vehicle rules

[xxXmsgt_jimbobXxx]

im sure that you guys have already thought about this, but i am curious. How is the vehicle system going to work? I mean is it going to be like it is in bf2 or wut. Because walking a maximum of about 5/12 km is a lot different than walking wut i might expect to be a minimum of 20km (<<hint to map size plz?). Are you guys going to use bases, and let us respawn at them with vehicles, are you going to use a similair method as warfare, or are you going to go like domination and just give us a crap load of vehicles to use? or r u gonna go a totaly different route because its not like you have to download pr anymore to even SEE servers running even if you cant play it, which means that we'll get a million a holes who go to the download screen, ignore all the rules and manuals and other goodies that are priorities with pr, and crash the only 4 blackhawks on the map within four minutes. just think about when it happens on barracuda and you get impassable ocean, except replace .75 km ocean with 10 km of desert. just a question.

[Psyrus]

Well the devs aren't taking suggestions at this point in time, and like you I'm sure they have ideas in place already, but on a personal basis I believe that an Evo style system where qualifications are required for heavy asset use is the best way to go in ARMA (since it's even more pub spamtastic than BF2 imo). Creating a need for the players to actually contribute to the team before having access to the 'toys' would spur on interest and separate the people coming in for a round of PR from those who are there to mess around with the new assets.

Persistent status on servers would be great (perhaps database administered) so that it meant you wouldn't have to start from scratch each time a round ended, but I think forcing new players to start as grunts and work their way into the community will give them a much better, holistic view of how the PR landscape and gameplay transpires. When someone jumps in BFPR and goes straight as a chopper pilot or tank gunner, they never [or hardly ever] experience the other aspects of the battlefield, which would not only give them a better understanding of how to operate in conjunction with infantry squads but also how to counter actions taken by enemy infantry squads, as they would now have first served as grunts on the front line, and know exactly how hard it is when you're being assaulted and call for armour support but it would rather go on a 10 minute flanking mission through B8 to try and get some easy kills.

[SocketMan]

We know what the map is (Afghanistan), and we know what the factions are (Taliban
and British Forces),we also know that the PR models (for the British Forces) from BF2 have been exported/imported into Arma2.Basically what the British have in BF2PR -they'll likely have in Arma2.The video (teaser) shows pretty much all of them.
Taliban in PR:A2 will probably have what they have in BF2:PR - which makes sense.
Other armies/factions are not in the initial release afaik so need to "worry" about it now.

[Lhowon]

Originally Posted by [R-COM]SocketMan

we also know that the PR models (for the British Forces) from BF2 have been exported/imported into Arma2.

I think the infantry are STALKER's from scratch (might be wrong), but I think you're right that the weapons and vehicles are imports from PR.

[Dev1200]

I'm pretty sure the system will be like PR:BF2. The ARMA2 engine is basically limitless. If you can think it up.. It'll happen.


Here's the confusing part however, unlike BF2, Where there are "maps" that have spawns and such, there's basically ""missions".

each mission has it's own weapon layout, vehicle layout, etc. Missions can be as big or small as the maker wants it to be.

IIRC, Servers download "Mission Layouts" from sources, where joining downloads the format so you can play. You have to download maps seperate. Since maps are so huge, there won't be many max-ed out maps (if they even exist.. lol). You can assume maps will be ~50 square KM, which is pretty good.

[l|Bubba|l]

Originally Posted by Dev1200

...

It's not that different in BF2.
The "Mission" in ArmA is the "Gamemode Layout" in BF2.
Each map can be played in a different gamemode (AAS,Insurgency,Skirmish,Scenario,Command & Control,Vehicle Warfare,Co-Operative,...) and each gamemode can be played in different layouts (vehicles,static objects,spawnpoints,alignment of gamemode elements,ambits,victory terms,...).
These "Gamemode Layouts" can be edited server sided and the client player doesn't have to download anything to get another layout.

[Blakeman]

Originally Posted by Psyrus

Well the devs aren't taking suggestions at this point in time, and like you I'm sure they have ideas in place already, but on a personal basis I believe that an Evo style system where qualifications are required for heavy asset use is the best way to go in ARMA (since it's even more pub spamtastic than BF2 imo). Creating a need for the players to actually contribute to the team before having access to the 'toys' would spur on interest and separate the people coming in for a round of PR from those who are there to mess around with the new assets.

Persistent status on servers would be great (perhaps database administered) so that it meant you wouldn't have to start from scratch each time a round ended, but I think forcing new players to start as grunts and work their way into the community will give them a much better, holistic view of how the PR landscape and gameplay transpires. When someone jumps in BFPR and goes straight as a chopper pilot or tank gunner, they never [or hardly ever] experience the other aspects of the battlefield, which would not only give them a better understanding of how to operate in conjunction with infantry squads but also how to counter actions taken by enemy infantry squads, as they would now have first served as grunts on the front line, and know exactly how hard it is when you're being assaulted and call for armour support but it would rather go on a 10 minute flanking mission through B8 to try and get some easy kills.

I actually disagree with this for exactly the same reason that BF2PR doesn't have any type of rank system. Rank systems tend to make folks think that since a player is an X rank then they can dictate the other players or in some way are better than someone who just started playing. We took off the rank system on the evolution server I used to help run because of the amount of hassle it was when there were few folks on.

What happens when one side has captains and the like that can access air assets and the other side is full of privates that cannot drive an apc? Yes you could force balance the sides but it creates a level of administration that isn't needed if you have admins on who kick those who aren't contributing to their teams goals. Just like how BF2PR is, a server admin can just boot the guy who logs in, hops in the A-10 and flies it into a mountain.

No need to make it ranked in my opinion and I hope that if the Devs do put in a rank system that it is able to be disabled by the server admins.

[browna3]

depends on the mission.

some missions will have vehicles that re spawn. others wont.
you have to pay each mission as they come.

As for getting missions, when you connect to a server, it checks your mission cache to see if you have the mission file. if not it downloads it.

(ALL Missions are stored on the Server, there is no master mission server. This means it's up to the server hosts to decide what missions you can play)

[xxXmsgt_jimbobXxx]

We know what the map is (Afghanistan), and we know what the factions are (Taliban
and British Forces),we also know that the PR models (for the British Forces) from BF2 have been exported/imported into Arma2.Basically what the British have in BF2PR -they'll likely have in Arma2.The video (teaser) shows pretty much all of them.
Taliban in PR:A2 will probably have what they have in BF2:PR - which makes sense.
Other armies/factions are not in the initial release afaik so need to "worry" about it now.

im pretty sure u didn't understand the question...

We know what the map is (Afghanistan)

i know that, i asked the size.

and we know what the factions are (Taliban
and British Forces),we also know that the PR models (for the British Forces) from BF2 have been exported/imported into Arma2.Basically what the British have in BF2PR -they'll likely have in Arma2.The video (teaser) shows pretty much all of them.
Taliban in PR:A2 will probably have what they have in BF2:PR - which makes sense.
Other armies/factions are not in the initial release

i already knew that, and therefoere didn't ask about it. I can read too.

I think that Evolution would be better. I actually dont mind a ranking system, just as long as i dont have to reset my stats everytime i play. I don't think that the whole superiority complex wouldn't be a big deal.

[Whisper]

Evolution type ranking would lead to balance issues pretty fast
Evolution is coop vs AI, balance is not a concern
PR is pure PvP, having possibly all toys on one side versus none on the other would be quite bad. Ranking is imho bad, it's a workaround that usually derives player from action non-rank related. Better balance a capacity (vehicle driving) with a limitation (bad weapons, whatever) i would find that more sensible