Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

igneous01

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    924

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by igneous01

  2. Posted

    I played arma 1 for maybe 8 hrs total gametime before getting arma 2, it took an hour to get used to the squad commands and movement - fairly used to these kinds of layouts for gui, coming from rts primarily where unitcards and hotkeys are used (total war series)

    So while it would be nice to have a more intuitive gui (particularly on the scrolling action list) you cannot achieve the same level of simplicity as in bf3, considering bf3 only has 1/3 of the controls.

  4. Posted

    flanking is sacrificed, I think especially now with the new patch, its most effective for static positions or defenses in buildings or fortified areas, because they will not leave a building or fortified position to engage.

    Thats where I see its use right now, they operate alot better in buildings (especially with the simple building patrol script) with enableAttack disabled, which allows them to engage from buildings, which is a lot better than them running out of buildings to fight you head on.

  5. Posted

    @PvPscene not offended , and am thankfull that you did reply.

    if we were scripting gurus and understand that line of code with little or no explanation

    all would be good and no one would need to be posting in this forum "BUT WE ARNT" so your just waisting your time.

    i will try and explain again what im trying to do.

    ZKs_BattleField_V_462.isladuala --- mision folder

    - InitFolder -- sub folder with the script with #include "..\User_Settings\POS_ARRAYS.hpp"

    - User_Settings -- sub folder with the POS_ARRAYS.hpp in it

    init.sqf

    mission.sqm

    all in the mission folder

    im not trying to leave the mission folder

    just go into a different folder in the root of the mission

    is this possible with a simple ..\ or something like that

    as in most other languages

    as this does not work #include "..\User_Settings\POS_ARRAYS.hpp"

    ohh, i thought u meant outside of mission folder. You should have said that earlier.

    all you need to do then is just use the folder:

    #include "User_Settings\POS_ARRAYS.hpp"

  6. Posted

    I played on C5 for a few hours, it was pretty decent. I enjoyed it for the most part, didn't seem to hard to play. However, what I didn't like was that I could use the crosshairs the entire game and get kills because using sights was not efficient enough. Plus even with me being on TS with Cowboy and some other guys, it didn't really feel like a whole lot of teamwork, it was fun and had a good chat with the guys, but its not like we were all covering each other and each sector as a fireteam. Thats what was a bit of a turn off for me.

    I will probably play there a bit more and see what happens - maybe ill get a chance to see pvp shine. Dont get me wrong, it was fun, but not exactly immersive or realism-like.

    Ill give it a few more chances though before I decide, to be fair.

  7. Posted

    Just had a scan through MP to see if theres any PVP, tvt or PR servers that are populated: none found.

    There was only 1 pvp server that had people in it - 7 total, and thats a public server (which is what im strictly talking about, organized pvp blows all other things out of the water, i know that)

    so, this is why I am taking the AI's side and not the pvp side - because public pvp is a mess and always will be, its not hard fighting 1 man at a time.

    The only way PVP is exceptional is when its a passworded server and is played either between clans/units or the clan/unit plays against itself. Thats where its rewarding.

  8. Posted

    B.S. I've personally played on servers with 60 on 60 PvP (120total players) and it is like nothing else. I would rather have 4 vs 4 real players than anything having to do with stupid AI. By your statement you play exclusive coop, probably after having had your ass handed to you in a PvP server. Players run off and do there own thing no matter if it's coop or PvP, that's just Arma. "I think the AI are on par with human players"that right there tells me you have never experience a real PvP game or gave it a chance, cause that's utter nonsense, no matter what setting you have the AI at.

    the only pvp experience i have is pub pvp, which was terrible because:

    A) no communications

    B) no fireteam/squads or teamwork

    C) everyone grabs a DMR

    now, can you list me some servers that actually do 60vs60 pvp as you say? I would like to take a look at these as well, and are these private servers? because I doubt 60vs60 pub servers exist. prove me otherwise with server names.

    And no, im not bashing pvp, never had my ass whooped (whatever assumptions you may have otherwise) but from what i have seen - it was terrible.

    I dont see whats so stupid about the ai, they play well enough, better than pub pvp. and I repeat again, im talking about PUBLIC PVP

  9. Posted

    For me and the other PvP players the AI is like seasoning to the soup, not a main ingredient like the coop players think it should be.

    Perhaps this is true, but, as it currently stands, you cannot do 160 men operations involving two 80 man teams. There is no network that can handle that much traffic. Any large scale operations involving platoons or higher can not be done in pvp (however maybe 30 man teams tvt are possible)

    Besides that, here is an interesting question:

    would you rather play a tvt pub game where there is no cohesion (as most pub servers have no teamwork, or rather limited) and opponents are simply going off doing their own thing, or face some computerized bots that understand teamwork and cohesion and can use basic maneuvers such as flanking and suppressive fire? Who do you think will present the better challenge?

    I think the AI are on par with human players, depending on what settings you have them at, they are as good of a challenge as any human player in this case, just not as dynamic as a human.

    So, unless you meant to strengthen organized PVP events, then no, AI are the foundation of Arma

  10. Posted

    I fail to see how more animations will reduce performance - animations are in storage until they are actually used - this only adds more mb's of data to the game for the extra animations. Its not until you hit reload that the animation will play and take up resources.

    If by some extreme chance that in an mp game everyone was standing right beside each other each having a different gun and all reloading at the same time, then yes you will probably see performance drop a bit, then after a few seconds it would stabilize again after the animations finished.

    So really, where is the performance hit from animations? If Arma 3 can have ragdolls and still perform well at its current stage (which is still arma 2 for the most part, besides the new island and models) i fail to see this argument being valid.

  11. Posted

    Did some more tests and enableAttack false actually breaks AI more than it helps it.

    Why?

    Here's an example.

    I put myself into AI controlled squad with enableAttack false

    So what do they do upon contact? Nothing. They stop and get wiped out really quickly if defending enemy without enableAttack false sees them.

    Why? Because the enemy commander can give out orders who to attack and where.

    Marine commander however can't and thus soldiers will attack only those whom they personally see - making a whole squad have as much teamwork as present on a random public server.

    thats the thing with it - soldiers wont attack, the only thing it helps with is units will move into cover and stay in cover while in combat mode - but other than that they will not move (even if you stay behind a wall and they know you are there) which is obviously a problem in and of its own. Which is why we need attack orders - but only half should get the orders and these orders should be directed at groups of 2 or more men.

  13. Posted

    Nop

    by default they had CombatMode Red >> then group'

    just check

    checked with me as both a leader and a member unit, units do not say "engaging" by themselves (which lets you know they are attacking a unit), same thing when being a member, member units dont start to move out to attack until the squad leaders orders an attack order.

    So unless "RED" means fire at will, and not: fire at will engage at will, then I would agree.

  14. Posted 

    veh = [this, 15, 120, 0, FALSE, FALSE, "this setvariable ['moored',false,true]; this setvariable ['attachedobjs',[],true]; this addAction ['Secure for Transport','sqf\lcattach.sqf',[],1,false,true,'','(((velocity _target) select 0) < 0.1) and (((velocity _target) select 1) < 0.1) and ((count (_target getvariable ''attachedobjs''))==0) and (({(((vehicle _x) != _target) and (_x != _this))} count (nearestobjects [_target,[''landvehicle'',''camanbase''],8]))>0)']; this addAction ['Ready to Unload', 'scripts\lcu\lcdetach.sqf',[],1,false,true,'','(((velocity _target) select 0) < 0.1) and (((velocity _target) select 1) < 0.1) and ((count (_target getvariable ''attachedobjs''))>0)']; this addaction ['Moor the Boat (disables motor)', 'scripts\lcu\moorboat.sqf',[],0,false,true,'','((((getposatl _target) select 2)<6) or ((_target distance dockpos)<20) or ((_target distance dockpos2)<20)) and (not (_target getvariable ''moored'')) and (((velocity _target) select 0) < 0.1) and (((velocity _target) select 1) < 0.1)']; this addaction ['Release Moorings (reenables motor)', 'scripts\lcu\unmoorboat.sqf',[],0,false,true,'','(_target getvariable ''moored'')']; this addaction ['Go to deck', 'scripts\lcu\lcgotodeck.sqf',[],0,false,true,'','_this in (crew _target)']"] execVM "scripts\vehicle_respawn.sqf"

    :drinking:

    my god, you didnt really format it like this did you??

  15. Posted

    the only problem I see in MP in arma is teamwork - because lets face it it doesnt happen much on public servers. MP gameplay is exceptional when their are teams that are organized and work together, and it crumbles when there isnt. simple as that. There is no need for any small maps or faster animations (which I would like to remind Zargabad, Proving grounds and shapur are all small maps that look good for PVP-yet no one uses them)

    The only issue I see is that there is no enforcement on teamplay and communications in MP public servers. And for PVP pub servers there should be. People who are making PVP game modes need to make better objectives that compliment Arma's gameplay, not weaken it.

  17. Posted

    I tried it as you suggested before, and it did not work, so then I tried to see what would happen when I used str to convert it to a string again, and sure enough, it worked ^^

    here is the fixed code:

    // Add killed EH to all platoon units
{_EH = _x addEventHandler ["killed", 
{
	private ["_unit", "_control"];
	_unit = _this select 0;
	_control = 901; // listbox control idc
	_unit removeEventHandler ["killed", 0];
	private ["_name", "_pic", "_string"];
	_name = name _unit;
	_pic = _unit getVariable "IdentityPicture";
	_string = compile (format ["_ind = lbAdd [%1, %2]; lbSetPicture [%1, _ind, %3]",[color="Red"] _control, str _name, str _pic[/color]]);
	GPKILLED = GPKILLED + [_string];
}];
} foreach GPUNITS;

  18. Posted

    I've run into a bit of an issue using format, no matter how many times I try it, I cannot get some code to compile with strings encased inside the string code. Basically I am trying to compile some code that will add a unit portrait and name to a KIA list box in my custom menu. I am using an eventhandler to trigger this:

    // Add killed EH to all platoon units
{_EH = _x addEventHandler ["killed", 
{
	private ["_unit", "_control"];
	_unit = _this select 0;
	_control = 901; // listbox control idc
	private ["_name", "_pic", "_string"];
	call compile format ["_name = %1", name _unit];
	call compile format ["_pic = %1", _unit getVariable "IdentityPicture"];
	_string = compile (format ["_ind = lbAdd [%1, %2]; lbSetPicture [%1, _ind, %3]", _control, _name, _pic]);
	GPKILLED = GPKILLED + [_string];
}];
} foreach GPUNITS;

    ive tried with and without compiling the name and picture variables, but it still wont do it, and it errors saying missing bracket (because quotations broke off)

    This is where I will run the compiled array everytime I open up the KIA list box:

    waitUntil {
private ["_index"];
_index = lbCurSel _comboCtrl;
switch (_index) do
{
   		case 0:
   		{
    		{ctrlSetText [_x, ""]} foreach [201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212];
    		_nul = [sQUAD1 select 0, SQUAD1 select 1, SQUAD1 select 2] call Organizer_Team;
           };
           case 1:
           {
            {ctrlSetText [_x, ""]} foreach [201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212];
            _nul = [sQUAD2 select 0, SQUAD2 select 1, SQUAD2 select 2] call Organizer_Team;
      };
      case 2:
           {
	      {ctrlSetText [_x, ""]} foreach [201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212];            
            _nul = [sQUAD3 select 0, SQUAD3 select 1, SQUAD3 select 2] call Organizer_Team;
      };
      case 5:
      {
      	[color="Red"]ctrlShow [_lbKIA, true];
		ctrlEnable [_lbKIA, true];		      
		lbClear _lbKIA;
	      {call _x} foreach GPKILLED;[/color]
	};
      default
   		{
      	{ctrlSetText [_x, ""]} foreach [201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212];
       	};

  	};
  	waitUntil {private ["_temp"]; _temp = lbCurSel _comboCtrl; _temp != _index};

     if (ctrlVisible _lbKIA) then {
      ctrlShow [_lbKIA, false];
	ctrlEnable [_lbKIA, false];
};
sleep 0.10;
GP_MENUSELECTION != -1
};

    Is where I am running it, I cant figure out any other way to reload all the KIA units in the list because once the menu closes, you cannot update the list anymore.

    any ideas?

  21. Posted

    you need to resynchronize the module to them when they respawn.

    add a respawn eventhandler to each player, and in the code block of the event handler put

    {{_x synchronizeObjectsAdd [_this select 0]} foreach [AIS, FA, BC]}

    where AIS is the name of the wound simulation module, FA is name of First Aid action module, and BC is name of Battlefield clearance module (whatever you named those modules, can go here)

    see if that works

  22. Posted

    are you going to be doing this via scheduled matches and brackets? that would make more sense for 40+ mission length, as I doubt two teams would be on 80+ minutes in a single round. It would probably be better to simply create a master schedule showing what teams are competing against who and the mission name they are playing.

    This will give you the amount of time you need to successfully host a realistic GR like tourney. Needless to say this does introduce problems such as teams finishing a mission before and possibly spoiling it to other teams before their time to go in. However I guess thats for you to decide on how to compromise between playing time && practical time

  23. Posted

    static weapons are terrible because of the grouping problem they cause - if you group a static weapon to an active group, he will always be ordered to fall back - if you have enough statics linked to groups, this will destroy your fps because all leaders are ordering the statics to return to formation. So when you create statics that are their own groups, they are very dumb and completely oblivious to enemy, because they dont share information with any other members (they are the only member in group, unless you add a spotter of some sort of them)

  24. Posted

    Does anyone know how to return an identity name and face? I have noticed that when you create some units, they come with their own name and face and identity. If you copy these same units over, the copies will also retain the same identity and face as well. and since I like the identities already, I wanted to know if theres a way to get them? I have around 42 units that have identities already set by the engine, so rather than spend a few hours redoing the identities, id rather just keep these ones and use their names in some scripts.

    Is it possible?

×