infiltrator_2k

I managed to get the BTC Punishment script working and it's helped a lot :) However, there are still idiots who TK and I'd like to know the most efficient way of banning them. Only the other night I had some immature 12 year old generally annoying the hell out of people teamkilling and verbally abusing players. I tried to use the #exec ban username but it wouldn't kick and add his name to the ban list. Using the #userlist command, I've read that only the player number works on the ban command. Is this still the case? Also where does the ban file write to? Is it the banlist in the root directory? AFAIK when you ban someone it adds their PID to this list. Is this the case? If so what's the deal with the "banlists" in the Battleye folder? Do both of these list server the same purpose? I don't know if I've been doing it right, but I've added Paradox's Arma Banlist to the Battleye directory.

I was working on my usual mission when I suddenly realised that I could no longer get into the drivers seat on most of the empty vehicles. When I went back into the editor "playable" is not longer selectable, and even though "non playable" is now the only option available, a couple of choppers are still playable. I've verified the integrity of the game cache, and I've also deleted and reinstalled the local game content. Even if I create a new mission this problem still exists. Changing the "vehicle lock" from default to unlocked makes no difference either. Any ideas?

As far as I remember empty vehicles have been able to be playable. Non playable allows you to have them just to rearm at etc. I've purchased the chopper DLC. Edit: You may be correct. But what's weird is all the vehicles in my mission that were previously set to unlocked are now set to default lock. I'm literally having to edit every vehicle's lock to unlocked - vehicles that were all previously playable.

I did try BTC TK Punishment script, but I think it was conflicting with BTC Revive, as players were respawning where they died - sometimes with or without their kit.

Would it not be a good idea if the devs added an addAction to vehicles to allow players to clamber on top of vehicles so they can gain some elevation for a vantage point on the enemy? It would after all be a trade-off for vantage point vs exposure. Just an idea :D

LoL :) I found it intriguing that when I was a gunner in a HMG from a slightly elevated position and looking down at the enemy, when I got out to use a Titan AT, I could no longer see or target the armour that posed the biggest threat. If however I could have climbed on say the bonnet, I could have eliminated the armour. It was just an interesting scenario, as if I would have engaged the armour with the 50cal, my life expectancy would have been milliseconds :D

Since updating to 1.40, I get this "include file mpmissions\__cur_mp.altis\=BTC=revive\=btc=respawn.h not found" error when hosting Invade and Annex. It's when I connect to the dedicated server I get the error prompt and the server session crashes. I know for a fact the file is there. Cheers Ian Added info: I've noticed that this error seems to be caused when enabling the mobile respawn. As if I DePbo the mission without any enabling the BTC mobile respawn there's no error :/

My bad guys. Turns out to be a either a minor typo or a corrupt description.ext Whatever it was it broke the VAS and invalided the 'author' info and path to the loadScreen etc.. Thanks for the replies ;)

I had to laugh on Friday night. I'm hosting Invade & Annex with TS when these 2 players join both the mission and TS. I hear them talking about the script they're using and the admin being unable to detect it when I'm unknown to them literally standing there watching these 2 idiots using some kind of levitation cheat where they're able to float in the air - I'm not into hacking or using cheats so I'm pretty ignorant to what's out there - But only when I healed one of the cheats did the penny drop. They both immediately left the server and TS, but of course, it was all too late. Yep, they've both earned the privilege of joining Paradox's ban list along with the other 7547 losers ;) WOLF and [RC-Lt]Jack103 you got busted. Oh, and if any other cheats are reading this: it's not 'if', but when you too are eventually caught and your name added to the Wall of Shame

I couldn't help but notice how the devs have significantly changed the both the damage values and the effects of how buildings are damaged since the alpha build. Using the explosive specialist, planting an explosive charge will give you the desired effect that you use to get with a rocket launcher in the alpha build. But use a MBT and you'll have to fire a few shells into the building before it's damaged. But what's disappointing is instead of taking out say 1/4 of the building like you'd achieve with an explosive charge, the whole building is almost entirely levelled. I appreciate that it'll be a big task, but I'm really hoping the devs will put some time and effort into improving the destruction of buildings. It hasn't got to be an overnight thing, but just a mentioned improvement with a spotep now and again would be welcomed by many as it would make maps and battles that much more dynamic and realistic. I think building damage has got to be one of the most underestimated effect in Arma and what it can potentially add to the game. An explosion from a damaged building could for example blow out helpful/collectable items amongst the rubble and debris. Also having the ability to chisel out holes in the walls for sniping would be a welcomed feature. I couldn't help but notice how BIS have implemented a much more enhanced/realistic effect of building damage in VBS3. Could this be potentially used in Arma 3? VBS 3 Building damage:

Absolutely. And if there were conditions in place it could prevent such a system from being abused. It would have to be 50/50 with regards to decision making with a public vote working in conjunction with the game's algorithm. A simple example would be teamkilling, but not if say a pilot crashes or is shot down whilst carrying a number of players. The system would have to be devised so to this type of teamkill is waived. But if a player continuously shoots his fellow team members then yes, players should be given the opportunity to cast a vote when the system prompts them. The administrator of the server could also set the condition parameters - just like the difficulty. The server admin could decide what condition and values trigger a public vote. Also, a vote could be just a contributing factor to whether or not the offending player's rating will be reduced... meaning, let their be a set number of consecutive offences before the system reduces a players rating. Otherwise, having an instant sanction will only encourage players to abuse the system merely to be vindictive.

If there's one thing that ruins Arma and its gameplay for the majority of online players it's muppets joining a server and doing stupid sh*t. When I say "stupid sh*t" there's so much "stupid sh*t" that's routinely done in Arma MP it would take me a whole day to compile a list. Only the other day did I have someone spawn as a pilot on my dedicated server and decide to park all the choppers on top of the hangers so they'd be inaccessible to other players. Sure, I booted and banned him. But what got me thinking was to create a way of preventing this type of stupid childish behaviour. Everyone knows that in the real world discipline in the armed forces is extremely rigorous as a breakdown in discipline can of course ultimately cost lives in both training and on the battlefield. But with no other repercussions other than a server/BEC ban in the virtual world, many Arma 3 players don't seem to be bothered, or are too ignorant to understand how the banning systems works. So they go around a map doing "stupid sh*t to the frustration and detriment of other players' gameplay. Now, with that said, how could BIS potentially put a stop to this nonsense on public servers? Well, I was wondering if BIS would be prepared to implement some kind of rating system. For example: if someone does the infamous team kill, an idea would be to be given an option to raise a 'vote' in order to deduct a 'point' from that offending player's playing rating. Likewise, if a pilot transports a group of players vote to award a point. Granted, it could be open to abuse by vindictive players, but I believe such a rating system would overall represent a true reflection of a player's behaviour and mentality. So let's say BIS implemented a rating system... admins would then be able to apply a threshold to prevent any player who did not come within the given parameter from joining. If BIS are able to log your hours played and other information they should be more than to log other numerous information such as a player's public rating. Personally I cannot see any downsides to this, but there will of course be people who are sceptical and perhaps some who will be able to spot potential flaws in such a system, so I'd like to hear people's views and opinions on this. The question is: if a player is made consciously aware that their stupid behaviour has the potential to drastically limit their choice of public servers - and/or even place a temporary ban - will it change their behaviour for the better? If the answer is yes then it's a no-brainer to whether or not BIS should implement such a rating system. Even if the answer is no it's still a no-brainer, as the offending player simply won't have the opportunity to misbehave on servers who don't tolerate their crap. IMO it will be competiveness, persona and consequences that will be the driving force to what makes such a system successful. Thoughts?

It would be interesting to see how a profile rating system would alter player's behaviour. Subconsciously being aware of it running would IMO encourage discipline, more teamplay and a lot more communicate. ---------- Post added at 13:18 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ---------- It would be interesting to see how a profile rating system would alter player's behaviour. Subconsciously being aware of it running would IMO encourage discipline, more teamplay and a lot more communication.

I understand people's concerns with such a rating system being implemented. But what people need to understand is that such a system could be an optional feature like BE enabled servers are. This would give players an option whether they wanted to dick around in servers or play the game as it's suppose to be played. People's perceptions to what is acceptable behaviour and what is not obviously varies vastly. I guess people view what Arma is and what it's suppose to deliver differently. Where people have bought the game they obviously feel they have the right to play it how they see fit. Whether it's running around the map blowing everything up that moves and teamkilling or playing the game tactically and as a team. Personally I like playing Arma MP the way it's suppose to be played in COOP, and that's as part of team who plan and coordinate completing the missions objectives via coms. So, when I'm midway through a mission with some great teamplayers on TS and you then get a player with the mentality of a 12 year old join the server who screws around by doing a number of things that just irritates players, it only serves to upset everyone. You only have to use your imagination to know what those things are. When Nuxil recently pulled BEC it freed over 3,000 retards, and the result was instant; I had people posting abusive childish messages and using hacks. The point is why should server admins have to police their servers to stop these retards with bans all the time if there's the potential of universal and optional solution? An algorithm could calculate a number of factors before reducing a player's rating. It could in theory base its calculation on factors like whether or not the player has been voted to be sanctioned together with other conditions that have been met in-game based on their actions. But let's for argument sake say that the rating's algorithm made the wrong call and unfairly reduced a player's rating... as long as it's over 50% accurate with increasing and reducing a player's rating it'll always give a more accurate reflection of that player's behaviour. If a player's rating is based on an incremental chart of one to ten, then a player's rating should ever fall below five if they're not purposely dicking around. So, having an option to join or host a server with a rating system enabled would seem to be the solution to keeping everyone happy in both camps. If a person is sceptical or believes the system is unfair let them jog on and join a server without the rating system. Then they can dick around it in all they want. Although as the server will likely be full of people doing the same 'stupid sh*t' they'll likely get bored, as people who do stupid sh*t seem to get off on annoying people.

Rosnak, no disrespect, but do you even know what an algorithm is or how it works? Parking a helicopter on "inaccessible rooftops" is only a minute factor of how an algorithm works.

So, the question is would it be fair for BIS to implement a system where a player's publically 'voted on' behaviour would incur a time limited sanction for their malicious/disruptive behaviour that would limit/restrict the offending player from joining certain public servers, who's admins have set a point system threshold to who or whom they do not deem suitable to join their server. The bottom line is if BE can accurately hand out life time bans, then a profile rating system can be implemented and potentially hand out temporary sanctions based on an algorithm against players depending on the severity of their behaviour. At the end of the day, if you're not doing stupid sh*t then there would be nothing to fear.

What Das was pointing out is that hacks could potentially corrupt a player's rating system by creating a false-positive.

So, the short story is 'Battleye' isn't fit for purpose. Let's not beat around the bush here.

Guys, think 'algorithm' appose to the simplistic value of negative or positive. BIS could developed a sophisticated rating system that like a script only acts when certain conditions have been met. Even if a player has been sanctioned by the Rating System, everyone deserves a second chance, so let the player redeem themselves with positive teamplay in order to improve their rating - thus gaining access to more servers. BIS could make a player's rating visibly in-game, so it's represents either a badge of honour, or a badge of shame. The problem with the current system is malicious and childish players believe they can hop in and out of public servers and wreak havoc with impunity and relative anonymity.

Right guys, BEC's now down and tonight some saddo used some hack to play mayhem on my server. Some lowlife calling themselves 'Team Fury'. We really do need something like BEC.

Nuxil, I'm gutted you've terminated BEC. But you also have a valid point and a good enough reason for doing what you're doing. I too have spent hour upon hour creating content and require nothing in return but for players to enjoy themselves. You have morals and scruples so people shouldn't knock you for doing what you're doing.

You'd be forgiven for believing that it was some kind of government conspiracy that these newspapers were invented to kidnap the electorate's ability of independent thought. It's scary to think that the media can change a person's way of thinking from whatever sh*t they decide to print.

When the infamous Fred West investigation was going on, it was either The Sun or The Mirror (can't remember which one) that took a photograph of my brother-in-law's mother's cellar who literally lived opposite. The photographer managed to slip this camera down an access point at the front of the house to take the pic. The next day the photo made front page national news. My brother-in-law's mother's made a complaint and the media sent her a bouquet of flowers with an apology. To this day people still believe that the image was of Fred West's cellar where he butchered those poor women. It's one of the reason I never believe what sh*t they print. Just like when a British Army issued SA80 went missing from an armoury and they called it a something like a 'super powerful killer rifle', it's all sensationalised bullsh*t!

I played last night for several hours without a single disconnect. My workaround is simply not to go into the configuration settings. If I do it's guaranteed the controllers will disappear. If I need to reconfigure my settings I do it then totally reboot the PC. I've noticed even after I've done this the joystick still plays up by pulling to one side for short period of time before centering itself all on its own. So, just to reiterate: if you want to avoid these annoying disconnects stay out of the control's config settings, and if you do have to reconfigure reboot you machine before loading Arma back up.

It's tragic that the majority of the public here in the UK read and tend to believe whatever sh*t that's printed in the tabloids. It's why we have a bunch of retards running this country.