squirrel0311

I know I'm late to the party but this post interested me because I've always been a fan of Arma 3's take on the future of warfare, even the CSAT bug helmets/suits. While I agree that most of the of the stuff the OP mentioned does already exist in some capacity in the real world and implementation of it in the storyline would certainly be interesting to see... When it comes to actually making it a workable part of an actual game, that's something totally different and in my opinion, asking a lot from an engine that can't even simulate walking around in a moving vehicle. Furthermore, we're talking about a game that released in 2013 and was probably being worked on for a while before that, therefore it's not really too surprising to see how conservative their outlook was by todays standards. On top of all of that, they had the huge backlash they got for going for the future theme in the first place. Does anyone remember the storm that came about after the images of the railgun tank? Heck, I remember how much flak I got for saying we needed heavy lift tilt wing and heavy lift quad-rotor aircraft, or for suggesting that they should've added thermal integration to the nightvision since so many people were complain it was "too clear" even though it's set in the future and more than likely wouldn't be Gen3. I love the future setting and gear, to me, the cold war-era and time before have been done enough in Arma.... On the other hand, I know that everything needs to come in moderation and with balance. Warfare technology advances for one main purpose and that is to be more effective and therefore devastating. Real war isn't fun, at all. So when you start implementing weapons like orbital strike capabilities or smart missiles and bullets, generally speaking the gameplay becomes much less fun unless the mission makers spend a lot of time thinking up ways to balance it all. (Just look at Warlords where the Rhino is allowed.) At that point, you have to ask, is it worth spending the time and money to add those kind of assets to a game where you can't even jump over a fence, consolidate your ammo, or bump into another vehicle without exploding? Everyone wants a game/situation where all the latest and most devastating weapons are at their fingertips but when those weapons are pointed at them it suddenly becomes much less fun... Just ask the Armenians.

I was going to suggest something basically similar to what joostsidy said... You can set Freelook or Temporary Freelook to any key of your liking. For example.... My Mouse has three side buttons The Forward button is set as [Temporary Zoom] The middle button is [Temporary Freelook] And the rear button is [Push To Talk] That way when I'm running or flying, (both of which I only do in 1st Person View), I can simply hold my middle mouse button and look around me; when I let go, my view snaps back to center. Slightly unrelated: I have been wondering if there is a way to enable 3rd Person View and disable Freelook for only certain vehicle drivers. e.g. For my multiplayer game I've been working on, I'd like to make it 1st person only, except for drivers of armored vehicles. Since being stuck to the interior view of a tank or APC can get boring after a while, I'd like to give only the driver the ability to go 3rd person but disable their ability to use freelook. (That way they can't park behind a wall and peek over to give call outs and what not.)

My friend just started having similar sound issues after the last Windows 10 update; it seems that whenever she gets into a vehicle there is a really loud static noise that nearly drowns out any other sound. There's something more to it than just that though because her game crashes after a few minutes of running when she gets into a vehicle.

Well I'd say it mostly depends on how much work you want to do. I started a KOTH/CTI style game mode over 4 years ago but have pretty much given up since my computer was stolen and all my work was lost. 8/ King of the Hill is by far my most favorite multiplayer gamemode, I just think it gives what a lot of the others fail to provide; and that is quick, basic, military styled, dynamic action combat. The main strengths of KotH in my opinion are: No Mods required: King of the Hill allows a vanilla player to join a server and get right into the fight without needing to search for different required mods in most cases. Only one Area of Operation: There's not 15 different objectives being fought for at one time, which allows your entire team to focus their efforts on one area. Since most Arma multiplayer servers can only run with about 90 to 100 people max; when you've only got 30 people against 60, manpower counts. Various Methods of Transportation: Fly, drive, or parachute in. If the enemy has one way of travel locked down, you have other options available. Fast paced Dynamic Combat: This is mainly due to playing against real people instead of boring and predictable AI, but it also has to do with the ability to simply spawn in and go without needing to gather your gear every time. Different types of King of the Hill: Personally I'm a HardCore Infantry Only player, which means 1st person Only, No Crosshair, and No Armed vehicles. If that isn't your style though there's are plenty of populated servers with tanks, apcs, jets, and attack helicopters and even 3rd person... Weaknesses of King of the Hill and ways to improve them: Balanced Teams- 3 teams often takes away much needed manpower when the server population is low. King of the Hill already has this solved for the most part although it could be further dealt with by only having 2 factions involved. If you're on one faction, for example, Bluefor, what does it matter if you're fighting Csat or Altis forces as seperate factions? The route I took for my multiplayer gamemode was to display the alliances. Nato(US/UK) Csat(Iran/Altis) so you can play as a member of either uniformed force depending on your faction. Balanced gear- This is one that feels like a lot of people really don't look at when it comes to making multiplayer gamemodes for Arma. You have to remember that military technology in general is built to give the person using it an advantage over their enemy, therefore it's extremely important for the mission maker to look at the capability of each weapon and vehicle and try to think of all the ways a player can use them and decide what effective means the opposite side has to counter it. Individual gear needs to be considered as well. Sure it's fun to play Gary Gear Queer dress up time and pretend to be super secret special dark shadow space seals; but often what that boils down to in multiplayer shooters is someone getting the most devistating gun with a silencer and usually a ghillie suit then camping a road or hiding in a bush. If thats the kind of combat you wish to encourage then that's fine but it probably wont be very popular. It's slow, tedious, and not fun for the people who don't have the capability or dont' want to play that way. One thing I don't like about King of the Hill is that certain DLC loadouts provide a lot more protection than what a newbie or vanilla player can get. (EOD kit) While many like that arcade-shooter aspect of earning money and ranking up to buy new gear, when you're a new player who's limited to 5.56mm only, having to put 8 - 10 rounds into someone to kill them is extremely frustrating when they can shoot you once with a Navid and drop you. A lot of people love the look of KotH and Arma3 in general but when having to deal with starting at the bottom as well as learn the game in general it becomes more tedious than fun and they usually just quit because other games can give them the same thing at a much easier learning curve. (I'm not saying everything needs to be given up front, just that certain things can be balanced better.) For my multiplayer gamemode, I had set fireteams and set classes within each fireteam that a player had to choose before spawning in. Choosing a certain class determined what kind of weapon you could carry but all weapons for both factions were restricted to 6.5mm and below. (TeamLeader-MXGL/KatibaGL, MGGuner-MK200, Medic-MX/Katiba, ATGunner-MX,MAWS Mod0/Katiba,Almut, AsstAT/Repairspec- MX/Katiba) Everyone was equipped with a .45 caliber pistol and either 2 11rd mags or 4cylinders depending on which faction. They also had Plate carriers and Enhanced Combat Helmet / Raven vest and Assassin helmets for CSAT, CarryAll backpacks, 2RGO grenades, 5 Green Smoke grenades, 4IFAKs, GPS, NVGs, Binos, map, radio, compass,(Range finders for TL) Everyone had the standard uniform for their faction. No ghillie suits, no civilian clothes, no thermal hiding cammies, or anything else that made it hard to identify what side you were on. Also there were no suppressors. Anyone could pick up a weapon off a dead body but spawning in with pretty much everything you needed kind of cuts down the time it takes for Tactical Timmy to stop playing dress up or asking in voice chat which weapon he should buy. Balanced vehicles and avaliability- This pretty much follows the same principles as above. Careful consideration should be taken to determine the full effectiveness of a vehichle and how it will most probably be employed, not just how it's supposed to be. For example: King of the Hill when Bluefore had the Armed Blackfish or the armed Ghost hawk... Everyone flocked to Bluefor because it just wasn't fun getting sprayed from 400 meters above. Or in the case of warlords and the Rhino, setting up as far as you can get from the action and effectively halting any chance the enemy team has at possibly winning. Again, all of this depends on the type of gameplay you want to encourage so if that's your thing then so be it, but as for myself and many others I play with, it's not. Server rules can midigate some of it too but if there's no admin on, you might be losing players. The way I handled this was that only a certain number of tanks and apc's could be spawned at once and then there was a cool down period... (I never got all that working right though. It may not be possible) Point system that rewards camping- This ties into the above... If you allow people to gain XP and Money by simply killing enemy anywhere they wish, then envitably you'll have those who forego the purpose of the game and simply camp a spawn or a road from spawn because seeing their score or money go up is more rewarding than fighting someone who has a chance to fight back. Server rules can stop this too but with my gamemode, I made it so that kills only count when both parties are inside the AO, the AO's were bigger though. Voteban feature- This is something that every multiplayer game needs in my opinion. I hate having to stop playing so I can track down an admin because someone is griefing or hacking... Plenty of times I've watched a game screech to a halt because no admins were present. A feature that would take a 2/3s vote and ban a username or steamID for 3 hours would be great. There's a lot more I could talk about but you've likely stopped reading by this point. haha P.S. Endgame wounded system- This would be neat too but instead of just being able to revive wounded teammates, I had wanted to be able to "Capture"(revive) enemy players as well. Doing so would send them back to spawn and count for double points. (Never got this working either)

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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...

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.)

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.

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.

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.

I would be ok with allowing modders to charge a small price for the content they make. I think they should require the servers that use their mods to pay for that content as well. Perhaps 3% of the price could go to BIS since they provided the platform for others to profit from? I think that competition would keep modders from charging ridiculous prices since hopefully no one would pay $60 for a few rifles and a Hello Kitty Bulldozer. Also, it should be a one time price, not like a subscription to keep using the mod every month, that would be terrible. As for Clans/servers like Hostile Takeover - King of the Hill... They don't require you to have a subscription to play on those servers, the first 89 slots are free for anyone to join. When the server has 90 people that's when the remaining slots are reserved for VIP members. - I think this is the way to go. Personally I don't like using mods, the only mod I've used a lot was IronFront. I have RHS and all that but it stopped working and I never cared to fix it. I enjoy playing on servers that use vanilla/DLC content. MY WISH... I'm not sure who would have the power to do this, but my wish/hope would be that someone would design their addon or BIS would design the game so that addons would be like DLC content. This way you can still join a modded server if you don't have the mod, you just can't use whatever content is modded. (I realize this might ruin the immersion or theme for some servers so I guess you should be able to choose to block or allow vanilla content as well.) Perhaps though, this would open up more game mode/ server options for vanilla/DLC players like myself.

As others have said, I just couldn't see ArmA without vehicles. ArmA = Armed Assault, so why limit it to just one realm? The problem I see with a lot of people who agree with limiting content like vehicles is that they usually base ArmA as a whole on the one or two Mods that they have experience playing. e.g. King of the Hill, Life, Exile, CTI, etc.. From that narrow view point, I can totally understand why they'd want something removed; because in these mods there is usually little to no restrictions on how things like vehicles are played. e.g. Where they must start from, where they must stay, what their role is. For example, King of the hill... When you require infantry to fight inside a little circle but give tanks and helicopters freedom to roam around outside and kill from beyond visual range, players are going to flock to those vehicles for as long as they can afford it... This in turn makes the game less fun for newer or infantry focused players, which is why KOTH has rules about such things now. I myself have asked for things to be removed from King of the Hill servers because of this. The same can also be said about those who call for the removal of a certain vehicle because it doesn't match up with the missions they want to make and play. For example, complaining about generic factions, NATO, CSAT, AF, because they all have similar vehicles but the player wants to play super power vs. underdog... Rather than just not adding certain assets to one side, they write post and complain about why such and such vehicle should be removed. The point is that one or two mods or one or two different play styles, doesn't even begin to represent the whole of what ArmA is, A MILITARY SAND BOX. Side note: I've been inactive for a long while but way back in 2013 or 14 I wrote out a big wishlist of futuristic or realistic-ish things I would like to see added to the game including things like... Being able to shoot out vehicle optics. Being able to shoot through gun ports in certain armored vehicles. Better vehicle damage models. Balanced Active Protection Systems for many vehicles, not just tanks. Different key binding sets for vehicles to discontinue as much need for the scroll wheel menu. Interiors for tanks, possibly a futurisitc forward looking video display moutned on a helmet. (I even drew a sweet picture... https://postimg.org/image/daaxxygnj/ ) Tactical goggles/glasses that remove the hud when not worn. Ammo consolidation. One point slings. And even... The possible option for the driver of the tank or IFV/APC to take control of the turret and drive/shoot .... Kind of like Tanks in Battlefield 3, to keep us from having to rely on crappy AI drivers or gunners... As with a lot of different suggestions though, this should be an option that you have the ability to disable, say for multiplayer game modes.

The cat is not included!?!?!?!? WTF, BI! Well I hope you have all the monies for your bills because you just lost a Special Edition customer, arse hose! :P

With an ACOG, you cannot look into the sight with a Night Vision device because of the 4x magnification which might cause parallax problems and the glow of the reticle is usually too bright which causes blooming. http://www.hightechredneckincorporated.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/ying%20landscape%201.jpg(reticle blooming of red dot sight) So instead, (for right handed shooters) you wear your PVS-14 monocular on your LEFT eye. With your naked RIGHT eye, you look through the ACOG and with a little bit of practice you'll start seeing the reticle superimposed on the view of your left NV eye. (It takes some work to learn how to do and get used to, especially if you're left eye dominant like me.) This picture isn't very good but maybe it will help... http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/145091733-portrait-of-a-u-s-marine-wearing-night-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=a00bqDdJkm%2BpZcjTaTpGc8uhheYF7%2Ftwpg2Uk3U%2Bv3FP25tNMt1n2mRLjQmZtBC0zmqwPa3rKSp86Zu1cyEKdQ%3D%3D(Night vision on his left eye, rifle up, looking through the ACOG with his Right eye.) ...As I said before, keep in mind that this is not the primary method... If you have a laser you're going to want to use that instead (IN MOST CASES)... but if your PEQ-16 battery is dead (they go down quick) and you forgot your spare, you might find yourself doing the two eye method. (I guess the way they have it in game right now is accurate since I can't see how you'd be able to impliment using two eyes in the game. Plus, as someone else already said it's the future so... NV ACOGs it is!) EOTechs and Aimpoints have a night vision mode... So (for a right handed shooter) if you had your sight mounted far enough forward, you could wear your NVG's on your right eye and look into the sight through your NV monocular. There might be a slight point of impact shift as well but it's probably negligable in most cases/senarios. The main down side to looking through a holosight with helemet mounted NVGs is that it's very clumbsy, there is a lot of banging your NVGs against your gun and tilting your head to try and get proper alignment. On top of all that, your Field of View is much narrower when using nigh vision meaning you're missing what's going on around you when you've got your head down staring at the top of your weapon while trying to find that dot. As for NVG Washout (AKA Flashout or whiteout) - it's just one of those things that happens. Yes muzzle flashes tend to be very bright looking through nvgs but so are regular lights or IR lights in some instances. Even with flash suppressors and silencers you still get a flash occasionally, more with the former than the latter. The standard A2 bird cage flash hider does an adequate job... We've been using it for years and it hasn't presented any problems we couldn't adjust to and work around. There is a gain knob on the NVGs that you can use to adjust the brightness of the picture, that helps a little bit depending on how much constant light you have coming into the NVGs. If you know you're going into a house with IR lights on you might adjust the gain beforehand so someone turning and shining their light on a wall doesn't blind you. (Side note - Washout happens on Acogs with fiber optic illuminators too, that's why you'll see some guys with tape over their fiber optic pipe. http://www.nyfirearms.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/acog-chemlight.jpg ) As far as I know, there is no practical way to look down iron sights and still put rounds on target quickly and consistently... Iron sights are usually close to the gun which means lots of banging your NVGs against your weapon.... More importantly though is that NVGs have their own bit of parallax...(Might not be the word I'm looking for.) You have to have eye relief to your nvgs then you have to have the proper relief to the sights... Which would mean the nvgs would have to be focused for stuff up close in order to get a clear picture of the front sight tip....so everything further out would be blurry. ..... Now imagine trying to do all that while being shot at. :/

Well this is beating a dead horse but I'd like to throw my two cents in anyway... As others have already said, NO. The Acog is not compatible with standard helmet mounted NVGs like the PVS-14s due to the magnification and more importantly the brightness/ halo effect of the Tritium sight. The technique we used to use was the same for day time operations... Shoot with both eyes open. In the daytime, this allows for a larger field of view which means better Situational Awareness. At night time, we have our optics mounted to our NON dominant eye (I suppose that really doesn't matter as long as it's not the eye you look through your optic with.) ... While looking through our NVG's the sight would be somewhat superimposed on the image we see through the monocular allowing us to.... for the most part.. hit our targets pretty accurately and quickly. (Keep in mind that Ideally, lasers are the way to go compared to this method.) They do make NV scopes that fit in front of the Acog like the AN/PVS-24. We were issued both NV and IR versions. http://www.x20.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ANPVS24_0300.png As for that video... Someone else already said that it looks like he's getting his cheek weld and using his left eye to watch the laser... From the angle that the monocular is looking down, it doesn't look like he could see very much, if not any of his sight at all. ... One of those guys looked like he was wearing PVS-7s which are old old NVGs. HOWEVER, as someone else has already said, assuming those are real EOTechs, they do have an NV mode to dim the brightness, allowing you to look at your sight and not suffer wash out or halo effects. When Arma 3 was in the ALPHA stage it had the RCO scopes right... You could look through the red dot sight on top with your NVGs but if you switched to your 4x scope it would cut the NV out.

Yes Given the fact that Arma 3 focuses on modern/future warfare, I'd say ropes should have been planned/included into the vanilla game from the very beginning. (The same goes with one point slings, smooth/fast weapons transitions from Primary to Secondary, and speed/tactical reloads.) The reason is that a large number of militaries across the world have recognized the importance of this type of knowledge and therefore have at least some sort of formal rope courses included in their most BASIC of military training. e.g. If you join the United States Marine Corps or Army, you take a 2 or 3 day rope/ repelling course as part of your Basic Training. (Lenght of training may have changed.) As far as the Raiders go, every branch uses ropes for various things when the situation/mission calls for it, in fact I'd dare to say that the Rangers play with ropes more than the Raiders. Ropes are just a specialized piece of gear that is usually included in the planning phase, depending on what the mission/terrain calls for... That way you don't get out there and find yourself having to improvise a rope when you could have just brought one. The only thing I can think of as far as a specialized group in the USMC pertaining to ropes and movement is HRST Masters (hurst) Helicopter Rope Suspension Training. That's dealing with SPIE rigging and Fast roping, which are both an awful lot of fun. :P In addition there are other types of in depth rope training like during Mountain Leaders Course we had to do an extended course for repelling and rock climbing. Ultimately it should be something that anyone can be equipped with. I believe engineers carrying a rope would be a fun thing however, I think there needs to be a clear distinction. A rope used for climbing would not / Should not be used for towing a vehicle except in the most dire of circumstances... Mainly because it will probably break pretty quickly. Tow Ropes are thick, and heavy... They should be included in the inventory of most every vehicles to allow for towing or rolling up right in the event of an accident. (More compact tow straps would also work)