Thing is that we don't need it. Most of the time it can fit the entire population of the server. The only need i can see for it is for paradropping. And for that the xi'an infantry transport is in the rewards list. And it hardly ever gets used if it does spawn.
I can see why but i'd rather force people to work together by only giving them a limited amount of vehicles that can seat multiple people.
People shouldn't actually be able to talk in those channels but the command that does this is broken, meaning they can. It's however something i cannot fix, you'll have to bug BI about that.
Currently the, Gorgon and strider spawn with NATO camo. Hellcats spawn green instead of indep colours, kajman, orca, qilin, ... spawn black instead of CSAT camo. Unfortunately there are vehicle like the mora that simply don't have a NATO or black camo. It could be i missed a vehicle that has either a black or NATO camo, if so please let me know and i'll fix it.
Yes i've heard this a lot and i've already fixed that in the next update. Along with some other issues surrounding the current layout of the FOBs.
If i say discuss internally it's done in a chat group with 17 people in. Of which, to my knowledge, 6 are active developers , of which 2 work on I&A exclusively and the others help out with it as well. I am the most active on the development of I&A. This has it's ups and it's down. I can do things without having to worry about getting in someone's way. Downside i do take things personal.
Can i remind you that we have other things like MSO, gauntlet and stiletto that also need developers, meaning not every developer who voluntarily helps out AW works on I&A?
By the way those 17 people are not exclusively admins and core staff, there are also spartans in that chat and even regular members. So no if i say discuss internally i do actually discuss internally.
I try to keep changelogs brief and to the point. For starters because 99% of people doesn't even bother reading them, second the file in which the changelog is is already 580 lines. Thirdly most people that are interested in the actual numbers have the knowledge on how to dePBO the mission and look them up themselves.
If anyone who doesn't know how to do this wants those numbers put a reply in here or message me, i'll happily give them.
We'll discuss internally.
The reason we keep most of our things behind closed doors is because development takes time. If most people hear about an idea they like they want that now. They don't really care about how difficult it is or how much code you need to write.
Keeping stuff behind closed doors means that we can freely brainstorm and come up with insane ideas that are never going to happen because we settled down for a less insane one. If we'd do this out in the open people'd get pretty pissed at us for getting them hyped about something that will not happen.
Finding a middle ground is hard.
It's currently a working thing, it's not broken. So why not? I don't see how it's confusing, it has a briefing telling you what to do.
The idea was that players would appreciate the diversity. Same goes for the other non-NATO assets in there.
We didn't swap anything. We started with a blank sheet and filled in all new assets for FOBs. This because certain FOBs were lacking in firepower while others had too much.
Tales reacted to Stanhope in What are the little things that annoy you?