infiltrator_2k

I'm having problems trying to get an AI mortar script to work. I've followed the instructions in the below script but the AI mortar just won't fire. Is this the best mortar script currently available? Basically I just want the AI to target the Blufor when spotted. Am I right in believing that this defaults to attack the west? Or have I missed something? "//// enter the side you want attacked on the following line /////////////////////////// _sideToAttack = west; //blufor = WEST, opfor = EAST, independant = GUER, civilian = CIV /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// http://www.tacticalgamer.com/script-bin/194107-arma-3-enemy-mortar-team-script.html

I've been trying to get my head around the Ai skill settings. I understand that there's various ways of setting the skill settings for Ai with the editor. But, I want to set the AI skill settings up via the .Arma3Profile with custom difficulty settings. What success have people had with the "skillAI and precisionAI" values and what values have you used? What have you found with certain values. Where's the sweet spot? I've found 0.5 on both skillAI and precisionAi to be too AI strong. Headshots from ridiculous distances for example. Are the presets 0, 1 and 2 good to use as I've found them too Ai accurate, although I've not done much testing to date. Cheers, Infil

I've downloaded the 'Iraqi Syrian Conflict' along with its required addons, and I'd like to change the units of a downloadable missions that have Middle East maps to units contained in this ISC addon. Do I have to edit all the mission scripts to do this? Or is there an easier way? I ask this because missions like BMR are large in scale and I can only imagine it to be incredibly time consuming. Cheer Infil.

No doubt BIS have something already in the pipe line for the next series. Admittedly many hated the futuristic theme and the infamous bug headed enemy. It seemed to neither here or there. But would a series involving an alien invasion be totally off the table? Could it work? Why should we rule it out? Are there aliens out there right now watching us? Doubt it. But you cannot not totally dismiss it as a possibility. If H.G. Wells can write an epic novel based on the idea of an alien invasion here on earth, what's to stop BIS creating a series based on it? Thoughts for and against?

Bad ass alien adversaries would of course require some bad ass upgrades :D

It obviously wouldn't appeal to everyone. Some people hate the sci-fi genre. But, if a sci-fi movie can succeed then so could a computer game. I think it really is about creating something that's believable to the biggest of sceptics that's the key here. I think the biggest challenge would be the appearance and capabilities of the aliens themselves. If the community can get upset about the bug helmets you can imagine the scrutiny an alien would attract.I think BIS would need to consult the community and have them put forward ideas and artwork. Maybe a competition? The vast ocean the maps feature could even play a prominent part. I mean, who's to say an alien species didn't also inhabit the ocean? But using the Arma engine we could have both an alien and WWII series for example. I certainly pay for both.

I'm not going to agree or disagree with you on that one. All I will say is if it wasnt feasible and believable sci-fi movies based on alien invasions wouldn't exist. An alien species may want our resources or the planet as a whole to live on themselves. Because the prospect of other intelligent extraterrestrial being out there cannot be ruled out, I'd say if done correctly, an Arma 3 Alien Invasion series could potentially work and breath new life into the series, simply because it would be believable and it wouldn't be anything far-fetched or outlandish.

Hmm... I have a 5820K which scores higher than the 6700K in CPU Benchmark, but it seems the 6700K is quicker in single core tests. So I guess this means Arma runs better with a 6700K.

I think you'll find humanity actually won the war because the aliens fell ill and died due to having no immunity to the germs and other harmful microorganisms that inhabit this planet.

I think aspersions can be taken from movies such as the Edge of Tomorrow, Oblivion and The War of the Worlds. An alien such as the 'Alpha' featured in EoT would work. The series could begin in like 2050, ten years after the arrival perhaps? Set in an apocalyptic landscape where humans have retreated to fortified bases; their mission to cleanse and take back territory from the invading alien species. If it were ever possible, underground fortresses would be a welcomed addition, as it would provide an immersive experience of leaving the relative safety of a underground bastion to liberate the periless lands above that's been colonised by the new arrivals. Weapons could incorporate alien technology, as it's a tactic that's currently used around the world where countries spy on each other and steal each other's military technical advances. I think BIS could potentially create something fresh and exciting with such a new series, as they'll be free to create new content that's currently not possible/believable due to this world's physical and technological constraints. An example would be to have an enemy that's able to climb a structure's vertical walls and ceilings. Cloaking technology perhaps that occasionally require players to use specialised optics. And what if our new visitors had the ability to control the minds of players if they come into direct contact with the alien species? Can you imagine your team mate screaming down the coms at you that it's them but not them coming towards you whilst pleading to shoot them, but not with bullets but with a tranquilliser gun that you must carry in order to free the minds of players. Such ideas would create an incredible tension and a dynamically changing situation where there was the fog of war throughout battles. Access to EPM and gravitational weaponry naturally :)

I'm probably going to get ripped a new one for asking this as I'm sure this has been mentioned before. But, at the weekend I was pleasantly surprised to see a few players join my public server who worked cleverly together on taking on I&A's missions with tough AiSkill settings. It was evident from observing them they were all on coms as they worked as a closely knit highly organised team. Anyone who admins a public server will know there's a lack of this kind of team play and there continues to be an abundance of idiots who do the usual stupid sh*t. Behaviour that AFAIK can only really be controlled by ban lists and private servers. But, what if BIS created and kept a player database of a player's kill record? I can totally understand many not wishing to have this information made public, but I'm sure a basic ratio of the friendly vs enemy kill stats could be created and kept with this information however detailed only available to the player. But, the basic kill ratio information available for the server lobby to filter and servers to reference before allowing players to join. Just as the BE option is available, it woild be good for players and admins to be able to host and play servers that have an option that enabled a feature that only allowed players to join who had a good or bad kill ratio that was dependant on what the server admin configured. It could even be implemented on a simple percentage scale. Personally I can't see any down sides to such an idea. It's optional like BE, the information can be private or public, the information can be as detailed or as basic as BIS liked. And it would literally eliminate the intention TK overnight on servers who had such a feature enabled and configured. It force all the idiots to either change their ways and work on improving the TK kill ratio to have access to more severs, or to play on servers that hasn't got such a feature enabled. Can anyone think of why such a system wouldn't work?

Yes, such a system would to a degree be obviously limited. However, if it were to be successful, there's always a possibility that mods and add-ons could also run on a server running this kind of system if it passed a check and became certified to be friendly/compatible - meaning the mod/add-on's code wasn't flawed or inadvertently capable of exploiting such a system. As I mentioned previously, such a system would take a lot of testing and would require considerable input and feedback from the community. It would initially contain more flaws and exploits than you could shake a stick at. But with time I'm sure it would no doubt evolve into something very intelligent. Taking away human interaction to make decisions based on binary oppose to emotions can only be the right way forward.

I've noticed Arma gets bashed quite a lot by disgruntled players. Mainly from the younger generation who've never heard of a 286 or who can't remember the days of the Binatone. If they had I'm sure they'd appreciate how beautiful Arma is and they'd stand in awe at its magnificence. The devs are IMO not appreciated enough for the work they do. Just look at Tanoa in all of its glory and it's an awesome spectacle with literally thousands of hours of pure passion put into it. With that said, what "attention to detail" impressions you the most?

It is possible to implement. It's just finding the right balance of control and transparency. It's a no-brainer people who intentionally TK are going to cry foul if they are kicked or banned from playing on enabled servers. So there would have to be some kind of event log that lead up a ban. Then there's the question of how long a ban lasts? It could be an incremental system which ban period increases for repeated offenders. 10mins, 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week etc. An algorithm could suspend penalising players until definitive intentioal TK has been clearly established. Then penalise the player retrospectively for the number of team kills made in a session. Of course, everyone is going to want to know exactly how it works, and players will test it through curiosity. I think it would take a lot of initial testing to iron out flaws and exploits. The community would have to be heavily involved. But it could work well. I think it could be one of the best thing to happen to the game, purely because by nature people crave discipline and rules. Just like a child will test the boundaries, it's because the child by nature needs them. The virtual world is no different to the real one. Without rules, law and order there's anarchy. I just believe that such an official automated system is the way forward to bring a single standard to the series that brings a fair and balanced method of maintaining order on servers who's admins and players opt to host and play on. Computers are afterall smarter than humans when given a formula to work by and they don't discriminate either which invalidates a penalised offender's accusation.

I'm running a dedicated that seems to have all the ports closed despite configuring my router and Windows Server's firewall. I'm running Server 2012and my router is an Asus RT-AC87U. I'm accessing the server using the remote desktop and probing the ports using PortForward. The only ports I've noticed are open are ones used by the desktop PC that's connected via Ethernet. I've tried disabling both firewalls and running a DMZ on the servers IP to no avail. I've ran PortForward as admin. I can host from the desktop without a problem. Although the UPNP is troublesome as it tells me that sometimes Port forwarding failed. Any suggestions?

Refreshing Windows is just an option W8.1 offers where it re-installs Windows fresh, but keeps your documents and personal settings. If you refresh you'll have to just reinstall the program files again. The old program files are kept in the windows.old folder of the root.

The secondary explosions from a destroyed tank is pretty immersive and great attention to detail how sporadic they are. It's incredibly life like.

Are you saying Arma's engine couldn't detect the Ai were unarmed, who killed them, where, when and how? An algorithm would prevent that kind of exploitation. But of course, nothing's 100% But it begs the question of would it be practical to use a more sophisticated method to circumvent a player's kill ratio if it were time consuming and a tedious process? Not to mention a ban - albeit temporary - could be imposed on player's who are detected attempting to exploit such system to prevent them joining kill ratio enabled servers That I'm itself would act as a deterrent. I think to assume that it wouldn't work is only undermining what Arma's currently capable of. But as I've previously mentioned, what's important is people have a choice whether or not to play on servers with this kind of feature enabled, and server admins also have the choice whether or not to enable it. Giving players the choice whether or not to penalise players for TK like BTC's punishment script would give players a lot more control too. I think many are sceptical, but not because it couldn't work, but because it's not something they'd like to see implemented. But, it does have the potential to eradicate the excessive malicious team killing. I believe in time such a system would be welcomed.

I've noticed a few players wanting to join my server are getting kicked by BE for whatever reason. With that said, I was wondering what common client side add-on Bikeys admins tend to add to their keys folder nowadays. I allow AsrAi, CBA and ShackTacs hud, primarily because I too use these add-on. But what common client sided addons should server admins allow to prevent kicking players who forget to disable addons that legitimately enhance their gameplay for immersion. Or simply put, what's the commonly accepted client addons list? Also, do these Bikeys have to be updated with every update to the add-on? Cheers, Infil

This isn't about me and my needs, it's just an overall idea. I'm happy enough to use Dart and BTC's Punishment script. But if such a system could be devised and implemented it could potentially solve the problem of prolific intentional team killing and there wouldn't be any more need for ban lists and scripts. It could work flawlessly with enough thought and testing. More importantly, players and admins would have the 'choice' whether to use it or not. It was mentioned about troll servers exploiting the system. But if the ratio was only valid on enabled servers it would be prove fruitless.. I think by nature Arma players are subconsciously always continuously trying to exploit the game to gain the upper hand, and the fact they fail is proof such a system would eventually become reliable and trustworthy. You've only got to look at how crude ban lists work to realize how sophisticated and much more reliable such a system would be in comparison. I'm wondering what Dwarden has to say about it.

Guys just to be clear, I didn't mean any kind of scoring records as such. I'm simply talking about a simple calculation to decide if a player's team kill percentage exceeds a threshold set by a server in order to be the determining factor whether or not to allow them to join. Not the amount of kills, but if a player has for example over 50% TK to an accumulative score regardless of what it is. I wouldn't want a scoreboard as that's totally arcade and it would indeed encourage people to play lone wolf. Of course, it would be unfair for players to be penalised for accidentally crashing a chopper full of players. But given the game's engine can detect how a player is killed those kind of events could be whitelisted. Your player profile could simply display a pie chart oppose to numbers to give a graphical representation of your TK percentages so you could monitor your performance. If the engine knows how players are killed and by who or what an algorithm could iron out any flaws in such a system. Scripts are good and I've used BTC's punishment script. But I'm talking about something that's an integral part of the game and of course optional like BE. If it could be designed to be fair and to gave admins control it can only be a good thing.

I've noted when installing the server files and running the server creates the profile, the functions in the profile are listed as version 1. But when you refer to BIS Wiki they're version 2 and of course different. version=2; viewDistance=3000; preferredObjectViewDistance=3000; terrainGrid=12.5; activeKeys[]= AFAIK if the values entered are invalid, it either sets them to default or to the nearest number. My question what happen if you don't enter these functions in the profile? Will these parameters automatically be set to default? Also, does this also apply to the arma3.cfg file? What happens if you don't have the tweak parameters in the arma3.cfg? Cheers Infil

OK, I was testing the .Arma profile file last night and realised that regardless of what version of the function you use, the launching the server automatically updates and rewrites in the correct functions whilst maintaining to values previously added such as viewDistance etc. I'm yet to test the Arma.cfg, but I'm guessing if it's absent launching the server will create the file with default values.

I resolved my issue by refreshing Windows. Or at least that's what I believe sorted things I'm not sure the port checkers I was using were giving me accurate reports. I know port 21 is open but port checkers report it as closed. I'm still using Merlin's 380.61 Even though port checkers report some of my ports as being closed they're actually open and I can host now without issues. I disconnected a 3TB Seagate USB ext HDD drive I had connected to the from USB port as it's suppose to sometimes give you issues when updating the firmware. Merlin says that port checking can be "hit and miss". Are you having issues with players unable to connect?

Why do people host with the much hated fatigue enabled, but then allow 3rd person and things like the weapon cursor and enemy tags enabled? It kind of seems a little dumb to hinder a player's stamina for realism when there's arcade settings enabled.