Arma 3: Liberation Tactical Realism 2 Feedback Thread - CLOSED

[Sweetwater.I]

its a bit complicated, cause there is Technically multiple groups, like the core functionality of groups is modified by ACE/GRUEH scripts by adding an additional array layer on top of it that nested to add more "flexibility" to how the groups work, same way Shactac/DUI can assign colors based on a Join in progress array so it (keeps the colors) of a specific team/group despite a jip player reslotting in that group mid-session.

I can add a script that removes the ace_interact for groups, but thats not the only way to add someone to a group. I'm also not sure if the array is pulling joins from other groups during JIP as well, such as the default element lead (Alpha SL) decides to join as a member of another group as a trooper, then those that are on the mission init set as a subordinate in the group are now joined into the subgroup the SL joined after the fact...etc.

Weird thing is, I'm pretty sure at the beginning I removed the ace_interaction for adding groups as well as the scrollwheel option.... and then at that point, people still had problems and didn't like it / we still had weird issues with people in wrong groups.

 

[Liber.N]

Maco.D This has always been the case for Tac2, its just the dynamic of a public server.

Instead of throwing limitations I think we should adapt the mission to how the players play it.
In the end of the day being uncon/dead/down is not fun, it kills momentum and will trigger many players to quit.

Tac2 can't be 1:1 like Cav ops, its just never going to work, the dynamic is just different.
Players like being able to heal, players like being able to switch groups when there is a need to it in the field, people leave and join all the time and sometimes reorg is required.

Due to current Tac2 dynamic I plan to add 2 medic slots per infantry squad, and possibly dismantle Atlas-1 if needed.

This may sound controversial or outrageous, but FUN factor is important, if nobody is having fun you end up with an empty server.

 

[Maco.D]

Might as well get rid of all the slots. Just have one big list of single groups and people just shack on to each other in that case. It's always "suit how they play" why can't we force more organized gameplay. When we try to suit to every type of people. We push away the type of people that we actually want

 

[Maco.D]

The dynamic of "our" server

 

[Liber.N]

Might as well get rid of all the slots. Just have one big list of single groups and people just shack on to each other in that case. It's always "suit how they play" why can't we force more organized gameplay. When we try to suit to every type of people. We push away the type of people that we actually want

That would be silly, slots exist because they have a purpose.

The issue of people shacking is an Atlas issue for the most part. Infantry squads require medics and Atlas satisfies that requirement, also its easier to run a squad when everyone is shacked and can see each other on DUI.

Its not "suit how they play", its just common sense.

 

[Kastor.K]

Due to current Tac2 dynamic I plan to add 2 medic slots per infantry squad, and possibly dismantle Atlas-1 if needed.

Please expect to hear communication on that from 1/B/1-7.

 

[Liber.N]

Please expect to hear communication on that from 1/B/1-7.

I would love to hear any 1/B/1-7 communication about anything at this point.
Please also relay to 1/B/1-7 that Alpha has nothing to fly on and needs the F18 in the modpack.

 

[Kastor.K]

Please also relay to 1/B/1-7 that Alpha has nothing to fly on and needs the F18 in the modpack.

This is neither appropriate nor required.

 

[Maco.D]

Isn't the f18 In the modpack already

 

[Liber.N]

Isn't the f18 In the modpack already

It is in the private pack.

On Tac2 they can either fly the A-10 or Black Wasp 2.

 

[Maco.D]

Right what's that gotta do with 1/b/1-7 neither me or kastor mentioned the modpack plus there is a a-10 in rhs. I was on about how grouping was handled in our server to focused more on the team's people slot in. To try and improve the a nature of slotting into the first squad instead of slotting into several different squads so atlas is atlas gunslinger 1 is gunslinger one and platoon level is the same.

 

[Sypolt.R]

Well, we have to shake it up somehow. Maybe a slot redesign would help. I mean its not a good sign when we have 7Cav players spending most of their time on other liberation servers instead of ours.

 

[Liber.N]

Right what's that gotta do with 1/b/1-7 neither me or kastor mentioned the modpack plus there is a a-10 in rhs. I was on about how grouping was handled in our server to focused more on the team's people slot in. To try and improve the a nature of slotting into the first squad instead of slotting into several different squads so atlas is atlas gunslinger 1 is gunslinger one and platoon level is the same.

Don't get me wrong, I get what you are saying.

However enforcing grouping with code is unrealistic, sure we can disable the KP menu or remove the ability to shack on people but this will cause more frustration and confusion that anything.

High pop servers like JSOC usually have staff online that sort out grouping, unfortunately we lack such luxury.
I appreciate any Cav member who logs on and attempts to kickstart organized gameplay, I just wish we had more of those.

 

[Maco.D]

Isn't the point of having gun 1,2,3,4 to have a standard. I don't get how it can be confusing. To want people to stay in the group that slotted as. You act like I'm asking for the world. Offering a suggestion that will help a issue that happens on our server.

 

[Burton.P]

Isn't the point of having gun 1,2,3,4 to have a standard. I don't get how it can be confusing. To want people to stay in the group that slotted as. You act like I'm asking for the world. Offering a suggestion that will help a issue that happens on our server.

I don't think they're acting like you're asking the world of them. They're simply stating that having locked-in slots like you folks are talking about can only really have their benefit maximized when you have consistent, active in-game admins. Which we do not.

 

[Maco.D]

But you dont need a admin to manged squads if you stop them from being able to group up into one but group. Either way I'm done now.

 

[Sweetwater.I]

Maco.D
Hey, if you know of a way to restrict groups by players in mission without causing issues with joins, please add your code into the repo. No one is stopping you from contributing.

But from what I understand, after working on the framework and dealing with CBA/ACE, its a pain in the ass to ensure that JIP isnt going to make us work out a complete extend of another array to track uids to groups.

You can't be mad at us for taking a few hours a day and trying to prioritize code updates based on feedback and experiences. Right now, I'm not seeing a definitive reason why I should go out of my way to implement a feature that seems more trouble than its worth. When I could be looking at adding new content or working out existing bugs.

And its not like I didn't try this before, this was one of the initial changes in the past. so I'm not seeing the value in revisiting this.

 

[Jarvis.A]

Maco.D you also have to think, that players potentially joining the server have no idea that;

1. What even are groups? How do I join a group? (I honestly could not tell you myself, but that's due to me not playing as much)
2. What is 'gunslinger'?
3. What do I need to do to get 'in the action'

I can say hand on heart that if we try to force the conventions we use to bring our operations into the public server, I would never have joined the Cav originally. Not because I don't enjoy that flavour of gameplay. But I didn't know I did.

If we're trying to recruit (which is what this server is for) then we need to try and keep that bar as low as possible, while also making it fun and enjoyable for our members. Push that slider too far either way, and you upset the other. It's a balance.

Unless you have someone ready to hold your hand on joining the server, some of those changes are going to make folks just disconnect. Operations, the way we play internally? You will always have someone nearby you can ask. But with ACRE on, and the fact that you cannot rely on someone being on base.. you're going to struggle if you've not played with our mods before

Tact 2 is for sure a good flavour of Arma 3 in the Cav. But, you can't force the same methodologies of our operations on a public, dynamic server, that has a variable population and no guarantee of an experienced Cav member around

 

[Maco.D]

Maco.D
Hey, if you know of a way to restrict groups by players in mission without causing issues with joins, please add your code into the repo. No one is stopping you from contributing.

But from what I understand, after working on the framework and dealing with CBA/ACE, its a pain in the ass to ensure that JIP isnt going to make us work out a complete extend of another array to track uids to groups.

You can't be mad at us for taking a few hours a day and trying to prioritize code updates based on feedback and experiences. Right now, I'm not seeing a definitive reason why I should go out of my way to implement a feature that seems more trouble than its worth. When I could be looking at adding new content or working out existing bugs.

And its not like I didn't try this before, this was one of the initial changes in the past. so I'm not seeing the value in revisiting this.

I wasn't having a go at you at all. I understand if don't know you don't know. It was the reasoning that liber provided that I was annoyed at. I was only offering the suggestion from seeing it on the server that seemed to work. I figured it would stop a issue that happens on tac 2.

I do not know if the code I am not skilled in that area. All I know is what I have seen first hand.

 

[Maco.D]

Maco.D you also have to think, that players potentially joining the server have no idea that;

1. What even are groups? How do I join a group? (I honestly could not tell you myself, but that's due to me not playing as much)
2. What is 'gunslinger'?
3. What do I need to do to get 'in the action'

I can say hand on heart that if we try to force the conventions we use to bring our operations into the public server, I would never have joined the Cav originally. Not because I don't enjoy that flavour of gameplay. But I didn't know I did.

If we're trying to recruit (which is what this server is for) then we need to try and keep that bar as low as possible, while also making it fun and enjoyable for our members. Push that slider too far either way, and you upset the other. It's a balance.

Unless you have someone ready to hold your hand on joining the server, some of those changes are going to make folks just disconnect. Operations, the way we play internally? You will always have someone nearby you can ask. But with ACRE on, and the fact that you cannot rely on someone being on base.. you're going to struggle if you've not played with our mods before

Tact 2 is for sure a good flavour of Arma 3 in the Cav. But, you can't force the same methodologies of our operations on a public, dynamic server, that has a variable population and no guarantee of an experienced Cav member around

I honestly have no clue what your getting at. I'm not forcing cav level on anybody. It's the "team" you slot into when coming onto the server. It doesn't effect anyone's ability to get into the action per you words. It's not forcing our methodologies and there is no bar being pushed to far.