodate, so we have to figure out what values would make sense so that an appropriately reasonable amount of magazines can be carried with each vest, while still taking into account the larger size and heavier weight of AK mags.

Join the Steam group advertised here and keep track of events.

Feel free to add me to the Skype group :) I'll try see if I can integrate some sort of admin-placed objectives, but it can take a while to find the time to do it. So far I found it unnecessary to limit the number of classes, since they are overall rather balanced and it seems like people pick what they're good with rather than what is "best". If you think there is a "best" class that everyone seem to be picking let me know and I'll try to find a way to balance that class better. In the end I prefer to balance the classes so people choose all of them out of free will, rather than have "more powerful" classes that I must limit. Note that they don't have to be 100% balanced, for example if most people don't pick "spec ops" that is OK as long as some people can find a use for the class. There is an issue with the defender automatic rifleman being too powerful, but the only alternative right now is to remove it since there is no 5.56 MG in the game right now. If you run HLC AK mod he will have an RPK which is more in line with the other classes (who have AK-47s and AK-74s). Note that I did add an option for "improved defender gear quality", based on feedback from the Russian community (adding mortar and marksman class for defenders as well as giving them more ammo and better vests and overall better equipment). Nightvision is also configure-able (everyone, attackers only, nobody). If you have any other ideas for parameters that admins would find useful feel free to list them. So far I haven't seen requests for "weaker" gear (as the attacker gear is pretty standard and defender gear is pretty weak already), but it could be done. The UAV used to be a 2-man thing, but it resulted in nobody using it at all (plus the UAV carrier basically just places it and then he's just a subpar rifleman "taking one for the team" and act like a normal rifleman, unlike something like an RPG assistant who actually has to carry the rockets and move with the RPG gunner). So far I don't see much effective use of it, so in the future things could change if it ends up being too powerful. However, since objectives are generally in places with cover, the defenders will almost always have a way to hide from the UAV. And besides, it is very difficult to use the UAV properly. Defender saboteur can also be very powerful but in practice very difficult to use without killing your own teammates. In order to balance these classes better I would have to see more examples of highly abusive use cases that didn't require a major sacrifice and/or teamwork coordination.

Sorry, haven't noticed that you fixed it recently. Thanks!

I'm occasionally posting on reddit and always posting events in English on the Arma 3 PvP Community Steam group and in Hebrew on the Arma-Israel facebook page. The UAV is just addBackpack and linkItem for the appropriate UAV and terminal if the player picked the UAV operator class before the round started. Defenders can shoot down the UAV if it flies low. Otherwise they can hide in buildings. After all their job is to defend a very specific spot and not run around the map. Note that due to the time limit there is only so much you can do with the UAV before you just run out of time and lose, so limiting fuel is pointless (since round is already limited to 10 minutes by default). You can see it in the video as well, that I had to stop spotting with the UAV and attack or else we wouldn't be able to clear the zone in time (plus all the decent players were dead). Overall in DTAS defenders have poor equipment and attackers have good equipment, to avoid the situation where defenders win most of the time due to defending being easier than attacking. So by default the defenders have the "weak" weapon set (if you take a launcher, for example, you will have less ammo, no grenades and only 1 rocket). Defenders have no optics except the "spec-ops" class which has a red-dot sight. The point is to give attackers a good fighting chance since the defenders can just camp where they want while the attackers have to push in and make it through within the time limit. Creating other weapon sets should be easy as the loadout configuration is in 1 script, but again you need to preserve the balance, since similar equipment for defenders and attackers would result in defenders winning most of the time due to defender's advantage and time limit. As for infantry only, it is already infantry-only pretty much - Vehicles are only for insertion (no weapons on any of the vehicles). I thought about some ideas of integrating more advanced weaponry, but couldn't come up with anything that wouldn't be absolutely broken balance-wise. Combat zone is random, selected from areas pre-defined (so you don't get an objective in a random open ground). The attached Altis, Stratis and Zargabad versions have pretty much all built-up areas marked and also some selected open areas. Generally I tried to avoid having objectives in a location that can easily be sniped, so most open areas were a no-go. I think some Russians modified it to mark the entire map so that they do get objectives in random open ground. Overall, I think the semi-random system works well. The only disadvantage of the random system is that every island needs to have areas marked when porting the mission to it. Once marked properly, randomization will work well. As a quick and dirty porting solution you can place 1 marker over the entire map for 100% random objective spot (Russian-style, random open ground will be a valid objective in that case).

UAV Usage in DTAS: Gameplay from the free weekend matches: Videos added to first post.