subx

The backpacks sometimes disappear within a couple of seconds of being dropped, so even if you have two people, you still run into problems. It seems like the clean up runs at intervals with no regard for how long items have been "discarded" for, and if you happen to drop something just before clean up occurs, then you're out of luck. I guess a simple (low overhead) way to give a bit more time could be to have the script have to find some objects twice before removal. I understand this, but was wondering why blufor launchers (removed) are treated differently to blufor vehicles (not removed) on AO completion.

Could the clean up scripts be made less aggressive or some objects treated with more care? The main problem I've had is with building launchers, where one backpack is placed on the ground and then another used with it. I'd estimate that about one in ten times the first backpack gets garbage collected before you can back with the second to assemble the launcher. And when this happens a long way from base, it's very annoying. There shouldn't be that many backpacks on the server, could they each have a timer when dropped to prevent deletion for an amount of time? It's not just backpacks though, I had just assembled a launcher when an AO completed and it vanished - presumably the AO clean up script deleted it. Shouldn't there be differentiation between friendly and enemy launchers? Trying to scavenge items from dead enemies is almost impossible too, because they disappear so fast, but I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere for server performance.

Ouch subx, kinda hurts to hear that. The problem is that it's a BIS UI, and I don't think they've ever made a good one. The obvious thing a UI for filing your inventory needs to do is provide an easy way to see what's in your inventory. Because VA has no overview, it makes organising your stuff much harder than it should be. VAS is by no means perfect, but at least I don't exit it and find things in my inventory I didn't know were there. Since you ask (and at almost the other end of the scale of mission deisgn), I would look to move beyond aimless random missions, by developing some kind of campaign framework for AOs and side missions to occur in, so that gradually the island can be invaded and annexed. Would give players a greater sense of purpose, and open up many interesting avenues for mission variation, without damaging the core pick up and play gameplay.

Don't seem to be able to load saved loadouts, or import them...? Failing to see the improvement, since VA has a less streamlined and less clear interface than VAS.

Now at version 2.5.1 (partly my fault) but it now has definable keys, a choice of paper or tablet interface, and some bug fixes

There currently doesn't seem to be any penalty for failing to defend an AO, the counter attack timer continues to run and eventually the defence is successful even if no player is in the AO. I suppose there are a couple of routes you could go with consequences: - the enemy could take the AO back - but without the context of a wider campaign, it would probably just be annoying and repetitive. - the timer could be non linear and instead based on some kind of ratio of players to enemies in the AO, to the point where it could stop, or even count back up (with a maximum) if things were going really badly. Being able to see the exact time left makes life a bit too easy as well. I've had a couple of instances where I could have advanced on an enemy position, but there were only seconds left, so there was no point in the risk. Perhaps enemies should only stop spawning at the end of the timer rather than disappear, but I guess that would leave the problem of a stray AI stopping the objective completing.

Yep, the only option that was working was abort back to the lobby (also I wasn't the only one it was happening to). From what I saw, it made me wonder if the newly introduced foxtrot's group id hadn't been added somewhere important...? Anyway after trying foxtrot a few times, I joined echo and things proceeded normally. Great to see the nearest medic message back in, the positive feedback it gives players really helps.

I'm certainly hoping that I&A 3 is going to have a bit more variation in its missions, different sub objectives within each AO would be good. It would also be nice if the enemies were organised with more purpose, but that may be impractical to achieve in such a large mission. Missions that affect the long term campaign across the island is something I really want to see though, such as capture an airport to establish a FOB, etc. In Domination 2 (ArmA 2) - on which I&A is based - occasionally after capturing an AO the enemy would counter attack (i.e. new enemies would spawn outside the AO and advance on it). Defending was quite easy though, you had time to get ready and the enemy basically walked onto you bullets. I'd be in favour of this kind of thing if the enemy packed much more a punch though, like by shelling the AO and coming with air support. One thing I do miss is random enemy patrols roaming about the map. It made it feel less safe travelling around (a good thing). Again, Domination 2 included this type of side mission. In fact it had over forty different side missions. Most of the differences were superficial though, and the missions actually broke down into the following types: - destroy a static vehicle or building (sometimes within a time limit) - steal a vehicle and bring it back to base - assassinate an individual - kill a group of infantry and/or vehicles - get to and destroy something (or rescue someone) before the enemy gets there - free prisoners/arrest enemies and return them to base - capture the flag (you literally had to get passed a small force guarding a flag and return it to your base, seemed totally out of place!) - intercept and destroy a convoy Of course a couple of these are already in I&A, but few more would be good.

2.65a Joining as a member of Foxtrot (tried a few slots) seems to put you in as a spectator only.

It's a bit unclear how the new markers for players that need reviving work, and their appearance seems a bit erratic. Is it that you need line of sight to them now? And has the range you can see them at been reduced? Also are they supposed to always appear red now? (rather than the previous traffic light system which let you prioritise casualties) (although my completely unscientific, totally biased survey shows a massive upturn in people just hitting respawn anyway due to lack of feedback that someone is coming to help! )

In my experience, particularly concerning medics, I've found that responsiveness either in or out of squads is roughly the same, mostly they will come to help, provided they aren't too caught up in their own affairs. Some people in squads tend to be more squad focused and some people out of squads just ignore others, it probably roughly evens out. The problem as I see it is that squads concentrate people in a particular location. If you're not nearby, all those people in the squad are unavailable to help you. Now I'm not saying that concentrations of people don't occur naturally from time to time, but allowing squads to have two or three of a particular role guarantees it. Besides, from a gameplay point of view, if you need multiple medics or explosives specialists in your squad, you're probably not running it well enough

Personal preference is not really the point, there are so many key bindings in ArmA that overlaying more is never a good solution. So from a UI point of view, it should be avoided, especially when there's an easy alternative (in this case, an on screen control). Incidentally, I've been using the N key for in game chat for nearly twenty years, and my key bindings haven't really changed much since the start of flashpoint, so let's assume I'm not going to change it now

So this new respawn mechanism is still in there in 2.64, except with the respawn on players deactivated... Wasn't removing the indication to players whether there were any medics nearby already tried/unsuccessful/reverted? I don't see how it's a positive step for teamwork. Also the nightvision toggle is forcibly bound to the N key, which is pretty annoying to me since that's my chat key.

Well, firstly I wanted to make sure that there was a lack of limitations (and that I'm not just imagining things ) So, if that is the case, I would like to suggest that custom squads are restricted to a maximum of ten people and are only allowed one of each support role. I guess the problem is that if you choose a support role you are more likely to want a teamplay focused experience, so you're more likely to join a custom squad, but that can leave the other half of the people on the server twisting in the wind.

Are there any limitations imposed on custom squads? Do they have a maximum size, or restrictions on the roles they can contain? Apart from squads sometimes ignoring the other players on the server (which is pretty annoying but can't really be controlled) it sometimes seems like a couple of squads will absorb all the medics so the other players are left with no support. It could be a false impression, so, for example, would a squad be allowed to contain all the medics?

Hmm can't see a way to attach a file... anyway much easier to tidy units up directly in the code (modified from 2.63 mission.sqm)

Just had a short go on version 2.63 (before the server died) - has the respawn mechanism that's there now been left in by accident? There are several problems with it, but being able to respawn to any player's location makes me think it must be for testing purposes...? There would probably have to be an incentive for other players to listen to a commander. If he could do something like delivering supply drops or target artillery strikes then that would open up a dialogue. And if he can only do those things from a command centre in the base, it should prevent him ramboing around the map. Also does anyone actually make use of the personal UAV's? Perhaps that could be made unique feature to the commander, so he has an overview. Although he'd need to be able to tell it roughly where to position itself on the map and it would probably need unlinking from the radio tower objective to make it useful. Wishing that all criticism is contructive is going to be disappointing. It isn't something you want anyway, negative feedback can be just as useful.

The player slots seem have become a bit messed up. I know it's a little academic with some people using the squad manager but it's unnecessarily confusing to have echo squad in two parts and a member of charlie in bravo. Also does the platoon commander actually have any facilities to help him command? (trying to see the purpose of that slot) Isn't that how criticism is supposed to work?

I assumed that a feature like the mobile respawns from Domination had not been included in I&A was to stop the air transport element being side-lined. And I think that is a very good reason to limit it, but at the same time, something needs to be done to cope with the size of the map. My suggestion is to have limited, predefined FOB points on the map, which would first need to be captured, but could then be used as alternative spawn points. This would hopefully bring travel distances down to less than 10km in the majority of situations, but people would still need transport to AOs. I guess this would also mean that not all AOs were the same, with some having different objectives - a good thing Having the AOs progress in a sensible order would also help travel times, and I think that will become essential when more armoured units are in the game - driving around the map takes stupid amounts of time. It would be great to feel like we were actually invading and annexing the island, that progress was being made, that the war could eventually be won. I'd love to suggest special scenarios (like establishing a beachhead), but I think a key to Domination's success was it had relatively uniform gameplay across the span of the mission, allowing people to drop in and out without feeling like they'd missed much. I've just seen the latest version has a "teleport to teammate" option (although it currently doesn't seem to actually do it?) Please don't go down that route, death should have consequences in Arma. Teamplay will suffer if the importance of medics and pilots are reduced.

The newer virtual ammo box system is now used at spawn, but the HEMTT trucks still have the interaction for the old system (although nothing happens when you select it - I assume the code is gone). Update: Looks like this has been removed completely in the latest version.

This kind of thing always ends up feeling rough and untidy Arma due to the poor UI (you'd think after all these years they'd have employed someone with a clue). And it must be like a nasty barb wire fence to new players. Generally, overly complicated. If spectating is a popular feature, perhaps offer it as a secondary option when you go down. Personally I don't like the way it removes you from the action, it feels very false in a vaguely realistic game. I think the system used in Domination of clicking on a spawn point on the map was far clearer and easier to use, because it gave you a tactical overview of your options.

After a bit of playing on Altis, it's clear that the travel times are quickly going to become tedious. A fairly obvious thing to do is to implement some kind of FOB system to make the island more readily accessible. Personally I'd also like to see the AO's occur in a more logical fashion in a kind of campaign across the island. Not completely lacking randomness, but far less than is current. But perhaps this strays too far from the style of play that made Domination so popular. It would be damn cool to capture the various airports in order to set up FOBs and have side missions deep behind enemy lines though

Not sure if this is more of a VAS or I&A issue. I'm assuming this is a bug because I can't see a setting in the configs limiting the use of binoculars (plus it would be a pretty weird thing to prevent people using). Bug not present in 2.88, perhaps suggesting that it isn't due to new ArmA version. Description: Nothing happens when attempting to get binoculars from VAS. Binoculars loaded in saved equipment load outs are missing. Same problem also exists for laser designator.