ParabolicAJB

...submitted via the new forms? I've submitted a few and have no idea what, if anything has happened with them. What about the ideas others have submitted, are they published, so we know not to raise them again? Thanks, Alex.

xSniper1982, I didn't think you were a villain, I just disagreed with you trying to exclude others from the discussion (even after moderators got involved) and a lot of the statements you made, e.g. describing others opinions on your idea as 'toxic' if they weren't in support. I'm glad you've had a useful discussion, perhaps this was long overdue.

Earlier I posted that perhaps everyone should re-read their own posts to reflect on what they are saying and how it's being interpreted, this suggests to me that you haven't yet done that and your statement is quite plainly untrue (also ironic). As long as it's not offencive or malicious, I don't think there is a problem with it. If your opinion or point is well measured and based on observations/facts, then it would be welcomed, no matter how much you think others may disagree. Given the earlier posts regarding inclusion of ALL the community, I don't think this is an appropriate attitude.I support the idea of a game night with less mods to see how well subscribed such a proposal is, but I feel there is a lot of misinformation (or lack of information) on a few things including how EU#3 actually works (if you haven't played on it then it would be difficult to know), and also how some of the mods impact the game, e.g. ACRE. A game night might help, or perhaps those making or supporting the proposal could do some research and make some informed contributions (e.g. like Gripe has) - this would go a long way to solidifying the proposal and building up more support.

I've re-read this a few times and there is a lot I could reply to however I'm going to suggest that everyone who has posted in this thread re-reads their own posts. There's a lot of contradictions, especially from those trying to exclude others from voicing their opinions, but then stating there is a divide in the community. I am thankful the moderators have dealt with this. What is also clear to me is that the original post doesn't accurately describe what is being requested, and to that end others can only reply to what's written, so please be clear and concise when writing your opinion, as ambiguity will lead to less focused discussion. In summary, my interpretation is that the request is actually for a slim-modded I&A server, NOT a 'stepping stone' to EU#3 as inferred. Either way, I still think that many players from EU1/2 who want more from Arma would get it from EU#3 if thy gave it a chance (by admissions many have not yet tried it), yes it would involve an initial push of effort, however the rewards are definately worth it, and there are many players willing to help those who are willing to help themselves.

I think everyone agrees with aiming for stability, that goes without saying. This kind of improvement is a necessity to the kind of experience EU#3 is trying to provide, so would be good if it was next on the hit list. Just to add, when testing, this seemed to work very well with the EU#3 modset, at least up to the point of a handful of players and with Kieran hosting. Further testing would of course be required.

Let's not forget the Training sessions. Giddy - have you taken advantage of these sessions?

I have to say I do not agree with this idea. I played the original OpFlash and Arma many years ago, missed Arma 2 and got Arma 3 only 6months ago. I played EU1/2 for a few weeks whilst reading up on the rules and many helpful forum posts of information for EU3 - I got along just fine and now play regularly on EU3 without breaking the rules. In short, I feel that your idea is a 'get out' from actually learning the rules and play styles for EU#3.

My my experience of playing EU3 and the test missions with this mod, it changes the flow of the game dramatically for all the right reasons. It does need to be harder, because my most fun times have been whilst up against it and actually losing, as highlighted above, the buzz and the thrill is great. When was the last time you got flanked on Zargabad? Probably never short of an AI accidentally wandering past your building. When I was involved in the testing, we started strong but soon got owned by the AI, not because they have 1337 reaction times or aims, but they used superior tactics, e.g. We stayed in the same position for too long, and they punished us for it. This in itself would be great for gameplay to force us to up the ante with our tactics (both strategic and 'of the moment' in the heat of battle. When I played the Gamenight last week without the AI mod, even though I wasn't in the action, I was listening on the radio and could tell it was no where near as intense as it would have been. This in my opinion is a must have.

I support consistent numbering.

I don't disagree, but I would much rather 1 or 2 pilots are 'bored' at base or flying recon that have all of Alpha and more bored in an AO because it got nuked by an Apache. That kind of shit is for BF4. As has been said previously, if players play for each other, you will always be considering the enjoyment of your comrades amongst your own, but this doesn't mean a small group of players (Pilots/HAT/MAT/Special Sqwuad) should have their 'needs' prioritised over others. IMO this game is about infantry, the vehicles are peripherals and have their place but first and foremost it's about infantry and team work.

If 1 is OK, what about 2? If 2 is OK, what about 3? If 3 is OK,what about 4?......... we don't need a rule which says "9 players per pilot, unless you are one short then 8is OK". Admins can use discretion. Ps. Is this thread still going and is Zak still here??

Add side chat, warn/kick/ban for those using it to chat for any other means than to contact an admin or report a bug/issue, e.g. •"Do you like my beard?" = warn/kick/ban. •"The AO is bugged" / "There's a rifleman with sniper rifle and javelin lone-wolfing in the AO = proper use.

Been looking forward to this, testing was awesome. Please can anyone signing up to EOD or Medic please make sure they fully understand how to use and apply their respective skills efficiently.

I regularly see people trying to slot as Talon just to get in an attack chopper regardless of how many players are on or more importantly if CMD has approved it. I like Plant1ng's suggestion, as this could help mitigate the issue of CAS pilots ignoring transport requests for more pew pew in the AO. It would also funnel the use of CAS to higher player counts as JTAC can only be used with a PlatCo. I would also add that I feel a similar setup is needed for Hammer/Torch. It's no fun being infantry when there are lots of heavy assets in the AO with low discipline. I think Amentes raised a good point about AT, but it's an issue that needs to be addressed directly rather than allowing CAS to cover a gap left because infantry are neglecting their duties. Regards, Alex. PS. By 'CAS' I was excluding the AH6 (which can carry two passengers) as this can be used effectively with lower player counts ferrying between base and AO.

It's easy to generalise and such about things but consider this:- Sometimes it's polite to ask, sometimes it's obligatory, but sometimes asking everyone what they want isn't for the better.

any two-seater jets? I can't fly very well but could co-pilot.

It's a Harrier.

Threads/posts like this are not constructive, never have been and never will be. They don't affect change - they only serve to entrench people's opinions, no matter how 'right' or 'wrong'.

As much as I understand why you/others want to keep a mod you like, there is something absurd about investing time and effort to re-mod an old mod which is no longer supported, when you could have equally offered support to a currently developing mod to make that better and potential exceed the value of TRYK. If we (as a community) support a new/currently developing mod by using it on the server and even offer time/effort to assist in it's development, this would yield far better results in the longer-term and offer the mod makers an motivation and incentive to keep developing it.

Whilst I agree the RHS stuff has better appearance etc. I am very much in favour of a greater level of standardisation than we had previously, if this means a short-term compromise for a longer-term gain I am in support, however at the moment I (and I am guessing many others) don't have any assurance of the length of the wait or size of the gain - which is the cause of this anxiety!

I would also suggest checking your key binds for TS and Arma3, make sure they are not the same and also recommend setting them to default (Arma = CapsLock) to troubleshoot.

Only thing to apologise for is the lack of punctuation

I bought Squad and only have a few hours in-game, however those few hours playing with a proper squad were great fun. As we all know, the game is still Alpha and as such players will have slightly differing experiences as it stabilises. When we're joined the AW servers, they seem to fill up in about 10-15mins so there are a lot of players out there looking for decent servers. Give it time and the game will mature further and interest will gain, fact of the matter is there are also a lot of other games competing for our attention at present. I am looking forward to the next Squad Game Night though.

'Bad Leadership' - This isn't a dig at how good people are at leading, I do not choose Commander/Squad Lead as I recognise I would not be good enough to ensure things run smoothly and everyone has a good experience, but that is my point. Lately, there have been many different players taking the leadership roles which has detrimented the gaming experience for others. This goes beyond cutting someone some slack, this is players who are plainly not experienced enough or don't have the right attitude. 'Time Wasting' - This could be caused in part by the above issue, but the crux of the issue is unecessary time spent idling at base whilst other players are not focussed on getting ready and getting the AO/mission underway. This goes beyond the reasonable time needed for command to make a plan and get the pieces in the right place. This is caused by a casual attitude at the wrong time. There is time for a laugh and a joke, it's needed, however lately I've noticed my experience and that of others heavily detracted by this behaviour. Regards, Alex.

I agree with Pancake. Regarding the parachute, after a while of looking it was on a hill beside command. When we were ordered to clear a village, we were taking fire from behind us and had to turn our backs to follow the order - main issue was command/SL should have taken heed of that and adapted the plan. In both situations, a bit more communication would have meant a smoother experience. I appreciate commanding can be difficult, but it's harder to enjoy the game when you're receiving orders in that situation. I think a pre-set plan which can serve as the backbone is a good idea. Again, thanks for hosting.