WinterMute

It's being tested internally at the moment to make sure it's ready for primetime

Would it be possible to buff enemy AA abilities when the ratio of pilots:infantry gets too high?
 
Either increasing the rate of "Anti-Air (Goalkeeper)" objectives, or spawning a few more AA-infantry/static launchers?
 
It sounds like you don't want to neuter the abilities of Talon etc... but it could encourage them to work with infantry, if they are unable to knock out an AO without significant risk to their (limited availability, iirc?) jet.

Unfortunately I have to put this into the "blame Bohemia" category, as that's how they've decided to engineer the holdAction. Technically, I think as long as you're pressing space bar on the "holdAction" you shouldn't trigger any other actions (you'd have to stop reviving, and then hit another action). At least, that's how it's supposed to work.
 
I should add smoke arty shells as a purchasable reward.

As I said earlier, shelldrake is a very very minor issue in the problem of people firing without being called in.  The incompetent players can't even get a mortar set up, the competent players usually know the rules.  Which only leaves very few players that can both get their mortar set up and don't know the rules.  And it doesn't take long before one of the regulars will be explaining to that mortar guy that he can't do that.
And if it doesn't give any points, we could just add that to the role description and allow people to chose whether or not they want to play as shelldrake. 

105th | John Cuttler,
 
I do really find it despicable how you can come here and claim that what you said was an accident. To show you yourself I will let the logs speak for themselves.
 
The fact that you had the audacity to verbally harass two admins, myself and Lindi, and then to come here and say that what did was entirely an accident doesn't really seem to make yourself very truthful, let alone even warranting a second chance. The Rules are clear cut, and you violated the following;
 
On that Note,
 
Ban Appeal Unsuccsesful

Yup, tracked the bug and it's fixed in 056
Not sure what this means as you are determined to be engaging an AO when you are 1000m away from the center of the AO "balloon"
Balance conversation, which we had in spades on server
Yep, looking into that
Just because they were dull for you doesn't mean they were dull for other players participating in them, again, balance. As well, just because the AO completed doesn't mean all the OPFOR disappear, some still remain and they are moving to the next AO.
 
Each AO is going to be slightly different, with between 0-3 sub objectives (which add additional forces).
If you're outside the engagement distance (1000m from center) you won't be considered as participating. This is arbitrary and cruel but it's the only way I have available. You still get points for kills regardless.  As well, you get 25% of the reward per minute (or it could be 30 second, can't remember) you are in the AO, and lose same every cycle you are outside of the AO. So if the AO completes the second after you respawned, you'll still get some level of credit.
Fixed in 056
 
Enemies do spawn in houses, they leave garrison when they're shot at so they don't sit there for target practice.
 
One thing I've noticed that's not playing as intended is that Gambler and Hitman are taking and one-manning multiple vehicles per squad, restricting it to a single vehicle per squad should help cut down on the amount of assets that engage the AO.
 
In our exchange on server today, you suggested that I don't play the mission, and that while I'm coding the mission I don't have a feel for how to create a mission that plays well. I reacted strongly to that ("You can make your own mission") mostly because there's an implicit assumption that making missions is easy. It's not, because it's not just about the code, it's about finding solutions to problems raised by players.  You suggested that there are too many assets in the AO, making it unfun for regular infantry, which is a legitimate concern, but if I just restrict the vehicles used by players then it becomes overly difficult to complete the AOs as presented. If I reduce the enemy vehicles to make it easier for friendly infantry to complete the AOs, now the AOs are too easy to complete.  It's a dog chasing its own tail, and the only way to find the right balance is to tweak it slightly with every revision.
 
I don't claim to have all the answers, nor do I claim to be an expert in making missions. I have had a bit of experience, I'm trying my best here, and I'm also trying to incorporate everyone's suggestions and criticisms (yours included) in order to make a balanced mission everyone can enjoy. There are going to have to be compromises to get to that point, it's not going to be perfect, but my hope is that everyone can live with the final product.

Hello everyone, Badger here. After eyeing Arma 3 for literally years but not making the move to engage I stumbled upon the Steam Sale about 48 minutes before it ended. And boy am I glad I got it. So i fired it up, did some bootcamping and when I felt less than ready i jumped into the server browser, hit coop and there it was, shining on the top. EU#1.

I've been playing for a few days now and i am enjoying it a lot, especially the friendly, calm & helpful community. It reminds of older times in gaming when servers still where in the hands of players and you would see familiar faces when committing to one. Thank you for this & bear with me while I slowly expand my knowledge about this gem of a game.

See y'all on the Island.

So we had a great staff discussion on CAS vehicles in I&A yesterday, thanks to all who participated in that.  We have some ideas on future directions.
 
First though, a couple of points.
1) Staff policing the mis-steps taken by CAS is a sizeable amount of what EU1 admins do (essentially, reminding players that they need to be called in, that they can't go weapons-free on an AO, etc).
2) A general concensus that this is a fluid issue that's not going to be solved through code.
 
With this in mind, my suggestion in terms of how to proceed is looking like this:
 
A ) Split out the anti-air planes (Black Wasp for NATO, Shikra for CSAT, Griffon for AAF) into their own asset group (Talon?).
Rationale:
1) Right now there is only one role in a 64-person server that's eligible to fly planes, and there is a wait for that role.  Especially as the role has access to two planes (if you die in the Wipeout, nothing to stop you from just up and flying the Black Wasp).
2) Plane respawn timer should act as a disincentive to stay in the role, rather, should cycle the player out into a new group unless a new vehicle is purchased with reward points.
3) Enemy air is now a frequent threat, having a dedicated CAP resource is probably a good thing as players are not flocking to the rifleman anti-air slot.
 
B ) Add confirmation boxes when taking non-infantry roles.
Method: when you attempt to take a slot like Vortex, Viper, Reaper, you are presented with a series of informational confirmation boxes you have to click on.
Rationale:
1) Presents the players with the server rules, so they understand what they are getting into. For example, present them with confirmations that they must wait requests for CAS support, that they can't attack unrequested targets.
2) Means that when staff warns / kicks players for abusing CAS, there is no defence that they didn't know server rules.
3) Yes, players can just click-click-click through the boxes, but having them there might actually educate players.
 
Regarding other suggestions made in this thread:
* Application systems for slots: the problem with this approach is that Ahoyworld's philosophy towards joining our servers is that all slots should be available for all players without restriction, so an application system works against this.
* Reward points for role - kind of smells a bit like whitelisting, plus there are ways to game the system (begging for donations) that don't actually solve the problem. Plus it would probably mean you have to play in a role you don't like before playing in a role you do, which is also against the philosophy.
 
Not finalized yet though, please discuss.

Long term conceptual plan is to create a RHS / TFAR / ACE version of IA4 which can run on EU3.

welcome to the community.
 
i am really happy to see you around i been playing with you in your first day and you was really kind and funny guy around. i will be great if i catch up and play with you again..
 
Pfc.Mcmilan
 

Midnight Runner has been helping alot of NEW PLAYERS learn how to play the game and in my personal opinion was very helpful and patient. Good job and keep up the awesome work Midnight!

I got bored of watching terrible Blackfish pilots, so thought I'd make a quick video (including mistakes) of how to fly it on the server...
 

Poked my head into I&A EU1 today (as "William" - I may need to find a more distinctive name!). Never played Arma 3 MP (other than Apex with 1 other person) so wasn't really set up to communicate particularly well, so I ducked out before I could make a mess of things! But in that short time I was pretty impressed with the setup, and then the gameplay rules (on this site) made sense to me as well, so I registered an account!
 
Hope to be back on in some sort of useful capacity soon. Best if you leave me a total grunt slot for now, I'm still learning the ropes!

Having spent a few hours headset-less trying to communicate with just one other person in Apex, I've come to appreciate the value of being able to talk! And I'll probably jump on this evening and see how things go.