Jump to content

TesACC

Member
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

36 Excellent

About TesACC

  • Rank
    Private First Class

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Lite 1) Already solved with better PR and ingame/steam ads. 2) Not a thing anymore, DayZ is its own thing. 3) Can be dealt with by making it 256x256 or whatever BI deems reasonable and not touching anything other than textures which as was stated above, takes only minutes to do. It still has to be noticeably worse, otherwise there wouldn't be a reason to buy it. Just needs to be worse in the looks department, not in functionality. Current 1) Can be dealt with by reintroducing Lite style versions, partially dealt with by Compatibility pack in GM's case. Depends on what you define as meaningful. 2) Can be dealt with by reintroducing Lite style versions 3) Can be dealt with (partially) by reintroducing Lite style versions As people mentioned above, what GM Compatibility pack is is NOT considered a Lite version. Inclusion of map can be argued about but vehicle lock is an absolute no-go. Also, its hidden in workshop, you need to know that it exists and that you need to look for it there. Ideally Lite versions should be placed in the shop just below the real deals and treated like any other DLC.
  2. Ok, lets estabilish a few things. Is this the lite version you're talking about? https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1776428269 I don't have patience nor space to download a 2nd version of GM, and the description is a bit muddy, so if you in fact do have (or had it) then explain this- 1. Are you allowed to participate in multiplayer missions that use GM assets 2. Are you allowed to use said assets in that multiplayer mission. Weapons, Uniforms, Operate vehicles (not just sit in the back of them) can you actually participate on the same level as owners. If the answer for both is YES then that's all i'm asking for. But if the answer is NO then this not a true LITE version. Just a 20 gb worth of files that allow you to join a server that has GM in its modline. And a virtual arsenal preview. Also, i'm not contradicting myself, just adressing the previous (and if this would go through, future) moaning. Players will always be dissatisfied, don't you know that? Its my opinion that they would be less dissatisfied with the old way than with the current one. Nothing is full on good or full on bad, ever. If it was then we wouldn't have this conversation because obviously BIS would go with the full on good idea, if it is so much better. Its not though. Still, its slightly better.
  3. I'm not saying that the sales will be unusually low (although definitelly lower than GM), i'm saying that they can be higher with the old strategy applied. more money than none beats no money, sure, but You know what beats more money? Even more money. Don't get me wrong, i'm all in for the creator DLC concept, modmakers can and should be recompensated. BUT. The current way creates an unnecessary divide in community that throttles those DLC's popularity and sales, and that can be avoided
  4. You guys are not seeing the bigger picture. Part of the reason is that this is the BIS forum, and lets be honest, only die hards come here. Out of 7 people that wrote anything here 3 joined in Operation Flashpoint days, and only one when Arma 3 was already out. That's old farts territory. Don't believe me then check out what people wrote on steam. Its you who give thousands of hours into Arma and modmaking, but its them that make the bulk of community. Its the masses that have a problem. Some of them don't know or care that its separate people from GM or Bohemia, they're missing the Creator part of Creator DLC. All they see is another paid DLC doing almost the same thing as another paid DLC that's doing almost the same thing as the free mods they already have. I am but a humble herald. Content unchanged, enter at your own risk. Comments pulled from the announcement as of 23.09 13:06 CET. I've got 60 negative ones out of 132 total. That the oppinions are mixed is an understatement. As for the "sounds like a You problem" true, it also is. I already got confirmation that my guys took the C route- "After what happened with GM We're not going to even try this one, don't bother buying", so i'm left with single player.
  5. Price is irrelevant for the argument because its subjective, and none of us has a say in what it should be, Bohemia sets it. For me its one amount, for you another, for Bob Boberson from Bobinshire that just got into arma its also different. Sure, every game should be 99 cents then billions would play. What does it bring into the argument though? Nothing. But fine, disregard that. Price matters or not, Point is still the same though. Communities are made of people, and large percentage of people are assholes that won't want to pay for something when they have a free "alternative". Because of them less of those that would be willing to pay won't, when in an alternative scenario assholes can be shut up with a free worse version, and those willing will be more likely to pay because they can play with said assholes.
  6. Price is irrelevant. Even if it was 10$ as long as there are mods that do a simmiliar thing communities are not going to play it on regular basis. Try telling 30-40 people that they need to pay up because you want to make a mission with SKOT's instead of RHS's BMP-1's. Its not a matter of worth but of convenience. As long as everyone is not able to access a thing, even in a diminished form, then it will die off. Try this thought experiment- Imagine a hypothetical Arma 3 community that you're "in command off" There's lets say, 40 active players. 10 bought the DLC and want to play it. 10 are absolutely opposed to paying for it because "RHS does the same" 20 don't care either way. You can either a)Force the whole community to buy it. You have 30 people regularly playing the DLC content, but loose 10 that were opposed because "screw you and your camels, i'll go somewhere where they don't want me to pay for it" b) make the DLC optional- 10 who bought it play it once or twice, maybe another 5 buys and joins them but eventually they stop because missions are too small, the rest of the community is left out, and the mentality "why do this when you can play with regular mods" emerges. They play a mission with DLC content few times per year but thats it. In case of a LITE version being available its less of an issue. Those who didn't buy can still play with those that did. They will moan that it looks ugly, sure, but moaning is like, at least 80% of Arma experience. You get more usage of the DLC=People are more willing to buy it because they'll get more play hours out of it. The main problem with multiplayer is that you don't only need the DLC, you also need the people. I understand that the LITE system of DLC's was abolished because of people bitching about low quality assets, but low quality assets beat no assets. GM was an experiment and a lot of people got caught, myself included but i doubt sales are going to be that good again when they know already that in multiplayer its useless. The current system kills DLC's in the long run.
  7. If you'll take a gander at the comments under CSLA announcement you'll see that people are rather pessimistic than jumping with joy about this thing. Why is that? We need to look at Arma's history to understand it a bit. Back in A2 times we got assets for contemporary gameplay and mods were just an extra thing for other theatres or time periods. In Early to mid A3 era mods became standard and the defacto core of the game, no self respecting community plays without at least RHS or CUP. Bohemia went with a different setting becasue they could when modders would make what community wants anyway. We accepted lapses of quality, noncompatibility between one mod to another, bugs and recycled content because it was free and necessary. Now in late A3 era we're expected to pay for what would earlier be just a mod, with the same, or maybe slightly higher quality. Sure, its nice to reward modmakers, but look at it from a clan/community viewpoint. They can't make DLC a required standard for joining because it ads too little/can be replaced with mods that do simmiliar stuff and costs too much. Therefore they never can play at full capacity when employing a DLC. Therefore they don't play with DLC, because a lot of people are left out. I bought Apex and GM on their releases. I played ONE mision on Apex, and none on GM. Communities simply don't touch them and the dlcs are relegated to single play and plinking away with few friends. Because communities don't touch them people dont buy them. Because people don't buy them communities don't touch them. Bec... The cycle continues. Sure, there are compatibility files, but from a mission maker perspective they don't do shit. Non-DLC players can be in the same mission, but can't use the same equipment. So really you need to make 2 missions within one, one for DLC people where they have cool toys, and one for non-dlc people where they have substitutes from mods. Or just use the DLC as opfor. This simply won't do because then what's the point of using DLC assets when you still have to use modded assets, and you got DLC exactly because it has stuff mods/vanilla don't have? The only solution is to have compatibility files with low quality versions (akin to Arma 2 LITE dlc's) with assets you can still use, they just look bad. When EVERYONE has access to the content then there's a higher probablility of it being used on server. When it is going to be used on server then more people are willing to buy the DLC because they will be able to enjoy it with people, not just alone. Making LITE versions of DLC's gives you MORE money, not less. Counterintuitive, i know, but should work. TL;DR Bohemia, bring back LITE versions of DLC's from A2 days. You'll earn more that way.
  8. Trying to run the script version of 3.3.3 from here https://github.com/genesis92x/VcomAI-3.0/tree/3.3.3-develop (I assumed this is the correct way to get 3.3.3 in script version. if its not, then correct me) Got a bunch of this type of errors Any ideas? There are no such problems with 3.3.2 Alternatively- how to run 3.3.3 in script? Here's what i did 1. Download from here https://github.com/genesis92x/VcomAI-3.0/tree/3.3.3-develop 2. Plop VCOM folder into mission directory 3. Copy contents of description and init sqf's to my mission's description and init. This worked for 3.3.2. Does 3.3.3 require something more?
  9. Question- is there any way to run this, or even just a part of it, as a script? Reason- Community doesn't want to add new mods that overhaul everything for a single mission
  10. Is there any way to run this as a script?
  11. Question. How does one set AI skill in the script version? There's this in userconfig- am i correct to assume that all i need to do is plop this into init.sqf to have challanged AI instead of a challanging one?
  12. TesACC

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    Mate, This is ALREADY muffled by ACE. The ending part, after 2:05 is without the ear protection. See the difference. Personally, i dont care how loud is this supposed to be in the real thing, this is ridiculous in a game. The iddle inside volume should be halved. I'm not going to juggle my sound settings every time i enter and exit the tank, mind You, ONLY this family of tanks. Gameplay over annoyance, always.
  13. TesACC

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    Is this a bug or a feature? Is this incredibly loud noise on purpose?
  14. Thanks, nice to know that the response times were tweaked to shorten the video. Still, I think there should be an additional value specifically for calling in arty that goes on top of the regular radio settings, as it should be much slower than relaying enemy possition to the other teams through the comm net. Why? Because of calculating and preparting fire mission, which takes no time for AI (and players that have Artillery Computer enabled) but can be a major pain in the ass when you have to do it for real. Sadly, its still Arma, so there's no hope for AI being able to call in area fire with specified number of rounds, adjusted fire and other fancy stuff which takes considerably longer to set up, but still, the simplest point fire preparation should per standard take at least a minute more than just relaying info. It might seem that such a short time difference isn't worth taking the time to implement, but it might be helpfull to the MM when he has the control over this variable, especially as they know best what kind of artillery they give to the AI and what it should be capable of in that particular mission. Is it doable? I dont know, but sure would be nice.
  15. There should be a way to slow down AI calling in the artillery, so its not an instant thing but takes a few minutes. Currently the speed at which the support does its job is a fraction of the time that a typical mortar crew spends on a fire mission. How i think it should work (to clarify, i have 0 knowledge on scripting)- unit calls in support, a randomized timer starts (min time, max time, should be customizable) after that passes the calling in unit should be "asked" does it still need the arty (so it doesn't shoot empty spaces when the threat is already neutralized or it moved) if it does, mortars fire at the orginal coordinates. Alternatively, AI calls in arty only after prolonged sighting of an enemy. The same thing, just other way around. Dont know what is easier. Now tell me, does it make sense, is it dooable? What i'm trying to achieve with this change- to have mortars serve more as a punishment for being stationary than an instant you're seen- you're shot at. I feel that it would be way more realistic. Of course, the times should be tweakable, not something set in stone.
×