ansin11

What complaints do I have? I'm suggesting values I believe would be better and I explain why I think so.

kickTimeout[] = {{0, 30}, {1, 1}, {2, 120}, {3, 1}}; 0 - Sometimes you just need to kick a player from a slot he was failing to use properly, also, ban / timeout times should be determined by staff, not by a generic hardcoded value. 1 - Why prevent people who've lost connection from rejoining as fast as they can??? 2 - I'm assuming this only includes people who have been listed by BattlEye. 3 - Same as 1. The point is, unless I'm a regular, I won't bother waiting to join / rejoin a server that gives me an automated timeout for reasons I most likely have had no influence on. The main thing this creates is just systemChat spam and frustated players trying to figure out what they did wrong in order to deserve the very helpful error message "Due to how the server is set up...". Sounds like a good way to continually lose some (potential) server population. Apart from maybe 2, depending on what it actually is, I only see negative effects for EU#1 coming from using the current values.

Some of them are questionable; I joined the server, loaded the mission, Alt + Tabed out for a second, Arma became unresponsive as it sometimes does when I Alt + Tab from it, I killed it from the Task Manager, started it back up again aaaaaaaand couldn't connect to the server until five minutes had passed. What's the benefit of that? I don't know.

I hope you are planning on fixing the mess BI made there with their default values... Because those are just weird.

What's up with "Due to how the server is set up you can only join after 5 more minutes / after the mission restarts"?

I am well aware that one can rebind those keys, but you can't force people to fix their controls every time they want to play on a vanilla server. Like seriously, what kind of design philosophy is that? I don't know about the new control schemes, but for me, Page Up and Page Down change weapon zeroing. The onscreen compass is what I consider a tech demo. Disable the crosshair but add a UI compass? If pressing K is too much of an inconvenience for me and I want my HUD changed I'll download a mod. Disable it by default at least; making decisions for the user is, just like rebinding preoccupied keys, quite a dick move.

Pause / Break for ear plugs is fine for me, spotting should be placed on the same key as the player uses for the vanilla spotting / targeting and U for the menu thing is also fine as this just replaces the vanilla squad menu. I don't remember the other custom feature, so maybe that's one of the... tech demos. Also please allow players to not have any key assigned at all. I don't know if binding the custom spotting to the same key as targeting can be done without unwanted side effects, but that really is none of my problems.

Went in for 25 minutes. Gameplay felt good so far, I played on low server population though. I am impressed by the rework of the map, I like it. The additional hints are also nice; I'm not sure about the ping / spotting system yet. It's no secret I'm not a fan of many of the paths you chose to go with I & A 4. At all. So no offense. It's merely my personal opinion that I really don't like a reward point system for gear. It's also just personal preference that I absolutely detest the UI design choices that have been made. And it's also my own trouble that a few features feel like they are just tech demos to me (tech demos as in "Yes, this can be done in Arma, it's possible. Why we should use it we don't know, we just did it. Look, it even works!"). But an aspect you really should rework is rebinding keys, especially keys that are already in use (Page Up, Page Down). That's just insanely intrusive and horribly bad practice. Other than that, the mission works and I had fun shooting some OPFOR. A fine job well done gentlemen.

Lower the settings and your spikes should be gone

Also, 8 GB RAM.

@Ryko according to Arma 3 lore, Kavala used to be the capital city until Colonel Akhanteros and the AAF took over in 2026 and made Pyrgos the new capital.

Don't mind me, I was just trying to express how I feel about the situation. It doesn't necessarily make too much sense. It just doesn't feel and sound like the Invade & Annex I know anymore. What I forgot to mention in my original post is that I really like that one can now play a different faction than just NATO everytime. The downside here of course is that the gear is restricted to the current faction, but I think that's an appropriate tradeoff.

This is exactly my opinion on the matter as well. I really shouldn't be talking because I have never played I & A 4 further than the point at which I was first asked to select my role through an ingame custom menu. But what the hell. The point is that with I & A 4 you've merged Invade & Annex with a (reward) point system somewhat similar to that of other Arma 3 gamemodes (e.g. Exile, Life, KotH) and elements from EU#3 and the result appears to me like something that cannot convey the I & A spirit and feeling that I am used to. Over the years, Invade & Annex has developed its own sort of... culture, spirit, concept, way and character. When I connect to EU#1, I'm looking for that experience exclusive to, well, the AhoyWorld EU#1 server. It's easily accessible to all players, with only lightly restricted freedom and (thus) ordered chaos. Arma is a huge sandbox and I & A preserves some of that sandbox even during the live mission, especially with Zeus. On EU#1, you can do whatever you want. The only restrictions are the arsenal restrictions (to provide some basic form of sense and immersion) and the very loose rules designed to preserve that freedom to play any way you want to for all players equally. Like I said, it's a big sandbox. You can crashland your helicopter and suddenly half the server joins forces for a rescue effort against the evil Zeus. Unlikely, but entirely possible. Or you can just blow the bird up and respawn. Which is technically against the rules, but in more than 90% of cases nobody is going to care. That is the amazing and unique potential I & A offers. Something new, change and innovation are necessary and should not be stopped by people like me, but, in my opinion, some details of the I & A 4 concept seem more like proofs of concept, technical gimmick and showing what can be done. There sure are missions where all these things would be very cool, but as for Invade & Annex, I am afraid that these changes restrict the ease of access and the freedom I & A offers, even though they should actually only add to it. That's why I am not happy with what's being developed here and why I don't want to support it.

Nearly white text ?

I didn't choose the names, BIS did. The carrier is named USS Freedom and the Liberty class ships have the following selection of hull names (textures) available for their customization: Liberty (a3\boat_f_destroyer\destroyer_01\data\destroyer_01_tag_01_co.paa) Virtuous (a3\boat_f_destroyer\destroyer_01\data\destroyer_01_tag_02_co.paa) Constitution (a3\boat_f_destroyer\destroyer_01\data\destroyer_01_tag_03_co.paa) Valor (a3\boat_f_destroyer\destroyer_01\data\destroyer_01_tag_04_co.paa) Glory (a3\boat_f_destroyer\destroyer_01\data\destroyer_01_tag_05_co.paa) Democracy (a3\boat_f_destroyer\destroyer_01\data\destroyer_01_tag_06_co.paa) Micdonals (a3\boat_f_destroyer\destroyer_01\data\destroyer_01_tag_07_co.paa) The DDGs can have (almost) any three-digit hull number assigned and fly any flag texture from the game files, but unless you make your own texture, your ship can only have one of those names (or none). Long story short, my choice was limited ? I'm glad you like it though!

Since it would be very rude to ignore such a generous offer, here is the USS Democracy (DDG-136) launching a Venator cruise missile using its Mk41 Vertical Launch System. In the background: USS Liberty (DDG-131), typeship of the Liberty class, also launching a Venator, and DDG-137 USS Micdonals. Does this picture summarize my Arma 3 experience in 2018? Let's see... Was it created in the editor using only vanilla assets? - Does it use scripts? - Did it take a ridiculous amount of time? - (three hours) Will it never see the light of the Steam Workshop? - Did I enjoy this? - Yup, defenitely my Arma 3 experience.

Dust animation for vehicles I think. As Stan said, most are not our fault, plus, in my experience, script errors usually won't decrease performance in Arma missions unless they create an infinite loop or something of that kind.

A server activated trigger to call a script? Stan already hates you. Please extrapolate on how you integrated it ?

Isn't this how you like it @TheScar?

Well then just either delete or rename [...]\Functions\SeatRestrictions\fn_restrictedAircraftSeatsCheck.sqf or remove class restrictedAircraftSeatsCheck {}; from [...]\Functions\cfgfunctions.hpp and have a look where the now undefined function generates errors. Isn't this the obvious way to go when removing something?

The BIS_fnc_position error?

Because I & A is not a clean, organized enterprise project. We're not using version control and we ignore a lot of software engineering standards. We should probably change that. But then again I have no idea how they did it in I & A 4 and how far they are with it, so maybe we are doing it by now. As for AW_fnc_restrictedAircraftSeatsCheck, it (should) only be added to the two Event Handlers Stan already mentioned, so if you removed those two lines, you should be fine. Did you save your changes and restart the test run? The GetInMan and SeatSwitchedMan Event Handlers stick to their unit even after respawn.

The text colour is white.

Assigned or created?

Tiny I & A mission update is also planned on my side.