Jump to content

squirrel0311

Member
  • Content Count

    198
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Community Reputation

14 Good

About squirrel0311

  • Rank
    Sergeant

core_pfieldgroups_3

  • Interests
    Shootin! ...Hunting, hiking, camping, kayak/canoeing, fishing, and military/outdoors stuff.
  • Occupation
    Former Infantry Marine.... Now - Securrrrrity!

Recent Profile Visitors

324 profile views
  1. Nothing new. The U.S. Army has been toying with the idea of new round for quite a long time. One of the first alternatives to 5.56mm that I remember was the 6.5mm MPC (Multi-Purpose Cartridge.) I'd speculate that the 6.5mm MPC is where BI got the idea for the caliber change in game. In real-life I think they found that the 6.5mm MPC had less performance and capability than the 6.5mm Grendel, which they then decided if you're going to pay to upgrade to Grendel then you might as well go 6.8mm. But with 300Blk now on the market, I'm not too sure they'll be willing to switch to 6.8mm either.
  2. squirrel0311

    Arma Grand Theft Auto Ambience.

    I see. That looks pretty sweet! I take it they're generated server side right? So everyone playing would be able to see the same civilian and the same color clothes/vehicle? If you had a small number of AI civilians, could you make it so that whenever one was killed it would detract points from a players score? For my game mode, I'd like to have around 10-15 civilians running or driving around the AO. Players would have to take care and ensure they get positive ID on enemy targets before engaging; killing civilians would detract from their XP.
  3. Yeah I know they have Votekick but unless they changed it recently it just kicks you from the server and lets you back in after a very short amount of time. It's been a couple of months at least since I've played Warlords but I remember on several occasions my team votekicking a player only to have him return several minutes later under the same name. And if he kills you in spawn then you have to deal with trying to open the map and votekick him again before he shoots and kills you.
  4. Unfortunately I feel like there are a lot of things warlords still needs to fix, but the hackers is definitely one of the major ones. This may not have actually been a thing but I can't help but recall playing on a server that had a VOTE BAN feature way back in 2014. I'm not sure if it ever worked but is this not something that is possible? When a hacker or griefer is present, the rest of the team can vote to ban his profile or Steam ID for a period of 3 hours or so. Another problem with this is that in warlords I think you have to be alive in order to access the vote options. 8/
  5. squirrel0311

    Arma Grand Theft Auto Ambience.

    Wasteland isn't my thing and I barely even have time to check the forums so unfortunately I can't help you there. I like what you've done though. I'm curious to know how many people can be playing on your sever with the ambiance mod running before it starts to lag too much or drop frames. I've been wanting to do something similar for my game mode but at 96 players max I think it might be too much.
  6. For the span of about 3.5 to 4 years I've been working on a combined arms multiplayer game, unfortunately, this project took a serious set back when my computer was stolen and all my progress was lost. While I have started over with the easy stuff like vehicles, loadouts, bases, AOs and things of that nature, I've been struggling to find the motivation to do the more complicated and tedious stuff which is of course, making it all work together. Being that I work 12-14hrs a day with anywhere from 10-14hrs off, my time to work on this game is limited. My knowledge in coding and scripting is limited as well, forcing me to ask and learn as I go. With all that being said, I've been contemplating finding and commissioning someone to help me with coding the game to actually make it work.... I know it would be best if I could find someone with a high level of coding and scripting knowledge who also has the same amount of interest in my game mode as myself but what else should I look for and consider? I'm really just looking for a good starting point as well as anything I should keep in mind when choosing and making an agreement before I post on the Editing forum. It's going to be a pretty big job, something on par with Warlords I'd say, although a lot of the Warlords tools may be able to be used...
  7. squirrel0311

    Official Multiplayer Gamemodes

    END GAME: As anxious as I am to see what these new MP game modes are, I'm sad to say that I have to really focus on not getting my hopes up based on what has already been put out. As Quicksilver said, despite the hard work that went into creating them, the current game modes seem to be only moderately thought out and hastily thrown together. I've played quite a bit of End Game and unless something has changed over the last 5 months I've been without a computer, one of the biggest problems that I remember about playing on official servers was the lack of an effective [Vote Ban] function. (One that doesn't let you come right back in.) I've had several game night events nearly completely ruined because people found out I had invited a large group of friends in to play and decided to troll us by team killing and driving off into the water with the vehicles and even the schematics! Compare this with the fact that even still, a large number of players don't even know what End Game is, let alone understand clearly how to play, and it's easy to see why there are so few playing. Why struggle to learn something with a mediocre explanation of the rules while enduring almost constant trolling when you can just stick to a game you already understand and know is policed by admins? Unfortunately I've only had even worse experiences playing Zeus MP. CORE OF ARMA: I have to halfway disagree with the statement that PvP isn't the Core of ArmA. I know plenty of veteran players, myself included, whom almost exclusively desire to play PvP ArmA. AI is neat and all but it can't match the skill and cunning of a real person working as part of a team. And with the way ArmAs controls handle...You've pretty much got to use a certain level of tactics to survive. Hahaha As bad as it sounds to a lot of ArmA players, I wish it was more arcade gamey in a couple of ways... That doesn't mean everyone should have to play that way, but it would be nice to have the options to make those kinds of game modes a bit easier. I will be the first to point out my distaste for game modes like Life and even Wasteland, and Battle Royale, but I can't deny how popular they are and the recognition as well as numbers of new players they've brought to ArmA. MY FAVORITE: Personally my most favorite Game mode is King of the Hill (Hardcore[1st person only] Infantry Only) despite the fact that many call it "Too Arcade!" I also agree with that assessment but no matter what, it has proven time and time again to be the one game mode that meets the most of my desires. My time at home is short, so when I do get free time I don't want to have to spend 15 minutes waiting on my team to gear up, another 15min waiting for them to make a plan, and another 15min waiting for them to explain it to everyone before we can get started. I also don't want to be tied to a fire team of idiots who Iike to drive straight into the enemy defense and get shot up over and over then punish me cause I refuse to go with them. It's for these simple reasons that I enjoy King of the Hill... I can play lone wolf or work together with my team/group, I can fly, drive, or shoot whenever I want without an obligation to do much else. Sadly though, even King of the Hill (Hardcore) has begun to disappear for the (IMO) more gamey/easy mode 3rd person version. 8\ WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE: I have what I consider to be a pretty well laid out idea for an MP game mode that combines elements of King of the Hill with CTI, PlanetSide 2, and even some more arcade like games such as Battlefield. Rather than explain it now though, I'll wait till I get back to my computer so I can add some pictures. I'm curious to know though, if it would be possible to find some coders whom would be willing to try and make it happen for money. Across the board, I'd like to see a Vote Ban feature for all Official servers if one doesn't already exist. Say something like... 3hrs? Something else I'd like to see is a MP lobby where me and my friends can link up and then all join a server at once as a group to keep from being split up. (I know that would require the server/game mode to recognize that feature though.)
  8. squirrel0311

    Arma 3 too small for fixed wing

    Ah I see! Yeah I saw your post from earlier, thanks. I just wasn't sure the server would track what players were doing off the map. I wonder if that's more taxing on it.
  9. squirrel0311

    Arma 3 too small for fixed wing

    You're right, I just forgot to add that it was already (in Game) next to the description. It was a late night post and I had to get to sleep. Haha I couldn't remember the names since I havent been able to play for sevreal months because my computer was stolen. I'd like to also add that I do in fact like the wipeout. Since we have a bit of artistic freedom, I wonder what a stealthier-ish-looking SU-25 frogfoot would have been like... Or maybe The plane that was actually supposed to be more of a Russian CAS aircraft like the A-10, The IL-102. I get that coin type aircraft could feel a bit redundant but I also think that would mainly come down to mission makers ability to keep it fun and challenging. Forgot to mention that the L-15B might be just a knockoff version of another aircraft too. I haven't been able to do much research on it. Does Arma let you fly and dogfight with other players online in the black parts of the map? I cant remember.
  10. squirrel0311

    Arma 3 too small for fixed wing

    I agree that the maps are too small at least for the Jets dlc. I wish they would have focused on something more like COIN aircraft. NATO:Textron Scorpion - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion AltFor: Buzzard CSAT / CSAT E: TO-199 Neophron (Since China/Yak worked together to build almost the same plane.) CSAT/E Heavy Ground Attack aircraft: Stealthier/ modern / sleeker version of the SU-25 frogfoot Or The IL-102 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-102 Anyone: EMB -314 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano And or Machete Concept attack aircraft - https://www.funker530.com/machete-attack-plane/ Depending on the flight models and capabilities implemented, you could still have fun and challenging air battles along with an arguably more fitting aircraft for CAS missions. Something like the Super Tuscano or Machete would have been great for Tanoa, I think.
  11. As others have already said, I have to agree that the main reason behind people disliking thermals is simply a result of POOR MISSION MAKING. In fact, I'd say that a lot of hate towards the future setting in general is a result of the same. It's odd to me how some people will completely lose their minds when you talk about balanced game play but then complain and call for the removal of an item, or weapon, and see it as something different than balancing. Mission makers have to decide on the type of gameplay they want to encourage and then really pay attention to the assets they implement as well as the terrain, boundaries, and rules. King of the Hill is a great example of this... In the beginning, it was basically a free for all fight over one small town with practically everything available for those who played enough to buy the vehicles and weapons they wanted to use. While it was fun for a breif moment, there quickly became a noticeable gap between veteran players and new players that resulted in a lack of fun for newcomers or anyone who enjoys infantry combat (myself included).... When the whole point of the game is to occupy the limits of a single town, it becomes less fun to play when someone in a tank can sit 5km outside the AO and blast anyone or any building they're hiding in, into dust. Even worse was the players in attack helicopters who would (and still do on some servers) hover beyond visual range and kill anything leaving spawn with guided missiles... This is what led to the creation of infantry only servers, spawn limits, and weapons perks which fixed some things but still have their problems. Some might argue that tanks and helicopters can still be countered which is true but, with the poor team structure in KotH (3 teams) and the fact that most players flocked to the CSAT team resulting in a gross lack of man power for one or both of the other teams, it made it near impossible to win without joining the biggest team. These lessons can and should be applied by all mission makers or at least taken into account depending on what their goals are. Just look at how Shacktac does it's missions. Yes they use iron or red dot sights only in most missions because it adds more of a challenge. They also don't give their attack helicopters free reign to hunt and kill anything they see, instead, they may have specific targets or only attack on request. As for the future setting, I'd just have to say that I love it! I don't want to go too far though! (PLEASE NO force fields, lasers, or cloaking devices. Haha) But in response to thermals being "Too good" I simply look at it as an advancement in technology. As time passes, images get clearer and thermals get more sensitive. With all that being said, I admit there are a lot of things I would have liked to have seen done differently. I can only imagine the storm of complaints that might have come about if Thermal Night Vision was implemented for NATO forces the way I wanted it.... For anyone curious to know, there is actually prototype tech being developed that pairs a night vision image with a thermal image overlay, resulting in a night vision picture where hot objects are either highlighted or outlined... https://www.wired.com/2011/09/night-vision/
  12. squirrel0311

    Server monetization program

    OK, before you all lose your minds... I'll admit that was a terrible example, but you guys took things waaay out of context. That post/example was geared towards a very specific reply. If you had gone back before jumping in the middle and looked at my other post, you'd find that I am FOR... Meaning I SUPPORT: Mod makers being allowed to charge money for the stuff they work so hard on! I think they deserve it... I believe that if you do the work, you should have the choice to get paid for it. If you don't do the work, then you can't use it unless you pay for it or the maker gives it to you for free. (I do think that a small percentage should probably go to BIS for using their platform/software. I don't really think a Mod maker should be able to charge more than full price for the game but then again that would be up to BIS. I guess either way you'd be making money for them if the game is required to play the mod.) Making servers have to pay (just like everyone else) to be able to use/host Modded content. Preferably making content only available through trusted avenues where transactions can be clearly documented and recorded for legal/monetary purposes. Making the trusted content providers a place where descriptions (by maker) and reviews (by players) are scrutinized for accuracy and well regulated. My wish would be a system that allows vanilla players to play along side players who use addons in modded servers with the restriction that they can't use that content. Kind of like how the DLC packs are. You can ride in the helicopters but you can't shoot or drive. You can pick up the weapons but you're quickly prompted to buy the DLC. (Not sure if any of that is possible and I'm sure someone would exploit it, but it would still be nice.) Ideally people won't pay for a trashy mod or at least won't pay a ridiculous price for it,unfortunately that's not always how it works... There needs to be some kind of solution for say... A maker making a crappy mod and having all his friends and community members go rate it 5 stars and write awesome reviews without having every used, it just so they can get a few extra bucks. Just to clear things up, I have dabbled in mod making. Not in anything in depth or in anything that I was planning or hoping to release but I have done it. I know exactly how tedious and frustrating it can be to try and just get started! The example wasn't meant to simplify of trivialize the countless hours of tedius work and or the time it takes to learn how to do that work in the first place. It was meant to make a simple, open ended point without having to go into too much detail. The example I made was based off of my personal experience with taking a model of a gun that a friend made and changing the front and rear sight color. (Just to see how the colors would contrast against each other and different backgrounds.) I was trying to simplify a scenario where someone makes a mod that they did little to hardly any real work on and because of a lack of intellectual property protection and a terrible review system, they turn around and sell it for as much as a copy of the game; people buy it only to find out it sucks or was mostly someone else's work. I didn't really care to get into the discussion but now that it's already heading that way... How much of someone's idea can or should be protected as intellectual property? A few years back I remember hearing about a chat site that had a falling out with one of it's coders. When they kicked the coder out he turned around and sued them for continuing to use his work/code to run the chat site. It took about 3 weeks or so before they could get someone else to come in and write all new code and change up the stuff the other guy did. I wonder how different someone's work would need to be in order to be considered different from someone who did it first... Or if it would even cause problems at all. (I assume it would at some point.)
  13. squirrel0311

    Server monetization program

    Yes, I have a couple of arguments to support that.... Modders and Server hosters are not the same! Hosting a server is something completely different than making an add-on. Hosting a server cost money every month for the people who host the server. It cost money every month because they choose to host the server EVERY MONTH! It's a continuous service that at least to some degree requires regular attention. (Server bugs, hacking/griefing, server restarts.) Modders on the other hand make something and then they release it to everyone. They don't have to keep making the same mod over and over, they may come back and update it but other than that, you buy it and that's it. Just like how Arma is. Buy it once and you can use it almost however you want. Hosting a server is a service people pay for every month. It requires input from the host every month or more. Mods or addons are content you buy and use. They don't usually require additional attention from the maker. For Example: Lets say I make an awesome AA-12 shotgun mod so that you could use my AA-12 on any map or in any server that had the mod too... It took me a total of 5 hours to make the mod and after that I never touched it again... You on the other hand, host a server where you are constantly recruiting new players, fixing bugs, doing admin duties, and paying a company to run your server... Every month you pay a set fee and every month you provide your players with a stable server by doing restarts, kicking trolls ect... This is something you or someone who works for you has to do EVERY MONTH... It's a service you provide. Why should a mod maker who spent 5 hours working on a mod be entitled to make as much as someone who constantly puts time and money into hosting a server? I never suggested something that would stop modders from potentially making a really good mod and selling it to a million people for ...lets say $30 each... That would make a lot of money for them. I also never suggested there should be anything that would stop a modder from making an awesome mod, selling it for $30, and then starting up and hosting his own server where he charges $100 a month for a VIP slot. That would also make a lot of money for them. (Royalties again) If a mod maker wanted to pay for the rights to use the engine and then build their own game, that would be fine for them to charge whatever they wanted. But for someone to use the Arma platform and not have to pay anything back to the company would be kind of crazy on BIS's part. (Unfairness of current system) And yes I agree that the current system seems a bit unfair because Servers can charge money for people to play on while also using other people's hard work (mods) But like I said before, a modder could still start their own server/ clan and charge for VIP and other junk if they wanted. Players still make the choice to pay and play on those servers they like best.
  14. squirrel0311

    Server monetization program

    I think you misunderstood what I was trying to get at... No server or Clan should be allowed to sell other people's add-on work (Clothing, Rifles, vehicles, HUDs, etc..) for their own (Clan Profit) personal or server related. If you didn't make the content you can't charge money for it. If you run a private server with add-ons you SHOULD be able to charge people to play on your server... HOWEVER, any add-ons that the clan servers or their players use need to be purchased from the maker of that add-on. For example. If the Iron Front mod is $10 and I want to start my own server for my clan of 85 people... I have to buy that mod and everyone who wants to play on my server has to buy that mod as well. I could not charge people for the Iron Front content on my server. I could only charge them for the ability to play with me on my server. I say small price because... No one should be able to charge more for a mod than what Arma 3 originally cost without giving something back to BIS. Even if they make a whole new game from Arma 3, they shouldn't be able to make more money off of it without at the very least paying royalties to BIS. Perhaps "small price" doesn't fit for every situation though, because I do believe that mod makers should be allowed to set their own price... This is so that in the case of modders who feel their work has been stolen by servers like LIFE, can charge a higher price to those server (purchases) to help compensate for misdoings. (e.g. $5 for personal use [Playing on modded servers] but $40 if you want to use the mod on a server where you charge or ask for donations.) - (This would be messy but it is doable.) In any case, I think that Mod makers who want to charge for add-ons should have to pay a 3% royalty to BIS. For the rest who do it as a hobby, they're fine to make content and release it to everyone free of charge. Mods made should be partly property of the maker and BIS only, ensuring no server can use their mods in a way that the maker or BIS doesn't approve of. Also, I agree with having one source of payment where purchases and sells can be easily tracked, recorded, and reported.
  15. squirrel0311

    To-199 Neophron cockpit HUD review

    I think the reason the To-199 has Cyrillic words is because it's supposed to be CSAT's plane (Persian/middle eastern), not Russian. If they added the Russian writing they might run into copyright issues.
×