Proton

Well, if nobody uses them, it must be too expensive. On Benny's ARMA1 mod they had a cost of >4k, and we were still using them, despite having the queue spawning on town camps which you cannot do here. I would wait a bit yet on making them cheaper. True. I have added the BRDM ATGM from another faction for now. Will increase it a bit, but I am a bit afraid of having a steep start means everybody will buy tanks only as they are the best against AI. I am trying to implement a real one and maybe add virtual only as a last resort extremely expensive option. I agree that the AI is crap, but it has a lower priority for me now. But I agree that they should man the defenses properly at least. ---------- Post added at 02:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 AM ---------- Pressing buttons is quite boring :) It is also not really realistic as engagements of this scale are never decided by arty duels. Forward bases are mobile and hard to locate, and static ones are usually hardened enough to withstand at least a couple of arty strikes. I think an arty radar will make the endgame much more interesting. ---------- Post added at 02:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 AM ---------- You already have the option to build walls (construction, defense, wall, 3 sizes), in theory they should protect the building against shells. BIS says the engine models cover from blasts, but never tested it. I will make an Utes version next time as it looks pretty simple to do. I think they already do, at least I always had GPS... The respawn cost is in the scripts of the original Warfare. Is it bugged? Was too busy scripting than playing ;) I do not believe it worths the amount of work it needs. Players can learn it by playing just a couple of games. No idea. I did not touch the AI yet. ---------- Post added at 02:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 AM ---------- kju thanks a lot for the offer. I am a regular visitor on dev-heaven and really like it. However, I think it would be an overkill for this simple hack of a mission. It is not even a team effort yet. The source code is accessible as everything I did is in the mission. Anybody can check that what I am doing is just trying to add already existing functionality what BIS did not, as I was as frustrated as the other people here to see that with a minimal effort it could have been made into something much better. Btw I think BIS is working hard on really finishing the game at the moment, so I have doubts about going too far with this version. They may entirely replace major Warfare elements in the next patch, there are lots of references which suggest this in the source. ---------- Post added at 02:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:50 AM ---------- The problem with it is that some players will shoot their own side's AI to get their vehicles. ---------- Post added at 02:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 AM ---------- The simplest way is just to increase your starting money. It is in the Change_Common.sqf file in the "...PlayerStartingFunds" variables. ---------- Post added at 03:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 AM ---------- Were the supplied towns captured by the enemy in the meantime? They are stopping when it happens. Yeah, this is how the scripts are handling the menus in cities, they replace the normal buy ones. It is not my merit, it was in the original one as well :) But I think somehow they should be limited, at least the enemy should not just magically conjure three tanks in the middle of an almost occupied city. They should at least come from somewhere.

Galzohar: I am absolutely open to cost suggestions. In the case of new weapons/vehicles I just simply guessed a number which has nothing to do with the real utility of that asset. I would be happy to see complete suggested price lists, or would be even happier to see directly modified files in the mission, so I do not have to copy/paste them. The problem is that prices should be established on a consensus. What an asset worth depends on how much people use/abuse it. If somebody invents a tactics which makes it uber-powerful, it should be nerfed down. People also tend to want seeing their favourite being cheaper and what they hate is being more expensive. So costs should be based on the opinion of *all* players and should not enable some assets to rule the game. In short, in cases where it is obvious I will modify the costs immediately. In general cases I would wait for suggestions from people who actually played this mission a lot, and play the mission myself and see what is off the road. Cash is earned in three ways. First there are the supply trucks, where the money is calculated by 2*the actual supply value of the town which it supplied. Supply trucks come in two flavors, AI and player, where the former is earning cash for the entire team while the other is only for the player. I am actually thinking on changing the latter into the way how the old Warfare worked, that is, player supply trucks earn money for the entire team (but a fraction of it, like 1/2, 1/3 amount). The second way to earn cash is the bounties for capping cities or killing enemies. The third are salvagers, which is quite obvious. ---------- Post added at 11:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 AM ---------- The.Yield: Arty is going to be limited by costing money each time you ask for fire mission. Price depends on the type and amount of arty pieces you are willing to use. You will have dynamic control about who is going to participate in the fire mission. I am implementing the old warfare way, so you need to own the arty pieces. Maybe there will be a virtual option as well (it is actually easier to add), which is going to be much more expensive. What I am really concerned about is balancing. Money will effectively cut their usage but I can still imagine an endgame where everybody is building only arty. I saw an arty radar is in-game, but I still need to check what can it do in MP.

I suspect that it is just some file copy, so most probably yes, but it is not my priority ATM.

It looks satisfying. Although it is automatically capped at 2MB, so I cannot see how it progressed initially, the only single error which was related to scripting was due the ALICE module (somebody used the random chat feature). The log says that you actually crashed because the engine could not handle an update of an object over the network. Maybe somebody disconnected in a special way? We cannot really do anything about it until BIS fixes these bugs. Said that it is possible that it is a side effect of something I did wrong, like the network traffic grew too large. Could you monitor the bandwidth usage next time please? Does it grow over time more significantly when compared to the normal Superpowers? If I am finished with adding the arty, and nobody comes up with new game breaking errors, I will publish a new version, this time not a beta. The only bug I know about and is not fixed yet in my latest version is the AI teams transfer bug - it is quite easy to reproduce with late join. It may be there in the original mission as well. Next to it we have a general performance issue, but it will take a longer time to improve.

Registered. Thanks for doing it!

The good news is that I found a way around that dialog problem, namely an ugly hack which makes that addon unnecessary. I am waiting for feedback from the (corrected) 1.1 and then release the addon-less version. Until then I look into the arty problem. I just aim now to implement the same system as it was in ARMA1, maybe replace timer with money (each strike will cost something, so if you have enough money you can release MLRS hell once in each minute, but it will drain your budget quite fast). ---------- Post added at 12:09 AM ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 11:01 PM ---------- Luke: Many thanks for pointing out these ones. I have not yet noticed that you do not get the construct option if you take the commander role immediately, as I was testing it with 5 sec vote time, so I had always taken the command from the AI. I also believe I found what is causing your game ending bug, the fix will make into the next release. Btw., how could you discover it? If you start the game as commander, you do not have the construction menu. If I let the AI first take over, he builds something immediately and the game does not end because of those buildings. Did you deploy the MHQ so fast that the structures were not ready yet? Actually I would not expect too much from the commander AI. It does not look like a well-written piece of code. And I do not believe it is very important from the gamer point of view, as in most cases there will be a human commander anyway.

No, the addon is the same.

The.Yield: I checked it as well, and yes, sorry, but it was broken. I uploaded the correct one just now (22:19 UK time). What actually happened is that I maintain two sets of files, one for editing and one for the release. The editing version has faster build/vote times and infinite money/supplies, so I do not have to wait minutes to test something. I thought I moved every changes I did in the debug version of a crucial file, but actually a function was not compiled there, and I packed that version. These mistakes happen when you do something at 5 am, after staying up and coding all night... ;)

Yes, I did it in 1.1.

The F-35 and the Avenger is already there. I will check the other assets as well. It is actually quite easy to edit these: all the stuff which can be built in the structures are defined in the Scripts/Common/Config directory within the mission if you unpbo it. It is so easy to add I wonder why BIS left them out at the first place. Balancing? Are the missing ones all last minute additions? The only thing which must be figured out from the files is the internal name of the objects, but somebody already made an ArmAII_library.pdf which lists all the available assets with images. The helo pad is a good idea.

Exactly. The other major point is when lots of people are spawning the same vehicle in a factory, it is hard to tell which one is yours if you are playing on a higher difficulty level and there are no on-screen markers. The lock-unlock action is only added on that client who actually created the vehicle (supposedly the one who bought it). Only the MHQ is treated in a special way which has to be lockable by the commander.

If it is yours, you should have the Lock/Unlock option available when you stand next to the vehicle, even when no AI in it.

Luke: It looks like that a server script was broken then. So far the lock/unlock was propagated through the server and then it came back to your machine. Now I added a line which first lock/unlocks the vehicle on your client, *then* it propagates the change through the server to other clients. The first part cannot fail, so you will most probably never meet again with an un-accessible vehicle. But if the same bug happens as earlier, it will manifest itself in vehicles which are seems to be unlocked for you, but still locked for other people, so you might be unable to share vehicles with mates. If it happens, pls send the logs.

Ok guys, thank you all for the feedback. I hope I could get rid off most of the bugs, at least it looks like working properly on my dedicated server config now. Most of the problems were hidden because I did not test it with a separate server. Btw. it is just amazing how colossal bugs are there in the original mission, e.g. BIS just simply forgot to properly synchorize the base buildings for new clients. There are config variables which actually do nothing, etc... List of changes: 1.1 BETA: + Fixed buy unit menu for multiplayer clients. + Fixed bugs in supply truck autopilot. + Server-side execution of MHQ wreck placement. + Made lock/unlock faster for the owner. + Added more vehicles. + Fixed: minimum HQ deployment range from town centers works now. + Fixed: structures now updated for new clients. + Fixed: AI supply trucks do not refill anymore at undeployed or destroyed HQ. My priorities at the moment: - Fix any further bugs you or I find. - Get rid of that addon. If I can somehow port the GUI into a classic, non-filtered dialog, then the mission would be much more accessible for the crowd. - Add arty. - Add airports. And please do not forget it is a BETA for a reason. I am working on this alone, I am not paid for it and I need your support to test it in real environment. If you cannot cope with frustration and do not want to help, do not even download it. If you find a major bug, do not suffer with it, just post the bug here and come back later. Anyway, hope the experience will be much better this time. ---------- Post added at 06:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 AM ---------- One more: if you find some functionality to stop working after a long time, it would help a lot of you could paste here the relevant part of the log (arma2server.rpt on the server and arma2.rpt on the client in Local Settings\Application Data\ArmA 2\), especially if it says something about what happened. It is possible that some errors happen only in special circumstances after long hours of play, but there is no way I can reproduce them here. Look for "Error in expression" messages at the *end* of the files. Forget about the others, they are, well, "normal".

The.Yield: You are right that the victims should have a way to fight back, but you can do this against a virtual arty as well, like reducing the enemy's funding by taking cities - although I agree it is less direct and less satisfying. And both sides has the same arty options, so they can shoot back with exactly the same stuff. I also believe that in real cases the shelled side does rarely have the option to attack the enemy arty, as it is used only when it is in a safe position. I was always bothered with the fact that long range guns are used in the game at distances of 2-3km, which I doubt frequently happens in reality. Imagine this with MLRS. Maybe some combined system, perhaps a building which is necessary to order strikes... I see a path here to enhance player cooperation, which is usually missing in ad-hoc ArmA online games. ---------- Post added at 02:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 AM ---------- USMCLuke: Thanks for checking it out :) I could finally reproduce the late entry -> no menus bug. Had a hard time doing it with one copy of the game. Are you running the beta ArmA2Server.exe or "ArmA2.exe -server"? The first one looks like being unable to process the postprocessing commands, but it is quite hard to predict how it affects the game. I suspect some JIP initialization issue here, trying to figure out whats wrong. It is definitely a good idea to add the airports. I remember seeing their init script in the official version, strange that they are not in the game (actually, I never entered a hangar yet in Superpowers). Will take a look into it after the arty. I believe buying units anywhere contributes to the game positively. It is absolutely realistic to ask for additional troops over the radio. In ArmA1 warfare I often found myself in a situation where I was defending something and was begging for my AI reinforcements to arrive on time. With the buy-anywhere extension you can re-arrange your AI while in the process of doing something else, like flying a helicopter, so you can modify your plan more dynamically. I have also used it to direct AI troops into cities, like buying a couple of tanks and sending them in the back of Rambos who were taking cities alone in a row. Practically players are giving their brains to make the AI behave more intelligent on the global map and also relieving the commander. You can also help your mates remotely with it (like buying some Shilkas when the base is being bombed).

Arty is the next thing I would like to add, the nice module of BIS is tempting. The logic is already included, but I have not added a way to call the strikes. I decided to release the first version without arty, as arty has much less impact on the gameplay than the modifications above. I am still contemplating about how to use it. Arty is really powerful - the new MLRS-class bombardments are similarly devastating as a smaller nuke, and you also have laser guided ammo now. And it is not really realistic to use rocket launchers with 40km+ range from the next village. I am thinking on a virtual arty, where players are requesting the support, and the commander can enable it for them by paying for it. MLRS should be priced like the nukes were in the ArmA1 warfare mods. However, I am unsure about the spawn shell thing - does it really make a difference? I think using the spawning method has much less impact on performance.

Thanks for the feedback! The name bug was due to the fact that it looks like localization works differently in unpacked and packed files, it is now fixed. Sorry - thats my ever first .pbo :) About the MHQ: you have to stand close to the MHQ itself, and select the "Construction" action. Deploying the MHQ is in the "Base" class of structures.

Sorry but it is not. The buy menu dialogs which must be modified are on the client side and BIS wired the scripts into the classes with an absolute path, while CreateGearDialog() can access only those. I simply could not find a way around that, but if you have an idea how to remove the addon, it would be nice. The only way I see now is to create a new GUI which uses CreateDialog() only, but it takes much more time. Maybe I will do that later if this addon is really a problem, but I have seen lots of missions in ArmA1 which needed an addon. I have also tried to make it the least obstructive possible. The mission does not require the addon for starting, but the menus do not work and it warns you to download and install it from the URL. So in theory you can try running it in public and let the people connect without the addon. If they want to play the mission they will have the information to install the addon.