Re: where is every one

**Atomic Dog** · 12-12-2007, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by GinSoakedBoy

Why not upload the Virtual Training Space mission that has been discussed here. It allows for near infinite variations for almost any number of players.

Originally Posted by TheBigC

I just tried a couple of the downloads, so I can add it to the server. I cannot get a complete set of files because some of them are corrupted it seems like. As soon as I can get the proper files, I will upload it so we can take it for a spin.....

I imagine C hasn't found the proper files for the mission.

**mingmong** · 12-12-2007, 03:22 PM

Heh, where to start.

Originally Posted by Gillespie

The typical ArmA COOP experience is static, does not change, usually requires a specific number of players to be fully realized, and pits the player against robotic AI that show limited tactical awareness and react the same way each time. Same base map, same terrain, same experience, same decisions each time as to how to tackle the mission (given that most missions are on-the-rails experiences that play out the same way each time).

I've been playing a different game. The average coop I've played (with shacktac) over the last, say, month or so, has been the polar opposite. Truerange and Guard has made the AI a formidable opponent that has wiped out the shacktac platoon on several occasions. The base map you're talking about is huge. There is no shortage of good new places to base missions, and I'm still discovering them. How big an emphasis do you feel the terrain is? The experiences and decisions made are completely and utterly variable - any issue with that is an issue with your leadership on the mission, and even doing exactly the same thing on two missions is likely to produce different results.
A lot of the problems you've raised are down to simply shoddy players and level design, nothing to do with the game itself.

Originally Posted by Gillespie

It's a limited experience, and many players are simply bored of the core game itself, not of anything we offer here at TG (or what anywhere else offers). That's the only way to explain the loss of players across the multiplayer community as a whole.

The game population is declining, just like all others. It happens at different rates depending on the game, but it's inevitable. However, I think it would be ridiculous to claim that the decline in population at TG is proportional to that in the game as a whole. It's just not true. Not to mention the fact that Shacktac is actually growing, and many members (hell, myself) are previous TG ArmA players. Frankly, the limited experience has more to do with TG than ArmA.

Originally Posted by Gillespie

There will be pockets of humanity left, such as here at TG or at SimHQ or at ShackTac. We'll just hold on and keep our heads above the water until the sequel is released.

At which point I'll be able to be cautiously optimistic until Evo 2 comes out and all this happens again?

**VegaBond** · 12-12-2007, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by mingmong

At which point I'll be able to be cautiously optimistic until Evo 2 comes out and all this happens again?

I pray every night with my children that will never happen

**KoopaTroopa** · 12-12-2007, 03:41 PM

The multiplayer community as a whole (that means all servers combined) has declined, yes.

The game experiences in most missions are linear, yes. When you are inserted into a valley and instructed to flow north and attack a town... your command decisions are limited into a funnel experience.

The terrain of Sahrani is limited, yes. You have the quasi-tropical/desert terrain in the south. North Sahrani is a European forest. There's no swamp, there's no winter/fall seasonal change. The island - as a whole - is static in terms of presentation. Combine this with the AI, which is predictable and usually only puts up a fight if you give them unrealistic accuracy... However, this AI mod you discuss - if it makes the AI react like human opponents, then that's awesome. It was always dull to pop the robot AI and be able to watch them flail about without rhyme or reason.

Also... if ShackTac is growing into an army of epic proportions, then all power to them. Where in my post did you get the impression that I was somehow smearing their honor? It's always the same knee-jerk "WE'RE AWESOME!" reaction... nowhere did I insinuate that ShackTac wasn't a cool place to be.

Perhaps stickyjeans has made me paranoid.

**KoopaTroopa** · 12-12-2007, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by VegaBond

I pray every night with my children that will never happen

C'mon... you know it will.

**mingmong** · 12-12-2007, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Gillespie

The multiplayer community as a whole (that means all servers combined) has declined, yes.

The game experiences in most missions are linear, yes. When you are inserted into a valley and instructed to flow north and attack a town... your command decisions are limited into a funnel experience.

Well, on a mission like that, what do you do? Do you take the high ground? Enemy reinforcements? Do you have armor? Do they have armor? Do you have air assets? Do they have air assets? What about anti-air, anti-armor? Are the approaches mined? Can you flank the town? Are there civilians?
There's a huge amount of variety available. As I said before, viewing missions as linear is a fault either with the mission designer or the players themselves. ArmA by itself does not engender linear missions - if anything it does the opposite.

Originally Posted by Gillespie

The terrain of Sahrani is limited, yes. You have the quasi-tropical/desert terrain in the south. North Sahrani is a European forest. There's no swamp, there's no winter/fall seasonal change. The island - as a whole - is static in terms of presentation. Combine this with the AI, which is predictable and usually only puts up a fight if you give them unrealistic accuracy... However, this AI mod you discuss - if it makes the AI react like human opponents, then that's awesome. It was always dull to pop the robot AI and be able to watch them flail about without rhyme or reason.

Terrain has an affect on actual gameplay, but not to the extent you seem to be giving it. ArmA presently has desert, scrub, woodland, forest, beaches, mountains, valleys, and plateaus. It has a huge variety.
With regards to the AI, Truerange affects the enemy's ability to spot you, and their engagement range is yanked up considerably. Combined with Guard waypoints it makes for some damned interesting firefights.

Originally Posted by Gillespie

Also... if ShackTac is growing into an army of epic proportions, then all power to them. Where in my post did you get the impression that I was somehow smearing their honor? It's always the same knee-jerk "WE'RE AWESOME!" reaction... nowhere did I insinuate that ShackTac wasn't a cool place to be.

Perhaps stickyjeans has made me paranoid.

I don't really see how relevant this is to the discussion at hand, nor where exactly it came from - I mentioned Shacktac several times in my post because that's where the greater part of my experience is, as well as being a relevant comparison to tactical gamer. I also don't know what you're referring to with stickyjeans.

**KoopaTroopa** · 12-12-2007, 03:53 PM

Nothing, just thinking out loud. I was just afraid I had inadvertently steered the thread into tiresome territory.

You mentioned TrueRange increasing engagement range... at what approximate range do the AI react to your presence? If they're attempting to place accurate fire upon you with the AK-74 beyond 300 meters, then bleh. If they're manuevering into a decent engagement range before really laying down the rounds, then... awesome.

**mingmong** · 12-12-2007, 04:07 PM

AI spotting ability
----------------------
AI spotting ability is determined by ViewDistance, Skill, Time of day, NVG’s, Magnified optics, Movement speed, and Stance.

The speed at which you move and your stance is very important. Jogging/Sprinting makes you much more likely to be spotted by AI at longer distances. The difference between Jogging/Sprinting and Walking in spotting ability can be 200-300m. Crawling is even more effective and can even get you 200-300m closer to a target. Snipers and Saboteurs can also get slightly closer then typical Rifleman before being spotted.

AI identification ability
----------------------
AI will see “Unknown” at very far ranges and “Man” at medium-far ranges. The only way AI will accurately identify a specific unit is to get close enough (250-300m) or use some type of magnified optic. AI do share information, so if one guy in a squad sees you, everyone gets notified. Bullets can start to fly even if they haven’t fully identified you. If they take fire, they will return fire even if you are still considered a “Man”, not “Rifleman”. For instance, you could be in a firefight at 500m and every EI or most EI in a squad might still be showing up as “Man”. They will only be specifically identified when you get close enough to see for yourself or friendly AI sees and passes the information to you.

In general, at 250-300m all bets are off (250m is really pushing it). If you have a clear shot at 250+ meters, engage at that range, because around that distance AI can spot and identify you quite easily.

AI engagement ranges
----------------------
All weapon ranges are as realistic as possible. I found all information online, so there might be a few things that are slightly inaccurate, but overall everything is realistic. AI with normal assault rifles will engage up to 600m (Effective ranges are usually around 500m for most rifles, but I increased all by 100m, because we will constantly engage targets at 500+ meters away. This makes things even between us and the AI. Otherwise AI would be prone, looking at you, and doing nothing while you unload round after round. We would be returning fire in that situation). At this range they are very inaccurate and it serves more as suppressive fire. This is not an effective range to hit a target, so AI will move up slowly to get to a closer position to make an easier kill. Machine gunners will engage up to 1000m and snipers will engage up to 1000-1300 depending on the rifle. Mounted machine gunners will also engage at very far ranges (usually less, but sometimes 1000+ meters). UH60 and Mi17 gunners will also engage at farther ranges.

Also, keep in mind that it is not only machine gunners who will engage unarmored choppers, but now also infantry with small arms when flying at low-medium speed. AT soldiers will also engage if flying at a hover-low speed, so be careful!

That's a snippet from the manual.

**Magnum50** · 12-12-2007, 04:18 PM

"Can't we just get along"... lol

TG and ST are both great, fantastic gaming groups... each with there own style, vision, objectives, and so on and so on...

But to get back on topic...and discuss why some are not showing up for gaming...since my days here at TG are numbered and I can freely speak up, lol...

Tactical Gamers Armed Assault servers, and IMO the other gameplay servers like CoD4 and BF, are trying to please everyone...trying to find a happy medium, and it ain't working folks...

There is the old school TG, hardcore group that prefer all our game servers to be exclusive to SM's, be ran with strict enough rules to be very tactical and very teamwork orinetated... kind of like it was when I first join just a few years ago...

Then there is the new school, all about me, don't be so hardcore, don't be so disciplined, don't hurt anyones feelings... just let us run around and game. (can you tell which one I prefer by my comments? lol)...

Both groups are fine... but not made to play nice together... IMO TG needs to decide if they want a bigger market, a bigger group, and more money coming in, with multiple servers for each game... or to put the tactical back in Tactical Gamer... only one server per game, played as the game was designed... with tactics and teamwork... yes the membership will decline, money will decline, but you'll have a smaller more dedicated group (like it was 5 years ago)...

As long as TG keeps trying to please everyone, there will be friction, problems, some will come (the BF crowd), and some will leave (the hardcore crowd)...

Personally, I loved TG for many years, a shining example of what a tactical gaming group really is, and met a number of really great people... but ever since BF2 was released it started changing... I wasn't going to renew my membership last July till I saw GRAW2 and ArmA taking off, and then thought...well maybe one more year... well July 08 I wont be renewing, I don't play here enough anymore... and IMO the BF action group has become the standard...

To me, and no offense, just being honest and laying it out there... It's no longer Tactical Gamer, but Action Gamer.... and your breaking my heart anicane! lol

**Taxi** · 12-12-2007, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Magnum50

Both groups are fine... but not made to play nice together... IMO TG needs to decide if they want a bigger market, a bigger group, and more money coming in, with multiple servers for each game... or to put the tactical back in Tactical Gamer... only one server per game, played as the game was designed... with tactics and teamwork... yes the membership will decline, money will decline, but you'll have a smaller more dedicated group (like it was 5 years ago)...

As long as TG keeps trying to please everyone, there will be friction, problems, some will come (the BF crowd), and some will leave (the hardcore crowd)...

I agree with most of what you said, however I feel the diversity TG offers is great. People having bought COD for instance and after a while of playing COD tactically at TG feel they want to step up the realism and teamwork, can evolve to playing a more "hardcore" sim like ArmA in a more "hardcore" way and there you have it a brand new "hardcore" tactical player.

So I don't think the diversity is bad, I think it's great. However I think to keep the "hardcore" tactical gamer on board you need to offer the diversity BETWEEN games in stead of INSIDE each game, especially at the sim end of the spectrum. So as mentioned, not several ArmA servers for several game styles, if you play ArmA you play "hardcore" if you want it more casual, play a more casual game (all possible within TG). Keep the "hardcore" games like ArmA "hardcore" and play the less more casual games tactical as well, but not as extreme.

That way you don't loose the "hardcore" players and justifiably call yourself tactical gamer, but at the same time you cater for a bigger market/group when there is also place for people new to war gaming, people who like to play somewhat more casual or a "hardcore" gamer who just wants to have a bit more casual gaming from time to time. I don't think it's mutually exclusive.

**GinSoakedBoy** · 12-12-2007, 08:34 PM

I agree, Tactical Gamer should be about tactical gaming (yes it's just the name repeated) not just run and gun. Also, I still don't see exactly why we have the Sahrani Life mod, it's completely against the tactical nature of TG, if people wanna mess about running each other over, I'm sure there are plenty of servers free to do that on.

**NoDebate** · 12-13-2007, 11:39 AM

I moved over to the IC-ArmA and ATOW tournaments. Good fun so far. While IC-ArmA has a very definite group and less TG players, I did see some TGers over at ATOW. For those of you who don't know what ATOW is, it's an independently run tournament known as ArmA Theater of War, where two armies chalked full of real players duke it out over objectives on the island of Sahrani. The tournament is new and is quickly growing with an active playerbase on both sides. Currently I am on the Russian side attempting to join either the Spetznaz Unit or form of a Jet Squadron. There is a required 201 MB addon pack download which reskins the units and vehicles, updates sounds, and adds various scripts. Just queue it overnight if you hate downloading things. It'd be nice to see some of the guys that are left here hurry on over for some ArmA.

**GinSoakedBoy** · 12-13-2007, 12:39 PM

I joined that last week, the battle was good. I'm on the Russians also, I really wanna do some recon or sniping, how do you get into Spetznaz?

What's IC-ArmA?

**Taxi** · 12-13-2007, 05:10 PM

Just an idea, I know it's obviously not my call or anything, but would it be an idea to make a fresh start for ArmA with 1.09? So I'm not saying install 1.09 continue the same way and all is well. I mean if it was to be decided to turn ArmA game play in a more "hardcore" experience, look into what would be needed to get the "hardcore" players back and implement it thoroughly and use the momentum of a new start with the installation of 1.09?

**Evil Koala** · 12-15-2007, 06:27 PM

I've been taking a break from ArmA since last September. After playing it for a year non-stop, it just lost its luster to me. I still read the forums pretty regularly, checking for possible new updates that might get me interested again, but I havent found any. And like Taxi, I really enjoy TvT more than anything else, which is why I'm a member of ShackTac. But thats only half of the picture.

I guess the gameplay I'm really looking for is possible in ArmA, but isnt popular. I really want the ShackTac style of organization and teamwork, combined with a WWII Online style campaign. I really enjoy playing supporting roles such as transport pilot. But such roles are not needed in the scope of ShackTac missions.

Then on the other side of the coin, there's TG. TG plays campaign style missions and allows me to play the roles I enjoy, but lacks the organization and teamwork (and TvT!) that ShackTac offers.

So I've been playing flight and naval sims until a mod or ArmA 2 peaks my interest again. I will certainly return. The community here and over at ShackTac are great, and I love playing with both.

Thread Tools

Display